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-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
Sacrament I answer neither do we read the word Sacrament in all the holy Scriptures therefore how should we prove that women did receive it But we read that the Disciples met together to break bread Acts 20.7 And that women were disciples is evident Acts 9.36 There was a certain disciple named Tabitha c. Now let Mr. Baxter or any bring one Scripture that saith There was a disciple in any place or of any name that was a little Babe and they say well Again we have plain words for it That all the body do partake of that one bread 1 Cor. 10.16 17. Now that women are of the body of Christ I think none dare deny Gal. 3.27 28 29. Reply 1. It seems you have a treacherous memory but a Liar as the proverb is had need of a good memory You speak here the same language to Mr. Hall as you did to Mr. Cook v) Pag. 6. and it may receive the same answer 2. Further you lisp in the language of Ashdod The Socinians say as you do viz. The word Sacrament is a barbarous word and no where to be found in holy Scripture What then It 's a true and common saying of our Divines The thing though not the name is in Scripture as the word Trinity c. 3. But what vain jangling is this Mr. Hall did not speak of womens receiving the Sacrament but of our giving them the Supper as it 's recited by your self p. 10. 4. It is not evident by expressness of Scripture but by Consequence onely that women were disciples or that women received the Lord's Supper It is said indeed expresly that Tabitha was a Disciple and that Tabitha was a woman and therefore it follows that a woman was a disciple or if you will women were disciples neither of these consequences or conclusions are expresly in Scripture Nay you do not prove that women received the Lord's Supper but by consequences because the disciples came together to break bread and by consequent to receive the Lord's Supper which none of us deny And is it not as evident that Infants ought to be baptized because they are disciples 5. In the language of Christ who was best able to expresse his own sense to belong to Christ is to be a disciple of Christ compare Mat. 10.42 with Mar. 9.41 and Mat. 18.5 And were not some of them Infants on whom the false teachers would have laid the yoke of Circumcision who are expresly called disciples Acts 15.10 And is it not said expresly that the Disciples Acts 21 4 5. with the wives and children brought Paul on his way Now as the affections and lusts are flesh Gal. 5.24 because it 's said the flesh with its affections and lusts So here wives and children are disciples because it 's said The disciples with their wives and children Do we now say something 6. Answer shall be returned to 1 Cor. 10.16 17. when I come to the page 66.67 in the mean time I say that some Infants are of the body of Christ and I think you dare not deny it For Christ is the Saviour of the body Page 6. Eph. 5.23 And you say that Infants dying in their infancy are saved by virtue of Christs death SECT 12. Hen. Hag. same page Thus having discovered the vanity of all their unreasonable reasonings I commit it even to our enemies to judge between us in these things who hath the Scripture most on their side they or we And thus notwithstanding all their cunning craftiness it is evident they have not one Scripture for Infant-baptism and therefore not of God c. Reply 1. What a pitiful contradiction is here viz. That we have not one Scripture for Infant-baptisme and yet you would have us judge who hath most Scripture on their side For suppose you have the most doth not that imply that we have some Scriptures on our side Sure none and some are contradictions 2. If you mean we have no Scripture by consequence that is palpably false unlesse all this while you have answered not one Scripture for Infant-baptisme If you mean expresse Scripture then you have not one Scripture for Anabaptism Now let all rational men judge whether you have not discovered the vanity of your unreasonable reasoning SECT 13. Hen. Hag. p. 15 16 17. We cannot find infant-Infant-baptism in all the holy Scriptures Therefore to the fountain whence it flows that all men may see that it comes not from the fountain of living waters which is the holy Scriptures Reply I wonder you can find a Font for infant-Infant-baptism in Jer. 2.12 13. pag. 8. and yet cannot find infant-Infant-baptism in all the holy Scriptures Who so blind as hee that will not see 2. You told us even now p. 9. That the baptizing of Believers in Rivers and Fountains c. was the fountain of living waters or else your comparison is lame Now that the holy Scripture is the fountain of living waters Either there are two fountains of living waters or else you miserably contradict and confound your self SECT 14. H. H. ibid. Now that Christ never commanded nor his Apostles never practised the baptizing of Infants