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
that gift which is common to elect and reprobate doth in title to Baptism much more that gift of Union Adoption Regeneration proper to the elect puts the party into a capacity of receiving Baptism If you say such received the Holy Ghost as well as the Apostles and therefore the text to be understood of the same kind and degree Then by this text you have no more ground to baptize grown men for which of them I pray you spake with tongues y) Ver. 46. in the Apostles sense then you say we have for baptizing Infants that cannot speak at all But the Apostle explains himself in the following Chapter z For as much then Acts. 1â— 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as God gave them the like gift as he did to us Like for quality though not for quantity Yea it 's said a) Heb 4.2 unto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them I think no man dare say that the Gospel was as fully and as clearly preached to the Israelites in the wildernesse for to them the Apostle speaks as to us since the coming of Christ in the flesh SECT 11. H. H. same page The next is Lidia and her houshold 5. Instance Act. 16.14 15. Reply 1. I do Mr Hagger no wrong his fifth Instance as I set it down to help him is thus nakedly proposed I wonder we had not a taste of his Logick here as in the preceding instances It may be the man was not in a good mood and therefore could not set it in a good Figure having so often failed before 2. But I suppose you meant this Enthymem Lidia and her houshould were baptized Therefore no Infants Or thus If Lidia and her houshold were baptized then no Infant was baptized But Lidia and her houshold were baptized Therefore To this I answer I deny your consequence and will give you time till Dooms-day to prove it In the mean season this place is more for the baptizing of Infants then any thing that can be at least hitherto is said against SECT 12. H. H. Some may say thus Who knows but she might have little children To which I answer If none knows then all ought to be silent and not to believe and affirm things they know not for that is wickednesse and folly But thus much we know 1. That Christ commanded them to baptize them which believed 2. Hitherto we have found them baptizing of none else 3. The Scripture speaks of no children she had nor yet of any husband and therefore silence gives no commands to obey nor no promises to believe nor no example to follow Reply 1. Here you set up a man of straw and then fight with him you frame an objection out of your own head and then answer it bravely done 2. Is it not wickednesse and folly in you to believe and affirm things you know not The necessity of dipping in the Administration of Baptisme the salvation of Infanâ—s without actual faith by virtue of Christs death when no such things are exprest in so many words and syllables in Scripture and many other bold assertions in your book which shall be examined as they are met with 3. For the two first particulars which you professe you know they have been already spoken to and for the third the Scripture you say speaks of no children shee i. e. Lidia I suppose you mean had nor yet of any husband neither doth the Scripture speak I say of any servants she had I pray you then who were they that were of her houshold which were baptized for it 's said distinctly b) Acts 15.16 she was baptized and her houshold 4. As for the silence you speak of it is as good as silence or the speaking of nothing Instances are obvious and frequent E. gr There is no expresse mention made in the N. T. of any command for Womens receiving the Lord's Supper nor of any promise of comfort in or upon receiving nor any example of any one woman that did receive Nor is there any expresse mention made in the Old or New Testament of any command for mens or womens relying on the merits and satisfaction of Christ nor of any promise of peace and pardon on such relying nor of any example of any one man or woman that did rely on the merits and satisfaction of Christ yet there is sufficient warrant in Scripture by clear consequence for both these c. which is satisfactory to us but what is this to you who must have expressness of Scripture By this taste you may perceive what an unsound and erroneous maxime you have vented viz. That silence gives no commands to obey nor no promise to believe nor no examples to follow SECT 13. H. H. pag. 6. Again if she had an husband he was baptized for she and her houshould were baptized Now if he had been baptized he would surely have born the name in the history rather then she being the bead of the house Reply 1. Now fair fall your heart if she had an husband he was baptized for she and her houshold were baptized you say well might you not as well say as we do If she had children they were also baptized for she and her houshold were baptized and so if she had servants they were baptized for it 's said She and her houshold were baptized If you include husband and servants in her houshold how can you for shame exclude Infants or if you conclude the baptizing of her husband and servants on this account because she and her houshold were baptized why may you not as well conclude that her Infants or children were baptized on the same account were you not wilful and partial in your self 2. To say nothing that you should have said but not now if he had been baptized he would surely have born the name c. Your confidence is as high as your ignorance is great Surely Zerviah was a woman for she is expresly called c) 2 Sam. 17.25 Joabs mother and d) 1 Chr. 2.15 16. Davids sister Now you might have said as well It Joab had a father and Zerviah an husband he would â—urely have born the name in the history rather then shee being the head of the house whereas the name of Zerviah is onely mentioned in the history to my best observation and remembrance in those and other e) 1 Sam. 26.6 2 2.13 18. 3.39 8.16 14.1 16.9 10. 18 2. 19.21 22 21.17 23 18 1 King 1.7 2.5 22. 1 Chron. 11.6.34 18.12.15 26.13 27.24 places SECT 14. H. H. Lastly we read verse 40. That when Paul and Silâ—s came out of prison they entered into the house of Lidia and comforted the brethren but little babes are not capable of such comforts Therfore no such such brethren in Lydea's house nor any ground at all to believe it from Scripture or reason Reply 1. The word HOUSE is not in
the originall Beza saith f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in very many copies it 's read unto Lydia so do others g) As the Syr. and old Latine translate it and for ought appears Lydia at that time might be in anothers house aswell as her own 2. What a silly Argument is this H. H. went into a Cheese-Factours house to ordain a Cheese-Factour to the office of a preaching Elder Therefore there were no Infants in his house So Paul and Silas might enter in Lydia's house admitting the translation to comfort the brethren and yet there might be Infants in her house and baptized too for it is said she and her houshold were baptized 3. If you mean that in Lydia's house there were no little babes that were capable of comfort it s granted but this hinders not but little babes are or may be capable of Baptism though not of comfort as the Jewish Infants were capable of circumcision though not of consolation but if you mean no little babes supposing there were such can be called brethren I do not marvail at it since you deny them to be Disciples Church-members Covenanters Saints and make no difference between the Infants of Pagans and of Christians I pray you Sir why may you not call them brethren and sisters if God be your Father whom the Lord saith g) Eaech 16.20 are born to him and whom he himself calleth his h) ver 21. children not only by creation but by Covenant which had been made with your Ancestors as appears out of that whole Chapter specially verse 60.62 4. You conclude there is no ground to believe from Scripture or reason that there were Infants in Lydia's house shall be answered by and by SECT 15. H. H. same p. The Jaylour was baptized with his houshold from whence some would draw the same Argument as from Lydia's 6 Instance and perswade us tâ—at there were children in his house but the Text is plain against it Acts 16.32 33 34. They spake the word of the Lord to him and to all in his house and he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes and was baptized he and all his straight ways and when he had brought them into his house he set meat before them and rejoyced believing in God with all his house Thus the Scripture in plain words as it saith the one that he and all his were baptized so also it saith he with all his house believed in God Reply 1. In the beginning of the sect you say the Jaylour was baptized with his houshold Look the Text i) Acts 16.13 It doth not say so here we have another addition of yours to advantage your cause no marvail that you add to mens writings when you are so bold to add to the Lords holy Scripture I grant it saith He and all His were baptized but not he was baptized with his houshold 2. It 's very observable the Text saith k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was baptized and all his i. e. hee and all that were OF him A most emphaticall phrase to denote his Children who are properly a mans own his naturall off-Spring when the Evangelist speaks of the Apostles preaching he names the Jaylours house in the largest acceptation They spake the word to him and to all that were l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his house but when he speaks of baptizing he changeth the terme and saith He and ALL HIS were baptized that you may be sure his children were baptized without doubt M. Haggars children his horse cannot be said to be his on the same account This phrase therefore in the Text must primarily be referred to his children 3 I expected here also an Argument in form to prove there were no children in the Jaylours house or if so that they were not baptized but in vain If yet you would prove your former thus Paul and Silas spake the word to all in his house but P. and S. did not speak the word to infants therefore no infants in his house The answer is in brief it 's a Sophistical Argument the conclusion should be therefore Infants were not at all in his house or all in his house were not infants which is granted but what is this to your purpose If you can cast it into a better mould it shall receive another answer Now to prove that no infants were baptized here though you say not so as in the place foregoing thus perhaps you may bee thought to reason The Jalour with all his house that was baptized believed in God but infants believed not Therefore The weakness of this Argument appears thus The children of Israel went up harnessed m) Exod. 13.14 out of the land of Egypt but the Jewish infants went not up harnessed Ergo 4. Before I leav you here one thing is to be observed For if it be plain that children were not in the Jaylours house As you would bear your reader in hand out of this Text Then something may be is plain by consequence which is not expresly written in so many words in Scripture SECT 16. H. H. Thus the Scripture in plain words as it saith the one that he and all his were baptized so also it saith he with all his house believed in God and therefore if M. Cook will evade the one by his learned Exposition in his 17. p. We may aswell evade the other and so conclude that none but he was baptized But consider the result of his labours when he hath laboured by all his wit and skill to pervert the Text yet he confesseth that the Syriack translation reads it thus and he exulted and all the children of his house even all of them in the faith of God I pray you let all rationall men consider what difference is between their all-rejoycing and believing God and exulting even all of them in the faith of God Reply 1. Let it be observed that to the foregoing Scriptures as holding forth commands or examples of baptizing Jews or Heathens newly converted to the faith n) Font uncovered from p. 7. to p. 23. there are given full and large answers both in general and particular shâ—wing that they make nothing for M. Haggars purpose and also to those Arguments which he after frames from the precept and practice of Christ and the incapacity of the subject as he would gather from these Scriptures yet he is pleased to take notice of two very short sentences passing by all the rest which I believe amount to an hundred times more then what he seems to answer to what other construction can be made thereof but that he finding himself unable to answer the rest thought good to pick out two or three lines which being singled from the rest he as he imagined might have more advantage against If this be sufficient it 's an easie matter to answer any books 2 For opening the sence of this Scripture o) Act.
