not so believe 3. You distinguish foolishly between Faith and Obedidience for Faith it self is an obediential act It 's called the obedience of Faith a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e Ut homines fide obediant Deo Beza in loc Rom. 1.5 16.26 and to believe is to obey as appear◠by the opposition Joh 3.36 b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that believeth not the Son i. e. He that obeieth not the Son as Beza translates it and children of unbelief are called Eph. 22 children of disobedience 4. It seems by your confession that your words whereby you express your self do not pertain to the rule of Faith and Obedience 5. I wonder you daresay that you put not men on believing or doing any thing as a duty that is not written in Scripture For do you not put men to believe that Infants are neither Disciples nor Church-members nor in Covenant c. That they dying in their Infancie are saved by Christ's death without actuall faith pag. 61. And have you not rightly proved praying in a man's family giving thanks at meals Women's receiving the Lord's Supper c. to be duties yet none of the foresaid particulars are expresly written in Scripture and would you have them done but not in faith SECT 53. H. H. Herein lies the depth of all deceits viz. Because Christ expounded the Scriptures of the Prophets therefore men will take in hand to expound his Expositions q. We could make them plainer then he hath left them or make any thing true that is not written in them And because Philip opened the Scripture to the Eunuch Act. 8. therefore men will take in hand to open Philip's words so as to make them to appear otherwise then they are written Reply 1. You are fallen deep into the pit of Deceit if no Minister may preach e. g. on Mat. 5. where Christ expounds the true meaning of the Law and clears it from the Pharisees false glosses or on Mark 4.34 where Christ Expounded all to his Disciples or on Luk. 24.27 where beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he Expounded to them c. or on Acts 8. instanced in by your self For what is it to preach but to expound and apply the Word of the Lord. 2. You bewray your weakness and wickedness things usual to persons wedded to their opinions in contradicting your self for you take upon you all along to expound the Expositions of Christ and his Apostles Do not you make their sayings plainer then they have left them But I crie you mercy you make them appear otherwise then they are written SECT 54. H. H. For the plainer manifestation of the truth I desire all impartial men to consider these following things 1. If I would prove by Scripture that God created heaven and earth I must bring a Scripture that speaks so as Gen. 1.1 2ly Or that God created man upright Eccles 7.29 Or 3ly that all men since Adam's fall were sinners Rom. 3.23 Or 4ly That God sent his Son to redeem those sinners 1 Tim. 1.15 Chap. 2.6 Or 5ly That the dead shall rise Mar. 12. ver 25 26 c. Reply 1. What need this vain repetition your first instance hath been answered before in your p. 40. and your last in p. 48. 2. The other Scriptures do not say in express terms what yet you truly affirm you swerve from your own pattern Let the Reader view your quotations and compare them with your expressions 3. What blindness and blockishness is here If you would prove that men must give thanks at meals pray in and with their families that women are to receive the Lord's Supper bring some Scriptures that speak so but you cannot in express terms though you do it by consequence p. 12 13 14. so do we for Infant-baptism SECT 55. H. H. p. 50. To conclude If I would prove that men and women should be baptized when they believe I must bring a Scripture that saies so as Acts 8.12 37. And now if any man will prove that little babes should be baptized let them bring one Scripture to prove it and then they will do honestly otherwise c. Reply 1. This Scripture and the challenge have been answered before I will not trouble the Reader with Tautologies as you do CHAP. X. Concerning Consequences drawn from Scripture c. SECT 1. H. H. But now a word to Mr. Cook who saith that we never read in the Scriptures Go H. H. and J. B. teach all nations and baptize c. nor do we read that Christ gave a command to you two to preach the Gospel c. Answ This is but a cunning devised Fable a subtil sophistry of Mr. Cooks to deceive the hearts of the simple but easily discovered by them to whom the Lord hath given understanding We do not desire Mr. B. and Mr. C. to bring a Scripture that saith Go R. B. or go W. C. and baptize Children that cannot speak nor understand what you preach c. Reply 1. Bravely done Mr. Haggar when you cannot shape an handsom answer to Mr. C. then according to your custome you crie A cunning devised fable subtil sophistry c. which charge how unjustly as well as absurdly after a long digression it comes in here I leave to the judgment of the intelligent must passe as words of course to please or fright the simple 2. He hath lost his understanding I think that cannot see you here quite and clean yielding the cause to Mr. C. by a tacite granting that H. Hag. and J. Brown are by consequence from Matth. 28.19 commanded to teach and baptize c. For you say We do not desire c. 3. Infant-baptism hath been largely proved by many Scriptures and Arguments grounded on Scriptures specially in that very book of Mr. Cooks which you pretend to answer but scarce meddle with unlesse a lapp and snatch and away 4. As to that instance in that book requiring you to make out your practice by express Scripture it is not so easily answered as you imagine For 1. whereas you say you desire not Mr. B. or Mr. C. to bring a Scripture that saith Go R. B. go W. C. c. that 's nothing We have no more reason to be satisfied in your practice without express and immediate Scripture then you have in ours without such Scripture though many Consequences from Scripture are clearly brought Or rather if you were impartial you should have justified your own practice by express Scripture without Consequences before you had urged us thereto For 2ly where is it expressed in Scripture that you are appointed to go up and down in several parts of England and to draw people being Christians by profession and brought up from their childhood in that Religion wherein to they were baptized in Infancy to renounce their Infant-baptism and to be dipped in such a pit or Pool c. before such a company whether naked or covered with such a form of English words
