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
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
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
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
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
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
2.13 14 15. Tit. 3.1 1 Tim. 2.1 2. Rom. 13. Is not the Scripture full of these things and yet you do call for Scriptures Surely you read so many other books that you forget to read the Scriptures c. Reply 1. Mr. Baxter said The new Testament speaks sparingly of an Oath before a Magistrate War Sabbath c. not as if he held it made no mention at all of them as you would make others believe For if it speak sparingly it 's not a total silence 2. It seems you are not gotten yet into the highest Forme of the old Anabaptists s) Sleid. Comment lib. 10. Docent non licere Christianis foâ—o contendere non gereâ—e Magistratum nonjusâ—urandum dicere non habe c quod proprium sed omnia debere esse omnibus communia who denied a Christian Magistracy 〈◊〉 Mr. Baxter saith and you make no Apologie for them and an Oath before a Magistrate concerning which that place in the Hebrews speaks nothing and the lawfulness of War too I am glad you are not so high flown but how soon you may be the Lord knows t) 2 Tim. 3.13 for evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse 3. I appeal to your own conscience whether Peter or Paul when they wrote spâ—ke of Christian Magistrates in the places cited by you though we are bound to those rules since the Lord hath blessed us with Christian Magigrates 4. You bring us no Scripture in the New Testament for the Sabbath as you did for the other particulars mentioned by Mr. Baxter I might therefore draw â—s â—igid a conclusion against you as you do in other things against Mr. Cook Mr. Baxter c. but I had rather be a pattern of Christian charity then of groundlesse jealousie In this then either you subscribe to the main of Mr. Baxter's position or else you have said enough as to the Sabbath in your p. 13. as peradventure you imagine 4. As for the charge upon Mr. B. that he forgets to read the Scripture in reading so many other books and your counsel to lay them aside c. they are both unworthy of any answer The one savoring of Pride and uncharitableness the other of ingratitude at least for the labors of the Learned Onely Sir before I part I pray tell me if you had never read any book but the English Bible how could you have empanell'd two Grand Juries v) Chap. 5. sect 14. 16. consisting the one of 22 and the other of 21 as hath been said to serve your ends or have confuted as you think Mr. C. Mr. B. M. Hall c. And to what purpose was your book written if we must give our selvs wholly to read and â—â—â—dy the Scriptureâ— SECT 6. H. H. In your Second Position you say That the great difficulties of a point is no proof that it is not truth and a thing is not therefore to be rejected as not of God because it is not easie to understand You affirm also that multitudes of silly Ignorants do the same In all which I shall not oppose you Reply 1. I am glad that Mr. Baxter and you can hi◠〈◊〉 in any thing Here it seems you can shake hands and 〈◊〉 friends It 's well if it be not like Joah's â—iss 2. Will not any sober judicious Christian conclude from hence without breach of charity that you are one of thâ—se â—â—â—y ignâ—rants whom Mr. Baxter 〈…〉 or four lines following For because 〈…〉 noâ— spoken plainly in your sense of Infant-baptism therefore you neither believe it nor practise it SECT 7. H. H. You say If a subtil Pagan should come amongst the people and dispute that your Scriptuâ—e is not the Word of God and that Christ Jesus is not the Son of God he would silence them more â—hen the Anabaptists can do Answer Here Mr. Baxter rather siâ—â—th with Pagans and Atheists that deny both God and Christ and the Holy Scriptures then with those which are faâ—sly called Anabaptists Though we honestly owâ— God and Christ and the Scriptures and desire to plead nothing else for our practice for which cause he crieth out against us in his â—enth Position calling us bruit beasts and nothing 〈◊〉 because we call to him for Scripture to prove his practice yet now hee makes as if Atheists and Pagans had more to say for themselvs then we All which I leave to God and the impartial Reader to judge Reply 1. How dare you say without blushing that you are fâ—â—sly called Anabaptists if you truly say that you are baptized again p. 24. If you speak truly in one place you speak falsly in the other u) Chap. 6. sect 3. but this hath been hinted before 2. If you did honestly own the Scriptures you would not so dishonestly wrest them as Jer. 2.12 13. p. 8. nor so dishonestly play with them as Rom. 3.12 Isa 45.5 Joh. 1.20 p. 29. to say nothing of the Scriptures abused by you in this very 32 p. and many other in your book 3. It 's an unchristian charge that Mr. B. rather sides with Atheists then Anabaptists now truly so called When he pities or reproves with pity a multitude of silly ignorant Christians who are less able to answer a subtil Pagan about the authority of the Scripture and Deity of Christ then an Anabaptist about rebaptizing Are not those more difficult points then these present under debate What siding is imaginable in this Must Christ be said to side * Mat. 11.10 21 22 23 24. with Tyre and Sidon and Sodom rather then with Corazin Bethsaida and Capernaum because he tells them it shall be more tollerable for the former then for the latter in the day of judgment what blasphemy would this be 4. It 's a notorious untruth that Mr. B. calls you bruit beasts onely because you call for Scripture to prove his practice No but for renouncing reason or evident consequences drawn from Scripture which you do in the present case All which I also leave to God and the impartial Reader to judge SECT 8. H. H. pag. 33. Mr. B. speaks great swelling words of vanity viz. He will hazard all the reputation of his understanding on it that there is ten times more to be said for Free-will then can be said against Infant baptism yea it is twenty times more difficult and yet you offer to dispute it with any man and must it therefore be true Answ 1. As for the reputation of your understanding I will not say what I judge what it 's worth 2. If you had said There is ten times more to be said for Free will then for Infant baptism you had hit it right Lastly whereas you say Free-will is such a difficult point I am not of your judgment in that For I believ it 's easie to them that will understand to know that no man in or of himself without God hath any free will or power to think or do that which
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
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
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
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
about the subject of Baptism manner of Administration c. Reply 1. We are agreed as to the first It were well if in the main we could hit it too 2. Those differences in the Church of Corinth and between the Apostles will not justifie yours unless they were of the same kind howsoever they might be impediments to Faith and practice for a time and to some 3. You are too lavish to say wee differ about Cross Altar Font c. since these things are laid aside your Argument out of Jerem. 2.13 where you took the broken Cisterns for Fonts may make us quite out of conceit with them You might have forborn the Rails if you had not loved them dearly and loth to part with them and the Scotch-Directory as you scornfully call it but your tongue and Ink must be of a colour If Reformation be so far advanced as that the shooing-horns of Popery be cast out of door I wish you and your Proselytes in your universal Redemption Original sin Free-will Falling away from Grace do not bring in Popery at the window SECT 17. H. H. p. 96. Mr. Baxter denies Dipping of Believers to be the custom of the Church in the primitive times and he is not ashamed to give the Scripture the Lie before all men saying It 's not proved by any And why It may be because our Translators have not put the word Baptize into English and called it Dipping Reply 1. You are too full of your tongue Before you had charged Mr. Baxter for giving the Scripture the Lie you should have proved it But this is an usual scrap of your passionate Logick 2. Your sore back makes you kick at every one that comes near even at our Translators who yet according to the customary use of the Word and sense of the place have truly and rightly translated it For in reference to common actions it cannot signifie a total plungeing over head and ears therefore well Englished Wash Mark 7 4. Luke 11.38 Heb. 9.10 and in reference to the Sacramental action the Holy Ghost doth never use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Dipping but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore well rendred Baptizing which is become English by use as well as Hallelujah and Amen c. 3. Mr. Cook o) Font uncâ—vered p. 4 5. would have you prove it if you can that the word Baptize imports Dipping either from the proper signification of the Word or from the nature of the Ordinance or from Apostolical practice c. All which with his reasons you have clearly past by 4. Suppose which is not yet granted that the word at first did signifie Dipping not exclusively to all other yet it 's ordinary in Scripture to have words used in their Derivative not Primitive acceptation E. gr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its prime signification is taken for an Opinion or Sect Acts 26.5 yet the context elswhere puts this meaning on it Heresies Gal. 5.20 So there is a word that signifies Catechizing properly but used of any kind of Teaching and so translated twice Gal. 6.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Taught teacheth Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Messenger but custome an Angel Fashion put an estimate on cloaths as custome doth a sense on words or as waters lose the taste of the Fountain from whence they flow and retain that of the Mineral through which they pass Thus Mr. B. is clear from a Lie and the Translators from a fault but take notice Mr. Haggar confesseth the Translators to bee on our side 5. It is strange that is answering the Qu. why is it not proved You say It may be because our Translators have not put the word Baptize into English and called it Dipping To delude your Reader you bring your dream and conjecture It may be whereas Mr. Baxter allegeth expresly other certain Reasons which shall be defended anon SECT 18. H. H. But Mr. Baxter confesseth p. 135. the word signifieth to wash as well as to Dipp and so in the Catechism Water wherein the person Baptized is Dipped Therefore 1. They can no more blame us for Dipping then we may them for Washing 2. How are they to be blamed that do neither but onely sprinkle a few drops of water on the face of a child and so delude the people 3. Then it must be Washing by Dipping or wetting all over for who can wash a thing that is not wet Reply 1. Mr. Baxter hath granted more then he needed For the word signifies generally no more then Washing r See Mr Leighs Critica sacra as the learned shew out of many Authors 2. We do not blame you simply for Dipping but for making it Essential to the Ordinance No Dipping no Baptizing is your crie Jesus Christ hath no where limited Baptizing to the mode and externality of Dipping And the Catechism which you cite saith expresly the party is baptized by Dipping or Sprinkling which disjunction you have left out 3. Though I may safely say with Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter that I never saw a child sprinkled ours being rather a powring of water then sprinkling yet it 's false that you say sprinkling is not washing and therefore our people are deluded and a third part of the Nation unbaptized The Israelites were baptized in the Cloud 1 Cor. 10 ver 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not that they were dipt in it but because it dropt on them There sprinkling is baptizing If sprinkling you say be neither dipping nor washing then we have deluded the people all this while c. But I assume sprinkling is washing as is proved Then by your own arguing we have not deluded the people as being still unbaptized but rather you delude the people by your silly sophistry and bearing them in hand that baptizing signifies onely dipping 4. Your third Inference is as weak being without Scripture and reason 1. You bring no Scripture to prove the word baptizing signifies a washing by dipping but onely It must needs be which is not a sufficient much lesse a Scripture proof Thus your great weapon Necessity is soon blunted But I will give you a Scripture or two that holds forth a Washing but not by Dipping or as you say wetting all over It 's said Mark 7.4 When they come from the market except they wash the word is they baptize Mark 7.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they eat not Can any rational man imagine the Pharisees when they came from the market plunged themselvs over head and ears No it 's clear they washed but their hands from ver 2. yea in this verse mention is made of washing of cups pots and tables or beds which is not usually by dipping but sprinkling or powring water 2. Your inference is with some reason but a silly one For who can wash a thing that is not wet It stuck in your teeth you durst not speak out All over as immediately before For you can wash off a spot from the face of
do business in great waters same verse and to see the works and wonders of the Lord in the deep c. and are delivered and brought to their desired Haven 6. We say the whole man is baptized when not the whole of man but part is washed Whole Christ was crucified but not the whole of Christ your arguing is very weak to all that have understanding When a man is wounded in any one part we say truly the man is wounded though not all over Circumcision was a cutting off the foreskin of the flesh onely and yet the Jews child was Circumcised Sir when your tongue talks we say Mr. Haggar speaks will it follow that every part of Mr. Haggar speaks By this Argument hee is all tongue * Vox praeterea nihil but if his heels had spoken they might have made as wise an answer 7. Your next instance proves as little that Christ was dipt when hee was baptized for the words may be read comming up From q) Mar. 1 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the water and that translation is more proper and suitable because all Rivers for the most part lye in the lower ground in comming to which wee are said to descend and coming from to ascend And indeed the Preposition is so rendered in the verse immediatly foregoing viz. Jesus came r) Mark 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From Nazareth yea it 's said The Dogs eat of the Crums which fall s) Mat. 15.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from their masters table yea where the same story is recorded Å¿) Mar. 3.7.13 it 's so translated twice as Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come and then came Jesus from Galilee and often else where in the New Testament what more ordinary then to say Such a man came from Sea Thames c. Here appears the weakness of your inference and the instance doth not plainly shew that Christ went first down into the water or else how could he come out of it Your text in John comes now to be considered SECT 20. H. H. p. 67. 98. And the Scripture saith Jo. 3.23 John Baptised in Enon because there was much water there But M. Baxter answers that Travellers report that the river Enon is but a little brook that a man may almost step over 1. Surely it is want of the fear of God and love to the truth that he should turne aside his ear from the Scripture that saith There was much water to believe a Man a Traveller and Travellers may lie by authority why may not Sr John Mandevill be believed as well as this Travellers news The Lord be praised that hath delivered my soul from believing him and such as hee is Acts. 2.40.2 If it were granted yet Enon might have much water in another place Though but a little water where the Traveller was As it is with many Rivers in England Reply Travellers may lie but may not some speak truth If not I shall take heed of you and hardly believe you who have been a Traveller and that among the Jesuits the most exquisite Masters of that Art and compassers of Sea and I and to make Proselytes And had you named the book wherein Sr John Mandevill's tale may be found I would shape a sutable reply but let it passe in the mean time for one of your cunning devised fables 2. Your veine of railing at M. Baxter I turn a deaf care to when you prove us an untoward generation for you calling us so doth not prove us so your thanks for your selfe and caveat to others will be seasonable In the interim you do mock both God and man The Turk may as well praise God Luk. 18.11 he is no Christian and the Pharisee t) See 18.11 That he was not as this Publican 3. What this Enon was is disputable u) Calvin in Joh. 3.23 some think it a Town situate in the Tribe of Manasseh Diodate a Citty as Salim was to which the text saith â—t was near Others a Fountain or small brook v) As Grotius Jun. and M. Baxter-Sandys Travells l. 3. p. 141. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As Rev. 1.15 and 14.2 Bee it so yet wee are not a jot the nearer for dipping for the phrase is elsewhere usually translated * many waterâ— Now then it signifies many convenient places at the water where John and his disciples might be employed at once Not any deep water or great river which commonly is hemmed in with great bankes which deny an easy accesse for an Administration 2. Many waters are somtimes taken in Scripture and why not here for a confluence of waters on som plain x) Ezech. 13.10 for the watering of medows and some trees as we see in many places in England where the ground is low it 's plashy and seemes to be a little Sea and yet not knee deep 3. Jordane the Prince of Rivers in that Country which hath it's name from Jor and Dan two fountains from whence it riseth was not above eight fathoms deep nor Navigable y) Isa 33.21 what a small water then in comparison was Enon not far distant from Jordane Now though you will not believe travellers reports yet I hope you will notreject these plain reasons 4. You say Enon might have much water in another place although but little where the Traveller was Here you have only probablity for proof therefore as you argue z) p. 28. we read but of 4. or 5. whole households were baptized therefore not likely they i. e. the Apostles baptized whole Nations if they did we desire to see iâ— So I. It 's not likely Aenon was so deep for dipping if so prove it by Scripture if you can and we will believe it SECT 21. H. H. p. 21. Further M. Baxter saith The Jaylour in the night in his house was baptized but the Scripture saith Act. 16.33.34 Now if the Jaylour took Paul and Silas It implies they took them out and the next words prove it plainly viz. Hee brought them into his house Reply 1. Some enemies are sooner foyled then found I know not what to make of these Fiblets of an Answer If the Jaylour took Paul and Silas it implies THEY took them out who can make sence of this It may be you mean the Jaylour took them out as may perhaps be gathered from the Antecedent of your proposition and the proof you bring for the consequence but it seems you know not what to say or what you say you are IN and OUT 2. May not any unprejudiced Reader see this to be the sense of the words as they lye in the text viz. a) Act. 16.24 with 30 32 33. The Jaylour brought Paul and Silas out of the prison yea the inner-Prison into some outward room thereof where he heard the word and was Baptized and then brought them into his house which as it was usuall joyned to the prison 3. You do not tell
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
k) Mat. 28 20. I am with you alway even to the end of the world I pray you what is it to preach the Gospel but to open and hold forth the Covenant the Covenant I say made with Abraham whereof this was one branch I am thy God and of thy seed Compare Gen. 12.3 and 17.17 with Gal. 3.8 13 14. Now that the Infants of Covenanters are within the Covenant aswell as grown persons is clear to him that will not shut his eies If not It shall be made clear by the assistance of the Lord in this ensuing reply to avoid Tautologies 3. Consider also as what they were to do so to whom every creature all nations now that Infants should be none of the creatures or nations is unsuitable to reason and religion specially considering that they were included as speciall subjects when the Church was in so small a plot of ground and Christ doth not exclude them by any restriction or exception which had been needfull and seasonable if they were to be excluded SECT 2. 2. Observ H. H. The end was that they might beleeve it Reply 1. These words are not expresly set down in the places cited viz. Matt. and Mark They are drawn but by consequence 2. Neither do they hold forth the end of preaching so much as the event But thirdly whether end or event if your meaning be that they might believe it for their seed and houshold As Acts 16.31 Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and thine house You and I are agreed in this SECT 3. 3. Observ H. H. That those which did believe the Gospell should be baptized into his name Reply 1. If you understand it of Infidells converted to the faith not excluding their children we believe it and accordingly practice as well as you for the Scriptures alleaged by you prove that where the Gospell is first preached whether to Jews oâ— Gentiles Turks or Pagans who perhaps never heard of Christ before they must first be instructed and embrace the Gospell before they be baptized as Abraham was before he was circumcised but this hinders not their children from baptisme no more then Abrahams children from circumcision nor infants not believing from salvation for you say (l) Foundat p. 61 infants are saved without actuall faith though the Text alleaged by you saith (m) Mark 16.16 he that believeth not shall be damned 2. If you mean as your practice speaks that such who have been baptized once for so you grant p. 24. Be baptized again as we are and have received the Lords Supper often and therefore owned as Church members should bee baptized by you I say this doctrine and practice hath no sooting on the Texts alleaged by you either by clear consequence from or expresseness of those Scriptures as hereafter shall be more fully evinced SECTION 4. Fourth Observ H. H. That those baptized believers were after to be taught to observe all other things whatsoever Christ had commanded his Apostles to teach them Reply 1. After to be taught If you mean a good while after It s our practice to teach infants after baptism assoon as they are capable (n) Gen. 18 19. As Abraham taught his children a good while after circumcision but if you mean it presently after Baptisme and so continually to their lives end I grant it of grown persons such baptized believers in the same or like juncture of Circumstances Secondly yet I do not find expresse mention made that the Eunuch was instructed by Philip after he was baptized by Philip but rather the contrary for it s said (o) Act 8 39. And when they were come up out of the water the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip that the Eunuch saw him no more Or that Ananias instructed Saul after Baptism though its said (p) Act. 9.18 19. Then was Saul certain dayes with the disciples at Damasâ—us or that Saul now Paul instructed the Jailour (q) Act. 16.33 34. after Baptism You may by this time perceive that your observation stood in need of being bounded with some caution 3. You do not tell us by whom they are to be taught afterward surely you left the door open for a private gifted brother SECTION 5. H. H. Observ Fifth To this practice viz. to a people thus walk ing according to this rule hearing his sayings and doing them The Lord Christ hath promised his presence saying Loe I am with you always to the end of the world but the end of the world is not yet Therefore Christ is still with those baptized believers which do thus walk Reply 1. In the Texts of Matt. and Mark cited by you there is no expresse mention made of these words viz. To this practice or to a people thus walking according to this rule c. They are your dictates and fancies 2. If by the worlds end is meant the particular age wherein the Apostles lived as some of late hold then it will not follow that Christ is still with those baptized believers which do thus walk Now though I professe ingeniously that I disclaim that sense as false and impertinent not only because of the termes in this promise used alwaies r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather all days and succession of times but also because your phraise s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the end of the world is understood by the same Evangelist of Christs second coming and that three severall times t) Mat. 13.39 40 49. yet you might have foreseen and prevented such an exception which quite takes away the edg of the argument and have answered the seekers as they are called whose glosse this is and who are for the most part branches that came out of your Church 3. Though I deny not the spirituall presence of Christ among all true believers as is clear by other Scriptures yet these words in Matth. 28.19 I am with you c. appertain principally if not onely to the Apostles and their successors u) Vobiscum evo nec vobiscum tantum sâ—d et vobis mortu is cum vestris succâ—ssor bus Par. in Loc. for to them our Saviour spake ver 18. with 16. They are bidden to go ver 19. Go yee and are commanded to disciple all Nations in the same verse teach ye *) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or disciple ye all Nations and ver 19. Whatsoever I have commanded you and then presently And lo I am with you So that this promise of Christs special spirituall presence is made to Ministers rather then to the people to Teachers rather then to them who are taught to Baptizers rather then to the Baptized 4. You do not distinguish between the corporall and spirituall presence of Christ as hath been hinted by me but say largely and generally Christ hath promised his presence c. Hence the Argument for Christs corporall presence seems to be as strong for the Ubiquitaries as yours is for the Anabaptists and may
speak in the same language as you do 5. We have here your grosse monoply of Christs spirituall presence as if it belonged only to you and to such as are baptized after your mode No marvail for one of your silly Proselytes x) N. G. preached or rather prated lately in private saying Christ is with us here and not yonder pointing to a Chappell near adjoyning but this is a trick of the old Donatists your predecessors who confined as is commonly known the Church of Christ within a corner of Africa abusing that Scripture as you do many Where thou makest thy stock to rest at noon y) Cant. 1.7 the Latine hath it inâ—meridie therefore forsooth they couching in the south it must be with them 6. I wonder you passe by some observations as wise as some of the 5. viz. 1. It 's the duty of every Minister to preach to every man in the world 2. No unbeliever whether baptized or unbaptized can be saved 3. it follows hereupon that Infants who cannot actually believe shall be damned For in Mark z) ch 16.15 16. believing and being baptized are as nearly connexed to salvation as in Matt. * ch 28 19 20. baptizing is to teaching and in order of phrase Faith and Baptisme are as closely joyned together and it is as absolutely expressed He that believeth not shall be damned If I should say from all which I collect these three observations I think I should gather that which the Holy Ghost never scattered SECT 6. H. H. Thus have I shewed the order of the words as they were spoken by the Lord himself Reply Sir by your shewing the order of Christs words and your shaping some observations from them you do more then intimate that Teaching must go before baptizing for if we may believe you the Gospell must bee first preached then believed and then and not till then Baptism administred I confesse Christ mentioneth teaching as our English Bibles have it in the first place and baptizing after a) J. G. Catabaptism p. 167. but this is not to instruct them to teach in the first place and then to baptize them after but only in the first place to instruct them to teach and in the second to baptize 2. Order of things iâ—not alwayes or commonly so exactly exprest in Scripture by the position of the words Therefore from Christs mentioning teaching in the first place and baptizing in the second it cannot be proved that persons must always be first taught before they bee baptized no more then Christ b) Mar. 115. putting repenting before believing proves that Repentance precedes faith or c) Rom. 10.9 naming confession with the mouth before beliefe of the heart proves that confession must go before faith as to salvation beside the second person is mentioned d) 2 Cor. 13.14 before the first and the third person e) Rev. 1.4 5 before the second and I find Daniel f) Ezech. 14.14 named before Job who was notwithstanding a long time after him with many more instances which might be given but perhaps we shall more fully speak to this in it's proper place 3. Though I am of his mind g) Nec admodum refert utrum discipulatus baptismum vel baptismus discipulatum antecedat ne quis hîc more Anabaptistarum vanè sit scrupulosus Muscul in Jo. 4.19 that it is not greatly materiall whether discipling go before baptizing or baptizing before discipling yet let it be granted that this Scripture compared with others hold out that some are to be taught before they are baptized as before p. 4. yet it will not help your cause one jot unlesse there be a concurrence of the like or the same circumstances For a difference is to be made between the constituting of a Church and a Church constituted Some things may be done in in the former which are not requisite to be done in the latter CHAP. III. Concerning Examples SECT I. H. H. same page If it can be proved by ANY word of God that any baptized little babes that cannot speak or understand then I confess they that practise it may be born with and they which cry it down as Antichristian superstition and mans Tradition may be too blame Reply 1. Practise it Cry it down I pray you whither is that Relative IT twice for failing repeated to be referr'd to the Word of God I think you meant not that yet they that practice it are not onely to be born with but to be commended also Or to little Babes That 's both incongruous and non-sensical If to Infants baptisme or the practice of baptizing little babes why did you not say so for there is no such substantive in your expression to which this word It is to be referred You that take upon you to be the great Censurer of other mens writings should have been more exact in your own 2. Infant-Baptism ever since it hath been opposed hath been sufficiently proved by the Word of God many writings of the Paedobaptists remaining yet unanswered as Mr. Baxters Mr. Cooks c. the tythe of whose arguments you have not so much as lightly touched though you make a flourish of an answer to them 3. Have patience a while and it will be proved that those little children mentioned in the Gospel * were baptized I hope that is the word If so h) Mat. 19.13 Mark 10.33 you are too blame and we to be born with SECT 2. H. H. pag. 4. Mat. 3.5 6. with Mar. 1.3 4 5. Of John Baptist Where we read first of the voice of one crying in the wilderness To prepare the way of the Lord and to make his paths straight 2. That John baptized in that wilderness and whom he baptized is evident in the following words And he preacht the Baptisme of repentance for the remission of sins and there went out to him all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem and were all baptized of him in â—ordan confessing their sins c. Reply You mis-cite the words of Mark by adding to them and diminishing from them i) Contrary to Deut. 4.2 1. By adding to â—hem in saying To prepare and to make Whereas the text hath it k) Mar. 1.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prepare ye the way of the Lord and make ye his paths straight Which words tel us what the people were to do not what John Baptist did 2. By diminishing from them in some respect For the text runs clearly thus l) Ver. 4. John did baptize in the not that wilderness and preach before which you have cast a mist least your Reader should discern that sometimes Baptism precedes Preaching and indeed if there be any strength in arguing from order it will follow viz. That Baptism goes before preaching for it 's said expresly John did baptize and preach Take heed lest those m) Pag. 40. dreadful thunderbolts you shoot against others light on your own pate SECT 3.
