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
Authority Now that Origen calls the Baptism of Infants a Tradition of the Church * in Epist ad Rom. l. 5. so he may call it in the sence of the Apostle 2 Thes 2.15 Hold the Traditions which ye have been taught c with 1 Cor. 15.3 I delivered to you that which I received c. where we see that Tradition signifies a doctrine delivered And it is well known that the greatest points of faith are called by the name of traditions in the language of the ancients 4. Augustine n De Genesi adliteram l. 1â— c. 23. you say calleth it a common custome of the Church true but he saith in the very same place that it viz. Infant-baptism is in no sort to be contemned or accounted superfluous as it is by you which words you have cunningly left out 2. What hurt is there in so calling it So is the observation of the first day of the week and imposition of hands on Church officers called a custome of the Church and yet you cannot deny but that they are grounded on Scripture 3. To kill two birds as they say with one stone Austin was not only present at that counsell called Milevitanum but as it is said President also who returning answer to those that desired divine authority for infant-baptism first produceth that rule o) Quod universa tonet Ecclesia nec consiliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi autbo iâ—ate Apostolicum traditum vertissimè creditur Aug de bapt contra donat l. 4. c. 23. viz. That which the whole Church holdeth and was not ordained by any Councells but hath ever been held that is rightly believed to be an Apostolicall Authority This that great and famous light of the Christian world in his daies took to be sufficient yet for fuller satisfaction he proceeds to dispute for it from the holy Scriptures where wee see what he means by the custome of the Church and by what Authority that Councill did appoint the baptism of Infants 5. Luther you bring in asserting that Infant baptisme was established by Pope Innocent Indeed you speak somewhat warily for some of your party would bear us in hand that Pope Innocent was the first that brought in Infant-baptism which is contrary to the stream of Antient Ecclesiasticall History p See Doctor Holmes Animad on M. Tombs exercit p. 191. c. and neither you nor they tell us which Pope Innocent it was But whoever he was it 's wel known that Infant baptism was practiced many hundred years before this Pope was born Nor is the practice of it to bee counted or called Antichristian superstition mans tradition as you do p. 3 because a Pope decreed the establishment or confirmation of it more then this doctrine q) Acts 16.16 17 18. These men are the servants of the most high God which shew unto us the way of salvation because it was preached and avouched by the Divel 6. For Cyprian you are very confident that Infant-baptism began in the year 248 and that by Fidus a Priest opposed by Cyprian and his Council who ordained that young Children should be timely brought thereto But 1. who this Fidus was is not apparent out of Cyprian r) Epist lib. 3. Ep. 8. who I am sure doth not call him by the scornful name of Priest but most dear brother and that three times in that Epistle 2. The question by Fidus was not Whether Infants should be baptized at all but whether before the eighth day as appears by your own expressions p. 19. Now this clearly holds forth that Infant-baptism was used and practised long before 3. Neither did Cyprian decree simply the practice of it but onely by his decree confirmed the practice of it 4. What a gross mistake is this about the time When it began For how could it begin in Cyprians time when the Fâ—â—â—man of your Jury tells us it was used in Origens tâ—â—e which must needs be 20 years at least before You deserve the Whetstone for abusing Cyprian and your Reader so grossly For what a bundle of lies have we here together 1. Infant-baptism began in the year of our Lord 248. 2. Brought in by Fidus a Priest 3. That Cyprian and 66 Bishops and Elders ordained it And 4. by our own confessions it 's an ordinance and tradition of man nay Will-worship and Idolatrie All palpably false 7. Let it be observed that your Jury-men are not agreeed on the Verdict concerning the time that Infant-baptism was brought into the Church Origen speaks in effect It must be within 200 years after Christ for he died in the year of Christ 220 you speak for Cyprian Anno 248. Cassander saith 300 years after the Apostles Luther in Pope Innocents time as you alledge him when yet he saith it was Established not begun in that Popes time page 19. 8. The Carthaginian Council is brought in p. 19. Wee will that Children be baptized Thus say you we see it is Wee WILL therefore Will-worship But 1. mark the ground of Baptism there because Children are within the Covenant which you cannot endure to hear of 2. What a ridiculous Inference do you make me thinks you shame your self and all your friends You tell us that on a supposal you Å¿) Found p. 29. Will confess your error or justifie your practice If I should infer Thus we see it is I will therefore Will-worship in Mr. Haggar Risum teneaâ—â—s amiei I should be justly laught at So Josh 24.15 We will serve the Lord therefore Will-worship c. 9. I am loath to spend any more time in answering the particulars here alleged what hath been replied to may be satisfactory to any judicious Reader I shall conclude with this That you who are an enemy to Humane Learning are not guilty of much learning or else guilty of much dissembling I am perswaded of the former for these quotations are but as stollen waters you never read these Authors whose testimonies are alleged by you For what Scholar would have written Bullinger s) As p. 19. numb 14. in ex Augustino unlesse you had a mind to make more sport and to play in and out Or that Anselm Legate of the Church of Rome t) Ibid. num 17 was present with Austin at the Miletan Council I have read of Milevitan but never of the Miletan Council till now And how could Austin and Anselm be present at that Council when Austin flourished in the year of our Lord 430 and Anselm in the year 1080 as he that can but read English may see u) Clarks marrow of Ecclesiastical History p 162. 188. Or what learned man can tell what Tuicensi pag. 20. numb 19 should be except perhaps Tuitiensis or Bilander n. 21 for Bibliander c. If these and the like were the Printers faults why have we them not with most of your book among the Errata's 2. You do not set down these Authors
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
piece of non-sense do you bring in But he doth not say if they have humane Learning or if they were educated at Cambridge or Oxford or at some Vniversity 3ly My grace is sufficient for thee 2 Cor. 12.9 Therefore c. For what if by grace is meant the favour of God as Diodat and Dr. Hammond c. expound it will it follow that therefore grace In the heart is able to do the work of the Ministry without Learning But if it be to be understood of habitual grace the Argument is much-what like this God's grace is sufficient for M. Haggar therefore Mr. Haggar is able to do the work of a Shear-man without skill in that Art or Trade 4. God will destroy the wisdom of the wise 1 Cor. 1.19 c. therefore no need of humane learning 5. The like may be said of 1 Cor. 1.19 26 27 28 29. Jam. 2.7 As if I should argue God hath chosen the poor of this world therefore not one rich man in this world and yet Abraham and David c. were rich in this world I trow in the number of God's chosen Again God hath not chosen many wise men after the Flâ—sh Therefore not any one when yet Paul that wrote that Epistle Crot. Calv. in loc was a wise man after the flesh before his Conversion and yet a chosen vessel Acts 9 15.6 Christ doth thank his Father that he hid these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes Luk. 10.21 Therefore he is far from setting up learned men above unlearned and by consequence no use of learning For what if by babes are meant those that are humble that think meanly of themselvs then by the wise and prudent must be understood by the rules of opposition those that are proud and think too highly of themselvs will it now follow that because the Father hides the mysteries of eternal salvation from the proud and reveals them to the humble he therefore prefers the unlearned above the learned But suppose by wise and prudent were meant learned ones and by babes unlearned ones experience may convince us that as all unlearned ones are not inlightned how many live without grace as well as without learning So all learned ones are not left in darkness as we may see in Moses Paul c. the Lord is a free Agent and absolute Sovereign and being not bound to any may dispense or deny his grace to whom he pleaseth *) Ad circumstantium Argumenti ne parum habet ponderis quod patrem vocat coeli tenae Dominum quia hoc modo declarat non aliunde quam à Dâ—i arbitrio pendere discrimen quod sapientes caecutiant rudes indocti ca iunt Evang clii mysteria Calv. Harm in loc Therefore Christ in his Doxologie bespeaks his Father with the title Lord of heaven and earth Now let the Reader judge whether Mr. Haggars arguings do not hang together like ropes of sand and so whether his reasonings are not like himself unreasonable and whether he need not serve an Apprenticeship as he calls it p. 126. at Cambridge or Oxford before he can prove his consequences and not then neither SECT 4. H. H. p. 128. It was alwaies God's way or for the most part to chuse his Prophets out of unlearned men and honest laboring men that knew what it was to get their living by the sweat of their brows and not such who were brought up idly so that they cannot digg and are ashamed to begg and therefore prove unjust Stewards These are not fit to be Ministers of Christ because they must preach for hire or else they cannot live c. But the Lord chose Moses a Shepherd Exod. 3.1 2. Elishâ— a Ploughman 1 King 19.19 20. David a Shepherd Psal 78.70 71. Amos an Herdsman Am. 7.14 15. and Fishermen c. Mat. 4.18 19 20 21 22. Likewise he chose ignorant and unlearned men Acts 4.13 Thus all men may see how contrary the Priests of this Nation do walk to Christ and his Disciples Reply 1. The greatest part of this Section is not the language of Canaan and of the holy Scriptures but of Ashdod and of the Quakers who being once members of your Church have since charged you to your face to preach for hire c. as you charge us Is it therefore so indeed I would have you know that maintenance is neither the cause of our preaching nor the end of our preaching Nor that which guides orders and regulates our preaching and so dear is our calling to us and so precious are the souls of our people that if maintenance should fail wee would preach the Gospel though we beg our bread 2. It 's strange to me that you say we cannot digg when you positively charge Mr. C. p. 121. and there is the same reason of others that he had taken great pains to dig for gold out of the mountains of Antient Fathers 3. You answer your self in saying for the most part God did chuse his Prophets out of unlearned men c. Therefore not alwaies by your own grant But Sir though extraordinary Prophets and Preachers were for the most part so chosen yet the Priests and Levites were not The Lord by his prerogative royal may chuse whom he pleaseth who of Shepherds Herdsmen Fisher-men c. made Prophets or Apostles will you therefore presume unlesse you be God's Ape to ordain Tanners and Tailors Nailors and Cheese-factors to the office of preaching will you make an ordinary practice of extraordinary presidents when you can shew us such a warrant we will believe till then we believe you are a Deceiver 4. Some at least of the persons chosen were learned men as Moses above-mentioned Acts 7.22 and Peter and John who had the gift of Tongues Acts 2. It 's a wonder to me that Mr. Haggar should jump in his judgment with the Priests and Rulers As if Peter and John were indeed unlearned and ignorant men But their judgments differ The first h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports they were illiterate i. e. they were not skilled in the learning of the Jews as those Lawyers i. e. expounders of the Law were For they that are called Scribes and Pharisees Mat. 23.13 are termed Lawyers Luke 11.52 The other i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word properly signifies Idiotes and so translated by some k) Beza and Old Latine i. e. not Magistrates instructed in the Laws but ordinary vulgar persons whom the Jews called by that name rendred thrice unlearned 1 Cor. 14.16 23 24. So that the meaning is when the learned Priests and Rulers as Mr. Haggar calls them observed the elocution and freeness of speech m) Dr. Hammond and Grotius with which Peter and John taught and considering withall that their education had not thus elevated them above other men being neither skill'd in the learning of the Jews nor placed in authority as Magistrates they were amazed Now Mr. Haggar would
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
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
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
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
determined by a known rule in Scripture Therefore no just cause of contentions because it is according to the will of Christ as I have proved by those Scriptures in the foregoing Argument 2. Nay your practice is a thing for which there is no known Rule in all the Word of God Thus I have thrown your Argument on your owne head and you are fallen into the same pit you digged for others c. Reply 1. Tâ—â— same Reply might serve here But me thinks you shouâ—â— blush to say that the Scriptures so often mentioned by you prove what you would have them I have seen a Dog mumbling and gnawing a bone and then licking in his owne slabber as if it had been marrow from the bone bear with the comparison so you tosse and tumble the Holy Scriptures and then take in if not give out your own fancy in stead of the word of God nay let the Reader observe that M. Haggar hath not brought one Scripture to prove his doctrines and let him doe it if he can and I will be his Proselyte viz. that children of Christians are not to be baptized till they be of age upon their own profession for that is the Question and me thinks they that cry cut for Scripture from the one side should bring Scripture g) Et hanc veniaâ—â— petimus dabimusque vicissim when urged by the other side 2. It is observable that M. Baxter hath spent almost two pages proving by impregnable reasons what contention among christians what tyrany and Lordlyness among Ministers this practice would introduce all which M. Haggar passeth by Is this to answer a book If this Argument had been false you might have denyed it if weak overthrown it your silence speakes neither and thus you have given up the cause in the open field and left Anabaptisme to shift for it selfe and the reader to believe that for all that 's said it is an Incendiary both in Church and state 3. Is this M. Baxter's own Argument As much as the wooden dagger in the signe is George of Horse-back's own Sword to say no more of your unlict Lump of Logick your Minor should have been But the baptizing of little babes before they come to years of discretion will necessarily fill the Church with perpetuall contentions This you had not the face I hope you are grown somewhat modest to affirm If you had the experience of a thousand yeares would have confuted you and if you can instance what breach it ever made what fire it ever kindled 4. It is false which you say There is no known rule for Infant-baptism in all the word of God The Affirmative is sufficiently proved by Scripture but you will not see and you have not yet proved the negative by any express Scripture must the world believe it because you say it did you in your travells run your head upon the Popes Chair of Infallibility 5. It seems you are of a somewhat quarelsom disposition for let the premises be what they will you are resolved to contend against Infant-baptism and that PERPETUALLY This shewes your spleen but as little of your reason as of your Logick 6. Fie for shame Yet more boasting and so little acting How you have thrown M. Baxter's Argument on his own head let the wise judg had it lighted on his head without an helmet it would not have hurt him you have been so far from retorting that you have not rightly repeated his Argument and is M. Baxter in a pit If there be water there you may hope he is dipt but do you take heed of the pit wherein there is no water and from whence there is no Redemption As for your folly charged on him I will say nothing but this both he and we are willing to be counted fools h) 1. Cor. 4.10 for Christ's sake whilst you are wise in your own conceit SECT 7. H. H. p. 90. and 91. M. Baxter's fifth Argument is this Because this Doctrine viz. That those onely should be baptised that are directly made disciples by the preaching of men sent according to the text Mat. 28.19 20. would turne baptism for the most part out of the Churches of the Saints Answer 1. It seems M. Baxter's judgment is that they that preach and Baptise according to that Commandement are those which turn Baptisme out of the Church yet he shewes not one Scripture for the baptizing of any but such as were made disciples by preaching I confesse such a doctrine doth not almost but altogether turn M. Baxter's Baptism out of the Church for we have no such custome nor the Churches of God as to baptize Infants Reply I am at a stand even to admiration that M. Baxter having warned i) Chap. 11. p. 132. that this argument is against the Ground of your practice you say nothing in answer to his premises This silence in you gives the conquest to him for if you had had any thing to have said you would now have spoken such an imminent danger impending over Anabaptisme 2. It is a reproach to say it seems it is M. Baxter's judgment c. you can raile better then reason and you have as good as confessed that it 's your fancy and not M. Baxter's judgment in saying IT SEEMS To whom Onely to you and your party whose eyes it is to be feared the God of this world hath blinded But if it do seem so k) Malta videntâ—â— quae non sunt must it needs be so poor proof Doth the bell alwaies tink as M. Haggar doth think 3. It 's certain M. Baxter doth not find fault with the command but with your comment not with the precept but with your practice in vindicating that Scripture l) Mat. 28.19.20 from your corrupt glosse whence M. Baxter infers and that truly that this would near turn the ordinances of Baptism out of the Churches of the Saints For though in a Church constitured some few in comparison may be and are converted by Ministeriall teaching yet most receive the beginings of grace by godly education as M. B. proves largely m) p. 133 from Scripture experience to which you answer not a word so that these not being discpled by Ministeriall teaching are not to be baptized according to the sense you would put upon the Text. Neither is in enough to say they have faith and so may be baptized for the words speak of working faith according to your Gloss by ministeriall teaching And if this doctrine be true it were best for parents not to teach their children betimes as they are n) Deut. 6.7 Prov. 22.6 Eph. 6.4 commanded a sad and most contradictory principle that the carefullest parent should he the cruellest foe and whiles he seekes to bring his children into Heaven you should bolt them out of the Church on earth 4. In condemning M. Baxter for not shewing one Scripture c. You broach two errours at once First That the discipling of any
