the same is generally acknowledged by the Ancients whose severall Testimonies I can produce here Res This was Austins opinion And yet notwithstanding Erasmus who Laboured much in Austin and Ludovicus Vives who was very well skilled in his Doctrine neither of these beleeved the thing to be true neither were they convinced by his opinion but both of them thought the contrary Moreover you know what I have told you before out of Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen I think it needless to repeat the same things again B After this there followed another argument which was altogether the same with the first and therefore I shall not repeat it unto you Thus ended the Dispute of the first day of meeting It was then concluded that they should meet again the next week upon the same day B ON the second day being the 26th day of November the Disputants met together again at which time Mr. Denne was the Opponent and Mr. Gunning the Respondent who having taken his place Began to speak Res One who desires to be informed touching the Baptisme of Infants whether it be Lawfull or Unlawfull I affirm the Baptisme of Infants to be Lawfull Oppo I will prove the Baptisme of Infants to be Vnlawfull If the Baptisme of Infants be Lawfull it is either for some reasons delivered by you or some other But not for any reason delivered by you or any other therefore the Baptisme of Infants is not Lawfull Res The minor is denied Infants Baptisme is Lawfull for reasons by me delivered Oppo If it be Lawfull for reasons by you delivered Then it is either for the reasons delivered from Tradition or from Scripture but neither for the reasons from Tradition nor from Scripture Therefore it is not Lawfull for any reasons delivered by you Res For both namely both from Tradition and from Scripture Oppo If one of these reasons overthrow the other then it cannot be Lawfull for both But one of these reasons overthrow the other Therefore it cannot be Lawfull for Both Res I deny the minor one of them doth not overthrow the other Oppo If Tradition overthrow your Scripture reasons then one overthrows the other But Tradition overthrows your Scripture reasons Therefore one overthrows the other Res Tradition doth not overthrow Scripture reasons Oppo It is generally held by the Tradition of the Ancients that Baptisme of Infants cannot be proved by Scripture and the most part of those that maintained the Baptisme of Infants did acknowledge that it could not be proved by Scripture but Tradition Res I deny it for Tertullian and Austin do both prove it by Scripture for Tertullian interpreting these words of St. John Except a man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heaven sayth that to be born again of Water and of the Spirit is to be Baptised except a man be Baptised he cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heaven And St. Austin sayth the same in divers places Oppo As for Tertullian he is not to be reckoned among the Men that maintained the Baptisme of Infants for without doubt he opposed it And you your self did say when I alledged Tertullians words that He was an Heretique As for Austin it was his authority that I intended to alledge who hath these words Take away Tradition and the Baptisme of Infants will fall to the ground The like may be found in most authors of former ages You know this to be true Res They did not hereby deny the validity of the Scripture to prove Infants Baptisme but their meaning was That without Tradition the sence and meaning of the Scripture could not appear as Except a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God we could not have known that to be born again of Water had meant to be Baptised unless Tradition had given this interpretation of that TEXT Oppo Then you grant that without interpretation beyond the letter Infants Baptisme is not to be found in Scripture I will leave this and come to your Scripture reasons And first for your great Piller John 3. I argue thus If Infants cannot be born again of Water and of the Spirit while they remain Infants then this reason of yours is voyd but Infants while they remain Infants cannot be born again of Water and of the Spirit Therefore this reason of yours is voyd Res Infants can be born again of Water and of the Spirit Opp. If Infants be born again of Water and of the Spirit then are they Spirit and born of God but Infants are not Spirit neither born of God therefore are they not born again of Water and of the Spirit Res I deny the minor Infants are Spirit and born of God Oppo First I will prove Infants are not Spirit In every one that is Spirit or born of the Spirit there is some evident demonstration and alteration whereby they may be known to be born of the Spirit But in Infants there is no alteration nor evident demonstration whereby they may be known to be born of the Spirit or to be Spirit Therefore they are neither Spirit nor born of the Spirit Res That Infants are born of the Spirit is de fide a matter of Faith and that is far above all demonstration it is not necessary that there should be a demonstration whereby every one that is born of the Spirit should be manifested so to be Oppo Then are they not like the Wind which though we know not whence it comes nor whether it goes yet we hear the sound and feel the effect and the TEXT saith So is every one that is born of the Spirit Res We know not whence the wind commeth nor whether it goeth so we know not the manner how but yet we have it de fide Faith without ground is but fancy and no Faith Oppo But I will prove in the next place that Infants are not born of God though I account them the happiest of Living Creatures If Infants be born of God then they overcome the World But Infants do not overcome the World therefore they are not born of God Res It sufficeth that Infants are not overcome by the World the World doth not combate with them Name your TEXT Opp. If there be no combate there can be no Conquest But the TEXT saith 1. John 5. 