that gift which is common to elect and reprobate doth in title to Baptism much more that gift of Union Adoption Regeneration proper to the elect puts the party into a capacity of receiving Baptism If you say such received the Holy Ghost as well as the Apostles and therefore the text to be understood of the same kind and degree Then by this text you have no more ground to baptize grown men for which of them I pray you spake with tongues y) Ver. 46. in the Apostles sense then you say we have for baptizing Infants that cannot speak at all But the Apostle explains himself in the following Chapter z For as much then Acts. 1â— 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as God gave them the like gift as he did to us Like for quality though not for quantity Yea it 's said a) Heb 4.2 unto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them I think no man dare say that the Gospel was as fully and as clearly preached to the Israelites in the wildernesse for to them the Apostle speaks as to us since the coming of Christ in the flesh SECT 11. H. H. same page The next is Lidia and her houshold 5. Instance Act. 16.14 15. Reply 1. I do Mr Hagger no wrong his fifth Instance as I set it down to help him is thus nakedly proposed I wonder we had not a taste of his Logick here as in the preceding instances It may be the man was not in a good mood and therefore could not set it in a good Figure having so often failed before 2. But I suppose you meant this Enthymem Lidia and her houshould were baptized Therefore no Infants Or thus If Lidia and her houshold were baptized then no Infant was baptized But Lidia and her houshold were baptized Therefore To this I answer I deny your consequence and will give you time till Dooms-day to prove it In the mean season this place is more for the baptizing of Infants then any thing that can be at least hitherto is said against SECT 12. H. H. Some may say thus Who knows but she might have little children To which I answer If none knows then all ought to be silent and not to believe and affirm things they know not for that is wickednesse and folly But thus much we know 1. That Christ commanded them to baptize them which believed 2. Hitherto we have found them baptizing of none else 3. The Scripture speaks of no children she had nor yet of any husband and therefore silence gives no commands to obey nor no promises to believe nor no example to follow Reply 1. Here you set up a man of straw and then fight with him you frame an objection out of your own head and then answer it bravely done 2. Is it not wickednesse and folly in you to believe and affirm things you know not The necessity of dipping in the Administration of Baptisme the salvation of Infanâ—s without actual faith by virtue of Christs death when no such things are exprest in so many words and syllables in Scripture and many other bold assertions in your book which shall be examined as they are met with 3. For the two first particulars which you professe you know they have been already spoken to and for the third the Scripture you say speaks of no children shee i. e. Lidia I suppose you mean had nor yet of any husband neither doth the Scripture speak I say of any servants she had I pray you then who were they that were of her houshold which were baptized for it 's said distinctly b) Acts 15.16 she was baptized and her houshold 4. As for the silence you speak of it is as good as silence or the speaking of nothing Instances are obvious and frequent E. gr There is no expresse mention made in the N. T. of any command for Womens receiving the Lord's Supper nor of any promise of comfort in or upon receiving nor any example of any one woman that did receive Nor is there any expresse mention made in the Old or New Testament of any command for mens or womens relying on the merits and satisfaction of Christ nor of any promise of peace and pardon on such relying nor of any example of any one man or woman that did rely on the merits and satisfaction of Christ yet there is sufficient warrant in Scripture by clear consequence for both these c. which is satisfactory to us but what is this to you who must have expressness of Scripture By this taste you may perceive what an unsound and erroneous maxime you have vented viz. That silence gives no commands to obey nor no promise to believe nor no examples to follow SECT 13. H. H. pag. 6. Again if she had an husband he was baptized for she and her houshould were baptized Now if he had been baptized he would surely have born the name in the history rather then she being the bead of the house Reply 1. Now fair fall your heart if she had an husband he was baptized for she and her houshold were baptized you say well might you not as well say as we do If she had children they were also baptized for she and her houshold were baptized and so if she had servants they were baptized for it 's said She and her houshold were baptized If you include husband and servants in her houshold how can you for shame exclude Infants or if you conclude the baptizing of her husband and servants on this account because she and her houshold were baptized why may you not as well conclude that her Infants or children were baptized on the same account were you not wilful and partial in your self 2. To say nothing that you should have said but not now if he had been baptized he would surely have born the name c. Your confidence is as high as your ignorance is great Surely Zerviah was a woman for she is expresly called c) 2 Sam. 17.25 Joabs mother and d) 1 Chr. 2.15 16. Davids sister Now you might have said as well It Joab had a father and Zerviah an husband he would â—urely have born the name in the history rather then shee being the head of the house whereas the name of Zerviah is onely mentioned in the history to my best observation and remembrance in those and other e) 1 Sam. 26.6 2 2.13 18. 3.39 8.16 14.1 16.9 10. 18 2. 19.21 22 21.17 23 18 1 King 1.7 2.5 22. 1 Chron. 11.6.34 18.12.15 26.13 27.24 places SECT 14. H. H. Lastly we read verse 40. That when Paul and Silâ—s came out of prison they entered into the house of Lidia and comforted the brethren but little babes are not capable of such comforts Therfore no such such brethren in Lydea's house nor any ground at all to believe it from Scripture or reason Reply 1. The word HOUSE is not in
the originall Beza saith f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in very many copies it 's read unto Lydia so do others g) As the Syr. and old Latine translate it and for ought appears Lydia at that time might be in anothers house aswell as her own 2. What a silly Argument is this H. H. went into a Cheese-Factours house to ordain a Cheese-Factour to the office of a preaching Elder Therefore there were no Infants in his house So Paul and Silas might enter in Lydia's house admitting the translation to comfort the brethren and yet there might be Infants in her house and baptized too for it is said she and her houshold were baptized 3. If you mean that in Lydia's house there were no little babes that were capable of comfort it s granted but this hinders not but little babes are or may be capable of Baptism though not of comfort as the Jewish Infants were capable of circumcision though not of consolation but if you mean no little babes supposing there were such can be called brethren I do not marvail at it since you deny them to be Disciples Church-members Covenanters Saints and make no difference between the Infants of Pagans and of Christians I pray you Sir why may you not call them brethren and sisters if God be your Father whom the Lord saith g) Eaech 16.20 are born to him and whom he himself calleth his h) ver 21. children not only by creation but by Covenant which had been made with your Ancestors as appears out of that whole Chapter specially verse 60.62 4. You conclude there is no ground to believe from Scripture or reason that there were Infants in Lydia's house shall be answered by and by SECT 15. H. H. same p. The Jaylour was baptized with his houshold from whence some would draw the same Argument as from Lydia's 6 Instance and perswade us tâ—at there were children in his house but the Text is plain against it Acts 16.32 33 34. They spake the word of the Lord to him and to all in his house and he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes and was baptized he and all his straight ways and when he had brought them into his house he set meat before them and rejoyced believing in God with all his house Thus the Scripture in plain words as it saith the one that he and all his were baptized so also it saith he with all his house believed in God Reply 1. In the beginning of the sect you say the Jaylour was baptized with his houshold Look the Text i) Acts 16.13 It doth not say so here we have another addition of yours to advantage your cause no marvail that you add to mens writings when you are so bold to add to the Lords holy Scripture I grant it saith He and all His were baptized but not he was baptized with his houshold 2. It 's very observable the Text saith k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was baptized and all his i. e. hee and all that were OF him A most emphaticall phrase to denote his Children who are properly a mans own his naturall off-Spring when the Evangelist speaks of the Apostles preaching he names the Jaylours house in the largest acceptation They spake the word to him and to all that were l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his house but when he speaks of baptizing he changeth the terme and saith He and ALL HIS were baptized that you may be sure his children were baptized without doubt M. Haggars children his horse cannot be said to be his on the same account This phrase therefore in the Text must primarily be referred to his children 3 I expected here also an Argument in form to prove there were no children in the Jaylours house or if so that they were not baptized but in vain If yet you would prove your former thus Paul and Silas spake the word to all in his house but P. and S. did not speak the word to infants therefore no infants in his house The answer is in brief it 's a Sophistical Argument the conclusion should be therefore Infants were not at all in his house or all in his house were not infants which is granted but what is this to your purpose If you can cast it into a better mould it shall receive another answer Now to prove that no infants were baptized here though you say not so as in the place foregoing thus perhaps you may bee thought to reason The Jalour with all his house that was baptized believed in God but infants believed not Therefore The weakness of this Argument appears thus The children of Israel went up harnessed m) Exod. 13.14 out of the land of Egypt but the Jewish infants went not up harnessed Ergo 4. Before I leav you here one thing is to be observed For if it be plain that children were not in the Jaylours house As you would bear your reader in hand out of this Text Then something may be is plain by consequence which is not expresly written in so many words in Scripture SECT 16. H. H. Thus the Scripture in plain words as it saith the one that he and all his were baptized so also it saith he with all his house believed in God and therefore if M. Cook will evade the one by his learned Exposition in his 17. p. We may aswell evade the other and so conclude that none but he was baptized But consider the result of his labours when he hath laboured by all his wit and skill to pervert the Text yet he confesseth that the Syriack translation reads it thus and he exulted and all the children of his house even all of them in the faith of God I pray you let all rationall men consider what difference is between their all-rejoycing and believing God and exulting even all of them in the faith of God Reply 1. Let it be observed that to the foregoing Scriptures as holding forth commands or examples of baptizing Jews or Heathens newly converted to the faith n) Font uncovered from p. 7. to p. 23. there are given full and large answers both in general and particular shâ—wing that they make nothing for M. Haggars purpose and also to those Arguments which he after frames from the precept and practice of Christ and the incapacity of the subject as he would gather from these Scriptures yet he is pleased to take notice of two very short sentences passing by all the rest which I believe amount to an hundred times more then what he seems to answer to what other construction can be made thereof but that he finding himself unable to answer the rest thought good to pick out two or three lines which being singled from the rest he as he imagined might have more advantage against If this be sufficient it 's an easie matter to answer any books 2 For opening the sence of this Scripture o) Act.
Sacrament I answer neither do we read the word Sacrament in all the holy Scriptures therefore how should we prove that women did receive it But we read that the Disciples met together to break bread Acts 20.7 And that women were disciples is evident Acts 9.36 There was a certain disciple named Tabitha c. Now let Mr. Baxter or any bring one Scripture that saith There was a disciple in any place or of any name that was a little Babe and they say well Again we have plain words for it That all the body do partake of that one bread 1 Cor. 10.16 17. Now that women are of the body of Christ I think none dare deny Gal. 3.27 28 29. Reply 1. It seems you have a treacherous memory but a Liar as the proverb is had need of a good memory You speak here the same language to Mr. Hall as you did to Mr. Cook v) Pag. 6. and it may receive the same answer 2. Further you lisp in the language of Ashdod The Socinians say as you do viz. The word Sacrament is a barbarous word and no where to be found in holy Scripture What then It 's a true and common saying of our Divines The thing though not the name is in Scripture as the word Trinity c. 3. But what vain jangling is this Mr. Hall did not speak of womens receiving the Sacrament but of our giving them the Supper as it 's recited by your self p. 10. 4. It is not evident by expressness of Scripture but by Consequence onely that women were disciples or that women received the Lord's Supper It is said indeed expresly that Tabitha was a Disciple and that Tabitha was a woman and therefore it follows that a woman was a disciple or if you will women were disciples neither of these consequences or conclusions are expresly in Scripture Nay you do not prove that women received the Lord's Supper but by consequences because the disciples came together to break bread and by consequent to receive the Lord's Supper which none of us deny And is it not as evident that Infants ought to be baptized because they are disciples 5. In the language of Christ who was best able to expresse his own sense to belong to Christ is to be a disciple of Christ compare Mat. 10.42 with Mar. 9.41 and Mat. 18.5 And were not some of them Infants on whom the false teachers would have laid the yoke of Circumcision who are expresly called disciples Acts 15.10 And is it not said expresly that the Disciples Acts 21 4 5. with the wives and children brought Paul on his way Now as the affections and lusts are flesh Gal. 5.24 because it 's said the flesh with its affections and lusts So here wives and children are disciples because it 's said The disciples with their wives and children Do we now say something 6. Answer shall be returned to 1 Cor. 10.16 17. when I come to the page 66.67 in the mean time I say that some Infants are of the body of Christ and I think you dare not deny it For Christ is the Saviour of the body Page 6. Eph. 5.23 And you say that Infants dying in their infancy are saved by virtue of Christs death SECT 12. Hen. Hag. same page Thus having discovered the vanity of all their unreasonable reasonings I commit it even to our enemies to judge between us in these things who hath the Scripture most on their side they or we And thus notwithstanding all their cunning craftiness it is evident they have not one Scripture for Infant-baptism and therefore not of God c. Reply 1. What a pitiful contradiction is here viz. That we have not one Scripture for Infant-baptisme and yet you would have us judge who hath most Scripture on their side For suppose you have the most doth not that imply that we have some Scriptures on our side Sure none and some are contradictions 2. If you mean we have no Scripture by consequence that is palpably false unlesse all this while you have answered not one Scripture for Infant-baptisme If you mean expresse Scripture then you have not one Scripture for Anabaptism Now let all rational men judge whether you have not discovered the vanity of your unreasonable reasoning SECT 13. Hen. Hag. p. 15 16 17. We cannot find Infant-baptism in all the holy Scriptures Therefore to the fountain whence it flows that all men may see that it comes not from the fountain of living waters which is the holy Scriptures Reply I wonder you can find a Font for Infant-baptism in Jer. 2.12 13. pag. 8. and yet cannot find Infant-baptism in all the holy Scriptures Who so blind as hee that will not see 2. You told us even now p. 9. That the baptizing of Believers in Rivers and Fountains c. was the fountain of living waters or else your comparison is lame Now that the holy Scripture is the fountain of living waters Either there are two fountains of living waters or else you miserably contradict and confound your self SECT 14. H. H. ibid. Now that Christ never commanded nor his Apostles never practised the baptizing of Infants even your own Poets confess as Paul saith in another case Acts 17. ver 28. Reply 1. I desire the Reader to peruse the Authors with their testimonies as they are cited by Mr. Haggar because they are too many to transcribe Mr. Hagg. hath empanell'd a July of 22 but I hope he wil do me that favour nay that justice to challenge some of them and to consider if not to demur on the Verdict of the rest 1. Erasmus is one of yours as well as ours If an Anabaptist be a Papist or a Protestant or a Neuter or both For in point of an Oath and Law-suits y) Sâ—e Bâ—zâ— in Mat. 5.34 he seems not z) Id in Rom. 5 14. to dissent from the opinion of the Anabaptists and in point of sin he is a Pelagian or Papist * thinking it proceeds rather from example then from nature yet he seems to be a Protestant For he said that was heresie in Luther which was good divinity in Austin and being promised a fat Bishoprick if he would write against Luther he answered t Luther was too great for him to write against *) Melch Adam de vita Lutheri p. 115. nay so great that he profest he learned more out of one little leaf of Luther then out of Aquina's his volumes But how sleight and unsound he was about the deity of Christ Jesus specially in Phil. 2.6 Tit. 2.13 They that read him cannot but stand and wonder I speak not this to smut his reputation but to shew your vanity scornfully calling him one of our own Poets 2. Bishop Rossensis and Doctor Eck Ludovicus vives c. are or were notorious Papistâ— In calling these our own Poets I may better say to you then you do to a) Foundat p. 10. M. Hall p. 10. A WRETCHED LYE but I
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
much against Circumcision in Abrahams time and after as it is now against the baptizing of Infants i. e. nothing at all Thus whatsoever is not of faith is sin and without faith it 's impossible to please God but the Infants among the Jews had no faith though faith is the condition of the Covenant of Grace ever since it was set on foot For alas they are your own words b they can professe no Faith c. Therefore the Circumcision of Infants among the Jews was sin If this Conclusion be absurd and blasphemous confesse the other not a jot the better For to use your own words again doth not the word Whatsoever include all matters c Then Circumcision sure as much as Baptism SECT 11. H. H. This your president of the Thief on the Cross will not at all help you except in the like condition Then I confess a multitude of such penitent ones might be reckoned to be in a saving condition though not baptized But neither you nor I are in that streight as yet Therefore it will be no plea for us but if either of us be unbaptized we have time and liberty enough to consider and turn Psal 119.59 60. Reply 1. Here you again yield the cause viz. Baptism doth not constitute a Church-member c. for out of the Church there is no salvation r) 1 Pet. 3.20 with Eph. â— 23 26. Otherwise to use your own expression pag. 29. Secret things belong to God I hope now you will not flinch 2. Your supposal that neither you nor Mr. Cook are in the streight the poor Thief was in is nothing to the purpose Though you intimate that Mr. Cook and his brethren may be and I believe it if you had your will as those Joh. 16.2 for you that unchurch us would make no bones to kill us 3. You say If either of us be unbaptized A needless If. For you granted p. 24. That we were once baptized and you make no question but you have been baptized twice for failing at least you do not think your self unbaptized 4. It 's a miserable begging of the question that baptizing after your mode is the testimony and commandment of the Lord unlesse as hath been said in the like case 5. There is not one word of Baptism in Psal 119. ver 59 60. How pitifully do you pervert and misapply this Scripture also And I may say They who have made haste to be Re-baptized have made more haste then good speed SECT 12. H. H. pag. 26. You tell us that the Church of England was constituted in or anon after the Apostles daies and by the Ministry of the Word were converted from Heathenism to Christianity and then persons of years were baptized upon profession of Faith and Repentance I Answer What then what is your Church now the better for that which was done 1600 years ago if you walk not in the same footsteps which they did then I can prove as well the Church of Rome d) Rom. 1.7 was then a constituted Church according to the order of the Gospel But doth that make the Pope and his Crew now to be a true Church If they be why do you separate from them but they are not neither are you c. Reply 1. I accept of your grant That the Church of England was constituted in or near the Apostles dates and acknowledge we are not now the better for it if we had razed the Foundation relapsed to Heathenism and had been called e) Hos 1.6 7. Loruhamah and Lo ammi But seeing God since the plantation of the Gospel in this Nation hath raised up som faithful witnesses reserved some sincere Professors of his truth and still the Fundamentals of Christian Religion have been owned and Antichrists yoke cast off It cannot without great injury but be acknowledged that the first constitution of the Church in this Land is much to us who desire and indeavour to be built and to build on that Foundation Eph. 2.20 The Church of the Jewes was the better for God's constituting their Church in Abrahams family if we may believe their f) 2 Chron. 20 7. Neh. 9. vers 7 8. plea and though they did degenerate yet the Foundation was never razed nor the first constitution abolished 2. On the former account we are better without question for outward priviledges and possibility of salvation as the Jews were Rom. 3.1.2 with Chap. 9 4.5 or as the poor cripple g) John 5.5 that did lye at the Pool oâ— Bethesda for cure 3. If by our not walking in the footsteps of those who were first constituted a Church in this Nation you mean that wee do not first repent and then bee Baptized You might as wel charge the Jews who circumcised their children on the eighth day for not walking in Abraham's steps and therefore not a jot the better that their Church was first constituted in him for he was circumcised at h) Gen. 17.26 99 years old Nay it seems you charge us for not taking care that all the children in this Nation may live in ignorance and Idolatry that so being by the Gospel converted they may be baptized after their example For they cannot be converted from Heathenism as they were and so be baptized after their example exactly unlesse they live in Heathenisme as they did If this be your meaning and charge I pray Lord lay not this sin to your charge 4. That Scripture doth not prove what you assert unlesse by a far-fetcht and strained consequence And as the word Constituted is not there so neither those words ACCORDING to the ORDER of the GOSPEL there or elsewhere in any one place of Scripture You are wise above what is written though I deny not but the Church of Rome was once a rightly constituted Church 5. Seeing you declare your self so great a friend to the Church of Rome as equalling us with them and also pronounce us no Church and so excommunicate us with your brute Thunderbolt as if you were another Pope and dis-regard the counsell and admonition of the Church so censured and nullified by you I leave you to the judgement of him who is Lord and King Husband and Patron of his Church wishing you if you bee not past hope of profiting by Scripture to weigh what is written Jude 8. to the 17 verse SECT 13. H. H. You say that they and their children were then admitted into the Covenant and Church as Abraham and his family were by circumcision I answer that it still remains for you to prove that they and their children were admitted into Church-fellowship I deny it prove it if you can or else you have done nothing c. Reply 1. As you say of the Sacrament pag. 14. So wee do not read in your sense of the word Church-fellowship in all the holy Scriptures Therefore how should we prove that children were admitted into Church-fellowship But 2 That all the Faithfull are the children or