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
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
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
of the subject it s called an affirmative proposition and where the predicate is denyed of the subject it 's called a negative proposition but never an affirming of a Negative by them that know what they say Nay there is as you lay it down not so much as a proposition If you will not now confess your ignorance and error or go to the University to learn better Logick you may erect if you please a new College in the Country and teach your deluded Proselytes some new principles of a new-invented Logick SECT 3. H. H. Again Isa 45.5 I am the Lord and beside me there is no God Now Sir if you dare presume to be a teacher here it should have been thus I deny that any God is but my self and I pray shew us the word Negative in the Scripture if you can Reply 1. Here is less colour of affirming a Negative For whereas in the former you would make the Verb to be the Affirmative how absurdly I have shewed here is no Verb at all exprested in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you might have seen by the different Characters wherein the Verb's supplyed are set down It 's in the Hebrew thus i I the Lord and none else besides me no God In the first proposition there is a pure Affirmative viz. God is the Lord without denying the Affirmative In the latter a pure Negative without affirming a Negative 2. By this unwarrantable and uncouth way of yours Atheism and blasphemy may be quickly taught and learned in presuming to put a comma or full point at part of a proposition as in the very place you cite There is no God Oh admirable yet you can pave the way thereto How ground lesly therefore and dangerously you apply this to your present case I leave others to judge considering how unreverently you deal with Scripture comparing your expressions with its as if it were as safe to teach the Spirit of God how to speak as it is to teach you how to speak properly when you acknowledge your self out of your element 3. For shewing the word Negative in Scripture I might say no more but this that we are not bound to Scripture expression in discourse or disputation yet you your self use many words that are not in Scripture e. g. imminent p. 2. Antichristian p. 3. Objection p. 4. History p. 6. Primitive p. 8. Consequence p. 10. Paper-conference p. 22. Absurd p. 24. And a president in the very p. 29. and an hundred more of this nature in your Book without a wretched lye Now when you have shewed when any of those words of yours are in Scripture I shall shew you where the word Negative is in Scripture In the mean time know that Affirmative and Negative are words of Latine Derivation in which language the holy Scriptures were not originally written but the things signified thereby are oft found in them both in the originalls and translations SECT 4. H. H. Lastly to conclude Joh. 1.20 He denyed not If John denyed not Then he affirmed and what did he affirm He said I am not the Christ Here Joh. affirmed a Negative c. Reply 1. Here in the original the Negative particle is set before the verb as in the foregoing instance But suppose the verb were an Affirmative which cannot be For there cannot be an Affirmative proposition but where the subject and predicate are knit together by a verb affirmatively as hath been shewed yet here is nothing like an affirming a Negative but rat her it 's like a denying an Affirmative as was said before 2. It follows not that he affirmed if he denyed not you never denyed It may be that you are a Turk or Papâ—â—â— do you therefore affirm it A man when he is silent denies not an accusation k) Mar. 14.60 61. as Christ was l) Isa 36.3.21.22 Eliakin and Shebna held their peace at Rabshakeh's blasphemies If they were silent they did not deny if they denyed not by your goodly consequence hey affirmed and so owned his blasphemies but this could not be because of the rending their choaâ—hs c. Thus we confess our wants and omissions and yet we cannot be said in any propriety of speech to affirm Negatives So that hitherto you have not proved that John affirms a Negative For that in the 20 verse is a Negative proposition as that in the 23 is an Affirmative the one distinct from the other But we will not strive about words if you will be quiet and give glory to the Lord by confessing your error Nay but you will explain your self How I pray SECT 5. H. H. p. 30. To affirm is but to say a thing is so and to deny is to say a thing is not so e. g when the Sun shines I affirm it's day and when it 's set I affirm it's night If I wil prove a man is not a live and shew others that he is dead do not I prove he is not alive If I say and prove a man is not in his house do not I prove a Negative Reply 1. If to affirm is to say a thing is so c. It will unavoydably follow that to affirm a Negative is to say a thing is so which indeed is not so or which you said is not so and consequently your doctrine is yea and nay so was not the Apostles m) 2 Cor. 1.19 preaching 2. It 's worse and worse with you in your instances That of the Sun doth not prove the affirming of a Negative for both are Affirmative Propositions And to prove a man is not alive or not in the house is one thing to affirm a Negative is another For to affirm you say is but to say a thing is so and here you prove a thing is not so SECT 6. H. H. Seeing you make us offendors for a word may wee not justly say that you are one of those the Apostle speaks of n) 1 Tim. 6.3.4 for you do not dote about words viz. the Affirmative and Negative c. Do not you count gain godliness viz. 〈◊〉 100 or 200 per Annum for preaching and baptizing Infants and rather then you will part with it you dispute perversly like a man of a corrupt mind I beseech you in the fear of God consider it Reply 1. Who is guilty of doating Mr. Cook who wrote as was said a few lines about your offending against the laws of Disputing which if it were your greatest fault might be winked at or YOV that write almost two pages about them and challenge too any that will or can to answer your Ten Questions o) Foundar p. 53.54 I leave to the judgment of the impartial 2. I do not know one peny allowed or required for baptizing any Infant Is not this therefore one of those evil surmizings mentioned by the Apostle 3. As for your blind charge of an 100 l. c. per An. for preaching I leave you to him for an answer
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
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
found so much strength that after you had cast a squib you run away like a coward â—ut for all that he hath reached you such a back-blow which you cannot claw off SECT 3. H. H. p. 88. Nay to give him his Argument again Infant Baptism is utterly inconsistent with the obedience to Christ's rule First because there is neither precept nor practise for it as he grants Secondly because by their Rantizing or sprinkling of babes they make the command of Christ of none effect Mat. 7.7 8 9. and Mat. 15.8 9. Thus they bind two sins together and in the one they shall not go unpunished Reply 1. If giving be granting you do well to give it him 2. The first reason of your retortion is but the Cuckoes song M. Baxter hath been so far from granting it that he hath abundantly shewed you both precept and example but you are so wilfully blind that you cannot see wood for trees 3. Your Third is both a meer Calumniation and a miserable begging the Question Infant-Baptism is neither a Tradition in your sense nor a making of Christ's Command of none effect in our sense as hath been shewed But I may not nauseate the Reader with vain repetitions as you do 4. If we shall go unpunished in the one I believe in the other too SECT 4. H. H. Whereas M. Baxter would make us offendors for nothing i. e. for not baptizing children in their Non-age I Answer First he can never make it a sin till he shew us what Command we have broken c. Secondly There is both precept and practice for baptizing men and women when they believe Mar. 16.16 Act. 8.12 and 10.48 Reply 1. Then it seems a swarving from an example in Scripture is no sin What if women should never Break Bread or receiv the Lords Supper is it not a sin since there is no expresse command for it and no example but by consequence Your Scriptures shall be spoke to anon if not heretofore 2. It hath been proved that you utterly mistake those Commands and examples for baptizing men and women at years of discretion unless you will make the parties parallel i. e. meer Heathens newly converted c. But I must not fall into the same crime with you of idle and senselesse Repetitions onlâ— let the Reader observ That I have orderly digested this page of yours which you had confusedly set down for the building of your Tower of Babel SECT 5. H. H. p. 89. His Third Argument is because the practise of baptizing children of Christians at age goes upon meer uncertainties hath no Scripture rule to guide it Therefore it 's not according to the will of Christ Answer Though this is the same in substance with the two former yet First our practise is guided by Scripture rule from the Command of Christ and examples of the Apostles Mark 16.16 Acts 2.41 and 8.12 37. Naâ— say 〈◊〉 your practise of Baptizing little babes goes upon meer uncertainties having no Scripture-rule to guide it c. Reply 1. I had thought to have said nothing to your charge on M. Baxter's chopping one Argument into so many pieces to multiply words Therefore I did not transcribe them yet I shall say this It seems you had surfeited of the other two Arguments And now your stomack turnes at the naming of this If you had no mind to multiply words you might have spared this Cavilling Preface Crums of truth are too precious to be lost and therefore since you will not understand the Loaves which have satisfied some Thousands Mr. B. did well to put his fragments into the basket d) part i. c. â— p. 150. by sending the Reader back to what went before 2. Though the Texts alledged by you have been Replyed to yet here your answer is both wide and weak If you mean of a Church to be constituted that 's nothing to the purpose Mr. Baxter's assertion is still true though that be granted and so your answer is wide If of a Church constituted and if you understand christians children at age then your instances out of those Scriptures prove no such thing because they were not the children of Christian parents and so your answer is weak 3. As your answer is impertinent so your return of M. Baxter's Argument is insufficient To deal roundly I deny your Minor viz. There is Scripture rule for Baptizing babes notwithstanding your impudent denying it as may be easily discerned by any who seriously and impartially peruse Mr. Baxter's Book or this Reply neither do you bring any Scriptures to prove your Minor but only