Reply 1. In saying Christ is called a rock and Peter a stone Do you not more then insinuate that Christ is not a stone which is contrary to your own quotation Ephes 2.20 Christ himself being the chief corner-stone though I confess it is not the same word in the original d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nay contrary to diverse oâ—her Scriptures where Christ is expresly called a stone e. gr Isa 28.16 Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation a STONE Act. 4.11 This is the STONE which was set at nought by you builders Yea in the very place even now by you cited Psal 118.22 with Mat. 21.42 1 Pet. 2.4 To whom coming as unto a living STONE 2. Though I am far from believing that the Church is built on Peter in the Popish sense yet I may truly and safely hold that in some sense the Church is built on Peter for it 's plain that Peter was an Apostle and it 's as plain Ephes 2 20. We are built upon the foundation of the Apostles This is no whit helpful to the Papists nor hurtful to us 3. Admit the Church is not built upon Peter yet your reason is very weak because forsooth Peter is or is called a Stone Sure you had a mind to gratifie your dear mother the Church of Rome notwithstanding your loud cry as the Papists say The Learned give us better reasons To instance onely in one e) Chemn Har. mon cap. 24. Peter hath his name ab illa petra from that rock for two causes 1. Because notwithstanding Sathan's subtilty and his own infirmity Luke 22.31 32 he should adhere to that rock and be as a living stone built on him 2. Because by his Ministry and confession Mat. 16.18 Christ would build his Church on himself the true rock 4. If it be plain in Christs words f) Mat. 16.18 that the Saints ought to build on Christ the foundation then something may be plain by consequence which is not exprest in the text You are for consequences betimes SECT 3. H. H. pag. 2. And who that is a Christian knoweth not that the Church of Christ is built on the rock Christ Therefore David saith 2 Sam. 22.2 The Lord is my rock And Verse 47. Blessed be the God of the rock of my salvation c. all which I suppose will not be denied by any that own Christ Reply 1. You may do well to examine throughly whether your Church be built on the rock Christ 2. To say nothing that you do not cite the words of David as they are in our Bible specially verse 47. If every Christian knows that the Church of Christ is built on the rock Christ and none that own Christ will deny it then I suppose you will own me and the rest of my perswasion for Christians and owners of Christ who are neither ignorant of the one nor deniers of the other This is the best if not the onely piece of charity that is to be found in the Book SECT 4. H. H. But the main question is How the Saints may and ought to build on this rock Christ which is clearly answered by these following Scriptures Mat. 7.24 Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doth them I will liken him to a wise man that built his house upon a rock c. Therefore to build on the rock Christ is to hear the sayings and do them and the contrary likened to a foolish man c. lyable to danger and destruction Act. 3.22 23. with 2 Thes 1.8 9. 1 Joh. 2.4 Rev. 21.8 Reply 1. Let the Reader consider whether those words in Mat. admit not clearly a limitation to that Sermon preached by Christ in the Mount for it 's said ver 24. Whosoever heareth THESE sayings of mine and doth them not c. Ver. 26. Every one that heareth These sayings of mine c. In which Sermon Christ spake not one word of the nature or subject of Baptisme and so the design you drive at in alleging these words is quite spoiled 2. Admit the words be of a larger extent because it 's said Luke 6 47. Whosoeuer cometh to me and heareth my sayings indefinitely and doth them and Verse 49 He that heareth and doth not c. Yet this Scripture shews not how the Saints build on this rock as you pretend but who they are that build on him or build not on him 3. You write very rawly and indistinctly For certainly there are some temporary commands or sayings of Christ e. g. Mat 10.8 g) Hoc symbolum pro illotempore praeceptum quo certior ipsis esset divinae providentiae experientia ut reâ—ti Chrysost notavit Grot. Heal the sick cleanse the Lepers raise the dead cast out divels freely ye have received freely give Verse 9. Provide neither gold nor silver nor brass in your purses 10. Nor scrip for your journey neither two coats nor shoos nor yet staves c. Are they all fit to wear a fools coat who do not these commands in these times or do you take your self now obliged to that command Mat. 19.21 Go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor I have been alwaies of this mind that THAT was a command of Trial and not of Obedience unlesse it be when God requires it as in times of publick persecution Or are you bound to