seed of Abraham i) Gal. 3.7 9 14 29. and that they are blessed with faithfull Abraham and that the blessing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles and consequently that the covenant whereof Mr. C. spake and not Church-fellowship made with Abraham and the Faithfull under the Gospel is the same for substance being an everlasting covenant Gen. 17.19 Though differing in manner of dispensation by circumcision in the room whereof Bapâ—isme succeeds Col. 2.11.12 It is evident that the same covenant made with Abraham continues to us Christians as is plain also in that wee Gentiles are planted into the true Olive k) Rom. 11.17 from whence the Jews were broken off which is more largely proved in that Book you pretend to answer 3. For proving that they and their children were admitted into Church-fellowship Do you not know that there are 13 Arguments in that Book which you have not answered onely you speak a little to one which how miserably it is done will appear I hope in its proper place In the mean time the truth is M. C. hath done something to which you answer nothing upon the matter CHAP. VII Of Nationall Churches SECT 1. H. H. You Mr. C. seem to prove l) Font uncovered p. 2. a National Church in that the Lord said to Abraham Gen. 22.18 In his seed all Nations should be blessed I answer He doth not say that all of all Nations shal be blessed nor that all of any Nation shal be blessed I am perswaded you think in your conscience some in this Nation are not blessed Reply 1. That Book wherein Mr. C. declares his judgment briefly and you answer largely saith Though wee boast not of Nationall Churches nor is there any necessity that the mention of Nationall Churches should come into this dispute yet we are not ashamed of the name of a Nationall Church But seeing you urge it on us as odious we desire to consider So that Mr. Hag. you might have kept you to the main business and spared your pains about this by-businesse also but that you had a mind to digresse and quarrell 2. You have no cause to think nor doth the holy Scripture say that ALL of ALL Churches or ALL of ANY one particular Church on earth are blessed For cursed hypocrites are ordinarily in the most refined Churches yet that hinders not but all particular Churches may be called Churches and blessed For 3. The Nation of the Jews was confessedly a National Church that whole Nation as being in covenant with God was a blessed Nation Deut. 23.29 Psal 33.12 and 89.15 And yet every particular person in that Nation was not blessed Deut. 27.15 to the end and 28.15 to the end and chap. 29.19.20 These and other Scriptures shew plainly that as the Jewish Nationall Church was a blessed Nation so every blessed Nation is a Nationall Church at least in so considerable a part as may give it such a denomination and though many particular persons therein may be far from blessednesse yet this hinders not such from the name of a blessed Nation and of a people in covenant and that at the Nation of the Jews was blessed first in Abraham's seed So all the Nations of the earth should in some sense bee blessed by being at last brought into the Covenant and Church-state through the same seed of Abraham You need not therefore make your appeal to Master C. conscience 4. I wonder at your opinion in the close of this Section which you apply viz. A penitent Thief c. and Murderer c. may not justly be put to death because he is the Temple of the Holy Ghost c The penitent Thief was blessed you acknowledge him in a saving condition pag. 25. as he acknowledgeth m) In 22.4 he suffers justly and as I think you dare not deny that he was the Temple of the Holy Ghost yea I wonder more that you dare call the execution of such an offender a destruction of the Temple of God not without horrible abuse of Scripture But you began to lispe in the language of Tho. Muntzer s) Sleid. com l. 10. your predecessor against the Christian Magistracy whatsoever you said seemingly to the contrary p. 31.32 SECT 2. H. H. pag. 27. You bring this Scripture Psal 22.27.28 I answer when that day shall come and that Prophecie be fulfilled we will grant it is fulfilled but for the present All Nations do not serve him neither do all in this Nation worship him Peter's words are true n) Acts 10 34. But there are many in this Nation that do not fear God nor work righteousness Therefore no Nationall Church Reply 1. Though I question the fulfilling of your promise for many Prophecies may be fulfilled which you either do not or will not acknowledg and you may take some fulfilled which are not yet your concession is enough that a National Church in the time of the Gospel is no such absurd or strange thing as you and som would make it 2. Albeit this Prophecy is not fulfilled yet it may be in the fulfilling For though all Nations are not brought to a Church-state yet some may be for present and others by degrees successively in Gods due time 3. It is neither proved by you nor indeed can be easily that ALL i. e. the generality in this Nation do not worship God for worship may be taken here in a large sense yet if granted it wil not thence follow that this is no Nationall Church sith even when the Israelites were a Nationall Church they might and did doubtlesse fall short of the true worship of God as much and more then the people of England 4. Your ground whence you infer that we are no Nationall Church is very unsound viz because ALL do not fear God c. Hereby you must not only deny the Jewish Church to have been a Nationall Church but also the primitive Churches and all other particular Churches whether Congregationall or otherwise called to be Churches For in all visible Churches a great part are Hypocrites without the fear of God c. SECT 3. H. H. You say Isa 49.23 Kings shall be thy nursing Fathers c. I answer That it shall be so I deny not but prove you that it is so As for Englands Kings and Queens it 's well known how they would have nursed the Church if they had but had their minds c. Reply 1. It cannot be denied without ingratitude that England hath been blessed with pious Princes who have nursed the Church in this Nation Was not King Edward the sixth a nursing Father and Queen Elisabeth a nursing Mother for instance deny it if you can 2. Your inference is as weak as the former It 's well known how Saul Ahaziah Athaliah Mannasses c. would have nursed the Church if they had but had their minds as you phrase it Therefore the Jews could have no Nationall Church 3. For our siding with Cavaleers c.
Nations and in compassing the Camp of the Saints will not bee after the full glorifying of the Saints in the highest heavens 2. If these things are too hard for Mr. C. to understand though a Scholar are they easie to you why then do you hold the Light under a Bushel But he that hath but half an eye may see the impertinency of the Scriptures a) Luk. 20.21 with 1 Cor. 2.8 9 10. alledged by you SECT 7. H. H. You say from Rev. 21.24 that the Nations of them that are saved That walk in the light of the New Jerusalem I answer That 's granted but that New Jerusalem is not yet here below for drunkards and wicked persons to walk by but Paul saith b) Gal. 4.26 that it 's above and is free and is the Mother of all the Saints Reply 1. To what purpose do you mention drunkards c. when Mr. C. according to the text Rev. 21.24 expresly mentions them that are saved 2. Paul doth not say expresly neither do you undertake to prove that this New Jerusalem in the Revelation is the Mother of all the Saints That 's your glosse and not the Apostles words But whether by this New Jerusalem is meant the Church Triumphant in heaven which is improbable because it 's said c) Rev. 21.2 to descend from heaven and expresly The Kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it which you cunningly left out or 2. The Church of truly sanctified ones on earth which are hid in the visible Church as the Wheat in the chaffe or 3. of a Future glorious Church on earth at the Jews conversion Iâ— holds forth that National Churches are nâ—t to be accounted absurd to those who are acquainted with the Scriptures For they that are saved are Churches or members of Churches but Nations are saved Therefore Churches or members of Churches 3. The Apostle saith not the Mother of all the Saints as you cite him but of us all as you truly cite it p 56. I believe you have a mind to canonize all the Anabaptists for Saints and I doubt not but there are some reall Saints among them but if there be not drunkards and wicked persons members of your Church you are foully belied Such surely are of Agar SECT 8. H. H p. 29. Lastly you say If a company of believers in one house have been called a Church Domestical then a multitude of believers in a Nation maâ— be called a National Church I answer That 's granted if they be all believers as you said at first but little babes are not believers c. Râ—ply 1. Sir review your Answers from p. 27. to this 29. and you grant seven times at â—east what Mr. C. proves viz. a Nationall Church in a Gospel-time which was the end of citeing the forenamed Scriptures d) See Font uncovered p. 2 to shew that there is no cause of being ashamed of the Title of a National Church nor of your accounting it odious and absurd Now blessing on you I hope you and Mr. C. will shake hands and be friends But yet 2. You curtell Mr. C. Arguments and Scriptures That immediately precedent and this present citation of the words of that Book witness specially this last where you have not only left out ten parts for one very material to clear the consequence but so cited here and there a word as to make it speak little better then non-sense which I refer to the judgment of those that will read the Book and mark how you have abused both it and him 3. If there were some babes in those housholds which could not actually believe and some adult too who did not professedly much lesse sincerely believe the like must be granted concerning National Churches viz. Though every particular person therein doth not actually believe or professe Faith yet the major or better part may give the Denomination e. g. The Infancy of some the wickedness of others hindred not but the Jews might be warrantably called a Nationall Church 4. Though you quite and clean mistake Mr. C. who by the by proves a National Church and here meddles not with Infants yet if little babes be no believers not so much as virtually c. as Mr. C. saith how e) Mar. 16.16 shall ye escape damnation CHAP. VIII Of Affirming a Negative and teaching the Law SECT 1. H. H. You say in your 6 p. we affirm a Negative viz. that the Baptism or sprinkling of Infants is not the Baptism of Christ c. And here you follow us on to purpose and tell us we are such as the Apostle speaks of f) 1 Tim. 1.5.6.7 understanding not what they say nor whereof they affirm Here you think you hit us home I must confesse now you have catched us out of our own element and in your own for we know you are Scholars and have learned to contend about words to no profit c. Reply 1. There is no cause of making this din of being pursued to purpose c. For in that Book there are very few lines spâ—nâ— about this your absurdity But you have bestowed almost two pages in pleading for it with more absurdities Nay this is not the only ground as you untruly relate of your charge there but one among those verall grosse mistakes which may give just cause to judge that you are such as the Apostle saith know not what they say nor whereof they affirm 2. What vanity and audaciousness did you then discover in urging for disputes when you confesse the terms of Art which are needfull to be known in all regular dispuâ—ings are things out of your element To dispute without Legick and to reason in points of learning without Scholarship is as wise as to undertake to judge of colours without sight and light or to challenge to run a race without leggs SECT 2. H. H. Seeing we erred in saying we affirm a Negative we will either confess our errour or shew you a president which may justifie our practice Paul saith g) Kom 3.12 There is none that doth good no not one Here Paul affirmeth a Negative for there is an Affirmative c. Reply 1. It had been far better for you ingeniously to have confessed your error or to have passed it by in silence as you have done many more materiall things in Mr. Br. and Mr. C. Books for you are like to a beast in a Quagmire the more you stir the deeper you sink What intollerable impudency is this instead or confessing your error and resolving to keep within your own element to go about to justifie your self of fathering your folly on the Scripture 2. In that proposition of the Apostle the negative particle is in the h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 originall set before the Verb so that according to your interpretation it would be rather a denying of an Affirmative then affirming a Negative They that understand know that where the predicate is affirmed
of the subject it s called an affirmative proposition and where the predicate is denyed of the subject it 's called a negative proposition but never an affirming of a Negative by them that know what they say Nay there is as you lay it down not so much as a proposition If you will not now confess your ignorance and error or go to the University to learn better Logick you may erect if you please a new College in the Country and teach your deluded Proselytes some new principles of a new-invented Logick SECT 3. H. H. Again Isa 45.5 I am the Lord and beside me there is no God Now Sir if you dare presume to be a teacher here it should have been thus I deny that any God is but my self and I pray shew us the word Negative in the Scripture if you can Reply 1. Here is less colour of affirming a Negative For whereas in the former you would make the Verb to be the Affirmative how absurdly I have shewed here is no Verb at all exprested in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you might have seen by the different Characters wherein the Verb's supplyed are set down It 's in the Hebrew thus i I the Lord and none else besides me no God In the first proposition there is a pure Affirmative viz. God is the Lord without denying the Affirmative In the latter a pure Negative without affirming a Negative 2. By this unwarrantable and uncouth way of yours Atheism and blasphemy may be quickly taught and learned in presuming to put a comma or full point at part of a proposition as in the very place you cite There is no God Oh admirable yet you can pave the way thereto How ground lesly therefore and dangerously you apply this to your present case I leave others to judge considering how unreverently you deal with Scripture comparing your expressions with its as if it were as safe to teach the Spirit of God how to speak as it is to teach you how to speak properly when you acknowledge your self out of your element 3. For shewing the word Negative in Scripture I might say no more but this that we are not bound to Scripture expression in discourse or disputation yet you your self use many words that are not in Scripture e. g. imminent p. 2. Antichristian p. 3. Objection p. 4. History p. 6. Primitive p. 8. Consequence p. 10. Paper-conference p. 22. Absurd p. 24. And a president in the very p. 29. and an hundred more of this nature in your Book without a wretched lye Now when you have shewed when any of those words of yours are in Scripture I shall shew you where the word Negative is in Scripture In the mean time know that Affirmative and Negative are words of Latine Derivation in which language the holy Scriptures were not originally written but the things signified thereby are oft found in them both in the originalls and translations SECT 4. H. H. Lastly to conclude Joh. 1.20 He denyed not If John denyed not Then he affirmed and what did he affirm He said I am not the Christ Here Joh. affirmed a Negative c. Reply 1. Here in the original the Negative particle is set before the verb as in the foregoing instance But suppose the verb were an Affirmative which cannot be For there cannot be an Affirmative proposition but where the subject and predicate are knit together by a verb affirmatively as hath been shewed yet here is nothing like an affirming a Negative but rat her it 's like a denying an Affirmative as was said before 2. It follows not that he affirmed if he denyed not you never denyed It may be that you are a Turk or Papâ—â—â— do you therefore affirm it A man when he is silent denies not an accusation k) Mar. 14.60 61. as Christ was l) Isa 36.3.21.22 Eliakin and Shebna held their peace at Rabshakeh's blasphemies If they were silent they did not deny if they denyed not by your goodly consequence hey affirmed and so owned his blasphemies but this could not be because of the rending their choaâ—hs c. Thus we confess our wants and omissions and yet we cannot be said in any propriety of speech to affirm Negatives So that hitherto you have not proved that John affirms a Negative For that in the 20 verse is a Negative proposition as that in the 23 is an Affirmative the one distinct from the other But we will not strive about words if you will be quiet and give glory to the Lord by confessing your error Nay but you will explain your self How I pray SECT 5. H. H. p. 30. To affirm is but to say a thing is so and to deny is to say a thing is not so e. g when the Sun shines I affirm it's day and when it 's set I affirm it's night If I wil prove a man is not a live and shew others that he is dead do not I prove he is not alive If I say and prove a man is not in his house do not I prove a Negative Reply 1. If to affirm is to say a thing is so c. It will unavoydably follow that to affirm a Negative is to say a thing is so which indeed is not so or which you said is not so and consequently your doctrine is yea and nay so was not the Apostles m) 2 Cor. 1.19 preaching 2. It 's worse and worse with you in your instances That of the Sun doth not prove the affirming of a Negative for both are Affirmative Propositions And to prove a man is not alive or not in the house is one thing to affirm a Negative is another For to affirm you say is but to say a thing is so and here you prove a thing is not so SECT 6. H. H. Seeing you make us offendors for a word may wee not justly say that you are one of those the Apostle speaks of n) 1 Tim. 6.3.4 for you do not dote about words viz. the Affirmative and Negative c. Do not you count gain godliness viz. 〈◊〉 100 or 200 per Annum for preaching and baptizing Infants and rather then you will part with it you dispute perversly like a man of a corrupt mind I beseech you in the fear of God consider it Reply 1. Who is guilty of doating Mr. Cook who wrote as was said a few lines about your offending against the laws of Disputing which if it were your greatest fault might be winked at or YOV that write almost two pages about them and challenge too any that will or can to answer your Ten Questions o) Foundar p. 53.54 I leave to the judgment of the impartial 2. I do not know one peny allowed or required for baptizing any Infant Is not this therefore one of those evil surmizings mentioned by the Apostle 3. As for your blind charge of an 100 l. c. per An. for preaching I leave you to him for an answer
and may for the future also for you leave the substance of his book unanswered CHAP. IX Of Mr BAXTER'S Ten Positions SECT 1. H. H. pag. 31. You say pag. 3. It hath pleased the Holy Ghost to speak of some things in the Scripture more fully and of others more sparingly and where God spake more sparingly the thing must needs be more difficult and yet truth still Answ But he never speaks of Infant baptism in all the Scripture neither fully nor sparingly Then none of his truth nor ever was Reply 1. If you could or would speak properly you would or should have said Either fully or sparingly but as you express your self you grant that Infant-Baptism is spoken of in Scripture one way or other For two Negatives in our language make an Affirmative but I will not insist on this 2. Whether the Scripture speaks of Infant-baptism I hope it appears already in part to the impartial Reader and afterwards will be further cleared 3. The Scripture speaks neither fully nor sparingly of baptismal boots baptismal breeches and other shifting garments used by your party therefore by your arguing your Mode of Baptizing is none of God's truth nor ever was SECT 2. H. H. You instance in 4 particulars but that which is pertinent to the matter in hand is your fourth viz. The New Testament speaks more sparingly of that which is more fully discovered in the Old What need the same thing be done twice except men should question the authority of the Old How silent is the New Testament concerning a Christian Magistracy which made the Anabaptists of old deny it where find you in the New Testament a Christian that exercised the place of a King or Parlament man or Justice of the Peace or the like And so of an oath before a Magistrate of War and of the Sabbath how sparing is the New Testament and why because enough is said of them in the Old To all which I answer you have spoken many words to no purpose c. Reply 1. How pittifully you contradict your self the meanest may see by comparing together the beginning and close of this Section For you said Mr. Bazters fourth Instance is pertinent to the matter in hand and here in the end you say he hath spoken to no purpose How can it be pertinent and yet to no PURPOSE 2. Why are not the other pertinent and to purpose because you could not answer pertinently and to purpose For in Mr. Baxters 1 Case he saith p) Plain Scripture proof for Infant-Baptism p. 3. the word is not spoken to Infants therefore it speaks more sparingly of them yet for the comfort of godly Parents God hath much more fully revealed his mind concerning their children then of wicked and open enemies In the first that Infant-baptism is not so great a point as many make it except by the dangerous consequences ensuing therefore more sparingly mentioned In the second Infant-baptism was not controverted then as some other points yet Scripture is sufficient to direct us for the determination of this too if we have wisedom to apply generall rules to particular cases and have senses exercised to discern the Scope of the Spirit Your silence to all which wee will take for consent SECT 3. H. H. Where as you say That which is spoken on in the Old Testament need not to be spoken of again I Ansâ—er Infant-baptism is no where spoken of neither in the Old nor New Testament therefore you ought not for shame to speak of it Reply 1. This Answer of yours might have been spared if you had read Mr. Baxter a little further q) Pag. 4. The main question is At what age members are to be admitted into the Church Now this is as fully determined in the Old Testament as most things in the Bible and therefore what need any more 2. It 's horrible audaciousnesse for you to say Infant-baptism is no where spoken of in the Old or New Testament If you mean in so many syllables it 's granted already If you mean not so much as by good consequence we say so it 's spoken of as womens receiving the Lord's Supper giving thanks at meals praier in and with our Family c. and therefore you ought not for shame speak against iâ— SECT 4. H. H. p. Ibid. As for your saying Where find we a Christian Magistrate in the New Testament I Answer Surely you have forgotten the Deputy Acts 13.12 and the Eunuch Acts 8.27 37 38. and what say you to Erastus the Chamberlain of the City Rom. 16.2 3. and likewise those Saints of Cesar's houshold Phil. 4.22 Reply 1. Answer hath been made to your two former instances r) see chap. 5. sect 9. which may satisfie any judicious Reader I wonder at this vain repetition of yours unlesse it should be to make up the number of your sheets I know not the caus 2. In your p. 13. You think you have found a Lord Deputy and a Lord Treasurer and you would fain find here a Lord Chamberlain too Would you set up these Officers again if you were to model and mould the State a new But to give you your due you do not dare not affirm Erastus to be a Lord Chamberlain or a Christian Magistrate onely you speak very gingerly What say you to Erastus c. Therefore I say 3. I find mention made of Erastus in Rom. 16 23. not 2.3 where in the Greek Å¿) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is called a Steward Now that a Steward of any Town or City is or hath been called usually and properly a Magistrate is more then I know or perhaps you can tell Onely this I must tell you you might as well call Gaius a Christian Magistrate of whom in the same verse honorable mention is made viz. that he was Paul's Hoste and of the Church and then he that lately or heretofore in these parts have entertained Mr. Haggar and his Church must be a Christian Magistrate too 4. I dare not say that the Christians in Rome specially they that belong to the Emperors family call'd Saints of Cesars houshold Phil. 4.22 were Christian Magistrates If so speak out and prove it if you can 5. You wrong Mr. Baxter in charging him to say Where find we a Christian Magistrate in the Nâ—w Testament Indeed he saith How silent is the New Testament concerning a Christian Magistracy but presently after within three lines explains himself How sparing is the New Test c. And you that take upon you to find so many Christian Magistrates in the New Testament cannot find one Christian there that exercised the place of a King or Parlament man or Justice of the Peace c. and so his Quest for all your fair flourish is quite left unanswered by you SECT 5. H. H. p. 32. For an Oath did you never read in the New Testam Heb 6.16 And for War did you never read Luk. 3.15 Act. 10.1 For subjection to Magistrates 1 Pet.