this I SAY What arrogancy is this in you to obtrude an opinion on the world upon your bare word Could you perswade me that Pythagoras was a Dipper and that his soul had transmigrated into your body I would allow the Haggarens as well as the Pythagoreans an IPSE DIXIT he hath said it and that 's enough Do you think to carry your cause against the evidence of Scripture practice of Antiquity consent of Fathers continued custom of the Churches strength of reason upon such a pitifull proof as this is I SAY How long is it since your confidence hath amounted to an Infallibility I therefore must make bold your premisses being thus routed to alter your conclusion Infant Baptisme is according to the mind of Christ notwithstanding Mr. Haggars I SAY 4. Because I would not have Mr. B. to be in your debt for the return of his Argument I return you an Argument from one of your Scriptures e) Mar. 16.16 cited and from your own principles For although you are not so rigid to damne Infants and exclude them from Heaven yet you excommunicate them out of the Church cast them out of the Covenant c. Here I argue They who may be saved without actuall Faith may be Baptized without actuall faith But Infants specially of believing parents may be saved without actuall faith therefore they may be Baptized without actuall faith The Minor you grant The Major I prove thus If faith be as necessary to salvation as it is to Baptisme then they that may be saved without faith may be Baptised without Faith But the former is true Therefore the latter The consequence of the Major is evident from the words of the text f) Mark 16.16 where the same stresse is laid upon faith to salvation as to Baptisme And the Minor cannot be denied unlesse you will have admission to Baptism on Earth more difficult then to blessedness in Heaven and make it an harder matter to be Baptized then to be Saved I leave you to unty not to cut this knot SECT 6. H. H p. 89. 90. His sourth Argument is Because the practice of Baptizing Christians Children at age necessarily fills the Church with perpetuall contentions as being about a matter that cannot be determined by any known rule Answer But the Baptizing of men and women when they believe is a matter that can be and is
God hath opened the mouth of the Ass to reprehend the madness of these Prophets 2. When we accuse the Anabaptists our Bill is against ALL we say and that truly there is not a man of them that is not guilty of some of those fore-mentioned crimes Now though you have face enough yet you dare not say all the Ministers or all the people of the Church of England were guilty of some of those wickednesses the voyces of a few are not the qualifications of all m) Tantum in propriis essentialibus à particulari ad universale valet consequentia 3. You say you have playd the fools part I think so too it had been pity such a Comedy should have been Acted without you and so unawares you have given us thirteen to the dozen 4. Did the tongues and pens of M. Baxter and M. Hall flye at more uncertainties then yours Are not the writings of Calvin Bullinger c. as true as the first Century of Scandalous Ministers c. and is not M. B. as faithfull a reporter as M. Haggar SECT 48. H. H. p. 117. to 120. Now let the impartiall Reader consider whether this generation of men are not those spoken of 2 Tim. 3.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. Jer. 23.14 15 16 17. Ezek. 22.26 27 28. Mich. 3.12 Phil. 3.18 19. 2 Pet. 2.9 to 19. So that I may say with Jeremiah 5. ver 30 31. Reply 1. To all this I will say only thus much The Lord will cut out the proud tongue and the monthes of Lyars shall be stopped I shall spread all before the Lord as Hezekiah did Rashake's letter and the Lord be Judge between us Withall know Sir that you must one day answer for this * Jude 15. and for abusing Scripture to the venting of your own wrath bitterness and malice for which end the Scriptures were never written That such Scriptures may be used out of a holy zeal against the known enemies of God his Church against false teachers I deny not but it 's not fit you should vomit up your gall in them this is but to put Satans brats in God's childrens cloaths and to raise up the Devill in Samuel's mantle Yet 2. You say p. 117. we are false accusers for we accuse you and are in fault our selves A wise reason If reduced into form They that accuse the Anabaptists and are in fault themselvs are false accusers But we accuse you c. 1. Your Major is notoriously false Those Scribes and Pharisees accused the woman taken in Adultery in the very act yet they were not false accusers of her though they were in fault in themselves Joh. 8.3 to 12. The penitent thief accused the other thief for railing on Christ and yet he was no false accuser of him though as deep in robbery as the other 3. You say also the Lord hath promised they shal proceed no further c. 2 Tim. 3.9 It 's to be considered whether it be not a threatning rather then a promise we have only your bare word for this last which I cannot credit for it 's said their folly shall bee made manifest as theirs also was i. e. Jannes and Jambres now that was a judgment executed and is not this then a judgment threatned 4. Other Fopperies mentioned in the close of this answer are but repititions to a loathing I 'le say no more SECT 49. H. H. p. 120. Thus having made an end with M. Baxter I shall conclude with M. Cook 's last end of his Font uncovered p. 46. where he seems to answer this Objection Reply And have you done with M. Baxter Truly then you have done your work but by halves What do you say to his tryall q) c. 15. p. 152. to 160. of the strength of your cause by antiquity what not a word to all this what 's become of your old way of disputing never an Odium to cast upon him no clawing Apostrophe to the Reader or people never a mist to cast before mens eyes that they may not see the truth Cannot you tell M. Baxter hee lyes and all that he writes are but lyes why are you thus cowardly without any noise to quit the field Is not this to acknowledge you are conquered But you are about to encounter with M. Cook again Let 's see how you charge here if any whit better then before CHAP. XVI SECT 1. H. H. p. 121. He saith The truth oft lyes deep and will not easily be sound out As it is more pretious then Gold and Silver so it requires more diligent search Gold mines are not obvious to every eye much skill and labour are requisite to find them out and bring the Gold to light Answ Sir I am afraid that this is your Gold that you have deceived so many poor souls withall which you have taken great pains to dig out of the mountains of antient Fathers the mines of mens inventions you may well compare your work to Digging for Isa 29.15 c. Reply 1. That you might be thought it seems to have fully answered that little Book Though you never spake to the substance of it as you have nibbled at some few words in the beginning so now you take notice of some few words in the close of that Book But whereas you say you are afraid I tell you the wicked fear where none pursues and Hypocrites pretend to fear the sins of others when they intend most to hide and dissemble their own 2. It appears indeed you were afraid of somthing when you keep at such distance from the body of that little book which you pretend to encounter only making a few slieghty velitations first at the van and then at the rear and presently run away not daring to come near the main body which stands still in it's full strength and sees you running away only giving some bragging and rayling words as you look behind you which any coward may do 3. If you did discern any counterfeit Gold there why did you not discover it by the touch-stone of the Word to bee so 4. What occasion you have to complain of Ancient Fathers c. I know not for they were not urged in that book But what was there asserted was confirmed by Scripture Though we blesse God for any help we have from ancient or modern writers and their inventions For the finding out of the truth and understanding the Scriptures you that stand not in need of the help of others may scorn them if you please being sufficient of your self 5. You may perceive now your perversenesse in abusing Scripture r) Diodat on Isa 26.15 for they carried on their design secretly with in themselvs never informing themselvs of the wil of God nor commending their said designs to him in prayer for a blessing Malice it self cannot charge M. C. thus Nay rather he is like those who have digged deep to find hid treasures and to expose them to open view which all
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
AN ANTIDOTE Against HEN. HAGGAR'S Poysonous PAMPHLET ENTITULED The Foundation of the FONT DISCOVERED OR A REPLY Wherein his Audaciousness in perverting holy Scriptures and humane writings is discovered his Sophistry in Arguing against Infant-Baptism Discipleship Church membership c. is detected his Contradictions demonstrated his Cavils against M. Cook M. Baxter and M. Hall Answered his Raylings Rebuked and his Folly Manifested By Aylmar Houghton Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Teacher to the Congregation of Prees in the County of Salop. 2 Tim. 3.6 7 8 9. Of this sort are they which creep into houses and lead captive silly women laden with sins led away with diverse lusts ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the TRVTH Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses so do THESE also resist the TRVTH men of corrupt minds reprobate concerning the Faith But THEY shall proceed no further for their FOLLY shall be manifest to all men as THEIRS also was Meritò debet esse nobis suspectum uicquid ab ANABAPTISTARUM officinâ prodiâ—rit quae tot portenta Fabricata est quotidiè Fabricatur Calv. Psychopannychia p. 476. LONDON Printed for Tho. Parkhust and are to be sold at his shop over-against the great Conduit at the lower end of Cheapside 1653. To the truly honoured and his indeared friend the worshipfull THOMAS HUNT Esq Major of the Corporation of Salop. A praise-worthy Patriot and professed Patron of piety without respect of persons even of all that love the truth in Sincerity Whorthy SIR YOu may censure me for over-much boldness to set to you or use your name in this insuing Treatise for Patronage without your leave or licence but that is Plea sufficient that you did not know it if any danger or disgrace should befall it or it miscarry But the truth of Christ needs no defence for Christ himself will grace his own truth in and for his Saints that love it if they should hold their peace Sir I desire io know no man after the Flesh but after the Spirit and am determined not to know any thing here below but Jesus Christ and him crucified and with that spirituall eye do I desire to look upon you and love you and is the onely motive moving me to make thus bold with you Sir It is the Politick