even your own Poets confess as Paul saith in another case Acts 17. ver 28. Reply 1. I desire the Reader to peruse the Authors with their testimonies as they are cited by Mr. Haggar because they are too many to transcribe Mr. Hagg. hath empanell'd a July of 22 but I hope he wil do me that favour nay that justice to challenge some of them and to consider if not to demur on the Verdict of the rest 1. Erasmus is one of yours as well as ours If an Anabaptist be a Papist or a Protestant or a Neuter or both For in point of an Oath and Law-suits y) Sâ—e Bâ—zâ— in Mat. 5.34 he seems not z) Id in Rom. 5 14. to dissent from the opinion of the Anabaptists and in point of sin he is a Pelagian or Papist * thinking it proceeds rather from example then from nature yet he seems to be a Protestant For he said that was heresie in Luther which was good divinity in Austin and being promised a fat Bishoprick if he would write against Luther he answered t Luther was too great for him to write against *) Melch Adam de vita Lutheri p. 115. nay so great that he profest he learned more out of one little leaf of Luther then out of Aquina's his volumes But how sleight and unsound he was about the deity of Christ Jesus specially in Phil. 2.6 Tit. 2.13 They that read him cannot but stand and wonder I speak not this to smut his reputation but to shew your vanity scornfully calling him one of our own Poets 2. Bishop Rossensis and Doctor Eck Ludovicus vives c. are or were notorious Papistâ— In calling these our own Poets I may better say to you then you do to a) Foundat p. 10. M. Hall p. 10. A WRETCHED LYE but I
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
say Here is fulfilled Clap your hands and leap for joy and say with the Philosopher in another case o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have found I have found viz. the Font in Jeremy though I cannot find it in all the holy Scriptures 3. Can you say without blushing Here the words of the Prophet are fulfilled Did the Spirit of God ever intend here Baptismal Fonts and if not intended how is this text now fulfilled In what words are Fonts implied in the word Fountain the Knight indeed saith Fonts or Fountains p) Pag. 8. out the term is appropriated by the Lord to himself They have forsaken me the Fountain c. No man that I know of holds our Fonts to be Fountains of living waters and your self declines at when you make the forsaking of baptizing men and women c. Parallel with the peoples forsaking God the fountain c. Or in the word Câ—stern in which it seems you have found Fonts but the text saith Those Cisterns are broken Cisterns that can hold no water which you have cunningly left out lest your disciples should espie your foul mistake but our Fonts could and did hold water Sir I must tell you had not your brain been cracked you had never imagined our Fonts to be broken Cisterns Therefore let the Reader observe how grosly you abuse this Scripture and consider seriously whether that Scripture be not fulfilled in you being one of those that are unlearned and unstable who q) 2 Pet. 3.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As torturers Put a man on the rack and make him speak that he never thought so these set the Scripture on a rack and draw ouâ— a sense which was never intended Leigh Crit. Sacr. wrest the Scriptures I pray God it be not to your own destruction 4. For the rest cited in your p. 9. and part of the 10. I say no more but this Is the Knights testimony so valid that it must be largely transcribed when it seems to make against us And must it be so sleighted when it seems to make against you as about the Terms Tythe and Church To the first answer shall be returned towards the end of the book And to the second Why may not the publick place of worship be called a Church because the Church meets there as well as it is called the Synagogue because the Congregation of the Jewes met there to perform publick worship CHAP. V. Of the Rise of Infant-Baptism SECT 1. H. H. p. 10. Wee must have the Rise of Infant-baptisme from those Rabbies that did practise it or else not at all because the Scripture is silent in it as they themselves confess So Mr. Hall r) Font guaâ—ded p. 30. literally syllabically terminis terminantibus in expresse terms Infant-baptism is not commanded nor a thousand things more A wretched lye for it 's an hard thing for Mr. Hall to prove that God requireth of the sons of men a thousand or half a thousand things no where commanded Reply 1. To passe by your scornful terms Rabbies c. you are guilty of falshood in saying We confesse the Scripture is silent in it I know not any one that makes such a Confession if you do you might have named him or them But this you passe by in silence in hope your falshood should not be discovered but in vain a general accusation is as good as silence 2. Admit the Scripture were silent herein it makes nothing against us For it is a common