p. You say Alas there are far better grounds which they are not aware of Answ That is it may be because you baptize them so soon if you would let them alone till they are men and women before you baptize them as you have example in Scripture they might receive Baptisme on better grounds Reply 1. Your interpretation with a may be is but a meer conjecture a fancy of your own head and worthy of no better a reply 2. Though we distinguish between men and women and children in our language yet the Scripture doth not always Cain a child is called a man Gen. 4.1 and an Infant upon the birth is also called in the New Testament a man John 16.21 where the same word is used which includes both man and woman as you confess p. 68. Howsoever your expression is as improper as your advice is impertinent viz. If you would let them alone till they are men and women I know not your meaning well unless you would have every Infant an Hermaphrodite viz. a man and woman 3. You have brought no example in Scripture to justifie your practice for those who are said to be baptized in Scripture were not baptized before that we read of as you acknowledge we were p. 24. SECT 18. H. H. p. 36 and 37. In your seventh Position you confess some Divines have reasoned very weakly for Infant-baptism and used unfit Phrases and mis-applyed Scriptures and to thâ—se some have wrote three or four Books and easily answered and seemed to Triumph and yet the truth is not shaken but it may be all the best Arguments and plain Scriptures have never been answered Answ I desire to answer the plain Scriptures no way but by Faith and obedience by believing and doing them Therefore if you know of any that speaks of Infant-baptâ—sm bring them forth and I will be silent The first I see but as for your best Arguments you talk off I look upon them but as so many cunning devised Fables wherewith you lye in wait to deceive simple souls by speaking things you ought not for filthy Lucres sake Titus 1 14. Reply 1. The first part of your answer I cannot put into my Creed for if you desire why do you not endeavour you knâ—w who saith p The soul of the sluggard desireth and hath nothâ—ng Prov. 13.4 2. M. B. aâ—d others have brought forth plain Scripture for Infant-baptism and you in silence have passed by the most of them because it seems you could not answer them though you confesse you see them 3. The close of your answer if it be a sufficient answer then its an easie matter to answer any Argument though never so strong by mis-applying Scripture and scornfuâ—l terms And I must needs tell you of your rash and harsh judgment contrary to Mat. 7.1 Judge not c. and to Rom. 14.10 c. why dost thou judge thy brother c. And indeed this last part of your answer is the reason why I cannot believe your first SECT 19. H. H. p. 37. You say Position 8. One sound Argument is enough to prove any thing true Answ Then either the great number of yours in your book of plain Scriptures are not sound or else you need not to have brought so many by your own grant Reply 1. What you say of M. Baxters Arguments may be said of yours more truly viz. your twelve Arguments q) Foundation fâ—om p 63. to 73. from p. 73. to 87. against Infants Church-membership and your nine Arguments against Infants-discipleship c. which wil be found as weak as water and as unsound as rotten ground when I shall come to them 2. M. Baxter tells you in this 8 Position It is not number but weight that must carry it Therefore he resolved not to heap up many 3. It seems you take notice of the great number of M. Baxters Arguments and yet you dare not grapple with that huge hoast but only cull out one or two and that by snatching at a limb and away r) Tanquam Caenis ad Nilum Eras Adâ—g as you have done with M. Cook c. SECT 20. H. H. But you say What if all the Texts were put by save one were not that enough Answ Yes it s enough if you can shew us but one but I pray where is that one I cannot find it in all the book But it seems you are afraid that all should be put by save one Therefore you make this Apologie but I suppâ—se all will do you little goâ—d Reply 1. If you wipe your eyes you may see if you be not blind in M. Baxters Book more then one 2. I doubt you speak against your conscience How dare you say you cannot find one text for Infant-baptism in all M. Baxters Book when you seem to be more Eagle-eyed then others in seeing and finding as you think the Font in Jer. 2.12 13. p. 8. 3. M. Baxters Apology is not made out of any such jealousie as you pretend as if he was afraid that all should be put by save one but out of a desire and endeavour to rectifie the ignorant in their fond conceits as he himself exprâ—sseth it which you have cunningly left out 4. I will accept of your grant and improve it in time convenient viz. If all should be put by but one it 's enough SECT 21. H. H. same p. You say Position 9. The former and present customes of the holy Saints and Churches should be of great weight with humble Christians Answ I grant it if they bee now according to the primitive pattern I am sure the custom of the Churches in the Apostles days was to baptize men and women when they believed c. Acts 2.41 8.12.36 37. 10.47 16.33.34 18.8 Therefore let this custom be of weight to your self and do not baptize little babes that cannot believe c. because Paul saith 1 Cor. 11.16 Reply 1. You condemn hereby all the Protestant Ministers of the French Churches who preach with their hats on their heads and yet they think they may do so without sin notwithstanding 1 Cor. 11.4.7 2. Are not you self-condemned who as I am informed have broken bread on the second day of the week when the primitive Disciples Å¿) Act. 20.7 did it on the Lord's day viz. the first day of the week as you grant p. 13. nay Expositors on that place collect they did break bread once a week viz. on the day aforesaid you once a month if so oft 3. Those Scriptures so often repeated by you have been answered already I tell you again That practise is not binding to us but in the same or like condition Beside the primitive Christians had their Love-feasts when the Lord's Supper was administred and received as is plain out of Scripture s) see Diodat 1 Cor. 11.20.21 Jude 8.12 and it was their custome to salute one another with an holy kiss Do you not think it a piec of your Christian
2.41 8.12 14.3 wherein we see our selves conformable to the image of Christ and walk according to the Primitive pattern being far from compelling any to be baptized till they can understand what they do and amend their lives c. Reply 1. Those Scriptures cannot be properly applied to us but are wofully misapplied by you Why do you rave of the sign of the Cross which with other Ceremonies groaned under by the godly are removed Or of receiving the mark of the Beast i. e. z) Mode on Rev. 4. p. 76. a subjecting our selves to his Authority and acknowledging him to be our Lord when you cannot but know that yoke hath been happily cast off long since But it seems you had a mind to set the mark of the Beast on us in favour of the Church of Rome for whom you are a Factor But further to shew your error in that misapplication I pray what miracles are done by us As Rev. 13.14 and 18.20 I fear you shew too much the mark of the Beast by your kicking and wincing at and dabling those that are travelling towards heaven 2. You intimate that he who is Rantizâ—d as you scornfully speak is not baptized as if I should say H. Hag. is a man and therefore not a living creature but you acknowledge these 3000 were baptized and it 's most probable they were a) Acts 2.41 Videntur 3000 uno die à paucis Apostolicis non potuisse baptizari si singuli mersi fuissent Cham. 1.4 l. 5. c 2. s 6. rantized onely there 's no mention made of Fonts and Rivers 3. I wonder in what glass you lookt when you could see a Font in Jer 2.12 13. pag 8. and the sign of the Cross in this of the Revel and yet cannot see one plain Scripture for Infant-baptism 4. Were those mentioned in the Acts baptized before as you say we were pag. 24. or were they Church-members Receivers of the Lord's Supper c. as those were whom you re-baptize If not for shame do not say that you see your selvs in the glass of the Gospel more conformable to Christ and the Primitive pattern 5. Though you want the Argument of force which yet you would fain have yet you want not the force of Argument though feigned to compell some ignorant and carnal people whom I could name to be baptized by you 6. I may not forget to make good my charge also that you are a Blasphemer if to blaspheme be to speak evil as it is often rendred in the New Testament b) E g. Jude 10 c. 1 Pet. 4. ver 4. For you say Infant-baptism is of Sathan pag 35. when no Scripture speaks so That it is an invention of the Pope page 15. when it hath been practiced in the Church of Christ before the c) Universa Ecclisia baptismuÌ„ Insantumtenuit antequam intelligeretur quid sibi vellet Regnum Papae aut quicquam de eo auditum esset Cal Iust in Anab p. 478. Pope was born That Mr. B. Mr. C. and other godly Ministers that dissent from you are fools wicked Antichristian c. and that they make Proselytes seven fold more the children of Sathan then they were before p. 38. with a great deal of more filthy stuff disgorged from your rancorous stomach all along your book I say no more but that time is coming that you shall give an account to him that is ready to judge quick and dead 1 Pet. 4 ver 4 5. SECT 27. H. H. pag. 39 40. You say Pos 10. Evident Consequences or Arguments drawn by reason from Scripture are as true proof as the very express words of a Text and if we have the words without the meaning and reason we have no proof at all for the Divel used the words of the Scripture to Christ To all which I Answer Iâ— That Consequences or Arguments drawn from Scripture are as true proofs as Scripture This is but one of your untruths For most certain it is that what the Scripture saith we need not prove by Consequence As Gen. 1.1 3 7 8. And this I do believe without any Consequence And if you will deny it because it is plain Scripture without any Consequence you may if you please but your folly will be manifest as it is to me already Reply 1. You seem here to deny all Consequences when you granted some pag. 11. One of these must be one of your untruths for both members of a contradiction cannot be true observing the laws of a contradiction 2. Must that be an untruth in Mr. Baxter which is a truth in you For you have asserted plain Scripture-proof for giving thanks at Meals praying with our Families Womens receiving the Lord's Supper p. 12 13 14. which are but Consequences and Arguments drawn from Scripture and yeâ— as true proofs as Scripture it self so you judge and I deny not 3. If you mean what the Scripture saith Expresly it 's granted we need not prove by Consequence if otherwise it 's denied Christ himself Mr. Baxter tells you proves the Resurrection by Consequence out of Exod. 3.6 so that you might have spared the quotations out of Gen. 1.1 c. who denies all or any of these But you have a notable faculty to prove that which none of your Adversaries deny 4. If Mr. Baxter c. do believe those Scriptures cited by you and not deny the same then is your folly made manifest in making such an inference as you do SECT 28. H. H. p. 40. Secondly when you say If we have the words without the meaning and reason we have no proof at all This is a most subtill Sophistry much like to that of Satan when he beguiled Eve saving Gen. 3.4 5. which was both a truth and a lie The truth is if we have not God's meaning and the reason why he speaks to us how can we understand as we ought But both are plainly declared to the sons of men by the Word of Truth and so plainly that if you or an Angel from heaven shall add to it or take from it you shall be accursed and he will add c. all which if you do not know read Prov. 30.6 Gal. 1.8 9. Rev. 22.18 Reply 1. Mr. Baxter's expressiâ—n and Satan's are very unlike you acknowledge a truth and a lie in Satan's but you have shewed no lie in M. Baxter's nor indeed can you unless you will also condemne your self 2. If we cannot understand unless we have God's meaning and reason then Mr. Baxter is in the truth viz If we have the Word without the meaning and reason we have no proof at all Shuffle no longer 3. Mr. Baxter knows and hath read those Scriptures menâ—ioned by you but do you read them more seriously and then you may know more clearly whether you be not obnoxious to those plagues and curses for you are guilty of adding to the Word e. g. p 4. you add That forth wilderness in Mark 1.3 4 5.
And ye have added the word Church to Acts 2.41 and the Condition of Faith c to Acts 2.39 Many more instances might be given 4. I confess all adding to the Word is if it may be so called not simply forbidden For then all Annotations on the Bible or Expositions on any Text should be unlawful which concludes you as well as us but all Additions for words or meaning contrary to the Word according to that usual saying by way of Sarcasme d) Benedicta Glossa quae corrumpit textum Blessed is that Glosse which doth corrupt the Text Now if we are guilty of such a crime it remains on you to prove it your calumnie to this purpose hath been discovered in your page 11. SECT 29. H. H. p 41. You would make us believe that what is written is not able to inform us aright but you must add or take from it at your pleasure and those additions or substractions you call the meanings and reasons of the Word of God But I shall prove that the Word of God alone is able to make us wise to salvation without the adding to or taking from 2 Tim. 3.15 16 17. Jam. 1.21 Acts 20.32 Reply 1. Would we make you believe so c. This is one of those evil surmizings of yours which is condemned in 1 Tim. 6.4 2. You prove that the Word of God is able to make us wise unto salvation you are very good at proving that which none of us denies But 3. The Scriptures alleged by you do not prove what you undertake For where is the word Alone in any of these Texts Is not this one of those Additions contrary to the fore-named Scriptures SECT 30. H. H. And now seeing the holy Scriptures are able to do all these things I will boldly and safely conclude that we have no need of your reasons and senses to help thèm but you have need to help your reasons and senses by the holy Writings or else you will be one of those insensible unreasonable men e) 2 Thes 3.2 who have not Faith and how can you have faith Joh. 5.44 And do not you receive honour one of another when you prefer one anothers words above the Words of GOD c Reply 1. You will boldly and safely conclude you should have said boldly and falsly and then you had hit it 2. By drawing such a conclusion you put your self into the number of those unreasonable men For what an unreasonable reasoning is this The Scriptures are able to make us wise to salvation Therefore we have no need of sense and reason Besides Vatablus translates the f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek word Absurd men and are not you such an one in denying the Conclusion in a publick Disputation The Syriack Insolent and who save the Quakers trample on godly Ministers with scorn and reviling more then you à lapide of no settled abode but as vagrants and vagabonds and do not you wander from one Country to another from one place to another to subvert souls and trouble the peace of Christians Our English renders it and you read it Vnreasonable and are not you one of them whom no reason though never so clearly grounded on the Word will satisfie Nay what an unreasonable thing is it that you must allow your self Consequences for the proving of your Tenents and disallow all our Consequences brought to prove infant-baptism 3. The close of this Section of yours is a meer calumny we do not prefer one anothers words above God's Word and the Scripture brought to prove it is impertinent SECT 31. H. H. pag. 42. Whereas you say wickedly that if we have the words of God without the meaning and reason we have no proof Answ I am sure I may conclude that if we have your words and meanings and reasons without the Word of God we have no proof that we may safely trust For Rom. 3.4 Jerem 17.5 And thus your folly is manifest c. Reply 1. Any Adversary may be easily answered with saying You say wickedly but you have not proved yet that Mr. Baxter saith wickedly as to the Position in hand 2. Mr. Baxter saith truly and holily That if we have the words of God without the meaning and reason we have no proof E. g. You have the words of God in Jer. 2.12 13. g) Pag. 8.9 but without the true meaning and reason as you do bring them with impudence and confidence enough and yet we have no proof our of that text against Infants-baptism or Fonts 3. We may more honestly and in the fear of God conclude That if we have the Word of God with your meaning and reason and not the Lord's we have no proof that we may safely trust E. g. You bring us the Word of God 1 Tim. 2.12 for Womens preaching provided that they usurp not authority over their husbands p. 64. where I shall make your folly manifest 4. You may now honestly and in the fear of God conclude That having God's Word with the true meaning and reason you have proof sufficient on which you may safely trust because nothing is affirmed by us but what is confirmed by the Word of God 5. The rest is not worthy of a Reply unlesse I may say you have made Mr. Baxter's folly manifest as he did confute Bellarmine in one word saying Robert Bellarmine thou liest SECT 32. H. H. pag. Ibid. To your proof The Divel used the words of God to tempt Christ Answ Doth it follow that because the Divel and wicked men do sometimes use the Word of God to deceive with That therefore the Saints must not use it to make them wise to salvation Reply 1. Which of us ever said so you do but fight with your own shadow and so let it vanish SECT 33. H. H. You much mistake the matter The Divels deceit did not lye in bringing the Scriptures but in adding to and taking foâ—m Compare Psal 91.11.12 with Mat. 4.6 and Luke 4.9.10.11 Where the Tempter added Cast thy self down and at any time and left out in all thy waies And yet Mr. Baxter takes the Divels part and saith The Divel used the words of the Scriptures to Christ But this is but a small fault with you for you have learned to take the same leave your self as I shall now make it appear Reply 1. You mistake the matter and Mr. Baxter too for he made no mention of the Divel's deceit or wherein it lies but that the Divel used Sripture words without the meaning and reason Though I deny not but the Devils design was to deceive Christ if it had been possible 2. What though the Divels deceit did lie in adding to and taking from the Scriptures I freely acknowledg yet were not those Scripture words which he made use of viz. He shall give his Angells charge over thee to keep thâ—â— and in their hands they shall bear thee up least thou dash thy soot against a stone This confirms what
Mr. B. said 3. You would make Mr. Baxter odious by saying He takes the Divels part c. But Sir you know the proverb A man must give the Divel his due Surely those godly Ministers do not take the Divel's part when they tell sinneâ—s that many times they be-lye the Divel in fathering their sins on him rather then on themselvs Mat. 15.19 Out of the hâ—art proceeds evil thoughts c. Jam. 1.14 Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust 2 Pet. 1. ver 4. Corruption is in the world through lust 4. I fear that fault charged on Mr. Baxter will bee found within your own girdle before I leave you Though you say you will now make it appear It seems then you failed in making it to appear as you said in the foregoing page But just so you have learned the Divels deceit in adding to Scripture E. g Baptism is to be deferred til a man can believe which is not written in the Bible but in Mr. Haggars book p. 38. and you say p. 61. God hath one way to save men and women and another way to save little children which is no where written in the holy Scriptures Again in the same page you say Infants dying in their infancy are saved by virtue of Christ's death without actual Fâ—ith which is no where written c. who now writes after the Divels copie Who takes the Divels part SECT 34. H. H. p. 43. The Divel said to Christ If you be the Son of God cast thy self down which is no where written as the Lord saith but the contrary viz. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord c. So do you say if you be the children of God Baptize your children which is no where written but the contrary Mat. 28.29 Mar. 15 16. Acts 2.38 41. 8.37.12.37 But you know there is no children in the Text neither can they do any thing of those things notwithstanding all this you do the works of Satan Reply 1. Though what is said in the foregoing Sect. is a sufficient reply as to this also yet I am sure Christ proves two things contrary to you 1. The lawfulness of arguing from Scripture by Consequences 2. That is Scripture which is contained though not expressed therein e. g. Christ must not cast himself down for it is written in Deut. 6. ver 16. Thus. If the Lord must not be tempted then I must not cast my self down But the Lord must not be tempted Therefore 2. You bewray your ignorance in saying contrary for the baptizing of Infidels converted to the Faith and Infants also of one or both Christian parents are not contrary but subordinate k) Subordinate non pugnant there is a consistency of both 3. The Scriptures you cite in Mat. and Mark and the Acts have been answered before you do but trouble your self and tire the Reader with vain Repetitions Yet to your last I say Children are expresly mentioned in Acts 2. ver 39. which you have cunningly left out as if to use your own expression you meant to take the Divels part and so to do his work Beside your allegations are as strong against Circumcision as against infant-baptism for you know they could not repent nor believe with all their hearts c. and yet were circumcised But let us see how Mr. B. or we do the works of Satan SECT 35. H. H. As he tempted Christ to cast himself down before God's time was come to send his Angels to take him down and to that end would have applied a promise falsly Psal 91.11 12 leaving out In all thy waies So do you tempt men and women to baptize their children before God's time is come to beget them by his Word Joh. 3.5 James 1.18 That they might be born again nor onely of water but of the Spirit And to that end you tell them It is written They are disciples and Church-members and they were circumcised under the Law therefore they must be baptized under the Gospel c. Reply 1. You drive on the Popish design handsomly for here you open a wide door for unwritten Traditions What Scripture have you that saith expresly of the coming of God's time to send his Angels to take down Christ 2. Here is a very spiteful parallel What likenesse between Casting thy self down and baptizing Children 3. We have another unwritten Tradition viz. We tempt men and women to baptize their Children before God's time is come 4. You cannot deny but God doth beget some Infants by his Spirit without the Word else they are none of his Rom. 8.9 5. Your Gloss on John 3.5 smells too strongly of the Popish Cask most Orthodox Divines understand by Water and Spirit one and the same thing the latter being exegetical to the former as Mat. 3.11 to be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with Fire is all one which you distinguish as different in saying not onely of Water but also of the Spirit 6. What a strange piece of Non-sense have we here God doth beget us by his Word that we might be born again when God's begetting of us and our being born again in Scripture are all one l) 1 Joh 4.18 He that is born of God sinneth not but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself c. See also verse 1. 7. These Arguments to prove Infant-baptism drawn from Circumcision Church-membership Discipleship c. you cannot answer but by railing which shall have no other Reply from me but Silence and Patience SECT 36. H. H. p. 44. You tell us that if we have the meaning and reason we have enough for evidence for words are but to express sense Answ Then it seems the meanings and reasons you talk of without the Word are without sense by your own confession And thus you see or may see that God by weak instruments can take you wise ones in your own craftiness But again are not the words of the Scripture as good and better sens and reason then any you can speak or give Reply 1. It is not Mr. Baxter's confession but Mr. Haggar's profession to wrest M. Baxter's words as well as Scripture Let any 〈…〉 of judiciousness read M. Baxter's 10. Position and he will quickly 〈◊〉 Baxter's plainness and M. Haggar's craftiness 2. It 's granted that the words of the Scripture in Hebrew and Greek were given by the inspiration of the Spirit but our English words into which they are translated are not we may without blasphemy say If you deny this I must needs conclude you are so far from being high-flown that with the Serpent you creep on the ground and pave the way for making the Vulgar Translation Authentical as you would the English SECT 37. H. H. You say further Would it not make a man pity such sensless ignorant wretches that will call for express words of Scripture when they have evident Consequences Is Scripture-reason no reason Answ Sir me thinks you are very pitiful but you are a
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.
