k) Mat. 28 20. I am with you alway even to the end of the world I pray you what is it to preach the Gospel but to open and hold forth the Covenant the Covenant I say made with Abraham whereof this was one branch I am thy God and of thy seed Compare Gen. 12.3 and 17.17 with Gal. 3.8 13 14. Now that the Infants of Covenanters are within the Covenant aswell as grown persons is clear to him that will not shut his eies If not It shall be made clear by the assistance of the Lord in this ensuing reply to avoid Tautologies 3. Consider also as what they were to do so to whom every creature all nations now that Infants should be none of the creatures or nations is unsuitable to reason and religion specially considering that they were included as speciall subjects when the Church was in so small a plot of ground and Christ doth not exclude them by any restriction or exception which had been needfull and seasonable if they were to be excluded SECT 2. 2. Observ H. H. The end was that they might beleeve it Reply 1. These words are not expresly set down in the places cited viz. Matt. and Mark They are drawn but by consequence 2. Neither do they hold forth the end of preaching so much as the event But thirdly whether end or event if your meaning be that they might believe it for their seed and houshold As Acts 16.31 Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and thine house You and I are agreed in this SECT 3. 3. Observ H. H. That those which did believe the Gospell should be baptized into his name Reply 1. If you understand it of Infidells converted to the faith not excluding their children we believe it and accordingly practice as well as you for the Scriptures alleaged by you prove that where the Gospell is first preached whether to Jews oâ— Gentiles Turks or Pagans who perhaps never heard of Christ before they must first be instructed and embrace the Gospell before they be baptized as Abraham was before he was circumcised but this hinders not their children from baptisme no more then Abrahams children from circumcision nor infants not believing from salvation for you say (l) Foundat p. 61 infants are saved without actuall faith though the Text alleaged by you saith (m) Mark 16.16 he that believeth not shall be damned 2. If you mean as your practice speaks that such who have been baptized once for so you grant p. 24. Be baptized again as we are and have received the Lords Supper often and therefore owned as Church members should bee baptized by you I say this doctrine and practice hath no sooting on the Texts alleaged by you either by clear consequence from or expresseness of those Scriptures as hereafter shall be more fully evinced SECTION 4. Fourth Observ H. H. That those baptized believers were after to be taught to observe all other things whatsoever Christ had commanded his Apostles to teach them Reply 1. After to be taught If you mean a good while after It s our practice to teach infants after baptism assoon as they are capable (n) Gen. 18 19. As Abraham taught his children a good while after circumcision but if you mean it presently after Baptisme and so continually to their lives end I grant it of grown persons such baptized believers in the same or like juncture of Circumstances Secondly yet I do not find expresse mention made that the Eunuch was instructed by Philip after he was baptized by Philip but rather the contrary for it s said (o) Act 8 39. And when they were come up out of the water the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip that the Eunuch saw him no more Or that Ananias instructed Saul after Baptism though its said (p) Act. 9.18 19. Then was Saul certain dayes with the disciples at Damasâ—us or that Saul now Paul instructed the Jailour (q) Act. 16.33 34. after Baptism You may by this time perceive that your observation stood in need of being bounded with some caution 3. You do not tell us by whom they are to be taught afterward surely you left the door open for a private gifted brother SECTION 5. H. H. Observ Fifth To this practice viz. to a people thus walk ing according to this rule hearing his sayings and doing them The Lord Christ hath promised his presence saying Loe I am with you always to the end of the world but the end of the world is not yet Therefore Christ is still with those baptized believers which do thus walk Reply 1. In the Texts of Matt. and Mark cited by you there is no expresse mention made of these words viz. To this practice or to a people thus walking according to this rule c. They are your dictates and fancies 2. If by the worlds end is meant the particular age wherein the Apostles lived as some of late hold then it will not follow that Christ is still with those baptized believers which do thus walk Now though I professe ingeniously that I disclaim that sense as false and impertinent not only because of the termes in this promise used alwaies r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather all days and succession of times but also because your phraise s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the end of the world is understood by the same Evangelist of Christs second coming and that three severall times t) Mat. 13.39 40 49. yet you might have foreseen and prevented such an exception which quite takes away the edg of the argument and have answered the seekers as they are called whose glosse this is and who are for the most part branches that came out of your Church 3. Though I deny not the spirituall presence of Christ among all true believers as is clear by other Scriptures yet these words in Matth. 28.19 I am with you c. appertain principally if not onely to the Apostles and their successors u) Vobiscum evo nec vobiscum tantum sâ—d et vobis mortu is cum vestris succâ—ssor bus Par. in Loc. for to them our Saviour spake ver 18. with 16. They are bidden to go ver 19. Go yee and are commanded to disciple all Nations in the same verse teach ye *) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or disciple ye all Nations and ver 19. Whatsoever I have commanded you and then presently And lo I am with you So that this promise of Christs special spirituall presence is made to Ministers rather then to the people to Teachers rather then to them who are taught to Baptizers rather then to the Baptized 4. You do not distinguish between the corporall and spirituall presence of Christ as hath been hinted by me but say largely and generally Christ hath promised his presence c. Hence the Argument for Christs corporall presence seems to be as strong for the Ubiquitaries as yours is for the Anabaptists and may