do business in great waters same verse and to see the works and wonders of the Lord in the deep c. and are delivered and brought to their desired Haven 6. We say the whole man is baptized when not the whole of man but part is washed Whole Christ was crucified but not the whole of Christ your arguing is very weak to all that have understanding When a man is wounded in any one part we say truly the man is wounded though not all over Circumcision was a cutting off the foreskin of the flesh onely and yet the Jews child was Circumcised Sir when your tongue talks we say Mr. Haggar speaks will it follow that every part of Mr. Haggar speaks By this Argument hee is all tongue * Vox praeterea nihil but if his heels had spoken they might have made as wise an answer 7. Your next instance proves as little that Christ was dipt when hee was baptized for the words may be read comming up From q) Mar. 1 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the water and that translation is more proper and suitable because all Rivers for the most part lye in the lower ground in comming to which wee are said to descend and coming from to ascend And indeed the Preposition is so rendered in the verse immediatly foregoing viz. Jesus came r) Mark 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From Nazareth yea it 's said The Dogs eat of the Crums which fall s) Mat. 15.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from their masters table yea where the same story is recorded Å¿) Mar. 3.7.13 it 's so translated twice as Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come and then came Jesus from Galilee and often else where in the New Testament what more ordinary then to say Such a man came from Sea Thames c. Here appears the weakness of your inference and the instance doth not plainly shew that Christ went first down into the water or else how could he come out of it Your text in John comes now to be considered SECT 20. H. H. p. 67. 98. And the Scripture saith Jo. 3.23 John Baptised in Enon because there was much water there But M. Baxter answers that Travellers report that the river Enon is but a little brook that a man may almost step over 1. Surely it is want of the fear of God and love to the truth that he should turne aside his ear from the Scripture that saith There was much water to believe a Man a Traveller and Travellers may lie by authority why may not Sr John Mandevill be believed as well as this Travellers news The Lord be praised that hath delivered my soul from believing him and such as hee is Acts. 2.40.2 If it were granted yet Enon might have much water in another place Though but a little water where the Traveller was As it is with many Rivers in England Reply Travellers may lie but may not some speak truth If not I shall take heed of you and hardly believe you who have been a Traveller and that among the Jesuits the most exquisite Masters of that Art and compassers of Sea and I and to make Proselytes And had you named the book wherein Sr John Mandevill's tale may be found I would shape a sutable reply but let it passe in the mean time for one of your cunning devised fables 2. Your veine of railing at M. Baxter I turn a deaf care to when you prove us an untoward generation for you calling us so doth not prove us so your thanks for your selfe and caveat to others will be seasonable In the interim you do mock both God and man The Turk may as well praise God Luk. 18.11 he is no Christian and the Pharisee t) See 18.11 That he was not as this Publican 3. What this Enon was is disputable u) Calvin in Joh. 3.23 some think it a Town situate in the Tribe of Manasseh Diodate a Citty as Salim was to which the text saith â—t was near Others a Fountain or small brook v) As Grotius Jun. and M. Baxter-Sandys Travells l. 3. p. 141. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As Rev. 1.15 and 14.2 Bee it so yet wee are not a jot the nearer for dipping for the phrase is elsewhere usually translated * many waterâ— Now then it signifies many convenient places at the water where John and his disciples might be employed at once Not any deep water or great river which commonly is hemmed in with great bankes which deny an easy accesse for an Administration 2. Many waters are somtimes taken in Scripture and why not here for a confluence of waters on som plain x) Ezech. 13.10 for the watering of medows and some trees as we see in many places in England where the ground is low it 's plashy and seemes to be a little Sea and yet not knee deep 3. Jordane the Prince of Rivers in that Country which hath it's name from Jor and Dan two fountains from whence it riseth was not above eight fathoms deep nor Navigable y) Isa 33.21 what a small water then in comparison was Enon not far distant from Jordane Now though you will not believe travellers reports yet I hope you will notreject these plain reasons 4. You say Enon might have much water in another place although but little where the Traveller was Here you have only probablity for proof therefore as you argue z) p. 28. we read but of 4. or 5. whole households were baptized therefore not likely they i. e. the Apostles baptized whole Nations if they did we desire to see iâ— So I. It 's not likely Aenon was so deep for dipping if so prove it by Scripture if you can and we will believe it SECT 21. H. H. p. 21. Further M. Baxter saith The Jaylour in the night in his house was baptized but the Scripture saith Act. 16.33.34 Now if the Jaylour took Paul and Silas It implies they took them out and the next words prove it plainly viz. Hee brought them into his house Reply 1. Some enemies are sooner foyled then found I know not what to make of these Fiblets of an Answer If the Jaylour took Paul and Silas it implies THEY took them out who can make sence of this It may be you mean the Jaylour took them out as may perhaps be gathered from the Antecedent of your proposition and the proof you bring for the consequence but it seems you know not what to say or what you say you are IN and OUT 2. May not any unprejudiced Reader see this to be the sense of the words as they lye in the text viz. a) Act. 16.24 with 30 32 33. The Jaylour brought Paul and Silas out of the prison yea the inner-Prison into some outward room thereof where he heard the word and was Baptized and then brought them into his house which as it was usuall joyned to the prison 3. You do not tell
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
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
16.32 33. I referr the reader to that book p) Font uncovered pag. 17.18 19 ver 32. to which you answer nothing but this M. Cook may conclude that none but the Jaylour was baptized c. Now whether more then the Jaylour believed is not declared though it s said that they spake the word to him and to all that were in his house which must needs be understood of those that were capable yet the word in the q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he having believed ver 34. originall is only of the singular number referring to the Jaylour alone and the Apostles required faith of the Jaylour alone r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believe thou ver 31. as necessary and sufficient to bring him his family inâ—o a state of salvation So that as Abraham and his family was circumcised even Ishmael and his bond-servants with their children though we read not of the faith of any of them but of Abraham and Sarah the governours thereof yea Lydia her houshold were baptized though nothing be said of the faith of any of them but of the governesse For it was sufficient for the admission of this family to baptism a state of salvation that the Governor did believ his belief is only expresly required in the coÌ„maÌ„d mentioned in the story But when baptism is mentioned it 's said Å¿) he and all his As before where there are two particulars that of necessity must bee understood of persons being of the plurall number but the word that is translated All his house is an Adverb s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noting neither person not number in â—â—s proper signification but may properly be referred to the Jailors rejoicing x) See Mr. Cooks Font uncovered p. fore-named or exulting q. d. After he had believed God he leapt for joy in and through the whole house but of this more largely in the said book * 3. As for your appeal rational men may discern a difference enough to frustrate your hopes of relief from that Translation For as salvation might be brought to Zacheus his family u) Luk. 19.9 and yet not every one in possession of it or actually saved that was in the family so they might all in the Jailors family be said to rejoice in or for the faith of God though they were not all actual believers I say for or in regard of the faith of God whether be understood the object of faith Christ Jesus or the doctrine of faith the Gospel preached or the gift and act of faith in the Governor or of the effects of faith viz. the tranquility joy and festivity they being e. g. to the Jailor in over-blowing the desperate fears that had seized on him and all his family when they imagined the prisoners had escaped For where the Gospel and the fruits thereof comes v) Luk. 8.13 Joh. 5.35 Acts 8.8 it yields matter of joy u to many more then those who actually and sincerely believe More particularly the Jailors happy and sudden exchange from sudden fear to faith the preaching of the glad tidings of the Gospel to those in his family that were capable might well put the whole family into a posture of joy and festivity Infants themselvs not being uncapable of joy and mirth as it appears at Feasts wherein the spirits of those little ones are exhilarated Yea Infants are not uncapable of spiritual joy and exaltation at the presence of spiritual objects though we cannot tell how it is wrought in them E. g. John Baptist while an Infant in his mothers womb leaping for joy at the presence of Christ for it 's said * Luk. 1.44 Grot. The Babe leaped in my womb for joy Where note by the way that was no natural but supernatural motion as x) Gen. 25.22 was the struggling of those Twins in Rebeccah's womb and beside the Noun here rendered y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Joy is of the same derivation rivation and signification as the word z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is used to set forth the joy which the Jailor had in his family So then Christ the object of faith the Gospel the doctrine of Faith with a great deliverance from a desperate danger being brought to this family and saving faith being wrought in the heart of the Jailor at least and Baptism the seal of the righteousness of Faith being administred to them all the whole family might well be put into a rejoicing frame by reason of the faith God brought amongst them though they did not actually believe for the present 4. Whereas you call somewhat that was said by Mr. C. for the clearing of that place Act. 16. A learned exposition by way of contempt and scorn of humane Learning as appears by your frequent invectives against humane learning which in the close of * Pag. 123. your Book you make one main matter of your accusation of our Church and a ground of separation from us it shall be modestly discussed if the Lord will when we come to it SECT 17. H. H. pag. 6 7. One thing more I had like to have forgotten viz. This seeming sophistical answer to Acts 8. ver 12. where the text saith plainly That when they believed they were baptized both men and women To this he answereth in his 16 p. That these words men and women are appliable to sexes rather then to ages and instanceth in Evah who when Cain was born she said I have gotten a man from the Lord. But what is this to our purpose For she doth not say that this man believed the things concerning the kingdom of Jesus Christ but those women Acts 8.12 were such as believed all these things Therefore your Argument is false and you are self-deceiful and wise to do evil as appeareth by this your cunning craftiness where with you lay in wait to deceive Eph. 4. ver 14. Reply 1. Had you like to have forgotten You then shew a great defect in memory For whereas there are very many pages spent in answering to your urging of what Scriptures you could think of both in general and in particular and many particular answers given to each Scripture you resolved to reply but to two short sentences of two answers and you had almost forgotten one Had it not been more ease and little lesse prudence after you had promised an Answer to the Book in the Title-page to have passed by the whole book as you do all but a few lines and to have told us you had forgot to answer it 2. You bewray defect in method as well as in memory for you bring in this Scripture by Hysteron Proteron to which I shall give such a Reply as I think it deservs You tell us of a SEEMING Sophistical answer then out of your own mouth I may condemne you It is I hope but seemingly not truly sophistical Considerate people will not judge the worse because it seems
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
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
