A True and Faithfull NARRATIVE (for substance) Of a Publique Dispute BETWEEN Mr. Tho. Porter, & Mr. Hen. Haggar; CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM. In the Parish Church of Ellesmer in the County of Salop, on the 30 of April, 1656.
By one who was present at, and a diligent observer of, the Debate.
Now I beseech you, brethren, marke them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them.
For they that are such, serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and By good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
Nemo est qui non videat Paedobaptismum nequaquam humanitus fabrefactum fuisse, qui Tanta Scripturae approbatione fulciatur. Nec satis speciose nugantur, qui objiciunt, nusquam reperiri, vel unum Infantem per Apostolorum manus fuisse baptizatum. Etsi enim id Nominatim ab Evangelistis non narratur, quia tamen ne (que) rursum excludantur i [...]i, quoties familiae alicujus baptizatae incidit mentio; quis inde, nisi Insanus, raticcinetur non fuisse baptizatos?—
Quod autem apud simplicem vulgum disseminant, longam annorum seriem post Christi Resurrectionem praeteriisse, quibus incognitus erat Paedobaptismus: In co foedissime mentiuntur, siquidem nullus scriptor tam vetustus qui non ejus Originem ad Apostolorum seculum Pro certo referat.
LONDON, Printed for John Clark, at the Entrance into Mercers-Chappel, at the lower end of Cheapside. 1656.
An Advertisement to the Readers.
WHether friends or foes, staggering or setled, I though it not only expedient, but needfull (having had perfect understanding of all things (concerning the debate) from the first) to acquaint you with the occasion of this Contest, and the rather that some things here may be hinted, which could not be so conveniently set down in the body of the Narrative.
Mr. Porter being called to Preach the Gospel in Ellesmer, on Feb. 13. 1655. did in his Sermon take occasion (as he thought he was bound) to vindicate himself (with a spirit of meeknesse) from some asperpersions which (some of the rebaptized judgement (that was his phrase) had cast upon him. Whereupon some best known for distinction by the name of Anabaptists) did write a Letter to him, desiring him to come the next monthly Lecture to make good what he had delivered, and that then and there, there should be some (God willing) to dispute with him about Infant-Baptism. Mr. Porter came the day appointed, Nath. Gillow, Jo. Capper, Jo. Edwards, Ma. Edw. and proved four of the Anabaptists in Ellesme, arrant LYARS (though I cannot learn that they have taken shame to themselves for their sin of Lying, nor given any satisfaction to Mr. Porter. As if Lying were a natural ingredient into Anabaptism [Page](as Bullinger in answer to an Objector said) nor can you shew me ONE MAN of them, who is not blemished with some of the foresaid wickednesses, I mean Lying, Sedition, Idlenesse, &c.) At which time also, it was agreed, that on the last of April a Publique Dispute should be held, in the Parish Church of Ellesmer aforesaid, about Infant-Baptism. (N. G. and J. C. stating the question thus, All Infant-Baptism is unlawfull) and that either Hen. Haggar, or James Brown, or Richard Newton, should enter the lists with Mr. Porter, and that each side was left at liberty to bring a Moderator with them. The day being come, Mr. Tallants was desired to be Moderator for Mr. Porter; and Mr. Brown was designed to be Moderator for Mr. Haggar. Not long af [...]er the dispute was begun, Mr. Haggar and Mr. Brown, cryed hard for Scripture, expresse Scripture to prove the lawfulnesse of Infant-Baptism. Mr. Porter answered, That if he must fight with them, they must give him leave to choose his weapons, prov [...]ded he brings them out of Gods Armory. Beside, he said his adversaries were unreasonable to press him to that task which he never undertook. Mr. Brown said, he had Mr. Porters Letter to shew for it, Mr. Brown was desired to produce and read the Letter (if he had any to such import) in the presence and audience of that great Congregation, but none was read. Then Mr. Porter said, he would make a short cut of the Debate, offering to Mr. Haggar that if he would produce one expresse Stripture to prove Infant-Baptism unlawful, for his part he would lay down the Wasters. Mr. Haggar said, He came not on that account (disliking and disowning the stating [Page]of the question by his brethren) but to make good the Baptizing of believers by clear Scriptures. Then M. Porter also offered, that if they would produce one express Scripture (in their sense) to prove the lawfulnesse of Baptizing actual believers, or visible Saints, he for his part would lay down the wasters. Mr. Haggar said, He came to hear what could be said out of Scripture in justification of Infant-Baptism. So that though the Adversaries kept a great bawling for Express Scripture (as to Infant-Baptism) yet they could not prove their own way of Baptizing by any one express Scripture. And is it not meet the same law should be taken and given? It was observed, that Mr. Brown for very indignation did gnash with his teeth, as if he would have bitten; and did knit his fist together, as if he would have beaten Mr. Porter therewith: (so mighty was Truth and operative) and it was very remarkable, that when Mr. Porter propounded any argument, Mr. Haggar could not be prevailed with (though often pressed thereto) to answer directly and briefly, but used Circumlocuti [...]ns to inveigle the people, (a piece of his cunning craftiness, whereby he lies in wait to deceive, as the Apostle speaks, Ephes. 4. 14.) But Mr. Porter told him, that he hoped old birds would not be caught with chaffe. Toward the close of the Dispute, an ancient professor R. L. desired to speak a few words, v [...]z. Mr. Haggar had Preached in that place (pointing to the Pulpit) about two years agoe, that InfantBaptism was Antichristian, and that he with others came to hear a confirmation of that Doctrine by Scripture, and (though Mr. Haggar was desired, yet) not one Scripture was alledged. To which Mr. Haggar [Page]replyed, that perhaps he might then deliver that Infant-Baptism was not true Baptism, or that the Baptism of Christ was not to be found in the Church of England. To which Mr. Porter replyed, It's blasphemy, being ready to make it out; and added withall, that he, to his best observation, could not find in the New Testament any of years Baptized, but either they were Jewes or Heathens: and if Mr. Haggar and his disciples, would acknowledg themselves to be such, much good do it them with their new way of Baptizing. Then Mr. Haggar read out of the Bible, Deut. 28.18, 19, 20. in the audience of the people, and Mr. Porter read Isaiah 65.23. After which Mr. Tallant sweetly concluded with Prayer, and so the Congregation was dismissed.
