who saith p) Exod. 20.7 He will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain whereof you are in an high degree guilty who to vent your own rage and malice blindly and boldly misapply the Scripture to others and neglect to examine your self by it though not a little concerned therein I cannot but think that word sounds in your ears Is thine eye evil because I am good Here is your envie mentioned by the Apostle 4. For charging Mr. Cook with perverse Disputing c. Do you think that your railing mentioned also by the Apostle will prevail when your reasoning fails I beseech you not complementally but cordially in the fear of God confider it I did not think nor dream that I should have found Mr. Haggar in the Quakers Camp whither many of his Church are gone in Staffordshire SECT 7. H. H. Though we have affirmed a Negative yet you cannot justly apply to us that Scripture 1 Tim. 1.5 6 7. For we desire not to be teachers of the Law therefore Mr. Baxter saith We are Antinomians and deny the Law But I answer both you and he desires â—o be teachers of the Law Witness your running to Moses to prove Infant-baptism and Church-membership from Circumcision and the old Covenant c. Reply 1. It 's plain that the Law in the place mentioned is taken for the Moral Law Now I know no reason why any should be ashamed of being teachers of that Law or of being desirous to be such if their ends in desiring be sincere their call be regular and their gifts for that work be suitable q) 1 Tim. 1.3 The Apostle doth not blame any absolutely for teaching the Law for he saith We know the Law is good if a man use it lawfully but for undertaking a work beyond your call and abilities as those vain janglers did v. 5 6 7. Otherwise this desire is condemnable as 1 Tim. 3 1. A worthy work and the more desirous of and industrious in this work the more they are approved of God and good men And I pray you remember our Lord Jesus Christ r) Mat 15.17 to the end with c 7 12. was a diligent teacher of this Law So was Paul Å¿) Rom. 3.31 13.8 9 10. 1 Cor. 9.8 Eph. 6.2 c. so was James t) Jam. 2.8 9 10 11.14 Now you cannot vilifie us for teaching the Law absolutely but you must vilifie these and if we be desirous to be teachers of the Law we have a good copie to write after good examples to follow 2. If your words bear any common sense you plainly disclaim teaching the Law and assent to Mr. Baxters charge calling you Antinomians I accept of your acknowledgment Let that brand stick on you wipe it off if you can For Mr. Cook saith modestly that you who would be counted great Disputers and discussers of the Truth in so saying give just cause to judge that you are such men who are there described in Timothy and you here speak plainly that you desire not to be teachers of the Law 3. Here therefore was sufficient reason to apply that Scripture to you not onely in regard of your not understanding what you say and whereof you affirm which was the principal thing intended but also in regard of your professed desire to be a teacher of the Law though here you disclaim it Did you never teach against Drunkenness Whoredom Idolatrie Covetousness Profaneness c. and are not these things forbidden and condemned in the Law Did you not do you not teach the people that they must love God and their Neighbor worship God rightly sanctifie his Sabbath c. And are not these things commended and commanded in the Law 4. Though you say you desire not to teach the Law do you not urge the Law when you think it may serve your turn E. g. p. 13. you prove from Exod. 20.19 the seventh day was the Sabbath of the Lord. Without doubt the fourth Commandement is part of the Moral Law And pag. 52. you urge the fear of God and the keeping his Commandements u) Eccl. 12.13 which is the doctrine of the Law Now these and the like things you teach either with your will or not If not who forceth you to teach against your will If with your will how can you truly say you desire not to be teachers of the Law 5. Though you desire not to be teachers of the Law yet you desire to be Teachers for you take upon you to be Teachers witnesse your vocal and printed doctrine it must needs follow that you desire and practise the teaching of that which is against or besides the Law I mean God's Law for of that the Apostle speaks and consequently against or besides the Gospel For though the Law as it was mis-understood and misapplied by the blind and unbelieving Jews was contrary to the doctrine of the Gospel and Law too yet the true doctrine of the Law is agâ—â—eable to the doctrine of the Gospel as appears clearly by many Scriptures v) Matis 17 18 19 20 c. Luk 14.44 From 3.31 10.4 specially by the words of the Apostle immediately following that Scripture * 1 Tim. E. ver 7.8 9 10 11. which hath occasioned this discussion Whence observe 1. All these with the like sins and sinners are contrary to sound Doctrine 2. This sound Doctrine is the doctrine of the Law for it's-said ver 9. The Law is made or rather lies x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heavily with its curses 3. This sound Doctrine of the Law is according to the Gospel Now seeing you will be a Teacher and yet disclaim teaching God's Law which so harmoniously agrees with the Gospel that whosoever teacheth the one rightly must teach the other also and whosoever rejecteth the one must reject the other I appeal to your consciences if not seared whether your Doctrine be nâ—t unsound illegal un-evangelical Doctrine And seeing the Law is just holy good spiritual whether your Doctrine be not unholy unjust evil and carnal And if Christ tell us y) Mat. 5.19 That whosoever breaketh one of these least Commandements and shall teach men so shall be least in the kingdom of heaven what think you will become of those who teach men to reject all the Commandements and wole Law and would be accounted Teachers but desire not to be Teachers of the Law 6. For your crimination of running to Moses we do as Christ z) Mark 12.26 with Luk. 10. ver 37. did who did run to Moses to prove the Resurrection against the Sadduces and * 1 Cor. 9.9 with 1 Tim. 5. ver 18. as Paul did to prove the main enâ—nce for Gospel-Ministers and as your self doth who run to Moses to prove a Sabbath pag. 13. fore-named SECT 8. H. H. pag. 31. And thus Mr. Cook I shall at present take leave of you c. Reply Indeed you do for the present take leave of Mr. Cook
they have it But I pray try us with some first and see I confess we cannot understand this Book of yours to be plain Scripture proof for c. because you have packt it so full of such Whimsies as these Geometry Arithmetick Grammar c. But Sir God's Word is of another nature Psal 19.7.8 119.98 99 100. all which I believe you will find to be true before we have done Reply 1. It 's possible that some men cannot understand plain Scripture if they hear it and Mr. Baxter in this 3d Position gives a reason of it Otherwise one man should know as much as another and all as much as their Teachers seeing they all read and hear the same Word If you will not believe Mr. Baxter nor Scripture nor experience will you believe your own words for a little after the beginning of this pag. 34. you say The Apostles preacht very plainly and yet there were Many hearers which rejected their words though very plain It 's possible and plain that you can quickly contradict and confound your self and yet perhaps it 's not possible that you will believe it 2. You have been tried sufficiently with plain Scripture and we see you will not believe it nor understand it Like those who are complained on a) Isa 28.9 Whom shall he teach knowledg and make to understand doctrine Them that are weaned from the milk and drawn from the breasts c. 3. It 's very strange to say as you do often that in Mr. Baxters book there is no plain Scripture proof for Infant-Church-membership and Baptism and yet you have plain b) See the Title of the Foundation of the Font discovered Scripture-proof for the baptizing of men and women they believ as a standing Ordinance of Jesus Christ I pray you where are those words A Standing Ordinance of Jesus Christ written in the Scripture 4. Yea it 's stranger to say Mr. Baxters Book is packt so full of such Whimsies as these Geometrie Arithmetick Grammar c. 1. I am mistaken if Mr. B. mentioneth these but onely in this third Position 2. You that profess your self to be a Teacher how can you understand many places of Scripture or make the people to understand them if they come to you for resolution without some skill in these things which you call Whimsies E. g. Without c) Maltae sunt in Bibliâ—s quae numerandi scientian quam dicimus Arithmeticam deposcunt multae quae sine Geometria intelligi non possunt Alst Plaecâ—g l. 2. p. 76 skill in Geometrie how can you understand the Cubits of the length and breadth and height of Noah's Ark made by God's own direction And without Arithmetick d) Dan. 9.25 26. Daniel's seven weeks and sixty two weeks And without Grammar whether the Relative e) Gen. 6.14 15. THIS is to be referred in the end of the 20 ver of the 5. chap. of the of John This is the true God Whether to the Father as the Arrians and Socinians say or to the Son Jesus Christ as the Orthodox most truly say Or without Astronomy how can you understand that Text which maketh Arcturus Orion and Pleiades and the chambers of the South Unlesse you look with other mens eies and take things upon meet trust 3. Now let the Godly judge whether it be not a kind of blasphemy wickedly to term these he like Arts by the name of WHIMSIES f) Joh â— 8 But Learning against which you do so often inveigh hath no enemie but him that is ignorant and unlearned 5. We honor the Word of God as much as you and through grace in some measure know by experience the nature and effects of it and I believ we shall discover that light which is in you to be darkness before we have done SECT 12. H. H. p. 35. You sâ—â— Poâ—â—â— 4. When the cause is so dâ—fficult we must follow the most probâ—ble â—aâ—â— Answ â—hen iâ— seems it 's very difficult for you to prove that Infants ought to be baptized by your own confession and indeed so I believ for that must needâ— be difficult to prove that there is not one word of God in all the Bible for I cannot blame you to say That it 's difficult to prove Reply 1. That it 's difficult to prove Infant-baptism is not Mr. Baxter's confâ—ssion but your own collection yet you would make your Proselytes believ who are very credulouâ— taking all for Gospel that you say that it is Mr. Baxters own confession 2. Admit this Confession it makes nothing for you noâ— against us but rather for uâ— if that saying be tâ—uâ— g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Difficâ—â—â— quae puâ—câ—â—a The more difficult the more excellent It 's â—ard to prove by express Scripture the Christian weekly Sabâ—ath Family-praier twice a day Womens receiving the Lord's Supper and the reâ—t mentioned before h) Chap 5. sect 1. c. with many more yet it hurts not us who conscienciously observ the same noâ— help such who are enemies to them and us Such is the case of Infant-baptism 3. It 's but a vain Repetition of 〈◊〉 loud and lewd calumny that there is not one word of God in all the Bible for Infant-baptism To what end have you sweat so much in answering some of those Scriptures which are usually and rightly brought for Infant-Baptism Sure the Scriptures are the Word of God contained in the Bible SECT 13. H. H. But you say we must follow the most probable way Come on then that we will Now whether it is most probable â—hâ—â— that practice which is no where commanded nor written in Scripture should be of God or of Satan Judge yee Now that Infant-baptism is such a practice as is not written in Scripture both M. Hag. and your self confess Therefore it 's not of God but of Satan Reply 1. Your Argument consists of pure Negatives i) Altera saltem praeâ—issâ—rum sit affiâ—mans â—anex duabus praemissis negaÌ„tibus nil pâ—â—est legitiâ—â—e concluâ—i Eu stach de Syllo p 132. and so concludes nothing For this is the sum and substance of it That which is not written in the Word of God is not of God but of Satan But Infant-baptism is not written in the Word of God Therefore it 's not of God but of Satan 2. You father another untruth on M. H. and M. B. They no where confess that Infant-baptism is not written in Scripture for how many Scriptures do they bring to prove the practise of Infant-baptism 3. You do but eqâ—ivocate in the word WRITTEN for if you mean expresly in so many words and syllablâ—s then your Major is falâ—e and rests on you to be proved In the mean time the falshood may be thus discovered to any Reader from your own principle That which is not wâ—itten expresly in the Word of God is not of God but oâ— Satan but womens receiving the Lords Supper Family prayer morning and evening c. are not
as you use c. Nay 3ly you are hereby challenged to prove even by good consequence from Scripture that you have a regular call to preach and baptize I have not heard of any neither do I know that you ever undertook to clear it If your Call be extraordinary as Apostles Prophets Evangelists a proof from Scripture grounds is required of you and we shall own you for such If Ordinary as Pastors Teachers make it to appear according to Scripture-rule c) Acts 14.23 1 Tim. 3 to 8. Tit. 1.5 6 7 8 9. 1 Tim. 4.11 12 13 14 15 16. 1 Pet 5.1 2. and we shall rejoice therein If you cannot prove such a Call What boldness is it in you to cry down our Ministrie c. But they who will bring in a false Ministrie c. have held it their policie to crie out against the true SECT 2. H. H. p. 51. Mr. Hall saith p. 91. That the Scriptures are the chiefest strong holds of the Anabaptists and being pursued hither we run for refuge c. Answ It 's well they do so they are then sure and safe For Psal 119.89 Joh. 8.31 c. Reply 1. Let the Reader take notice that those Scriptures alleged by Mr. Hag. in the middle of this p. have been answered already I forbear therefore the transcribing and answering them least I be guilty of his usual crime Tautologie 2. It makes for the dignity and authority of the Scriptures that men of all perswasions who have owned the Scriptures for a rule have fled to them for shelter yet Hereticks and Schismaticks who have done so were neither sure nor safe but were found faulty even at the horns of the Altar as Joab was 1 King 2.28 3. Mr. Hall doth not blame you simply for running to the Scriptures for refuge d) See Mr. Hall's Font Guarded p. 91 92. but for mis-understanding and mis-applying them and so your running to them is in vain not onely as he saith but sheweth also by six Reasons which you take no notice of and the reason is because you could not frame a reasonable answer to them SECT 3. H. H. p. 52. Mr. Hall hath never a word to run to for Infant-baptism as he himself confesseth p. 30. in his fifth Argument in express terms Infant-baptism is not commanded c. Reply 1. Heaven and earth may be astonished at your impudent charge viz. Mr. Hall confesseth he hath never a word to run to for Infant-baptism 2. Lay your Argument right and it 's your absurd conclusion from his candid confession Thus He that confesseth Infant-baptism is not commanded expresly in Scripture hath never a word to run to for Infant-baptism But Mr. Hall confesseth so Therefore Sir your Major is false which may appear thus to the meanest capacity out of your own mouth The Christian Sabbath and Family-praier twice a day c. are not expresly commanded in the Scripture If I therefore should conclude Mr. Haggar hath never a word to run to for the Sabbath and such praier c. he would crie out that I wrong him For as Mr. Haggar brings Scriptures in his p. 12 13 14. to prove the same by Consequence so doth Mr. Hall prove Infant-baptism SECT 4. H. H. I shall now conclude with shewing ten undeniable Reasons why the Word of God must be understood and obeied as it is written without adding to or taking from I. Because God never without words made known his mind to men Heb. 1. ver 12. Reply 1. Your Reasons may be called undeniable as the Spanish Armado in 88. was called Invincible 2. If all these Reasons were granted yet none of them prove what you undertake viz. The Word of God must be understood and obeied as it is written 3. They conclude as strongly against you as against us who prove many points of Religion by Consequence from Scripture as well as we 4. They are impertinent to the main business and therefore not meet to be replied to but least you should crow I will give you a taste how easily they may be answered To your first If you mean of words written or else you say nothing it's false though it should be Heb. 1. ver 1 2. For God made known his mind to the Patriarchs long before his will was committed to writing e) Gen. 37 41. E. gr To Joseph read the Catechism with the Exposition you mention pag. 96. and you will find God made known his mind diverse waies without words To the third Were not those Scriptures the five Books of Moses wherein the doctrine of the Resurrection was written and might have been read by the Sadduces To the 9th it should be 2 Tim. 4.1.2 compare this with the beginning of your answer pag. 49. and here is another contradiction of yours To the tenth Shall the Heathen be judged by those words they never heard nor read I trow not Rom. 2.12 yet you say Christ will judg All Men by his words which terms All Men are not in Joh. 12.48 Do not you therefore passe that dreadful doom f) Rev. 22.18 19. on your self for adding to the Word SECT 5. H. H. p. 53. Lastly I shall propound these ten following Queries with a desire to have them answered by any who will or can Reply 1. You said pag. 52. I shall now conclude and here you come with your Lastly 2. These Ten following Queries are as impertinent as your ten precedent Reasons though according to the proverb a fool may ask more questions then a wise-man can answer yet I may warrantably g) Prov. 26.5 answer a fool according â—o his folly least he be wise in his own conceit and by the assistance of the Lord I shall answer briefly upon the former account Querie 1. Whether God doth require the sons of men to believe any thing in point of Justification that is not recorded in the holy Scriptures of truth Answ If by the sons of men you understand Infants you answer your self pag. 25. Christ hath no where required them to obey any command before they can understand c. Therefore not to believe But if you mean grown persons I answer If by recorded which yet is no Scripture word you mean contained in the Scripture as in your second and fourth Querie I say No. For the Scripture is the full adequate object oâ— Faith Therefore could the h) Rom. 10.9 word of Faith if you mean expresly written as in the eighth Querie I say Yes And I think you dare not deny that God requires of us to trust in the merits and satisfaction of Christ alone for Justification which is not expresly written in Scripture This instance may suffice among many Qu. 2. Whether God doth require or command us to obey any thing after believing which is not contain'd in the Word of truth Answ 1. If by contained you mean as in the seventh Querie in express terms you answer your self God doth command us after believing to give