H. H. p. 47. But though Mr. Baxter confesseth that Christ knew the best reasoning yet he is not content with his reason but adds to it these words If God be the God of Abraham then Abraham in soul is living 2. That God is not the God of the Dead but the Living 3. If Abraham's soul be living then his body must be raised 4. If Abraham's body shall rise then there is a Resurrection c. To which I Answer 1. Mr. Baxter in all these Consequences that he hath drawn hath but darkned the counsel of God spoken by the mouth of Christ Reply 1. The clear light of Mr. Baxter's Consequences hath so dazled your eies that you cannot it seems see the truth 2. How can you without blushing say that Mr. B. hath drawn all these Consequences when Christ q) Mat 22.32 Luk. 20.38 who as you confess knew a good Argument and the right way of Disputing drew and took in the second expresly 3. Because of your former concession and confession and practice too arguing in a Syllogistical way p. 63 c. Christ's Argument beinâ— put into form lies thus Abraham's body shall rise Therefore the dead shall rise The Antecedent is thus proved Abraham's soul is living therefore his body shall rise That Antecedent is proved thus God is not the God of the dead but of the living Therefore Abraham's soul is living But how is this Antecedent proved Thus God is the God of Abraham therefore his soul is living and by consequent the dead shall arise Now if this Antecedent were denied then the plain words of Scripture were denied For these words in Exod. 3.6 were spoken by the Lord long after Abraham's death and the sâ—me Lord saith not I WAS nor I WILL BE but I AM the God of Abraham c. So that now you see these are Christ's Consequences and not Mr. Baxter's onely SECT 44. H. H. 2ly The Resurrection is more plainly proved by the words of Christ without all Mr. Baxter's Consequences as appeareth by the words of the text Luk. 20.35 36 37. Thus Christ himself inplain terms hath proved the Resurrection already speaking plainly of the happiness of those who shall obtain the Resurrection from the dead and then when he had done he concludes That the Resurrection of the dead is so plain that even Moses shewed it at the Bush c. Reply 1. Why do you equivocate and juggle There is no question but to us that place in Luke is a plain proof of the Resurrection but what is this to the Sadduces whom Christ would confute as to their erroneous opinion who held r) Mat. 22.23 There is no Resurrection And without question Christ might have brought plain texts out of the Old Testament to have proved the Resurrection but you know the Sadduces onely acknowledg the five books of Moses to be Canonical Scriptures therefore out of them Christ brings his proof 2. You here lay down the Wasters or else I have lost my understanding and sences For in saying The Resurrection of the dead is so plain that even Moses shewed it at the Bush c. you grant 1. That Christ proved to the Sadduces the Resurrection of the dead by Consequence out of Exod. 3.6 2. That such a kind of proof is plain for you confess even now that Christ knew a good Argument and the right way of Disputing and 3. That somthing is plain in Scripture which is not exprest in so many words and syllables in Scripture For I pray where is the Resurrection of the Dead written in so many words in Exod. 3.6 SECT 45. H. H. 3ly Let Mr. Baxter prove if he can that Christ did draw any Consequences from his own words but left them barely as he spake them as sufficient proof without any of Mr. Baxter's Consequences Reply 1. Yes Christ drew Consequences from his own words The whole Scripture is called the word of Christ (Å¿) Totum Verbum Dei est sermo Christi Davenant in loc Col. 3.16 not onely in regard of the matter but Author also and 2 Tim. 3.16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God Now if Exod. 3.6 be a part of the Scripture and of the word of Christ as certainly it is then Christ did draw some Consequences from his own words SECT 46. H. H. 4ly If Christ had never so many Consequences to prove any thing yet his words were all Scripture and infallibly true So true that whosoever of men or Angells should add to or take from it they are accursed But Mr. Baxter's are none such therefore we weigh them not Reply 1. Are Mr. Baxter's none such What! accursed I believe his words are not accursed whatsoever you proudly say or censure Or do you mean they are not Scripture because you say you weigh them not If Scripture be written as you say p. 45. so they are But I suppose you mean s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy Scripture so indeed they are not and yet notwithstanding those Consequences of his are infallibly true because they are Christs you may do well therefore to weigh them 2. If you mean that Christ's words were all Scripture v.z. which are left upon Record who denies it And all the words that Christ spake on earth were infallibly true for he could not lie or sin in the least but all his words are not written for surely his words were more in number then his deeds all which are not written Joh. 20.30 with 21.21 SECT 47. H. H. 5ly p. 48. Whereas Mr. Baxter saith If we had stood by we would have said to Christ Give us a Scripture that saith the Dead shall rise Answ So Christ did give them two Scriptures though Mr. Baxter is so blind he cannot see them for he tells us Ver. 35. of the world to come and the Resurrection of the Dead in plain terms and ver 37. That the dead are raised Reply 1. A ridiculous shift of him who is or would be counted the Metropolitan Dipper and great Patriarch of the Anabaptists for were these words in vers 35 and 37. written when Christ spake them 2. These are plain proofs to us that the Dead shall rise as you intimate p. 50. but were they to the Sadduces as Mr. Baxter saith which words you very cunningly left out for your own end 3. Christ if he pleased could have brought express texts out of the Old Testament but on the former account he brings his proof against the Sadduces onely out of Exod. fore-named saying in Mat. 22.31 Have ye not read which you take no notice of referring them to read what was written by Moses not to what was then spoken by him to the Sadduces clearly implying that those men stood bound in conscience to have believed the Resurrection of the Dead on the account of those words in Exod. chap. 3. vers 6. 4. Mr. Baxter now is not so blind but he can see your folly made manifest SECT 48. H. H.
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
not so believe 3. You distinguish foolishly between Faith and Obedidience for Faith it self is an obediential act It 's called the obedience of Faith a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e Ut homines fide obediant Deo Beza in loc Rom. 1.5 16.26 and to believe is to obey as appear◠by the opposition Joh 3.36 b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that believeth not the Son i. e. He that obeieth not the Son as Beza translates it and children of unbelief are called Eph. 22 children of disobedience 4. It seems by your confession that your words whereby you express your self do not pertain to the rule of Faith and Obedience 5. I wonder you daresay that you put not men on believing or doing any thing as a duty that is not written in Scripture For do you not put men to believe that Infants are neither Disciples nor Church-members nor in Covenant c. That they dying in their Infancie are saved by Christ's death without actuall faith pag. 61. And have you not rightly proved praying in a man's family giving thanks at meals Women's receiving the Lord's Supper c. to be duties yet none of the foresaid particulars are expresly written in Scripture and would you have them done but not in faith SECT 53. H. H. Herein lies the depth of all deceits viz. Because Christ expounded the Scriptures of the Prophets therefore men will take in hand to expound his Expositions q. We could make them plainer then he hath left them or make any thing true that is not written in them And because Philip opened the Scripture to the Eunuch Act. 8. therefore men will take in hand to open Philip's words so as to make them to appear otherwise then they are written Reply 1. You are fallen deep into the pit of Deceit if no Minister may preach e. g. on Mat. 5. where Christ expounds the true meaning of the Law and clears it from the Pharisees false glosses or on Mark 4.34 where Christ Expounded all to his Disciples or on Luk. 24.27 where beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he Expounded to them c. or on Acts 8. instanced in by your self For what is it to preach but to expound and apply the Word of the Lord. 2. You bewray your weakness and wickedness things usual to persons wedded to their opinions in contradicting your self for you take upon you all along to expound the Expositions of Christ and his Apostles Do not you make their sayings plainer then they have left them But I crie you mercy you make them appear otherwise then they are written SECT 54. H. H. For the plainer manifestation of the truth I desire all impartial men to consider these following things 1. If I would prove by Scripture that God created heaven and earth I must bring a Scripture that speaks so as Gen. 1.1 2ly Or that God created man upright Eccles 7.29 Or 3ly that all men since Adam's fall were sinners Rom. 3.23 Or 4ly That God sent his Son to redeem those sinners 1 Tim. 1.15 Chap. 2.6 Or 5ly That the dead shall rise Mar. 12. ver 25 26 c. Reply 1. What need this vain repetition your first instance hath been answered before in your p. 40. and your last in p. 48. 2. The other Scriptures do not say in express terms what yet you truly affirm you swerve from your own pattern Let the Reader view your quotations and compare them with your expressions 3. What blindness and blockishness is here If you would prove that men must give thanks at meals pray in and with their families that women are to receive the Lord's Supper bring some Scriptures that speak so but you cannot in express terms though you do it by consequence p. 12 13 14. so do we for Infant-baptism SECT 55. H. H. p. 50. To conclude If I would prove that men and women should be baptized when they believe I must bring a Scripture that saies so as Acts 8.12 37. And now if any man will prove that little babes should be baptized let them bring one Scripture to prove it and then they will do honestly otherwise c. Reply 1. This Scripture and the challenge have been answered before I will not trouble the Reader with Tautologies as you do CHAP. X. Concerning Consequences drawn from Scripture c. SECT 1. H. H. But now a word to Mr. Cook who saith that we never read in the Scriptures Go H. H. and J. B. teach all nations and baptize c. nor do we read that Christ gave a command to you two to preach the Gospel c. Answ This is but a cunning devised Fable a subtil sophistry of Mr. Cooks to deceive the hearts of the simple but easily discovered by them to whom the Lord hath given understanding We do not desire Mr. B. and Mr. C. to bring a Scripture that saith Go R. B. or go W. C. and baptize Children that cannot speak nor understand what you preach c. Reply 1. Bravely done Mr. Haggar when you cannot shape an handsom answer to Mr. C. then according to your custome you crie A cunning devised fable subtil sophistry c. which charge how unjustly as well as absurdly after a long digression it comes in here I leave to the judgment of the intelligent must passe as words of course to please or fright the simple 2. He hath lost his understanding I think that cannot see you here quite and clean yielding the cause to Mr. C. by a tacite granting that H. Hag. and J. Brown are by consequence from Matth. 28.19 commanded to teach and baptize c. For you say We do not desire c. 3. Infant-baptism hath been largely proved by many Scriptures and Arguments grounded on Scriptures specially in that very book of Mr. Cooks which you pretend to answer but scarce meddle with unlesse a lapp and snatch and away 4. As to that instance in that book requiring you to make out your practice by express Scripture it is not so easily answered as you imagine For 1. whereas you say you desire not Mr. B. or Mr. C. to bring a Scripture that saith Go R. B. go W. C. c. that 's nothing We have no more reason to be satisfied in your practice without express and immediate Scripture then you have in ours without such Scripture though many Consequences from Scripture are clearly brought Or rather if you were impartial you should have justified your own practice by express Scripture without Consequences before you had urged us thereto For 2ly where is it expressed in Scripture that you are appointed to go up and down in several parts of England and to draw people being Christians by profession and brought up from their childhood in that Religion wherein to they were baptized in Infancy to renounce their Infant-baptism and to be dipped in such a pit or Pool c. before such a company whether naked or covered with such a form of English words
they fall from false grace if you go out of one false way must you need go into the true way the by-paths are many the true way but one Nay some fall from a false and c) Luk. 8.18 John 15.2 seeming apprehension of the graces and blessings of the Covenant to anapparent rejection loss thereof being not onely stript of common gifts and graces as they are called whereby they are kept from shameful practices and rewarded with common blessings as Ahab's d) 1 King 21.29 humiliation was but also of common Church-privileges as C ham enjoied while he was in the Ark with Noah and which is worse are deprived of possibility of conversion and salvation being cut off from the visible Church by total Apostacy which thousands who were at first but external Church-members onely obtained by being outwardly in Covenant and so were brought through the outward court into the holy place yea Holy of Holies SECT 9. H. H. But to make the folly of these wise men manifest consider with me 1. What the New Covenant is 2. Then judge whether Infants can be in it or no. Heb. 8.8 9 10 11. This is the New Covenant of Grace Reply 1. Seeing Mr. C. made no mention of false grace fals justification c. but of falling from the outward dispensation of the Covenant from what they Seemed to have I fear you will be found in the number of those e) Rom. 1.22 who professing themselvs wise c. 2. You do not prove that this text is to be understood of the covenant as outwardly administred concerning which our question is If of the inward efficacy of the covenant the seals thereof must not be administred till we certainly know who are interessed in this covenant I suppose you will not maintain all your Church-members are such The covenant of God consists of many branches and yet the name of Covenant given sometimes to one and sometimes to another yet not exclusively to the rest e. gr 1. To the commands Deut. 4.13 2. To the command and curse or threatning Deut. 29.1.12 to 22. Jerem. 11.3 4. 3. To the promises Jerem. 31.33 34 32 40. 4. To the seals Gen. 17.9.10 11 13. Luk. 22.20 and 1 Cor. 11.25 Where the Cup is called the New Testament Though the word f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is usually translated Covenant else where 3. This Covenant belongs not only to us Christians but did also to the Jews the house of Israell and Judah and in some sort made good to some of them upon their return from the Babilonian Captivity g) Jer. 31 31 32 43 34 38 39 40. Now if this Covenant should exclude Christians children it would have excluded the Jews children But it 's certain their children continued the outward dispensation of the Covenant till the whole body of the Jews was cast off by unbelief Or if it may be understood of their last conversion in the end of the World They shall have interest in the Covenant for their children as well as the old Jews had and so have we For our conversion from Gentilisme is call'd h) Rom. 11.17 19 23. a graffing into that Stock as theirs is a re-ingraffing 4. There are diverse expressions here which bear a favourable aspect to the being of Infants in this Covenant 1. It 's said I will put my laws into their mind and write them in their hearts Cannot God do so in the hearts and minds of Infants by the spirit of Regeneration 2. I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a people Did you never read i) Deut. 29.10 11 12 13. that God would be a God to Infants or little ones or is it impossible for them to be Gods people because they are such 3. All shall know me from the least to the greatest Who then dare denâ— infants to be included who are the least as k) p. 59 65. you imply are they not of all others most incapable of being taught by their neighbours and therefore likeliest to be the subject of this promise as it lies before us or because men cannot teach them until the souls Organs be ripened will it follow that God cannot Are they not rational souls whilst Infants capable of knowledg and is not God able to Supply the defect of Organs and instrumentâ— as outward sences c. Christ of water could make true Wine immediately without husbandry as plantine Vineâ— c. Though wee are tyed to means when afforded for attaining the end yet God is not l) 1 Cor. 2.9 10 11 14. As all means without the spirit cannot work saving knowledg so the spirit can work it c. without m) Joh. 3.8 means where he pleaseth 5. To your close No one place of Scripture calls it the Covenat of grace n) Ball of the covenant p. 9. expresly in so many words and syllables and I deny not but it may be so called Comparatively in respect of the plenty of grace now vouchsafed For surely the faithfull under the old Covenant were not simply and absolutely without grace Act. 15.11 But let us hear your Reasons SECT 10. H. H. pag. 58.1 Because Infants have not the laws of God in their minds nor written in their hearts as not being in a capacity to know the mind and law of God as is plain Isai 7.14 15 16. Nay Christ when he was an Infant was not capable of discerning between things that differ Luk. 2.40 52. Much less do other children understand Gods law Therefore not in Covenant Reply 1. The writing of the law in the heart c. o) see Dr. Prest of the covena Is nothing else but an holy disposition to conformity with the Law or all one with that circumcision Deut. 30.6 or Regeneration of which children are capable or else they cannot be saved John 3.3 Now you make no question of the salvation of all Infants dying in their infancy p. 60 61. 2. If Infants incapacity to know c. be so plain then by your grant some consequences from Scripture are plain Scripture proof which justifies Mr. B. and Mr. Cook 3. Your Argument from Sensitive Rationall and naturall knowledge which is understood by knowing good and evill c. to supernaturall infused and spirituall knowledg iâ— plainly naâ—ght many have the former who want the latter and no reason can be given why many may not have the latter who want the former Sith it depends not on the â—enses as the other The reasonable soâ—l hath no Infanâ—â—y nor decrepit age no more then other intellectuall spirits as Angells but is capable of immediate impâ—â—ssions from God Doth it not reason when senses are bound up And when it 's disrobed of the body the undeâ—standing is more perfect then while in the body Heb. 12 23 the spirit of just men made pâ—rfect 4. You are gâ—â—sly mistaken not to say imâ—udent with the Scripture and with our glorious Lord Christ
and murderers are called God's children and born to him x) Ezec. 16.8.20 21. viz. in respect of the Covenant which though broken by them yet a bill of divorce was not yet given to them Therefore God owns their children as his in Covenant Thirdly They are in Covenant say you because that which is born of the flesh is flesh As if they were not capable of Regeneration even while Infants if so no Infants dying can be saved y) Jo. 3 3 5. but you grant they may and must be saved pag. 60. Therefore of necessity they must be born again But it 's no strange thing to find you either confounding or contradicting your self 5. To conclude this debate about Heb. 8. Observe 1. M. Hag. quotes it not right pag. 57 f. who writes it But this is the Covenant whereas it is in the place cited FOR which is a Ratiocinative not an adversative participle 2. It 's not said here or elsewhere in Scripture that none are under the new Covenant no not under the outward dispensation thereof but they which have those spirituall and saving works on their hearts 3. Neither doth he say that all those gracious works shall be wrought on them the first day of their admission into Covenant Though the habits may be infused at once yet the growth and actings of those habits are by degreâ—s Else we should deny them to be within the Covenant internally who cannot discern distinctly such heart-works 4. When we are speaking of such an externall visible interest in the Covenant as gives to the seed right of entrance into Covenant It is a manifest flying off from the Question to talk of the internall Covenant proper only to the Elect. Especially it is a meer subterfuge to deny childrens being in Covenant and so right to the seal because they have not this spirituall blessing of the Covenant when they themselves dare not undertake that all or perhaps any are of those whom they admit to the seal of the Covenant have these spirituall blessings or be in this respect within the New Covenant CHAP. XII Whether the Infants of Christians and of Heathens are in the same condition as to their Souls SECT 1. H. H. p. 59. f. M. B. saith p. 71 72. in his 21 and 22. Arguments that our doctrine is false For it denies any Infants to be members of the visible Church and leaves us no sound grounded hope of the justification and salvation of any Infants in the world The same saith M. C. in his 13. Argument p. 44. It puts the Infants of christians into the same condition with the children of Turks and Infidels and leaves them in the visible kingdom of the Devill c. I Answ 1. Denying that any children are saved by virtue of visible Church-membership or being in the Covenant as believers are and let M. B. M. C. or any for them prove it by the Scriptures if they can Reply 1. What a wide leap have we here you fairly passe by twenty Arguments of M. Baxters and twelve of M. Cooks though you pretend to answer them in your Title page Very good reason because you could not or would not make any colour or shew of an answer 2. What you here say is no answer at all to any part of the Arguments propoundâ—d may your expression of being saved by virtue of visible Church-membership or being in Covenant as believers are is very ambiguous and fallacious Though their Church-member-ship and Covenant-ship if so I may say have been proved by many Arguments which you have not so much assayed to answer 3. Yeâ— I shall ex abundancâ— prove it because you challenge any man by these few Arguments grounded on Scripture c. Though you grant Infants are saved and that cannot be but by Covenant c. First They that are saved by Christ are saved by Covenant for Christ is the Covenant his blood is the blood of the Covenant as you acknowledge a) p. 58. from Is 49.8 Heb. 13.20 bâ—t those children that are saved are saved by Christ Rom. 5.18 Therefore Secondly They that are saved by the Mediator of the New Covenant are saved by means of being in the New Covenant For there is no other Mediator 1 Tim. 2 5. and â—hrist saves none as Mediator of the Covenant but those whom he brings into covenant else why call'd a Meditâ—our of the covenant but some children are saved by the Mediator of the New covenant Therefore Thirdly they who are without Christ Church-membership and covenant â—re without hope without God in the world and in a perishing condition but Elect Infants are not without God without hope in a perishing conditioÌ„ Therefore not without Christ Church-membership covenant 4. The Church all his members are in covenant w th God for it is by covenaÌ„t b) Hos 2.19 20. that she is made the Spouse of Christ but som infants are made Church-meÌ„bers for whom Christ dyed c) Ep. 5.26 27. as wel as for grown persoÌ„s herefore they are in covenant by consequence saved by virtue thereof Fifthly from your ground which surely you lay on Scripture He that proves Infants dying are saved by Christ's death proves that they are saved by virtue of the covenant for the covenant is ratified by Christ's death but M. Hâ—g proves that Infants dying are saved by virtue of Christ's death p. 61. or else he doth not prove it by Scripture Therefore M. Hag. proves that Infants dying are saved by virtue of the covenant I hope you will not deny your own assertion and therefore not yours and my Conclusion 4. This labour might have been spared For you confesse if your words bear any sense that Infants are in covenant though not in that manner as believers are SECT 2. H. H. p. 60. Secondly I answer there is no difference between the children of believers and unbelievers in their Nonage For the children of the one at best are but innocent and so are the children of unbelievers Psal 106.37 38. and those that are innocent God will not destroy Exod. 23.7 with Job 22.30 Prov. 6.16 17. Reply 1. If there be no difference you grant M. Cooks Minor proposition and therefore must own the Conclusion Abominable doctrine indeed viz. that puts no difference between the children of Christians and of Turks to be abhorred of all those that have heard of God's Covenant made with Abraham Isaac and Jacob the people of Israel and Church of the New Covenant which I leave to be considered and lamented 2. I suppose the word BUT should be left out they are BUT innocent unless you mean they are only freed from and acquitted of the gift of sin but without inherent and imputed righteousness which is as abominable as the former and contrary to your allegation Rom. 5.16 p. 6â— 3. But if the best be made of them they are more then innocent d) Isa 44.3 for God hath promised to powr his spirit on the believers