your child though the face be not wet all over Again how poorly do you confound Dipping and wetting all over when the tip of your singer may be dipt in water and yet the finger not wet all over I must now needs tell you if your zeal for Dipping be no better then your Argument it will shrink in the wetting SECT 19. H. H. p. 97. As for M. Baxter's Objection that Christ saith Yee need not but wash your feet and yee are clean every whit I answer Christ doth not there speak of Baptism but of Humility which is shewen by washing of the feet as well as of the whole body But when he speaks of Baptisme he doth not say He that is Baptized on his feet c. but is Baptized shall be saved Mark 16.16.2 The Eunuch and Philip went both down into the Water and he baptized him and not his feet onely for then they needed not to have both gone down Acts 8.39.3 If the word him and them includes the whole man or men then the whole man c. was baptized of John in the River of Jordan and of Philip Acts 8.12.4 Christ is said to come up out of the water Mark 4.10 which plainly sheweth he first went down 5. The Scripture saith John 3. verse 23. He baptized there because there was much water Reply 1. Let the Reader observe that Mr. Haggar passeth by some Arguments of M. Baxter's without mentioning them Thus he onely storms the Rear that he may scape the Van. 2. It 's granted that Christ's washing of the Disciples feet was to teach them humility and it follows by what you grant here that washing of a part shews the washing of the whole which is contradictory to what you even now said that it must needs be that washing is by wetting All over Pride is a spreading sin it 's in the understanding Gal. 6.3 in the spirit Eccl. 7.8 in the heart Prov. 16. ver 5. in the tongue Psal 12.3 in looks Prov 6.17 in gesture Isai 3.5 Pride you see stains the whole man soul and body that primarily this secondarily yet you say the washing of the feet shews the cleansing of them every whit as well as if the whole body had been washed Therefore the washing of one part signifies the washing of the whole unless Mr. Haggar think that pride is onely in the feet because we say proud people are high in the In-step and stand upon their Pantofles 3. That washing of the feet shewed more then humility Peter then did not know it Joh. 13.7 See Calvin in loc and Mr. Haggar doth not or will not yet see it for it shews either pardon of sin or newness of life or both Now if justification and sanctification are signified elswhere by sprinkling why not also by our powring on water or as you call it sprinkling water on the childs face Thus we have Exemplum Analogum that a partial washing may signifie a total purging 4. As Christ did not say He that believs and is baptized on his feet shall be saved so he doth not say Hee that believs and is dipped over head and ears shall be saved every whit If you Reply he saith he that is baptized i. e. that is all one with Dipped That 's but a miserable begging of the Question and it remains to be proved though I leave it to be considered whether it be proper to say Baptized on his feet unless it bee Mr. Haggar's practice to baptize his Proselytes standing On their feet 5. As for Philip and the Eunuch there is nothing in that history that can convincingly demonstrate Dipping Acts 8.38 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Verbs * going down and coming up cannot for they are oft in Scripture and why not so here used of a motion where was no descent into nor coming out in Mr. Haggers sense e. g. Acts 14.25 When they had preached the Word in Perga they went down into Attalia c. 24.1 Ananias descended with the Elders c. 25.1 Festus ascended to Jerusalem Neither do the Prepositions i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into and out prove it for the former may bee well translated to or unto as elswhere Mat. 15.24 Acts 16.40 Col. 1.20 and the latter as Luke 1.71 78. and 20.4 and so often in this book Acts 14.8 15.29 17 3 31. 22.6 27.34 with many more neither do they do jointly prove it necessarily For 1. That water was not so deep for Dipping all the body they that have seen it call it a little fountain as not onely Sandys but Hierom and Bede many hundred years before him which humane testimonies may be believed as well as the history of King Henry the 8. The expression * Acts 8.36 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used imports not a River but a smal Spring therefore might be best translated A CERTAIN or a kind of water 2. If it were granted which yetis not that it was a deep water yet a man may be said to go into and come out of the water who had not been in it higher then the Ancles and that they went in any further or how far they went cannot be demonstratively proved out of this Text. 3. You may as well argue that Philip was new dipt as well as the Eunuch was baptized by Dipping for it 's said supposing your interpretation that they both went into and came out of the water without any exception and I think you do not Dip your self when you Dip others unless you and they be a Duck and a Drake in your Jordan 4. The text doth plainly distinguish between the act of Baptizing and their going down into and coming out of the water upon the former supposal therefore no part of baptizing For if going down c. bee a Dipping as you would have it then the Eunuch was dipt before hee was baptized and how then is Baptizing in English a Dipping 5. Had Philip and the Eunuch made use of a Baptismal Ladder as * Tho. Scilito a Naylor baptized in a Well the wife of a dear friend of mine that since hath seen her error and recanted some have done in my parish they might more properly have been said to descend ascend Though we read not that Philip or Jo. Baptist used such utensils 6. But their descending here is a coming out of the Chariot into which Philip had ascended at the request of the Eunuch and so both spying water below them both went out of the Chariot to it Acts 8.31 and as it is an usual phrase among us to say We went down to and from the water side though perhaps never in it and it 's said They that go down To the sea in ships Psal 107.23 to ver 31. which Junius translates Into the sea I trow the ship is not plunged all over nor are they under water in the ship unless in case of ship wrack c. But that cannot be because they are said to
understood Ex. gr n) Mat. 6.44 They that did eat of the Loaves were about 5000 men o) Mat. 14.21 And they that had eaten were about 5000 men beside Women and Children surely there 's no contradiction between Mark and Matthew Again under the expression of men and women children are understood as p) Josh 8.25 12000 men and women of Ai fell where children must be understood for it 's said q Ver. 264. Joshua utterly destroied all the inhabitants of Ai and no exception is made but r) Ver. 27. onely of the cattel and spoil and it 's vtterly improbable that in that City and among so many thousands no children should bee found SECT 9. Hen. Hag. Acts 8.36 37. The Eunuch said to Philip See 3. Instance here is water what hinders me to be baptized And Philip said If thou believest with all thy heart thou maist but little Babes cannot believe with all their hearts therefore they may not be baptized Reply 1. Å¿) Beza Jun. c Trem. Grotius 〈◊〉 c. Diverse learned men assert that the whole 37 verse is not to be found in many Greek copies and sundry antient Translations as the Syriack c. What then will become of your Argument No building can stand long without a foundation 2. Admit that verse to be in the Original the Major whether you take it as an hypothetical Proposition if people believe with all their hearts they may be baptized or as an universal Categorical proposition equivalent thereto whosoever believeth with all his heart may be baptized is granted to be a solid truth if it be understood of those that are not yet baptized For those that are already baptized must not be baptized again every day or every hour because