thanks at Meals to pray in Families c. I hope you will not eat your own words i) P. 12 13 14. And I say such a trust forementioned is our duty contained in the Word though not expressed as 1 Pet. 2.6 with Isa 28.16 where the Apostle saith It is contained in the Scripture c. and yet those words elect and not confounded are not expressed in Isa 28.16 Querie 3. Whether the Saints have any ground to believe the Resurrection from the Dead and eternal life in glory but as it is recorded in Scripture Answ The Sadduces had ground to believe the Resurrection as it is recorded i. e. contained in Exod. 3.6 and the Saints too as it is expresly written in Scripture elswhere Qu. 4. Whether if a man believe and obey all the known precepts and promises contained in the Word of God as much as in him lieth will God condemn and punish him at that great day because he hath believed and done no more Answ A captious Interrogatory looking towards Quakerism that new-refined Papism about absolute perfection or freedome from sin in this life or toward Arminianism about the salvation of the moral Heathens yet I say God may condemn a man for the least sin of ignorance without Christ k) Levit. 4 2 3 13 22 37. with Luk. 12.48 and for the least defect in duty Nehem. 14.22 with Rom. 6.23 Qu. 5. If the Scriptures ought to be believed and obeied as they are written then how dare some deny faith in and obedience to some part of them and impose things not written in the Scriptures to be obeied in stead of the Ordinances of Christ Answ That phrase as they are written is ambiguous Were your meaning clear answer should be returned however I know none that deny such faith and obedience much less who impose things not written i. e. not contained in the Scriptures as Qu. 2. to be obeied in stead of Christ's Ordinances your Qu. implies a malitious calumniation and so let it pass Querie 7. If the Scriptures be not a perfect rule of faith and obedience without the help of any man's inventions what is Or who may we trust or at whose mouth must we seek wisdom Answ The Scripture is a rule Eccl. 12.10 with Gal. 6. ver 16. and a perfect rule Psal 19.7 and that of faith and manners as Austin doth phrase it God we may and must trust 2 Chron. 20.20 with Isa 7.9 at God's mouth must we seek wisdom Isa 8. ver 20. with Acts 17. ver 11. Qu. 7. Whether there be any sin or corruption incident to man that the Scriptures doth not reprove or make manifest in express terms Answ l) Indeed you answer your self p. 69. Yes 1. Original fin Gen. 5.3 Job 14.4 and 15.14 Psal 51.5 Eph. 2.3 Rom. 5.12 2ly Some actual sins as Incest Buggery Sodomie Polygamie of which last you have cause to examine yourself and many more 3ly There are many Errors and Heresies which in the general are called works of the flesh Gal. 5. ver 19 20. Egr. Euty chianism Ernomianism Nestorianism Arrianism Arminianism Papism with others more without number which surely are corruptions incident to man to use your own phrase and yet which the Scriptures doth not reprove and make manifest in express terms Qu. 8. Whether there be any virtue or praise in any thing that the best of men ever did but what is expresly commanded or commended in the Scripture of truth Answ Yes there was some virtue or praise in the Disciples eating some ears of Corn on the Sabbath-day yet not expresly commanded or commended in 1 Sam. 21.6 To which our Saviour doth refer the Pharisees to whom he said Have you not read what David did c. Mat. 12.3 4. yea you your self imagine at least there is virtue and praise in Dipping in a Meer or Marle-pit or Horse-pool c. and yet no where expresly commanded or commended in Scripture Querie 9. I appeal to every man's conscience in the sight of God whether their consciences do not condemn them when they walk contrary to what is written in Scripture Answ If by what is written you mean as in your seventh and tenth Querie I say yes unlesse the conscience be blind seared or asleep as I fear yours is for your frequent if not constant railing and reviling to name no more is contrary to what is written expresly in Scripture Qu. 10. Whether every man's conscience doth not justifie him when he walks according to what is contained in the Word Answ The answer immediately foregoing will serve here also without more ado SECT 6. H. H. p. 54. If all these Queries be granted as they are stated to be true then those that teach and perswade men to do any thing in matter of justification or salvation more or lesse then is plainly written and expressed in the Word of God are such as add to and take from the Word of God and are guilty of those plagues Rev. 22.18 19. But Infant-baptism is no where written nor expressed in all the Scriptures as Mr. Hall Mr. B. Mr. C. confess Therefore Reply 1. Some of your Queries are stated sillily e. g. 1 3 4 5 6. as is obvious to any 2. How can you suppose all to be granted when some are granted some denied and some in several respects being doubtfully propounded may be granted or denied 3. What a wide door do you open again here to Popery against justification by Faith onely For you say to do A N Y thing in matter of justification more then is expressed in the Word is an adding to the Word this is one of your dictates we must take your bare word without any offer of proof for it but if you make this out both you and I must fling up a great part of our Religion 4. As you pass again that dreadful doom on your self as well as on us so you be-lie in plain English those three Worthies who no where confess in their books that I can find that Infant-baptism is No where written in Scripture though they say It is no where expressed in Scripture which you miserably confound for want of wit or grace to distinguish SECT 7. H. H. Thus I have answered to Mr. Baxters Ten Positions which saith he p. 3. must be necessarily understood before we can understand the point in hand So that if these Positions are not true then the rest of his book cannot be true by his own confession Now if I have fully answered the one I need say but little to the other c. Reply 1. How this comes in by head and shoulders I know not Thus after a long digression he closeth The Reader must not blame me in following the Wild-goose-chase I must follow my leader except into an hors-pool 2. Whereas you say if you have sully answered these Positions you need say but little to the rest of Mr. Baxter's Book I assume But you have not fully answered these
Reply If your Argument run thus They that cannot speak c. are no Church-members But Infants cannot Therefore It consists all of Negatives and it is an undeniable Maxime in Logick From pure Negatives nothing is concluded Or if thus All Church-members can speak c. But Infants cannot c. Your Major Proposition is manifestly false Or thus when improved to the best The Saints at Corinth were such as prayed spake could say every one of them I am of Paul c. Infants cannot do any of these Therefore To this I say 1. It is not said that ALL which were Saints in Corinth did call on Christ's name but thus ver 2. Vnto the Church of God which is at Corinth to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus called to be saints with all that in every place call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ c where the latter is distinguished from the former Neither must those words Every one be taken largely of all the members of that Church as if every one of the Corinthians should say I am of Paul and every one say I am of Apollo c. much less that all of them were schismatical as appears by the Apostle's thankfulness ver 4 5 6 7. and narrative ver 11. Some therefore did complain of those divisions and sought a redresse of them and so were not guilty of them The guilty therefore are exhorted to speak one thing what is this to Infants 2. These Saints when fast asleep cannot put forth any of those acts do they therefore cease to be Church-members Or it a Palfie or Lethargie that takes away the use of speech or understanding when not asleep had seized on any of them were they therefore no Church-members And why not children also who are called holy or saints 1 Cor. 7.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same word used who in time may be instructed in this and other Scriptures to take heed of Schism as 2 Tim. 3.15 Surely Christian parents are bound to instruct their children in the doctrine of the Scriptures no less then the Jewish were Ephes 6.4 Deut. 6 ver 7. 3. To shew to the meanest the palpable weakness of your Argument Every one that doth righteousness is born of God 1 Joh. 2.29 No Infant doth so Therefore no Infant is born of God SECT 5. H. H. p. 65. Fourth Argument from 1 Cor. 6.4 5. Infants cannot judg c. in such cases Therefore none such members in the Church at Corinth Reply 1. This Argument is false both for matter and form as before the meanest may see by this He that loveth not Christ is accursed 1 Cor. 16.22 But no Infant can love Christ Therefore accursed It 's a poor evasion to say the Apostle speaks of a man not an infant when the particle k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any one c. is indefinite and the Scripture calls Cain an infant a man as hath been shewed Gen. 4 1. 2. The word rendered least esteemed is but one word l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which might be translated contemptible as 2 Cor. 10.10 or despised as Luk. 18.9 or set at naught Rom. 14.10 Now you your self in your cold blood may be judge whether the Corinthians Infants were contemptible despised or set at naught But if the word least were in the original as certainly it is not it cannot be understood of littleness in regard of stature but of state as ellwhere often Mat. 11.11 25.40 Luk. 9.48 1 Cor. 15 9. Ephes 3.8 c. 3. It 's plain that the Apostle speaks of such who are able to judge doth it therefore follow that Infants are no Church-members at all I trow not Suppose a man being confident of his cause opposed should say he would be judged by the meanest persons in the Town or Country are therefore Infants no persons in the Town or Country 4. Since the Apostle would have such differences composed by them that are least esteemed in the Church rather then judged by Infidel-magistâ—ates therefore I humbly conceive that by the Church is to be understood the ruling Church or Church-guides for such doubâ—less they had 1 Cor. 12.28 the title of the whole being given to the part and the word Church or Congregation is in the Old and New Testament taken for the Officers of the Congregation Exod. 12.3 21. Numb 35.12 Psal 82.1 Mat. 18.17 18 19. Acts 8.1 1 Cor. 5.4 SECT 6. H. H. Fifth Argument from 1 Cor. 10.16.17 with 11. ver 28 29. Reply If I understand your meaning for yet you have no Syllogistical form your Argument is this All Church-members did partake of the Lord's Supper But Infants did not Therefore 1. See the weakness of it as in this very glass e. gr 1 King 8.63 All Israel feasted with Solomon But the Jewish Infants did not Therefore they were none of Israel If this be sophistical or childish yours is no better 2. The Apostle doth not in this or any other place say that all Church-members did partake of the Lord's Supper or of Bread and Wine but speaking of himself and grown professors of Christianity he â—â—sswades Them who had been partakers of that one bread c. and so professedly incorporated into that mystical body of Christ the Church not to partake with Idolaters in Idol-Temples for that were to incorporate themselvs into the body of Idolaters So then when he saith we are all partakers of that one Bread he neither comprehends Infants in the word all nor excludes them from the number of Church-members SECT 7. H. H. p. 66. But if they be Church-members they are to partake of the Bread and Wine Either then they are no members or else they eat and drink damnation to themselvs not discerning the Lord's body Which absurdity let any man avoid it if they can Reply 1. To pass by your calumny concerning our discovery of abundance of ignorance and your misapplication of holy Scripture 1 Tim 1.7 which hath been sufficiently spoken to in your p. 30. you seem to go beyond the Erastians and Prelatical persons who would have no Church-member of age secluded from the Lord's Supper unless juridically excommunicated but you would have Infants also if Church-members admitted thereto 2. Your reasons do not prove it not the first for one and the same body is not to be understood in verses 16 17 as you your self if a man can make sense of your confused expression p. 65. intimate Nor the second for onely those did partake to whom the Apostle did speak as to wise â—â—en and to whom he appeals for judgment ver 15. They that did bless the Cup and break the Bread ver 16. Now you tell us that Infants cannot speak judge c. So our Infants eat not their own damnation because they partake not And they partake not not because they are not Church-members but because they cannot examine themselvs 1 Cor. 11.28 Thus the supposed absurdity is easily avoided and the hâ—rns
H. H. Thus we see that all that were baptized of John were such as could and did confess their sins but Infants cannot confess their sins Therefore none such were baptized by John Reply 1. In saying Infants cannot confesse their sins do not you imply that Infants have their sins What other construction can any rational man make of your words If so how can you call them innocent so oft n) Pag. 60. 2. It 's neither here nor any where else exprest in Scripture that none were baptized of John but such as could and did confesse their sins 3. What if it were granted which I do not it remains on you to be proved that this example is binding to us which I shall believe when I hear or see you cloathed with Camels hair and with a girdle of a skin about your loins and eating locusts and wilde honey For the 5. and 6. verses are connected together with the Conjunction And. 4. But to drive out one wedge with another and to shew the weaknesse of your Argument I thus argue o) Exod. 12.35 The children of Israel borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver and of gold and raiment but the Jewish Infants did not borrow c. Therefore none of the Jewish Infants were children of Israel The conclusions of both Arguments are equally false though I dare not be absurd as you are p) Nar. of a Dispute p 6. in denying the conclusion SECT 4. H. H. Thus it 's clear by the Scriptures that John baptized men and women that could believe and confess their sins 2. Of the Apostles and not a word spoken of sucking children Now I proceed to the practice of the Apostles commissionated by Christ Reply 1. It is not yet clear by those Scriptures alleged by you that John baptized men and women that could believe and confesse For in those Scriptures there is no expresse mention made of any one woman baptized by John For though it be said q) Mat. 3.5 6. all Judea and all the region round about Jordan were baptized and r) Mar. 1.5 all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem were all baptized of him Yet the word all cannot be taken universally for who I pray you were they whom Å¿) Joh. 3.22 Christ baptized or rather whom his Disciples t) Joh. 4.2 baptized no expresse mention made of any ones believing whether man or woman you have foisted the word believing into the text Contrary to the former injunction Deut. 4.2 Ye shall not add unto the Word Is not now that doom due to you which you thunder out against others pag. 40. 2. A little before you tell us of such who could and did confesse their sins now you mince the matter and tell us of those that could believe and confesse you durst not say they did believe for how is it probable that they did believe whom John calls u) Mat. 3.7 a generation of Vipers or that they could believe when Christ saith * Joh. 5 4â— How can yee believe which receivâ— honour one from another And x) Joh. 12.39 43. therefore they could not believe Why For they loved the praise of men more then the praise of God 3. But to shoot in your own bow what a wise argument is this John baptized men and women that could believe c. Therefore no Infants Just like this Abraham was circumcised when he was adult therefore no Infant was circumcised Or Abraham who could and did believe was Circumcised therefore no child of eight daies old was â—crcamcised 4. If you say as you do Not a word spoken of sucking children being baptized by John as there is of their being circumcised I answer As the Argument remains in its full strength for all that so it 's a known rule that y) A non dicti ad non factum non valet conequentia no good consequence can be drawn that such a thing was not done because it 's not recorded There is not one word spoken of the twelve Apostles being baptized nor of the Church of Antioch Acts 11 Nor of the seven Churches of Asia Therefore by Mr. Haggars Logick we must conclude and believe they were not baptized You see by this time you had sorry successe with the practice of John Baptist now proceed to the practice of the Apostles SECT 5. H. H. Same page 1. Instance Acts 2.40 41. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized and added to the Church c. But little babes of eight daies weeks or months old cannot gladly receive the Word of God because they understand it not Ergo none such were baptized there Reply 1. The word Church is not in the fourth verse that is of your own adding Will you yet be guilty of that crime and doom which you charge upon others though to give you your due you have rightly cited the Scripture in your page 24. 2. Your Argument is vicious or faulty For being in the first figure the Assumption or Minor Proposition should not be negative as yours is as Scholars know By the way no marvel you have such an aking tooth against Logick learning for by these means your Sophistry and fallacy comes to be detected and rejected which by your illiterate proselytes are swallowed down and digested as gallant arguments and solid reasons Blow out the light or bring your disciples into a dark shop and you may quickly vend your false or grosse wares SECT 6. H. H. But some will object from vers 39. That the promise was to them and their children and therefore children may be baptized Answ I grant the promise was to them vers 38. that if they did repent and be baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of sins they should receive the gift of the holy Ghost and this is true also to their children if they did repent and obey the Gospell as aforesaid and so it is to us and our children though never so far off upon the same condition of faith repentance and baptism for it is to all that the Lord our God shall call but they must be CALLED first observe that ver 39. And thus is the Objection fully answered Reply 1. In the vers 39. There is no expresse mention made of these words viz. faith obeying the Gospell and condition they are in the number of your own additions though I deny not but they may be implyed 2. By being CALLED do you mean obeying the Gospell that 's true of an effectuall call in such as are adult but not of an effectual call for so many are called who do not obey e. g. Prov. 1.24 I have called and ye refused Mat. 22.3 He sent forth his servants to CALL them that were bidden to the Wedding and they would not come 3. Is it all one with you to obey the Gospell and to be baptized surely then you trusse up Gospell obedience in a narrow compasse 4. In granting the promise