4. Whatsoever is born of God overcommeth the World c. Res It appeareth by the Context that this is not to be understood of Children but of Men and Women of such as Love God and keep his Commandements of such as beleeve in God and by Faith have Victory over the World Who is he that overcommeth the World but he that beleeveth that Jesus is the Son of God Oppo These words are not to the purpose I do not say they are meant of Children But I say they are meant of every thing that is Born of God every thing that is Born of God overcommeth the World Children
they not lawfully be baptised Oppo He that willeth the end must needs will the means to accomplish that end Now of Christ would have Infants to be made alive again and there be no other means whereby they can be made alive but by Baptisme then he willeth their Baptisme But Christ would have them Live and there is no other means for them to be made alive but by Baptising Therefore Christ willeth their Baptisme Res I deny the minor there is other means for Children to be made alive though not by Baptisme Opp. Assigne that other means whereby Children may be made alive Res Children are made alive without any Ministerial Applycation at all Being Sanctified by the Bloud of the Covenant shed once for all God applying the vertue of the Death and of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ unto them Oppo Then there needeth not any ministeriall applycation to make Children partakers of the Bloud of Christ shed for them You do undervalue Baptisme as if it were of no use at all Res I do beleeve the Baptisme of Infants to be of no use at all I do acknowledge the Baptisme of Beleevers to be of good use Yet not to make dead men alive Baptisme is for the living not for the dead Oppo Another argument That the Father hath given Infants to Christ cannot be denied For. All that the Father giveth me commeth unto me John 6. 37. and If Infants be given by the Father to Christ then they must needs Come to Christ and if they come to Christ it must be either by Faith Repentance or Baptisme for there can be no other way assigned whereby any should come unto Christ Res Do you not remember that I gave you a general rule in the answer to your first argument very necessary for the right understanding of Scripture Namely that we must consider of whom and to whom the Scripture speaks And you will find that in this place alledged the Scripture speaks of those persons to whom at that time our Saviour speak those words and cannot be applyed to any persons at any time In the 36th Vers Jesus said unto them ye have seen me and beleeve not All that the Father giveth me will or shall come unto me If you think this answer sufficeth not frame a Syllogisme from the place Oppo If Infants come unto Christ then they ought to be Baptised but Infants come unto Christ Therefore Infants are to be Baptised Res I deny the Consequence though Infants do come unto Christ in some sence though not in the sence of that place alledged yet need they not therefore to be Baptised Oppo If there be no other way for them to come but by Baptisme then if they come they must needs be Baptised But there is no other way for them to come to Christ but by Baptisme Therefore if they come they must needs be Baptised Res I deny the minor There is another way for Infants to come to Christ then by Baptising Oppo If there be no other way to come unto Christ but by Faith Repentance or Baptisme and Infants cannot come unto Christ by Faith or Repentance therefore they must needs come by Baptisme or not at all Res I deny the minor there is some other way to come unto Christ then by Faith Repentance or Baptisme Oppo Assigne another way for Children to come unto Christ Res Christ Jesus is the second Adam the Heavenly Adam As truly as all Infants where dead in the Loyns of the first and earthly Adam so truly are all Infants Spiritually in the Loyns of the second and Heavenly Adam In the first Adam they were by a naturall union In the second by a Spirituall union By vertue whereof they are Sanctified by the bloud of the Covenant and made partakers of grace and favour with God without any ministeriall application And so made alive in the second Adam Oppo You cannot prove what you say to be true Res It sufficeth me at this time that you cannot prove it false It is my duty now to answer when it falls to my lot to prove I shall prove what is or may be required of me Oppo I will urge you with what is writen in the 1 Corinth 10. Chap. 1 2 3. vers. All our Fathers were under the cloud and all passed thorow the Sea And were all Baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the Sea And