practice of impostors like cunning crafty masking mummers to hide their faces and rattle a boxful of Counters instead of good Gold Silver So these men wind in their erroneous doctrines and counterfeit opinions and then perswade poor silly people it is the pure truth of Jesus Christ And thus have they done with some of my people and by this means brought me upon this unpleasing work constraining mee to shape an Answer to a wrangler and that only for the satisfaction of some of my people and reducing if possible some who are seduced and to confirm the rest in the truth of Christ they have been taught and the rather also because M. Haggar's Book was brought me by one of my own peopl but now a seduced Backslider who left it with me for this very purpose In which Book I find many absurdities falsities impertinencies and Scuâ—â—ilities of and against men better then himself but the Lord rebuke him It may be Sir you have heard of that Noble Moralizers Fable of Amphialus who was challenged to combate with Argalus a Knight of the Sun who when he was prepared with all his Military accoutrements to meet his enemie The wife of Argalus dress'd her self in her Husbands Armour and gave the onset to Amphialus and gave the first charge whom he encounters valiantly and overthrows with a mortall wound in the body But when he opened the Armour viewed his conquest and saw it was the wife of his enemy he could have no comfort of the day because it became not a man so to ruine a woman Such is my case in this work in hand The love of peace is glorious in the Church even among those that differ in opinion But if they wil pâ—â— on the arms of an enemy because they wilfully will be enemies with whom I am challenged to combate for the truth of Christ I cannot help it if they meet with a blow though I glory not in it But I am truly sorry that there should bee any such cause It is not for any evill to their persons but to give a mortal wound to their damnable errors Plutarch tells of Archidamus who being once chosen Arbitrator in a difference betwixt two persons brought them to the Temple of Minerva and there decreed that they should not depart thence till they were agreed I could desire that M. Haggar and his party would agree to come into the Temple of God and bee tryed by the holy Scriptures faithfully explicated and applyed In the mean time I leave it to your charitable censure and pray the favourable acceptation of this testimony of love and thankfulness that I owe and am not able to pay but in prayers for you and all yours who am Your humble servant in the Faith once given to the Saints AYLMAR HOUGHTON Prees From my Study July 12 1658. To the READER I Thought it meet if not my duty to give some account of these ensuing particulars 1. Why M. Cook 's and M. Baxter's Treatises have not been Vindicated before this time sith M. Haggar's Answer such as it is hath been extant and they therein challenged some years since These following considerations might sufficiently justifie their silence 1. The impotency and scurrility of that Answer as is manifest to all iâ—telligent Readers might be a sufficient confutation of it and render it unworthy of any Reply but silence When Rabshakeh rayled blasphemed threatned and boasted The people held their peace and answered them not a word for the King's Commandement was saying Answer him not Isa 36.21 2ly The littleness and almost nothingness of that Answer to those Treatises as will easily appear to the peruser though his work did lye here viz. fully to answer these Treatises which specially M. Cook 's by his Goliah-like challenges he had provoked to come forth to Vindicate the truth against him yet he vainly braggs in his Epistle and in the end of his Book that he hath answered both the one consisting of seven sheets and the other of sixty in eighteen sheets When yet I believe it will appear that not so much as is written in halfe a sheet of M. Cook 's Book hath been taken notice off much less answered to who could judge such a vapour as this a sufficient call to undertake a reply 3ly M. Cook and M. Baxter did not apprehend any of their respective Flock in danger to receive any hurt by M. Haggar's Answer which might be a call to appear against it nor indeed of any other till of late 4ly Their employment through God's mercy hath been so full in the work of the Lord although the Answerer charges all Ministers
with idleness that they had no spare time to bestow on so needless a business there appearing neither cause nor call 2. But why then doth any reply come out at last should not these reasons if valid impose a perpetuall silence on all It is known by some what proud challenges have been made by the Answerer and to me in particular by one of M. Haggar's Proselytes heretofore a seeming friend and sheep of my flock which may and it is to be feared do work much upon some weak persons who may be under a temptation by reason of those big swelling words whom we are bound to pity 2. Yea it 's known that some credulous persons that more regard the confidence of mens speeches then the truth or ground thereof are in actuall danger as thinking thus whosoever hath the last word goes away with the victory for whose sake somthing should be done to undeceive them if it may be 3. It is as wel known that this crazy body of mine is on the declining hand I am bound to patch up this old cottage till my Landlord calls for the Tenant which hath kept this reply on my hand longer then I intended And I thought I was bound to do him this service before I put off this my Tabernacle which in all probability will not be long 3. For the manner of replying 1. I shal not render at least in design desire Reproach for reproach nor reviling for reviling If any think they have the best cause and conscience that can scold and rail most for me let the Answerer have the honour with them I shall not envy it I desire to follow the example of Christ who when he was reviled reviled not again c. 1 Pet. 2.23 Yet I acknowledge it 's good to take notice of those Reproaches which in M. Haggar's Answer are belch'd forth against Ministry Ministers Ordinances and Churches of Christ knowing that God hath a speciall hand of providence therein calling to self-examination humiliation supplication and reformation Shimei cannot curse unless God bid him 2 Sam. 16.10 11 12. Nor can Rabshekah rail or Sennacherib blaspheme but some good use is to be made thereof specially for quickning to prayer Isa 34. ver 3 4 14 15 16. Nor can the Devill vex Job but he can acknowledge God's hand in it Job 1.21 and if by occasion of his suffering and smart he spake unadvisedly he will acknowledge himself vile lay hands on his mouth and abhor himself in dust and ashes Job 40.4 and 42.6 2. Yet if any thing be materiall in his Answer I shall fully Reply to it not willingly passing by any thing that may seem to make against those Treatises or for the Answerer 3. Yet I shall avoyd tediousness being as brief as I may without prejudice to the truth and doing that for M. Haggar which he promised to do in his Epistle but performs not in his book viz. to lay aside SVPERFLVOVS and NEEDLESS WORDS And I assure the Reader I am not conscious to my self of wronging M. Haggar purposely when I am constrained to abbreviate his WORDY Answer 4. To whom and for whose use is this Reply made Even to M. Haggar and his followers if they be not such as God and Christ hath warned us not to bee meddled with Prov. 9.8 Mat. 7.6 which I fear as to most of them though some perhaps may be engaged that way through ignorance and so capable of mercy But however it is in the behalfe of those weak ones who in sincerity and love to the truth desire to know God's will and follow it who being staggered with the confidence of the Answerer and unsettled with the long silence as to matter of reply are to be pitied ond relieved in this case knowing that Satan the Prince of darkness and their own naturall darkness and corruption may take occasion by such persons Pamphlets and practises as are abroad to disquiet their Spirits to draw them into crooked paths specially those within my own speciall charge of whom I travel in birth till Christ be formed in them and for whose Souls I am bound to watch as one that shortly must give account Thus have I given you the reasons of the publication of this Treatise If thou shalt find any help for thy confirmation in the faith of Christ give God the praise and forget not to put up one prayer for The meanest of the Servants of the Lord Jesus Christ A. H. WEe Ministers of the Gospel whose names are subscribed do certifie that we have perused the Reply of our Reverend Brother M. Aylmar Houghton Entituled an ANTIDOTE c. and do judge it in the main to bee solid and very usefull for which end the blessing of heaven go along with it to prevent the spreading of the Gangrene in this County of Salop and the Counties Adjacent Tho. Porter Andrew Parsons Rob. Bermey Rich. Steele Imprimatur EDMUND CALAMY CHAP. I. Concerning the Saints Foundation SECT 1. H. H. Pag. 1. THe Foundation which the Saints ought to build upon is Christ 1 Cor. 3.11 for 〈◊〉 foundation no man laieth with Ephâ—â— 2.20 1 Pet. 2.3 4 5. Reply 1. If Christ be the Saints foundation then either you and your disciples are not Saints or else you and they build in matters both of Doctrine and of practise beside the foundation as in the points of original sin free-will falling away from grace dipping c. of which last there is no express command or example in the New Testament as shall be evidenced God willing in their proper places 2. It 's not said in 1 Cor. 3.11 No man laieth but no man can lay a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you break your own rule so often inculcated by you â—pecially p. g. 40. with direful threatnings It 's ominous to stumble in the threshold 3. I fear it was your design to make some believe that the Apostle did and doth contradict himsâ—lâ— for if there be no other foundation but Christ 1 Cor. 3.11 how comes it to passe that the same Apostle speaks of the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2.20 * Yea good works are called a foundation 1 Tim. 6.19 Nayin this same place he doth distinguish Christ from the foun dation of the Apostles and Prophets Indeed b) Distinguo fundamentum in propr dictum ministe iale Cham. lib. 3. c. 3. n. 46 Christ is the personal foundation and the Apostles and Prophets are the doctrinal foundation which though upon the matter they are all one yet you might have done well to have let fall such a distinction unlesse you had a mind to make your Reader believe the Apostle did clash against himself SECT 2. H. H. Again It 's also plain in the words of Christ to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church Observe upon what rock not Peter as the Papists say for Peter is called a stone but Christ is called a rock 1 Cor. 10.