and true rule as before a Negative Argument from Authority proves nothing Nay I confesse the Scripture is silent in Mr. Hall's sense i. e. It speaketh nothing of Infant-baptism in expresse terms by way of command but it is not silent in another sense for it speaks implicitly of it E. gr Ministers maintenance is not expresly mentioned in those words Å¿) Deut. 25.4 Thou shalt not muzzle the Oxe when he treadeth out the corn yet it is implied in those words if you will believe the Apostle s) 1 Tim. 5.17.18 for the Scripture saith Thou shalt not muzzle c. And again t) 1 Cor. 9.9 For it is written in the Law of Moses Thou shalt not muzzle c. Now Sir Riddle me riddle me what 's this The Scripture is silent and yet Saith It is Written in the Law of Moses And yet not one word concerning Ministers maintenance written expresly in Deut. quoted u) p 12. Yea to take your own instance A man may pray in his Family because he may pray every where according to 1 Tim. 2.8 Where Family-praier is implied and so the Scripture is not silent in it but not expressed and so it is silent Many more instances may be given but these may suffice without the imputation of a wretched lye 3. Suppose the Scriptures were altogether silent about Infant-baptism it rather proves that Infants were baptized to any unbyassed judgment because we read not of any Controversie about a complaint against Infant-baptism as we do concerning the Widows that were neglected v) Acts 6.1 a businesse of an inferiour alloy in comparison of this in hand 4. What a wretched man are you in saying a wretched lie on the account mentioned by Mr. Hall you shew your self as rude in Ethicks as unskilful in Rhetorick x) Hyperbole so much used in Scripture specially in this case e. gr Cities walled up to heaven y) Deut. 1.28 i. e. very high now because this was spoken by the Spies who might tell a lie therefore compare this text with another viz. Deut. 9.1 Cities great and fenced up to heaven which certainly were the words of Moses So Mat. 23.24 Yee blind guides who strain at a Gnat and swallow a Camel i. e. strain at things of small moment and swallow things of greater concernment So Joh. 21.25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did the which if they should be written every one I suppose that even the world it self could not contain the books that should be written Abundance of more instances which if you can read with Latine eies you may find in Alsted z) Praecognita Theologiae pag. 157 158. l. 2. But if you can look onely with English eies see Diodat on John forenamed I hope you will not give the Wretched Lie to Moses Christ John c. as you do to Mr. Hall who by those thousand things means according to your usual expression a certain number for uncertain i. e very many or a great number as 1 Cor. 4.15 Ten thousand Instructers in Christ. 5. It 's well you say It 's an Hard thing for Mr. Hall to prove that God requires a thousand things of us not commanded It seems you dare not say it 's impossible onely it's Hard. And what if he prove an hundred or half an hundred which is easie to do they are too many for you to answer SECT 2. H. H. There is no express command saith Mr. Hall in the
love not bitterly to retort 3. The rest who are Orthodox say no more then what you say that that your Adversaries generally confesse viz. There is no command nor Example literally Syllabically in express terms for Infant-baptism which is no advantage to your cause nor disadvantage to ours no more then there is for womens receiving the Lords Supper Family prayer c. before spoken to 4. You have dealt with some of their writings as Sathan did with the Scripture leaving out b) Mal. 4.6 with Psal 91.11 that which makes against you as he did what might make against him e. gr Calvin bringing in that objection that it s no where found that any one Infant was baptized by the hand of the Apostles answers c) Calv. Inst. l 4. c. 16. sect 8. That though the Evangelists do not expresly mention it yet infants are not excluded where mention is made of baptizing whole Families Acts 16.15.32 33. Ergo. Who but a mad man would conclude that they were not baptized If such Arguments were valid women in like manner should be debarred from the Lords Supper to which we do not READ that they were admitted in the time of the Apostles yet considering the scope and nature of those Ordinances it is evident that as women are to receive the Lords Supper So Infants aswell as grown persons are to bee baptized Eo itaque privari nequeant quin Dei Authoris voluntati fraus manifesta fiat i. e. They therefore cannot bee deprived of it but MANIFEST FRAVD or affront is made to the will of God the Authour Now M. Haggar do you and your party make a wise use of this Testimony you cannot but know that Calvin in the chap. fore-cited and elsewhere d) Inst Advers Anabap. Articl 1. proveth Infant Baptism from many Scripture grounds Again though Beza