sophistical who judge of things rather as they are then as they seem And it is to be hoped the rest of your answers to this and all the other Scriptures which you passe by as unable to charge them with seeming sophisticalness are solid and satisfactory neither really nor seemingly sophistical Your silence is just ground for such an interpretation 3. In saying to this he answers These words Men and Women are appliable to sexes rather then to ages you do not truly set down the words of that book a) Font uncovered p. 16. which saith Men and Women are names rather noting the sexes then ages and are appliable to Infants as well as to grown persons and some instances are there given Here you discover your falshood and fraud 4. Concerning Eve I pray you look back b) Pag. 5. where this Scripture being urged by you c) Acts 8.12 you should have brought your answer if you had not like to have forgotten it as you say or rather as others may judge if you had intended plain dealing where this evasion of yours would have appeared vain For you put the Emphasis of your proof on Men and Women in saying both men and women in express terms but we read never a word of little Babes Thus you set men and women in opposition to little babes and therefore that answer which shews that little babes may be called men and women according to Scripture is directly to the purpose 5. As for the falseness of Mr. C. Argument c. he that hath but half an eie may see how groundlesly and impertinently you bring it in onely when you have nothing else to say you have the knack to fill up paper with railings and false accusations without either occasion or sense though not without abusing Scripture and profaning God's holy Word SECT 18. H. H p. 7. The last text is in Acts 18.8 that Crispus the chief ruler believed in the Lord with all his house and many of the Corinths hearing believed and were baptized Reply 1. I expected that in the Rear you would have brought up your strongest forces utterly to have routed your adversaries but you do not draw out one Argument that dare look the Enemy in the face Sure you made more haste then good speed 2. To this and the rest of the Scriptures hitherto alleged by you I do roundly answer That they prove onely thus much 1. That such believers who had not been baptized in their Infancy were baptized at more maturity of years 2. That ordinarily Scripture-baptists did admonish and exhort those who came to them to bee baptized to repent and believe neither of these are denied by your Adversaries nor have either of them the least shadow or colour of inconsistency with the lawfulness of Infant-baptism 3. I wonder why in citing this text and saying the chief Ruler believed you left out the word Synagogue SECT 19. H. H. Thus we have seen the command of Christ and the practice of the Apostles agreeing together by which the foundation of the Saints is discovered upon which they ought to build which is the words and sayings of Christ and the practice and examples of his holy Apostles Reply 1. To the first three or four lines I have I hope sufficiently answered in the beginning of this Reply and I would not be guilty as you are of vain repetition 2. Yet I shall take the boldness to add a word or two If you understand the command of Christ and practice of the Apostles in reference to the present controversie I tell you again the command is to be obeyed and the example may be followed in the like case and condition But what is this to your purpose and practice I dare say the command of Christ and examples of the Apostles will not bear you out in the baptizing those who have received the Lord's Supper among us c. which kind of Baptism was neither commanded by Christ nor practised by the Apostles 3. If you understand Christs command and the Apostles practice largely Then in the fear of God and in your cold blood consider whether the lying corning railing perverting of Scripture c. that makes up a great part of your book and I shall present to you view the particulars as I go along be agreeable to the words and sayings of Christ and to the practice and examples of his holy Apostles And then your self shall be judge what foundation it is you build upon 4. Because you said in pag. 6. There 's no ground from Scripture or reason to believe there were children in Lydia's house and here in this 7. p. nor can you find one word in all the holy Scriptures about baptizing little Infants I answer the very notion of baptizing whole housholds is enough to make out an example of Infant-baptism For 1. f) Sidenham of Infant-bapt p. 107. It is confidence beyond example to hold that in all those houses said to be baptized there were no Infants 2. There is stronger ground to believe the Affirmative then the Negative 3. Especially when the word House or Houshold is put for little ones and includes them Gen. 45.18 Take your housholds Now that children were understood it 's plain ver 19. Take Waggons for your little ones 4. Whensoever the houshold is spoken of in the Old Testament g) see also Num. 3.15.1 Tim. 5.8 it alwaies includes children If so it would be strange that the Apostle should borrow that term from the Old Test and use it in the New Test to exclude children 5. In the close of this Section if I knew whither the Particle It relates saying It is none of the counsel of God It is no where declared for you mention Font as well as Infant-baptism in the Antecedent I could say something that perhaps would displease you but till I know I shall be silent CHAP. IV. Of the Font. SECT 1. H. H. pag. 7. Not a word that I can find in all the Holy Scriptures or sayings of Christ the Prophets or Apostles about baptizing in a Font nay not so much as the name of that abomenable Idoll the Font is once mentioned in all the Holy Scriptures much lesse that the people of God should sacrifice their children to it as the children of Israel once sacrificed their babes to Moloch see Jer. 32.35 Reply 1. I did intend to reply to all this in the 9. Sect. of the fore-going Chapter but I have here singled it out Mr. Haggar had so jumbled together the Font and Infant baptism that the Reader might distinctly observe it 1. Mr. Cook saith The Printer put that title and term on his book he nor we will stand to justifie it though it might be against your cavile 2. It 's strange you could not find the name Font in all the Scriptures and yet in the next pag. h) Page 8. you can find it in Jerem. 2.12 13. I pray you is Jeremy no part of the holy
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
New Testament for observing a Sabbath giving thanks at Meals praying with our families baptizing of women giving them the Supper baptizing several sorts or degrees of men as Kings Queens Lords Citizens Husbandmen c. Will the Anabaptists therefore do none of them To this purpose saith Mr. Cook a) Font uncovered p. 28. and Mr. Baxter b) Plain Scripture proof for Infant-baptism p. 3 4 8. but I answer This reasoning is the life of all your Religion for without it they have nothing to say as they themselvs confess neither do they know how to delude poor souls which desire to make the Scriptures their rule and to walk according to what is written but by these sleights c. Reply 1. If your conscience were not feared with an hot iron you durst not have said This reasoning is the life of all our Religion I would have you know the greatest part of our Religion is grounded on expresse Scripture 2. If you would be understood concerning the point under debate I do say and that truly you have nothing to prove your own way of baptizing but what is by consequence from Scripture For you have no expresse command in so many words Go and baptize visible Saints or actual Believers Dip or plunge such in Rivers and Fountains c. which you indeavor to prove by consequences wherein also you are miserably mistaken as I shall hereafter shew What now Is not this reasoning the very life of all your Religion I say the very life of all your Religion wherein you differ from us 3. You your self do as good as confess and you must too whether you will or no that without this reasoning viz. by Consequence you have nothing to say for giving thanks at Meals praying with or in our families giving the Lords Supper to Women baptizing Citizens c. As appears in your pages 12 13 14. For where are these in so many words written in the holy Scriptures Are not you one of those who delude poor souls by these sleights and cunning craftiness of men whereby you lie in wait to deceive See Eph. 4.14 But let us hear your answers in particular SECT 3. H. H. Pag. 11. 1. You abuse us much to say that this is our reasoning that we should do nothing but what we have a command for but we say command or example which last you left out Reply 1. If Mr. Hall abuse you much you may thank some of your own party for the objection is so laid by them which was faithfully laid down by him and fully answered also by him sundry waies But as your manner is with Mr. C. and Mr. B. you catch at a piece of his first Answer and passe by the other two wherein two leavs are spent in silence 2. Let the word Example be put in yet it nothing helps you For 1. Your Argument is false in Form consisting of meer Negatives and so nothing is concluded 2. If you mean expressness of command or example then the major Proposition is false you your self being judg in your own Instances If you mean a command or example by consequence the Minor is false also even in your own judgment and practice SECT 4. H. H. page ibid. 2. We do not deny you All consequences although you are pleased to say we do and accuse us falsly in that But we deny your consequences which you bring to make void written commands and examples That dealing we will by no means allow of to you nor to our selves for in so doing we might soon make all the commands of Christ and examples of the Apostles of none effect by our traditions brought in by such consequences and become such as the Lord speaks of Mar. 7.7 to the 14 Verse Reply 1. Indeed all consequences that make for you you allow and grant but ALL consequences that make against you you disallow and deny is this fair dealing Let the consequence be never so clear from Scripture for Infant-baptism you are sure to deny the consequence and it may be the conclusion too You are not fasly accused here 2. It 's a false accusation and a meer calumny that any of our consequences from Scripture for Infant-baptism make void any written command or example The same commands and examples are binding to us in the same condition we baptize Jews and infidells converted to the faith so that in allusion to that Scripture c) Rom. 3.31 Do wee then make void the law through faith God forbid yea we establish the law I may say Do we by Infant-baptism make void the commands of Christ and examples of his holy Apostles God forbid yea we establish them SECT 5. H. H. same pag. It is to be observed that these men are so taken up with your 1000 unwritten things that they seldome read the holy Scriptures if they did they could not be so ignorant of what is written in them For 1. What if a Sabbath be not spoken of in the N. T. yet it is spoken of in the old But Insants baptism in neither 2. For giving of thanks at meals doth not the Scripture plainly speak Jo. 6.11 Acts 27.35.1 Thes 5.18.3 For family prayer 1 Thes 5.17.1 Tim. 2.8 Now let Infant-Baptism be as plainly proved and we will freely grant it and confesse our sin in disowning it which must be done thus Reply 1. The men vou scoffe at and charge so uncharitably read the holy Scriptures oftner then you do I am sure to better purpose then you read and pervert Jer. 2.12 13. p. 8. 2. You falsly accuse us in saying we confesse that Infant-Baptism is no where spoken of in the old or N. T. it is spoken of as plainly as giving of thanks at meals praying in our families c. according to the texts alledged by you Enough is spoken in the Old Testament d) Dent. 29.10 11 12 13. of Infants being in covenant and of your Church-membership which is not repealed in the New A plain ground for Infant-baptism else the Gentiles should be in a worse condition since Christ's comming then before and the Church of Christ not in a better condition then before 3. M. Hall said There is no expresse command in the N. T. of such particulars mentioned and you your self grant it for the Sabbath and you cannot deny it for the other for though the Scriptures speak PLAINLY of such things yet not EXPRESLY but you cannot distinguish between these 4. Let all rational men judge whether the consequence be not as clear for baptizing Infants from Mat. 28.19 because they are a considerable part of any Nation as for Family prayer from 1 Tim. 2.8 For you say If Paul wils us to pray every where then in his Family so say I If Christ bids us to baptize All Nations then Infants 5. It s too much boldness in you to prescribe how or with what weapon we must fight There are more ways to the wood then one yet you say It must be
done thus Le ts see how I pray SECT 6. H. H pag. 12. 1. I prove by what is written Jo. 6.11 Christ took loavs and gave thanks Now let them prove by what is written Christ took little children and baptized them If any object Christ took little children and blessed them I answer So he took the loavs and fishes and blessed them doth it therefore follow that he baptized the loavs and fishes I hope not Reply 1. You should prove that here is an expresse command for giving thanks at meals or else you prove nothing Now such an expresse command is neither here nor any where else in Scripture i. e. Terminis terminantibus as M. Hall saith 2. I grant by what is written here giving thanks at meals is proved or may be proved so do we by what is written prove sc by consequence Infant baptism but what is this to your purpose I commend you for saying you prove by what is written not that it is written in so many words there 3. What an unreasonable task do you put upon us that wee must prove by what is written that Christ took little children and baptized them when it is written e) Jo. 4.2 Jesus himself baptized not but his disciples You would hit us home indeed if you could tell us that it is written in the holy Scripture that neither Christ nor John nor the Apostles baptized any little children 4. It 's your mistake in saying So he took the loavs and fishes for when Matthew f) Mat. 14 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaks of the loavs fishes he useth one word but when Mark speaks of Little children hee useth another word g) Mar. 10.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. And having taken them up in his armes which is proper to babes and Infants but not to loavs and fishes 5. Indeed it doth not follow that Christ baptized the loavs and fishes or that he baptized little children For I nay the Evangelist doth tell you h) Joh. 4.2 that he baptized not but it follows that these little children were baptized already for imposition of hands was never practized upon any persons that we read of in the i) see Acts. 6.6 and 8.17 and 13.3 and 19.6.1 Tim. 4.14 with 2 Tim. 1.6 N.T. but only on such as were baptized except in order to the working of some miraculous cure now the Evangelists neither mention any malady that these infants had nor any cure that Christ wrought on them Is not the Scripture here as plain for Infant-baptism As yours is for giving thanks at meals c Nay 6. It follows that little children may be baptized now by u◠For shal we refuse to pour water on them on whom Christ did put his hands shall not we baptize such persons whom Christ himself blessed Shall not we receive into the bosome of the Church such whom Christ k) The old Latine hath it Amplixans eos embraced in his arms What though these words do not hold out directly an institution yet they do hold forth plain principles and grounds for administration of Baptism For first it 's Christs expresse scope to shew that infants under the Gospell belong to him or to the Kingdom of Heaven 2. They are capable of a spirituall blessing to bee conveighed by an external sign which they understand not else Christ might only have prayed for them but he took them up into his arms laid his hands on them c. 3. It s Christs will that Infants should be brought to him for a spirituall blessing It could not be by believing for children you say while such are without actuall faith and besides the disciples could not hinder that comming therefore it must be some outward and visible comming viz. by their parents tender and offer therefore by an Ordinance and what Ordinance If not baptism But Mr. Cook l) Font uncovered p. 31. c. hath fully spoke to this Argument which together with the rest you have cunningly waved as being unable to answer SECT 7. H. H. 2. I prove that Paul m) Acts 27.35 took bread and gave thanks in the midst of them all Let them prove that P. or any other Disciple of Christ n) 1 Thes 5. ver 18. took little children and baptized them in the midst of so many or one witness if they can and we will grant all 3. I prove by what is written that it 's the will of God that the Saints should give thanks for all things They must prove by what is written that the Saints should baptize all children before they can speak or understand and I will grant all Reply 1. Sir you must not impose upon your adversaries you are no Law-giver yet the Text in the Acts doth not say In the midst but presence of them all It becomes not you to chop and change the Scripture at your pleasure 2. Admit there be no great difference you may as well believe and conclude the Apostles were not baptized because there is no one witness to prove it 3. Giving thanks at Meals is also proved by these Scriptures and that by consequence onely and so have our worthies proved Infant-baptism 4. Which of us do hold the Baptism of All Children You fight against the man in the Moon We are as much against the baptizing of the children of Turks c. while they remain in Paganism as you are against the baptizing of the children of Christians though according to the Scripture we can put a difference between them but you cannot 5. Why may not children be baptized before they can speak or understand as well as circumcised before Your Argument or rather Answer fights against Circumcsion as well as again Baptism of Infants o) Mat. 19.13 14.15 Mat. 10.13 14 15 16. Luk 18.15 16. 6. I have proved that those Infants mentioned by three Evangelists on whom Christ laid his hands were baptized I hope you will now be as good as your word grant all SECT 8. H. H. pag. 13. 4. I have proved by what is written that men ought to pray every where They must prove that men ought to baptize every where or any where if they can 5. I prove by Scriptures that the seventh day was the Sabbath of the Lord in the Old Testament and likewise in the New Testament that the Saints met together on the first day of the week to break bread Exod. 20.10 with Acts 20.7 Now let them prove by Old or New Testament if ever any children were baptized or that the Saints did baptize Infants if they can Reply 1. As to that of praying every where I have answered already and I love not Tautologie as you do 2. In speaking of Saints baptizing Infants you smell too strong of the Arminian and Popish cask p) Quid obstat our in casu necessit at is non potest à fideli Aliquo Infans Aquam tingi Armin. Apol. c. 25. p. 246. as if any disciple of Christ