love not bitterly to retort 3. The rest who are Orthodox say no more then what you say that that your Adversaries generally confesse viz. There is no command nor Example literally Syllabically in express terms for Infant-baptism which is no advantage to your cause nor disadvantage to ours no more then there is for womens receiving the Lords Supper Family prayer c. before spoken to 4. You have dealt with some of their writings as Sathan did with the Scripture leaving out b) Mal. 4.6 with Psal 91.11 that which makes against you as he did what might make against him e. gr Calvin bringing in that objection that it s no where found that any one Infant was baptized by the hand of the Apostles answers c) Calv. Inst. l 4. c. 16. sect 8. That though the Evangelists do not expresly mention it yet infants are not excluded where mention is made of baptizing whole Families Acts 16.15.32 33. Ergo. Who but a mad man would conclude that they were not baptized If such Arguments were valid women in like manner should be debarred from the Lords Supper to which we do not READ that they were admitted in the time of the Apostles yet considering the scope and nature of those Ordinances it is evident that as women are to receive the Lords Supper So Infants aswell as grown persons are to bee baptized Eo itaque privari nequeant quin Dei Authoris voluntati fraus manifesta fiat i. e. They therefore cannot bee deprived of it but MANIFEST FRAVD or affront is made to the will of God the Authour Now M. Haggar do you and your party make a wise use of this Testimony you cannot but know that Calvin in the chap. fore-cited and elsewhere d) Inst Advers Anabap. Articl 1. proveth Infant Baptism from many Scripture grounds Again though Beza saith as you cite him yet a little after e) Beza in Mat. 3.11 he gives the reason why he translates not in water buâ— with water as we do and Luk. 3.16 with out the Preposition In least any should think there is some force in thiâ— particle as they do who are perswaded children are not rightly baptized except they be altogether dipt in the wâ—ter Where the Reader may observe that though John did baptize such as did confesse their sins c. Yet that makes nothing against Infant-Baptism And again more plainly f) Beza in mar â— 4 in Mark. though the place be not named by you where he saith seeing the Sacraments are seals Doctrine or instruction is to go before sealing He ads which you have left out There is no reason that the Anabaptists should catch at this against Infant-baptism for John had to do with grown persons and even then when Infants are baptized the word is not severed from the sign in the Church of God The Reader by this taste may guesse how M. Haggar hath dealt with the rest whom for brevity sake I passe by ex ungua Leonem So that now setting aside those that were challenged of Mr. Haggars Grand-Jury of 22 there are not left so many as will make a petty Jury of 12. unlesse you allow some of them to have three votes a piece as Luther and Bucer and some four as Zuinglius which is not reasonable SECT 15. H. H. pag. 17. Thus much out of those teachers own writings which observe and use childrens baptism from whence the Reader may take notice of the unsoundnesse of your principles and what little ground 1. There is for it in the word of God as they themsâ—lvs confesse 2. Therefore what great cause have we to search the Scriptures for better information let the sober minded judg Reply 1. I verily believe you never read the writings of those Teachers 2. I observe you mince the matter here and dare not call them g) as p. 15. our Poets but those Teachers c. 3. The Judicious Reader cannot infer from thence the unsoundnesse of your principles by any reasonable reasoning 4. A little before yea often you said we have no ground in the word of God for infant-baptism you now grant we have a little you begin to yield a little ground well done M. Haggar SECT 16. H. H. pag. 18. Moreover I shall further prove out of their own writings that infant-baptism is a ceremony and Ordinance of man brought into the Church by Teachers after the Apostles times and instituted and commanded by Councills Popes and Emperours Reply 1. Calvin in the place alleaged by you h) Calv. inst l. 4. c. 16. sect 8. saith that whereas the Anabaptists spread it among the simple vulgar that Infant-baptism was not known or practiced till very many years after Christs Resurrection in that i) Foedissimè◠mentiuntur they lye most filthily for there is not one antient writer that doth not for CERTAIN refer the originall of it to the Apostles times Sure your evidence must be clear to overthrow the confident Testimony of this pious and learned man and to prove it was brought into the Church after the Apostles times 2. You empanell here another Jury of 21. I desire again for brevity sake that the Reader would peruse them in your book I shall take if you will not allow the liberty in challenging as before First Erasmus is again challenged on the former account Though his words are They are not to be condemned that doubt whether the baptism of Infants were ordained by the Apostles which words evidently imply that it was their weaknesse to doubt and that it seems hee had other thoughts of those who did not only doubt of it but did refuse and oppose it 2. Are you not ashamed to call Pope Gregory the fourth Ecchius Cassander c. Our own Poets as p. 20 If this be not Poetical licentiousness I know not what is Nay from that Pope c. to conclude it is a Tradition of the Fathers according to our own confession 3. You begin with Origen k Hom 8. in Levit. who calleth baptism of children a ceremony and tradition of the Church It 's your unhappinesse to stumble in the threshold you had perhaps a mind to favour your dear Mother the Church of Rome For you might as well prove out of her 1. The obscurity of the Scriptures 2. The Canonicalness of the History of Susanna 3. Auricular confession 4. Purgatory c. Certainly l vide censuram quorundam Scriptorum veterum à Rob. Coco p. 71. m Pâ—oinde Homilias illas non esse magnae Authoritatis Bellarm de verb. Dei l. 4. c. 11. those Homilies are bastard writings And undoubtedly there is more ingenuity in your dear brother Bellarmine then in you who denies them to bee Cyrills as some were of opinion and dares not affirm them to be Origens but leavs it with a Nescio cujus m who every where destroyes the letter and frames out of his head mysticall senses and so concludes wherefore those Homilies are of no great
whom you bring in the right order according to the Centuries wherein they lived 3. You repeat one and the self same Author twice and make a needlesse distinction to increase the number of your Jurers as Cassander p. 18. numb 7 10. 4. You set them together by the ears and make them contradict one another as is obvious to any judicious eie that will compare v) Pag. 18 19. your Origen Cassander and Cyprian together Thus with a flourish of humane learning you would blear the eies of the world but especially your silly Proselites If you are guilty of dissembling your learning it may be well suspected that you are a Wolf in a Sheeps skin and the rather because you say p. 39. We know you are Scholars SECT 17. Hen. Hag. p. 20. Thus out of the mouths of your own Poets you have it and by them confessed That baptizing of babes is will-worship c. Reply 1. I will forbear to say to you as you to Mr. Hall p. 10. A wretched lie But I dare say that not any one of the aforesaid Authors do so much as mention will-worship This is your own absurd and ridiculous inference * Page 19. you rack the holy Scriptures as Jer. 2.12 13. p. 8. no marvel therefore mens writings 2. You said p. 19. That it is Will-worship and Idolatrie appeareth by their own confessions as followeth But as no mention is made of will-worship much lesse of Idolatrie least of all that we confesse it For shame give over lying and if you love your soul think seriously of that Scripture which is brought by you p. 2. All liars shall have their part in that Lake which burns with fire and brimstone which is the second death Rev. 21.8 3. Lay aside those that are challenged neither have you here a sufficient number to make a Jury unlesse on the former account if there be yet they are not agreed upon the Verdict SECT 18. H. H. Thus having discovered the foundation of the Font and having shewen whence and when and by whom Infant-Baptism came I leave it to the view of all Onely for better satisfaction the book is suddenly to be reprinted and is intituled as followeth A very plain and well-grounded Treatise concerning Baptism c. Reply 1. How many untruths are here tackt together You have neither shewed whence nor when nor by whom Infant-baptisme came in 2. You have discovered your own vanity folly want of ingenuity peity and learning to the view of all 3. Were we with Child you would make us long after your Treatise else you would not give such timely advertisement of it unlesse it were to spare the labour in a Diurnal But either it is stifled in the womb or will come forth with sharp teeth as x) Speeds History of Great Brit. p. 882. Richard the third was born for it is now four years since you hinted the sudden reprinting of it by whom to be sold where and what title But for my part I have neither seen nor heard the printing of it much lesse the Reprinting CHAP. VI. Of Constituting Churches and Church-members SECT 1. H. H. p. 23. In this our stating the Question you say diverse things must be animadverted that we deceive not our selves and others through darkning the truth by words without knowledg For we deny that Churches are constituted by baptizing or sprinkling of Infants I Answer It 's to be observed that Mr. Cook can say nothing nor give any answer in the least to our Writing as we wrote them and therefore he cunningly saith That in stating the Question many things must be animadverted or changed in the mind and then he states the Question according to his own mind c. Reply 1. I desire the Reader to peruse the Narrative of Mr. Hag. p. 21 22. concerning an offer of reasoning with some Ministers at Stafford about Baptizing which Narrative is too long to transcribe But this I say it may be justly suspected to be untrue because of Mr. Haggar's misrepresenting Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook in other particulars as hereafter shall be made evident And whereas he saith not without abuse of Scripture y) Psal 53.5 They were in great fear where no fear was as appears by Mr. Cooks Epistle Truly no such thing pppeareth to my best observation but rather the contrary as appeareth by his eighth Reason z) See Mr. Cooks Epistle before his Font Uncovered which together with the other seven you might have done well to have answered if you could 2 Do not abuse Mr. Cook and triumph before the victory It 's rather to be observed that you can say nothing to Mr. Cooks Answer in three particulars at the least there mentioned or else you would not have passed them by in silence 3. All orderly reasoning requires the right stating of the Question at first yet our Writings are fully answered though as you wrote them they needed clearing For I am perswaded you know not what is meant by Constituting Churches which you stick to as if it were done by Baptism And if you were put to define or describe Constitution perhaps you would give us as wise an account thereof as you do of the word Animadverted which you interpret changed in mind whereas the word signifies considered by serious turning the mind to a thing e. gr a) Haggai 1.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consider your waies i. e. Set your hearts on or turn your minds to You may then be as grosly mistaken in the word Constituted as you are in the word Animadverted and argue for a word the meaning whereof you know not It had been well therefore if you had cleared your own meaning if you could seeing you are so offended with that book which endeavours to clear the state of the question SECT 2. H. H. same pag. First if you deny the Churches are constituted by baptizing you differ from the rest of your brethren and forefathers who generally with one consent till within these ten or twelve years did conclude that children were made members of Christ c. in Baptism witnesse the old Catechism then they were not so before Reply 1. Since you have not proved that our brethren and forefathers said That Baptism did Constitute a Church or give it its being and form which is the usual and proper signification of the word you have not shewed any difference between Mr. Cook and them 2. Though we are not bound to own every expression in those Writings which for the main are sound yet that phrase of being made a member of Christ may admit a good Construction according to that good rule b) Bains help to true happinesse Things are said to be or made when they are declared manifested and acknowledged so to be e. gr c) Joh. 1.12 with 1 Joh. 3.1 To be the sons of God is expounded to be called the sons of God And the Jews charged Christ d) Joh. 19.7 that he made
you or me secret things belong to the Lord. Deut. 29. Reply 1. You mis-cite Mr. Cook who saith p) Font uncovered p. 1â— Faith OR interest in Christ or the Covenant of grace constitutes c. Not faith and interest in Christ There is a broad difference between a disjunctive and copulative proposition If one should say you are an Anabaptist or a Romish Priest or a Jesuite you would acknowledge this proposition true but if one should say you are an Anabaptist and a Romish Priest and a Jesuite it may be you would say it's false though others think it true Beside you leave out those words viz. or Covenant of grace It s plain you had a design here to deceive For in your p. 22 23. you truly set down the words when you had no purpose to answer them but here you chop and change them all least the words should speak for themselvs as they do apparently You confound those things Mr. Cook doth distinguish who holds that either professed faith or interest in Christ and the Covenant makes one a Christian which last is the case of Infants according to Gods gracious q) Gen. 17.7 Luk. 18.16 Acts 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 grant and declaration In a word They who have true faith have interest in Christ and in the Covenant of grace yet all who have interest in Christ and the Covenant of grace have not actuall faith 2 Now all may see the lameness of your Argument viz. Infants have no interest in Christ because they cannot make it out which makes as much against Circumcision as against Infant-baptism at least is as absurd as if an Infant had no interest in that which is conveighed to him by a deed of gift because forsooth he cannot make it out and in brief it 's as false as that you boldly affirm without any proof viz. All our Infants are baptized into the Church of England unless it be taken with a grain of salt 3. By your saying Very well if any sense can be made of your words you grant that faith and interest in Christ constitutes a Christian Hold you to this and there 's an end of this controversie viz. That Baptisme doth not constitute a Christian For Baptisme is neither faith nor interest in Christ both which may be without Baptisme as you confesse in the penitent Thief and Baptisme may be without either as in Simon Magus and all hypocrites 4. For your Query If by making out c. you mean an infallible discovery of saving Faith and real interest in Christ from communion with him we who are ignorant of mens hearts expect no such making out But if you mean such a discovery of your interest in the Covenant of grace as hath been always accounted sufficient for externall Church-membership it 's sufficiently made out in your Book yea and in that very Chapter r) Deut. 29.10 11 12. you cite and elswhere In a word God's promise and the parents Faith are not such secret things as not belonging to you and me but things clearly revealed in God's Word as the fore-mentioned Scriptures shew SECT 7. H. H. Again you say that joint and orderly profession of Faith and interest in the Covenant doth constitute a Church Very well and is not Repentance and Baptisme an orderly profession of the Faith Doth not the Apostle sâ—â— Å¿) Acts 2.38 Repent and be baptized And is not putting on Christ profession c. Gal. 3.27 Reply 1. Here again is another instance in wronging Mr. Cook for you have lest out these words Font uncovered p. 1. viz. s or God's owning a people to be his in Covenant Now though adult Jews and Gentiles might and ought to make profession of their Faith and Interest in the Covenant for themselvs and theirs also according to the Tenor of the Covenant yet Infants it 's granted could not make such a profession for themselvs But God 's owning them for his people is an Authentical declaration of their interest in the Covenant according to the fore-named and other places of Scripture 2. If Repentance and Baptism be an orderly profession of Faith then not Baptisme alone and if so Then Baptism doth not constitute a Christian For the cause must not be partial but total which compleats the effect 3. Repentance and Baptism are not of the like necessity though you conjoin them Without Repentance adult people cannot be saved no such thing can be truly said of Baptism If you take them severally that Repentance is a sufficient profession in some and Baptism in others then Infants that cannot repent may make a sufficicient profession of Christ 4. Though the use of and submission to Baptism is a part of Christian profession yet not exclusively to other duties as the use of the Word Praier Lord's Supper c. which yet do not constitute a Church-member but presuppose Church-membership onely let it be remembred That as the professed Repentance of the wicked Jews and Gentiles is a profession of their interest in the Covenant and a declaration of their right to Baptism which is a sign of Church-membership So God's owning Believers Infants is no lesse a declaration of their right to Baptism wherein Church-membership is sealed 5. You need not prove that Baptism is a part of our profession of Christ we grant it is an Ordinance of Christ in the observation of which among others Christ is professed but that it is the whole or onely or first profession of Christ whereby a Christian is constituted is not yet proved by you 6. The Apostle doth not say Gal. 3.27 have put on Christ in or by Baptism that is your Glosse put on the Apostles text The Galathians might and did put on Christ other waies Though your Baptism might be a sign of it and that in part onely And indeed the Apostles meaning is not that baptisme is properly and adequately but Sacramentally and significatively a putting on of Christ Because 1. else all that are truly baptized should in that very act truly put on Christ but that did not Simon Magus nor any Hypocrite now 2. The Apostle in exhorting baptized Saints to put t) Rom. 13.14 on Christ which is to bee done daily should exhort them to be baptized daily which is absurd 3. We should with the Papists hold that the Sacraments of the N. T. do by the work done confer grace SECT 8. H. H. Consider it again Doth not a man that puts on a garment profess to wear it to all spectators whilst it is upon him So they that put on Christ profess to own him before all men And Mr. Baxter himself calls it A listing engaging Ordinance I hope you will not deny his Doctrine to be Orthodox though you cavil with the Scriptures Now seeing by Baptism we put on and professe Christ it 's evident out of your own mouth that it constitutes a Church or else you must say They are constituted before they put on Christ Reply 1. If
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
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
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
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.