seed and his blessing on their off-spring And he declares e) Isa 65.23 Psal 37.26 their off-spring are blessed and that the kingdom of heaven belongs to them f) Mat. 19.14 c These and the like things are not said of the children of unbelievers Therefore some difference sure 4. Yet no children are innocent absolutely but comparitatively as David was if his prayer was heard Psa 19.13 So I shall be innocent from the GREAT transgresion and Abner and Amasa were not without sins yet their blood is termed innocent blood g) 1 Kin. 2.31 32. so those children in Psal 106. were innocent as to actuall sin and in respect of those that murdered them but not free from originall sin nor spotlesse before God For had they been altogether without sin they could not have dyed Joh. 14.3.4 Psal 51.5 Rom. 5.12 14 18. and 6.23 Ephes 2 3 I say God in equity could not take away their lives if they were simply without all sin or else God iâ— cruelâ— in punishing as the places you bring seem to prove which is prodigious blasphemy 5 How is Scripture abused how impertinent is your proof man must not destroy the innocent Exod. 23 7. Prov 6.16 17. Therefore God will not Our Divines hold that God by his perogative may h) Joh. 9.12 with 2â— 3 annihilate an innocent person yea lay what evills he please as on Christ who in himself was every way innocent without any wrong to the creature and were not the Sodomites and their children i) Josh â— 24 Achan and his children punished and that without any injustice by the Lord and how many children were drowned in Noah's deluge 6. To return to Psalm 106. Those children were children of persons externally in Covenant though wicked yet not dis-covenanted for after severe corrections he is said to remember his covenant for them verse 45. 7. What you say in the rest of this p. is not at all pertinent to this Argument and therefore I passe the same by only with soâ—â—e brief animadversions in the generall we have here 〈◊〉 bundl of Arminianism or refined Pelagianism First a tacite denying or at least a sleighting k) See c. 10. ans to the 7. 〈◊〉 qu. of originall sin contrary to Scripture and experience Secondly none shall be condemned for Adam's transgression contrary to Rom. 3.23 with 5.18 19 Thirdly originall sin doth not deserve eternall death but onely temporal what other construction can be made of your words though they must all dye for Adam's transgression yet c. contrary to Rom 6.23 Fourthly In such little babes there is no Law contrary to Rom. 7.1 with 5 12. Fifthly no transgression can be imputed to them how then do they dye as you confesse for Adam's sin with a pitifull contradiction is this Sixthly None shall be judged according to originall sin contrary to Rev. 20.12 SMALL and great stood before God who were judged according to their works And if Adams transgression be every mans work save Christ's then Infants shall be judged accordingly or if for the effect then much more for the cause which is as bad if not worse you harp on the word DONE in 1 Cor. 5.10 I find no such thing in that Scripture when you correct your quotation you shall have a solution In the mean time it looks very suspitiously when the creature is more mercifull then the Creator as the pitifull Arminians seem to bee if you would take that advice you give to M. B. c. viz. Seriously consult Scripture your wonder would not bee for nine days but I hasten to your next p. SECT 3. H. H. p. 61. God hath hath one way to save men and women and another to save Infants as Rom. 5.18 whence I conclude that Infants which fell in Adam without any actuall sin or knowledge of Adam's transgression even so they dying in their Infancy c. are saved by virtue of Christ's death without any actuall faith or knowledge of Christs obedience or else it is not EVEN SO as Rom. 5.18 saith Reply 1. So then you positively assert that all Infants dying in their Infancy c. are saved by Christ c. Rom. 5.18 But 1. Here is no expresse mention made of Infants or their fall in Adam or any actuall sin or of knowledge of Adam's transgression or of their salvation by Christ's death or of their actuall faith or knowledge of Christ's obedience Here therefore is no plain proof for your assertion All the particulars fore-named are unwritten traditions additions to the Scripture take heed lest those plagues you would scare others with so often become your own portion 2. The word ALL must be taken largely or restrictively not the former For then all men women and children within and without the Church shall be saved for justification of life upon all men implies so much Now it 's impossible that those who are truly justified l) Rom. 8.30 32 34. c. should fall short of glorification If you mean as your words imply that all in their Infancy were justified though after by sinning they may perish that is repugnant to the fore-named Scripture nor restrictively For neither the woâ—d nor context admit such an exception Indeed there is a kind of universality of those that are partakers of justification of life i. e. All they that receive abundance of grace c. verse 17. i. e. All the Elect Christ's sheep regenerate and sanctified ones But where is it proved that all Infants even of Heathens so dying are such Nay it 's denyed by you 3 How can you satisfie your self with this one Scripture from whence you draw no Argument but this else it is not even so as Rom. 5.18 saith i. e. either your opinion is true or that Scripture is false But as you know that comparisons do not run on four seet so you will not yield to many Scriptures with Arguments deduced from them though never so clearly and strongly for the proof of Infant Baptism Is this impartiall dealing will you have Infants even of Heathens saved here by consequence And shall not â—e have Infants even of Christians baptized by consequence from Mat. chap. 28. verse 19. 4. I have heard of one that held universall Redemption of all from originall sin and that therefore Infants even of Heathens while such are in God's favour which I think is your opinion I am sure it is of some of your Proselytes in these parts and thence concluded that such Infants were to be baptized if parents would permit and if the Antecedent be granted which you do the consequent cannot be denyed by any but by him that absurdly did and will deny the conclusion For who can deny the seal of Redemption to them who are acknowledged to have interest in Redemption by Christ's blood 5. I will not determine what the Lord may do by prerogative neither must I believe or assert for a truth any more then his Word
more of this 2. If you mean there were no Infants at all in Rome or Philippi a man had need of the faith of an Anabaptist to believe you or it I'ts said All Jerusalem was troubled with Herod Matth. 2. ver 3. Infants could not bee troubled with him Therefore there was no Infant in Jerusalem This reasoning is as good as yours i. e. stark naught But if you mean as it seems that no little children could understand speak c. who saith so 3. It 's cold comfort to believing parents that their Infants are not Saints in Christ then sure they are little Heathens but is not this contradictory to the same Apostle who calls indefinitely children even of one believing parent 1 Cor. 7.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sancti sunt So Beza and the Old Latine g Saints so is the word in the originall and are any saved by Christ but Saints you hold all we some Infants dying in their Infancy are saved by Christ 4. Paul here undertakes nothing less then the dashing Infants-believers out of the number of Saints or Church-members The universal particles ALL and EVERY one must be restrained as was said to the scope and subject matter e.gr. All the Saints salute i. e. All that were with him at the writing of this Epistle as appears by this very Scripture which you bring Phil. 4.21 22. All the brethren salute you And so salute EVERY Saint i. e. That is capable of such salutations So that your major is not proved by this Scripture at all SECT 15. H. H. p. 71. If children are not concerned in these salutations then they are not visible Saints in Christ nor visible members of his body the Church c. For the text saith plainly Phil. 4.21 Salute EVERY Saint Reply 1. As to that they are Saints in Christ I have spoken to even now 2. The Scripture no where mentions visible Saints or visible members Must we be still troubled with your unwritten traditions 3. If you might as well conclude that Infants are no creatures for to shoot in your bow the Text saith plainly Mar. 16.15 Preach the Gospel to EVERY creature and that birds and beasts and plants c. are not creatures For the text saith plainly Col. 1.23 The Gâ—spel was preached to EVERY creature which is under heaven or that the Jews Infants were not câ—iâ—dren of Israel For the text saith plainly Numb 36.8 EVERY one of the children of Israel shall keep himself SECT 16. H. H. p. 71 72. There are many probable Arguments remaining but the answers to them take much with those that set their Faith in other mens wisedoms and not in the power and wisedom of the Word of God 1 Cor. 2 4 5. But I shall omitt them Because these twelve are undenyable c. Onely I will give you one probable Argument out of Mat. 18. 15 16 17. Reply 1. You said your 12 and last Argument p. 70. How is that your last if many or but one more bee in your budget or were they demonstrative and these probable what probable after demonstratives or were all the former at best but probable not to me but to you whose faith is built on more probabilities 2. If it might be made manifest then it seems it i. e. your Tenent is not yet made manifest to the impaâ—â—â—ll Reader 3. If you know many seeming Answers would bee made to them how could you imagine none would be made to these 12. 4. I know not who those are you rave upon except perhaps your poor deluded Proselytes who pin their faith on your sleeve and take hand over head all for Gospel which you say Onely this I know you abuse Scripture again For the words are â— Cor. 3.5 That your faith should not stand in the wisedom of men but in the power of God Will you bee still at your old Trade of ADDING Take heed of the plagues you threaten others with 5. You may now find by experience the vanity of your confidence there Aâ—guments of yours are not onely deny-able and damnable also bear with the word but truly denyed and justly damned too 6. For Mat. 18. You have SIN instead of trespass which though perhaps all one yet you should not chop and change at pleasure aâ— you have left AS For you say to thee an Heathen whose son are you now p. 42. And for the three Arguments you draw from this text there is more in the conclusion then in the premisses which heretofore hath been a great fault in Argumentation And in the end you seem to grant that the word WHOLE Church is not in the text why then did you put it into your third particular but that you had a mind to cozen your Reader Indeed by the Church here is to be understood the Church-guides as before out of Act. 8.1 as appears by the eight and ninth verses Whatsoever ye shall bind c. Whatsoever ye shall loose c. If two of you shall agree So that it is as clear as the Sun that the Church here is the Assembly of the Ministers and Elders of the Church And then your threefold cord is as easie broken as that was by Samson 7. To conclude in generall for these Arguments which are thirteen to the dozen let the Reader observe There is not one word of Church-member or Church-member-ship in any one of the Scriptures cited Yet Mr. Hag. would bear us in hand that he holds nothing but what is expressed in the Scriptures Where is your written word for your belief in this very point under debate 2. Because you import that you put but little confidence in your probable Arguments I had thought to have left them as I find them but least you and yours should crow I have given some brief Animadversions and would let you understand that it were very easie to find our without vanity be it spoken many dozens of Arguments in Moses and the Prophets that might conclude as probably against the Church-membership of the Old Testament-Infants as any you have or can bring against childrens Church-membership in the New And as easie to bring multitudes of Argumemts out of the New Testament that might as probably conclude against the salvation of any Infants so dying as any you bring against the Church-membership or Covenant-state of Christians Infants Though you profess your perswasion of the salvation of ALL Infants so dying yet by your way of Arguing ALL Infants should not only be cast out of the Church but out of salvation too CHAP. XIV Of the Disciple-ship of INFANTS SECT 1. H. H. p. 73. I proceed to prove in opposition to M. Baxter and M. Cooks Arguments that Infants are not cannot be Christ's Disciples My first Argument is from Mat. 28.19 Teach all Nations c. The plain English of which M. Baxter himself confesseth to be Make Disciples c. From whence I argue thus If those Disciples which Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize must be first
are capable of being Christ's Disciples And all the wit you have for I fear you have no grace I am sure you have no Scripture will never prove it I had thought a Shear-man could have dress'd a piece of cloth more handsomely if you can keep to your trade only and leave off preaching and such ridiculous arguing for very shame 3. M. Baxter had other answers to M. T. but you cunningly take no notice of them SECT 8. H. H. p. 77. M. Baxter proves from Acts 15.10 That Infants are Disciples to all that will not grosly over-look the text and pervert it because the false teachers would have laid the yoke of Circumcision on the Disciples now that yoke was to be laid on the Jews and their children according to Moses's Law Answer 1. An heavy charge against us I confess to be perverters of the Scripture 2. If the Argument were granted M. Baxter hath done but half his work for then only men-children are to be baptized Reply 1. You do not deny the charge to be true for you say how true it will prove you shall see by and by It may prove true for all this 2. The charge is as true as heavy How grosly have you perverted Jer. 2.12 13. p. 8. q. Our Fonts lately in use were those broken Cisterns c. And indeed this is your frequent work through your book How grosly are those Scriptures perverted which you bring to prove your baptizing of men and women when they believe as you say and all those that Infants are not Church-members from your p. 63. to 72. which are 12. at least as hath been made to appear and those you bring for plungeing and dipping under water As you shall finde hereafter 3. You may do well to give M. Baxter this whole Argument as you do others in answering nothing to them by your own confession in your Epistle about the end 4. M. Baxter hath done his whole work by your grant for his â—ask was to prove that some Infants may be baptized because they are Disciples which is quite opposite to your Tenent That no Infants may be baptized because no Infant as you say can be a Disciple Indeed it 's true none but male-children were circumcised actually The females being uncapable yet the females were virtually and so reputed as if they had been actually Circumcised The Israelitish Damsell is brought in as opposed to Shechem one uncircumcised Gen. 34.14 and how else could women lay claim to that promise Deut. 30.6 The Lord will circumcise thy heart c. or be within the Covenant of grace whereof Circumcision was a sign Gen. 17.11 Nay call'd the Govenant of Circumcision Act. 7.8 did Peter preach only to the male Jews when it 's said the Gospel of the Circumcision was committed to him Gal. 2.7 9. Or when he James and John went to the Circumcision Was Christ a Minister of the Circumcision to Jewish men only and not to women also Rom. 15.8 Or did the blessednesse of justification come on the male Jews only or on the female also Rom. 4.9 For the Apostle saith It cometh not only on the Circumcision but on the uncircumcision also if this includes both Sexes among the Gentiles believing that cannot exclude the Jews at least believing whether male or female And were not women as well as men said to be of the Circumcision Acts 10.45 and 11.2 Rom. 4.12 Surely women are not to be excluded but included in this very phrase I trow But what need I produce any more instances in so plain a truth 5. Nay you your self grant M. B. Argument towards the end of this p. For you acknowledge in plain terms the yoke here was Circumcision according to the Law of Moses and this yoke was laid on the Jews AND THEIR CHILDREN only according to your senselesse custome you deny the CONCLUSION and undertake to prove the contrary SECT 9. H. H. p. 78. If M. Baxter or M. Cook prove Infants Discipleship then we grant they are those on whom the false teachers would have put the yoke of Circumcision but the Disciples are such as could deny themselves c. Luk. 14. which Infants cannot do As they cannot hear the Word and believe Acts 15.7 Nor receive the Holy Ghost verse 8. c. Therefore they are not at all concerned in that place Reply 1. M. B. and M. C. have proved Infants Disciples by clear Arguments to which you say nothing though you undetook to answer them How then dare you say it remains STILL for them to prove c I hope now you will grant they are Disciples on whom the yoke was to bee put and therefore that Infants also are Disciples 2. Your Argument to the contrary is not worth a straw Your Major is again justly denyed viz. All or else you prove nothing Luk. 14.27 The Disciples of Christ can deny themselves take up the Cross and follow Christ It 's like this Subjects can fight for their Prince Infants cannot Therefore If the Proposition bee understood of all it 's false If of some then the Syllogism is false for form as before 3. For Acts 15. It 's granted p. 16. by M. B. that they who heard the Word c. were Disciples but not onely they and M. B. proveâ— it out of the coherence Acts. 5.1 5.24 three times it 's so Except ye be Circumcised after the manner of Moses verse 1. And it was needfull to Circumcise them and to keep the Law ver 5. and ye must be Circumcised and keep the Law ver 24. So that Infants are clearly concerned in this place who as well as their parents were by the doctrine of the false teachers to be Circumcised and so necessary engaged to keep the Law 4. Though Infants suppose cannot partake of the Holy Ghost as to the miraculous gifts yet I wonder you deny them the ordinary gifts of regeneration and sanctification specially when you are strongly peswaded of their salvation by Christ as p. 60. and 61. SECT 10. H. H. Another Argument of M. Baxter is page 18 19. thus If Infants be capable of being God's servants then of being Christ's Disciples If God call them servants why may not we call them Disciples Levit. 25.41 42. Answer It 's strange he should take on him to prove them Disciples and when he cannot find such a word in all the Scriptures he would turn us off with the word servants I say we may call Nebuchadnezzar God's servant Jer. 25.9 and 27.6 and 43.10 And yet if M. Baxter call him Christ's Disciple his folly is manifest to all men as it is now to me Reply 1. You would prove women to be Church-members because they are Disciples page 67. May not we retort when you cannot find such a word in all the Scriptures you would turn us off with the word Disciples and presume to call them Church-members and then say if God call them one thing why may not wee call them another 2. If you prove Infants
are not Church-members because they are not branches how poorly God knows It should not seem strange to you that M. Baxter proves them Disciples because they are servants specially if you consider to foyle you with your own weapon that Scripture no where calls them expresly Church-members though we believe they are but doth expresly call them Disciples * I. G. Catab p 165. Sidenh exercit p. 126. here and servants too in the place quoted by M. Baxter 3. By your Divinity I may not call Paul a Disciple of Christ whom he calleth a servant and his servant too For you say even in persons wee must not call them Disciples of Christ whom God calleth servants 4. If you had not been wilfully blind M. Baxter prevented this cavill p. 20 which I shall improve Moses and Nebuchadnezzar are called the servants of God but not on the same account Isa 42.1 with Rev. 1.1 Christ and John are called God's servants but not in the same sense when their use and sufferings were so unlike Psal 119.89 90. The Heavens and believers are called God's servants but not in the same sence when their actings do so broadly differ So Nebuchadnezzar and the Churches children He in respect of the work to which he was designed and they in respect of the state wherein they were invested Nebuchadnezzar was never brought out of Egypt nor to have any benefit of the year of Jubilee as is said of these children with their parents Levit. 25.41 42. SECT 11. H. H. p. 79. Another Argument of M. Baxters p 21. If Infants be capable of being Christ's Subjects then of being Christ's Disciples Answer A learned Argument All the children in this Nation are capable of being Subjects in this Commnon-wealth Ergo of being Vniversity-Scholars Reply 1. An unlearned answer There is a capability remote and immediate Now remotely all Infants here are capable of being University-Scholars but not immediately they must first be Country-Scholars before they are University-Scholars An Infant is capable of being an Abecedarian by propinque-power but a stone c. is not either by a propinque or remote power 2. You seem to insinuate that no child is capable of being a Subject in this Common-wealth what truth is in M. B. or yours you leave to the wise to judge your Logick will not save a whore from the gallows who hath been arraigned or condemned for murdering her Bastard SECT 12. H. H. His third Argument is p. 23. Christ would have some children received as Dâ—sciples Loâ— 2 47 48 Mar. 19.5 Mark 9.41 Now what the two first Soriâ—â—ures are to the purpose I leave to all that can read and understant English to judge If the Printer have done him wrong I have not neither is there any in his Erraâ—â—'s and truly I dare be no Interpreter of his meaning withoâ—â— his words I shall therefore onely speak to that in Mark c. Reply 1. What a cunning devised Fable have wâ—here to mis-cite Mr. Baxter's two hâ—d Scripturâ—s and to write them out at large that Mr Baxter might be rendered odious or at least inexpert in the Word of righteousness whâ—n in the very page cited they are Luke 9 and Mat. 18. and for the first you confess you after â—od Luke 9. quoted in that page Would not you think it dis-ingeâ—â—ty to be so dealt with If I should write out in words at length Luke 14.10 so it 's cited by you pag. 42. and then make such a flam as you do What a great crie is here and no Wooll Where were your eiâ—s or your mind rather If seems after you had put on your Spectacies you could see better and read English you seek for a â—not in a Rush SECT 13. H. H. p. 80. I Answer 1. The word Disciple is not in the Text c. 2ly in Mark 9.41 42. It 's evident he spake to the Twelve and of actual believers 3ly To that in Luke 9. ver 48. the Lord Christ himself answers Mat. 18.1 2 3 4 5 6. at large Reply 1. No more is Church-member or visible Saints in all or any one of those 13 Texts which you produce from pag. 63. to 73 and from whence you have drawn 13 doughty Arguments to shew that such Infants as wee baptize cannot be Church-members neither doth Church-membership do them any good but the contrary pag. 63 your answer here might have served for our Reply there But I have replied punctually to every Scripture and Argument there And what if the word Disciple be not expresly found in one or two of these texts yet in Mat. 18.5 which Mr. Baxter had rightly and truly cited for all your audacious out-facing the matter he speaks of receiving one such little child in my name what 's that Mark 9.41 Because ye belong to Christ or as it is in the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 9.41 because ye are Christs and what are both these but in the name of a Disciple Mat. 10.42 Now to receive in Christ's name and as belonging to Christ and as a Disciple of Christ in Christ's language is all one Much more is said in the places quoted by you by Mr. B. which you thought a piece of wisdom to pass by because you could not answer 2. To that in Mark I might say as you a little before The word actual Believers is not to be found in the text Therefore by your divinity it is not Evident that he speaks of Actual Believers or else some things are evident which are not expresly mentioned in Scripture And what though Christians Infants are not actual believers it 's enough if they be habitual believers and then Christ speaks of them But because you utterly deny that any Infants are actuall Believers and challenge any to prove it by Scripture if they can I shall try your strength by these few Arguments though I do not positively assert it 1. David saith God did makeâ—him hope when he was on his mothers breasts Psal 22.9 Now to hope and to believe are all one or very nigh of kin In him shall the Gentiles trust or hope Rom. 15.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. You have taught me that justification of life belongs to Infants pag. 61. out of Rom. 5.18 Now the Scripture knows no justification of life without actual faith even in that Chap. it 's said Rom. 5.1 we are justified by faith What is that but actual faith as appears from the illative particle Therefore being the conclusion of an Argument drawn from a famous example of justification viz. Abraham's which was without doubt by actual faith you dare not deny it 's so evident Gen. 15. with Rom. 4. 3 ly John Baptist in his mothers womb leapt for joy Luk. 1.41 44. which was no natural but a spiritual motion as hath been said now joy is the joy of faith Rom. 15.33 with Phil. 1.25 True you say faith comes by hearing Rom. 10.17 i.e. Ordinarily But though God binds us to the means yet he