putting on Christ be a profession Then some Infants may professe Christ and so be baptized For if they be saved by Christ as you say surely they put on Christ as a garment i e. passively and so Beza renders it u) Christo induti fuisâ—is Bein Gal. 3.27 have been cloathed with Christ Now by your comparison little children may professe by wearing those garments to all spectators wherewith they are dressed by their mothers or nurses unlesse a little child is not a man contrary to Gen. 4.1 as before 2. What an evil surmise is this That we will own Mr. Baxters Doctrine though we cavil with the Scriptures For cavilling with and wresting the Scripture I leave them to you who are old-excellent that way Mr. Baxter I acknowledge to be a pious and learned Minister yet I own his Doctrine here and elswhere no further then it is agreeable to Scripture and I believe Mr. Baxter would not have it otherwise 3. It 's not evident either out of Mr. Cook 's mouth or yours that baptism doth constitute a Church or Church-member The eleven Apostles did put on Christ and yet we read not one word of their being baptized SECT 9. H. H. p. 25. You say that Baptism is a sign or pledge of peoples admission into the Church Well Then it follows that they are not in before to any man's sight and if not in the Church much less constituted and established Church-members Reply 1. That follows not e. g. The Sheep which a man hath bought may be known to be his before he set on them his mark which may further signifie their relation to him and his owning of them but that doth not constitute his right to them A Servant may be truly hired before he receive an earnest which yet doth not constitute him such a man's servant Abraham was in Covenant with God and known to be so before he was circumcised The Lord's Supper is a sign and pledge of peoples admission into the Church and yet were in it before which sufficiently declares the vanity of your Argument 2. In that you take Constituted for Established it appears pears you neither know what is meant by Constitution in its proper signification nor indeed what you your self means I thought at fiâ—st you meant by constituting a Church the giving of its first being but here you take it for Establishing Surely you might with better reason say That Chuâ—ches are constituted by the Lord's Supper for this more properly is a sign and seal of Establishment in the Church then Baptism is SECT 10. H. H. You say The Thief on the Cross was saved without Baptism I Answer We deny it not For he declared openly his Faith in Christ and owned him when he was disowned almost of all which shews he would have been baptized had he been at liberty Therefore the Lord accepting the will for the deed v) 2 Cor. 8.12 saith to him This day thou shall be with me c. But what makes this for the baptizing of Infants c. It proves that little babes might be saved though unbaptized for they can profess no Faitg nor confess no sin neither hath Christ required them to obey any command before they understand and believe the Gospel * Rom. 14.23 For whatsoever is not of Faith is sin But you say we do not rightly apply that Scripture and why Because it spoils your practice But doth not the word Whatsoever include all matters and duties wee owe to God Cannot the Scriptures be in quiet for you But because this offends you we will give you another x) Heb. 11.6 Without Faith it is impossible to please God Reply 1. In that you grant the penitent Thief was a Church-member and that visibly though unbaptized you clearly yield the cause viz. That Baptism doth not constitute a Church-member For what doth constitute a Church-member is necessary to the being of a Church-member But Baptism is not necessary to the being of a Church-member Therefore it doth not constitute The Major is clear by the nature and Definition of that which constitutes any thing the Minor you grant in the instance of the Thief and I hope you will not deny the Conclusion any more 2. You shew what a miserable Disputant you are in saying What makes this for the baptizing of Infants The question is not here about Infant-baptism but about constitution of Churches which you assert to be done by Baptism and that y) Font uncovered p. 1. book denies and brings this very instance which you deny not and therefore was very pertinent to the by question of constituting Church-members 3. M. Cook hath dealt more honestly with this Text then you have done with Jerem. 2.12 13. p. 8. and many more For hence we prove against Papists and others who hold an absolute necessity of Baptism to Church-membership and salvation that even Infants may be saved and must be owned members of the Church being born of Church-members though they die in their Infancy without baptism Thus you and they being of the same judgment are confuted together by this instance of the Thief 4. Seeing you grant that Infants by this example may be saved without Baptism I pray you consider whether it will not follow unanswerably To whom salvation belongs now to them the sign and seal of salvation belongs But to Infants you grant salvation belongs now therefore baptism also the sign and seal of salvation For it 's said z) 1 Pet. 3.21 Baptism saveth Again as the Thief on the Cross being in a state of salvation had a right to baptism so Infants of believing parents being in a state of salvation as you grant have right to baptism 5. Those Scriptures alleged by you are impertinent you do but still more pitifully intangle your self and abuse the Scriptures but not at all spoil our practice or judgment For though the word whatsoever a) As the word All is to be restrained to the matter treated of 1 Cor. 6.12 so is the word Whatsoever Mat. 7.12 and here also may be taken so as to include all sinful matters which cannot be done in Faith and so are sins and all external duties which though conjoined for the matter yet not done in Faith become sins in the doer yet the Apostle in Rom. 14.23 speaks most properly of things in their own nature indifferent which God hath neither commanded nor forbidden and expresly of meats yea such kind of meats as God hath left free to be eaten or forborn Now mark the vanity of your own reasoning Infants must not bee baptized because they want Faith for whatsoever is not of Faith is sin and without Faith it 's impossible to please God Like this Infants must not be fed because they want Faith for whatsoever is not of Faith is sin and without Faith it 's impossible to please God 2 The latter sentence in Heb. 11.6 is spoken of Enoch who lived long before Abraham and makes as
is good For Acts 17.28 In him we live c in and through God that gives to all men life c. v. 25. to the end that they might seek him v. 27. Even the wickedest and hypocrites the worst of men have a will and power to do more good then they do and that 's one cause of their just condemnation Moreover it 's evident that wicked Balaam had a will desire x) Num. 23.10 to die the death of the righteous c. And Paul saith plainly y) Rom. 7.18 To will is present with me c. By all which it is evident that Free-will is not such a difficult point as you would make it but it 's an easie matter with you to call light darkness and darkness light Isa 5.20 Reply 1. For the worth of Mr. Baxter's Reputation in your judgment it 's very like to the judgment of the Cock who preterred a Barley-corn before a Pearle I believe M. B. is of the Apostles mind 1 Cor. 4.3 But because you will not speak it out but it sticks in your teeth I shall without flattery or fear tell you my judgment That as Austin was called z) Malleus Pelagianorum the Mall of the Pelagians so may Mr. Baxter be truly call'd the Mall of the Anabaptists * Malleus Anabaptistarum His memory shall be blessed when your name shall rot 2. M Baxt. hath hit it right but you have mist it for all your great swelling words of vanity if the question about Free-will were truly stated 3. If you dissent from Mr. Baxter about the difficulty of the point of Free-will why will not such a brave Champion as you are give or accept the challenge to dispute it with him you must have better weapons then here you fight with or I assure you he will quickly foil you 4. I believe Infant-baptism is easie to him that will understand The spiritual plague is in your head you hear and will not understand see and will not perceive 5. The Papists and Arminians will say as much as you do and yet they are stiff Patrons of Free-will who prank up nature in a proud dresse and derogate from the honor of God and Free grace 6. I wonder you couple together Balaam and Paul for Paul was a Regenerate man and Balaam you confess a wicked man and is there no difference between the will of the one and of the other It savors of the Arminian Cask That as man's will lost nothing by Adam's fall to it gets nothing by the second Adam's grace But because this is beside the point I shall 〈◊〉 no deeper into this Controversie but leave you to Mr Baxter who can handle you without Mittins your calumnis â—esâ—â— vs no answer SECT 9 H. H. I proceed to your fourth Position 〈◊〉 rein you say that if never so clear evidence of truth be produced yet it will hee dark to them that are uncapable of discerning it For it 's Gods work to make people understand Heb. 5.11 12 13 14 I answer We grant you all this The clearest truth will be dark to some But let us shew some clear evidence of truth first and shew us where it is written that Babes must be baptized and then if we do not our blood be upon us c. Reply 1. To passe by another mistake of yours viz. the fourth Position which indeed is the Third It seems the doctrine of Infant-baptism though never so clear a truth is hid from your eies 2. Mr. Baxter and many other of our Worthies have shewed where Infant-baptism is written as clearly and plainly as Women's receiving the Lord's Supper praying in the Family c before-mentioned and many more without a wretched lie Yea as clearly and plainly as you proved pag. 6. Lidra's husband was baptized because the Scripture saith She and her houshold were baptized and yet you are so blind that you cannot sea or held Infant-baptism 3. I fear your blood according to your wish will be upon you as Christ's blood was and is on the Jews according to their imprecation for your pâ—â—de and prejudice ignorance and infidelity which Hear as wilful and affected for in this 34 p. 〈◊〉 professe you will not believe the clear evidence that Mr. Baxter hath brought for the proof of Infant-baptism I see that true which Mr. B. saith in this Position it 's one thing to bring full evidence and proof and another thing to make people apprehend and understand it We may do the one God onely can do the other These words are true and faithful you grant I leave you therefore to the Lord whose work it is to perswade the heart The Well of water was nigh enough to Hagar â—he bond woman who with her son were cast on and yet she could not see till God opened her eies Gen 23. ver 29. SECT 10. H. H. p. 34. As for your saying we had need study the Controversie seven years I Answer What rule have you for that Did the 3000 in Acts 2.41 42. study this Controversie seven years or seven dates either Or those men and women in Acts 8.12 or the Eunuch â— 38 or Lâ—dâ—â— and the Jailor Act. 16 c. Reply 1. Mr. Baxter speaks of most Controversies his words are pag. 6. Most of the best of people have need to read Scripture and books of Controversie seven years at least before they will be capable of understanding most Controversies But it 's no wonder that you who are so frequent in perverting the holy Scriptures as hath been shewed pervert his writings The Reader now may observe how much you have left our 2. Because I concess this is applicable to the present point though not onely I say your instances our of the Acts of the Apostles are nothing to the purpose viz. They did not study this Controversie seven years before they being â—duâ— were baptized Therefore we have no need to read the Scripture and books of Controversie before we understand this Controversie of Infant-baptism A gross inconsequence 3. But you ask what rule for that Mr. Baxter hath given you a reason pag. 5. agreeable to the rule God changeth the wiâ—◠〈◊〉 a sudden but he doth not insure knowledge eâ—pecially of difficult points on a sudden If this like you not I hope you will not recede from your own rule pag. 28. where you confess That we have all need of seven years education at Cambridge and Oxford c. therefore of seven years study for the understanding of this Controversie and that without any danger of incoherence or folly SECT 11. H. H. You say that men think they can understand plain Scripture if they hear it but they cannot Oh that pride would let them know that they cannot understand the plainest Lecture of Geometry or Arithmetick Read the Grammar to a boy in the Primmer and he understands not a word you say Answ Is it possible you would make men believe they cannot understand plain Scripture if
miserable Comforter for when you have done you fall a railing on us calling us Sensless ignorant wretches that will call for express Scripture when we have your Consequences But I have told you already we dare not trust your Consequences Indeed Scripture-reason is good reason and it 's that we would have from you for which you call us ignorant sensless wretches Reply 1. It seems a just reproving in pity is a railing with you If so you are far-gone and very high-flown indeed 2. It 's your subtil sophistry to call evident Consequences drawn from Scripture Our Consequences 3. If Mr. Baxter say true and you do not disprove him that evident Consequences drawn from Scripture are as true proof as the very express words of a Text which you cannot but grant p. 12 13 14 you may trust them better then or as well as your own Consequences which you often bring SECT 38. H. H. p. 45. We call Scripture-reason written reason now if you would shew us where your reason is written in the Book of God the holy Writings the Controversie were at an end but till then you have done nothing But you might do well to inform the ignorant wretches that the holy Scriptures in English are holy writings And thus the people would know what you mean by Scripture-reasons i. e. written reasons Reply 1. If I mistake not here is a pure Socinian Principle viz. Nothing is written in Scripture but what is exprest in so many words Then farewell the doctrine of the Trinity justification by Faith onely trusting in Christ's satisfaction c. All which and many more particulars are not written in your sense in the book of God but written in our sense therein because drawn by evident consequence from thence 2. Christ saith Joh. 5.46 That Moses wrote of him m) Gen. 3.15 Deut. 18.15 which is true in our sense but Truth if self must have the Lye given him in your sense For there is not one expresse written word of Christ in all the book of Moses I mean the person of Christ God-man 3. We do inform the ignorant wretches as you advize us nay we have done it before you advized us and they do or may know that Infant-baptism is written in the Book of God as plainly as womens Receiving the Lord's Supper and those particulars mentioned in your pag. 12 13 14. Will you now stand to your word and say with Mr. Saltmarsh in another case An end of a Controversie SECT 39. H. H. You say we disdain reason and therefore not to be reasoned with and if we once renounce reason we are bruit-beasts and who will go to plead with a beast It 's reason that differeth a man from a beast c. Answ You put me in mind how lâ—ke one of your forefathers you are for to my best remembrance you speak his very words and I question not but if you had an opportunity you would do his deeds viz. Doctor Story to Mr. Philpot see Fox Martyr p. 1972. Reply 1. Mr. Haggar brings in a long story of Dr. Story his conference with Mr. Philpot the Martyr I desire the Reader to view either Mr. Haggar or Mr. Fox which for brevity take I cannot transcribe Yet I say truly that a Liaâ— had need have a good memory Mr. Baxter doth not speak Dr. Stories words This Doctor called Philpot a beast simply and absolutely M. Baxter calls you so hypothetically and conditionally if reason be renounced nay he includes himself as wel as Anabaptists on that supposition as you transcribe him IF WEE SECT 40. H. H. pag. 46. See how like your forefather Dr. Story you speak and behave you self or would do if you had but liberty You are children of one father whose works you do Joh. 8. ver â—4 Reply 1. No more like then an Apple is like an Oyster as they say the parallel is not right for beside the forementioned difference Dr. Story was a Papist M. Baxter a Protestant Henry Haggar an Anabaptist and railer Mr. Philpot neither but a meek Martyr That learned and godly Mr Philpot was no Anabaptist it's plain n) Sâ—e Fox vol. 3. p. 600. c. Anno 1555. for in a Letter to a fellow-prisâ—ner thus he writes The Apostles of Christ dâ—d baptizâ— Children And in another The Apostles baptized Infants since Baptism is in place of Circumcision In a thiâ—d The Apostles did baptize Infants and not onely men of lawful age And again Why do not these rebellious Anabaptists obey the Commandement of the Lord Mark 10.13 14 15 16 Now let the Reader consider whether you or Mr. Baxter is most like to that blessed Martyr and whether you are more like to Dr. Story if you had libertie o) Sleid. l. 10. your predecessors at Munster shew of what spirit you are 2. Guilt of Conscience make you fearful of punishment and uncharitably censorious of your betters who without vanity may say p) Mat. 23.9 One is our Father which is in heaven SECT 41. H. H. Where as you say we disclaim reason I Answer It 's but one of your false accusations we own all things written in the Scripture c. Reply 1. You disclaim the plainest and clearest reason deduced out of Scripture and so it 's no false accusation 2. If you did own all things written in the Scripture the Controversie were at an end as you say p. 45. 3. What perversness and partiality is this that you can own Women's Discipleship and their Receiving the Lord's Supper c. aâ— p. 14. as things written in Scripture and yet disclaim some Infant 's Discipleship Church-membership and Baptism which are written in the Scriptures of truth as well as the former and many other instances which might be given SECT 42. H. H. pag. 47. Mr. Baxter saith Do you think the Lord Jesus knew a good Argument or the right way of Disâ—uting Why how did he prove the Resurrection to the Sadduces from that text I am the God of Abraham c. Answ The Lord Jesus knew a good Argument and the right way of Disputing better then Mr. Baxter or my self or any man else I humbly confess to his praise and therefore I desire to make use of his words that he hath already spoken knowing that he hath reasoned and proved all things better then I can Reply 1. Then you grant that there can be no arguing from Scripture but by deduction for in all Arguments there must be a Medium and a Conclusion a Proposition and an Inference as appears by your own Arguments p. 63 c. 2. You grant as much as is desired that to argue by evident Consequence from Scripture is a right way of disputing as Christ's was Humbly confess this also to Christ's praise and join hands and hearts also with Mr. Baxter and say I shall think it no weak arguning which is like to Christ's nor shall I take my self to be out of the way while I follow him SECT 43.