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
liberty to swerve from these primitive practices c. 4. The custome of the Churches in baptizing Infantâ— is of that weight with the Paedobaptists that you must bâ—ing more convincing Arguments then you have yet done to take them off from that custom As for the manner of Baptizing Mr. Cradock to whom Mr. Baxter referrs you tells you * Gospel-liberty p. 2â— 4. I hat Christ hath not made Baptism such an Ordinance as that in all Climates and Countries-and Regions they must go over head and ears in a River c. SECT 22. H. H. You say that you can prove that Infant-baptism was used in the Church as high as to the Apostles as there be many sufficient Histories extant inform us and that the deferring of Baptism came in with the rest of Popery upon Popish or Heretical grounds Answ Oh Sir have I now sound you out Truly seeing I have I must not conceal your wickedness least I become guilty with you of the blood of souls And therefore I do by this declare to all men that you are both a Deceiver and a Blasphemer The which charge I now come to prove Reply 1. Nay stay a while and consider what you say or do you triumph before the victory If you have but now found out Mr. Baxter It teems you have missed of him all this while 2. Though I have found you out before yet I must not conceal your weakness wickedness and audaciousness least I communicate with you in â—our sin and here I do declare to all men hereby that Henry Haggar is both an Imposter and a Blasphemer the which charge I come now to prove but first let us see how you prove the charge SECT 23. H. H. p. 3.38 1. It 's evident you are a Deceiver in that you have intituled your Book Plain Scripture proof for Infant 's Church-membership and Baptism when indeed there is no such thing in all the Bible but you confess that your proof is from some histories extant which you judge sufficient c. Reply 1. You notoriously abuse Mr. Baxter he doth not say that proof for Infant-baptism from Histories are sufficient in his judgment u) see Mr. Baxt. Position 9. p. 7. but in opposition to Mr. T. pretences among the simple he saith he shall easily prove that Infant-baptism was used in the Church as high as to the Apostles daies as there is any sufficient history extant to inform us And if this proves Mr. Baxter to be a deceiver then blessed v) see the foregoing Chap. 5. sect 14. Inst 3.4 c. 16. s 8. Calvin is one and many other burning and shining lights in the Churches of Christ But your charge is indeed from an Eldern-gun and is no Musket-shot it makes a noise but God be thanked hurts not 2. Besides the humane testimonies for Infant-baptism in matter of fact M. Baxter brings abundance of plain Scriptures to prove it De jure And if you see them not it is because you are wilfully blind and obstinate It 's an easie matter for you with impudence to say there is no such thing but it's hard for you to disprove those Texts of Scripture alledged by him Therefore you have cunningly waved all saving two or three in comparison 3. Your Proposition implied is false viz. He that intitles his Book so and yet brings antient histories to prove the usage of Infant-baptism as high as the Apostles daies is a Deceiver you will never set this crooked legg straight while the world stands 4. To set the Saddle as they say on the right horse and to prove you a Deceiver I thus argue He that intiâ—uleth his Book Plain Scripture-proof for the baptizing of men and women when they believe in Rivers and Fountains as a Standing Ordinance in the Church of Christ is a Deceiver But H. H. so intituseth his Book therefore H H. is a Deceiver Theâ—e is no doubt of the Minor and the Major is as clear because those words viz. A Standing Ordinance are no where written in the Scripture of truth and with Mr. Haggar express and plain Scripture proof are all one SECT 24. H. H. 2. You are a Blasphemer for you say deferring of Baptism came in with the rest of Popery Answ But Sir do you not know that our glorious Lord Jesus Christ deferred his baptism till he was thirty years of age Luke 3.21 22 23. And yet he was the child of believing Parents I think you dare not deny Reply 1. If this example be binding none ought to be baptized till they are thirty years old which I perswade myself is against your judgment and practice 2. Luke saith not that Christ deferr'd his Baptism till he was thirty years of age This is your inference not his Assertion He doth not say Christ was thirty years of age before or when he was baptized much less tha the Deferr'd his Baptism till then but thus * Luke 2.23 Jesus himself began to be About thirty years of age c. 3. Christ was not till then baptized partly to answer the Types x) Numb 4.3 35 39 43 47. and chiefly to receive that Testimony from Heaven in the midst of such a great confluence of people that came to John to be baptized which is hinted by Mat. 3.5 6 13 Then and held forth by Luke c. 3.21 22. Therefore this was not properly a deferring * see Diodat on 2 Pet. 3 9. unless perhaps in the judgment of the Flesh as Hab. 2. vers 3.2 Pet. 3.9 SECT 25. H. H. p. ibid. Again doth not the Commission of Christ defer Baptism till believing Mark 16.15 16. and Philip also Acts 8 36 37. shewing by these words plainly that if he did not believe it was to be deferred c. Reply 1. In Mark and in the Acts cited there is not one word of deferring till believing you manifest your own folly and delude poor souls c. 2. You are now for Consequences when you think they will serve your turn Mr. Baxter hath brought more plain Scripture-proof for Infant Church-membership and Baptism then you have done for deferring Baptism 3. I am mistaken if you are not guilty of a plain contradictions For in your pag. 26. in your exhortation you do more then implie that Baptisme is not to be deferred saying Let us not delay the time with a woful misapplication of Scripture y) â—sal 119.60 but here in this page Baptism is to be deferred as you plead 4. The rest of this page contains nothing but an idle Repetition or abominable Censuring with horrible abuse of Scripture and therefore shall have no other answer but what is made already SECT 26. H. H. pag. 39. The summe of which is that Rev 19.20 and 13.16 17. are most properly applied to you the sign of the Cross being a mark of the Beast on the childs forehead when it was baptized or rather rantized Here is a looking-glass for you but the Gospel is our looking-glass Acts
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.
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
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.
as you use c. Nay 3ly you are hereby challenged to prove even by good consequence from Scripture that you have a regular call to preach and baptize I have not heard of any neither do I know that you ever undertook to clear it If your Call be extraordinary as Apostles Prophets Evangelists a proof from Scripture grounds is required of you and we shall own you for such If Ordinary as Pastors Teachers make it to appear according to Scripture-rule c) Acts 14.23 1 Tim. 3 to 8. Tit. 1.5 6 7 8 9. 1 Tim. 4.11 12 13 14 15 16. 1 Pet 5.1 2. and we shall rejoice therein If you cannot prove such a Call What boldness is it in you to cry down our Ministrie c. But they who will bring in a false Ministrie c. have held it their policie to crie out against the true SECT 2. H. H. p. 51. Mr. Hall saith p. 91. That the Scriptures are the chiefest strong holds of the Anabaptists and being pursued hither we run for refuge c. Answ It 's well they do so they are then sure and safe For Psal 119.89 Joh. 8.31 c. Reply 1. Let the Reader take notice that those Scriptures alleged by Mr. Hag. in the middle of this p. have been answered already I forbear therefore the transcribing and answering them least I be guilty of his usual crime Tautologie 2. It makes for the dignity and authority of the Scriptures that men of all perswasions who have owned the Scriptures for a rule have fled to them for shelter yet Hereticks and Schismaticks who have done so were neither sure nor safe but were found faulty even at the horns of the Altar as Joab was 1 King 2.28 3. Mr. Hall doth not blame you simply for running to the Scriptures for refuge d) See Mr. Hall's Font Guarded p. 91 92. but for mis-understanding and mis-applying them and so your running to them is in vain not onely as he saith but sheweth also by six Reasons which you take no notice of and the reason is because you could not frame a reasonable answer to them SECT 3. H. H. p. 52. Mr. Hall hath never a word to run to for Infant-baptism as he himself confesseth p. 30. in his fifth Argument in express terms Infant-baptism is not commanded c. Reply 1. Heaven and earth may be astonished at your impudent charge viz. Mr. Hall confesseth he hath never a word to run to for Infant-baptism 2. Lay your Argument right and it 's your absurd conclusion from his candid confession Thus He that confesseth Infant-baptism is not commanded expresly in Scripture hath never a word to run to for Infant-baptism But Mr. Hall confesseth so Therefore Sir your Major is false which may appear thus to the meanest capacity out of your own mouth The Christian Sabbath and Family-praier twice a day c. are not expresly commanded in the Scripture If I therefore should conclude Mr. Haggar hath never a word to run to for the Sabbath and such praier c. he would crie out that I wrong him For as Mr. Haggar brings Scriptures in his p. 12 13 14. to prove the same by Consequence so doth Mr. Hall prove Infant-baptism SECT 4. H. H. I shall now conclude with shewing ten undeniable Reasons why the Word of God must be understood and obeied as it is written without adding to or taking from I. Because God never without words made known his mind to men Heb. 1. ver 12. Reply 1. Your Reasons may be called undeniable as the Spanish Armado in 88. was called Invincible 2. If all these Reasons were granted yet none of them prove what you undertake viz. The Word of God must be understood and obeied as it is written 3. They conclude as strongly against you as against us who prove many points of Religion by Consequence from Scripture as well as we 4. They are impertinent to the main business and therefore not meet to be replied to but least you should crow I will give you a taste how easily they may be answered To your first If you mean of words written or else you say nothing it's false though it should be Heb. 1. ver 1 2. For God made known his mind to the Patriarchs long before his will was committed to writing e) Gen. 37 41. E. gr To Joseph read the Catechism with the Exposition you mention pag. 96. and you will find God made known his mind diverse waies without words To the third Were not those Scriptures the five Books of Moses wherein the doctrine of the Resurrection was written and might have been read by the Sadduces To the 9th it should be 2 Tim. 4.1.2 compare this with the beginning of your answer pag. 49. and here is another contradiction of yours To the tenth Shall the Heathen be judged by those words they never heard nor read I trow not Rom. 2.12 yet you say Christ will judg All Men by his words which terms All Men are not in Joh. 12.48 Do not you therefore passe that dreadful doom f) Rev. 22.18 19. on your self for adding to the Word SECT 5. H. H. p. 53. Lastly I shall propound these ten following Queries with a desire to have them answered by any who will or can Reply 1. You said pag. 52. I shall now conclude and here you come with your Lastly 2. These Ten following Queries are as impertinent as your ten precedent Reasons though according to the proverb a fool may ask more questions then a wise-man can answer yet I may warrantably g) Prov. 26.5 answer a fool according â—o his folly least he be wise in his own conceit and by the assistance of the Lord I shall answer briefly upon the former account Querie 1. Whether God doth require the sons of men to believe any thing in point of Justification that is not recorded in the holy Scriptures of truth Answ If by the sons of men you understand Infants you answer your self pag. 25. Christ hath no where required them to obey any command before they can understand c. Therefore not to believe But if you mean grown persons I answer If by recorded which yet is no Scripture word you mean contained in the Scripture as in your second and fourth Querie I say No. For the Scripture is the full adequate object oâ— Faith Therefore could the h) Rom. 10.9 word of Faith if you mean expresly written as in the eighth Querie I say Yes And I think you dare not deny that God requires of us to trust in the merits and satisfaction of Christ alone for Justification which is not expresly written in Scripture This instance may suffice among many Qu. 2. Whether God doth require or command us to obey any thing after believing which is not contain'd in the Word of truth Answ 1. If by contained you mean as in the seventh Querie in express terms you answer your self God doth command us after believing to give
thanks at Meals to pray in Families c. I hope you will not eat your own words i) P. 12 13 14. And I say such a trust forementioned is our duty contained in the Word though not expressed as 1 Pet. 2.6 with Isa 28.16 where the Apostle saith It is contained in the Scripture c. and yet those words elect and not confounded are not expressed in Isa 28.16 Querie 3. Whether the Saints have any ground to believe the Resurrection from the Dead and eternal life in glory but as it is recorded in Scripture Answ The Sadduces had ground to believe the Resurrection as it is recorded i. e. contained in Exod. 3.6 and the Saints too as it is expresly written in Scripture elswhere Qu. 4. Whether if a man believe and obey all the known precepts and promises contained in the Word of God as much as in him lieth will God condemn and punish him at that great day because he hath believed and done no more Answ A captious Interrogatory looking towards Quakerism that new-refined Papism about absolute perfection or freedome from sin in this life or toward Arminianism about the salvation of the moral Heathens yet I say God may condemn a man for the least sin of ignorance without Christ k) Levit. 4 2 3 13 22 37. with Luk. 12.48 and for the least defect in duty Nehem. 14.22 with Rom. 6.23 Qu. 5. If the Scriptures ought to be believed and obeied as they are written then how dare some deny faith in and obedience to some part of them and impose things not written in the Scriptures to be obeied in stead of the Ordinances of Christ Answ That phrase as they are written is ambiguous Were your meaning clear answer should be returned however I know none that deny such faith and obedience much less who impose things not written i. e. not contained in the Scriptures as Qu. 2. to be obeied in stead of Christ's Ordinances your Qu. implies a malitious calumniation and so let it pass Querie 7. If the Scriptures be not a perfect rule of faith and obedience without the help of any man's inventions what is Or who may we trust or at whose mouth must we seek wisdom Answ The Scripture is a rule Eccl. 12.10 with Gal. 6. ver 16. and a perfect rule Psal 19.7 and that of faith and manners as Austin doth phrase it God we may and must trust 2 Chron. 20.20 with Isa 7.9 at God's mouth must we seek wisdom Isa 8. ver 20. with Acts 17. ver 11. Qu. 7. Whether there be any sin or corruption incident to man that the Scriptures doth not reprove or make manifest in express terms Answ l) Indeed you answer your self p. 69. Yes 1. Original fin Gen. 5.3 Job 14.4 and 15.14 Psal 51.5 Eph. 2.3 Rom. 5.12 2ly Some actual sins as Incest Buggery Sodomie Polygamie of which last you have cause to examine yourself and many more 3ly There are many Errors and Heresies which in the general are called works of the flesh Gal. 5. ver 19 20. Egr. Euty chianism Ernomianism Nestorianism Arrianism Arminianism Papism with others more without number which surely are corruptions incident to man to use your own phrase and yet which the Scriptures doth not reprove and make manifest in express terms Qu. 8. Whether there be any virtue or praise in any thing that the best of men ever did but what is expresly commanded or commended in the Scripture of truth Answ Yes there was some virtue or praise in the Disciples eating some ears of Corn on the Sabbath-day yet not expresly commanded or commended in 1 Sam. 21.6 To which our Saviour doth refer the Pharisees to whom he said Have you not read what David did c. Mat. 12.3 4. yea you your self imagine at least there is virtue and praise in Dipping in a Meer or Marle-pit or Horse-pool c. and yet no where expresly commanded or commended in Scripture Querie 9. I appeal to every man's conscience in the sight of God whether their consciences do not condemn them when they walk contrary to what is written in Scripture Answ If by what is written you mean as in your seventh and tenth Querie I say yes unlesse the conscience be blind seared or asleep as I fear yours is for your frequent if not constant railing and reviling to name no more is contrary to what is written expresly in Scripture Qu. 10. Whether every man's conscience doth not justifie him when he walks according to what is contained in the Word Answ The answer immediately foregoing will serve here also without more ado SECT 6. H. H. p. 54. If all these Queries be granted as they are stated to be true then those that teach and perswade men to do any thing in matter of justification or salvation more or lesse then is plainly written and expressed in the Word of God are such as add to and take from the Word of God and are guilty of those plagues Rev. 22.18 19. But Infant-baptism is no where written nor expressed in all the Scriptures as Mr. Hall Mr. B. Mr. C. confess Therefore Reply 1. Some of your Queries are stated sillily e. g. 1 3 4 5 6. as is obvious to any 2. How can you suppose all to be granted when some are granted some denied and some in several respects being doubtfully propounded may be granted or denied 3. What a wide door do you open again here to Popery against justification by Faith onely For you say to do A N Y thing in matter of justification more then is expressed in the Word is an adding to the Word this is one of your dictates we must take your bare word without any offer of proof for it but if you make this out both you and I must fling up a great part of our Religion 4. As you pass again that dreadful doom on your self as well as on us so you be-lie in plain English those three Worthies who no where confess in their books that I can find that Infant-baptism is No where written in Scripture though they say It is no where expressed in Scripture which you miserably confound for want of wit or grace to distinguish SECT 7. H. H. Thus I have answered to Mr. Baxters Ten Positions which saith he p. 3. must be necessarily understood before we can understand the point in hand So that if these Positions are not true then the rest of his book cannot be true by his own confession Now if I have fully answered the one I need say but little to the other c. Reply 1. How this comes in by head and shoulders I know not Thus after a long digression he closeth The Reader must not blame me in following the Wild-goose-chase I must follow my leader except into an hors-pool 2. Whereas you say if you have sully answered these Positions you need say but little to the rest of Mr. Baxter's Book I assume But you have not fully answered these