Scriptures What horrible confusion and contradiction is this in you If the name of the Font be not once mentioned in all the Scriptures how is that Scripture fulfilled But of that a little more anoâ— 3. How dare you call the Font an abominable Idoll Where doth the Scripture so brand it if the namâ— be not once mentioned in Scripture 4. What a loud and lewd slander is this to say our children are sacâ—ificed to the Font as Israels babes were to Moloch Assurâ—dly Sir wee no more sacrifice our babes to the Font or Bason then you do your Proselites to a Marle-pit or Horse-pool wherein some of them have been dipt 5. I cannot imagine what should be the ground of such an absurd comparison unlesse it be to render us odious which I hope will never be to any sober judicious and unprejudiced Christian or to pave the way he being a Factor for Rome for some bloody or at least unbloody sacrifice SECT 2. H. H. Now seeing there is no Foundation for the Font in all the word of God we must if we will discover it seek for it somewhere else the which I confesse is not worth the doing were it not to discover and make manifest the folly of them that uncover it and guard it for Infants baptism and to that end I shall do it Reply 1. What no Foundation for the Font in all the word of God then you are much mistaken in saying i) Page 8 9. Here is the words of the Prophet Jeremy fulfilled 2. Since you confesse the discovering of the Foundation of it or seeking for it else where is not worth the doing your allegation I believe will not be worth the answering why then will you spend your time and labour about that which is like Jeremiahs Girdle nothing worth k) Jer. 13.7 3. Your secret gird at M. Cook and M. Hall is born with patience but this I must tell you your discovering of that Foundation will be but a discovering of your own folly 4. What need all this stir to what purpose is this waste Though my Reverend and Godly brethrens books have Font in the Title ye the main drift is not for the continuance of Fonts but of infant-baptism SECT 3. H. H. Look into a book intituled A view of the Civill and Ecclesiâ—sticall law written by Sr. Thomas Ridley Knight and Doctor of the civill law c. Who though an enemy to us yet confesseth p. 176. The Rites of baptism in the primitive times were performed in rivers and fountains Reply Here I earnestly desire the Reader to peruse M. Haggars quotation p. 8 9 10. or the Authour from whence he brings his quotation for either of them are too long to transcribe yet I shall not passe this tedious testimony without some brief Animadversions 1. Whether the Knight was an enemy to you it s more then I know or whether he was a friend to us is more then I am assured of only it 's well known men of that profession have been friends more to the Prelates then to the Presbyterians 2. You say where the persons baptized received that Sacrament but the Knight saith where the persons to be baptized stood up and received that Sacrament and prov'd it out of the Syriack Arabick and Hebrew languages which you very cunningly left out because your manner of Baptizing is apparently different from theiâ—e 3. You say and that truly Christ was baptized of John in the river of Jordan but the Knight saith our Sabaptized John in Jordan A foul mistake I conceived it was the Printers fault and I lookt into the Errata's but it 's not to be found there Now if the Knight did so grosly mistake here why not in the rest or most 4. You say nascentes ibi ecclesiae but the Knight saith Nascentis I lookt among your Errata's but find none printed it may be because all or most of your books is a bundle of Errata's 5. You say this custome of baptizing in Rivers c. being discontinued or left off Fonts were erected in private houses But the Knight saith discontinued those words or left off are of your own foisting in Therefore a man may say of H. H. l) Psal 36.3 he hath left off to be wise to be sure to be honest in setting down those words in the same character with the Authors as if they were the Knights And notwithstanding there is no great difference between discontinued and left off though circumcision was discontinued forty years in the wilderness yet not properly left off and an University man may discontinue there yet not leave it off and a mans ministry may be discontinued through sicknesse c. and yet not properly left off yet had you meant honestly you might have faithfully transcribed the Knights words without chopping and changing But perhaps you intended to set a fair glosse on your following observations SECT 4. H. H. pag. 8. Hence let the Reader observe 1. He saith the primitive practice was to baptize in rivers and fountains which the Antient Churches received from the example of our Saviour Mat. 3.13 14 15 16.2 He saith that was left off observe they left off the example of Christ 3. They erected Fonts in their own private houses Reply 1. The Knight doth not say the antient Churches but Church let the Reader observe your own transcript a little before in the same page 2. How Christ is said to be baptized in Jordan shall be scann'd hereafter 3. The Knight I tell you doth not say That was left off So that in stead of your observation the Reader may observe that you have not left off to mis-recite and pervert the writings not onely of men but of God himself as followeth SECT 5. H. H. Observe Here is the words of the Prophet Jeremiah fulfilled Jer. 2.12 13. Be astonished O heavens at this c. for my people have committed two evils They have forsaken me the fountain of living waters and they have hewen them out Cisterns broken Cisterns that can hold no water Even so these people did forsake baptizing men and women that did believe in rivers and fountains according to the example of Christ and Christians in the primitive times and builded them Cisterns which they call Fonts in their private houses to baptize babes c. Reply 1. You have professed your self to be ignorant of Greek and all that have any schollarship may discern your little skill in Latine m) Nascentes p. 8. and we look for exactness in the English but observe here Is not are the words of the Prophet Learn to write and speak better English 2. How miserably do you contradict your self you said but a little before n) Pag. 7. not a word found in all the holy Scriptures about baptizing in a Font nay not so much as the name of a Font once mentioned in all the holy Scriptures but it seems the name and thing is found and mentioned here how else can you
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
himself the Son of God i. e. he affirmed and declared himself And look as Baptism is said to save 1 Pet. 3.21 not that it constitutes our salvation but signifies and sealâ— it so in Baptism we may be said to be made members of Christ i. e. our membership is signified c. thereby and not constituted 3. It doth not follow that if Children are made members of Christ c. then they were not before no more then this e) Acts 2.36 God made Christ Lord after his Resurrection therefore he was not so before or that a man is in marriage made such a womans husband therefore he was not so before though precontracted SECT 3. H. H. Now if you disown the Common-praier-book and that Catechism you may disown your Baptism which you had by it and be baptized again as we are Reply 1. I thank you for this Let the Reader or any rational man judge whether you do not here grant that we were once baptized Now it is a received truth that Baptism is but once to be administred to one and the same person as the Jews were but once Circumcised and we are born but once Now baptism is a sign of our new-birth e) Tit. 3 5. That place f) Acts 19.5 which onely seems to favour you doth not befriend you for it 's not said They were Re-baptized or baptized Again Nay it 's clear those words are the words of Paul not of Luke penning that story as appears by the g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see Bâ—za in loc and so excellently Cham. t. 4. l. 5. c. 13. n. 44. particles in the 4. and 5. verses shewing plainly that they who were baptized of John were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus or else Johns Baptism and Christs differ which is Popery 2. I appeal to any man whether you may not nay must own the name Anabaptist which so oft in your book you seem to disown For you ingeniously acknowledge that you are baptized again And so much doth the word Anabaptist signifie Thus out of your own mouth you are condemned Do not then condemne them for nick naming you who call you and the men of your perswasion ANABAPTISTS 3. We have no reason to disown our Baptism because of some imaginary nay real corruptions in the Administration no more then the Jews were to renounce their Circumcision because of such corruptions which indeed do not nullifie the Ordinance Shall a Decree in Chancery be rejected because the present Officer is rotten and corrupt Is a Writ or Patent naught and void because signed and sealed by naughty men Was Circumcision ever the worse because Jacobs sons had abused it to over-reach h) Gen. 34. the Shechemites No more is our Baptism on the former supposal SECT 4. H. H. pag. 24. 2. I suppose you will not be so absurd as to own any unbaptized person for a Church-member that hath an opportunity to be baptized neither do I think any of you will have communion with any such in the Lord's Supper or other Ordinances Reply 1. That we will not hold communion with such persons in the Lord's Supper you think right but in that you add or in other Ordinances you think amiss For may we not hold communion with such in hearing the Word preached I trow yes i) 1 Cor. 14.24 25. the Apostle seems to hold it out and I do not find that the Corinthians gave over hearing or preaching because of the presence of an Infidel Now hearing the Word is an Ordinance without doubt and an act of communion also in some sense k) Rhâ—tâ—â—f of Presbyr c. 9. p. 269 c. 2. You sufficiently answer your self For if those that cannot be baptized through want of opportunity though they earnestly desire it and have right as your Answer implies ought to be taken for Church-members notwithstanding the want of Baptism as in the case of the penitent Thief then surely Baptism doth not constitute Churches and Church-members The effect cannot be where the cause is wanting 3. It 's very true profane sleighters and proud rejecters of Baptism are justly reputed no Church-members not because Baptism constitutes Church-members but because obstinate sleighting and rejecting the Sign and Seal of Church-membership is a sleighting and rejecting the thing signified and sealed e. g. The rejecting of Circumcision when it might be had l) Gen 17.14 was a breaking of the Covenant though Circumcision did not constitute the Covenant SECT 5. H. H. 3. No people in Scripture since the Resurrection and Ascention of Christ were ever called a Church of Christ without Baptism Prove it if you can c. Reply 1. What say you to Acts 7.38 A Church in the Wilderness where Stephen calls the Israelites in the Wilderness a Church which was after Christ's Resurrection and Ascention though I confess the people themselvs were long before Christ's Incarnation But to put it out of doubt were not those people the Church of Christ with whom Barnabas and Saul assembled themselvs m) Acts 11.26 in Antioch Yes sure for the Church you say consists of Disciples and it 's said the Disciples were called Christians first in Antioch There is a Church of Christ without Baptism for there is no express mention made of Baptism there as was noted before Nay are not the seven Candlesticks called by Christ the seven n) Rev. 1 20. c. 2. c. 3. Churches and by your self acknowledged to be Churches pag. 28. and yet there is not one word of their Baptism in those two Chapters mentioned 2. What though we read not in Scripture of a people call'd a Church after Christ's Ascention without working of miracles Will it follow therefore that Churches are constituted by working of miracles And that it is no true Church that wants miracles Many things may be in a Church and that according to the will of Christ that yet do not constitute a Church We read not of any Churches in Scripture without afflictions persecutions and temptations in some kind or other yet afflictions persecutions and temptations do not constitute Churches and Church-members Armies appear not in the field without their Colours yet Colours do not constitute an Army Markets and Fairs are not kept by a people except perhaps some Quakers without their cloaths on them yet cloaths or putting them on do not constitute Markets and Fairs 3. That place cited by you o) Act. 2.41 47. doth not expresly speak of Addition by Baptism it only shews the number not your manner of your being added to the Church SECT 6. H. H. 4. Your self saith that faith and interest in Christ constitute a Christian very well then But why do you baptize such as cannot believe in Christ nor yet make out their interest in the Covenant of grace They then that do not cannot do so as Infants are not constituted Christians What they are to God is nothing to