found so much strength that after you had cast a squib you run away like a coward â—ut for all that he hath reached you such a back-blow which you cannot claw off SECT 3. H. H. p. 88. Nay to give him his Argument again Infant Baptism is utterly inconsistent with the obedience to Christ's rule First because there is neither precept nor practise for it as he grants Secondly because by their Rantizing or sprinkling of babes they make the command of Christ of none effect Mat. 7.7 8 9. and Mat. 15.8 9. Thus they bind two sins together and in the one they shall not go unpunished Reply 1. If giving be granting you do well to give it him 2. The first reason of your retortion is but the Cuckoes song M. Baxter hath been so far from granting it that he hath abundantly shewed you both precept and example but you are so wilfully blind that you cannot see wood for trees 3. Your Third is both a meer Calumniation and a miserable begging the Question Infant-Baptism is neither a Tradition in your sense nor a making of Christ's Command of none effect in our sense as hath been shewed But I may not nauseate the Reader with vain repetitions as you do 4. If we shall go unpunished in the one I believe in the other too SECT 4. H. H. Whereas M. Baxter would make us offendors for nothing i. e. for not baptizing children in their Non-age I Answer First he can never make it a sin till he shew us what Command we have broken c. Secondly There is both precept and practice for baptizing men and women when they believe Mar. 16.16 Act. 8.12 and 10.48 Reply 1. Then it seems a swarving from an example in Scripture is no sin What if women should never Break Bread or receiv the Lords Supper is it not a sin since there is no expresse command for it and no example but by consequence Your Scriptures shall be spoke to anon if not heretofore 2. It hath been proved that you utterly mistake those Commands and examples for baptizing men and women at years of discretion unless you will make the parties parallel i. e. meer Heathens newly converted c. But I must not fall into the same crime with you of idle and senselesse Repetitions onlâ— let the Reader observ That I have orderly digested this page of yours which you had confusedly set down for the building of your Tower of Babel SECT 5. H. H. p. 89. His Third Argument is because the practise of baptizing children of Christians at age goes upon meer uncertainties hath no Scripture rule to guide it Therefore it 's not according to the will of Christ Answer Though this is the same in substance with the two former yet First our practise is guided by Scripture rule from the Command of Christ and examples of the Apostles Mark 16.16 Acts 2.41 and 8.12 37. Naâ— say 〈◊〉 your practise of Baptizing little babes goes upon meer uncertainties having no Scripture-rule to guide it c. Reply 1. I had thought to have said nothing to your charge on M. Baxter's chopping one Argument into so many pieces to multiply words Therefore I did not transcribe them yet I shall say this It seems you had surfeited of the other two Arguments And now your stomack turnes at the naming of this If you had no mind to multiply words you might have spared this Cavilling Preface Crums of truth are too precious to be lost and therefore since you will not understand the Loaves which have satisfied some Thousands Mr. B. did well to put his fragments into the basket d) part i. c. â— p. 150. by sending the Reader back to what went before 2. Though the Texts alledged by you have been Replyed to yet here your answer is both wide and weak If you mean of a Church to be constituted that 's nothing to the purpose Mr. Baxter's assertion is still true though that be granted and so your answer is wide If of a Church constituted and if you understand christians children at age then your instances out of those Scriptures prove no such thing because they were not the children of Christian parents and so your answer is weak 3. As your answer is impertinent so your return of M. Baxter's Argument is insufficient To deal roundly I deny your Minor viz. There is Scripture rule for Baptizing babes notwithstanding your impudent denying it as may be easily discerned by any who seriously and impartially peruse Mr. Baxter's Book or this Reply neither do you bring any Scriptures to prove your Minor but only this I SAY What arrogancy is this in you to obtrude an opinion on the world upon your bare word Could you perswade me that Pythagoras was a Dipper and that his soul had transmigrated into your body I would allow the Haggarens as well as the Pythagoreans an IPSE DIXIT he hath said it and that 's enough Do you think to carry your cause against the evidence of Scripture practice of Antiquity consent of Fathers continued custom of the Churches strength of reason upon such a pitifull proof as this is I SAY How long is it since your confidence hath amounted to an Infallibility I therefore must make bold your premisses being thus routed to alter your conclusion Infant Baptisme is according to the mind of Christ notwithstanding Mr. Haggars I SAY 4. Because I would not have Mr. B. to be in your debt for the return of his Argument I return you an Argument from one of your Scriptures e) Mar. 16.16 cited and from your own principles For although you are not so rigid to damne Infants and exclude them from Heaven yet you excommunicate them out of the Church cast them out of the Covenant c. Here I argue They who may be saved without actuall Faith may be Baptized without actuall faith But Infants specially of believing parents may be saved without actuall faith therefore they may be Baptized without actuall faith The Minor you grant The Major I prove thus If faith be as necessary to salvation as it is to Baptisme then they that may be saved without faith may be Baptised without Faith But the former is true Therefore the latter The consequence of the Major is evident from the words of the text f) Mark 16.16 where the same stresse is laid upon faith to salvation as to Baptisme And the Minor cannot be denied unlesse you will have admission to Baptism on Earth more difficult then to blessedness in Heaven and make it an harder matter to be Baptized then to be Saved I leave you to unty not to cut this knot SECT 6. H. H p. 89. 90. His sourth Argument is Because the practice of Baptizing Christians Children at age necessarily fills the Church with perpetuall contentions as being about a matter that cannot be determined by any known rule Answer But the Baptizing of men and women when they believe is a matter that can be and is
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
according to the mind of Christ was and is onely by Ministeriall teaching Secondly That none but such so discipled were or are to be baptized But on the contrary are not examples obvious in Scripture As the thief on the Crosse who was a Disciple yet not Discipled by Ministeriall preaching the Gospel whom yet you acknowledge to be in a saving condition p. 25 26. and baptized in will though not in deed and to omit many instances Paul was a Disciple o) Acts 9.22 yet not by the preaching of the Gospell and was baptized too and I trow both according to the mind of Christ to say nothing of p) Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 6. c. 2. Origens and Austins q) Confess l. 8. 〈◊〉 12. Discipleship the one by his parents education the other by a Voice from Heaven 5. For your confession c. It had been more ingenuity to have confessed your own errours with which your book is stuffed as may appear by this reply or your impudence with a witness in denying that which you cannot but know to be the custom of the Churches of God for more then a 1000 years See your p. 3. or your uncharitableness in disowning them for the Churches of God who have owned Infant-baptism What your custom is I matter not you shall be none of my presidents though God may make you an example and then I shall remember you as I do Å¿) Luk 17.32 Lot's wife SECT 8. H. H. p. 91. But to retort M. Baxter's Argument this Doctrine of M. Baxters and the rest of the Priests of England viz. That all Children should be Baptized in their None-age according to their practice doth turn the Baptisme of Christ which is to baptize men and women when they believe quite out of the Churches of the saints therefore c. This his Sword is turned with the edg against himself Reply 1. In generall you should have given no more then his own you have made so little use of the Argumenâ— that you deserve to pay no interest but how have you put the sheep in Wolves clothing and besmeered M. Baxter's modest and meek expression with the excrements of your own passion 2. In particular 1. You call us Priests in derision you shew your selfe to be the Son of Hagar by your scoffing that Nick-name neither gaines you not loses us any thing Secondly we do not say all children but the children of believeing parents are to be baptized And those I trow are not All children s) Isa 28.15 Thus you make lies your refuge and under falsehood have you hid your self Thirdly you say that our Doctrine turns Christ's Baptism out of the Church because the baptizing of men and women when they believe is the baptisme of Christ This is bâ—t a pittifull begging of the Question and yet without Question both the Baptism of Infants of the other are consistent It 's well known that many Jewes Heathens converted to the Faith have been Baptized by us as well as the Infants of believeing Parents Thus indeed the edge of M. Baxter's Sword is so turned that for very bluntnesse it hath not so much as pierced the skin SECT 9. H. H. Same p. His Sixth Argument is against the mannes of Baptizing by Dipping as being a branch of the Sixth Commandement because it doth ordinarily tend to the overthrow of man's health and lives therefore no Ordinance of God but an hainous sinne c. Answer In order First Observe M. Baxter useth not one Scripture the ground of faith to prove it murder c. he hath used many vain words which prove nothing c. Reply 1. Here is a fair promise of aningenuous proceeding t) Quind dignum tanto seret hic promissor hiatu partuturiunt montes nasceturridicuâ—is mus Horat but not a suitable performing seeing folly marches in the Van rather let it be observed that you suffer the ground and foundation of your practice to be undermined and razed and yet you make no stir but what a great bussle do you make when M. Baxter comes to the Manner This is Lapwing if not Jesuite-like to cry loudest when furthest from the Nest 2. You will not be kept from your old custom of Fly-blowing mens writings with your corrupt breath M. Baxter doth not exhort the Magistrates p. 134. and 136. to destroy the Anabaptists as well as High-way murderers M. Baxter and I have so much charity u) Sic Diligendisunt homines ut non diliguntur eorum errores Prosp for you and yet Zeal for the truth that we would have noâ— your persons but your erroneous practises destroyed if so be the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 5.5 3. It was needless for M.B. to bring senseless for you to demand Scripture for the proving of usual dipping to be murder Hath not God made us men as well as Christians and given us reason as well as Religion Is there not a morall as well as a divine Faith And is there an incompossibility of both these Cannot we act the one but we must decline the other If therefore M. Baxter had proved dipping to be murder by a morall-convincing Argument I might have believed him and yet made the word of God the ground of my Faith as it is granted to be yet 4. Who did ever produce Scripture-testimonies for the proof of a bond Or Gospel-evidence for title to Land Hath the Grand Jury Scripture for to prove matter of fact e. g. Murder yet the bill is found and the murder justly condemned I have heard it considently affirmed that Mr. Haggar hath been married to two wives which are both yet living Now unless he can bring Scripture to prove the contrary by his own Logick none is bound to believe him Let him therefore take heed of such arguing 5. But Mr. B. proves it by Scripture If the sixth commandement be the word of God which forbids the ordinary use of any thing which tendeth directly to overthrow health and life how else can you prove the tortures inflicted on the primitive Christians to be murder but by such a Medium as this is unless it be your opinion That their tormenters were no murderers Though the tormented were indeed Martyrs Nay you your self allow the lighting of one candle by another v) Gospell worship no wrok for Infants p. 38. So the first be lightted by the fire of of the Altar i. e. The pure word of God You see Mr. B. doth so it is then a Scripture-argument by your own grant So that you might well have forborn that peremptory charge that Mr. Baxters proof is by affirming from out of his own mouth only c. 5. The Reader may do well to observe your First without a Second only when you cannot answer then you fall to your old haunt to cavill c. SECT 10. H. H. p. 92. But he proceeds I dare not say that in Cities like London and
your child though the face be not wet all over Again how poorly do you confound Dipping and wetting all over when the tip of your singer may be dipt in water and yet the finger not wet all over I must now needs tell you if your zeal for Dipping be no better then your Argument it will shrink in the wetting SECT 19. H. H. p. 97. As for M. Baxter's Objection that Christ saith Yee need not but wash your feet and yee are clean every whit I answer Christ doth not there speak of Baptism but of Humility which is shewen by washing of the feet as well as of the whole body But when he speaks of Baptisme he doth not say He that is Baptized on his feet c. but is Baptized shall be saved Mark 16.16.2 The Eunuch and Philip went both down into the Water and he baptized him and not his feet onely for then they needed not to have both gone down Acts 8.39.3 If the word him and them includes the whole man or men then the whole man c. was baptized of John in the River of Jordan and of Philip Acts 8.12.4 Christ is said to come up out of the water Mark 4.10 which plainly sheweth he first went down 5. The Scripture saith John 3. verse 23. He baptized there because there was much water Reply 1. Let the Reader observe that Mr. Haggar passeth by some Arguments of M. Baxter's without mentioning them Thus he onely storms the Rear that he may scape the Van. 2. It 's granted that Christ's washing of the Disciples feet was to teach them humility and it follows by what you grant here that washing of a part shews the washing of the whole which is contradictory to what you even now said that it must needs be that washing is by wetting All over Pride is a spreading sin it 's in the understanding Gal. 6.3 in the spirit Eccl. 7.8 in the heart Prov. 16. ver 5. in the tongue Psal 12.3 in looks Prov 6.17 in gesture Isai 3.5 Pride you see stains the whole man soul and body that primarily this secondarily yet you say the washing of the feet shews the cleansing of them every whit as well as if the whole body had been washed Therefore the washing of one part signifies the washing of the whole unless Mr. Haggar think that pride is onely in the feet because we say proud people are high in the In-step and stand upon their Pantofles 3. That washing of the feet shewed more then humility Peter then did not know it Joh. 13.7 See Calvin in loc and Mr. Haggar doth not or will not yet see it for it shews either pardon of sin or newness of life or both Now if justification and sanctification are signified elswhere by sprinkling why not also by our powring on water or as you call it sprinkling water on the childs face Thus we have Exemplum Analogum that a partial washing may signifie a total purging 4. As Christ did not say He that believs and is baptized on his feet shall be saved so he doth not say Hee that believs and is dipped over head and ears shall be saved every whit If you Reply he saith he that is baptized i. e. that is all one with Dipped That 's but a miserable begging of the Question and it remains to be proved though I leave it to be considered whether it be proper to say Baptized on his feet unless it bee Mr. Haggar's practice to baptize his Proselytes standing On their feet 5. As for Philip and the Eunuch there is nothing in that history that can convincingly demonstrate Dipping Acts 8.38 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Verbs * going down and coming up cannot for they are oft in Scripture and why not so here used of a motion where was no descent into nor coming out in Mr. Haggers sense e. g. Acts 14.25 When they had preached the Word in Perga they went down into Attalia c. 24.1 Ananias descended with the Elders c. 25.1 Festus ascended to Jerusalem Neither do the Prepositions i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into and out prove it for the former may bee well translated to or unto as elswhere Mat. 15.24 Acts 16.40 Col. 1.20 and the latter as Luke 1.71 78. and 20.4 and so often in this book Acts 14.8 15.29 17 3 31. 22.6 27.34 with many more neither do they do jointly prove it necessarily For 1. That water was not so deep for Dipping all the body they that have seen it call it a little fountain as not onely Sandys but Hierom and Bede many hundred years before him which humane testimonies may be believed as well as the history of King Henry the 8. The expression * Acts 8.36 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used imports not a River but a smal Spring therefore might be best translated A CERTAIN or a kind of water 2. If it were granted which yetis not that it was a deep water yet a man may be said to go into and come out of the water who had not been in it higher then the Ancles and that they went in any further or how far they went cannot be demonstratively proved out of this Text. 3. You may as well argue that Philip was new dipt as well as the Eunuch was baptized by Dipping for it 's said supposing your interpretation that they both went into and came out of the water without any exception and I think you do not Dip your self when you Dip others unless you and they be a Duck and a Drake in your Jordan 4. The text doth plainly distinguish between the act of Baptizing and their going down into and coming out of the water upon the former supposal therefore no part of baptizing For if going down c. bee a Dipping as you would have it then the Eunuch was dipt before hee was baptized and how then is Baptizing in English a Dipping 5. Had Philip and the Eunuch made use of a Baptismal Ladder as * Tho. Scilito a Naylor baptized in a Well the wife of a dear friend of mine that since hath seen her error and recanted some have done in my parish they might more properly have been said to descend ascend Though we read not that Philip or Jo. Baptist used such utensils 6. But their descending here is a coming out of the Chariot into which Philip had ascended at the request of the Eunuch and so both spying water below them both went out of the Chariot to it Acts 8.31 and as it is an usual phrase among us to say We went down to and from the water side though perhaps never in it and it 's said They that go down To the sea in ships Psal 107.23 to ver 31. which Junius translates Into the sea I trow the ship is not plunged all over nor are they under water in the ship unless in case of ship wrack c. But that cannot be because they are said to
You falsly quote M. Baxter who saith it is AT THAT TIME a sin not at any time sinfull There is a vaste difference in the sense though not in the sound of the words The one doth absolutely lay aside the other but Relatively and for a time suspend the lesser duty It is grossly false to say A duty when it is inconsistent with a greater is at any time sinfull unless some restriction bee allowed to come to the Congregation may occasionally be inconsistent with my health and preservation yet it is not sinfull at any time And it is as true that when it is inconsistent with a greater it is at that time a sinn For it 's a known Rule i) Semper ad-semper that Negative precepts bind alwaies k) Josh 5.5 6 7. and at all times so do not Affirmative as is cleare in the case of Circumcision Josh 5.5 6 7. 2. You fraudulently curtall M. Baxter in leaving out these words viz. Especially the manner and quantity of Water in Baptism c. You shew your selfe like an Egyptian Midwife to truth and reason what you cannot confute you can conceal 3. You maliciously infer a Calumniating conclusion from M. Baxter's principles and premises and therefore it deserves no other answer then M. Baxter's l) Mat. 12.7 I will have mercy and not sacrifice if you had learned what this means you would not have condemned the guiltless you reflect on Christ as well as on M. Baxter Yet 4. I shall onely say thus much to your impertinent Scriptures John 14.15 c. It is as true that Christ who hath loved us and given himself for us hath not given us any precept which simply tends to the overthrow of our lives we may love Christ and keep his commandements and yet love our selves too we may and must love Christ with a Superlative love and our selves also with a subordinate love 5. You might have spared this handfull of dirt which you have flung at M. Baxter till you had proved Dipping to be the Ordinance of Christ by one expresse Scripture or at least syllable of reason But since you think M. Baxter so cowardly as that he would not suffer for Christ I must tell you I have read of som Martyers as Philpot c. mentioned in your p. 45. that never were Anabaptists but never read of an Anabaptist that was a Martyr It 's no Argument becaus M.B. will not go with you into the water therefore not into the fire no more then this Because you have gon into the water therefore you will endure the fire There is warrant for the one when called none for the other which yet you miserably beg as if it were the command and example of Christ c. 6. You follow your old trade in abusing Scripture e. g. Mat. 3.15 Those words do not hold forth the externall Formality of the Administration but the person that did Administer and the old ordinance of Baptism with the person to whom it was administred for Christ comes to bee baptized verse 13. John out of an high esteem of Christ and a low apprehension of himself forbids him ver 14. Then Christ replies thus it becommeth us to fulfill c. In what Not in Dipping of him there 's no express mention made thereof but in baptizing him SECT 26. H. H. p. 101. Lastly I desire the Reader to consider how like M. Baxters counsell to us is to Peters counsell Mat. 16.21 22. so doth M. Baxter say to us and specially to Gentlewomen old and weak people c. This shall not be to you for in the course of nature it will kill hundreds c. But let all that fear God learn of Christ to answer M. B. as he answered Peter ver 23. Reply You are got into your wonted haunt to claw the people and calumniate your adversary There is no likenesse between Peters and M. Baxters Counsell Peter advised Christ against that which was written and ordained So doth not Mr. B. for where is it written expressly that every one who is baptized must be dipped Therefore when Mr. B. disswades any from doing and suffering for Christ according as it is written in your sense I shall say His Counsell is like Peters In the mean time as you do in the close of this Section I leave what I have written to the judgment of them that fear God SECT 27. H. H. same pag. His seventh Argument is against Dipping of persons naked which is against the seventh Commandement Therefore an intollerable wickedness and not Gods Ordinance Answ 1. I am sure it is intollerable wickedness in M. Baxter and a breach of the ninth Commandement to say wee baptize people naked athing which he never saw as hee confesseth when he saith he hears so Reply 1. Here is more foul play and the truth held in unrighteousnesse for you leave out these words OR NEXT TO NAKED you cite Mr. B. as you answer him that is by halves 2. Were that false which he affirms is he a greater transgressor of the ninth Commandement then you are pag. 92. who say m the heaviest purses of our Religion are the greatest part of our Religion and call Mr. Baxter a child of the Devill c. p. 93. You should not have thrown this stone unlesse you had been without fault 3. Why is it a breach of the ninth commandement to say so because he never saw it you say with his eyes What kind of reasoning is this Doth not this shake if not take away the foundation of Moral and Divine Faith If nothing must bee believed but what wee see with our eyes we must believe nothing For that Assent the understanding yields to a thing seen is knowledg or experience This is to make sense saith and the Proverb true Seeing is believing Contrary to Scripture 1 Pet. 1.8 Nay then all those high charges which you have drawn up against Mr C. and Mr. B. c. all along your book are false for you never saw those with your eyes Then John and the Apostles never plunged men and women over head and ears in baptizing them for you never saw it with your eyes 4. But how can you tell Mr. B. never saw it with his eyes he confesseth it when he saith he hears so Is not this sound Divinity Did ever Christ and his Apostles preach such doctrine Did ever any weak man but Mr. Haggar utter such a reason as this viz. Because he heard a thing therefore he never saw it as if the same thing in diverse respects at several times could not be the Object of seeing and hearing also you saw your ridiculous answers at Ellesmere exploded and do you not hear of the same too SECT 28. H. H. p. 102. It may be that some which he accounts Christians have so little grace and of the fear of God in them as to tell him such lyes and he is willing to believe them although for my part I have baptized