himself in the exposition of Isa 7.15 16. and interpreting the same of Christ For though ver 14. is doubtlesse meant of Chrisâ— yet the two latter vâ—rses mean Shear-Jashub the Prophets little son ver 3. by whom as by a sign the Prophet assures Ahâ—z c. That Judah should be in such peace that that child should be brought up without fear of war in peace and plenty and that before he was grown up Those two smoaking Fire-brands ver 4. should be quenched What sâ—ay could it be to a trembling King and a troubled People of God aâ— Jerusalem to hear that those two Fire-brands which threaâ—ned the ruine of all should be overthrown before Christ should come to mature years which was many hundred yeaâ—s after But this promise concerning the Prophets Son being believed might be a suitable support to their trembling hearts in that juncture 5. To your proof concerning Christ p) Lu. 2.40.52 I say truly you do still like yourself For before you can make any consequence from the Scripture you must approve some grosse absurdity or blasphemy viz. They that grow and wax strong in spirit and wisdom had none before that time they are said to grow Whereas the growth of a thing presupposeth the being of it e. gr we are commanded to q) 2 Pet. 3.18 grow in grace and knowledg will it follow that we are void of grace and knowledg 2. By your Reason Christ while he was an Infant had no spirit no grace of God upon him no stature no favour with God or man For in these Christ is said to increase as well as in wisedom What Christian ear tingles not at such blasphemies which yet your unreasonable reasonings with a witness pre-suppose or imply if not express for the making up of your conclusion Now what think you had not Christ the law written in his heart in his infancy deny it if you dare or can all Orthordox Divines hold r) Ames medu l. 1. c. 21. Jo 1.14 with Luk. 2.40.52 that Christ in the first instant of his conception received in the humane nature fulness of grace in respect of the first act yet so as there was room for growth in respect of the second acts and of extension to new objects So that nâ—w must again proclaim you a blasphemer The charge is now more clearly confirmed by this your BLASPHEMY against Christ himself SECT 11. H. H. But some will object for want of wisedom that upon this account Christ will be excluded the Covenant in his innocency I Answer such people know not what they say For he was given for a Covenant Isa 42.6 and 49.8 And he is the Mediator of the Covenant Heb. 12.2 5. and his blood is the blood of the Covenant chap 13 10. with Luk. 22.40 And he is the seed to whom the promises were made Gal. 3.13 and in him they are yea and Amen with 1 Cor. 1.20 c. And therefore vain and foolish it would be for any man to make such an objection Reply 1. To say nothing of some of the Scriptures which should be Heb. 12.24 Luk. 22.20 2 Cor. 1.20 you your self do not know what to say in answer to the Objection you seem therefore to be a vain and foolish man to conjure up such a spirit which you could not lay for want of wisdom 2. All you have said doth not untye the knot but tyes it faster unlesse you grant that Christ in his Infancy was in the Covenant which yet you do not deny And thus you seem to confess one Infant at least the holy Child Jesus to be within the Covenant otherwise your answer to the Objection propounded by you is weak enough and strange for a man of common sense to give The Objection stands firm SECT 12. H. H. p. 59. They that are in Covenant shall know the Lord from the greatest to the least Heb. 8.11 But Infants cannot For they know noâ— their own parents nor their right hand from their left Jon. 4.11 Therefore the Lord saith plainlâ— That children are innocent Å¿) Ps 106.37 38. even of those which do sacrifice to the devill Therefore though Innocent are not nor cannot be in Covenant For that which is born of flesh is flesh but the New Covenant is spirituall and they which enter into it must be born again for those that worship must worship him in Spirit c. Jo 4.24 Reply 1. What hath been said to the former might serve here As many know earthly and naturall things which know not the Lord So God can conveigh the knowledge of himself to those s) Mat. 11.25 that know little or nothing of naturall things and though naturall knowledge cannot be but by naturall means yet super-naturall knoweldge may be and is oft conveighed without naturall means Notwithstanding they who have use of reason and senses are bound to make use of them to get the knowledge of God where God's Ordicances are vouchsafed though God himself is not tyed to these means 2. That phrase from the greatest to the least is a proverbiall kind of speech frequently used in Scripture to express the generality of a thing good or bad among persons of all sorts and ranks you may aswell conclude Infants went up into the house of the Lord because it is said t) 2 Chron. 3â— 30 All the people great and small went up and that little babes were feasted by Ahasuerus because it 's said u) Esth 1.5 He made a feast both unto great and small and that Infants were given to covetousness for it 's said v) Jer. 6 15. Every one from the least to the greatest is given to covetousness 3. Your Sophistâ—y is discernable The text â—aith shal know the Lord You say CANNOT know Now if you rightly assume Infants shall not know you contradict the Lords promise which hee will perform in his time Beside the conclusion is not to purpose viz. They shall not be in Covenant or else there are four terms in your Argument 4. What miserable consequences and conclusions are here made as your Book abounds with many more whereby you abuse your self and others First The Children of Ninivee knew not the right hand from the left Therefore the Lord saith plainly that children are innocent Secondly The children of those that sacrifice to Devills are innocent Therfore little babes though innocent cannot be in Covenant I shall speak to babes innocency in your next page But how wil you make good your consequence The absurdity whereof I leave to the Reader to consider Yet if children because innocent cannot be in Covenant as you say Then it followes clearly that David Daniel and other holy men * Ps 73.13 Dan. 6.22 Job 17.8 whom the Scriptures commend to be innocent were not in Covenant and if innocency keep children out of Covenant why not the aged also Nay Infants innocency is so far from making them uncapable of being in Covenant that even the children of Idolaters
holds forth Leaving therefore secret things to the Lord I further will clear it that Infants while Infants even of Heathens so dying are not saved by Christ as being justified by him c. 1. Whatsoever is to be believed by us is contained in the Scriptures This you cannot deny but that Infants ever of Heathens are in state of justification and salvation is not contained in the Scriptures no not in Rom. 5.18 as is shewed before Therefore 2. Remission of sins and justification are peculiar to those m who are in Covenant But Infants of Heathenâ— while such are not in Covenant as all parties agree Therefore Or thus All justified persons are in Covenant Infants of Heathens are not in Covenant Therefore not justified 3. To contract my self Because Esau while an Infant was not justified though the child of godly parents as you said p. 57. much less the Infants of Heathens whil'st such 4. Then it would be a work of mercy to cut their throats and send them to heaven which is absurd at least you will judge Must Herod be a Saviour of Infants Did he them a good turn or no 5. They are without Regeneration as having neither word spirit sign promise or covenant of Regeneration hence said to be without 7. Baptism doth not belong to them as you and we agree which is the sign and seal of justification Therefore not justification by Christ's blood which is at least a part of the thing signified More might be added but I forbear onely I wish you to consider seriously how one absurdity draws on many more whil'st some are resolved to maintain their fancies What a monstruous thing is it that all the children of Heathens shall be partakers of the kingdom of heaven in glory and yet to deny to Infants of Christians the signe and seal of admission into the kingdom of heaven on earth or to them faith if the free gift come on them to justification of life I cannot find in Scripture specially in this Chapter Rom. 5.1.16 Such justification without faith SECT 4. H. H. same p. and 62. Secondly that God hath one way to save men and women and another to save Infants is evident Rev. 2.7 11 17 29. and chap. 3.6 13. because the Spirit often calls to such who have ears to hear but wee never find him calling to Infants to hear obey commandments c. Thirdly Life and salvation is promised to them that believe in Christ Joh. 3.15 16. with Heb. 5.9 but salvation is not promised to Infants on these terms Fourthly Death and damnation is threatned 2 Thes 1.7 8 9. to those that know not God and obey not the Gospel but they cannot know God for they know not the right hand from the left c. Fifthly The ordinary means of salvation is the preaching of the Gospel Rom. 1.16 1 Cor. 1.21 Thus is their great invincible objection or rather cavill answered clearly and plainly by the Scripture of truth Reply 1. It is in none of these Scriptures expresly said that God hath one way to save men and women and another way to save little children you are wise above what is written Must we trust you or seek wisedom at your mouth as you say in your p. 53. qu. 5. Secondly neither do you prove it clearly and evidently but by pitifull consequences May not I say to you as he in another case Therefore thou art inexcusable oh man whosoever thou art that judgest for wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thy self c. 3. They rather prove the damnation then the salvation of Infants for you say they cannot hear believe know obey confess to salvation 4. Is there not another contradiction for hare you say we never find little babes bidden to hear the Commandements And yet you say p. 52. the sons of men are commanded to hear Christ I hope some little babes are the sons of men 5. Sure you live by ill neighbours you do oft commend your self but you are strongly and strangely infatuated to believe that you have both proved what you undertooke and clearly plainly answered this invincible objection c. as you scornfully cal it when any rational man fearing God may see that you have done neither SECT 5. H. H. And the truth is they may as well debar little babes from food because it is said in Scripture He that will not work let him not eat as to debar them from salvation because they are not Church-members c. Reply 1. You debar them from Baptism because they cannot believe why not also from salvation hereafter on that Scripture Mark 16.16 as from food here on this 2 Thes 3.10 2. Infants Church-membership shall be spoken to in answer to your twelve Arguments But it 's your grosse mistake that they are no Church-members because they cannot perform the work of a Church-member The same may be said of the Jews Infants yet they were circumcised and were Church-members Nay we find them joyned in Church-Ordinances as prayer fasting c. 2 Chron. 20.16 Joel 2 16. 3. That God will give them salvation without observing Church-Ordinancer overthrows your 12 following Arguments with the last which a probable one you say p. 72. CHAP. XIII Whether Infants of Believing Parents are Church-members SECT 1. H. H. p. 63. 2ly Infants are not Church-members neither can Church membership do them any good but rather the contrary Argument 1. from Joh. 15.2 c. Reply 1. Instâ—ad of answering our Arguments for Infant Church membership which yet you undertook you tuâ—n opponent and dispute after your manner against their Church-membership But let any Logician read this your first Argument and he will easily see how monstrouâ— and mishapen it is without any true form To make the best of it it 's this If every branch that is in Christ must bring forth fruit or else be cut off then Infants cannot be branches in Christ for they cannot bring forth fruit neither shall they be cut off But the former is true therefore the latter and by consequent are no Church-members 1. You prove what you have undertaken by Consequences May they not be rejected by us as ours are by you saying p. 47. We weigh them not 2. If you must have that liberty which you deny to us you have here as many Consequences as M. Baxter had which in the aforesaid p. you find fault with As 1. If Infants be Church-members they must be branches in Christ 2. If branches they must be fruitful 3. If fruitful they must abide in Christ c. 4. If not they must be cast into the fire which is absurd Review I pray Rom. 2.1 Wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thy self for thou that judgest do'st the same things 3. Your Argument proves as strongly or more against all Infants interest in Christ and so salvation by him contrary to your own judgment p. 61. or more confidently and clearly for the damnation of Infants according to that He that believeth
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