they believe with all their hearts one Baptism is sufficient and agreeable to the rule 3. As to your Minor though you prove not that Infants cannot believe with all their hearts neither may you nor any man else put bounds to Gods omnipotency who is able to regenerate and sanctifie Infants Å¿) Luke 1.41 * as John Baptist in his mothers womb yet it 's granted that such a formal rational and professed faith as is required in grown persons they have not and in that sense let your Assumption passe for currant But now this is the misery that when it might be expected that both propositions being yielded the conclusion should be unquestionably assentâ—â—â— to which yet I deny not the syllogism you make is stark naught and a palpable Paralogism as having a negative assumption in the first Figure wherein the Assumption must alwaies be affirmative else the reasoning is fallacious and unsound which is evident to the meanest capacity e. g. The Sun Moon and Stars shine and give light but fire on the hearth and candles on the table are neither Sun Moon nor Stars Therefore fire and candles do not shine or give light Or thus All four-footed beasts are living creatures but Anabaptists are not four-footed beasts Therefore Anabaptists are not living creatures Or thus All that are indued with humane learning in some eminency are reasonable creatures But Anabaptists for the most part are not indued with humane learning in eminency Therefore Anabaptists for the most part are not reasonable creatures Thus your sophistry and folly is discovered 4. If you say your meaning was to prove from that Scripture that they onely are to be baptized that believe with all their hearts then the Argument is to be formed thus All those that are rightly baptized or to be baptized believe with all their hearts But Infants believe not with all their hearts Ergo not rightly baptized or to be baptized Here it 's granted the form is good but the matter of the first Proposition to say no more to the second then what hath been said is naught For John the Baptist rightly baptized many without enquiry much lesse certainty that their hearts were right in believing Sâ—mon Magus in this very Chap. t) Acts 8.13 was baptized and that rightly for Philip is not in the least blamed but approved in that act yet u) Acts 8.21 his heart was not right before God And multitudes we read of that were daily baptized of whose believing With all their hearts we read nothing and if you must forbear baptizing untill you know that people believe with all their hearts v 1 Cor. 2.11 you must never baptize u For what man knoweth the things of man save the spirit of man which is in him Nay neither that nor any other Scripture holds forth in expresse terms that none but such as believe are to be baptized SECT 10. H. H. the same page Acts 10.46 47 48. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized 4. Instance that have received the Holy Ghost as well as wee And he commanded them to be baptized c. By which wee see that no such babes were here baptized for all that were in this place baptized were such as had received the Holy Ghost as well as the Apostles and they heard them speak with tongues and magnifie God which children that cannot speak at all cannot possibly do all rational men will grant Reply 1. Your Argument from hence is sick of the same disease with the former viz. All that were baptized here were such as received the Holy Ghost c. But children cannot receive the Holy Ghost c. Therefore Just like this they that understand the Languages wherein the Scriptures were originally written are guiltie of humane learing for in your judgment humane learning is matter of guilt But you do not understand the Languages wherein the Scriptures were originally written as you would bear us in hand by your inveyghing against humane learning Therefore you are not guilty of humane learning This is enough to shew the unreasonablenesse of your reasonings 2. Here is a clear Argument for baptizing Infants they that receive the Holy Ghost are to be baptized but some Infants receive the Holy Ghost Therefore the Major shines clear by its own light They who partake of the inward grace may partake of the outward signe or they who have the thing signified in Baptism ought to have the sign which is Baptism The Apostle Peter justifies this principle and by the authority and strength of it proves the lawfulnesse of baptizing those on whom the Holy Ghost fell Now that some infants receive the Holy Ghost as well as grown men it 's plain for * Rom 8 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if any man or any one have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his and if an Infant be none of Christs you must eat your words and deny that any Infants dying in their infancy are saved by Christ x) p. 61. If you say by receiving the Holy Ghost is meant the extraordinary gift of the Spirit as ver 44 45 46. Be it so this makes the Argument stronger for if
us whither he took them nor whence he brought them It is not likely the Jaylour had a pond or large bathing vessell in his house the nature of his office and heat of the Climate easily convince understanding men neither is it likely I am sure not exprest that he took them in the NIGHT to any river or fountain to be dipt in over head and eares this Circumstance of the Time doth evince it Though if it were so the action was carreid on with more modesty and less scandall then your day-dipping is 4. Let the Reader observe that the word Dipping is not expressly mentioned in any of the Texts alledged by you and that Dipping is proved onely by consequence and that very properly e. g. Eunuch and Philip went both down into the water therefore dipt Secondly Men and women were baptized therefore dipt for him and them include the whole man or men Thirdly Christ came out of the water Ergo Dipt Fourthly John baptized in Enon because there was much water c. Therefore he dipped c. Is this the foundation that you would have p. 1. the Saints to build on Do you not now believe and practise a duty not warranted by an expresse Syllabicall precept what intolerable partiality is this to allow consequences for dipping believers and to deny ours for baptizing believers Infants None of our consequences for the one are so strained and farr-fetcht as yours for the other SECT 22. H. H. p. 99. M. Baxter saith that some desparately conclude that if it be God's way he will save our lives how probabely soever the danger may seem to be To which he answers First This is to begg the Question nay I have shewed and am shewing it not God's way Answer 1. Let the Reader judge by the word whether M. Baxter hath shewed that baptizing believers is not Gods way Secondly If he be a shewing it we shall take notice of it hereafter for by his own confession he hath not shewed or proved it yet Reply 1. According to your old way of Sophistry you falsly represent the Question which is Whether Dipping not whether Baptizing of believers be God's way unlesse you think there is no way of baptizing but Dipping which is a begging of the Question 2. I confesse here is a veyn of unusuall modesty in referring M. Baxters 6 Arguments and your Answer to the Reader to be tryed by the Word and so do I. 3. It doth not Follow that M. Baxter hath not