seed of Abraham i) Gal. 3.7 9 14 29. and that they are blessed with faithfull Abraham and that the blessing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles and consequently that the covenant whereof Mr. C. spake and not Church-fellowship made with Abraham and the Faithfull under the Gospel is the same for substance being an everlasting covenant Gen. 17.19 Though differing in manner of dispensation by circumcision in the room whereof Bapâ—isme succeeds Col. 2.11.12 It is evident that the same covenant made with Abraham continues to us Christians as is plain also in that wee Gentiles are planted into the true Olive k) Rom. 11.17 from whence the Jews were broken off which is more largely proved in that Book you pretend to answer 3. For proving that they and their children were admitted into Church-fellowship Do you not know that there are 13 Arguments in that Book which you have not answered onely you speak a little to one which how miserably it is done will appear I hope in its proper place In the mean time the truth is M. C. hath done something to which you answer nothing upon the matter CHAP. VII Of Nationall Churches SECT 1. H. H. You Mr. C. seem to prove l) Font uncovered p. 2. a National Church in that the Lord said to Abraham Gen. 22.18 In his seed all Nations should be blessed I answer He doth not say that all of all Nations shal be blessed nor that all of any Nation shal be blessed I am perswaded you think in your conscience some in this Nation are not blessed Reply 1. That Book wherein Mr. C. declares his judgment briefly and you answer largely saith Though wee boast not of Nationall Churches nor is there any necessity that the mention of Nationall Churches should come into this dispute yet we are not ashamed of the name of a Nationall Church But seeing you urge it on us as odious we desire to consider So that Mr. Hag. you might have kept you to the main business and spared your pains about this by-businesse also but that you had a mind to digresse and quarrell 2. You have no cause to think nor doth the holy Scripture say that ALL of ALL Churches or ALL of ANY one particular Church on earth are blessed For cursed hypocrites are ordinarily in the most refined Churches yet that hinders not but all particular Churches may be called Churches and blessed For 3. The Nation of the Jews was confessedly a National Church that whole Nation as being in covenant with God was a blessed Nation Deut. 23.29 Psal 33.12 and 89.15 And yet every particular person in that Nation was not blessed Deut. 27.15 to the end and 28.15 to the end and chap. 29.19.20 These and other Scriptures shew plainly that as the Jewish Nationall Church was a blessed Nation so every blessed Nation is a Nationall Church at least in so considerable a part as may give it such a denomination and though many particular persons therein may be far from blessednesse yet this hinders not such from the name of a blessed Nation and of a people in covenant and that at the Nation of the Jews was blessed first in Abraham's seed So all the Nations of the earth should in some sense bee blessed by being at last brought into the Covenant and Church-state through the same seed of Abraham You need not therefore make your appeal to Master C. conscience 4. I wonder at your opinion in the close of this Section which you apply viz. A penitent Thief c. and Murderer c. may not justly be put to death because he is the Temple of the Holy Ghost c The penitent Thief was blessed you acknowledge him in a saving condition pag. 25. as he acknowledgeth m) In 22.4 he suffers justly and as I think you dare not deny that he was the Temple of the Holy Ghost yea I wonder more that you dare call the execution of such an offender a destruction of the Temple of God not without horrible abuse of Scripture But you began to lispe in the language of Tho. Muntzer s) Sleid. com l. 10. your predecessor against the Christian Magistracy whatsoever you said seemingly to the contrary p. 31.32 SECT 2. H. H. pag. 27. You bring this Scripture Psal 22.27.28 I answer when that day shall come and that Prophecie be fulfilled we will grant it is fulfilled but for the present All Nations do not serve him neither do all in this Nation worship him Peter's words are true n) Acts 10 34. But there are many in this Nation that do not fear God nor work righteousness Therefore no Nationall Church Reply 1. Though I question the fulfilling of your promise for many Prophecies may be fulfilled which you either do not or will not acknowledg and you may take some fulfilled which are not yet your concession is enough that a National Church in the time of the Gospel is no such absurd or strange thing as you and som would make it 2. Albeit this Prophecy is not fulfilled yet it may be in the fulfilling For though all Nations are not brought to a Church-state yet some may be for present and others by degrees successively in Gods due time 3. It is neither proved by you nor indeed can be easily that ALL i. e. the generality in this Nation do not worship God for worship may be taken here in a large sense yet if granted it wil not thence follow that this is no Nationall Church sith even when the Israelites were a Nationall Church they might and did doubtlesse fall short of the true worship of God as much and more then the people of England 4. Your ground whence you infer that we are no Nationall Church is very unsound viz because ALL do not fear God c. Hereby you must not only deny the Jewish Church to have been a Nationall Church but also the primitive Churches and all other particular Churches whether Congregationall or otherwise called to be Churches For in all visible Churches a great part are Hypocrites without the fear of God c. SECT 3. H. H. You say Isa 49.23 Kings shall be thy nursing Fathers c. I answer That it shall be so I deny not but prove you that it is so As for Englands Kings and Queens it 's well known how they would have nursed the Church if they had but had their minds c. Reply 1. It cannot be denied without ingratitude that England hath been blessed with pious Princes who have nursed the Church in this Nation Was not King Edward the sixth a nursing Father and Queen Elisabeth a nursing Mother for instance deny it if you can 2. Your inference is as weak as the former It 's well known how Saul Ahaziah Athaliah Mannasses c. would have nursed the Church if they had but had their minds as you phrase it Therefore the Jews could have no Nationall Church 3. For our siding with Cavaleers c.
Nations and in compassing the Camp of the Saints will not bee after the full glorifying of the Saints in the highest heavens 2. If these things are too hard for Mr. C. to understand though a Scholar are they easie to you why then do you hold the Light under a Bushel But he that hath but half an eye may see the impertinency of the Scriptures a) Luk. 20.21 with 1 Cor. 2.8 9 10. alledged by you SECT 7. H. H. You say from Rev. 21.24 that the Nations of them that are saved That walk in the light of the New Jerusalem I answer That 's granted but that New Jerusalem is not yet here below for drunkards and wicked persons to walk by but Paul saith b) Gal. 4.26 that it 's above and is free and is the Mother of all the Saints Reply 1. To what purpose do you mention drunkards c. when Mr. C. according to the text Rev. 21.24 expresly mentions them that are saved 2. Paul doth not say expresly neither do you undertake to prove that this New Jerusalem in the Revelation is the Mother of all the Saints That 's your glosse and not the Apostles words But whether by this New Jerusalem is meant the Church Triumphant in heaven which is improbable because it 's said c) Rev. 21.2 to descend from heaven and expresly The Kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it which you cunningly left out or 2. The Church of truly sanctified ones on earth which are hid in the visible Church as the Wheat in the chaffe or 3. of a Future glorious Church on earth at the Jews conversion Iâ— holds forth that National Churches are nâ—t to be accounted absurd to those who are acquainted with the Scriptures For they that are saved are Churches or members of Churches but Nations are saved Therefore Churches or members of Churches 3. The Apostle saith not the Mother of all the Saints as you cite him but of us all as you truly cite it p 56. I believe you have a mind to canonize all the Anabaptists for Saints and I doubt not but there are some reall Saints among them but if there be not drunkards and wicked persons members of your Church you are foully belied Such surely are of Agar SECT 8. H. H p. 29. Lastly you say If a company of believers in one house have been called a Church Domestical then a multitude of believers in a Nation maâ— be called a National Church I answer That 's granted if they be all believers as you said at first but little babes are not believers c. Râ—ply 1. Sir review your Answers from p. 27. to this 29. and you grant seven times at â—east what Mr. C. proves viz. a Nationall Church in a Gospel-time which was the end of citeing the forenamed Scriptures d) See Font uncovered p. 2 to shew that there is no cause of being ashamed of the Title of a National Church nor of your accounting it odious and absurd Now blessing on you I hope you and Mr. C. will shake hands and be friends But yet 2. You curtell Mr. C. Arguments and Scriptures That immediately precedent and this present citation of the words of that Book witness specially this last where you have not only left out ten parts for one very material to clear the consequence but so cited here and there a word as to make it speak little better then non-sense which I refer to the judgment of those that will read the Book and mark how you have abused both it and him 3. If there were some babes in those housholds which could not actually believe and some adult too who did not professedly much lesse sincerely believe the like must be granted concerning National Churches viz. Though every particular person therein doth not actually believe or professe Faith yet the major or better part may give the Denomination e. g. The Infancy of some the wickedness of others hindred not but the Jews might be warrantably called a Nationall Church 4. Though you quite and clean mistake Mr. C. who by the by proves a National Church and here meddles not with Infants yet if little babes be no believers not so much as virtually c. as Mr. C. saith how e) Mar. 16.16 shall ye escape damnation CHAP. VIII Of Affirming a Negative and teaching the Law SECT 1. H. H. You say in your 6 p. we affirm a Negative viz. that the Baptism or sprinkling of Infants is not the Baptism of Christ c. And here you follow us on to purpose and tell us we are such as the Apostle speaks of f) 1 Tim. 1.5.6.7 understanding not what they say nor whereof they affirm Here you think you hit us home I must confesse now you have catched us out of our own element and in your own for we know you are Scholars and have learned to contend about words to no profit c. Reply 1. There is no cause of making this din of being pursued to purpose c. For in that Book there are very few lines spâ—nâ— about this your absurdity But you have bestowed almost two pages in pleading for it with more absurdities Nay this is not the only ground as you untruly relate of your charge there but one among those verall grosse mistakes which may give just cause to judge that you are such as the Apostle saith know not what they say nor whereof they affirm 2. What vanity and audaciousness did you then discover in urging for disputes when you confesse the terms of Art which are needfull to be known in all regular dispuâ—ings are things out of your element To dispute without Legick and to reason in points of learning without Scholarship is as wise as to undertake to judge of colours without sight and light or to challenge to run a race without leggs SECT 2. H. H. Seeing we erred in saying we affirm a Negative we will either confess our errour or shew you a president which may justifie our practice Paul saith g) Kom 3.12 There is none that doth good no not one Here Paul affirmeth a Negative for there is an Affirmative c. Reply 1. It had been far better for you ingeniously to have confessed your error or to have passed it by in silence as you have done many more materiall things in Mr. Br. and Mr. C. Books for you are like to a beast in a Quagmire the more you stir the deeper you sink What intollerable impudency is this instead or confessing your error and resolving to keep within your own element to go about to justifie your self of fathering your folly on the Scripture 2. In that proposition of the Apostle the negative particle is in the h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 originall set before the Verb so that according to your interpretation it would be rather a denying of an Affirmative then affirming a Negative They that understand know that where the predicate is affirmed