did all eat the same Spirituall meat And did all drink the same Spirituall drink for they drank of that Spirituall Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ But with many of them God was not well pleased for they were overthrown in the Wilderness Now these things were our Examples or Types or Figures and in the 11. vers. All these things hapned unto them for Types Here you see their Baptisme was a type of our Baptisme In that Baptisme Men Women and Children were Baptised unto Moses Therefore in our Baptisme Men Women and Children ought to be Baptised Res First I say the TEXT doth not say Men Women and Children But all our Fathers Secondly it may be made plain by the TEXT that Infants were not Baptised unto Moses in the Sea for it is said they did all Eat and Drink the same Spiritual meat c. You cannot affirm that Infants did Eat and Drink Spiritually The TEXT speaks not of Children Thirdly It is not the Apostles intent to declare that their Baptisme was a type of ours But that their Punishments were Figures and Types and written for our admonition Oppo He saith in the 6th vers These things happened unto them for Examples and in the 11. vers. All these things happened unto them for Types Res Yea all their Punishments for look in the 6th vers These things were our Examples he saith not To the intent that we should Baptise Infants as they Baptised them but To the intent we should not lust It is no moâ—â— in effect but this No priviledges how great soever can exempt Men that are sinfull and depart from the Lord from suffering of Punishment Christ hath given you great and many priviledges as he did to the People of the Jews yet do not you presume for as they did not escape when they sinned no more shall you Oppo 2 Thess. 2. 15. Brethren stand fast and hold the traditions which yee have been taught whether by word or our Epistle The Apostle gives command to the Church that they should hold the Traditions nor that I do approve of vain Traditions which are the Commandements of Men But such Traditions as are Apostolical delivered by the Apostles themselves are to be held by the Church even as those things which were delivered in writing As Apostolical Traditions are to be kept and hold and so Lawfull But the Baptisme of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition Res I deny the minor Baptisme of Infants is no Apostolical Tradition Oppo Augustin saith that the Church always held it from the Apostles times meaning the Baptisme of Infants
had passed through the Doctrine Of Repentance from dead works and faith towards God in which the present differences of the Men of these times have created no smal difficulties Shee meets with a great controversie about the Doctrine of Baptisme which drives her into a strait and shee remains divided in her thoughts not being able to resolve her self whether her Infant Baptisme were of God or whether it were contrary to truth being none other but tradition of Men a will worship and by consequence vain and unprofitable While thus shee remains uncertain not knowing to which part to adhere whether to those who professing the faith of the Lord Jesus do maintain and uphold the Baptisme of Infants or whether it were not her duty to repair to a Baptised Congregation to require Baptisme at their hands If shee make her addresses to Counsellours one sayeth thus Fear not your Baptisme is good and valid Another tels her that her Infant Baptisme is not of God Both these use Arguments and Demonstrations and Reasons which captivate her understanding that shee discerns not in her self what to imbrace or what to eschew And finding at present no way to deliver her self from this condition is very desirous a Conference may be had between Parties on both sides about this matter To the end that what shee could not be throughly perswaded of in her mind when shee heard them speaking asunder might through grace be happily obtained by hearing them speak friendly Together This was the occasion of the meeting And Mr. Gunning whether solicited by Intreaty of others or moved Voluntarily I know not certainly was pleased to take the business upon himself on the one part to defend the Lawfullness of Infants Baptisme And Mr. Denne on the other part yeelded himself to oppugn the Baptisme of Infants Two dayes were appoynted for this conference The first day was on the 19th of November last when they met at the place before appoynted And Mr. Denne whose part it was that day to be the Respondent stood up in the Pulpit and intreating the multitude to be silent and to behave themselves civilly and orderly and craving attention he spake Res One there is who desireth to be informed whether the Baptisme of Infants be Lawfull or Unlawfull I declare that the Baptisme of Infants is Vnlawfull B After him stood up Mr. Gunning in an opposite gallery and spake Oppo I will prove the Baptisme of Infants to be Lawfull thus That which the supream Lawgiver of the Church hath given in command to his immediate Officers in the Church by a perpetual sanction and unalterable decree to be by them practised is Lawfull But the Baptisme of Infantsis by the supream Lawgiver of the Church given in Command to his immediate Officers by a perpetual sanction and unalterable decree to be by them and their Successors practised Therefore