proved it to purpose because he saith he is a shewing c. You might argue as well against the Psalmist b) Psal 78 5 SHEWING to the generations to come the praises of the Lord c. And against Apollos c) Acts 18 28 SHEWING by the Scripture that Jesus was the Christ yea against Christ himself d) Luke 8 1 SHEWING the glad tidings of the Kingdom of God Surely you did not intend this as an Answer to M. Baxter but a Diversion for the Reader yet M. Baxter saith e) p. 136. God hath appointed no Ordinance contradictory to his great morall commands of which rationall proof you take no notice of SECT 23. H. H. Same p. M. Baxter saith Secondly God must not be Tempted this was the Divels trick to have drawn Christ under pretence of Scripture and trusting God to have cast himself in danger of death Answer First That way that the Divel took was never the way of God but ours was and is Act. 8.12 Secondly There was no Scripture that said Cast thy self down nor that said at any time As I have shewed at large in Answer to yous Tenth Position c. Reply 1. You swarve from the Question in hand which is now concerning the manner of baptizing not who is the subject person to be baptized 2. In what sense the Baptizing of men and women is God's way hath been shewed though in your sense it is not yet proved by you 3. For the rest yo refer the Reader to your Answer f) In your p. 4◠c. and so do I to this reply there SECT 24. H. H. p. 100. You say we might have said so to the Disciples that if it were God's command to keep the Sabbath then they needed not to rubb the eares of Corne for God could sustain them without Answer So we might if God had commanded us so to keep the Sabbath as not to eat on that day But it 's otherwise Exodus 16.22.23 Though they might not keep a fire to bake seeth or rost on that day Therefore this your objection is nothing for there is both command and example to baptize believers Mat. 28.19.20 Mark 16.15 16. c. Ergo Frothy and vain Reply M. Haggar your Bottle works out little else then Froth for First That Text nor any other forbids roasting on the Sabbath nay it is allowed and commanded for the Paschall Lamb was to be roasted in the fire g) Exod. 12.9 Deut. 16.7 and the Passeover might fall sometimes on the Sabbath-day h) See Assem Annota in Joh. 19.31 why else is it called an high-day or great day but because of the concurrence of a double Celebrity viz. The Sabbath and Passeover 2. It 's a great Question whether the Pharisees blamed the Disciples for eating or plucking the ears of Corne on the Sabbath day this onely is mentioned Mark 2.23.24 But if it were for eating you grant they might do so without breach of the Sabbath and so M. Baxter's Inference is rather confirmed by your silly shift 3. In that you grant you might say so the Disciples to the Dippers too It is God's Ordinance and he can preserve you what is this but to tie him to a constant working of miracles for the maintenāce of a questionable at least mode of Baptizing your argument speaks as much for Transubstantiation as such preservation There is as much ground to believe a Miracle in that as in this Sacrament i. e. none at all 4. The Texts you bring for baptizing are impertinently and too frequently alledged by you And have been spoken to before Here is your same fault to fly from the manner which falls now under debate to the subject of Baptism SECT 25. H. H. You say If it were a duty yet when it is inconsistent with a greater duty it 's at any time sinfull for it 's alwayes a sinn to prefer a lesser duty before a greater But the duty of self preservation is a morall duty and baptizing is but positive therefore it is a sin to prefer it before selfe preservation Answer Now M. Baxter laies himself open to purpose that all may know he is one of those 2 Tim. 3.1 2. Lovers of themselves For hee prefers self preservation before obeying the command and following the example of Christ John 14.15.21 Mat. 10.27 38 39. If M. Baxter make so much of following Christ into the water how will he follow him through the fire Mat. 3.15 c. Reply 1.
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
Mr. B. said 3. You would make Mr. Baxter odious by saying He takes the Divels part c. But Sir you know the proverb A man must give the Divel his due Surely those godly Ministers do not take the Divel's part when they tell sinneâ—s that many times they be-lye the Divel in fathering their sins on him rather then on themselvs Mat. 15.19 Out of the hâ—art proceeds evil thoughts c. Jam. 1.14 Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust 2 Pet. 1. ver 4. Corruption is in the world through lust 4. I fear that fault charged on Mr. Baxter will bee found within your own girdle before I leave you Though you say you will now make it appear It seems then you failed in making it to appear as you said in the foregoing page But just so you have learned the Divels deceit in adding to Scripture E. g Baptism is to be deferred til a man can believe which is not written in the Bible but in Mr. Haggars book p. 38. and you say p. 61. God hath one way to save men and women and another way to save little children which is no where written in the holy Scriptures Again in the same page you say Infants dying in their infancy are saved by virtue of Christ's death without actual Fâ—ith which is no where written c. who now writes after the Divels copie Who takes the Divels part SECT 34. H. H. p. 43. The Divel said to Christ If you be the Son of God cast thy self down which is no where written as the Lord saith but the contrary viz. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord c. So do you say if you be the children of God Baptize your children which is no where written but the contrary Mat. 28.29 Mar. 15 16. Acts 2.38 41. 8.37.12.37 But you know there is no children in the Text neither can they do any thing of those things notwithstanding all this you do the works of Satan Reply 1. Though what is said in the foregoing Sect. is a sufficient reply as to this also yet I am sure Christ proves two things contrary to you 1. The lawfulness of arguing from Scripture by Consequences 2. That is Scripture which is contained though not expressed therein e. g. Christ must not cast himself down for it is written in Deut. 6. ver 16. Thus. If the Lord must not be tempted then I must not cast my self down But the Lord must not be tempted Therefore 2. You bewray your ignorance in saying contrary for the baptizing of Infidels converted to the Faith and Infants also of one or both Christian parents are not contrary but subordinate k) Subordinate non pugnant there is a consistency of both 3. The Scriptures you cite in Mat. and Mark and the Acts have been answered before you do but trouble your self and tire the Reader with vain Repetitions Yet to your last I say Children are expresly mentioned in Acts 2. ver 39. which you have cunningly left out as if to use your own expression you meant to take the Divels part and so to do his work Beside your allegations are as strong against Circumcision as against infant-baptism for you know they could not repent nor believe with all their hearts c. and yet were circumcised But let us see how Mr. B. or we do the works of Satan SECT 35. H. H. As he tempted Christ to cast himself down before God's time was come to