miserable Comforter for when you have done you fall a railing on us calling us Sensless ignorant wretches that will call for express Scripture when we have your Consequences But I have told you already we dare not trust your Consequences Indeed Scripture-reason is good reason and it 's that we would have from you for which you call us ignorant sensless wretches Reply 1. It seems a just reproving in pity is a railing with you If so you are far-gone and very high-flown indeed 2. It 's your subtil sophistry to call evident Consequences drawn from Scripture Our Consequences 3. If Mr. Baxter say true and you do not disprove him that evident Consequences drawn from Scripture are as true proof as the very express words of a Text which you cannot but grant p. 12 13 14 you may trust them better then or as well as your own Consequences which you often bring SECT 38. H. H. p. 45. We call Scripture-reason written reason now if you would shew us where your reason is written in the Book of God the holy Writings the Controversie were at an end but till then you have done nothing But you might do well to inform the ignorant wretches that the holy Scriptures in English are holy writings And thus the people would know what you mean by Scripture-reasons i. e. written reasons Reply 1. If I mistake not here is a pure Socinian Principle viz. Nothing is written in Scripture but what is exprest in so many words Then farewell the doctrine of the Trinity justification by Faith onely trusting in Christ's satisfaction c. All which and many more particulars are not written in your sense in the book of God but written in our sense therein because drawn by evident consequence from thence 2. Christ saith Joh. 5.46 That Moses wrote of him m) Gen. 3.15 Deut. 18.15 which is true in our sense but Truth if self must have the Lye given him in your sense For there is not one expresse written word of Christ in all the book of Moses I mean the person of Christ God-man 3. We do inform the ignorant wretches as you advize us nay we have done it before you advized us and they do or may know that Infant-baptism is written in the Book of God as plainly as womens Receiving the Lord's Supper and those particulars mentioned in your pag. 12 13 14. Will you now stand to your word and say with Mr. Saltmarsh in another case An end of a Controversie SECT 39. H. H. You say we disdain reason and therefore not to be reasoned with and if we once renounce reason we are bruit-beasts and who will go to plead with a beast It 's reason that differeth a man from a beast c. Answ You put me in mind how lâ—ke one of your forefathers you are for to my best remembrance you speak his very words and I question not but if you had an opportunity you would do his deeds viz. Doctor Story to Mr. Philpot see Fox Martyr p. 1972. Reply 1. Mr. Haggar brings in a long story of Dr. Story his conference with Mr. Philpot the Martyr I desire the Reader to view either Mr. Haggar or Mr. Fox which for brevity take I cannot transcribe Yet I say truly that a Liaâ— had need have a good memory Mr. Baxter doth not speak Dr. Stories words This Doctor called Philpot a beast simply and absolutely M. Baxter calls you so hypothetically and conditionally if reason be renounced nay he includes himself as wel as Anabaptists on that supposition as you transcribe him IF WEE SECT 40. H. H. pag. 46. See how like your forefather Dr. Story you speak and behave you self or would do if you had but liberty You are children of one father whose works you do Joh. 8. ver â—4 Reply 1. No more like then an Apple is like an Oyster as they say the parallel is not right for beside the forementioned difference Dr. Story was a Papist M. Baxter a Protestant Henry Haggar an Anabaptist and railer Mr. Philpot neither but a meek Martyr That learned and godly Mr Philpot was no Anabaptist it's plain n) Sâ—e Fox vol. 3. p. 600. c. Anno 1555. for in a Letter to a fellow-prisâ—ner thus he writes The Apostles of Christ dâ—d baptizâ— Children And in another The Apostles baptized Infants since Baptism is in place of Circumcision In a thiâ—d The Apostles did baptize Infants and not onely men of lawful age And again Why do not these rebellious Anabaptists obey the Commandement of the Lord Mark 10.13 14 15 16 Now let the Reader consider whether you or Mr. Baxter is most like to that blessed Martyr and whether you are more like to Dr. Story if you had libertie o) Sleid. l. 10. your predecessors at Munster shew of what spirit you are 2. Guilt of Conscience make you fearful of punishment and uncharitably censorious of your betters who without vanity may say p) Mat. 23.9 One is our Father which is in heaven SECT 41. H. H. Where as you say we disclaim reason I Answer It 's but one of your false accusations we own all things written in the Scripture c. Reply 1. You disclaim the plainest and clearest reason deduced out of Scripture and so it 's no false accusation 2. If you did own all things written in the Scripture the Controversie were at an end as you say p. 45. 3. What perversness and partiality is this that you can own Women's Discipleship and their Receiving the Lord's Supper c. aâ— p. 14. as things written in Scripture and yet disclaim some Infant 's Discipleship Church-membership and Baptism which are written in the Scriptures of truth as well as the former and many other instances which might be given SECT 42. H. H. pag. 47. Mr. Baxter saith Do you think the Lord Jesus knew a good Argument or the right way of Disâ—uting Why how did he prove the Resurrection to the Sadduces from that text I am the God of Abraham c. Answ The Lord Jesus knew a good Argument and the right way of Disputing better then Mr. Baxter or my self or any man else I humbly confess to his praise and therefore I desire to make use of his words that he hath already spoken knowing that he hath reasoned and proved all things better then I can Reply 1. Then you grant that there can be no arguing from Scripture but by deduction for in all Arguments there must be a Medium and a Conclusion a Proposition and an Inference as appears by your own Arguments p. 63 c. 2. You grant as much as is desired that to argue by evident Consequence from Scripture is a right way of disputing as Christ's was Humbly confess this also to Christ's praise and join hands and hearts also with Mr. Baxter and say I shall think it no weak arguning which is like to Christ's nor shall I take my self to be out of the way while I follow him SECT 43.
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
Positions therefore you had need say more to the rest All which I leave to the consideration of the judicious Reader CHAP. XI Of Believers Infants being in Covenant in Gospel-times SECT 1. H. H. p. 55. Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter make the Covenant with Abraham and his natural seed under the Law all one with the Covenant made with Abraham and his spiritual seed born of the Spirit under the Gospel In answer to which I thus reason Reply 1. In stead of answering Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter you wisely wave their Arguments with the illustrations and confirmations and argue against some of those Mediums used by them to prove Infants right to Baptism which whether it be not contrary to the rules of reasoning your promise and Title of your book and whether it import not your inability to answer those Arguments I leave to the Reader to consider of 2. That which you charge of Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter is pal pably false you find no such things in their Books specially Mr. Cooks which you undertake to answer and that 's the reason perhaps that you named neither book nor page as you have done elswhere and at other times For we know 1. That the Covenant made with Abraham and his seed o) Gal. 3.17 was four hundred years and more before the giving of the Law 2ly Abraham's servants also were taken into that Covenant p) Gen. 17.12.13.14.23.27 viz. such as were bought with mony and those that were born of them in his house who were circumcised with him Nay strangers of any Country whatsoever becoming Proselytes were allowed and bound q) Exod. 12.44 48. to be Circumcised and to eat of the Passe-over both ordinary seals of the Covenant sure these could not be called properly Abrahams natural seed 3. If Abraham in any good sense may be said to have a spiritual seed then he had such E. gr Isaac r) Gal. 4.29 who was born after the Spirit 4. Of these who are called Abraham's seed under the Gospel being by faith and the profession thereof Å¿) Rom. 11.17 to 22. planted into that Olive from which the Israelites were broken off by unbelief Many are but carnal fleshly s) 1 Cor. 10.1 to 12. Gal. 3.26 27 28 29. with verse 12 13 14. as sundry of the Jews were and I think you dare not profess that all your Church-members are born of the Spirit sad experience would confute such a presumption Now let us hear your Reason SECT 2. H. H. That there is two Covenants it 's evident Gal. 4.24 If so then either we are under the old Covenant still or else the new is come in place Reply 1. To pass by your improper expression there is two Covenants The text you cite and the Grammar which you call a whimsey p. 35. might have taught you better I grant two Covenants in a â—ight sense in the same Church * Deut. 29.1 and in the same age yea and with the same person Gen. 15.18 17.2 But that is the most famous distinction of the Covenants 1. Old which was made with the people of God in Christ to be exhibited and who was signified by Types c And 2ly New made in Christ exhibited and who hath fulfilled what was so prefigured Yet these as different in manner of Administration are two and therefore called u) Eph. 2.12 Covenants in substance are one and therefore called v) Actâ— 3.25 the Covenant As the same comman clement of love * 1 Joh. 2.7 8. wiâ—h Joh. 13.34 in diverse respects is both old and new and the same Church servile and free Gal. 4.1 2 3. The same person that was a child is now a man as we use to say So the same Covenant of grace in regard of essentials was the Old Covenant as is the New the faithful under that x) Acts 15.11 being saved by the grace of God even as we 2. You might have saved your labour in proving that the New Covenant is come in place of the Old It 's granted as the Gospel-ministry People Sabbath