7. If it were granted that men apart and women apart may be baptized who then shall Dip the women If the Minister there remains still the fore-named inconveniency But since M. Haggar hath Ordained a Cheese-factor to be a preacher may be not Ordain a Daâ—y-maid that the one may Dip the male the other the female-disciples And indeed if women may preach as you hold p. 69. why may they not baptize or dip which in your language is all one So that to me it is evident that you saw your nakedness and was ashamed else you would never have made Aprons of these Fig-leavs of such poor shifts And I wonder what kind of birds your Proselytes are who are caught with such chaffe as you have vented SECT 30. H. H. But M. Baxter doth confidently charge us with baptizing maids naked and tells it for a certain truth therefore saith If M. T. cold baptize all the maids in Bewdley naked and think it no immodesty he hath lost his common ingenuity and modesty with the truth Answer True if he doth so but M. Baxter should first prove that M. T. or any man else did ever baptize any maid or woman naked in any place of England till then he saith all manner of evill sayings on us falsly c. Mat. 5.11 Reply 1. How quickly is the wind turned Here you are M. Tomb's advocate but in p. 45. his accuser I see Herod and Pilate can soon be made friends where Christ is to be Crucified but why did you leave M. Tombs in the open fields to answer for himself p. 36. would not the same Apology serve here He is of age and able to answer for himself I question not Oh! there you were Non-plus'd here you have hit you think on some colour of an answer 2. What would you have M. B. to prove your dipping naked or next to naked Is it not your known practice Doth not M. Tomb's answer in conference proclaim it that in former times it was thought no immodesty c. Your self proves it in the precedent Section saying p. 102. If a man should be baptized naked being none but men together it 's not such an offence as M. Baxter would make it Would you have M. Baxter prove that your Sun is up when it 's Noon-day That M. Haggar is an Anabaptist or would you have Scripture that M. T. and M. Hag. did say or write so what need you hold it lawfull nay necessary for men to bee baptized naked else why do you plead for it and if men why not maids are they priviledged out of your own mouth you are condemned 3. You might have spared you false accusation viz. that he speaks all manner of evill falsly on you to cast dirt on the truth of Christ If a man had a mind to scold as well as you he might dawb you sufficiently and not spartle the truth the truth and you are far enough off one from another 4. You can sooner spy wonders then answer Arguments How could he avoyd the mention of it unless he should have confuted the Anabaptists as you do Mr. B. by saying nothing to most of his Arguments Doth not your practice necessitate him to speak of it he that digs in a dunghill must needs stir in the dirt 5. If insinuating untruths into the peoples hearts do make him a lyar you shall have the whetstone But what Monster have we here p. 103 Is Mr. B. predestinated to be a liar If you take predestination strictly b) Rom. 8.29.30 It is nonsence Mr. B. is as much predestinated to be a lyar as you are reprobated to be a Saint or else it favours of the Arminians cask c) Deus ab aeteâ—no voluit ut reprobi peccarent ad peccatum impellit Ames Antisyn p. 145. 147. for they argue thus against Reprobation And certainly here is a superfetation of Paradoxes in your expression Doth it not imply a d) Quicquid facimus mortale genus quicquid patimur venit ab alto Senec. Stoicall and fatal necessity nay a fathering of impieties on the Almighty and make him the Author of sin Here is little or no difference between that and this you will see venture hard for a jeer reflect on God to revenge your self on man Take heed of such unsavoury expressions SECT 31. H. H. p. 103. He saith again Me thinks Ministers should have regard to themselvs and not go so frequently into the cold water to baptize others Answ Truly they are carefull enough they meddle not with so good a work they have need to take heed that they kill not themselves in the service of Christ c. Reply 1. You have here bundled together some poor shreds of wit such as it is in a few pitiful jeers which deservs no other Reply then that of Cato to Cicero on the like occasion with a little alteration O! quam ridiculum habemus respondentem i. e. O! what a ridiculous Answerer is Mr. Haggar Yet 2. When you prove dipping which yet you have not to be so good a work and a service of Christ I say with Job Chap. 21. ver 3. Suffer me that I may speak and after that I have spoken mock on in the mean time know that it is a good work and service of Christ not which you call so but by Scripture you prove so Now the Scripture no where calls it so It is rather will-worship to place worship in that which God hath no where prescribed in his Word SECT 32. H. H. same p. But to conclude we find that in the days of Christ and the Apostles they baptized both men and women in Rivers Mark 1.5 Acts 1.12 37 38. Joh. 3.23 Now wee will be bold to follow their good example notwithstanding Mr. Baxter's foul mouth c. Reply 1. To say nothing that we have here again your First without a Second what if I deny your conclusion your example at Ellesmere hath taught me but 2. Those Scriptures so often mentioned do not prove either a Dipping over head and ears or men and women apart or together or with or without their cloaths you do not therefore follow the holy example of Christ and his Apostles but you are too bold in following John of Leiden and his Apostates 3. How comes it to pass that Christ and his Apostles are joined with you in the Bill for shame never enter them for Defendents till it 's clear they are of your party All is not hest you say Is Mr. Baxter's mouth foul Doth he belie you and Christ Are you the servant of Christ because you say so As saying and doing with some are two things so is saying and proving with Mr. Haggar 4. To the close of this Section I confess we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ to give account of all our words and works and then to be sure it will appear whose mouth is foul Mr. Baxter's or Mr. Haggars Your praier the greatest ingenuity in your
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
the dust you have raised and noise you have made can neither hide from him nor plunder him off SECT 2. H. H. same p. What have you to do to call Christ Lord and yet will not do the things which he saith Luk. 6.46 Which is to preach the Gospell to all and baptize them that believe and gladly receive it Mark 16.15 16. with 2.41 8.12 This Gold will endure the fire when your Rantizing babes will perish Though you plead for cozening poor Children in their Cradles and when you have done you have made them seven times harder to be converted to the Faith of the Gospel then they were before Reply 1. There is no 41 verse in Mark. 2. nor any thing to your purpose in Mark 8.12 I suppose the Printer hath abused you for Acts 2.41 and 8.12 But those and the other Scriptures have been Answered before though you please your self in singing the Cuckow 's song 2. All verily is not Gold that glisters your Gold you brag of proves but gilded brasse Infant-Baptism will last when your mode shall vanish like smoke in the air 3. It 's well known and may be spoken to God's glory that many after Infant-Baptism and still owning it have been converted from their natural and sinfull estate to the obedience of the Faith Now if Infants before your Baptizing were seven times more easie to be converted then after what is become of all your noise concerning Infants capacity to repent and believe Is your mind changed now Are you indeed perswaded that Infants unbaptized are seven times easier to bee converted to the Faith then after Baptism But your rage carries you on to rail on us not without abuse of Scripture in most of your 122. page which is unworthy of any other answer but silence and patience SECT 3. H. H. pag. 122. We are not to be blamed if we declare nothing but the Word of God 2 Tim. 4.2 and if we have answered in eighteen sheets c. Reply 1. To the first I need say little True if you have such a Call as Paul and Timothy had or any just call warranted by the World to preach and declare God's Word but you have not yet proved that you have any such call Now then if you preach before you are sent and run without Commission the speaking of some truths will not justifie you Sathan spake sometime truth and that according to God's Word but having no Call had no thanks nor was justified therein Mat. 4.6 8.29 Acts 16.17 18. And his slaves have taken upon them to imitate the Apostles of Christ in these things whereto they had no call Acts 19.13 14 15 16. 2 Cor. 11.13 14. 2. How punctually you keep to the Word of God in your teaching and writing I hope appears by this time Papism Arâ—inianism Socinianism c. with which your book is more then sprinkled are not parts of the word of God 3. I do not marvel at your briefness in answering when you promise to answer all and indeed answer nothing Besides Tares are sooner sowen then gathered up and the ground rid of them poison is sooner prepared and devoured then the body cleansed of it An hundred houses are sooner burnt then one built yet I have transcribed you and replied to you SECT 4. H. H. p. 133. It is said wee are they that subvert whole housholds but I answer as Elijah did Ahab 1 King 18.18 We do not subvert whole Housholds for we baptize none but those that believe according to Mark 16.15 16. Acts 8.12 37. But it 's you Mr. C. that subverts whole housholds when you baptize children and all for lucres sake c. Reply Sir it 's not your Nay will serve when your practice proclaims the contrary neither can you shew any call from God to do what you do as Eliah could shew for what he did and therefore you still abuse Scripture What warrant have you for re-baptizing those that have been baptized Christ's command and his Apostles practice was to baptize Jews and Gentiles of ripe years that had until that time been Jews and Gentiles your pretending that warrant is confessing that whom you baptize are Jews or Gentiles and if you make them that were professed Christians to become Jews and Gentiles that you may baptize them after the example of the Apostles you subvert persons families and countries to purpose CHAP. XVII Of Humane Learning in a Minister of Christ SECT 1. H. H. pag. 123. I shall now shew the reasons of our dissenting from the Church of England and all other Churches which stand upon these four pillars viz. 1. Humane Learning for take away that which you had at Cambridge or Oxford and you have no Ministry but all men may preach as well as you nay I might say better Reply 1. It is a notorious untruth confidently enough asserted by you without the least colour of proof that the Church of England is built on the four pillars mentioned by you These are of your own framing and daubed with untempered mortar No Sir it 's built on that Rock against which the gates of Hell shal not prevail Mat. 16.18 and on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone Ephesians 2. ver 20. 2. If that we had at Cambridge or Oxford were taken away it doth not follow that we have no Ministry How many pretious Ministers are there in the Church of England eminent for piety and learning who never were matriculated in Cambridge or Oxford God having blest their private studies in the Country with the attainment of excellent abilities Violets may be found and gathered in the Field as well as in the Garden 3. It 's a Paradox that all men may preach as well as we * Multi imperitorum magistri sueâ—int priusâ—uam suerint doctorum discipulâ— Wittenberg Conles Artic. 20. suppose University Learning were taken away for herein you dissent from your own Church if a Church which hath been of this mind hitherto that none but gifted men may preach mistaking that Scripture * Ye may all prophesie Unless you mean that Women and Infants may preach for they are comprehended in those terms All men But Infants cannot speak you often say and Women may not 1 Cor. 14.34 as hath been shewed before 4. It 's worse to say you might say better x) Non sacile de Artibus rectè jâ—dicat qui Artes ignorat Cyprian 1 King 12.31 You know in the Fable who judged that the Cuckow â—ung better then the Nightingale It was Jeroboams sin that hee made Priests of the lowest of the people and it is your sin and shame to make Preachers of Mechanick and unlearned men Alas we would have learned Lawyers for our estates The Apostle saith who is sufficient for these things 2 Cor. 2 16. but H. H. saith who is not sufficient and learned Physicians for our bodies and not learned Ministers for our souls 5. Though
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
them which cannot be understood and improved without skill in Rhetotorick specially the knowledge of Tropes and Figures is necessary least men affixâ— monsters on the Scriptures as the Anthrapomorphits Transubstantiaries and Consubstantiaries do There is the strongest reasoning and arguing therein and excellent method which cannot be rightly discerned without skill in Logick In a word there are none of the Liberal Arts no part of genuine Philosophie but may be useful and helpful for the more clear and solid understanding of the Scriptures Indeed these Arts and Sciences the Scriptures do not professedly teach but presuppose in those who will be expert in the word of righteousness 6. Must not those gallant Monuments of Learning and piety antient and modern lie without use as to us and be utterly lost as some of you have burnt all your books save the Bible if we have not Learning Indeed you may think it no loss but scorn us for using them though in our private studies yet sure it is great unthankfulness to God and those his instruments pride and sloth in our selvs and injury to the Church if we should wave such helps for the understanding of the Scripture and the state of the Church in several ages and places And tell me what do you think of this your book whether learned or unlearned let others judg Is it worthy to be read or no If no To what purpose was all this waste if yea how can it bee read and understood without humane Learning Though there are a thousand of books besides more worthy to be read then yours Nay the blessed Bible it self is wrested by them that are Vnlearned 2 Pet. 3.16 7. How could you have attained to any knowledge of the Scriptures of which you boast with the Jews Rom. 2.17 18 c. without the help of Humane Learning or have read them translated without it or heard them read as some of you know not one letter in an English Bible without it For I pray is not the learning of the A B C a point of humane learning And yet I am sure you cannot read the Bible without the knowledge of the Letters And if to be able to read and write English be a good gift of God though a small piece of humane learning sure much more to be able to read and understand the Scriptures in some good measure in the Original Languages Nay how could you hear of Jesus Christ and know the meaning of those learned words without humane learning The one being an Hebrew i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word signifying a Saviour the other a Greek word k signifying Anointed 8. Doth not this inveighing against Humane Learning proceed from a three-fold spring Dominus noster Jesus qui liberat nos à peccatis morte inferno Schind Pentaglot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. From Carnal Lusts Jesuites and Satan 1. From Carnal Lusts as 1. Pride which as it is usually accompanied with and cherished by ignorance for such as are proud know nothing 1 Tim. 6.4 but doat about questions and the most knowing the most humble Psal 19.13 1 Cor. 13.12 so who insult over Learning and Learned men more then the ignorant and unlearned Oh how sweet is it to proud Diabolical natures to sit in the Throne and make Learning stand Acts 25.16 as arraigned condemned and presently drawn to execution at their command Though this bee done but in your fancy yet it mightily pleaseth them But because Pride is scarce counted a Lust of the the flesh what say you of ease and sensuality They who have tasted Learning to purpose have found by experience that much study is weariness to the flesh Eccl. 12 13. and the work of the Ministry a painful work when men must give attendance to reading exhortation and doctrine meditate on these things give themselvs wholly unto them c. 1 Tim. 4.13 14 15 16. Now what an easie pleasant life have these who count humane learning so needless that they judg it dangerous and execrable You need take little or no pains for the instruction of the people Nay Mr. Haggar is not ashamed to say Take away humane learning and all men may preach as well as we nay better Is not this the singing of a Requiem But the lust of Covetousness and desire of filthy Lucre is another bitter root of this opinion and practice Though you have the cunning to cite Whore first who knows not that mean Artificers Day-laborers and broken Tradesmen who usually have large Parishes or rather Diocesses who say Sirs you know that by this craft we have our wealth Acts 19. ver 25. have got more by unlearned preaching or railing against Learning then by their Callings and if they follow them too they have two strings to their bow however they need not lay out their moneys on Books on their supposal Secondly from the Jesuits those Emissaries of the Prince of Darkness If the hand of Joab be not yet the head and hand of a Jesuits is in this though not discerned by all Jesuites and Pâ—â—â—â—s know well enough what deadly blows their Kingdom and cause hath received by the sword of the Spirit wiâ—â—â—d by Learned Arms I mean the tongues and pens of 〈◊〉 Learned as well as pious Champions which our Lord Christ â—â—th made usâ— of again and again to rout the Antichristian forces But in decrying Learning and Universiâ—ies you carry on the Jesuites design *) See Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelii by the Provincial Assembly of London p. 62. c. Adam Conizen a politick Jesuite in his Politicks among other things prescribed for the reducing of Popery this is one To banish Learning out of the Common-wealth and that at once if it can conveniently be if not insensibly and by degrees And if you have not learned this subtilty of the Jesuite I pity you if you have borrowed it from Julian r) Speed's History p. 168. Primum vetuit ne Gaâ—iâ—ae sic Christianos â—umcupabat Poericam Rhetoricam aut Philosophiam discorent Theatot l. 3. c. 7. the Apostate who among other designs to root out Christianity forbad Christians the publick Schools and study of the Arts and Tongues Thirdly from Satan who hath a principal hand in this which I think needs no proof beside what hath been said but this His great design is to hinder the glory of God the Kingdom of Christ and the salvation of men he knows all this is done by keeping people from Christ that is done by keeping them from Faith that is done by keeping them from Scripture and the right knowledg of it This will be certainly done if prople be deprived of right Translations and Interpretations of Scripture which must needs be wanting if there be no Learning nor Learned men For it is as possible for people to see the letters and words wherein Scripture was written without open eies or to hear the sound of them without open ears as to understand the
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
any Saint might baptize in some cases for in Acts 20.7 you distinguish between the saints or disciples that met together and Paul that preacht to them 3. The Jews were to keep the seventh day of the week as the Lord's Sabbath therefore we Christians are bound by virtue of that command to keep the first day of the week as God's Sabbath This consequence you seem to grant to be good though in the New Testament there be no expresse command or example for it I now appeal to all Divinity and Logick whether this consequence from the command of Circumcision to Baptism be not every way as strong and good viz. Infants were circumcised in the Old Testament Ergo Children are to be baptized in the New For as the first day of the week comes in room of the seventh day of the week so Baptism in the room of Circumcision as the Apostle plainly q) Col. 2.10 11 12. holds forth (r) Spanhem part 3 Dub. Evang. 27. p. 94 else the Apostle should not prove what he intended viz. Circumcision is not to be retained 4. That Children were baptized I find in some of Paul's writings f) 1 Cor. 10.2 And were all baptized All the Jews that passed through the sea are here expresly said to be baptized now that there were among them children â—nd little ones it 's as clear in Pharaohs speech to Moses Exod 10 24 Let your little ones also go with you And in the Narrative of Moses Exod. 12.37 Six hundred thousand men beside CHILDREN SECT 9. H. H. 6. I prove by the Scriptures that Christians were Magistrates or men in Authority which Mr. Baxâ—â— desireth to see in bis first position p. 3. for the Eunuch that was baptized Acts 8.38 was a man of great Authority under Candace Queen of the Ethiopians who had the charge of all her treasure ver 27 which title in our daies is no lesse then Lord Treasurer And Sergius Paulus was the Deputy of the Country which men we commonly call Lord Deputies Acts 13.7 to 13. Now let them prove as plainly that any children were baptized c. Reply 1. How you bring in these instances I know not unlesse by head and shoulders as they say Mr. Hall doth not question a Christian Magistracy so far I can see in what you have transcribed from him unlesse perhaps it be comprehended in and concluded from you c. p. 11. 2. You indeavour to prove that which Mr. Baxter denies not neither desires to see He saith How sparing is the New Testament and instanceth in four cases all which you have here cunningly concealed save one I desire you to see your mistake in the position and p. cited by you 3. You disprove the Anabaptists your fellows who cried Where find you a Christian in the New Testament that exercised the place of a King or Parlament-man or Justice of the Peace and the like You can find a Lord Treasurer and a Lord Deputy it seems but none of the other can you find but of this in your 31 p. 4. If the Eunuch was a Lord Treasurer and Sergâ—us Paulus a Lord Deputy which is but your conjecture yet they were not Christian Magistrates in Mr. Baxters sense 5. But come I desire to see how you prove by the Scripture that Christians were Magistrates Was the Eunuch a Christian Magistrate because he believed with all his heart So you say your disciples believe and yet none of them Lord Treasurers or Christian Magistrates that I know of or because he was baptized then Sergius Paulus was no Lord Deputy for we read nothing of his being baptized s) And the Eunuch had these Titles before he was baptized or because he was a man of great Authority under the Queen of the Ethiopians so is every Bassa under the great Turk Beside the word signifies one that is eminent for birth or wealth t) Bâ—zi in Luk. 1.52 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And were they Christian Magistrates of whom the Virgin Mary makes mention Hee hath put down the mighty where the same word isused Or because he had the charge of all her treasure Then the Treasurer of the great Cham of Tartaria is a Christian Magistrate u A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia I deny not but the Eunuch was a great Officer while he was a Jewish Proselite for it 's so in the same verse He came to Jerusalem to worship but whether hee continued in his office after he was baptized it 's more then I know or you dare affirm 6. Let it be observed supposing the Eunuch was a Christian Magistrate you make use of a meer consequence to prove it by for neither the word Christian nor Magistrate is in that history Acts 8.27 SECT 10. H. H. Lastly as for their saying we cannot prove that men of all ranks and qualities were baptized I answer It 's a meer Fable a cunning devised Fable which they have invented with many more like it to turn aside mens ears from the truth 2 Pet. 1.16.2 Tim. 4.3 4. For we can easily prove that God calleth or commandeth all men every where to repent Acts 27. ver 30. And those that did repent were baptized Acts 8.12 as many of the Corinthians Acts 18.8 And the Corinthians were citizens of Corinth a City Therefore Citizens were baptized and that Cavil answered Now let them prove by the Scripiures that children of any degree or quality were baptized before they could speak or understand and we grant all if they cannot let them for shame be silent Reply 1. I am ashamed of your railing and therefore am silent to that onely I say The Lord rebuke you 2. There 's no command to repent in Acts 27.30 but in Acts 17.30 I might deal with you as you do with Mr. Baxter but I spare you and blame the Printer 3. Our Worthies have as easily proved Infant-Baptism Foundation p. 79 80. as you do that men of all ranks and qualities were baptized which is by consequence and not in exprest terms e. g. If all that did repent and believe the Gospel were baptized then men of all ranks and qualities but the former is true therefore the latter And the Corinthians were baptized the Corinthians were Citizens therefore some Citizens were baptized Very good but where is it written That men of all ranks and qualities were baptized Though Mr. Hall spake onely of several sorts or degrees of men or is the word Citizens in Acts 18.8 Wipe your eies and look a little better you may as well prove Kings Queens Lords Husbandmen c. as Citizens baptized that is to say by Consequence How partial are you in your selfe not allowing the same way to us for proof of Infant-baptism for which there is as plain and clear Scripture as for any of your fore-mentioned instances SECT 11. H. H. pag. 14. One thing more I had like to have forgotten viz. They say that we cannot prove that women received the