send his Angels to take him down and to that end would have applied a promise falsly Psal 91.11 12 leaving out In all thy waies So do you tempt men and women to baptize their children before God's time is come to beget them by his Word Joh. 3.5 James 1.18 That they might be born again nor onely of water but of the Spirit And to that end you tell them It is written They are disciples and Church-members and they were circumcised under the Law therefore they must be baptized under the Gospel c. Reply 1. You drive on the Popish design handsomly for here you open a wide door for unwritten Traditions What Scripture have you that saith expresly of the coming of God's time to send his Angels to take down Christ 2. Here is a very spiteful parallel What likenesse between Casting thy self down and baptizing Children 3. We have another unwritten Tradition viz. We tempt men and women to baptize their Children before God's time is come 4. You cannot deny but God doth beget some Infants by his Spirit without the Word else they are none of his Rom. 8.9 5. Your Gloss on John 3.5 smells too strongly of the Popish Cask most Orthodox Divines understand by Water and Spirit one and the same thing the latter being exegetical to the former as Mat. 3.11 to be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with Fire is all one which you distinguish as different in saying not onely of Water but also of the Spirit 6. What a strange piece of Non-sense have we here God doth beget us by his Word that we might be born again when God's begetting of us and our being born again in Scripture are all one l) 1 Joh 4.18 He that is born of God sinneth not but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself c. See also verse 1. 7. These Arguments to prove Infant-baptism drawn from Circumcision Church-membership Discipleship c. you cannot answer but by railing which shall have no other Reply from me but Silence and Patience SECT 36. H. H. p. 44. You tell us that if we have the meaning and reason we have enough for evidence for words are but to express sense Answ Then it seems the meanings and reasons you talk of without the Word are without sense by your own confession And thus you see or may see that God by weak instruments can take you wise ones in your own craftiness But again are not the words of the Scripture as good and better sens and reason then any you can speak or give Reply 1. It is not Mr. Baxter's confession but Mr. Haggar's profession to wrest M. Baxter's words as well as Scripture Let any 〈…〉 of judiciousness read M. Baxter's 10. Position and he will quickly 〈◊〉 Baxter's plainness and M. Haggar's craftiness 2. It 's granted that the words of the Scripture in Hebrew and Greek were given by the inspiration of the Spirit but our English words into which they are translated are not we may without blasphemy say If you deny this I must needs conclude you are so far from being high-flown that with the Serpent you creep on the ground and pave the way for making the Vulgar Translation Authentical as you would the English SECT 37. H. H. You say further Would it not make a man pity such sensless ignorant wretches that will call for express words of Scripture when they have evident Consequences Is Scripture-reason no reason Answ Sir me thinks you are very pitiful but you are a
the Miserere for you vent your excrements at your mouth 2. Yet I see an excellent fragment of charity like Pilates justice First to condemn M. B. as a child of the Divell and then refer him to his Master But it 's well that there lyes an appeal from Mr. Hag. to the Lord c) Naturam expellas Furca licet usque recurreâ— though you cannot leave your old humour you must revile him before you leave him Le ts now hear your answer SECT 12. H. H. page 94.1 If it be the onely way for coveteous Landlords and Phisicians as he saith then if the Divell had not put it into your head before yet M. B. like a diligent servant hath done it now Reply 1. What a foolish inference is this Is Mr. Baxter a servant of the Devill because he discovers practices of his Factors Did d 1 Sam. 8.10 Samuel prompt Saul to a Tyranny because he painted out the oppressions of an Arbitray Government Was Elisha a servant of the Devill When he foretold e 1 King 8.12 Hazaells cruelty or was our Saviour a diligent servant 〈◊〉 Sathan Matth. 26.21 23. When he said to his Disciâ—â—es one of you shall betray mee and he that dippeth c. â—â—â—rely Christ did not put it into his head but Sathan put 〈◊〉 into his heart Were Paul and Peter and Jude such serâ—ants as to put it into M. Haggars head 2 Tim. 3.6 to creep into houses and lead captive silly women c. 2 Pet. 2.3.10 To make Merchandize of souls Jude 8. To speak evil of dignities and many more lessons which you have learned But now Mr. B. must be catechized and asked 2 Questions about these diseases SECT 13. H. H. Question 1. Whether Mr. Baxter can say in his conscience that he ever did know any dipt person died of it or fell into any of those diseases afterwards if he had be would have named them in his book c. We have many Gentlewomen c. that can prove Mr. Baxter a false accuser and I can boldly say that many who have been weak and sickly before and given â—ver by Doctors have recovered health and strength c. Reply 1. Though Mr. Baxter names none yet it follows not but some have dropt into the grave after they came dropping out of the water I leave him in his reply to give you instances enough neither do you name any for what you assert may not I say I question not if you had known any such you would have put down their names in your Book But 2. You act the part of a Mountebanck now and tell us stories not inferior to the Popish Fables concerning the consecrated Host Did ever Christ institute that Ordinance of Baptism for a bodily cure 3. Some sick persons have recovered after private Communion and some children been cured of the Chin-cough after a draught of consecrated Wine is this therefore an owning of God's Ordinance It is not always prudentiall to judge of the cause by the event a false Prophet may foretell a truth in the event and yet not be credited nor counted a true Prophet Deut. 13.1 2 3. 4. I would fain know First whether you did ever dip any in cold water in Winter for so M. B. lays the case p. 134. or ever knew any Dipp'd in such a season in this climate If not your bold assertion proves nothing Secondly whether you have no Winter converts it so according to your own rule they must be baptized as soon as they are Discipled and then make an experiment whether among all your Gentlewomen and Ladies you canfiâ—nd so hot an zealot before you talk so largely SECT 14. H. H. Objection People become Ranters afterwards and that 's a sign of judgment and not of owning God's Ordinance Answer That is after they are again gone away from the Faith and deny the Ordinance of Christ which once they owned then as 2 Pet. 2.21 c. Reply 1. If by the Faith you mean your way c. I have no Faith to believe it or you 2. You have conjured up a spirit which you cannot lay and you confound whil'st you seek to confirm your Anabaptism As this Objection is impertinent to prove Dipping no murder whether any turn Ranters or no so your answer is dis-satisfactory For it implies that Dippers may and oft do fall away from the