saith as you cite him yet a little after e) Beza in Mat. 3.11 he gives the reason why he translates not in water buâ— with water as we do and Luk. 3.16 with out the Preposition In least any should think there is some force in thiâ— particle as they do who are perswaded children are not rightly baptized except they be altogether dipt in the wâ—ter Where the Reader may observe that though John did baptize such as did confesse their sins c. Yet that makes nothing against Infant-Baptism And again more plainly f) Beza in mar â— 4 in Mark. though the place be not named by you where he saith seeing the Sacraments are seals Doctrine or instruction is to go before sealing He ads which you have left out There is no reason that the Anabaptists should catch at this against Infant-baptism for John had to do with grown persons and even then when Infants are baptized the word is not severed from the sign in the Church of God The Reader by this taste may guesse how M. Haggar hath dealt with the rest whom for brevity sake I passe by ex ungua Leonem So that now setting aside those that were challenged of Mr. Haggars Grand-Jury of 22 there are not left so many as will make a petty Jury of 12. unlesse you allow some of them to have three votes a piece as Luther and Bucer and some four as Zuinglius which is not reasonable SECT 15. H. H. pag. 17. Thus much out of those teachers own writings which observe and use childrens baptism from whence the Reader may take notice of the unsoundnesse of your principles and what little ground 1. There is for it in the word of God as they themsâ—lvs confesse 2. Therefore what great cause have we to search the Scriptures for better information let the sober minded judg Reply 1. I verily believe you never read the writings of those Teachers 2. I observe you mince the matter here and dare not call them g) as p. 15. our Poets but those Teachers c. 3. The Judicious Reader cannot infer from thence the unsoundnesse of your principles by any reasonable reasoning 4. A little before yea often you said we have no ground in the word of God for infant-baptism you now grant we have a little you begin to yield a little ground well done M. Haggar SECT 16. H. H. pag. 18. Moreover I shall further prove out of their own writings that infant-baptism is a ceremony and Ordinance of man brought into the Church by Teachers after the Apostles times and instituted and commanded by Councills Popes and Emperours Reply 1. Calvin in the place alleaged by you h) Calv. inst l. 4. c. 16. sect 8. saith that whereas the Anabaptists spread it among the simple vulgar that Infant-baptism was not known or practiced till very many years after Christs Resurrection in that i) Foedissimè◠mentiuntur they lye most filthily for there is not one antient writer that doth not for CERTAIN refer the originall of it to the Apostles times Sure your evidence must be clear to overthrow the confident Testimony of this pious and learned man and to prove it was brought into the Church after the Apostles times 2. You empanell here another Jury of 21. I desire again for brevity sake that the Reader would peruse them in your book I shall take if you will not allow the liberty in challenging as before First Erasmus is again challenged on the former account Though his words are They are not to be condemned that doubt whether the baptism of Infants were ordained by the Apostles which words evidently imply that it was their weaknesse to doubt and that it seems hee had other thoughts of those who did not only doubt of it but did refuse and oppose it 2. Are you not ashamed to call Pope Gregory the fourth Ecchius Cassander c. Our own Poets as p. 20 If this be not Poetical licentiousness I know not what is Nay from that Pope c. to conclude it is a Tradition of the Fathers according to our own confession 3. You begin with Origen k Hom 8. in Levit. who calleth baptism of children a ceremony and tradition of the Church It 's your unhappinesse to stumble in the threshold you had perhaps a mind to favour your dear Mother the Church of Rome For you might as well prove out of her 1. The obscurity of the Scriptures 2. The Canonicalness of the History of Susanna 3. Auricular confession 4. Purgatory c. Certainly l vide censuram quorundam Scriptorum veterum à Rob. Coco p. 71. m Pâ—oinde Homilias illas non esse magnae Authoritatis Bellarm de verb. Dei l. 4. c. 11. those Homilies are bastard writings And undoubtedly there is more ingenuity in your dear brother Bellarmine then in you who denies them to bee Cyrills as some were of opinion and dares not affirm them to be Origens but leavs it with a Nescio cujus m who every where destroyes the letter and frames out of his head mysticall senses and so concludes wherefore those Homilies are of no great
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
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
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