We would have Mr. Baxter and all men know that we take all the sayings of Christ to be as good Scripture and of as great authority as any part of the Bible Therefore now Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook 's folly and wickedness is manifest who would insinuate into peoples minds that Christ did not bring Scripture to prove the Resurrection of the Dead but they must help him by their Consequences But their deceit lies in this that because Christ did not bring some other Scripture to prove the Resurrection therefore they conclude he proved it by consequence never minding that what he said was Scripture and what he approved of is approved and ought to be of all without murmurings and disputings Reply 1. Do you take all the sayings of Christ to be as good Scripture and of as great authority as any part of the Bible If you understand it of Christ's sayings left upon Record in holy Writ I am of the same belief but because you speak so largely and indistinctly I imagine without breach of charity your design is to open a wide door for unwritten Traditions to come in and be received as the Council of Trent hath determined pari pietatis affectu * Vide primuâ—â— Dâ—cretum qua tae sessionis Comcilii Tridentiâ—â— Pet. Suar. l. 2. p. 127. i. e. with the like affection of piety as any part of the Bible And this is not a groundless imagination for both your tenents and practices speak a promoting of the Catholick cause as it is so called for which it's strongly suspected and rumor'd that you are an Agent I pray call to mind the Jesuit who pretended to be a Jew and converted and was admitted a member of an Anabaptistical Congregation at Hexham in the North. 2. Your silly evasion a Cole wort more then twice sodden is as apparent now as the detection of that Jesuit and needs no further reply 3. It 's a notorious slander that Mr. Baxter and M. Cook c. would insinuate into peoples minds that Christ did not bring Scripture to prove the Resurrection of the Dead For they say plainly u) Mr. Cooks Font uncovered p. 24. that Christ proves the doctrine of the Resurrection against the Sadduces by Consequence from that Scripture I am the God of Abraham c. you are one of those men as Mr. Baxter saith p 8. who have reported abroad That Christ was not able to confute the Sadduces or to bring any Scripture for his Doctrine What say you now for you say nothing in this page to Mr. Baxter's motion Will you allow of such an Argument for Infant-baptism as Christ here brings for the Resurrection Will you confess it to be a sufficient Scripture proof 4. If what Christ approved of is and ought to be approved of all and it 's certain that Christ approves this way of arguing from Scripture by Consequence as you cannot deny then do you approve it without murmurings or disputings This was Christ's usual way E. g also he proves the lawfulness of his Disciples v) Mat. 12.3 â— 5 6 7. pulling the ears of corn and eating them on the Sabbath day by consequence from Scripture viz. from David's eating of the Shew-bread 2. From the Priest's sacrificing on the Sabbath And 3. From that Expression in Hos 6.6 I will have mercy and not sacrifice To conclude this I see you are like a bird in a net the more you stir the faster you are held notwithstanding your fluttering SECT 49. H H. p. 48. But now to make their folly manifest I will reason with them another way and if they prove as plainly that Infants are to be baptized as Christ did there prove that the dead should rise they shall have it and I will confess my self in an error And now to the matter Reply 1. Here is another confession of yours that Christ plainly proves there the Resurrection of the Dead now either it is Expresly or by Consequence x not Expresly for there is not one word of the Resurrection in Exodus 3 6. Therefore by Consequence will you now confess your error and say That some doctrine is contained plainly in Scripture which is not expresly written therein 2. You will Now make their folly manifest You had said but a little before in the same page that it is now manifest Surely you have manifested your own folly in indeavoring to do that now which you said was done before 3. It seems all this while you came not to the matter but fell short or beside the mark for you say And now to the matter SECT 50. H. H. Mark 12.25 When they shall rise from the dead they neither marry Now do you shew a Scripture that saith And when they shall baptize little children they shall c. Reply 1. This is but the same answer in another form 2. When you bring a Scripture that saith When they shall dipp actual believers or visible Saints they shall c. we will shew you then a Scripture that saith as you say SECT 51. H. H. vers 26. As touching the dead that they rise have you not read c. Now do you produce such a Scripture if you can that saith As touching little children that they may be baptized have you not read c. Bring you but Striptures that come but thus near the matter and we will grant you Infant-baptism but till then you are unreasonable in your reasoning Reply 1. Produce you a Scripture out of Exodus that saith The dead shall rise and then you shall have such a Scripture That children shall be baptized 2. You say and unsay Even now you approved of arguing by Consequence from Scripture and now nothing will serve turn but Express Scripture 3. You would make the people believe that we deny the Resurrection of the Dead God forbid We hold Christ proves the Resurrection by Consequence which you cannot deny 4. When you cannot answer then you fall a railing you accuse and condemn your self nay Christ as well as us as unreasonable in our reasoning SECT 52. H. H. pag. 49. Some will object that I tye Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook to plain Scripture but I my self have written many words in this book that are not plain Scripture Answ It 's one thing for a man to use words to express himself to those that will not believe the Scriptures as they are written and another thing to bring the Scriptures to shew men a rule to walk by and what their duty is in matters of faith and obedience The former we allow but not the latter either to our selves or others c. Reply 1. You take to your self that liberty which you deny to others who may not without a check from you use the word Sacrament p. 14. nor Negative p. 29. c. 2. The phrase of not believing the Scriptures as they are written is dark and doubtful you had need of an Expositor yet I know not who those are that will
and condemn him of weakness therein but I have no reason to do so to M. Baxter SECT 3. H. H. It 's enough saith M. Baxter p. 23. to make them Disciples that they are devoted to learning if they live c. So that he would prove them Disciples or Scholars first and have them taught afterwards strange doctrine and unheard of Divinity Reply 1. You leave out M. Baxter's first answer viz. They can partake of the protection and provision of their Master as the children of those the Israelites bought and enjoy the priviledges of the Family and School and bee under his charge and Dominion and that is enough to make them capable of being his Disciples This is not the first time you abuse M. Baxter and your Reader 2. You are like those mentioned even now Act. 17.18 19. no matter how strange his doctrine be if true 3. I think it is neither strange Doctrine nor unheard of Divinity to call the Jewish Infants Moses Disciples Jo. 9.28 and so Christs to whom Moses was subordinate as M. Baxter p. 22. which you cunningly pass by And were not the Twelve first Disciples and Paul also and taught afterwards Act. 9. Secondly you bewray your ignorance of the Scriptures which you charge on M B. and M. H. c. very insolently SECT 4. H. H. p. 74. But M. B. stoutly backs it with a learned Argument Is it not common to call the whole Nation of Turks Mahometans old and young and why not then our selves and children Disciples of Christ As the man that hired a Philosopher to teach him and his children were they not all then Disciples of that Philosopher Answer But is this M. Baxters plain Scripture proof I admire that a man professing so much seriousness c. p. 2. should resolve to make the Apostles words true of himself 2 Tim. 4.3 4. c. Reply 1. You told us a story of Dr. Story p. 55 56. may not M. Baxter say Is this M. Haggar's plain Scripture proof that he tells us of in the title of his Book Physician heal thy self 2. You need not admire to bee sure not much admire at this story as you call it It 's brought rather for illustration then for probation 3. I rather much more admire that you who profess so much purity should bespatter him with so much impure language as wickednesse folly blasphemy c. with which your book is stuff'd SECT 5. H. H. If I should grant that little children as soon as they go to School are Scholars yet are they then fit to learn the things of God Jo. 3 12. Reply 1. M. B. tells you p. 14. That believers Infants are Disciples relatively long before they actually learn to which you say nothing 2. When they begin to learn their letters g) Prov. 22.6 Eph. 6.4 2 Tim. 3.15 wee are with the soonest to teach them the things of God 3. Though they may not be fit to learn the things of God yet it 's fit we should teach them even grown persons within our charge may and must be taught though by reason of their ignorance sottishness and dulness they are unfit to learn 4. What grosse mis-application of Scripture have wee here again But it 's your guise to apply that to Infants which is spoken to adult SECT 6. H. H. p. 75. He is a man voyd of reason that sends his child to School before it can speak or understand yet M. B. affirms such to be Christ's Disciples and would have them sent to Christ's School But the comparison should be thus As little children when first they go to school to learn their letters are called mens Disciples so those babes in Christ 1 Joh. 5.12 the first day they go to Christ's School to learn the Principles c. Heb. 6.1 are Christ's Disciples or as we call all the Turnks old and young that are born of the flesh Mahometans so all born of the Spirit Christians i. e. such as are spoken of 1 Joh. 2.12 13. with 5.21 As for M. Baxter's man that heard the Philosopher I passe it over as a cunning devised Fable c. Reply 1. If M. B. affirm such to be Christ's Scholars how can you for shame say he would have them sent to Christs School their being Scholars presupposeth a sending 2. You set up again a man of straw and then fight with it Valiantly done Comparisons you know do not run on all four Here is the piety and prudence of Christ to count and own them who cannot speak or understand his Scholars belonging to him the Master of the Church Mar. 9.41 3. Why do you say they that are born again c. are Christians and not Disciples Are not all Christians Disciples Acts 11.26 Now if some Infants are born again by the Spirit into the kingdom of Christ they must be Christians or Disciples especially by your former Doctrine viz. Dying in Infancy they are saved by Christ Are any saved by Christ but such as are sanctified born again Disciples Here you plainly yield the cause 4. If that concerning the hired Philosopher be a story how is it a Fable This cunning devised answer of yours is not worthy of a reply SECT 7. H. H. p. 76. Mothers say M. Baxter can teach their children partly by action and gesture and partly by voice c. And me thinks you should not make an Infant less teachable then some bruits But nurses will tell you more in this then I can Answer Oh excellent Divinity and plain scripture-proof whence it follows that Nurses are better Divines then M. B. 2. That some bruits are capable of being Christ's Disciples I am sure that his words imply noless Therefore his answer to M. T. for want of a better may be more fitly applied to him then to M. T. viz. Oh what cause have we c. m) M Baxter's plain Scripture p. 19. Reply 1. I have given the Reader the sum of this 76 p. leaving the bibble-babble to your self and silly Proselytes 2. Your arguing is so â—idicâ—lous that I may justly cry out Oh excellent Divinity and plain Scripture-proof promised in your title page For Nurses can tell better then I saith M. Baxter how teachable Infants are Therefore you infer Nurses are better Divines then M. Baxter which is just like this Banks can tell you how teachable his horse was and an Huntsman how teachable his doggs are Therefore Banks an Huntsman are better Divines then M. Haggar Or if those please you not a Black-Smith or a Butcher can tell you how teachable their Apprentices are Therefore a Black-Smith or a Butcher are better Divines then M. Haggar Again M. Baxter saith ye should not me thinks make a child less teachable then some bruits you infer here and you are SURE his words imply no less that some bruits are capable of being Christ's Disciples I deny your Major or consequences viz. If Infants are not less teachable then some bruit beasts then some bruits
determined by a known rule in Scripture Therefore no just cause of contentions because it is according to the will of Christ as I have proved by those Scriptures in the foregoing Argument 2. Nay your practice is a thing for which there is no known Rule in all the Word of God Thus I have thrown your Argument on your owne head and you are fallen into the same pit you digged for others c. Reply 1. Tâ—â— same Reply might serve here But me thinks you shouâ—â— blush to say that the Scriptures so often mentioned by you prove what you would have them I have seen a Dog mumbling and gnawing a bone and then licking in his owne slabber as if it had been marrow from the bone bear with the comparison so you tosse and tumble the Holy Scriptures and then take in if not give out your own fancy in stead of the word of God nay let the Reader observe that M. Haggar hath not brought one Scripture to prove his doctrines and let him doe it if he can and I will be his Proselyte viz. that children of Christians are not to be baptized till they be of age upon their own profession for that is the Question and me thinks they that cry cut for Scripture from the one side should bring Scripture g) Et hanc veniaâ—â— petimus dabimusque vicissim when urged by the other side 2. It is observable that M. Baxter hath spent almost two pages proving by impregnable reasons what contention among christians what tyrany and Lordlyness among Ministers this practice would introduce all which M. Haggar passeth by Is this to answer a book If this Argument had been false you might have denyed it if weak overthrown it your silence speakes neither and thus you have given up the cause in the open field and left Anabaptisme to shift for it selfe and the reader to believe that for all that 's said it is an Incendiary both in Church and state 3. Is this M. Baxter's own Argument As much as the wooden dagger in the signe is George of Horse-back's own Sword to say no more of your unlict Lump of Logick your Minor should have been But the baptizing of little babes before they come to years of discretion will necessarily fill the Church with perpetuall contentions This you had not the face I hope you are grown somewhat modest to affirm If you had the experience of a thousand yeares would have confuted you and if you can instance what breach it ever made what fire it ever kindled 4. It is false which you say There is no known rule for Infant-baptism in all the word of God The Affirmative is sufficiently proved by Scripture but you will not see and you have not yet proved the negative by any express Scripture must the world believe it because you say it did you in your travells run your head upon the Popes Chair of Infallibility 5. It seems you are of a somewhat quarelsom disposition for let the premises be what they will you are resolved to contend against Infant-baptism and that PERPETUALLY This shewes your spleen but as little of your reason as of your Logick 6. Fie for shame Yet more boasting and so little acting How you have thrown M. Baxter's Argument on his own head let the wise judg had it lighted on his head without an helmet it would not have hurt him you have been so far from retorting that you have not rightly repeated his Argument and is M. Baxter in a pit If there be water there you may hope he is dipt but do you take heed of the pit wherein there is no water and from whence there is no Redemption As for your folly charged on him I will say nothing but this both he and we are willing to be counted fools h) 1. Cor. 4.10 for Christ's sake whilst you are wise in your own conceit SECT 7. H. H. p. 90. and 91. M. Baxter's fifth Argument is this Because this Doctrine viz. That those onely should be baptised that are directly made disciples by the preaching of men sent according to the text Mat. 28.19 20. would turne baptism for the most part out of the Churches of the Saints Answer 1. It seems M. Baxter's judgment is that they that preach and Baptise according to that Commandement are those which turn Baptisme out of the Church yet he shewes not one Scripture for the baptizing of any but such as were made disciples by preaching I confesse such a doctrine doth not almost but altogether turn M. Baxter's Baptism out of the Church for we have no such custome nor the Churches of God as to baptize Infants Reply I am at a stand even to admiration that M. Baxter having warned i) Chap. 11. p. 132. that this argument is against the Ground of your practice you say nothing in answer to his premises This silence in you gives the conquest to him for if you had had any thing to have said you would now have spoken such an imminent danger impending over Anabaptisme 2. It is a reproach to say it seems it is M. Baxter's judgment c. you can raile better then reason and you have as good as confessed that it 's your fancy and not M. Baxter's judgment in saying IT SEEMS To whom Onely to you and your party whose eyes it is to be feared the God of this world hath blinded But if it do seem so k) Malta videntâ—â— quae non sunt must it needs be so poor proof Doth the bell alwaies tink as M. Haggar doth think 3. It 's certain M. Baxter doth not find fault with the command but with your comment not with the precept but with your practice in vindicating that Scripture l) Mat. 28.19.20 from your corrupt glosse whence M. Baxter infers and that truly that this would near turn the ordinances of Baptism out of the Churches of the Saints For though in a Church constitured some few in comparison may be and are converted by Ministeriall teaching yet most receive the beginings of grace by godly education as M. B. proves largely m) p. 133 from Scripture experience to which you answer not a word so that these not being discpled by Ministeriall teaching are not to be baptized according to the sense you would put upon the Text. Neither is in enough to say they have faith and so may be baptized for the words speak of working faith according to your Gloss by ministeriall teaching And if this doctrine be true it were best for parents not to teach their children betimes as they are n) Deut. 6.7 Prov. 22.6 Eph. 6.4 commanded a sad and most contradictory principle that the carefullest parent should he the cruellest foe and whiles he seekes to bring his children into Heaven you should bolt them out of the Church on earth 4. In condemning M. Baxter for not shewing one Scripture c. You broach two errours at once First That the discipling of any