A True and Faithful NARRATIVE (for substance) Of a Publique Dispute BETWEEN Mr. Tho. Porter, & Mr. Hen. Haggar, CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM.
THere was a great Congregation (consisting of many hundreds, yea of some thousands) assembled together in the Parish Church of Ellesmer. After filence had been desired, and some things premised and assented unto, for the better carrying on of the debate; Mr. Porter made a proposall, that (it being acknowledged to be the work of the Lord) Prayer might be made to the Lord, for his direction, assistance, and blessing in so great an undertaking. Mr. Haggar declared his judgment, that he could not joyn in Prayer (as things stood) much lesse be the mouth of Prayer in that juncture of time; nay, he conceived it needlesse, for the businesse had been commended to the Lord in Prayer, before himself and his party came into that place. But if (saith he) you be pleased to pray, we will not interrupt you in prayer. Mr. Porter replyed, that, Sir, there lies a scruple on my spirit, whether it be fit for me to maintain a Disputation with you, who [Page 2]do refuse to joyn in supplication with me, who have (without vanity be it spoken) sought the Lord in secret also as well as you; and I must tell you beside, many are seeking the Lord in my behalf this day, whose prayers (I trust) will be prevalent. Notwithstanding, because I judge it fit and needfull to begin with Prayer, and you have promised not to interrupt, the reverend and godly moderater Mr. Tallants is desired to begin the action with Prayer. Mr. Tallants declared, that he held it fit and meet to put up a few petitions to the Lord: which being done accordingly by him, Mr. Porter expressed himself in these or the like words following.
Mr. Port. What I have to say concerning Infant-Baptism, may be reduced to three heads. viz.
- 1. The Precept of Christ.
- 2. The Practise of the Apostles.
- 3. The priviledges indulged to Infants of believing Parents. And I hope a threefold cord is not easily broken.
For the Precept of Christ.
See Matth. 28.19, 20. I shall crave leave briefly to give the sense of these words, (as I humbly conceive) that the strength of my argument, (grounded on this Scripture) may be the better discerned. Our Lord Christ having received a plenipotencie from the Father, vers. 18. All power is given to me; doth here give to his Apostles a Commission, or rather an enlargement of their Commission, viz. Teach all nations, — The word ought to be rendred Disciple, else there might seem to be a Tautologie in christs expression (be it spoken with reverence) teach—teaching, ve. 20. And pious and learned Cameron hints, it may be rendred to Proselyte, which is all one to Disciple. — Now we know, when a Master of a family became a Proselyte of the Jewish Church, his whole Family were made Proselytes too. Now who are to be discipled? all Nations, in distinction from, and opposition to the Jewish Nation. For the Apostles were confined before within the pale of Judea; now their Commission is enlarged, To [Page 3]Disciple all Nations; which universall expression (without doubt) comprehends Infants, a considerable part of any Nation (as the children of the Ninivites were of the City of Ninive, Foundat. of the Fort discovered. pag. 61. Jon. 4.11.) and Mr. Haggar himself doth include them in that little large word All, Rom. 5.18. By the righteousnesse of one, the free gift came upon all men to justification of life. Now, if Mr. Haggar were not partiall, he might include Infants here in Matthew, as well as there in the Romans. And surely if our Saviours intent had been to have excluded Infants, he would have made an exception, which had been seasonable and needfull in this Commission.
Mr. Haggar. It's said by Mr. Porter, that the word Teach, must be rendred Disciple all nations, else Christ must be accused of Tautologie. No such matter, for the words hold forth, a teaching before Baptism, and a teaching after Baptism; before Baptism; and a teaching after Baptism, to build them up in the faith, as appears by the practise of the Apostles, Act 2.41. to the end of the Chapter, and Act. 8.5, 12.