Faith and deny the Ordinance of Christ from such the Lord deliver us 3. It 's true that when men are gone from the truth and deny the Ordinance of Christ they turn Ranters i. e. when they deny Infant Baptism as sad experience and Mr. Baxter hath shewed An Anabaptist and a Ranter differ not specifically but gradually as a Cub and a Bear Do you shew if you can one simple Anabaptist that denies nothing but Infant-Baptism and is not tainted with some other grosse Error or Heresie Yea the Ranters themselves do not deny but defend that which you call the Faith and Ordinance of Christ Anabaptism The school is the same onely they are gotten into the higher Fourm whither M. Haggar and the rest if God prevent not are removing SECT 15. H. H. Quest second Whether M. Baxter bee not convinced in his conscience that some or all of those diseases he speaks of do not frequently raign upon many that never were Dipped in cold water Now let all impartiall people judge whether M. Baxter be a good Tree by the fruit hee bears What though his intentions be good yet he must be one of those Rom. 3.8 Reply It is granted many die of the fore-mentioned diseases that were never Dipt and I hope have continued such trees to the death as have have had no cause to be ashamed of their fruit But I am ashamed of your scurrility and abuse of Mr. Baxter who saith Dipping in cold water in cold weather is one not the oneâ—â— cause of perishing because some temperate people die of Fevers will it follow that Surfetting Riot Drunkenness are not a means of those mortal distempers What poor shifts are these SECT 16. H. H. p. 95. The next thing that Mr. Baxter speaks of is Mr. Tombs his salving up all this with saying That they may be baptized in warm water Answ I am not of his judgment in that for I believe it is his weakness Reply Yet you could say pag. 36. Mr. T. is of age and able to answer for himself questionless why could you not say so here but there you give him a bit and here a knock there his Advocate here his Judge there a Shem in shew here a Cham indeed to uncover his nakedness and weakness SECT 17. H. H. Then we cannot agree among our selvs therefore not to be believed Answ 1. I would not have people believe us but the Scripture Acts 17.11 2ly The truth must be believed and practised though we do not agree 1 Cor. 1.12 c. Acts 15.39 3ly Mr. B. and his brethren do not agree well e. g.
about the subject of Baptism manner of Administration c. Reply 1. We are agreed as to the first It were well if in the main we could hit it too 2. Those differences in the Church of Corinth and between the Apostles will not justifie yours unless they were of the same kind howsoever they might be impediments to Faith and practice for a time and to some 3. You are too lavish to say wee differ about Cross Altar Font c. since these things are laid aside your Argument out of Jerem. 2.13 where you took the broken Cisterns for Fonts may make us quite out of conceit with them You might have forborn the Rails if you had not loved them dearly and loth to part with them and the Scotch-Directory as you scornfully call it but your tongue and Ink must be of a colour If Reformation be so far advanced as that the shooing-horns of Popery be cast out of door I wish you and your Proselytes in your universal Redemption Original sin Free-will Falling away from Grace do not bring in Popery at the window SECT 17. H. H. p. 96. Mr. Baxter denies Dipping of Believers to be the custom of the Church in the primitive times and he is not ashamed to give the Scripture the Lie before all men saying It 's not proved by any And why It may be because our Translators have not put the word Baptize into English and called it Dipping Reply 1. You are too full of your tongue Before you had charged Mr. Baxter for giving the Scripture the Lie you should have proved it But this is an usual scrap of your passionate Logick 2. Your sore back makes you kick at every one that comes near even at our Translators who yet according to the customary use of the Word and sense of the place have truly and rightly translated it For in reference to common actions it cannot signifie a total plungeing over head and ears therefore well Englished Wash Mark 7 4. Luke 11.38 Heb. 9.10 and in reference to the Sacramental action the Holy Ghost doth never use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Dipping but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore well rendred Baptizing which is become English by use as well as Hallelujah and Amen c. 3. Mr. Cook o) Font uncâ—vered p. 4 5. would have you prove it if you can that the word Baptize imports Dipping either from the proper signification of the Word or from the nature of the Ordinance or from Apostolical practice c. All which with his reasons you have clearly past by 4. Suppose which is not yet granted that the word at first did signifie Dipping not exclusively to all other yet it 's ordinary in Scripture to have words used in their Derivative not Primitive acceptation E. gr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its prime signification is taken for an Opinion or Sect Acts 26.5 yet the context elswhere puts this meaning on it Heresies Gal. 5.20 So there is a word that signifies Catechizing properly but used of any kind of Teaching and so translated twice Gal. 6.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Taught teacheth Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Messenger but custome an Angel Fashion put an estimate on cloaths as custome doth a sense on words or as waters lose the taste of the Fountain from whence they flow and retain that of the Mineral through which they pass Thus Mr. B. is clear from a Lie and the Translators from a fault but take notice Mr. Haggar confesseth the Translators to bee on our side 5. It is strange that is answering the Qu. why is it not proved You say It may be because our Translators have not put the word Baptize into English and called it Dipping To delude your Reader you bring your dream and conjecture It may be whereas Mr. Baxter allegeth expresly other certain Reasons which shall be defended anon SECT 18. H. H. But Mr. Baxter confesseth p. 135. the word signifieth to wash as well as to Dipp and so in the Catechism Water wherein the person Baptized is Dipped Therefore 1. They can no more blame us for Dipping then we may them for Washing 2. How are they to be blamed that do neither but onely sprinkle a few drops of water on the face of a child and so delude the people 3. Then it must be Washing by Dipping or wetting all over for who can wash a thing that is not wet Reply 1. Mr. Baxter hath granted more then he needed For the word signifies generally no more then Washing r See Mr Leighs Critica sacra as the learned shew out of many Authors 2. We do not blame you simply for Dipping but for making it Essential to the Ordinance No Dipping no Baptizing is your crie Jesus Christ hath no where limited Baptizing to the mode and externality of Dipping And the Catechism which you cite saith expresly the party is baptized by Dipping or Sprinkling which disjunction you have left out 3. Though I may safely say with Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter that I never saw a child sprinkled ours being rather a powring of water then sprinkling