wash one anothers feet as Joh. 13.14 or salute one another with an holy kisse as Rom. 16.16 or anoint the sick with oyl Jam. 5.14 and many more which I could mention which neither you nor I do must therefore you and I be likened to foolish men nay be counted liars and be in danger of damnation By this time you may perceive what it is to write at random to shoot at rovers and talk so wildly For 4. What a bloody sentence is this to send to hell all Christians for more then a thousand years who have not been baptized after your mode For we read not of Anabaptists till within this three or four hundred years or thereabouts at most to my best observation CHAP. II. Concerning Christs Precept SECT 1. H. H. pag. 3. Mat. 28.18 19 20. with Mark 16.15 16. whence observe First that Christ commanded the Gospel to be preached to every creature or all nations which words we ought to hear and obey c. Reply 1. Are you bound indeed to obey this command Then you have obeyed it or not If not are not you found in the number of those whom Christ sharply reproves as you mention p. 2. who call him Lord Lord and yet do not the things he saith Luke 6.46 If you say yea I cannot believe you for since Judas h) Act. 1.25 by transgression fell from his Apostleship I cannot find you among the eleven i) Acts 1.13 Secondly but if this command is to be obeyed in the successors of the Apostles as Gospel-Ministers for the Apostles as such have no successors as is clear by the promise annexed
understood Ex. gr n) Mat. 6.44 They that did eat of the Loaves were about 5000 men o) Mat. 14.21 And they that had eaten were about 5000 men beside Women and Children surely there 's no contradiction between Mark and Matthew Again under the expression of men and women children are understood as p) Josh 8.25 12000 men and women of Ai fell where children must be understood for it 's said q Ver. 264. Joshua utterly destroied all the inhabitants of Ai and no exception is made but r) Ver. 27. onely of the cattel and spoil and it 's vtterly improbable that in that City and among so many thousands no children should bee found SECT 9. Hen. Hag. Acts 8.36 37. The Eunuch said to Philip See 3. Instance here is water what hinders me to be baptized And Philip said If thou believest with all thy heart thou maist but little Babes cannot believe with all their hearts therefore they may not be baptized Reply 1. Å¿) Beza Jun. c Trem. Grotius 〈◊〉 c. Diverse learned men assert that the whole 37 verse is not to be found in many Greek copies and sundry antient Translations as the Syriack c. What then will become of your Argument No building can stand long without a foundation 2. Admit that verse to be in the Original the Major whether you take it as an hypothetical Proposition if people believe with all their hearts they may be baptized or as an universal Categorical proposition equivalent thereto whosoever believeth with all his heart may be baptized is granted to be a solid truth if it be understood of those that are not yet baptized For those that are already baptized must not be baptized again every day or every hour because they believe with all their hearts one Baptism is sufficient and agreeable to the rule 3. As to your Minor though you prove not that Infants cannot believe with all their hearts neither may you nor any man else put bounds to Gods omnipotency who is able to regenerate and sanctifie Infants Å¿) Luke 1.41 * as John Baptist in his mothers womb yet it 's granted that such a formal rational and professed faith as is required in grown persons they have not and in that sense let your Assumption passe for currant But now this is the misery that when it might be expected that both propositions being yielded the conclusion should be unquestionably assentâ—â—â— to which yet I deny not the syllogism you make is stark naught and a palpable Paralogism as having a negative assumption in the first Figure wherein the Assumption must alwaies be affirmative else the reasoning is fallacious and unsound which is evident to the meanest capacity e. g. The Sun Moon and Stars shine and give light but fire on the hearth and candles on the table are neither Sun Moon nor Stars Therefore fire and candles do not shine or give light Or thus All four-footed beasts are living creatures but Anabaptists are not four-footed beasts Therefore Anabaptists are not living creatures Or thus All that are indued with humane learning in some eminency are reasonable creatures But Anabaptists for the most part are not indued with humane learning in eminency Therefore Anabaptists for the most part are not reasonable creatures Thus your sophistry and folly is discovered 4. If you say your meaning was to prove from that Scripture that they onely are to be baptized that believe with all their hearts then the Argument is to be formed thus All those that are rightly baptized or to be baptized believe with all their hearts But Infants believe not with all their hearts Ergo not rightly baptized or to be baptized Here it 's granted the form is good but the matter of the first Proposition to say no more to the second then what hath been said is naught For John the Baptist rightly baptized many without enquiry much lesse certainty that their hearts were right in believing Sâ—mon Magus in this very Chap. t) Acts 8.13 was baptized and that rightly for Philip is not in the least blamed but approved in that act yet u) Acts 8.21 his heart was not right before God And multitudes we read of that were daily baptized of whose believing With all their hearts we read nothing and if you must forbear baptizing untill you know that people believe with all their hearts v 1 Cor. 2.11 you must never baptize u For what man knoweth the things of man save the spirit of man which is in him Nay neither that nor any other Scripture holds forth in expresse terms that none but such as believe are to be baptized SECT 10. H. H. the same page Acts 10.46 47 48. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized 4. Instance that have received the Holy Ghost as well as wee And he commanded them to be baptized c. By which wee see that no such babes were here baptized for all that were in this place baptized were such as had received the Holy Ghost as well as the Apostles and they heard them speak with tongues and magnifie God which children that cannot speak at all cannot possibly do all rational men will grant Reply 1. Your Argument from hence is sick of the same disease with the former viz. All that were baptized here were such as received the Holy Ghost c. But children cannot receive the Holy Ghost c. Therefore Just like this they that understand the Languages wherein the Scriptures were originally written are guiltie of humane learing for in your judgment humane learning is matter of guilt But you do not understand the Languages wherein the Scriptures were originally written as you would bear us in hand by your inveyghing against humane learning Therefore you are not guilty of humane learning This is enough to shew the unreasonablenesse of your reasonings 2. Here is a clear Argument for baptizing Infants they that receive the Holy Ghost are to be baptized but some Infants receive the Holy Ghost Therefore the Major shines clear by its own light They who partake of the inward grace may partake of the outward signe or they who have the thing signified in Baptism ought to have the sign which is Baptism The Apostle Peter justifies this principle and by the authority and strength of it proves the lawfulnesse of baptizing those on whom the Holy Ghost fell Now that some infants receive the Holy Ghost as well as grown men it 's plain for * Rom 8 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if any man or any one have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his and if an Infant be none of Christs you must eat your words and deny that any Infants dying in their infancy are saved by Christ x) p. 61. If you say by receiving the Holy Ghost is meant the extraordinary gift of the Spirit as ver 44 45 46. Be it so this makes the Argument stronger for if
the originall Beza saith f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in very many copies it 's read unto Lydia so do others g) As the Syr. and old Latine translate it and for ought appears Lydia at that time might be in anothers house aswell as her own 2. What a silly Argument is this H. H. went into a Cheese-Factours house to ordain a Cheese-Factour to the office of a preaching Elder Therefore there were no Infants in his house So Paul and Silas might enter in Lydia's house admitting the translation to comfort the brethren and yet there might be Infants in her house and baptized too for it is said she and her houshold were baptized 3. If you mean that in Lydia's house there were no little babes that were capable of comfort it s granted but this hinders not but little babes are or may be capable of Baptism though not of comfort as the Jewish Infants were capable of circumcision though not of consolation but if you mean no little babes supposing there were such can be called brethren I do not marvail at it since you deny them to be Disciples Church-members Covenanters Saints and make no difference between the Infants of Pagans and of Christians I pray you Sir why may you not call them brethren and sisters if God be your Father whom the Lord saith g) Eaech 16.20 are born to him and whom he himself calleth his h) ver 21. children not only by creation but by Covenant which had been made with your Ancestors as appears out of that whole Chapter specially verse 60.62 4. You conclude there is no ground to believe from Scripture or reason that there were Infants in Lydia's house shall be answered by and by SECT 15. H. H. same p. The Jaylour was baptized with his houshold from whence some would draw the same Argument as from Lydia's 6 Instance and perswade us tâ—at there were children in his house but the Text is plain against it Acts 16.32 33 34. They spake the word of the Lord to him and to all in his house and he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes and was baptized he and all his straight ways and when he had brought them into his house he set meat before them and rejoyced believing in God with all his house Thus the Scripture in plain words as it saith the one that he and all his were baptized so also it saith he with all his house believed in God Reply 1. In the beginning of the sect you say the Jaylour was baptized with his houshold Look the Text i) Acts 16.13 It doth not say so here we have another addition of yours to advantage your cause no marvail that you add to mens writings when you are so bold to add to the Lords holy Scripture I grant it saith He and all His were baptized but not he was baptized with his houshold 2. It 's very observable the Text saith k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was baptized and all his i. e. hee and all that were OF him A most emphaticall phrase to denote his Children who are properly a mans own his naturall off-Spring when the Evangelist speaks of the Apostles preaching he names the Jaylours house in the largest acceptation They spake the word to him and to all that were l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his house but when he speaks of baptizing he changeth the terme and saith He and ALL HIS were baptized that you may be sure his children were baptized