Mr. Porter. Did I say, else Christ must be accused of Tautologie? no, else there might seem to be a Tautologie in Christs expression, being spoken with reverence, (though Spanhemius Si [...] simpliciter tantum significaret docere, [...] reperiretur in Christi verbis. Spanh. Dub. Evang. part. 3. Dub. 27. is bold to say, if the word signifies simply to Teach, a Tautologie would be found in Christs words) Surely I must expect to be misrepresented behind my back, since you doe misrepresent me before my face, and that in the audience of so great a Congregation, to whom I appeale.
2. There is no expresse mention made of Teaching in either of those places of the Acts forequoted.
3. If there were, yet the instances are not alike, if Matthew and the Acts be compared. For here in Mat. 28. is a great act injoyned, Teach, or rather Disciple — [Page 4]Secondly, the manner how it is to be performed, by Baptizing and by Teaching. Indeed, if the words had run thus, Teach and baptize — and teach, there had been some colour for your exception. But the word Teach or Disciple [...]. is in the Imperative mood, and the other two are [...]. Participles.
4. These words in Matthew do not necessarily prove that teaching must precede baptizing, but rather the contrary, baptizing before teaching. For baptizing is set down before teaching, in vers. 19. and teaching, in vers. 20. Though we must distinguish between a Church to be constituted, and a Church already constituted. Abraham must be taught before he be circumcised; but his children of eight dayes old, must be circumcised first, then taught. Thus when a Proselyte of the Gentiles imbraced the Jewish religion, profession preceded circumcision, but it was not so with his children. Thus now where the Gospell is first preached to Jews or Gentiles, when the Parents gave their names to Christ, for themselves and for their family, the whole houshold is discipled Luk. 19.9.. So I come to the first Argument, grounded on this Scripture.
Mr. Haggar (as it seems his manner is) made a large Oration to the people, but nothing in answer to the Argument.
Mr. Porter. I pray you Sir give me an answer to my Argument, by denying or distinguishing. So farre as I can collect from your rambling discourse (which for the future I desire you to forbear, and to speak lesse or more to purpose) I conceive that you seem to deny the Minor, which I prove out of Act. 21.4, 5.
At which the people laughed. Mr. Browne. But you cannot prove Infants disciples in Scripture.
Mr. Porter. If I prove their Discipleship out of Scripture, [Page 5]surely it's found in or by Scripture, as Act. 27.2, 11. Paul reasoned out of the Scriptures.
Mr. Browne. Shew me where it is written in Scripture, that Infants are to be baptized, if it were written there, I could read it there.
Mr. Porter. And so you may read it there, if you were not blind; and who so blind as he who will not see? But I shall stop your mouth presently, Redemption freed from restraint. you have published in your book, that the sprinkling of Infants is an Antichristian idoll; where is this Sir written in Scripture.
Mr. Browne. What is this to the Baptizing or discipling of Infants, &c?
Mr. Tallants. It is written in Scripture, Disciples are to be Baptized; it is written in Scripture, Infants are Disciples; therefore, it is written in Scripture, Infants are to be baptized. I pray you Mr. Porter prove them Disciples.
Mr. Porter. I was about it (but was interrupted by Mr. Haggar and Mr. Browne, who are like a Lapwing that makes the greatest noise when furthest from the nest) and produced Act. 21.4, 5. From whence I thus argue: They who did accompany Paul in his journey were Disciples; But some Infants did accompany Paul in his journey; Therefore some Infants are Disciples.
Mr. Haggar. (Having read the place quoted) I find that the Disciples with their wives and children brought Paul onwards on his way, but not that the children are called Disciples.
Mr. Brown. There was no mention made of Infants in those words, how then do they hold forth Infant-Baptism?
Mr. Porter. I have shewed some Infants are to be Baptized, because they are Disciples; I am now upon proving that Infants are disciples. And what though Infants are not here expressely mentioned, they are not to be excluded; nay, Children are here mentioned, Infants are Children, therefore Infants — And I confirme it by [Page 6]a parallel phrase, Phil. 1.1. To the Saints at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons; so here, Disciples with Wives and Children. Now if Bishops and Deacons must not be shut out from being Saints (in the Philippians) then neither Wives nor Children from being Disciples (in the Acts.) Scripture you see must expound Scripture.See also 2 Chro. 20.13. Gal. 5.24.
Mr. Haggar. We know Deacons were Saints before they were Deacons, Act. 6.3.
Mr. Tall. What is this to the purpose? Proceed Mr. Porter.
Mr. Porter. I further prove them (viz. some Infants) Disciples, by Act. 15.10. Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples, &c. They on whom the false teachers would have laid the yoke of circumcision were Disciples; but the false teachers would have laid the yoke of circumcision on Infants (as well as grown men.) Therefore Infants (as well as grown men) were Disciples.
Mr. Haggar. Prove that they would have laid this yoke on Infants.