yet it 's false that you say sprinkling is not washing and therefore our people are deluded and a third part of the Nation unbaptized The Israelites were baptized in the Cloud 1 Cor. 10 ver 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not that they were dipt in it but because it dropt on them There sprinkling is baptizing If sprinkling you say be neither dipping nor washing then we have deluded the people all this while c. But I assume sprinkling is washing as is proved Then by your own arguing we have not deluded the people as being still unbaptized but rather you delude the people by your silly sophistry and bearing them in hand that baptizing signifies onely dipping 4. Your third Inference is as weak being without Scripture and reason 1. You bring no Scripture to prove the word baptizing signifies a washing by dipping but onely It must needs be which is not a sufficient much lesse a Scripture proof Thus your great weapon Necessity is soon blunted But I will give you a Scripture or two that holds forth a Washing but not by Dipping or as you say wetting all over It 's said Mark 7.4 When they come from the market except they wash the word is they baptize Mark 7.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they eat not Can any rational man imagine the Pharisees when they came from the market plunged themselvs over head and ears No it 's clear they washed but their hands from ver 2. yea in this verse mention is made of washing of cups pots and tables or beds which is not usually by dipping but sprinkling or powring water 2. Your inference is with some reason but a silly one For who can wash a thing that is not wet It stuck in your teeth you durst not speak out All over as immediately before For you can wash off a spot from the face of
do business in great waters same verse and to see the works and wonders of the Lord in the deep c. and are delivered and brought to their desired Haven 6. We say the whole man is baptized when not the whole of man but part is washed Whole Christ was crucified but not the whole of Christ your arguing is very weak to all that have understanding When a man is wounded in any one part we say truly the man is wounded though not all over Circumcision was a cutting off the foreskin of the flesh onely and yet the Jews child was Circumcised Sir when your tongue talks we say Mr. Haggar speaks will it follow that every part of Mr. Haggar speaks By this Argument hee is all tongue * Vox praeterea nihil but if his heels had spoken they might have made as wise an answer 7. Your next instance proves as little that Christ was dipt when hee was baptized for the words may be read comming up From q) Mar. 1 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the water and that translation is more proper and suitable because all Rivers for the most part lye in the lower ground in comming to which wee are said to descend and coming from to ascend And indeed the Preposition is so rendered in the verse immediatly foregoing viz. Jesus came r) Mark 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From Nazareth yea it 's said The Dogs eat of the Crums which fall s) Mat. 15.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from their masters table yea where the same story is recorded Å¿) Mar. 3.7.13 it 's so translated twice as Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come and then came Jesus from Galilee and often else where in the New Testament what more ordinary then to say Such a man came from Sea Thames c. Here appears the weakness of your inference and the instance doth not plainly shew that Christ went first down into the water or else how could he come out of it Your text in John comes now to be considered SECT 20. H. H. p. 67. 98. And the Scripture saith Jo. 3.23 John Baptised in Enon because there was much water there But M. Baxter answers that Travellers report that the river Enon is but a little brook that a man may almost step over 1. Surely it is want of the fear of God and love to the truth that he should turne aside his ear from the Scripture that saith There was much water to believe a Man a Traveller and Travellers may lie by authority why may not Sr John Mandevill be believed as well as this Travellers news The Lord be praised that hath delivered my soul from believing him and such as hee is Acts. 2.40.2 If it were granted yet Enon might have much water in another place Though but a little water where the Traveller was As it is with many Rivers in England Reply Travellers may lie but may not some speak truth If not I shall take heed of you and hardly believe you who have been a Traveller and that among the Jesuits the most exquisite Masters of that Art and compassers of Sea and I and to make Proselytes And had you named the book wherein Sr John Mandevill's tale may be found I would shape a sutable reply but let it passe in the mean time for one of your cunning devised fables 2. Your veine of railing at M. Baxter I turn a deaf care to when you prove us an untoward generation for you calling us so doth not prove us so your thanks for your selfe and caveat to others will be seasonable In the interim you do mock both God and man The Turk may as well praise God Luk. 18.11 he is no Christian and the Pharisee t) See 18.11 That he was not as this Publican 3. What this Enon was is disputable u) Calvin in Joh. 3.23 some think it a Town situate in the Tribe of Manasseh Diodate a Citty as Salim was to which the text saith â—t was near Others a Fountain or small brook v) As Grotius Jun. and M. Baxter-Sandys Travells l. 3. p. 141. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As Rev. 1.15 and 14.2 Bee it so yet wee are not a jot the nearer for dipping for the phrase is elsewhere usually translated * many waterâ— Now then it signifies many convenient places at the water where John and his disciples might be employed at once Not any deep water or great river which commonly is hemmed in with great bankes which deny an easy accesse for an Administration 2. Many waters are somtimes taken in Scripture and why not here for a confluence of waters on som plain x) Ezech. 13.10 for the watering of medows and some trees as we see in many places in England where the ground is low it 's plashy and seemes to be a little Sea and yet not knee deep 3. Jordane the Prince of Rivers in that Country which hath it's name from Jor and Dan two fountains from whence it riseth was not above eight fathoms deep nor Navigable y) Isa 33.21 what a small water then in comparison was Enon not far distant from Jordane Now though you will not believe travellers reports yet I hope you will notreject these plain reasons 4. You say Enon might have much water in another place although but little where the Traveller was Here you have only probablity for proof therefore as you argue z) p. 28. we read but of 4. or 5. whole households were baptized therefore not likely they i. e. the Apostles baptized whole Nations if they did we desire to see iâ— So I. It 's not likely Aenon was so deep for dipping if so prove it by Scripture if you can and we will believe it SECT 21. H. H. p. 21. Further M. Baxter saith The Jaylour in the night in his house was baptized but the Scripture saith Act. 16.33.34 Now if the Jaylour took Paul and Silas It implies they took them out and the next words prove it plainly viz. Hee brought them into his house Reply 1. Some enemies are sooner foyled then found I know not what to make of these Fiblets of an Answer If the Jaylour took Paul and Silas it implies THEY took them out who can make sence of this It may be you mean the Jaylour took them out as may perhaps be gathered from the Antecedent of your proposition and the proof you bring for the consequence but it seems you know not what to say or what you say you are IN and OUT 2. May not any unprejudiced Reader see this to be the sense of the words as they lye in the text viz. a) Act. 16.24 with 30 32 33. The Jaylour brought Paul and Silas out of the prison yea the inner-Prison into some outward room thereof where he heard the word and was Baptized and then brought them into his house which as it was usuall joyned to the prison 3. You do not tell