without doubt M. Haggars children his horse cannot be said to be his on the same account This phrase therefore in the Text must primarily be referred to his children 3 I expected here also an Argument in form to prove there were no children in the Jaylours house or if so that they were not baptized but in vain If yet you would prove your former thus Paul and Silas spake the word to all in his house but P. and S. did not speak the word to infants therefore no infants in his house The answer is in brief it 's a Sophistical Argument the conclusion should be therefore Infants were not at all in his house or all in his house were not infants which is granted but what is this to your purpose If you can cast it into a better mould it shall receive another answer Now to prove that no infants were baptized here though you say not so as in the place foregoing thus perhaps you may bee thought to reason The Jalour with all his house that was baptized believed in God but infants believed not Therefore The weakness of this Argument appears thus The children of Israel went up harnessed m) Exod. 13.14 out of the land of Egypt but the Jewish infants went not up harnessed Ergo 4. Before I leav you here one thing is to be observed For if it be plain that children were not in the Jaylours house As you would bear your reader in hand out of this Text Then something may be is plain by consequence which is not expresly written in so many words in Scripture SECT 16. H. H. Thus the Scripture in plain words as it saith the one that he and all his were baptized so also it saith he with all his house believed in God and therefore if M. Cook will evade the one by his learned Exposition in his 17. p. We may aswell evade the other and so conclude that none but he was baptized But consider the result of his labours when he hath laboured by all his wit and skill to pervert the Text yet he confesseth that the Syriack translation reads it thus and he exulted and all the children of his house even all of them in the faith of God I pray you let all rationall men consider what difference is between their all-rejoycing and believing God and exulting even all of them in the faith of God Reply 1. Let it be observed that to the foregoing Scriptures as holding forth commands or examples of baptizing Jews or Heathens newly converted to the faith n) Font uncovered from p. 7. to p. 23. there are given full and large answers both in general and particular shâ—wing that they make nothing for M. Haggars purpose and also to those Arguments which he after frames from the precept and practice of Christ and the incapacity of the subject as he would gather from these Scriptures yet he is pleased to take notice of two very short sentences passing by all the rest which I believe amount to an hundred times more then what he seems to answer to what other construction can be made thereof but that he finding himself unable to answer the rest thought good to pick out two or three lines which being singled from the rest he as he imagined might have more advantage against If this be sufficient it 's an easie matter to answer any books 2 For opening the sence of this Scripture o) Act.
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
and murderers are called God's children and born to him x) Ezec. 16.8.20 21. viz. in respect of the Covenant which though broken by them yet a bill of divorce was not yet given to them Therefore God owns their children as his in Covenant Thirdly They are in Covenant say you because that which is born of the flesh is flesh As if they were not capable of Regeneration even while Infants if so no Infants dying can be saved y) Jo. 3 3 5. but you grant they may and must be saved pag. 60. Therefore of necessity they must be born again But it 's no strange thing to find you either confounding or contradicting your self 5. To conclude this debate about Heb. 8. Observe 1. M. Hag. quotes it not right pag. 57 f. who writes it But this is the Covenant whereas it is in the place cited FOR which is a Ratiocinative not an adversative participle 2. It 's not said here or elsewhere in Scripture that none are under the new Covenant no not under the outward dispensation thereof but they which have those spirituall and saving works on their hearts 3. Neither doth he say that all those gracious works shall be wrought on them the first day of their admission into Covenant Though the habits may be infused at once yet the growth and actings of those habits are by degreâ—s Else we should deny them to be within the Covenant internally who cannot discern distinctly such heart-works 4. When we are speaking of such an externall visible interest in the Covenant as gives to the seed right of entrance into Covenant It is a manifest flying off from the Question to talk of the internall Covenant proper only to the Elect. Especially it is a meer subterfuge to deny childrens being in Covenant and so right to the seal because they have not this spirituall blessing of the Covenant when they themselves dare not undertake that all or perhaps any are of those whom they admit to the seal of the Covenant have these spirituall blessings or be in this respect within the New Covenant CHAP. XII Whether the Infants of Christians and of Heathens are in the same condition as to their Souls SECT 1. H. H. p. 59. f. M. B. saith p. 71 72. in his 21 and 22. Arguments that our doctrine is false For it denies any Infants to be members of the visible Church and leaves us no sound grounded hope of the justification and salvation of any Infants in the world The same saith M. C. in his 13. Argument p. 44. It puts the Infants of christians into the same condition with the children