this Christs Disciples must and do bear his Cross and come after him But Infants while such cannot bear his Cross and come after him Therefore they cannot be his Disciples Reply 1. This Argument is of the same nature with most of the former It concludes only of such as are adult Disciples savingly taught of God sanctified by the Spirit and accepted of Christ whereas again the Question is of such who may make visible Church-members of which sort many are and must be Disciples who are without those characters as Judas and all Hypocrites more particularly 2. This is spoken to and of persons of years not to or of Intants as such verse 25.33 3. Though this is spoken to t) See Sect. 9. of this Chap. in your p. 78. yet They that are Infants now may hereafter do coming to years all this yea they have these principles in them by the Spirit as hath been said and proved that will certainly enable them if they live to years to do this 4. As Infants may and do with their parents enjoy the priviledges of the Covenant as you say free-born subjects do of a Kingdom so they may and do undergo the burdens and sufferings of the Cross of Christ and follow him in suffering So that Christ suffered in his Infancy poverty contempt banishment c. Luk. 2.7 Mat. 2.13 to 19. So they penury exile and death too for that Faith in Christ which their parents professe and they implicitely in and with them He is aâ—st anger in Israel that hath not heard of the Massacrings and sufferings of Infants with their parents for Religion sake 5. And this fully answers your ninth Argument being not new but dressed up in a new fashion only you have the knack of multiplying and so filling up Paper whereas you might have comprehended all these in one and made me but one labour but for the sake of the weaker I have been content to follow you in repeating as you inurging the same thing for substance 6. Onely let the Reader if you will not behold as in a glass clearly the rudeness and wildness of your arguing which reflects on the the Apostles as well as on us For if these characters mentioned in your nine foregoing Arguments be necessary for the making owning and sealing of Disciples and if the Apostles did not keep them from Baptism till they had such characters much less till they knew they had such Then either those which they baptized were not Disciples or else they went beyond and beside their Commission or rather their Commission required impossibilities of them What absurdities if not blasphemies do your unreasonable reasonings lead unto I will press this no further nor say any thing of your wonted uncharitable censuring as if wee never yet learned what a Disciple is and are none our selves CHAP. XV. Whether the Anabaptist's way of Baptizing bee Sinfull SECT 1. H. H. p. 86. I proceed to answer M. Baxter's eight Arguments by which he saith he proveth the Anabaptist's way of baptizing sinfull His first is this There is no word of precept or example in all the Scripture for the baptizing of the child of any one Christian at years of discretion Therefore to defer the baptizing them till then is not the Scripture way Answer page 87. I give him an example viz. Christ who was baptized at years of discretion Luk. 3.21 22. If M. Baxter deny his mother to be a Christian Luk. 1.46 46. I say he knows not what a Christian is and is no Christian himself But to retort there is no word of precept nor example in all the Scripture for baptizing an Infant Therefore that way is sinfull Reply 1. If by Christian you mean the name or title I will be bold to say without danger of your charge that Mary was no Christian for the Disciples were called Christians FIRST in Antioch Acts 11.26 And I would gladly know whether you do or dare judge to use your own expression Mary the mother of Jesus to be no Disciple If you deny I am bold to say you erre not knowing the Scriptures you know not what a Disciple is and that you are none your self But if you understand the substance and truth as I may say of a Christian I cordially acknowledge her a Christian The name Protestant was not used till about Luther's time yet our Divines prove soundly against the Papists that the Protestant Doctrine i. e. The substance of our Religion was professed and practised long before even from the time of Christ and his Apostles to Luther's days This is helpfull not hurtfull to us but hurtfull not helpfull to you For as it shews that for substance the Covenant of grace under the Old and New Testament is one and the same though different in manner of administration as hath been proved so the same seal of initiation though in a different way of dispensation 2. As the mother of Jesus was a Christian So John Baptist even in his mothers womb may bee called a Christian who is said to leap for joy the same word with Maries rejoicing onely there z) Luk. 1.44 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 47. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Noune here a) Jo. 8.58 the Verb Thus Abraham was a Christian who rejoiced the same word used by Mary to see Christ's day to whom also the GOSPEL was preached Gal. 3.8 And thus all the faithfull of the Old Testament were Christians Now if you prove by consequence from that Scripture and truly that Mary was a Christian because shee rejoiced in Christ May not wee prove Infant-Baptism c. by consequence from Scripture too What will you not give YET that liberty which you take 3. For that in Luke 3. concerning Christ his being baptized I have spoken sufficiently to it and will not repeat in your page 38. 4. Your retorting the Argument hath wrought the extorting of this answer It 's strange you can find a Font in a broken Cistern page 8. and yet cannâ—â— find in Scripture precept or example for baptizing one child before years of discretion though never so plainly held forth to you So that M. B. is so far from being wounded with the edge of his own sword that with the keenness thereof it cutts you to the heart SECT 2. H. H. same p. M. Baxter's second Argument is It 's utterly inconsistent with obedience to the rule of Baptizing Answer This is the same with the first Argument Therefore the same answer may serve Reply 1. Then the same Reply might serve too But Secondly you have cunningly left out the word ORDINARILY in M. Baxter's Argument which was a seasonable qualification and very needfull to prevent mistakes to which you have exposed him out of a spitefull design 3. Nay you answer not one word to all the Scriptures and reasons b) See plain Scripture proof c. 8. from p. 126. to 130. he brings clearly and soundly to confirm his Minor In which it seems you
among Gentlewomen that have been tenderly brought up c. Their Dipping in cold water in course of nature would have killed hundreds and thousands either suddenly or by casting them into some Chronicall disease Answer Observe all M. Baxter's proof is nothing but I dare say Was there ever such a piece of Divinity seen as this Surely M. Baxter is afraid of losing Gentlewomen c. If he doth lose them hee loseth a great part of his Religion They will preach no longer then they are payd for it Therefore Titus 1.11 Secondly He durst not say suddenly because hundreds and thousands can prove him a false speaker Thirdly Nor doth he tell us how long after It may be they might have dyed as soon if they had not been Dipped for all must dye afterwards or else never Thus every fool may see his folly in this Reply I had thought neither to have troubled my self with transcribing much less with replying to this Section nor any one else with reading this answer but least iâ— should have been cryed up as unanswerable I have forced my self to speak somthing 1. Your OBSERVE is as a finger in the margin pointing out some remarkable passage What is that M. Baxter's proof is I DARE SAY Truly if this were all it were a wonder yet in our English Language which suits best to your capacity the phrase imports no more but a confident affirmation and so it 's clear M. Baxter intends it 2. But why must the Reader Observe it Because say you was there ever such a piece of Divinity as this Yes in your Book e. gr to instance but in one of many In your retorting M. Baxter's third Argument you come in with your But I SAY p. 89. And is not his I DARE SAY as good as yours I SAY why did you not bid the Reader observe that 3. If M. Baxter lose the Gentlewomen perhaps it may be a courtesie to you that if you have not enough already you may have some more to increase your number as your predecessors at Munster had 4. How many calumnies are heaped up together viz. those Gentlewomen have the heaviest purses in losing them wee lose a great part of out Religion c. unworthy to spend time and paper in replying to them Onely I am compelled to say M. Haggar would I believe quickly give over his trade of Dipping did he not catch some such fish as Peter did with mony in their mouths Mat 17.27 witness his late purse of sixty pound from his Ellesmer-Proselytes as I am certainly informed Therefore let him take that text Titus 1.11 to himself with 2 Pet. 2.3 to boot 5. You nibble a little at the matter of which more anon In the interim I reply to you in your words almost to M. B. you have used many vain nay vile words that prove nothing unlesse wee grant Dipping exclusively to bee the Ordinance of Christ which wee cannot c. 6. What need M. Baxter positively say SUDDENLY Is nothing murder but What presently destroys Is not a Consumption a disease as well as the Plague All acts of murder do not suddenly throw down but leisurely undermine the Garrison of the body If you should maliciously wound a man and he dye thereof within a year and a day the Laws of England which are grounded on or not contrary to the Scripture would find it murder If you dare say no It is to gratifie also your friends the Jesuites in justifying their Spanish or Italian Figgs 7. But grant that some have lived long after Dipping as you say yet that hinders not but such a Dipping TENDS to the overthrow of mens lives As a surfet or a wound doth though in providence some have escaped death thereby for the present as the putting the three Children bound into the fiery Furnace Daniel 3.23 27. did tend directly to overthrow their lives though they were miraculously preserved So Daniel's being cast into the Lyons Den Daniel 6 16. with a numberlesse number of the like import So that M. Haggar's evidence being thus weak hath called M. Baxter a false speaker too soon 8. Nay you are the false speaker and writer in quoting Mr. B. falsly for you leave out these words IN COLD WEATHER Which being inserted it may be truly asserted that such Dipping will kill hundreds and thousands I cannot tell what priviledge your dipping hath God hath not tied himself to work miracles your pretended obebedience to the Ordinance of Christ is but a miserable begging of the Question 9. As Mr. B. did not tell us how long after so neither can Mr. Haggar tell us how soon after Is nothing murder upon which we cannot undoubtedly conclude the time of dying 10. Is this your Scripture and experience to prove dipping no murder It may be they might have dyed as soor if they had never been dipt c. Is not Mr. Baxters DARE SAY better then your MAY BEE Did ever any man see such a piece of divinity or reason from a Champion of a Cause May not a Murderer at the barr plead as well It 's true I wounded the party but that did not tend to the overthrow of his life he might have dyed as soon if I had never hurt him for hee must needs dye afterwards Thus whilst you are a defender of dipping you are a pleader for murdering And therefore if every fool might see in this Mr. Baxters folly that was the reason Mr. Haggar spyed it for I professe I discern it not SECT 11. H. H. p. 92. 93. But he desperately proceeds like a man resolved not to take heed to his tongue which is set on fire of Hell c. Jam. Chap. 3. ver 6. I know not saith he what trick a coveteous Land-lord can find out to get his Tenants to die apace likelier then to get them to turn Anabaptists and covetous Physicians should not be much against them because Catarrhes c. may be bred and increased thus Answ All this is proved by M. Baxters DARE SAY Sound Divinity did Christ and his Apostles teach such doctrine Is not Mr. B. rather a Mountebank then a Divine may not believers say of him as P. of Elymas Acts 13.10 2 Pet. 1.5 c. And I can truly say with a good conscience he is spiritually blind for Peter exhorts the Saint to give diligence c. but whether he hath shewed any of these virtues in all this Argument I leave to the wise to judge and him to stand or fall to his master And proceed as I am commanded Prov. 26.5 Reply 1. Let the Reader judg whose tongue is set on fire of hell if any ones mouth ever smelt of brimstone M. Haggars doth Here is a Skavingers Cart unloaded you cannot leave your boys tricks of throwing dirt Is M. B. a Mountebank rather then a Divine any more then Luke was Emperick rather then an Evangelist b) Daveot on Col. 4.14 because he was a Physician I fear you are sick of
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
us whither he took them nor whence he brought them It is not likely the Jaylour had a pond or large bathing vessell in his house the nature of his office and heat of the Climate easily convince understanding men neither is it likely I am sure not exprest that he took them in the NIGHT to any river or fountain to be dipt in over head and eares this Circumstance of the Time doth evince it Though if it were so the action was carreid on with more modesty and less scandall then your day-dipping is 4. Let the Reader observe that the word Dipping is not expressly mentioned in any of the Texts alledged by you and that Dipping is proved onely by consequence and that very properly e. g. Eunuch and Philip went both down into the water therefore dipt Secondly Men and women were baptized therefore dipt for him and them include the whole man or men Thirdly Christ came out of the water Ergo Dipt Fourthly John baptized in Enon because there was much water c. Therefore he dipped c. Is this the foundation that you would have p. 1. the Saints to build on Do you not now believe and practise a duty not warranted by an expresse Syllabicall precept what intolerable partiality is this to allow consequences for dipping believers and to deny ours for baptizing believers Infants None of our consequences for the one are so strained and farr-fetcht as yours for the other SECT 22. H. H. p. 99. M. Baxter saith that some desparately conclude that if it be God's way he will save our lives how probabely soever the danger may seem to be To which he answers First This is to begg the Question nay I have shewed and am shewing it not God's way Answer 1. Let the Reader judge by the word whether M. Baxter hath shewed that baptizing believers is not Gods way Secondly If he be a shewing it we shall take notice of it hereafter for by his own confession he hath not shewed or proved it yet Reply 1. According to your old way of Sophistry you falsly represent the Question which is Whether Dipping not whether Baptizing of believers be God's way unlesse you think there is no way of baptizing but Dipping which is a begging of the Question 2. I confesse here is a veyn of unusuall modesty in referring M. Baxters 6 Arguments and your Answer to the Reader to be tryed by the Word and so do I. 3. It doth not Follow that M. Baxter hath not proved it to purpose because he saith he is a shewing c. You might argue as well against the Psalmist b) Psal 78 5 SHEWING to the generations to come the praises of the Lord c. And against Apollos c) Acts 18 28 SHEWING by the Scripture that Jesus was the Christ yea against Christ himself d) Luke 8 1 SHEWING the glad tidings of the Kingdom of God Surely you did not intend this as an Answer to M. Baxter but a Diversion for the Reader yet M. Baxter saith e) p. 136. God hath appointed no Ordinance contradictory to his great morall commands of which rationall proof you take no notice of SECT 23. H. H. Same p. M. Baxter saith Secondly God must not be Tempted this was the Divels trick to have drawn Christ under pretence of Scripture and trusting God to have cast himself in danger of death Answer First That way that the Divel took was never the way of God but ours was and is Act. 8.12 Secondly There was no Scripture that said Cast thy self down nor that said at any time As I have shewed at large in Answer to yous Tenth Position c. Reply 1. You swarve from the Question in hand which is now concerning the manner of baptizing not who is the subject person to be baptized 2. In what sense the Baptizing of men and women is God's way hath been shewed though in your sense it is not yet proved by you 3. For the rest yo refer the Reader to your Answer f) In your p. 4◠c. and so do I to this reply there SECT 24. H. H. p. 100. You say we might have said so to the Disciples that if it were God's command to keep the Sabbath then they needed not to rubb the eares of Corne for God could sustain them without Answer So we might if God had commanded us so to keep the Sabbath as not to eat on that day But it 's otherwise Exodus 16.22.23 Though they might not keep a fire to bake seeth or rost on that day Therefore this your objection is nothing for there is both command and example to baptize believers Mat. 28.19.20 Mark 16.15 16. c. Ergo Frothy and vain Reply M. Haggar your Bottle works out little else then Froth for First That Text nor any other forbids roasting on the Sabbath nay it is allowed and commanded for the Paschall Lamb was to be roasted in the fire g) Exod. 12.9 Deut. 16.7 and the Passeover might fall sometimes on the Sabbath-day h) See Assem Annota in Joh. 19.31 why else is it called an high-day or great day but because of the concurrence of a double Celebrity viz. The Sabbath and Passeover 2. It 's a great Question whether the Pharisees blamed the Disciples for eating or plucking the ears of Corne on the Sabbath day this onely is mentioned Mark 2.23.24 But if it were for eating you grant they might do so without breach of the Sabbath and so M. Baxter's Inference is rather confirmed by your silly shift 3. In that you grant you might say so the Disciples to the Dippers too It is God's Ordinance and he can preserve you what is this but to tie him to a constant working of miracles for the maintenāce of a questionable at least mode of Baptizing your argument speaks as much for Transubstantiation as such preservation There is as much ground to believe a Miracle in that as in this Sacrament i. e. none at all 4. The Texts you bring for baptizing are impertinently and too frequently alledged by you And have been spoken to before Here is your same fault to fly from the manner which falls now under debate to the subject of Baptism SECT 25. H. H. You say If it were a duty yet when it is inconsistent with a greater duty it 's at any time sinfull for it 's alwayes a sinn to prefer a lesser duty before a greater But the duty of self preservation is a morall duty and baptizing is but positive therefore it is a sin to prefer it before selfe preservation Answer Now M. Baxter laies himself open to purpose that all may know he is one of those 2 Tim. 3.1 2. Lovers of themselves For hee prefers self preservation before obeying the command and following the example of Christ John 14.15.21 Mat. 10.27 38 39. If M. Baxter make so much of following Christ into the water how will he follow him through the fire Mat. 3.15 c. Reply 1.