do business in great waters same verse and to see the works and wonders of the Lord in the deep c. and are delivered and brought to their desired Haven 6. We say the whole man is baptized when not the whole of man but part is washed Whole Christ was crucified but not the whole of Christ your arguing is very weak to all that have understanding When a man is wounded in any one part we say truly the man is wounded though not all over Circumcision was a cutting off the foreskin of the flesh onely and yet the Jews child was Circumcised Sir when your tongue talks we say Mr. Haggar speaks will it follow that every part of Mr. Haggar speaks By this Argument hee is all tongue * Vox praeterea nihil but if his heels had spoken they might have made as wise an answer 7. Your next instance proves as little that Christ was dipt when hee was baptized for the words may be read comming up From q) Mar. 1 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the water and that translation is more proper and suitable because all Rivers for the most part lye in the lower ground in comming to which wee are said to descend and coming from to ascend And indeed the Preposition is so rendered in the verse immediatly foregoing viz. Jesus came r) Mark 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From Nazareth yea it 's said The Dogs eat of the Crums which fall s) Mat. 15.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from their masters table yea where the same story is recorded Å¿) Mar. 3.7.13 it 's so translated twice as Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come and then came Jesus from Galilee and often else where in the New Testament what more ordinary then to say Such a man came from Sea Thames c. Here appears the weakness of your inference and the instance doth not plainly shew that Christ went first down into the water or else how could he come out of it Your text in John comes now to be considered SECT 20. H. H. p. 67. 98. And the Scripture saith Jo. 3.23 John Baptised in Enon because there was much water there But M. Baxter answers that Travellers report that the river Enon is but a little brook that a man may almost step over 1. Surely it is want of the fear of God and love to the truth that he should turne aside his ear from the Scripture that saith There was much water to believe a Man a Traveller and Travellers may lie by authority why may not Sr John Mandevill be believed as well as this Travellers news The Lord be praised that hath delivered my soul from believing him and such as hee is Acts. 2.40.2 If it were granted yet Enon might have much water in another place Though but a little water where the Traveller was As it is with many Rivers in England Reply Travellers may lie but may not some speak truth If not I shall take heed of you and hardly believe you who have been a Traveller and that among the Jesuits the most exquisite Masters of that Art and compassers of Sea and I and to make Proselytes And had you named the book wherein Sr John Mandevill's tale may be found I would shape a sutable reply but let it passe in the mean time for one of your cunning devised fables 2. Your veine of railing at M. Baxter I turn a deaf care to when you prove us an untoward generation for you calling us so doth not prove us so your thanks for your selfe and caveat to others will be seasonable In the interim you do mock both God and man The Turk may as well praise God Luk. 18.11 he is no Christian and the Pharisee t) See 18.11 That he was not as this Publican 3. What this Enon was is disputable u) Calvin in Joh. 3.23 some think it a Town situate in the Tribe of Manasseh Diodate a Citty as Salim was to which the text saith â—t was near Others a Fountain or small brook v) As Grotius Jun. and M. Baxter-Sandys Travells l. 3. p. 141. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As Rev. 1.15 and 14.2 Bee it so yet wee are not a jot the nearer for dipping for the phrase is elsewhere usually translated * many waterâ— Now then it signifies many convenient places at the water where John and his disciples might be employed at once Not any deep water or great river which commonly is hemmed in with great bankes which deny an easy accesse for an Administration 2. Many waters are somtimes taken in Scripture and why not here for a confluence of waters on som plain x) Ezech. 13.10 for the watering of medows and some trees as we see in many places in England where the ground is low it 's plashy and seemes to be a little Sea and yet not knee deep 3. Jordane the Prince of Rivers in that Country which hath it's name from Jor and Dan two fountains from whence it riseth was not above eight fathoms deep nor Navigable y) Isa 33.21 what a small water then in comparison was Enon not far distant from Jordane Now though you will not believe travellers reports yet I hope you will notreject these plain reasons 4. You say Enon might have much water in another place although but little where the Traveller was Here you have only probablity for proof therefore as you argue z) p. 28. we read but of 4. or 5. whole households were baptized therefore not likely they i. e. the Apostles baptized whole Nations if they did we desire to see iâ— So I. It 's not likely Aenon was so deep for dipping if so prove it by Scripture if you can and we will believe it SECT 21. H. H. p. 21. Further M. Baxter saith The Jaylour in the night in his house was baptized but the Scripture saith Act. 16.33.34 Now if the Jaylour took Paul and Silas It implies they took them out and the next words prove it plainly viz. Hee brought them into his house Reply 1. Some enemies are sooner foyled then found I know not what to make of these Fiblets of an Answer If the Jaylour took Paul and Silas it implies THEY took them out who can make sence of this It may be you mean the Jaylour took them out as may perhaps be gathered from the Antecedent of your proposition and the proof you bring for the consequence but it seems you know not what to say or what you say you are IN and OUT 2. May not any unprejudiced Reader see this to be the sense of the words as they lye in the text viz. a) Act. 16.24 with 30 32 33. The Jaylour brought Paul and Silas out of the prison yea the inner-Prison into some outward room thereof where he heard the word and was Baptized and then brought them into his house which as it was usuall joyned to the prison 3. You do not tell
Mark 5.3 5. but how came they dead the Magistrate you say prisoned banished and hanged them I easily believe that they who were hanged were dead but that the prisoned or banished were so unlesse civilly dead in Law or spiritually dead in sin is beyond my faith And me thinks though the imprisoned could not write yet the banished might have the liberty of pen and ink Thus whilst you would scape the Bears skin you get into the Foxes by misciting Mr. B. 2. As you have manifested your folly so you discover a piece of daring pride in challenging those three worthies to answer you Goliah-like done But Sir you must not take it unkindly if I tell you and so I do your book is not worth the answering by such worthy Champions Nor had it been by me had not some of your brood with a braving importunity forced this from me Of all which and more I have given an account in the Epistle to the Reader 3. It had been more meet in my judgment â—hat you should first have answered Calvin now he is dead laid in grave and past answering for himself so you might have cryed quittance with him SECT 39. H. H. p. 107. You say Calvin in his letter shews two sorts of Anabaptists one boasted of Scripture and pleaded it with great confidence Answ 1. If they so boasted they boasted of that which is good 2 Cor. 11.10 Psal 44.8 and if you would boast of them more then you do it would be better for you 2. Doth it displease you to hear men plead Scripture for what they hold are you such enemies to hold holy Scripture Take heed least white you boast your selvs to be wise without or above them you become foools 1 Cor. 3.19.20 21. If those two things be the worst that Calvin and you can say of those Anabaptists I shall not be ashamed to own them for Christians before all men Reply 1. If boasting be taken in the right sence I agree with you the more you and I boast of Scripture the better it is for you and me Though those Scriptures you brought to prove this be impertinent 2. It doth not displease Calvin or Mr. Baxter that men boast of and plead Scripture but that they shamefully abuse it to the maintenance of their cursed errours as if God had provided armes for Sathan gathering that which the Holy Ghost never scattered and wracking it to speak that he never intended And if you have a love to the truth as it is in Jesus I think you will be displeased to see spiders gather poyson from such flowers and brats draw blood in stead of milk from those sacred breasts which is Calvins c. meaning when he says they boast of Scripture Christ liked the Law but not the Pharisees Leaven We commend the Text but not the Anabaptists Comment And therefore while you wonder at them take heed you be not of those Act. 13.41 3. Your civill caveat which is as a flower in a dunghil I thank you for it I like not truth the worse from whomsoever it coms f) Si caecus mòstravet iter tamen aspice Horat. I will embrace good counsell ever from an enemy for those 1000 you talk of I have replyed to 4. In the conclusion though you have thrust us out at the window yet you have unawares let us into the Church at the door for if we plead Scripture more truly then the Anabaptist for what we hold you need not to be ashamed to own us for Christians before all men But 5. Will Mr. H. indeed own all for Christians that plead Scripture his words can bear no other construction then not only Hereticks but Satan himself may come in for a room among Christians Did not Satan plead s) Mat. 4 6. Et sient caput tunc capiti nunc quoque memhrâ— membris c. com c. 51. Scripture to Christ Mat. 4.6 And as impertinently as you have done as hath been shewed and have not his first born children I mean Hereticks both pleaded and boasted of Scriptures Now let any Heretick have but his book and by your doctrine he wil never be condemned Is this boasting and pleading Scripture good Certainly you are too lavish now when you cut the Devill and his Imps a piece of the childrens bread Thus you stand upon such a guard your self as defends and patronizes the worst of men and the vilest opinions of those worst of men Why may not any who plead Scripture with confidence be as good Christians as Anabaptists are or boast themselvs to bee SECT 40. H. H. As for your other sort you talk of that are above Scripture that confound all things c. I and all that own the Scriptures do deny and defie them and their ways and you do wickedly to call them Anabaptists whom Calv. calls Libertines as you confesse p. 141. Reply 1. I believe all that own the Scripure as they should do deny and defie them and their ways But I doubt whether you do as you say for then you deny and defie Anabaptism for that is their way still though they fly higher then yet you have done But as many in word defie the Devill and spit at the mention of his name yet own him in life So I fear you do with those Anabaptists 2. To pass by the overflowings of your gall against M. B. the meanest may see you would fain creep out at any hole Calvin calls them Libertines Therefore M. B. doth wickedly in calling them Anabaptists like this Protestants are of two sorts either Lutherans or Calvinists Therefore he that calls the Calvinists Protestants doth wickedly therein Or if I should say there are two sorts of Christians viz. Protestants and Anabaptists is it maliciously done to say Anabaptists are Christians upon the supposall SECT 41. H. H. p. 108. You say pag. 142. No man can shew you one man of the Anabaptists that is not tainted with some of these foresaid wickednesses Answ If any of us should say wee were never lyars wee should be still lyars Rom. 3.10 to 16. This is the condition of all men before faith and repentance Luk. 13.2 3 4. again 1 Cor. 6.9.10 11. And I dare not say but such as have been gross sinners may on their conversion be brought into the Anabaptists Churches c. Reply 1. I will not quarrell with you about the first part of this your rambling Answer It s to be acknowledge with shame and sorrow we are vile by nature 2. Surely you have the Art of breathing on your Converts with Knipperdoling u) Sleid com 〈◊〉 â—0 bidding them to receive the holy Ghost If those of the Anabaptists Church though grosse sinners when of our Church are now Saints which is nothing else but a blasphemous crack or vain brag a Paradox to me and shall be believed when you prove your Dipping an Ordinance of Christ and your Baptizing exepere operato the Laver of regeneration for the
Humane Learning is an excellent gift of God and needs not my patronage being able to plead for it self against all the friends of ignorance and the works and workers of darkness yet I shall speak something of it in this place according to my promise and others expectance As I desire to bless God for the gifts which he hath richly bestowed on many of his servants and to bewail my own defect therein So I know God the Author of it hath and will execute severe vengeance as on the abusers so on the contemners of it But tell me 1. Doth not wise Solomon though he acknowledged wisedom i. e. humane learning in natural moral and political things in comparison of the fear of God to be but vanity and vexation of spirit Eccl. 1.17 18. 12.13 yet tells us That wisdom excells folly as far as light excells darkness Eccl. 2.12 13.14 Was not Moses learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians Acts 7 22. which sure was humane learning * Just Mart. Râ—sp ad Qu. 25. viz. in Geometrie Astronomy Astrologie c. which out of your profound ignorance or profane scornfulness you are pleased to term Whimsies pag. 35. Was not Daniel and his Companions skilful in all the Wisdom which was famous in the Court of Babylon Dan. 1.4 5 6. Was not Paul brought up at the feet of Gamaliel Acts 22.3 and endowed with all the improvements of humane learning which those times could afford What should I say of Isaiah e) Isa 50.4 The Lord hath given me the tongue of the learned Luke Apollos c. who had eminent acquired endowments which all were made serviceable to God in the work to which they were called And whatsoever some others of the Prophets and Apostles wanted in acquired endowments was supplied by infused in that they were enabled to speak with tongue without study Acts 2. 