of Turks and Infidels and leaves them in the visible kingdom of the Devill c. I Answ 1. Denying that any children are saved by virtue of visible Church-membership or being in the Covenant as believers are and let M. B. M. C. or any for them prove it by the Scriptures if they can Reply 1. What a wide leap have we here you fairly passe by twenty Arguments of M. Baxters and twelve of M. Cooks though you pretend to answer them in your Title page Very good reason because you could not or would not make any colour or shew of an answer 2. What you here say is no answer at all to any part of the Arguments propoundâ—d may your expression of being saved by virtue of visible Church-membership or being in Covenant as believers are is very ambiguous and fallacious Though their Church-member-ship and Covenant-ship if so I may say have been proved by many Arguments which you have not so much assayed to answer 3. Yeâ— I shall ex abundancâ— prove it because you challenge any man by these few Arguments grounded on Scripture c. Though you grant Infants are saved and that cannot be but by Covenant c. First They that are saved by Christ are saved by Covenant for Christ is the Covenant his blood is the blood of the Covenant as you acknowledge a) p. 58. from Is 49.8 Heb. 13.20 bâ—t those children that are saved are saved by Christ Rom. 5.18 Therefore Secondly They that are saved by the Mediator of the New Covenant are saved by means of being in the New Covenant For there is no other Mediator 1 Tim. 2 5. and â—hrist saves none as Mediator of the Covenant but those whom he brings into covenant else why call'd a Meditâ—our of the covenant but some children are saved by the Mediator of the New covenant Therefore Thirdly they who are without Christ Church-membership and covenant â—re without hope without God in the world and in a perishing condition but Elect Infants are not without God without hope in a perishing conditioÌ„ Therefore not without Christ Church-membership covenant 4. The Church all his members are in covenant w th God for it is by covenaÌ„t b) Hos 2.19 20. that she is made the Spouse of Christ but som infants are made Church-meÌ„bers for whom Christ dyed c) Ep. 5.26 27. as wel as for grown persoÌ„s herefore they are in covenant by consequence saved by virtue thereof Fifthly from your ground which surely you lay on Scripture He that proves Infants dying are saved by Christ's death proves that they are saved by virtue of the covenant for the covenant is ratified by Christ's death but M. Hâ—g proves that Infants dying are saved by virtue of Christ's death p. 61. or else he doth not prove it by Scripture Therefore M. Hag. proves that Infants dying are saved by virtue of the covenant I hope you will not deny your own assertion and therefore not yours and my Conclusion 4. This labour might have been spared For you confesse if your words bear any sense that Infants are in covenant though not in that manner as believers are SECT 2. H. H. p. 60. Secondly I answer there is no difference between the children of believers and unbelievers in their Nonage For the children of the one at best are but innocent and so are the children of unbelievers Psal 106.37 38. and those that are innocent God will not destroy Exod. 23.7 with Job 22.30 Prov. 6.16 17. Reply 1. If there be no difference you grant M. Cooks Minor proposition and therefore must own the Conclusion Abominable doctrine indeed viz. that puts no difference between the children of Christians and of Turks to be abhorred of all those that have heard of God's Covenant made with Abraham Isaac and Jacob the people of Israel and Church of the New Covenant which I leave to be considered and lamented 2. I suppose the word BUT should be left out they are BUT innocent unless you mean they are only freed from and acquitted of the gift of sin but without inherent and imputed righteousness which is as abominable as the former and contrary to your allegation Rom. 5.16 p. 6â— 3. But if the best be made of them they are more then innocent d) Isa 44.3 for God hath promised to powr his spirit on the believers
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
your child though the face be not wet all over Again how poorly do you confound Dipping and wetting all over when the tip of your singer may be dipt in water and yet the finger not wet all over I must now needs tell you if your zeal for Dipping be no better then your Argument it will shrink in the wetting SECT 19. H. H. p. 97. As for M. Baxter's Objection that Christ saith Yee need not but wash your feet and yee are clean every whit I answer Christ doth not there speak of Baptism but of Humility which is shewen by washing of the feet as well as of the whole body But when he speaks of Baptisme he doth not say He that is Baptized on his feet c. but is Baptized shall be saved Mark 16.16.2 The Eunuch and Philip went both down into the Water and he baptized him and not his feet onely for then they needed not to have both gone down Acts 8.39.3 If the word him and them includes the whole man or men then the whole man c. was baptized of John in the River of Jordan and of Philip Acts 8.12.4 Christ is said to come up out of the water Mark 4.10 which plainly sheweth he first went down 5. The Scripture saith John 3. verse 23. He baptized there because there was much water Reply 1. Let the Reader observe that Mr. Haggar passeth by some Arguments of M. Baxter's without mentioning them Thus he onely storms the Rear that he may scape the Van. 2. It 's granted that Christ's washing of the Disciples feet was to teach them humility and it follows by what you grant here that washing of a part shews the washing of the whole which is