and been at the baptizing of many hundreds if not a thousand and never saw any baptized naked c. Reply 1. Whither will not malice hu-cry a man rather then Mr. B. and his party shall go without a spot you will bespatter Christianity it self If Christians intelligence is not to be credited whom shal we admit into our Creed May not the wicked say Christians have little grace they tell lyes c. and thus you bring an Odium on n) Act. 11.26 that antient and honourable Name Such an one Polycarp confessed himself to bee o) Liberò audi Christianus si◠Euseb Eccl. Hyst l. 4. c. 15. such an one you would be taken to be It is is an ill bird that defiles his own nest 2. Here is a bitter censure past it is for want of grace that they tell these if they be lyes An ingenious charity would have imputed it rather to ignorance or information which may occasion a lye to fall sometimes from the best not to want of grace c. 3. Mr. B. must have his share as well as the Christians they lye and he is willing to believe them Thus he taxes his circumspection as if he entertained reports without consideration when all who know that precious servant of God know he is not credulous But Mr. Haggar if your will had no◠committed a rape upon your understanding you had never believed that you had found a Font in Jerem. 2.13 or adeferring of baptism till believing in Mark 16. verse 16. Or the Eunuch over head and ears in the water Act. 8.37 But you was willing to have it so p) Quod v◠lumus facile-credimus Therefore you believed it was so 4. You produce your self as a witness to prove the other lyars This is worse then ask my fellow If I bee a thief you are a party and therefore not fit to be a witness you may flye to the Lawers maxime None is bound to accuse himself 5. What arrogancy is here you must be believed against M. Baxters Christians why may you not have as lit-grace and fear of God and tell a lye as well as they sanctity and truth are not annexed to your Jordan Your single testimony against all theirs shall then be valid when you are infallible In the Interim this speaks you a Pharisee in that you count them Publicans 6. But waving these things I enter a caveat against your evidence It is neither full nor pertinent to the interrogatory you speak to the naked Dipping but not to NEXT TO NAKED So that M. Baxter's Argument stands still in force as hee proves p. 137. And if the beholding men and women in their shirts c. be not a coasting upon incivility I have lost my understanding Surely Christ never plac'd his Ordinance so near iniquity who bids us abstain from all appearance of evill 1 Thes 5. ver 22. 7. If they who are baptized are Dipp'd in their cloaths as there is no Scripture for so doing so it 's against your principle For to Dip in your sense is to plunge a person over head and ears in water so as immediately to be wet but he that is Dipp'd in his cloaths is not immediately wet all over For his cloaths are Dipp'd primarily and immediately hee secondarily and mediately his cloaths by the water he by his cloaths Thus you who ordained a Cheese-factor to be a publick preacher may make a cheese-clout a Dipper and thus you have met with a Scylla and Charibdis in the meer of Ellesmer whether you Dip naked or next to naked SECT 29. H. H. same p. But suppose some men have been baptized naked among men that is no more offensive then bathing in the water Nay Peter was naked Joh. 21.7 Reply 1. Never stand mincing the matter with a SUPPOSE but say men and women may be baptized naked speak out and tell us that your naked dipping succeeds the Roman Lupercatia the Indian Gymnosophists would blush at this 2. You tell us of naked Peter but do not tell us the naked truth Peter was not naked in your sense the word somtimes signifies to be without any bodily covering Gen. 2.25 Secondly poor and mean clothing Job 22.6 Mat. 25 36. The poor members of Christ are said to bee naked as well as Peter and I do not think whatsoever you do that they were Adamites Thirdly them who have layd aside their upper garment as Saul and the Prophets 1 Sam. 19.24 Isa 20.2 Thus Peter was naked for neither his calling as a Fisher doth necessarily imply that he was simply without covering neither doth the modesty of a man much less the gravity of an Apostle permit it nor doth it suit with the custom of the Jews who was wont to wear a loose upper garment which being put off it was usuall to say they were naked Thus your answer is pure Quakerism 3. No truly pious or morally honest man but will judg it an immodest act for men to go stark naked in your sense There are Pudenda naturae which God and nature would have covered and to discover them is immodesty unless upon inevitable necessity why else did the sons of Noah go backward with a mantle to cover their Fathers nakedness Gen. 9.22 23. 4. If you will have your own saying viz. It is not an immodest thing for men to be naked together yet sure it is for men and women such mix'd Dipping is no more commendable then mix'd dancing Nay worse of the two 5. Whether M. Baxter will allow that men may go into the water to bath them yet not sin let those who have read the former answer judge If men may why may not women consider that sad story of David and Bathsheba 2 Sam. 11.2.4 6. You bewray the subtilty of the Serpent you mention bathing but intend baptizing That is at the top like the corn spread over the well but this like the scouts lyes at the bottom 1 Sam. 17.19 This water-man looks one way and rowes another But if it were granted it is not immodest for men to bath together yet it 's indecent for them to be baptized naked For is there no difference between bathing and baptizing Where is the honour of the Ordinance Is that comly and lawful in Sacramentals which is usuall in morals e. g. At our Tables we laugh c. may we therefore do so at the Lord's Table Eccl. 10.16 Secondly doth it not trench upon the purity of the Lord Jesus that he should institute a standing Ordinance in his Church that is very disputable whether it be a wickedness or not What only a pair of shears between a Gospel-Sacrament and a grievous sin and for all your Sophistry you cannot tell which is the finer end I am sure you do not plainly determine it Thirdly doth not this tax Christ of inconsideration that Christ should institute an Ordinance at the administration of which all believers may not be present men not see women nor women see men Dipped