2 Cor. c. 14. What would you have separated from Moses's Church or Daniel's or the rest because they stood so much in humane learning If you say that though they used humane learning they did not ground their religion on it no more can you say and prove truly of us We ground our Religion on the Scripture but make use of humane learning to know the meaning of the Scripture knowing it is a means sanctified of God for that purpose as of humane eies to read it humane reason to understand it desiring the Lord to sanctifie this humane ability but not casting away eies ears reason or learning If you say we abuse humane learning so did not the Apostles and Prophets Be it so But will you reject good things for the abuse then must you cast away eies ears reason meat drink apparel If you will separate from societies where good things are abused you must separate from all societies and your selves too 2ly Hath not God's providence made special use of the Exactness of the Hebrew Scribes Scholars and Rabbins for the preservation of the Scriptures of the Old Testament even in the least points and tittles Yea how could the Scripture of the Old and New Testament have been conveighed to us without Humane Learning unless wee must have had continual miracles Was not humane learning both amongst the Heathen and the Jews the means of the first Translation of the Old Testament to the spreading abroad of Divine Truth amongst the Nations and to make way for their call to the Gospel And hath not this been the blessed means which God hath used for communicating the knowledge of the whole Scripture to you and many thousands more who must for ever have been ignorant of them if they had continued sealed and locked up which they must for ever have been had not the Key of Humane Learning opened this Treasure to us Oh monstrous ingratitude to spurn at so happy an instrument of conveighing the knowledge of God and of the Scriptures to us 3ly Do you not know that the times of greatest ignorance and decaies or neglects of Humane Learning in the Church were the times of greatest Superstition Idolatry and Deformation when the Prince of Darkness uncontroulably ruled by his substitute Antichrist who was in those times especially as great an enemy to humane learning as you your selvs loth to be at the pains to get it himself and disdaining that any under him should bee more knowing then himself Under whom that illiterate herd of Monks and Friers bore the greatest sway and the blind led the blind into the pit Mat. 15.14 And if here and there a learned man was found in those times their humane learning was counted a sufficient ground to charge them with Heresie or some other hainous offence And can you be ignorant that the grand design of Antichrist is to keep the people in ignorance and illiterateness concerning the Scriptures that they may neither be able to understand them in their original languages which indeed were a work of greater learning then ordinary capacities and the generality of the people can attain to nor yet so much as have them translated into known languages which cannot be without much humane learning at least of some choice men least the light of the Scripture shining forth to the people by means of humane learning the abominableness of their Darkeness should be discovered 4ly Know you not that the breaking forth of Humane Learning about 200 years ago was a preparative and introduction to the breaking forth of the Gospel from under the Cloud and restauration of Religion Doubtless the Spirit of God stirred up those generous spirits impatient of the torpid ignorance which by the cunning of Antichrist and his instruments had over-spread the world with indefatigable industrie to recover learning out of the rubbish in which it had laien buried a long time So that in a while the knowledge of the Greek Hebrew and Chaldee tongues in which the Scriptures were first written and of the Syriack and Arabick into which there were most famous and antient Translations and other Arts and Sciences by which the Writings of the Learned might be better understood were speedily brought to a wonderful splendor and perfection And then presently after these dawnings of Humane Learning Christ the Sun of Righteousness arose in the sincere preaching of the Gospel and expelled the darkness of ignorance and superstition out of many Nations in great measure 5. How is it possible that the Scriptures confessedly the rule of true Religion should be understood by us English-men or any other Christians without the help of humane Learning unless by immediate inspiration and the miraculous gift of speaking with and interpreting of strange tongues and other sudden Revelations which were peculiar to the Prophets and Apostles and those primitive times which none of you as I know pretend to and which to expect now were high presumption if not tempting of God The Original Languages of the Scripture cannot ordinarily be understood without Grammar Learning there is much Oratory in
have them void of all humane learning Truly when I see the boldness and confidence of Mr. Haggar and perceiv that he is an unlearned and ignorant man I cannot but marvel 5. Thus all men to be sure judicious may see whether the Priests of this Nation as M Hag. scornfully calls them do walk contrary to Christ and his Discipes SECT 5. H. H. same p. Object Christ was able to teach them all wisedom and did give them extraordinary gifts for the perfecting of his work but now there is none such Therefore men must get abilities by humane learning Answer This is a gross mistake for we have nothing else to do but to believe and obey that Word which was by them preached when they were so endued with those gists aforesaid And now if any man preach he must preach that Word 2 Tim. 4.2.3 4. For that is able to do all the work of conversion and sanctification and to make us wise to Salvation c. 2 Tim. 3.15 16 17. See whom the Apostle accurseth Gal. 1.8 9. Therefore we are commanded 2 Thes 2.15 and Christ prayeth Joh. 17.20 Therefore they are the preachers by whom 〈◊〉 do believe and the Word is already preached that I must believe and obey Therefore no need of a little dirty humane learning to make a man a preacher of that which is so plainly preached already but every Englishman man declare it to his native Country-men and so may men in all Nations Reply 1. Here we have again some ropes of sand if that word must be preached which is able to convert sanctifie and save Then the preacher hath no need of Humane Learning 2. They are accursed that preach any other Gospel c. Therefore no need of Humane Learning 3. We must stand fast and hold the traditions we have been taught 4. Christ prays for all those that shall believe in him c. Therefore no need of Humane Learning Are you not ashamed of such absurd Arguings If you will not serve and Apprenticeship at either of our Universities I will give you twice so many years to prove the consequence you may delude your unlearned ignorant Proselytes but not us who can distinguish between a Syllogism and a Paralogism 2. What nothing else to do but to believe and obey that word which was by them preached must not I read and meditate on that word And must not you work at your calling in the week day or ride up and down the Country to make a Proselyte May not any man preach and declare the Word by your doctrine Nay why did you write print and publish this Book if you had nothing else to do but to believe and obey that Word c. If any of the particulars be expressed or implyed in that Word I would fain know how without Humane Learning the Scriptures could have been translated out of their Originalls into known tongues Suppose English or how you could have read and preached in English without Humane Learning but enough of this before 3. Me thinks I see you in Hieram's temper p) 1 K 9.13 who called the Land that Solomon gave him Cabul which word in the Phaenician Language q) Jun. Tremel Bercho of Humane learning saith justi â—ecipiunt docti respiciunt stulti despiciunt signifies displeasing and by some of the Jews it signifies Dirty So that Humane Learning which Christ greater then Solomon hath given to some of his Ministers is displeasing to you and therefore you call it DIRTY Learning in scorn and indignation No marvel it makes your folly manifest 4. Whereas you say any English man may declare the Word to his Country men and so may men in all Nations either you lispe in the language of the Quakers who cal even the holy Scriptures but a Declaration or if by declaring you mean preaching as in your page 64. women may preach or declare the mind of God to others then least women should want tongues by your doctrine men in ALL Nations may preach by virtue of M. Haggar's Ordination or Approbation CHAP. XVIII Of Infant-Baptism H. H. Secondly your Rantizing or Cozening of poor babes in their Cradles take away that and you have no Church But others who have Faithfully preached the Gospell and converted souls to the Faith and baptized them too in the name of Jesus Christ have a far greater Reply 1. How many crude Allegations do you here assert without any proof at all as that we Rantize babes nay cozen them nay in their Cradles c. all which are as truly denied by us as they are confidently yet barely affirmed by you 2. If baptism according to your Doctrines confuted be essentiall to constitute a Church then take away that and we have no Church but the Antecedent is false and therefore the Consequent 3. If by others you mean the Anabaptists I deny that you or they have faithfully preached the Gospell witnessed the many errours vented by them and discovered to be such in this book or that you have converted souls to the faith I never heard of an ignorant profane person wrought upon by your Ministry only you build on our foundation and gather where you never scattered subverting simple and unstable souls 4. How pitifully do you again contradict your self For if you have a far greater Church then we how is it that we have no Church If Goliah be a greater man then David doth that hold out that David is no man 5. I suppose you mean that Infant-Baptism is one of our pillars on which our Church stands The answer to the first may suffice here But whether Infant Baptism be according to the will of Christ hath been the main subject of this debate And therefore let the Reader compare your Answer and this Reply together and judge accordingly Only I will close with this This Pillar remains unshaken or is more settled by being shaken CHAP. XIX Of Tithes SECT 1. H. H. p. 123. Thirdly Your Tithes or forced maintenance The wages of unrighteousness 2 Pet 2.15 after which you all go astray take away that and wee may preach who will for all you By which it appeareth you are all Hirelings and will labour no longer then you are payd for it neither do you care for the Flock any longer then you are paid for it by all which you make that old Papisticall Proverb good upon your selves viz. No penny no Pater Noster So say you all in effect no mony no preaching c. Reply 1. If our Tithes be the wages of unrighteousness in the place cited by your corrupt gloss r) Numb 23.23 and 24. with Josh 13.22 a Soath-sayer or Magician The Prayers of them must be Balak's the receivers of them must be Balaam's then preaching must be cursing of God's people and what then must H. H. be who speaking with man's voyce Å¿) 1 Pet. 2.16 rebukes But 2. Our Tythes are not wages of unrighteousness neither doth the Holy Ghost call
them so 1. From your own confession you make them all one with a forced maintenance but this wageâ— was not forced but free being a voluntary gift Numb 22.5 7.16 17. or tender sent from Balack and that by the Elders of Moab v Abutensis and of Midian who lived many hundred miles from Mesopotamia where Balaam lived who was killed * Diodat the Eâ—glish Annot on Num. 24 25. in the way as he was returning homeward Numb 31.8 And I pray which of the people pay or of the Ministers that receive and gather Tythes live at such a distance Secondly this wages is called a reward nay rewards of Divination Numbers 22.7 the Elders of Moab the Elders of Midian departed with the rewards of Divination in their hand and though our Ministers are called by some Divines yet they use no Divination nor inchantment against Israel Thirdly this reward whatsoever it was is called the wages of unrighteousness x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Critica Sacra or Calvin which word unrighteousness signifie all such injustice as is joined with injury to ourneighbour Now what injury is it to take from the people that which was never theirs when they buy or take leases of their Land it 's onely the nine parts they pay for if the tenth were sold them they should pay themselves a tenth part more or if it be so calâ—ed because it was again y) Lucrum ex scelere quaesitu Beza in Loc. sought for by wickedness being ready if it could have been done without impurity to curse the people of God whom hee knew to be blessed or because z) Estius it was a reward loved desired and expected for an unjust and impious work And are our Tythes for a flagitious and impious work Fourthly this unrighteousness without doubt is the same with iniquity a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insolentia legibus repugnans nequi ia improbitas iniquitas contra leges fas aequum commissa Scap. Lexicon mentioned in the 16 verse following Now that word signifies a transgression and so rendred by Beza whereby one doth willingly violate the Law Such was the sin of Balaam who knowing the will of God would fain have done the contrary Now to use your own words on some other account p. 60 and 58. whosoever committeth sin transgresseth the Law for sin is the transgression of the Law 1 Joh. 3.4 you can never make that a sin till you shew us what command we have broken in taking Tythes for all sin is the transgression of som Law Therefore the Apostle saith where there is b) Rom. 4.15 no Law there is no transgression beside Answer to your seventh Querie p. 53. Whether there be any sin or corruption incident to man That the Scriptures doth not reprove and make manifest in express terms 3. You have asserted but not proved that Tythes are wages of unrighteousness For now all may easily discern your abuse of Scripture but I assert and by the assistance of the Lord shall prove that Tythes are wages of righteousness * Certum est ea quae Ministris ratione sui Ministeâ— ii Debâ—ntur five DECIMA RUM nomine veniunt five ali insis deberi ex JUSTITIA Rivet in c. 14. Gen. exercit 80. p. 326. I will not wade into that controversie whether Tythes now are due jure Divino ye cannot deny That Tythes were once devoted to God for his service and whether they be of Divine institution still I believe it 's more then you can disprove Sure I am when Christ tells them of Tything Mint and Cummim he saith these ought ye to have done c) Mat. 23.23 and not to leave the other undone And I am as certain that the Apostle saith Do ye not know that they which Minister about holy things d) 1 Cor. 9.13 14. live of the things of the Temple And they which wait at the Altar are partakers with the Altar Even so hath the Lord ordâ—ined that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel i. e. The Levites that did e) M. Mede p. 325. Grot. in Lâ—c. Minister about holy things there was their office did live of the things of â—he Temple i. e. of Tythes belonging to the Temple there was their maintâ—nâ—nce and the office of the Priests was to offer Sacrifice on the Altar and were fellow-sharers with the Altar i. e. with the Sacrifices offered thereon there was their maintenancâ— well therefore as in the Protasis of the similitude the wages was compared with the work So it must be in the Apodasis too and consequently to live of the Gospel must here express the wages as to preach the Gospel doth the work Indeed the word Gospel is no where else used in the New Testament for the wages and reward of good tidings but onely in this place yet the Septuagint f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth so take the word in the Old Testament 2 Sam. 4.10 He thought I would have given him a reward for his tidings Now as the Levites and Priests had their maintenance out of that which was offered to God in the Law So God hath ordained that is appointed or given order that the Ministers of the Gospel should be maintained of that which is coÌ„secrated to him in the Gospel or else to use your own phrase p. 61. It is not EVEN SO. g) Ordinavit ergo Doâ—inus non praecipiendo ut accipiant sed dando potestâ—tem accipieâ—di Estius in loc Not that Gospell preachers are here commanded to receive but are allowed a power and liberty to receive as is manisest by the example of Paul and Barnabas ver 6. with 12.15 But to leave this Is not that Righteous which is equall Now is it not equall b) â— Cor. â— 11 that they who sow sprituall things should receive carnall things Augustine tells us that i'ts equall and reasonalbe that Tithes be paid because all things are the Lords by whom wee live c. Again doth not the law of this Nation ¶) Aâ— civill government is an ordinance of God Rom. 13.1.2 but this or that form or sort is an ordinance of mar 1 Pet 2.13 So is maintenance for the Ministry peremptorily enjoin the due payment of Tythes It 's so evident I need not prove it which makes H. H. c. grin their teeth at it But they need not The same Law of the Land that makes the tenth part ours doth make the ninth part theirs If we have no title to the tenth they have none to the Rest And are not the wholesome laws of Magistrates to be i) Rom. 13.1.7 1 Pet. 2.13.14 obeyed Indeed the Law of the Land permits 6l. in an 100l. but withall cautions that therefore usury is not to be concluded to be lawfull c. But it cautions no such thing in point of Tithes and till Mr. Hag. proves the sinfulness of Tithes They are not