Mr. Porter. They who would have had the Disciples circumcised after the manner of Moses, would have laid this yoke on Infants, as well as grown men; But the false teachers would have had the Disciples circumcised after the manner of Moses See Exod. 1.5.24. Here the people hist and laughed at him, and stamped with their feet for indignation. Therefore —
Mr. Haggar. We deny the Conclusion. We come not to answer Arguments, but to hear Scripture for Infant-Baptisme. And there is no duty to be practised, but it is in as plain terms in Scripture as this, He that believeth shall be saved.
Mr. Browne. Why do you, Mr. Porter, suffer those yong men (that stand by you) to carry themselves so uncivilly? Nay, I saw your self smiling.
Mr. Porter. Who these yong men are I know not, they came not with me, they are strangers to me, I have no command of their gesture. I could desire you and Mr. Haggar to carry your selves so gravely and soberly, that no occasion may be given of hissing and laughing at you. I know none but women and Mr. Haggar who will denie the Conclusion. And for my self, it's true, I smiled, but it was at you and your brothers folly. And whereas Mr. Haggar you imply you must have expresse [Page 7]Scripture for every duty to be practised, you pray before and after your Sermons, do you not? and where have you express Scripture for that practise? and an hundred more? As 1. Prayer in family twice a day. 2. Worshipping of the holy Ghost. 3. Trusting in Christs satisfaction and merits. 4. Womens receiving the Lords Supper. 5. Receiving it with reverence, repentance, rejoycing, &c. 6. Using the Lords titles and properties, with reverence, faith, knowledge, &c.
Mr. Haggar. Pray continually, 1 Thess. 5.17.
Mr. Porter. There is no expresse mention made of prayer before and after Sermon in that Scripture. So that you see you must and do prove it by consequence (else you must fling up this, and a great part of your Religion, both for things to be believed and practised) marke that (good people) whether this be expresse Scripture for prayer before and after Sermon. And were you not partiall in your self, you cannot but be convinced, that Infant-Baptism is comprehended in Matth. 28.19. as well as prayer before and after Sermon, in 1 Thess. 5 17.
Mr. Tallants. Two hours have been spent in Canvasing the first Argument. You have heard (beloved) what hath been said concerning the Baptizing, of Infants, on Scripture grounds of their Discipleship; and what hath been alleadged in answer thereto. Both Arguments and Answers must be left to the judgement of this great Congregation. I pray you, Mr. Porter, proceed to another head.
2. For Practise and Example.
1. Example. Mr. Porter. I begin with 1 Cor. 10.2. And were all Baptized unto (or into) Moses in the cloud, and in the sea. If some mens exposition may be admitted, the words hold out a clear instance of Infant-Baptism, Dan. Heinsius. viz. They were all from the least even to the greatest (even to Moses himself) baptized in the cloud and in the sea.
Mr. Haggar. All here spoken of were believers.
Mr. Porter. That is a paradox, and contrary to express Scripture, for some were unbelievers; Heb. 3.18, 19. And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that Believed not? So we see that they could not enter in, because of [Page 8]belief. Besides, it's expressely said in this Chapter, 1 Cor. 10.5. With many of them God was not well pleased. And they are called Idolaters, v. 7. Fornicators, v. 8. Tempters of Christ, v. 9. Murmurers, v. 10. All whose carcases fell in the wildernesse for unbelief, Heb. 3.17.
Mr. Haggar. No Infants were baptized into Moses, but such as are expressely called our Fathers, vers 1. All our Fathers were under the cloud; therefore not Infants.
Mr. Porter. They who came out of Egypt, and passed through the sea, were baptized into Moses; But Infants, as well as grown men, came out of Egypt and passed through the sea; Therefore Infants, &c. Exod. 10.9. And Moses said, We will go with our young, and with our old, with our sons, and with our daughters, &c. and vers. 24. Let your little ones also go with you. Exod. 12.37. And the children of Israel journied from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, besides children. Besides, (Mr. Haggar) have you not children?
Mr. Haggar. Yes Sir.
Mr. Porter. Though you are a Father as to them, yet you your self were a child once as to your Parents. So the Apostle cals these fathers, as to the Jewish generation in Pauls time, when yet some of them were children as to their Parents, at the time of baptizing here spoken of. Now if all the Jewish children that came out of Egypt, and passed through the sea, were baptized into Moses, then Christian children may be baptized into Christ now: But the Antecedent is true, therefore the consequent also.
Mr. Browne. If all that went through the Red sea were baptized, then their Cattell and Goods were baptized. (Which moved laughter among the people)
Mr. Porter. An absurd expression. The Apostle speaks of persons, you of things.
Mr. Haggar. Though Moses was a type of Christ, and though it were admitted that Infants were baptized into him, yet it doth not follow that Infants in the time of the Gospell must be baptized.
Mr. Porter. If Infants in the time of the Gospell be as [Page 9]capable of being baptized by water into Christ, as those Jewish Infants were capable of being baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, then it follows. But Infants are as capable of being baptized into Christ now, as they were into Moses; and shew me (if you can) any materiall difference.