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
Mark 5.3 5. but how came they dead the Magistrate you say prisoned banished and hanged them I easily believe that they who were hanged were dead but that the prisoned or banished were so unlesse civilly dead in Law or spiritually dead in sin is beyond my faith And me thinks though the imprisoned could not write yet the banished might have the liberty of pen and ink Thus whilst you would scape the Bears skin you get into the Foxes by misciting Mr. B. 2. As you have manifested your folly so you discover a piece of daring pride in challenging those three worthies to answer you Goliah-like done But Sir you must not take it unkindly if I tell you and so I do your book is not worth the answering by such worthy Champions Nor had it been by me had not some of your brood with a braving importunity forced this from me Of all which and more I have given an account in the Epistle to the Reader 3. It had been more meet in my judgment â—hat you should first have answered Calvin now he is dead laid in grave and past answering for himself so you might have cryed quittance with him SECT 39. H. H. p. 107. You say Calvin in his letter shews two sorts of Anabaptists one boasted of Scripture and pleaded it with great confidence Answ 1. If they so boasted they boasted of that which is good 2 Cor. 11.10 Psal 44.8 and if you would boast of them more then you do it would be better for you 2. Doth it displease you to hear men plead Scripture for what they hold are you such enemies to hold holy Scripture Take heed least white you boast your selvs to be wise without or above them you become foools 1 Cor. 3.19.20 21. If those two things be the worst that Calvin and you can say of those Anabaptists I shall not be ashamed to own them for Christians before all men Reply 1. If boasting be taken in the right sence I agree with you the more you and I boast of Scripture the better it is for you and me Though those Scriptures you brought to prove this be impertinent 2. It doth not displease Calvin or Mr. Baxter that men boast of and plead Scripture but that they shamefully abuse it to the maintenance of their cursed errours as if God had provided armes for Sathan gathering that which the Holy Ghost never scattered and wracking it to speak that he never intended And if you have a love to the truth as it is in Jesus I think you will be displeased to see spiders gather poyson from such flowers and brats draw blood in stead of milk from those sacred breasts which is Calvins c. meaning when he says they boast of Scripture Christ liked the Law but not the Pharisees Leaven We commend the Text but not the Anabaptists Comment And therefore while you wonder at them take heed you be not of those Act. 13.41 3. Your civill caveat which is as a flower in a dunghil I thank you for it I like not truth the worse from whomsoever it coms f) Si caecus mòstravet iter tamen aspice Horat. I will embrace good counsell ever from an enemy for those 1000 you talk of I have replyed to 4. In the conclusion though you have thrust us out at the window yet you have unawares let us into the Church at the door for if we plead Scripture more truly then the Anabaptist for what we hold you need not to be ashamed to own us for Christians before all men But 5. Will Mr. H. indeed own all for Christians that plead Scripture his words can bear no other construction then not only Hereticks but Satan himself may come in for a room among Christians Did not Satan plead s) Mat. 4 6. Et sient caput tunc capiti nunc quoque memhrâ— membris c. com c. 51. Scripture to Christ Mat. 4.6 And as impertinently as you have done as hath been shewed and have not his first born children I mean Hereticks both pleaded and boasted of Scriptures Now let any Heretick have but his book and by your doctrine he wil never be condemned Is this boasting and pleading Scripture good Certainly you are too lavish now when you cut the Devill and his Imps a piece of the childrens bread Thus you stand upon such a guard your self as defends and patronizes the worst of men and the vilest opinions of those worst of men Why may not any who plead Scripture with confidence be as good Christians as Anabaptists are or boast themselvs to bee SECT 40. H. H. As for your other sort you talk of that are above Scripture that confound all things c. I and all that own the Scriptures do deny and defie them and their ways and you do wickedly to call them Anabaptists whom Calv. calls Libertines as you confesse p. 141. Reply 1. I believe all that own the Scripure as they should do deny and defie them and their ways But I doubt whether you do as you say for then you deny and defie Anabaptism for that is their way still though they fly higher then yet you have done But as many in word defie the Devill and spit at the mention of his name yet own him in life So I fear you do with those Anabaptists 2. To pass by the overflowings of your gall against M. B. the meanest may see you would fain creep out at any hole Calvin calls them Libertines Therefore M. B. doth wickedly in calling them Anabaptists like this Protestants are of two sorts either Lutherans or Calvinists Therefore he that calls the Calvinists Protestants doth wickedly therein Or if I should say there are two sorts of Christians viz. Protestants and Anabaptists is it maliciously done to say Anabaptists are Christians upon the supposall SECT 41. H. H. p. 108. You say pag. 142. No man can shew you one man of the Anabaptists that is not tainted with some of these foresaid wickednesses Answ If any of us should say wee were never lyars wee should be still lyars Rom. 3.10 to 16. This is the condition of all men before faith and repentance Luk. 13.2 3 4. again 1 Cor. 6.9.10 11. And I dare not say but such as have been gross sinners may on their conversion be brought into the Anabaptists Churches c. Reply 1. I will not quarrell with you about the first part of this your rambling Answer It s to be acknowledge with shame and sorrow we are vile by nature 2. Surely you have the Art of breathing on your Converts with Knipperdoling u) Sleid com 〈◊〉 â—0 bidding them to receive the holy Ghost If those of the Anabaptists Church though grosse sinners when of our Church are now Saints which is nothing else but a blasphemous crack or vain brag a Paradox to me and shall be believed when you prove your Dipping an Ordinance of Christ and your Baptizing exepere operato the Laver of regeneration for the
Humane Learning is an excellent gift of God and needs not my patronage being able to plead for it self against all the friends of ignorance and the works and workers of darkness yet I shall speak something of it in this place according to my promise and others expectance As I desire to bless God for the gifts which he hath richly bestowed on many of his servants and to bewail my own defect therein So I know God the Author of it hath and will execute severe vengeance as on the abusers so on the contemners of it But tell me 1. Doth not wise Solomon though he acknowledged wisedom i. e. humane learning in natural moral and political things in comparison of the fear of God to be but vanity and vexation of spirit Eccl. 1.17 18. 12.13 yet tells us That wisdom excells folly as far as light excells darkness Eccl. 2.12 13.14 Was not Moses learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians Acts 7 22. which sure was humane learning * Just Mart. Râ—sp ad Qu. 25. viz. in Geometrie Astronomy Astrologie c. which out of your profound ignorance or profane scornfulness you are pleased to term Whimsies pag. 35. Was not Daniel and his Companions skilful in all the Wisdom which was famous in the Court of Babylon Dan. 1.4 5 6. Was not Paul brought up at the feet of Gamaliel Acts 22.3 and endowed with all the improvements of humane learning which those times could afford What should I say of Isaiah e) Isa 50.4 The Lord hath given me the tongue of the learned Luke Apollos c. who had eminent acquired endowments which all were made serviceable to God in the work to which they were called And whatsoever some others of the Prophets and Apostles wanted in acquired endowments was supplied by infused in that they were enabled to speak with tongue without study Acts 2. 2 Cor. c. 14. What would you have separated from Moses's Church or Daniel's or the rest because they stood so much in humane learning If you say that though they used humane learning they did not ground their religion on it no more can you say and prove truly of us We ground our Religion on the Scripture but make use of humane learning to know the meaning of the Scripture knowing it is a means sanctified of God for that purpose as of humane eies to read it humane reason to understand it desiring the Lord to sanctifie this humane ability but not casting away eies ears reason or learning If you say we abuse humane learning so did not the Apostles and Prophets Be it so But will you reject good things for the abuse then must you cast away eies ears reason meat drink apparel If you will separate from societies where good things are abused you must separate from all societies and your selves too 2ly Hath not God's providence made special use of the Exactness of the Hebrew Scribes Scholars and Rabbins for the preservation of the Scriptures of the Old Testament even in the least points and tittles Yea how could the Scripture of the Old and New Testament have been conveighed to us without Humane Learning unless wee must have had continual miracles Was not humane learning both amongst the Heathen and the Jews the means of the first Translation of the Old Testament to the spreading abroad of Divine Truth amongst the Nations and to make way for their call to the Gospel And hath not this been the blessed means which God hath used for communicating the knowledge of the whole Scripture to you and many thousands more who must for ever have been ignorant of them if they had continued sealed and locked up which they must for ever have been had not the Key of Humane Learning opened this Treasure to us Oh monstrous ingratitude to spurn at so happy an instrument of conveighing the knowledge of God and of the Scriptures to us 3ly Do you not know that the times of greatest ignorance and decaies or neglects of Humane Learning in the Church were the times of greatest Superstition Idolatry and Deformation when the Prince of Darkness uncontroulably ruled by his substitute Antichrist who was in those times especially as great an enemy to humane learning as you your selvs loth to be at the pains to get it himself and disdaining that any under him should bee more knowing then himself Under whom that illiterate herd of Monks and Friers bore the greatest sway and the blind led the blind into the pit Mat. 15.14 And if here and there a learned man was found in those times their humane learning was counted a sufficient ground to charge them with Heresie or some other hainous offence And can you be ignorant that the grand design of Antichrist is to keep the people in ignorance and illiterateness concerning the Scriptures that they may neither be able to understand them in their original languages which indeed were a work of greater learning then ordinary capacities and the generality of the people can attain to nor yet so much as have them translated into known languages which cannot be without much humane learning at least of some choice men least the light of the Scripture shining forth to the people by means of humane learning the abominableness of their Darkeness should be discovered 4ly Know you not that the breaking forth of Humane Learning about 200 years ago was a preparative and introduction to the breaking forth of the Gospel from under the Cloud and restauration of Religion Doubtless the Spirit of God stirred up those generous spirits impatient of the torpid ignorance which by the cunning of Antichrist and his instruments had over-spread the world with indefatigable industrie to recover learning out of the rubbish in which it had laien buried a long time So that in a while the knowledge of the Greek Hebrew and Chaldee tongues in which the Scriptures were first written and of the Syriack and Arabick into which there were most famous and antient Translations and other Arts and Sciences by which the Writings of the Learned might be better understood were speedily brought to a wonderful splendor and perfection And then presently after these dawnings of Humane Learning Christ the Sun of Righteousness arose in the sincere preaching of the Gospel and expelled the darkness of ignorance and superstition out of many Nations in great measure 5. How is it possible that the Scriptures confessedly the rule of true Religion should be understood by us English-men or any other Christians without the help of humane Learning unless by immediate inspiration and the miraculous gift of speaking with and interpreting of strange tongues and other sudden Revelations which were peculiar to the Prophets and Apostles and those primitive times which none of you as I know pretend to and which to expect now were high presumption if not tempting of God The Original Languages of the Scripture cannot ordinarily be understood without Grammar Learning there is much Oratory in
Scripture without some skill in the original or without Translation by others In the former we see with our own eies in the latter with others but neither can be ordinarily without Learning So that it 's plain Satan will set up his Kingdom of Darkness where ever the light of humane learning is suppressed 9. To convince you and the rest of your Gang Suppose you meet with an Arrian that denies the Godhead of Christ you bring for your faith those words The Word was God he replies this Text onely proves that Christ is God by office as the Angels and Magistrates are but not by nature and gives this reason because the Article is wanting in that Text * John 1.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. How without Learning wil you confute this Heretick I marvel These things I thought good to say to this unreasonable and unlearned opinion which would explode humane learning though much more might have been said if the opinion or opinionists deserved it knowing that if people be possessed with this perswasion that humane learning is unlawful whatsoever is done in way of indeavours to reduce simple seduced people from their errors will be in vain for they say All this is but the fruit of humane learning therefore to be sleighted yea abhorred SECT 2. H. H. p. 126. But you plead Humane Learning to be the glory of your Ministry sleighting all who have not served an Apprenticeship at Cambridge and Oxford calling your selvs Orthodox Divines and the other illiterate Mechanick men Reply 1. Reader I thought good to take in this which Mr. Haggar calls his second reason of dissenting from us in this place as properly belonging to this head under consideration which he hath miserably confounded in the building of his Babel Therefore 1. Where is it written that it is a sin to plead Humane Learning next to grace to be the glory of our Ministry To use your own words in the next pag. If there be such a place let us see it but if there be not for shame leave this idle fantastical reasoning 2. That Humane learning sanctified is a glorious ornament to us and our Ministry none but inhumane and illiterate men can deny since it 's no small piece of Moses his honor that he was learned in all the wisdome of the Egyptians as was said before i. e. in Mathematicks and Physicks c. Acts 6 22. as Doctor Hammond shews Now though we glorifie God for humane learning bestowed on his servants yet I say with the Apostle Gal. 6.14 God forbid that we should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ c. 3. To say nothing of your scornful term serving an Apprenticeship c. It is false that we sleight all that are not University men for we do not onely honor some godly and learned Ministers who never were brought up at the feet of Gamaliel but the Reverend Commissioners for Approbation have upon examination approved some to be publick Preachers who never saw Cambridge or Oxford 4. It 's as false that we call all those Orthodox Divines who have as you scoffingly say served an Apprenticeship at Cambridge or Oxford we know some to be Heterodox the more is the pity as your brother Brown sometime u) See his Answer to Mr. Troughton Title page of Oriel Colledge in Oxford