contradictory to what you even now said that it must needs be that washing is by wetting All over Pride is a spreading sin it 's in the understanding Gal. 6.3 in the spirit Eccl. 7.8 in the heart Prov. 16. ver 5. in the tongue Psal 12.3 in looks Prov 6.17 in gesture Isai 3.5 Pride you see stains the whole man soul and body that primarily this secondarily yet you say the washing of the feet shews the cleansing of them every whit as well as if the whole body had been washed Therefore the washing of one part signifies the washing of the whole unless Mr. Haggar think that pride is onely in the feet because we say proud people are high in the In-step and stand upon their Pantofles 3. That washing of the feet shewed more then humility Peter then did not know it Joh. 13.7 See Calvin in loc and Mr. Haggar doth not or will not yet see it for it shews either pardon of sin or newness of life or both Now if justification and sanctification are signified elswhere by sprinkling why not also by our powring on water or as you call it sprinkling water on the childs face Thus we have Exemplum Analogum that a partial washing may signifie a total purging 4. As Christ did not say He that believs and is baptized on his feet shall be saved so he doth not say Hee that believs and is dipped over head and ears shall be saved every whit If you Reply he saith he that is baptized i. e. that is all one with Dipped That 's but a miserable begging of the Question and it remains to be proved though I leave it to be considered whether it be proper to say Baptized on his feet unless it bee Mr. Haggar's practice to baptize his Proselytes standing On their feet 5. As for Philip and the Eunuch there is nothing in that history that can convincingly demonstrate Dipping Acts 8.38 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Verbs * going down and coming up cannot for they are oft in Scripture and why not so here used of a motion where was no descent into nor coming out in Mr. Haggers sense e. g. Acts 14.25 When they had preached the Word in Perga they went down into Attalia c. 24.1 Ananias descended with the Elders c. 25.1 Festus ascended to Jerusalem Neither do the Prepositions i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into and out prove it for the former may bee well translated to or unto as elswhere Mat. 15.24 Acts 16.40 Col. 1.20 and the latter as Luke 1.71 78. and 20.4 and so often in this book Acts 14.8 15.29 17 3 31. 22.6 27.34 with many more neither do they do jointly prove it necessarily For 1. That water was not so deep for Dipping all the body they that have seen it call it a little fountain as not onely Sandys but Hierom and Bede many hundred years before him which humane testimonies may be believed as well as the history of King Henry the 8. The expression * Acts 8.36 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used imports not a River but a smal Spring therefore might be best translated A CERTAIN or a kind of water 2. If it were granted which yetis not that it was a deep water yet a man may be said to go into and come out of the water who had not been in it higher then the Ancles and that they went in any further or how far they went cannot be demonstratively proved out of this Text. 3. You may as well argue that Philip was new dipt as well as the Eunuch was baptized by Dipping for it 's said supposing your interpretation that they both went into and came out of the water without any exception and I think you do not Dip your self when you Dip others unless you and they be a Duck and a Drake in your Jordan 4. The text doth plainly distinguish between the act of Baptizing and their going down into and coming out of the water upon the former supposal therefore no part of baptizing For if going down c. bee a Dipping as you would have it then the Eunuch was dipt before hee was baptized and how then is Baptizing in English a Dipping 5. Had Philip and the Eunuch made use of a Baptismal Ladder as * Tho. Scilito a Naylor baptized in a Well the wife of a dear friend of mine that since hath seen her error and recanted some have done in my parish they might more properly have been said to descend ascend Though we read not that Philip or Jo. Baptist used such utensils 6. But their descending here is a coming out of the Chariot into which Philip had ascended at the request of the Eunuch and so both spying water below them both went out of the Chariot to it Acts 8.31 and as it is an usual phrase among us to say We went down to and from the water side though perhaps never in it and it 's said They that go down To the sea in ships Psal 107.23 to ver 31. which Junius translates Into the sea I trow the ship is not plunged all over nor are they under water in the ship unless in case of ship wrack c. But that cannot be because they are said to
the dust you have raised and noise you have made can neither hide from him nor plunder him off SECT 2. H. H. same p. What have you to do to call Christ Lord and yet will not do the things which he saith Luk. 6.46 Which is to preach the Gospell to all and baptize them that believe and gladly receive it Mark 16.15 16. with 2.41 8.12 This Gold will endure the fire when your Rantizing babes will perish Though you plead for cozening poor Children in their Cradles and when you have done you have made them seven times harder to be converted to the Faith of the Gospel then they were before Reply 1. There is no 41 verse in Mark. 2. nor any thing to your purpose in Mark 8.12 I suppose the Printer hath abused you for Acts 2.41 and 8.12 But those and the other Scriptures have been Answered before though you please your self in singing the Cuckow 's song 2. All verily is not Gold that