2. Example. Mr. Porter. Act. 16.15. She (i.e. Lydia) was baptized and her houshold. Whence I argue thus, If Lydia and her houshold were baptized, Gen. 45.18, 19. Num. 3.15. then some Infants were baptized (for in Scrirture language house or houshold are put for children) But Lydia and her houshold were baptized, therefore some Infants —
Mr. Haggar. I finde nothing here of children being baptized.
Mr. Porter. Either Lydias husband, or Lydias servants, or Lydias Infants were baptized; but neither Lydias husband nor servants, therefore her Infants —
Mr. Haggar. Lydias servants were baptized, who are called the brethren in Lydias house, whom Paul comforted, vers. 40. now children were not capable of being comforted.
Mr. Porter. 1. There is no expresse mention made of opening the heart of any but of Lydia, and yet her houshold was baptized.
2. You say in your book Foundat pag. 6., If she had an husband he was baptized, for she and her houshold was baptized. May I not as well say, If she had children, they were baptized, for she and her houshold were baptized? were you not partiall in your self?
3. In answer to vers. 40. The word house is not in the Originall Beza., but that he went unto Lydia, who might be in some other house, for ought appears out of the Text. And those brethren, whosoever, or wheresoever they were, might be comforted, and yet her children be baptized. Children are capable of Baptism, though not of consolation.
3. Example. Mr. Porter. Act. 16.33. The Jaylor was Baptized, he and all his straitghtway. Whence I argue thus, If the Jaylor and all his were baptized, then some Infants were baptized; but the former is true, therefore the latter.
Mr. Haggar. By all his are to be understood his servants, not his children, because it's said, vers. 32. The word was spoken to all that were in his house; and vers. 34. He rejoyced, believing in God with all his house.
Mr. Porter. Servants are no more expressely mentioned then children; and if you include Servants, how can you exclude Infants?
2. These all his, cannot be the same with those vers. 32. for the word his, signifies of him, his naturall off-spring, begotten of him; and who are more properly his then children? And therefore the holy Ghost of purpose changeth the phrase, All in his house, vers. 32. All his, vers. 33. Whereas if he had meant the same, he would have set down the same phrase, He and all that were in his house were baptized; but in stead of that, to shew a difference, he saith here, He and all his, See the like phrase in Rom. 8.9. 2 Tim. 2.19. to distinguish between the Apostles preaching and baptizing.
3. Nor the same with All his house, vers. 34. For though (I deny not but) the Jaylor believed in God according to vers. 31. yet the words might and are to be read thus; After he had believed God, he rejoyced all his house over, he daunced (as it were a Galliard, as the word signifies) and leaped for joy in every room of his house.
Mr. Haggar. I confesse my ignorance in the Greek Then Mr. Haggar is an hypocrite, for he professeth skill therein in one word. Foundat. p. 68. tongue: but so it hath been read and understood till of late time.
Mr. Browne. What is the word in the Originall?
Mr. Porter. [...] — it is an adverb, q. domesticatim, in every room of his house where he came.
Mr. Brown. But the word is elsewhere taken for the whole family or house, either in Scripture, or some Greek Authors and Lexicons.
Mr. Porter. On my credit the word is used no where else in the New Testament, but in this place.
2. Of all men you have least reason to flie to humane Authors from holy Scripture, since you have cryed so oft for Scripture, Scripture.
Mr. Browne. To the point, to the point: (thus when he was pincht he cryed oft)
Mr. Tallants. You have heard severall Examples of Infant-Baptism, and what replies have been made. The pertinency of those instances, and of the answers, is left to your judicious consideration. Go on I pray you (Mr. Porter) to another head.
3. Priviledges of Infants.
1. They are Church members. Whence I argue thus, Church-members may be baptized; Infants of believing Parents are Church-members; therefore such Infants may be baptized.
Mr. Browne. Where is it written that Infants are Church members? let us have Scripture first, what have we to do with Arguments?
Mr. Tallants. Have patience a while, and you shall have Scripture, Mr. Porter is coming to it.
Mr. Haggar. Infants are not Church members, because they cannot do the offices of Church-members, as to belief, pray, admonish, &c. Prove them to be visible Church-members.
Mr. Porter. This is all one, as if Mr. Haggar should deny Infants to have a rationall principle, because they cannot put forth all the rationall acts of a growne man.
2. They who are of the visible body of Christ, are visible Church-members (as an hand and foot are visible members, because they are of the visible body) But Infants of believing Parents are of the visible body of Christ; therefore—
Mr. Hrggar. Prove that Infants of believing Parents are of the visible body of Christ.
Mr. Porter. They who have Christ to be their Saviour, are of the visible body of Christ; but Infants of believing Parents have Christ to be their Saviour; Therefore— Foundat. p. 61. lin. 12. The Minor Mr. Haggar acknowledgeth in his book forecited, That some Infants are saved by him (i. e. Christ) all will grant. And a little after, They (i. e. Infants) dying in their Infancy are saved by vertue of Christs death — And if he should deny it (for he is off and on) Scripture saith expressely, Eph. 5. 23. That Christ is the Saviour of the body; and sure that is a visible body, where there is use of water and of the word, as v. 26. Now is Christ a Saviour of any, who is not of the visible body?