and it is as true that we call some other illiterate mechanick men and why should not we call a Spade a Spade SECT 3. H. H. p. 27. When you are put to it you will confess that Learning is but the Handmaid and Grace the Mistris But where is this written It 's one of your cunningly devised Fables 2 Pet. 1.16 Grace in the heart can do her work without a Maid 2 Cor. 12.9 Mark 16.15 16. Mat. 24.13 John 10.27 28. He doth not say if they have Humane Learning or been educated at Cambridge or Oxford Nay God threatens to destroy the wisdom of the wise 1 Cor. 1.19 and whom doth he chuse see 1 Cor. 1.26 27 28 29. And the Lord is so far from setting up learned men above unlearned that Christ saith Luk. 10 21. Jam. 2.5 Reply 1. You might have had the wit or honesty to have told us who they are that confess Learning is Graces Handmaid I confess I have heard it acknowledged that humane Learning is an Handmaid to Divinity But be it as you say yet we say withall that the maid must not perk it over the mistris as Hagar dâ—d over Sarah 2. When you shew us in what Scripture it is written that Christening of Children is a couzening of Children and that when we have done we make them seven times harder to be converted to the Faith c. pag. 121. we will shew you where that Apophthegme is written nay this is one of your cunningly devised Fables 2 Pet. 1 16. The word is rendred by some artificially composed by others as our Translation subtilly devised that they seem to bee true which indeed are false Store we have of such in your book as is obvious to the judicious Reader 3. What if Grace can do her own work without a maid yet a gracious Minister cannot do his work handsomely without humane Learning A Minister must be able to convince gain-saiers Tit. 1.9 Now how an unlearned Minister should ordinarily convince a learned Heretick I am yet to learn 4. I cannot but express some pangs of holy indignation at your gross but usual abuse of Scripture cited by you in this pag. out of Matthew Mark Luke John and the Epistle to the Corinthians 1. None of these places expresly speak of or against humane Learning what you speak from them is but by consequence onely and that very miserably 2ly Most of these places speak nothing directly in reference to Ministers as such but to people under a Gospel-ministry 3ly It 's granted that grace saves a man without learning though learning cannot without grace yet Ministers are to be considered in a double capacity As Christians and so it 's confessed grace can do his own work without the handmaid of humane Learning or as Ministers and so it must be acknowledged that grace cannot do the work of a Minister without humane Learning unless perhaps weakly and bunglingly This is no blasphemy against the God of Grace nor disparagement to the Grace of God 4. Because I hinted a little before in the general Mr. Haggar's miserable consequences I shall present some of them to the view of the Reader which indeed I had thought to have passed by in silence as unworthy to be named Mark 16.15 16 e. gr 1. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved John 10 27 28. Therefore grace in the heart of man or woman can do her work without the maid of humane Learning 2ly Christs sheep hear his voice and follow him and none shall pluck them out of his hand Therefore grace can do her own work without a maid Beside what a
have them void of all humane learning Truly when I see the boldness and confidence of Mr. Haggar and perceiv that he is an unlearned and ignorant man I cannot but marvel 5. Thus all men to be sure judicious may see whether the Priests of this Nation as M Hag. scornfully calls them do walk contrary to Christ and his Discipes SECT 5. H. H. same p. Object Christ was able to teach them all wisedom and did give them extraordinary gifts for the perfecting of his work but now there is none such Therefore men must get abilities by humane learning Answer This is a gross mistake for we have nothing else to do but to believe and obey that Word which was by them preached when they were so endued with those gists aforesaid And now if any man preach he must preach that Word 2 Tim. 4.2.3 4. For that is able to do all the work of conversion and sanctification and to make us wise to Salvation c. 2 Tim. 3.15 16 17. See whom the Apostle accurseth Gal. 1.8 9. Therefore we are commanded 2 Thes 2.15 and Christ prayeth Joh. 17.20 Therefore they are the preachers by whom 〈◊〉 do believe and the Word is already preached that I must believe and obey Therefore no need of a little dirty humane learning to make a man a preacher of that which is so plainly preached already but every Englishman man declare it to his native Country-men and so may men in all Nations Reply 1. Here we have again some ropes of sand if that word must be preached which is able to convert sanctifie and save Then the preacher hath no need of Humane Learning 2. They are accursed that preach any other Gospel c. Therefore no need of Humane Learning 3. We must stand fast and hold the traditions we have been taught 4. Christ prays for all those that shall believe in him c. Therefore no need of Humane Learning Are you not ashamed of such absurd Arguings If you will not serve and Apprenticeship at either of our Universities I will give you twice so many years to prove the consequence you may delude your unlearned ignorant Proselytes but not us who can distinguish between a Syllogism and a Paralogism 2. What nothing else to do but to believe and obey that word which was by them preached must not I read and meditate on that word And must not you work at your calling in the week day or ride up and down the Country to make a Proselyte May not any man preach and declare the Word by your doctrine Nay why did you write print and publish this Book if you had nothing else to do but to believe and obey that Word c. If any of the particulars be expressed or implyed in that Word I would fain know how without Humane Learning the Scriptures could have been translated out of their Originalls into known tongues Suppose English or how you could have read and preached in English without Humane Learning but enough of this before 3. Me thinks I see you in Hieram's temper p) 1 K 9.13 who called the Land that Solomon gave him Cabul which word in the Phaenician Language q) Jun. Tremel Bercho of Humane learning saith justi â—ecipiunt docti respiciunt stulti despiciunt signifies displeasing and by some of the Jews it signifies Dirty So that Humane Learning which Christ greater then Solomon hath given to some of his Ministers is displeasing to you and therefore you call it DIRTY Learning in scorn and indignation No marvel it makes your folly manifest 4. Whereas you say any English man may declare the Word to his Country men and so may men in all Nations either you lispe in the language of the Quakers who cal even the holy Scriptures but a Declaration or if by declaring you mean preaching as in your page 64. women may preach or declare the mind of God to others then least women should want tongues by your doctrine men in ALL Nations may preach by virtue of M. Haggar's Ordination or Approbation CHAP. XVIII Of Infant-Baptism H. H. Secondly your Rantizing or Cozening of poor babes in their Cradles take away that and you have no Church But others who have Faithfully preached the Gospell and converted souls to the Faith and baptized them too in the name of Jesus Christ have a far greater Reply 1. How many crude Allegations do you here assert without any proof at all as that we Rantize babes nay cozen them nay in their Cradles c. all which are as truly denied by us as they are confidently yet barely affirmed by you 2. If baptism according to your Doctrines confuted be essentiall to constitute a Church then take away that and we have no Church but the Antecedent is false and therefore the Consequent 3. If by others you mean the Anabaptists I deny that you or they have faithfully preached the Gospell witnessed the many errours vented by them and discovered to be such in this book or that you have converted souls to the faith I never heard of an ignorant profane person wrought upon by your Ministry only you build on our foundation and gather where you never scattered subverting simple and unstable souls 4. How pitifully do you again contradict your self For if you have a far greater Church then we how is it that we have no Church If Goliah be a greater man then David doth that hold out that David is no man 5. I suppose you mean that Infant-Baptism is one of our pillars on which our Church stands The answer to the first may suffice here But whether Infant Baptism be according to the will of Christ hath been the main subject of this debate And therefore let the Reader compare your Answer and this Reply together and judge accordingly Only I will close with this This Pillar remains unshaken or is more settled by being shaken CHAP. XIX Of Tithes SECT 1. H. H. p. 123. Thirdly Your Tithes or forced maintenance The wages of unrighteousness 2 Pet 2.15 after which you all go astray take away that and wee may preach who will for all you By which it appeareth you are all Hirelings and will labour no longer then you are payd for it neither do you care for the Flock any longer then you are paid for it by all which you make that old Papisticall Proverb good upon your selves viz. No penny no Pater Noster So say you all in effect no mony no preaching c. Reply 1. If our Tithes be the wages of unrighteousness in the place cited by your corrupt gloss r) Numb 23.23 and 24. with Josh 13.22 a Soath-sayer or Magician The Prayers of them must be Balak's the receivers of them must be Balaam's then preaching must be cursing of God's people and what then must H. H. be who speaking with man's voyce Å¿) 1 Pet. 2.16 rebukes But 2. Our Tythes are not wages of unrighteousness neither doth the Holy Ghost call
boasting we can trust our Master for a livelyhood whiles we are about his work 4. Whereas you would have us content with what the people will freely give us you have no precept for that What is said in Mat. 10.8 Freely ye have received freely give is proved but a Temporary command and that in reference to those miraculous works mentioned in the beginning of that verse Besides you bewray whose Successors you are viz. Even of those false Teachers who were cropâ— into the Church of Corinth and boasted of themselves and their doctâ—ine and that they would preach the Gospel freely and to cried down Paul Ministry 2 Cor. 11.12 13. being themselvs deceitful workers and transforming themselvs into the Apostles of Christ 5. As you superciliously judge your self and illiterate mechanick men better able to go through the work of the Ministry then we So unwares you call your selvs Hirelings as well as us for you say p. 123. And to be content with the wages Christ hath a lowed them and who but Hirelings receive wages SECT 6. H. H. same page Third Obj. 1 Cor. 9.7 Who goeth a warfare at his own charges Answ True neither do any go awarfare at their enemies charges such you say are the An abaptists Therefore you cannot in conscience expect any from them because you war not for them but against them That Scripture onely shews you should have charges of them you fight for and good reason if the cause be good but it must be freely if you force them you fight not for them but against them and make them your enemies and lâ—se your privilâ—gâ—s Reply 1. If it be true you grant as much as is dâ—sired that Ministers as well as souldiers must be mainteined not at their own but others charges 2. It 's false that none go a warfare at their enemies charges The State waâ—â—s against Papists in 〈◊〉 â—â—â—ly at the charges of the Papists in England Theâ—â—fore 〈◊〉 one your frequent inconsequences They or you a◠〈◊〉 â—â—emies therefore we cannot in conscience expect anâ— from them 3. It 's as false that we war not for them soil the Anabaptists But against them we fight not against their persons for whom we pray but against their practices against which we pray and preach too Therefore if this be all as you say we can have from that Scripture that we should have charges of them we fight for then they are to bear our charges and furnish us with necessaries 4. The rest is but a piece of Seditious doctrine 1. No maintenance unless the quarrel be good Must the common souldier fit in judgment on the cause 2. This maintenance must be free and not forced May not souldiers or Constables distrain for non-paiment of the monthly Taxe 3. Forcing is a losing of privilege Is not the former instance an Argument rather of gaining and confirming your privilege SECT 7. H. H. p. 126. Fourth Objection You say who planteth a Vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof Answ True But you never planted the Vineyard of the Separatists and Anabaptiss therefore you may not eat of the fruit of their labors except you buy it or take it from them wickedly by force Nay you say we are not the Lord's Vineyard but rather an accursed people like the ground that brings forth thorns and thistles therefore you cannot possibly expect any fruit of us for men cannot gather grapes of Thorns nor Figgs of Thistles Reply 1. If it be true you grant again as much as is desired 2. The Vineyard of the Separatists and Anabaptists as they are now called and termed were once planted by us and had so continued if you had not broken down the wall and stollen away the plants Nay the Lord himself may complain of you as he doth of Israel I had planted thee a noble Vine wholly a right seed how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange Vine to me Jer. 2.2 3. Your exception is a meer begging of the Question 4. We do say You are a Vineyard but bringing forth wilde grapes Isa 5.2 3 4. your Vine being the Vine of Sodom Deut. 32.32 and of the fields of Gomorrah your grapes are grapes of gall bitter clusters 5. As the Frenchman they say had rather leese his God then his jest So you are content to be thorns and thistles rather then we should have the grapes and figs of maintenance from you I pitty your lamentable abuse of Scripture 6. If we cannot possibly expect any fruit from you much lesse force you yet it seems by you we may from the Vineyard which we tend and dresse SECT 8. H. H. same pag. Again you will say Who seedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk thereof Answ Truth But you do not feed the flock of the Separates and Anabaptists nay you say they are not of the flock of Christ but Wolves and Tygres therefore you have no right to their milk nor can you expect any from them Reply 1. The Separates and Anabaptists were once of our flock till you â—tole them away and therefore by your expression you grant We might then eat of their milk 2. If they be degenerate into anâ—hâ—rd of Wolves and Tygres yet while they live within the Fold of our parishes we may by the law of the land which is not repugnant to the law of God as hath been shewed require lawfully milk from them i e. subsistence or maintenance 3. As we HAVE fed them so we WOULD feed them if you had not stollen them away or they themselvs leapt out of the pasture And it is a great Question Whether we may not claim them as part of our flock still Absolon could not shake off the relation of Davids son though he did shake off naturall affection to David and by rebellion endeavoured to dethrone him A Landlord may demand and exact rent of his Tenant though de doth treacherously attourn to another a meerstranger compritively SECT 9. H. H. same p. Lastly you say we must not muzzle the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the corn Answ True But what is that to the other beasts that tread out no corn but rather destroy it and will not suffer it to grow till the Harvest but will pall up wheat and tares together contrary to Matth. 13.28 29 30. Reply 1. If by beasts you mean the Ministers of the Gospell you include your self by saying OTHER BEASTS and who they are that tread out no â—orn I cannot imagine we have now no dumb Sir John's nor bare Readers but such as are apt to teach b) 1 Tim. 3.2 with and c) ch 5.17 labour in the word and doctrine 2. Though Christ doth not tell us in the explication of the parable d) Iâ—ta ad parabolae sinifieationeâ—n no peâ—tnebant Mâ—ulta eniâ—n in parabolâ—s non ad significaâ—dam sed ad in len dam narraâ—iâ—nem adhâ—bentur Maldon in loc who the men were that sleâ—t and who
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