glisters your Gold you brag of proves but gilded brasse Infant-Baptism will last when your mode shall vanish like smoke in the air 3. It 's well known and may be spoken to God's glory that many after Infant-Baptism and still owning it have been converted from their natural and sinfull estate to the obedience of the Faith Now if Infants before your Baptizing were seven times more easie to be converted then after what is become of all your noise concerning Infants capacity to repent and believe Is your mind changed now Are you indeed perswaded that Infants unbaptized are seven times easier to bee converted to the Faith then after Baptism But your rage carries you on to rail on us not without abuse of Scripture in most of your 122. page which is unworthy of any other answer but silence and patience SECT 3. H. H. pag. 122. We are not to be blamed if we declare nothing but the Word of God 2 Tim. 4.2 and if we have answered in eighteen sheets c. Reply 1. To the first I need say little True if you have such a Call as Paul and Timothy had or any just call warranted by the World to preach and declare God's Word but you have not yet proved that you have any such call Now then if you preach before you are sent and run without Commission the speaking of some truths will not justifie you Sathan spake sometime truth and that according to God's Word but having no Call had no thanks nor was justified therein Mat. 4.6 8.29 Acts 16.17 18. And his slaves have taken upon them to imitate the Apostles of Christ in these things whereto they had no call Acts 19.13 14 15 16. 2 Cor. 11.13 14. 2. How punctually you keep to the Word of God in your teaching and writing I hope appears by this time Papism Arâ—inianism Socinianism c. with which your book is more then sprinkled are not parts of the word of God 3. I do not marvel at your briefness in answering when you promise to answer all and indeed answer nothing Besides Tares are sooner sowen then gathered up and the ground rid of them poison is sooner prepared and devoured then the body cleansed of it An hundred houses are sooner burnt then one built yet I have transcribed you and replied to you SECT 4. H. H. p. 133. It is said wee are they that subvert whole housholds but I answer as Elijah did Ahab 1 King 18.18 We do not subvert whole Housholds for we baptize none but those that believe according to Mark 16.15 16. Acts 8.12 37. But it 's you Mr. C. that subverts whole housholds when you baptize children and all for lucres sake c. Reply Sir it 's not your Nay will serve when your practice proclaims the contrary neither can you shew any call from God to do what you do as Eliah could shew for what he did and therefore you still abuse Scripture What warrant have you for re-baptizing those that have been baptized Christ's command and his Apostles practice was to baptize Jews and Gentiles of ripe years that had until that time been Jews and Gentiles your pretending that warrant is confessing that whom you baptize are Jews or Gentiles and if you make them that were professed Christians to become Jews and Gentiles that you may baptize them after the example of the Apostles you subvert persons families and countries to purpose CHAP. XVII Of Humane Learning in a Minister of Christ SECT 1. H. H. pag. 123. I shall now shew the reasons of our dissenting from the Church of England and all other Churches which stand upon these four pillars viz. 1. Humane Learning for take away that which you had at Cambridge or Oxford and you have no Ministry but all men may preach as well as you nay I might say better Reply 1. It is a notorious untruth confidently enough asserted by you without the least colour of proof that the Church of England is built on the four pillars mentioned by you These are of your own framing and daubed with untempered mortar No Sir it 's built on that Rock against which the gates of Hell shal not prevail Mat. 16.18 and on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone Ephesians 2. ver 20. 2. If that we had at Cambridge or Oxford were taken away it doth not follow that we have no Ministry How many pretious Ministers are there in the Church of England eminent for piety and learning who never were matriculated in Cambridge or Oxford God having blest their private studies in the Country with the attainment of excellent abilities Violets may be found and gathered in the Field as well as in the Garden 3. It 's a Paradox that all men may preach as well as we * Multi imperitorum magistri sueâ—int priusâ—uam suerint doctorum discipulâ— Wittenberg Conles Artic. 20. suppose University Learning were taken away for herein you dissent from your own Church if a Church which hath been of this mind hitherto that none but gifted men may preach mistaking that Scripture * Ye may all prophesie Unless you mean that Women and Infants may preach for they are comprehended in those terms All men But Infants cannot speak you often say and Women may not 1 Cor. 14.34 as hath been shewed before 4. It 's worse to say you might say better x) Non sacile de Artibus rectè jâ—dicat qui Artes ignorat Cyprian 1 King 12.31 You know in the Fable who judged that the Cuckow â—ung better then the Nightingale It was Jeroboams sin that hee made Priests of the lowest of the people and it is your sin and shame to make Preachers of Mechanick and unlearned men Alas we would have learned Lawyers for our estates The Apostle saith who is sufficient for these things 2 Cor. 2 16. but H. H. saith who is not sufficient and learned Physicians for our bodies and not learned Ministers for our souls 5. Though
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
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