At this the people laughed Mr. Browne. The invisible Church is larger then the visible.
Mr. Porter. An absurd expression. It's well known and generally received, that the invisible Church contains only the good; but the visible both good and bad, Mat. 13.47, 48.
Mr. Tallant. Many be called (there is the visible Church) but few are chosen (there is the invisible) Mat. 20.16.
2. Priviledge. Mr. Porter. They belong to the Covenant of Grace, and the Covenant of Grace to them. Whence I argue thus, They who belong to the Covenant of Grace may be baptized (for they to whom the thing signified belongs, to them the initiall signe cannot be denied) but some Infants belong to the Covenant of Grace; therefore Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 15. which was a Covenant of grace: & 30.6. with Rom. 10.6, 7, 8, 9. some Infants may be baptized.
Mr. Haggar. I do not understand what is meant by the sign and thing signified.
Mr. Browne. We have nothing to do with Arguments, you are to bring Scripture.
Mr. Porter. I have affirmed nothing yet, but what I have confirmed by Scripture.
Mr. Haggar. Where was it to be read in Scripture, that Infants are to be baptized? Pure Socinianism. I deny any thing to be Scripture, but what is written in so many words and [Page 13]syllables in Scripture, because Scripture is that which is written, as the word signifies.
Mr. Porter. I have shewed you divers Scriptures, wherein (if you wipe your eyes) you may read that it is written, Some Infants are to be baptized.
2. Scripture is either explicite or implicite; that is, either expressed or implied as Jam. 4.5 Many things are said to be written and read in Scripture, which are but implyed; as Mat. 26.24. Mar. 9.12, 13. Luk. 24.46, 47. Do ye think that the Scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envie? The Apostle cals this Scripture, but where is this proposition in so many terms or syllables written in Scripture?
Mr. Haggar. It's written there in that Text.
Mr. Porter. This is just like your answer to Mr. Baxter, who alledgeth Christ proving the Resurrection of the dead by consequence, Luk. 20.35, 36, 37. You answer Foundat. p. 47, 48. That the dead are raised is written in Luke; a weak and shifting answer. Is the resurrection expressely written in Exod. 3.6. or implicitely only, and so by consequence? You your self cite Page. 20. some of our own Poets (in allusion to Act. 17.28.) For we are also his off-spring. These words are to us Scripture now, but were they Scripture when the Apostle spake those words, and you cited them out of Aratus? So Christ and James call that Scripture, which is there by evident consequence, and not in express words, as those in Aratus. But to reassume my argument. They to whom the Covenant of Grace belongs may be baptized; But to some Infants the Covenant of Grace doth belong, as may be proved, Act. 2. 38, 39. Be baptized, for the promise is to you and to your children —
Mr. Haggar. Here Mr. Haggar made a large Exposition to darken the counsell of God by words without knowledge. Job 38 2. The question was, Men and brethren what shall we do? vers. 37.
The Apostle answers,
- 1. Laying down the duty, vers. 38. Repent and be baptized.
- 2. The promise, And ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost.
This is the promise made to them, and only to so many of them as the Lord shall call. Now Infants cannot repent, nor believe, both which are required to Baptism.
Mr. Porter. The promise is the Covenant Act. 3.25., Gal. 3. often interchangeably are the one put for the other, because the Covenant runs upon promises.
2. Whatsoever is meant by the promise, surely the extraordinary gift of the holy Ghost cannot be meant (as you insinuate) because those gifts do not pertain to all whom the Lord shall call.
3. Peters Sermon was very officacious on the hearts of the Jews his hearers, vers. 37. So that it is true, they cryed out, What shall we do? Upon which Peter directs them to leave their Judaism, and to imbrace Christian Religion, and to be baptized. To incourage them thereunto, he tels them, the promise is to, them and their children — So that that exposition which crosseth Peters intention, is not to be admitted; But Mr. Haggars exposition crosseth Peters intention — Because it is a discouragement from, and not an incouragement to, what Peter did exhort them unto. For they might say, we shall be losers by the exchange, for as we are Jewer, we and our children are circumcised (the Covenant and initiall signe thereof belong to us and ours) but if we turne Christians, we indeed shall be baptized (as a signe of our being in Covenant) but not our children, what shall become of our poor little ones? The Apostle answers, The promise is to you and your children — The Covenant else is contracted by Christs coming, contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture.
Rom. 15. Mr. Haggar. Sir, If the Apostle had written all this you have said, it were true, but the Apostle saith, The promise is to them, and to as many of their children as God should call.