to be counted and called ways of unrighteousnesse Again is it not the Righteous practice and custome of the Church of God in this Common-wealth for many hundred years And doth not the Apostle enjoin Rom. 13.7 To render to all their dues Custome to whom custome c I remember Hierom saith somewhere that he whoever he be that shall refuse to pay tithes to the Ministers of Christ do condemn themselves for unjust menâ— The receivers therefore must be just men and Augustin saith k) res Aâ—â—enas invadune Aug. 119. Ser De Tempore Tithes are due to be paid and who-ever refuseth invadeth another mans right But I forbear to cite the judgments of the Fathers and the decrees of Councills for H. H. will turn them off with a wet finger saying He weighs them not It were well if he could weigh the learned piece of Bishop Carleton and of Sir Henry Spelman Knight Doctor Selater c. which lye unanswered to this very day For ought I know 4. It is as false which you as boldly assert that we all go astray after this wages of unrighteousnesse You cannot be ignocant unlesse willingly that many pretious Ministers in this land have their maintenance not by tythes but by a l) No man may more freely speak of Tythes then my self who receive none nor ever shall do B Hall Case of Conscience resolved p. 229. And you say in the close of this Section So nomony no preaching Some preachers then receive mony not tithes By your own confession Salary With what face then can you say that we all go astray after the same To say nothing of your wonted custome and excellent faculty in perverting Scriptures for going astray must needs refer to the right way and that is the true and sound doctrine of Christ bringing in Heathenism after the example of Balaam m) Numb 24.14 with 25 1. Jude 11. Revel 2 14. who to get a reward taught Balak to curse the Israelites by inticing them to filthinesse and idolatry together Do our Ministers so This dirt the Lord will wipe off to your shame 5. No marvell you are an enemy to Ministers maintenance when you are a sworn enemy to the Ministry of the Church of England You imagine both stand and fall together For you say take away that we may preach who will for all you This is some of your left handed Logick to make way for the taking of the Ministry by taking away Tythes This design you have learned either of Julian the Apostate who thought by this means to root out the Christian ministry or of the Jusuites whose plot in the same as before 6. It s strange that you therefore conclude we are all Hirelings and will labour no longer then we are paid for it c. But Quakers language is not strange to you If wee are Hirelings while wee labour is it not fit wee should be paid For the n) Luk. 10 7 The ministry signifies a service whereto the wages is no lesse due then meat to the payer Bishop Hall Ibid. Labourer is worthy of his HIRE I will not trouble the Reader or my self with any Answer or Reply to your inconsiderable and unseemly flirts only observe what a reverend * Mr. Ven. Milk Hony Minister of the Gospell saith Some men will bee finding fault where no fault is to be found INVEIGHING men are most commonly ENVYING men They who inveigh much are men of envy much SECT 2. H. H. p. 124. This is one reason of our dissenting from you because you take Tythes or a sorced mantenance from those whom you call Herticks whereas the Priests under the Law never demanded Tithes of the uncircumcised Gentileâ— c. Reply 1. Suppose Tithes to be a forced mainâ—enâ—nce yet it will not follow that they are unlawfull the Landlord may distreyn on his Tenant for non-payment of his Rent The Collectors on the people for non-payment of their monthly Taxe and the day-labourer for his hire or wages 2. You should have described those whom we call Hereticks who are they but you love to â—alk in the dark and keep yourself within Generalls If you mean the man of your own persâ—â—ation I am clearly oâ—â—is mind the saith o) Quiâ— regant â—â—â—th thristâ—eâ— â—â—â—um wigiâ—ale Simâ—â—â—â— sint Hereâ—â—â— Ames cas do Câ—scâ—ent l. 4. c. 4. s 9. As Anabaptists deny originall sin c. They are Hereticks And why may we not call you Hereticks as well as you compare your selves to the uncircumcised Gentiles 3. All of us do not take Tythes of such hereticks for some of us have no such cattell within our folds not an Anabaptist in many of our Parishes 4. Your parallel is not right for though the Priests under the Law did not demand Tythes of the uncircumcised Gentiles yet they might of the Jews suppoâ—â—â—ng there were hereticks among them Heb. 7.5 They have a commandement to take Tithes of the people i. e. of your Brethren whether sound or unsound in the Faith SECT 3. H. H. Ibid. Though the Jews paid Tythes under the Law to their Priests Yet the converted Gentiles did not Act. 15. ver 24 25 28 29. Wherein there is no one word or syllable spoken about the intollerable burden of Tythes which is Antichristran and denyeth Christ to come in the flesh who changed the Priesthood and therefore of necessity there is a change of the Law Heb. 7.11 12. Now seeing the Priesthood and Law are changed where is the ground to take Tythes as Priests or what Law compells the people to pay Tythes to you as unto Priests Answer if you can Reply 1. If by the Law you mean the Leviticall Law I dâ—re be bold to affirm that Tythes were payd before that Abraham payd Tythes and that of all to Melchizedeck Gen. 14.20 with Heb. 7.2 as if hee had followed the Commandement of the Apostle Gal. 6.6 Let him that is taught or Catechized communicate to him that teacheth or catechizeth in all good things or in all his goods r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jacob also vowed to give the tenth also Gen. 28.22 So that the payment of Tythes is antienter then the Leviticall Law Indeed though Levi received Tythes afterward by a particular grant from God yet he paid them generally with the Congreation in the Loyns of Abraham unto the Priesthood of Christ personated by Melchizedeck Heb. 7.9 10. Therefore they are not abolished by the Gospel but may be continued as an Evangelicall revenew for the maintenance of those who give the Sacramentall Bread and Wine the materialls of Melchizedeck's beneficence to the people 2. Though the converted Gentiles were to abstain from those four things mentioned in the Acts yet it will not follow that therefore they were to abstain from paying Tythes no more then this that therefore they were to abstain from obedience to the Roman Magistrates under whose Dominion they now were or that they were to abstain then therefore now
boasting we can trust our Master for a livelyhood whiles we are about his work 4. Whereas you would have us content with what the people will freely give us you have no precept for that What is said in Mat. 10.8 Freely ye have received freely give is proved but a Temporary command and that in reference to those miraculous works mentioned in the beginning of that verse Besides you bewray whose Successors you are viz. Even of those false Teachers who were cropâ— into the Church of Corinth and boasted of themselves and their doctâ—ine and that they would preach the Gospel freely and to cried down Paul Ministry 2 Cor. 11.12 13. being themselvs deceitful workers and transforming themselvs into the Apostles of Christ 5. As you superciliously judge your self and illiterate mechanick men better able to go through the work of the Ministry then we So unwares you call your selvs Hirelings as well as us for you say p. 123. And to be content with the wages Christ hath a lowed them and who but Hirelings receive wages SECT 6. H. H. same page Third Obj. 1 Cor. 9.7 Who goeth a warfare at his own charges Answ True neither do any go awarfare at their enemies charges such you say are the An abaptists Therefore you cannot in conscience expect any from them because you war not for them but against them That Scripture onely shews you should have charges of them you fight for and good reason if the cause be good but it must be freely if you force them you fight not for them but against them and make them your enemies and lâ—se your privilâ—gâ—s Reply 1. If it be true you grant as much as is dâ—sired that Ministers as well as souldiers must be mainteined not at their own but others charges 2. It 's false that none go a warfare at their enemies charges The State waâ—â—s against Papists in 〈◊〉 â—â—â—ly at the charges of the Papists in England Theâ—â—fore 〈◊〉 one your frequent inconsequences They or you a◠〈◊〉 â—â—emies therefore we cannot in conscience expect anâ— from them 3. It 's as false that we war not for them soil the Anabaptists But against them we fight not against their persons for whom we pray but against their practices against which we pray and preach too Therefore if this be all as you say we can have from that Scripture that we should have charges of them we fight for then they are to bear our charges and furnish us with necessaries 4. The rest is but a piece of Seditious doctrine 1. No maintenance unless the quarrel be good Must the common souldier fit in judgment on the cause 2. This maintenance must be free and not forced May not souldiers or Constables distrain for non-paiment of the monthly Taxe 3. Forcing is a losing of privilege Is not the former instance an Argument rather of gaining and confirming your privilege SECT 7. H. H. p. 126. Fourth Objection You say who planteth a Vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof Answ True But you never planted the Vineyard of the Separatists and Anabaptiss therefore you may not eat of the fruit of their labors except you buy it or take it from them wickedly by force Nay you say we are not the Lord's Vineyard but rather an accursed people like the ground that brings forth thorns and thistles therefore you cannot possibly expect any fruit of us for men cannot gather grapes of Thorns nor Figgs of Thistles Reply 1. If it be true you grant again as much as is desired 2. The Vineyard of the Separatists and Anabaptists as they are now called and termed were once planted by us and had so continued if you had not broken down the wall and stollen away the plants Nay the Lord himself may complain of you as he doth of Israel I had planted thee a noble Vine wholly a right seed how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange Vine to me Jer. 2.2 3. Your exception is a meer begging of the Question 4. We do say You are a Vineyard but bringing forth wilde grapes Isa 5.2 3 4. your Vine being the Vine of Sodom Deut. 32.32 and of the fields of Gomorrah your grapes are grapes of gall bitter clusters 5. As the Frenchman they say had rather leese his God then his jest So you are content to be thorns and thistles rather then we should have the grapes and figs of maintenance from you I pitty your lamentable abuse of Scripture 6. If we cannot possibly expect any fruit from you much lesse force you yet it seems by you we may from the Vineyard which we tend and dresse SECT 8. H. H. same pag. Again you will say Who seedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk thereof Answ Truth But you do not feed the flock of the Separates and Anabaptists nay you say they are not of the flock of Christ but Wolves and Tygres therefore you have no right to their milk nor can you expect any from them Reply 1. The Separates and Anabaptists were once of our flock till you â—tole them away and therefore by your expression you grant We might then eat of their milk 2. If they be degenerate into anâ—hâ—rd of Wolves and Tygres yet while they live within the Fold of our parishes we may by the law of the land which is not repugnant to the law of God as hath been shewed require lawfully milk from them i e. subsistence or maintenance 3. As we HAVE fed them so we WOULD feed them if you had not stollen them away or they themselvs leapt out of the pasture And it is a great Question Whether we may not claim them as part of our flock still Absolon could not shake off the relation of Davids son though he did shake off naturall affection to David and by rebellion endeavoured to dethrone him A Landlord may demand and exact rent of his Tenant though de doth treacherously attourn to another a meerstranger compritively SECT 9. H. H. same p. Lastly you say we must not muzzle the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the corn Answ True But what is that to the other beasts that tread out no corn but rather destroy it and will not suffer it to grow till the Harvest but will pall up wheat and tares together contrary to Matth. 13.28 29 30. Reply 1. If by beasts you mean the Ministers of the Gospell you include your self by saying OTHER BEASTS and who they are that tread out no â—orn I cannot imagine we have now no dumb Sir John's nor bare Readers but such as are apt to teach b) 1 Tim. 3.2 with and c) ch 5.17 labour in the word and doctrine 2. Though Christ doth not tell us in the explication of the parable d) Iâ—ta ad parabolae sinifieationeâ—n no peâ—tnebant Mâ—ulta eniâ—n in parabolâ—s non ad significaâ—dam sed ad in len dam narraâ—iâ—nem adhâ—bentur Maldon in loc who the men were that sleâ—t and who
the servants were that would have pluckt up the tares as not pertinent to the signification of the parable yet he tells us who the tares are c. ver 38. The children of the wicked one yet ver 29 30. do not forbid either excommunication of hereticks for you say you cast such our p. 109 or execution of malefactors as murderers thievs c. by the civill power as you insinuate but rather foretell that such shall be in the Church til the end of time as our Saviour expounds it vers 39 40. The Ark e) Aug Ep. 146. containes the Raven as well as the Dove till the deluge passe away Neither doth the housholder absolutely forbid the pulling up of the tares but least the wheat be rooted up with them but whâ—n there is no such danger it 's clearly implyâ—d the tares may be pulled up but if they cannot be beâ—d stinguished or safely separated from the wheat both are to grow till the harvest But I professe I cannot see to what purpose you bring in this place unlesse you and your paâ—ty be the beasts that tread down the Tyth-corn unlesse you be of that mind to let it continue till the day of judgment 3. Let the Reader observe that H. H. cannot deny Gospell-maintenance to Gospell Minâ—sters the Apostles Arguments are so clear f) Cornel. à Lipid in 1 Cor 9. 1. From the example of other Apostles ver 5.2 From the simiâ—itudes of souldiers shepherds and husbandmen v. 7.3 From the Law of Moses v. 8.4 From the example of Priests and Levites in the Old Testament v. 13.5 From the Ordinance of God and Christ v. 14.6 From the nature of the thing it self v. 11 As a labourer is worthy of his wages yet he concludes this Section with rayling which he cannot do with reaâ—onâ—ng which shall have no other reply THEN WHAT IS MADE except it be The Lord Rebuke thee CHAP. XX. Of the Magistrates Power SECT I. H. H. p. 124. The fourth Reason of our separation is the Magistrates sword by which you have been upholden these many years c. Reply 1. In your 52. p. falsly printed 24. you truly cite diverse Scriptures to prove we ought to be subject to Magistrates 1 Pet. 13 14 15 Tit. 3.1 1 Tim. 2.1 2. Rom. 13. Now wheâ—her you do not contradict your self in denying here their power and drawing us from it I leave it to any rationall man to judge 2. Whether you do not or would not wind in another piece of Popery concerning the exemption of the Clergy as it 's called from the secular power let the wise consider But. 3. The Ministers of Christ have as clear an interest in the Magistraticall power of this Nation for the preservation of their persons and prevention of their wrongs and provision for their rights as any of the good people of the Common-wealth of England For 1. It s our birth-priviledge g) Act. 22.28 we have not bought it but were born to it and therefore if unjust persons do injustice to us we are free to complain and to make use of the Mâ—gitrates power for justice against them for he beareth h) Rom. 13. â— no the sword in vain But you would have the Ministers of the Gospel moâ—e miserable then the meanest English-man in this land who by birth-priviledge may implead any that detain their Rights from them 2. As it is our birth priviledge as men so it is our perogative as we are Christians nay as we are the Ministers of Christ The Law and Authority of the Magistrate reacheth to us and to our right as well as to any other For this end among others are they set up and ordained of God that we as well as others as occasion serves may seek to them for justice It hath been said by an antient Father i) Decimae ex debito requiruntuâ— c. Agustin Tythe is required as due debt And they that will not give the tithe to whom it is due invade upon the right of others which is not theirs 3ly As Ministers faithfully and freely submit to all their lawful commands so are they tyed by the law of God and this nation to protect us in all lawfull and just complaints and therefore they are called Gods k Psal 82.6 with Joh. 10.34 now God regardeth not persons Deut. 10.17 but without respect of persons judgeth according to every mans work 1 Pet. 1.17.4 The Low-Dutch confessiâ—n â—uns thus We believe that Magistrates are not only to believe the civill state but also the Ministers of the Word that THEY be maintained c. Indeed when there was no Christian Magistrate to relieve his wronged Ministers God then as Lord chief Justice did punish the sin of Sacriledgeas on Ananias and Saphira c. SECT 2. H. H. Ibid. Unto the Magistrates sword you have applyed your selves when poor souls out of conscience have denyed you to eat of the milk of that flock which you never fed and to tast the fruit of that vine-yard which you never planted c. Reply 1. This hath been answered before in Chapter foregoing s 8. concerning the flock and milk Vineyard and fruit 2. If fruit and milk be denyed by your poor souls I fear it is not out of conscience but covetousnesse That may swim in the top but this lyes at the bottome and yet too vâ—sibly discovers it self Though I grant they may deny out of conscience too but erroneous 3. Our Application to the Magistrate is no sin I trow when people out of malice or avarice not out of want or weaknesse refuse to pay us our dues for what law have we broken thereby since sin is a transgression of the Law Indeed the Apostle saith It is a fault m 1 Cor. 3.7 Camero â—nd Dr. Hammond 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the word there signifies a defect or failing or low pitch of a Christian but not such as can be absolutely and universally counted a sin as not being against any precept All you can have from that Scripture is to use your own words p. 125. is that it is a diminution a lesse degree of Christian perfection But if it were a sin then it lyes in this in that one Christian did implead his Fellow-christian before Heathen Tribunalls or as the Apostle saith v. 6. before unbelievers or infidells not using that method prescribed by Christ to Christians Mat. 18.15 c. If our Magistrates were Heathens we would swallow our complaints though perhaps you count all heathens that are not baptized after your new mode and according to the Apostle suffer wrongs and be defrauded but ours blessed be God are not such SECT 3. H. H. You plead you have right to it Tithes I suppose you mean from Scripture and that you can prove the right from Scripture Thus have you made the Kings and Rulers of the Nations drunk with the wine of the wrath of the fornication c. Revel 17.13.14 Reply 1. Hath