the Baptisme of Infants is Lawfull A This is a very long Syllogisme I wonder a learned Man should use so many words which must needs procure more disadvantage then advantage for most times in multitude of words there is error B Indeed many of his Syllogismes were long and Shard to be repeated Therefore I cannot promise to rehearse them Verbatim only I will not willingly leave out any word which is Materiall or may be for the Opponents advantage A I think the sum of this may be gathered into fewer words thus That which Christ hath commanded to be practised is Lawfull But Christ hath commanded Baptisme of Infants to be practised Therefore Baptisme of Infants is Lawfull But let me hear the answer Res I deny the minor and do say Christ never Commanded Baptisme of Infants to be practised either by his immediate Officers or any other of their Successors Opp. I will prove that it is the will and command of the supream Lawgiver that Infants should be Baptised If the supream Lawgiver would have Infants to be saved and they cannot be saved without Baptisme or desire of Baptisme in Parents or friends then is it his will and command that they should be Baptised But the supream Lawgiver would have Infants to be saved and they cannot be saved without Baptisme Therefore it is his will that they should be Baptised for he that willeth the end willeth also the means conducing to that end Res The minor I answer in the first place freely granting that it is the will of Jesus Christ that Infants should be saved But saying that Infants may be saved without Baptisme or without desire of Baptisme in their Parents or any other for them A Doe you think that the Opponent speaketh his own thoughts Or doth he speak it for disputation sake when he sayth Children cannot be saved without Batisme B Questionless he speaketh his own thoughts even as he is perswaded in heart that no Infant can be saved without Baptisme or desire at least of the Parents or Friends to have the Child Baptised But hear his proof whereby he proves Infants cannot be saved without Baptisme or desire of Baptisme Oppo John 3. 5th Verily Verily I say unto thee Except any one be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God These are Christ words to Nicodemus a Ruler of the Jews who came to Christ to enquire of the way of God And they are confirmed with an oath doubled Except any one that is Man Woman or Child none are excepted be born again of Water that is Baptisme and of the Spirit not Water alone without the Spirit or Spirit alone without Water but of Water and of the Spirit the Spirit working by Water he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God that is he cannot be saved None can possibly be saved except they be Baptised Res The place of Scripture you have brought is Allegorical and therefore not so proper to be a ground for Faith not having one word in it to the matter in hand to be proved which is that Infants canot be saved without Baptisme Now here is in this TEXT neither the word Infant nor Baptisme nor Saved if your gloss be layd aside But I have three things in answer to this TEXT and your gloss or exposition The first is a general rule which will serve to answer not only this but other arguments that peradventure may be brought That Scriptures must be considered to whom and of whom they speak and not to be applyed to any other concerning whom it doth not speak So you find in the quoted place that Nicodemus a Ruler of the Jews comes to Christ to learn the way of God that so he might work the workes of God To this Man Christ makes answer except a Man be born again c. speaking neither of Children nor to Children The second answer is this that by being born again of Water is not meant Baptisme but a Mistical not a Litteral Water as in many other places of Scripture spoken of Thirdly if it were granted that the TEXT did include
Children and that by Water were meant Baptisme yet will it not follow that Children can not be saved without Baptisme because here is only mention made of entering into the Kingdome of God you know that the Kingdome of God hath manyfold exceptions in the Scripture sometimes it is taken for Gospel Preaching sometimes for a visible Church state Mat. 13. Sometimes for that happiness which Men and Women and not Infants do enjoy through beleeving Rom. 14. 17. The Kingdom of God is not meat or drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost This Kingdom Infants do not enter into although they should be Baptised neither can they enter so long as they continue Infants Now if Water here do mean Baptisme it will infer no more but this that except any one be Baptised he cannot enter into a Church state or he cannot Enjoy righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost These are three answers I have for this TEXT Oppo I will prove your first answer to be insufficient Res Take notice that if you can prove two of them insufficient yet if the third stand good it sufficiently answers your argument Oppo I will prove in the first place that Children are here meant and included The TEXT sayth {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} except any one it comprehends all none exempted Res We find many propositions in Scripture spoken as generally as this where the Scripture speakes only to Men and you your self will confess that Children are not included as Mat. 16. 