Mr. Porter. The promise is tendered just in the same tenour, as to Abraham, Gen. 17.7. I am thy God, and the God of thy seed. These words, whom the Lord our God shall call, [Page 15]properly belong to the Gentiles, when the Gospell is first preached to them. For these Jews were for the present under the Call, so were not the Gentiles at that time. Therefore the first part of vers. 39. is set down in the present tense, The promise I S; and the latter part in the future tense, Whom the Lord our God SHALL call. Now if this clause were to be referred to the first part, would it not have been a grand discouragement to the Jewes? for they might well say, we indeed are under the Call of God, but who knows whether ever our children shall be called?
Mr. Haggar. Children are not capable of being called, because they cannot hear, nor understand, nor can they believe. Yet those words, Mark. 16.16. He that believeth not shall be damned; are not to be understood of children: 2 Thess. 3.10. No more then those words, He that worketh not, shall not eat.
Mr. Porter. Children are capable of an internall call by the Spirit (how else are they saved dying in infancy?) though not of an externall call.
2. What though they cannot hear? the children of the Gentiles called, are no more to be excluded from Baptism, then the children of the Jews from circumcision, who yet could not hear, understand or performe that condition, Gen. 17.1. — Walke before me.
3. Your illustration of Childrens not working— added to Mark. 16.16. doth cut the throat Mr. Higgar starred at this word, saying, What a word is that? M. Porter said, the meaning is, it did take away the life and strength of his Argument. of your answer. For if faith and repentance be not required to Salvation, then not to Baptism, a signe of Salvation. Besides it is all one, as if you should say, (as you have said) Infants are not Church-members, because they do not all the acts of Church-members.
3. Priviledge. Mr. Porter. They are Saints holy by Covenant. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else are your children unclean, but now are they holy. Whence I argue thus: Saints may be baptized; some Infants are Saints; Therefore some Infants may be baptized.
Mr. Haggar. They are not visible Saints, not Saints by calling.
Mr. Porter. I have proved they are capable of an internall call, and that they are visible Church-members; Therefore they are Saints by calling, and visible Saints. But Sir, Those whom Paul cals and judges to be holy are visible Saints; but he here cals and judges Infants to be holy; Therefore—
Mr. Haggar. By this text you may as well prove unbelievers to be holy; for he that is sanctified is a Saint or holy, but the unbeliever is said here to be sanctified — Therefore legitimation is only here meant.
Mr. Porter. To be santified here, and to be holy, are two distinct phrases. When the Apostle saith, The unbeliever is sanctified, he addes, by the wife, by the busband. But when he saith, Children are holy, that is laid down simply, without any such addition. There is an inherent holynesse, of which certainly some Infants are partakers; and a relative or federall holinesse, of which all children of believing Parents are without doubt partakers. Now it's apparent, that legitimation is not meant. That holynesse is here meant, which is the proper and immediate result of faith in one of the Parents; but legitimation is not the proper and immediate result of faith; Therefore legitimation is not here meant.
Mr. Haggar. Prove that legitimation is not the result of faith. I say it is.
Mr. Porter. That which is common to believers and unbelievers is not the result of faith; but legitimation is common to believers and unbelievers— For there is a true and lawfull mariage among the Hethens, and [Page 17]their children born in Wedlock were not bastards but legitimate, yet are no where, nor in any propriety of speech can be, called holy. Besides, the word here is opposed to unclean Isa. 52.1. Hag. 2.13. The constant meaning of holy in Scripture, is 600 times taken for being separated to an holy use. If I call Mr. Haggars children holy, would any man imagine that I called them legitimate not bastards? i.e. such who are unfit for Gospell ordinances.
Mr. Browne. This holinesse is the result of an unbeliever.
Mr. Porter. You contradict the Apostle quite and clean, especially in his scope; for when the Gospell was first Preached among the Heathens, sometimes the wife and not the hustand did embrace the Gospell; and so contrarily, the husband and not the wife. In processe of time, the converted Corinthians sent a case of conscience to be resolved (not whether their children were bastards, they could resolve that themselves at home, but) whether they might conscientiously cohabit with their unconverted yoke-fellows. The Apostle resolves the case plainly, they might cohabit, vers. 12, 13. And gives this reason, vers. 14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by (in or to) the wife) by the believing wife (as Beza reads it, and finds it so in some copies) &c. which is more then lawfull 1 Tim. 4.5. A wicked man hath a lawfull use of the creature, but not an holy use.; which he confirmes by this, Else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. Is it not as clear as the sun, that holynesse here is the result of faith of one Parent? (For what is an unbeliever, but one that doth not embrace or professe the Gospell? and then what is a believer but the contrary?) The infidelity of one unbelieving Parent rent cannot devest his children of Covenant holinesse, if the other parent be believing. Only to reassume my argument, I pray you (good people) take notice, that it is granted by Mr. Haggar, Here they were nonplust again. that Saints may be baptized, and it's proved by Scripture that Infants are Saints, and yet Mr. Haggar will not assent to the Conclusion here, as he denyed it elsewhere.
Mr. Tallant. The people have indured the heat of the day, and have stood long in the crowd, I am afraid [Page 18]we shall be too injurious to them, therefore go on (if you think fit) to another Priviledge.
4. Priviledge. Mr. Porter. It's written, Act. 10.47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the holy Ghost, as well as we? Whence I argue thus: They who receive the spirit of Christ may be baptized; but some Infants receive the Spirit of Christ: Therefore some Infants may be baptized.
Mr. Haggar. You must put in, As well as we.
Mr. Browne. What did Infants receive the Spirit of Christ as well as the Apostles?
Mr. Porter. What if I did say so? it would not help you, nor hurt me. You have acknowledged your ignorance in the Originall, it's therefore to no purpose to tell you, [...] s [...]cut & nos. Beza. that the words may be read, even as we, and so the phrase is rendred, Act. 15.8. (Even as he did to us.) And it cannot be denyed that some Infants receive the Spirit aeque, though not aequaliter; as well, though not so much: water in a spoon is water, as well as that in a barrell. Infants then may receive the Spirit as well for quality, though not for quantity, as the Apostles did. And so the Apostle himselfe expounds it, Chap. 11.17. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did to us — Marke, 1. Pet. 1.1. Like pretious faith with us. the like gift. Else if you will needs understand it of the measure, you will contradict your own practise for time past, and overthrow it for time to come. For you must never baptize any, unlesse you are sure they have the same measure of the Spirit. I shall therefore reassume my argument with that addition. They who receive the Spirit of Christ, as well as the Apostles, may be baptized; but some Infants receive the Spirit of Christ as well as the Apostles; Therefore some Infants may be baptized.
Mr. Haggar. Who are here to be baptized? vers. 46. These who spake with tongues, these who magnified God, these who heard the word, vers. 44. Can any man hinder that these should be baptized?
Mr. Porter. Doe you baptize none but such as these? The emphasis lies on these words, Which have received the holy Ghost.
Mr. Haggar. I deny that Infants receive the Spirit of Christ as well as the Apostles.
Mr. Porter. They who receive the spirit of Regeneration, receive the Spirit of Christ as well as the Apostles; but some Infants receive the spirit of Regeneration; Therefore some Infants receive the Spirit of Christ as well as the Apostles.
Mr. Haggar. By the Spirit is meant the gift of tongues, as appears vers. 46. And children are not capable of Regeneration, because they are not capable of hearing the word, by which the children of God are begotten: Jam. 1.18. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth.
Mr. Porter. Admit miraculous gifts were meant, the Argument is not weakned but strengthned; for if the gift of tongues entitle to Baptism, much more the gift of Regeneration. Besides, those miraculous gifts are common to Hypocrites and others, but Regeneration is proper to Gods elect.
2. As for that in James, you may as well exclude children from eating, because they cannot work, as children from Regeneration, because they cannot hear the word, the usuall instrument of Regeneration 1 Pet. 1.23.. The Spirit of Christ doth that in Infants (saved) without the word, which he doth not usually in adult, but by the word.
3. It's a Paradoxe that Infants are not capable of the Spirit of Regeneration; for Rom. 8.9. If [Page 20]any man have not the Spirit of Christ, hee is none of his.
Mr. Haggar. Yea a Man, not a Childe.
Mr. Porter. The word [...] Aliquis. signifies any one, Man, Woman, or Childe, as Joh. 3.3. Except a man (the same word) be born again, he cannot see the Kingdome of God. And vers. 5. Except a man (the same word) be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Mr. Browne. Those in Rom. 8.9. doe not reach Infants, for the Apostle did not write his Epistle to Infants.
Mr. Porter. A weak reason. Though the Apostle did not write to Infants, Rom. 9.8., 11, 27. yet he did write of Infants.
Mr. Haggar. A weak reason Sir? you your self have bewrayed your weaknesse in proving nothing. Good people, Mr. Porter hath proved nothing — only he hath used Tropes and Figures.
Mr. Porter. You Mr. Haggar are a party, and therefore not fit to be judge. If you had not a brow of brasse, you durst not say, I have proved nothing. Whether I have proved something or nothing, I leave it to the judicious hearers, before whose tribunall I am content to stand or fall.
Mr. Browne. You have used but Sophistry.
Mr. Porter. I leave that to your self, who are most verst in it. Mr. Browne was here mute. I pray you shew me the Sophistry I have used in any Argument or Scripture, and convince me before this great Congregation.
Mr. Tallants. Shew it, shew it, if you can, where doth the Sophistry lie Sir? You have heard what Mr. Porter hath brought for the proose of InfantBaptisme. If you can prove that Infants ought not to be baptized, produce your Scriptures, and you shall be heard.
Mr. Haggar. It's hard to prove Negatives, we came not to prove a Negative.
Mr. Tallants. I think it fit therefore to break off this dispute, and to conclude with Prayer Which Mr. Tallant did, but it was observed that though Mr. Haggar kept off his hat, yet Mr. Brown put on his, and kept it on his head all the while Mr. Tallants prayed. especially considering that the Congregation or most in the Congregation have stood in the croud for the space of five hours.
[...].