24. If any one will come after me let him take up his cross c. Mark 8. 34. and Mat. 10. 38. He that taketh not up his Cross and followeth me is not worthy of me These and many more places you will confess are not spoken of Children John 3 36. He that beleeveth on the Son hath everlasting life and he that beleeveth not the Son shall not see life Oppo Have you a Greek Testament I pray look the place as I remember the word in that place is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} he that rejecteth or rebelleth against the Gospell of Jesus Christ which Children do not Res I do confess the word is so indeed and I do acknowledge a difference between {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} A Child cannot be called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} but a Child may be sayd to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} not a Beleever therefore I refer you to the 18 Vers of that Chap. He that beleeveth not is condemned already and unto 1. John 5. 10. He that beleeveth not hath made him a lyar in both which places Children are not included Opp. It is true that Children are not included in these TEXTS But here are many reasons in the context whereby it may evidently be proved that they are not meant of Children but of Men and Women of years of discretion but you are not able to prove by the context in the third of John that Children are not included in the word any Man Res It s not my duty to prove any thing at this time it is my part to answer and your part to prove or disprove when I am to be the Opponent I shall prove that Children cannot be here included for the present it is sufficient for me to deny it Oppo For your second answer I will prove that by Water in this place alledged is meant Litteral Water it is plain the Scripture cals it Water plain Water besides in the 22th Vers is rehearsed Christ tarrying with his Disciples and Baptising and in the 23 Vers John also was Baptising in Enon near to Salim because there was much Water there here by Water is meant Literal Water and Plain Water And where can you find in the Scripture especially in the new Testament that by Water is meant any other thing but Literal Water unless the TEXT doe declare it to be Allegorical As out of his Belly shall flow rivers of Living Water where presently the TEXT adds This spake he of the spirit besides the constant tradition of the Church and the Unanimous consent of the Fathers did interpret this place of Literal Water and of Baptisme even Tertullian himself who is the man that is principally urged by you doth interpret this TEXT in the same manner except any one be Baptised with Water and the Spirit he cannot be saved Res I answer first of all it is no reason that it should be meant Literall Water here in the first Vers because Literall Water is spoken of in the 22 and 23 Verses for those words are a report of what was done at another time and in another place and hath no reference to this matter at all Secondly that the scripture is frequent in using the word Water Allegorically is very plain as Esay 51. 1. Come to the Waters John 4. 10. He would have given thee Living Water And as I deny not but in the places alledged by you Water is taken Literally so may it be evidenced that it is very frequent in the scriptures to take Water Mistically and the sence in this place will be very good with this interpretation Thirdly whereas you say that all ancient writers were of this mind even Tertullian himself I say that cannot be that Tertullian should be of your mind that Infants could not be saved without Water Baptisme for he himself who was the first that ever mentioned Infants Baptisme in writing doth reprove it Oppo Tertullian was not the first that mentioned Infants Baptisme for Justin Martyr makes mention of it in his Apologie and you can never find in all Tertullian that he sayth Infants Baptisme is Vnlawfull Res Justin Martyr never once mentioned Infants Baptisme for Tertullian I do not say he sayth in so many words that Infants Baptisme is Unlawfull But in a Sermon of his intituled Qui sunt Baptizandi Who are to be Baptised He indeavours to perswade Parents to keep their Children from Baptisme untill they were Capable of it You will not sayth he Trust them with Earthly treasures untill they know how to use them why then will you trust them with the Heavenly speaking of Baptisme and sayth he Fiant Christiani cum Christum nosse potuerint Let them be made Christians when they are able to know Christ And one thing more I must tell you that when I did first read this Sermon of Tertullian I met with one passage which I did not understand neither could I make any sence of it wherefore I consulted one that had written notes upon Tertullian and he plainly confesseth that those words were added by him to this end Vt Authoris sententiam mitigarem That might qualifie the Opinion of the Authour concerning Baptisme where you see what fair dealing we have had with the writings of the Ancients when an Index expurgatorius hath passed upon them and expunged by confession many
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
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.
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