Sacraments or seals of the Covenant are come in the place of the Levitical and Jewish as manly age in tract of time comes in the room of child-like but all this makes against you and for us 3. We do not bring our proof for Childrens right to the seal of Initiation from that Covenant in Sinai of which the Apostle y) Gal. 4.24.25 expresly speaks and sers the Covenant as perverted by the Jews expecting righteousness from the work of the Law but from the Covenant made with Abraham 430 years before that time z) Gen. 15.18 17.7 8. Gal. 3.16 17. so that though it were proved by you and granted by us that the Covenant on Mount Sinai was a Covenant of works yet our Argument from the Covenant made with Abraham which was undeniably a Covenant a) Gal. 3.8 16 17. of grace stands unshaken 4. Yet I humbly conceive that that Covenant on mount Sinai though it was attempered to the condition of an unbroken people for their humiliation and therefore said to b) Gal. 4 24. gender to bondage and grace was revealed therein more darkly and temporal prouâ—ises and threathings expâ—essed therein more â—ully â—et it was a Covenant of Grace according c) See Dr Holmes Epist Preface to Mr. Craddocks Gâ—spel-liberty Dr. Reynolds 3 Treatâ—ses to God's primary intention and as used by the godly for whose sake it was principally made Because 1. God â—elâ—s lirael if they will keep that Covenant d) Exo. 19.5 6. they shall be his peculiar treasure a kingdom of Priests and an holy Nation which â—ame tides are given to God's people in e) Tit. 2.14 1 Pet. 2.9 Gospel-times what though all dâ—d not keep Covenant no more than any visible Church now yet some dâ—d as Moses Aaron Joshua Caleb and many others with whom God was well pleased as is implied 1 Cor. 10.5 which could not be without faith f) Heb. 11.6 aâ— you your self confess p. 25. 2. God calls himself their God g) Exod. 20.2 7 10. not of their bodâ—â—â— onely but of their souls also h) Mat. 22.31.32 with Heb. 11.16 and that not temporally but eternally 3. It was confirmed by sacrifices c. Psal 50.5 by which they had communion with God which could not be without Faith Heb 11.4.6 and Faith looks at Christ the object though then not so clearly revealed yet signified by those sacrifices and all the Levitical service 4. They that kept this Covenant sincerely as many did i) Exd. 20.6 34.6 7. Psal 32.1 2. Rom. 4.6 7 8. Psal 103.17 18. were partakers of pardoning beatifical and everlasting mercies 5. All those Worthies hinted at from Moses to Christ were famous for their faith k) Heb. c. 11. Acts 15.11 and saved by grace 6. To name no more Christ is the end of the Law c. Rom. 10.3 and
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
the stories and therefore may they not be true Is the book of Martyrs as it 's commonly called all Lies because an enemy to the Pope and his proceedings compiled it Had these enemies as you call them been Nero's *) Quoddum magnum bonum quod à Neâ—ome condemnatum Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 2. c. 25. their Writings had been some advantage to the Anabaptists But they were godly and learned Divines among whom that there should not be one true and impartial historian is incredible at least if those histories be false why are they not confuâ—ed at least by you who boast of answering M. Baxter Mr. Cook Mr. Hall c. with a little more labour and lesse truth you might so answer Luther Calvin c. cannot you tell us that their books are lies as well as Mr. Baxter in your p. 110 I would be loth you should have more manners then will do you good Till they be clearly answered we must take the Anabaptists for seditious filthy unclean idle c. such as they from knowledge and experience report them to be There is all the equity in the world if the evidence let who will give it be true it should be of force and valid 4. Let the Reader observe that by Mr. Haggar's confession the Anabaptists ever since they appeared met with opposition And I dare tell you you have one more rich and potent enemy then you dream of i.e. GOD himself who hath ever followed them with eminent judgments and written their wickedness in their almost unparallel'd wretchedness He that runs may read their sin in their punishment 5. No wonder Zuinglius could not stop their mouth they were so wide Anabaptists are resolved to have the last word and nimbler in reviling then reasoning being better armed with arrogancy then Arguments But I must tell you by the way you grosly mis-report Mr. Baxter pag. 140. for he saith Zuinglius had publick Disputation with them in which being convict of Error they foamed against their Antagonists with blasphemies and reproaches you might be ashamed of them that opened their mouths thus 6. Without question it is meet and just that a religious Magistracy should punish such obstinate gain-saiers and unreasonable men who were not tired with reviling nor would be satisfied with reason such mad creatures must be bound c. 7. Though the Apostles could not repell their adversaries crueltie yet they could plead their own innocency so could not the Anabaptists But what is that of the Apostles to these Will it follow because John the Baptist was beheaded therefore John of Leiden was a Martyr unless name-sake make them nigh a kin This is even like Mr. Haggar SECT 37. H. H. same pag. As the Apostles suffered Acts 24.5 so were those served at Germany yet M. Baxter saith p. 140. they did not suffer as Anabaptists but as men perjured disobedient c. Answer And so I thought indeed that as a Sheep in a Bears skin is soon worried so these learned Divines know the onely way to prison banish or hang the Anabaptists is to cloath them with filthy names and reproaches Then the people will be ready for to stone them and if any question it he is presently suspected to be an Heretick Reply Here is impudence with a witness but without a parallel So were the Anabaptists of Germany served Were they like Paul Peter or John and suffered onely under the notion not for the fault and fact of Sedition Rebellion Murder c. Let the Reader see and judg whether this be not a most gross and shameless untruth *) Sleid. Com l. 6 At Sengal one of them cut off his own brothers head before his father and mother saying The Father had commanded him The Anabaptists go to the Market-place and command all that were not baptized i. e. re-baptized to be kill'd as Pagans A little after being armed they rendevouz and drive out of the Citie all that were not of their Sect without regard of age or sex Again John of Leiden after his long sleep broaches his Doctrine of Polygamy and marrying three Wives others follow his example and such marriages were counted commendable Not long after rises from supper kills a poor souldier for a â—udas returns to supper and jests at the fact c. Did these things proceed from an Apostolick spirit were the Apostles such as these or were these tumultuous Incendiarie beastly Adulterers bloody Murtherers like the Apostles This is most brazen-faced confidence The Apostles suffered as Martyrs these as Malefactors If these were innocent sheep Hell is full of such Saints 2. What need â—hose learned Divines as you scoffingly call them 〈◊〉 Bears skin on the Anabaptists It cannot make them uglier then they are If they have clothed them with filthy names they have but call'd a Spade a Spade else why do not you put off these Bears-skins in vindicating them The truth is it passeth your art you must flea them Jer. 13 2â— Aâ—â—â—is Aethiopâ—m quid fâ—ustâ—a ab desiâ—e noctis illustrate nigrae nemo potest tenebras Aâ—ciar if you pull them off for their skins are natural But it is in vain to wash the Black-moor 3. It 's but one of your usual Liveries liberally bestowed to say we condemn them as Hereticks that will not believe this c. You might better wear it your self for you and your party count them Hereticks Antichristians Heathens c. that are not re-baptized c. 4. What you say in the close of this answer concerning Mr. Baxter's crie to the Magistrate c. It hath been spoken to already in this Reply to the sixth Argument whither I refer the Reader SECT 38. H. H. You tell us that Calvin wrote against them Answer True when they were dead and laid in their graves and so could not answer for themselvs then Calvin falls a writing against them But Mr. Baxter I write to you and to Mr. Hall and to Mr. Cook while you are alive and may answer for your selvs therefore I expect an answer from you c Reply 1. The meanest understanding may here discern your folly for all this Mantle for were the Anabaptists past answering for themselvs the grave then could that which you say Zuinglius could not And surely it had been a poor part in Calvin to become an Opponent where Death had taken away the Respondent I had thought he had been a better Civilian then to commence a suit after the winding â—heet But you deliver a notorious untruth that blessed man was not afraid p) See Mâ—lchior Adam de vita Calviâ—i p. 68.69 to encounter your living Predecessors but did conquer them too only by the Word of the Lord. But if they had been all dead and laid in their graves I pray then where was the Church If the gates of hell could not the gates of death could prevail against it Do you think youâ— Church was like the mad-man in the Gospell among Tombs
Mark 5.3 5. but how came they dead the Magistrate you say prisoned banished and hanged them I easily believe that they who were hanged were dead but that the prisoned or banished were so unlesse civilly dead in Law or spiritually dead in sin is beyond my faith And me thinks though the imprisoned could not write yet the banished might have the liberty of pen and ink Thus whilst you would scape the Bears skin you get into the Foxes by misciting Mr. B. 2. As you have manifested your folly so you discover a piece of daring pride in challenging those three worthies to answer you Goliah-like done But Sir you must not take it unkindly if I tell you and so I do your book is not worth the answering by such worthy Champions Nor had it been by me had not some of your brood with a braving importunity forced this from me Of all which and more I have given an account in the Epistle to the Reader 3. It had been more meet in my judgment â—hat you should first have answered Calvin now he is dead laid in grave and past answering for himself so you might have cryed quittance with him SECT 39. H. H. p. 107. You say Calvin in his letter shews two sorts of Anabaptists one boasted of Scripture and pleaded it with great confidence Answ 1. If they so boasted they boasted of that which is good 2 Cor. 11.10 Psal 44.8 and if you would boast of them more then you do it would be better for you 2. Doth it displease you to hear men plead Scripture for what they hold are you such enemies to hold holy Scripture Take heed least white you boast your selvs to be wise without or above them you become foools 1 Cor. 3.19.20 21. If those two things be the worst that Calvin and you can say of those Anabaptists I shall not be ashamed to own them for Christians before all men Reply 1. If boasting be taken in the right sence I agree with you the more you and I boast of Scripture the better it is for you and me Though those Scriptures you brought to prove this be impertinent 2. It doth not displease Calvin or Mr. Baxter that men boast of and plead Scripture but that they shamefully abuse it to the maintenance of their cursed errours as if God had provided armes for Sathan gathering that which the Holy Ghost never scattered and wracking it to speak that he never intended And if you have a love to the truth as it is in Jesus I think you will be displeased to see spiders gather poyson from such flowers and brats draw blood in stead of milk from those sacred breasts which is Calvins c. meaning when he says they boast of Scripture Christ liked the Law but not the Pharisees Leaven We commend the Text but not the Anabaptists Comment And therefore while you wonder at them take heed you be not of those Act. 13.41 3. Your civill caveat which is as a flower in a dunghil I thank you for it I like not truth the worse from whomsoever it coms f) Si caecus mòstravet iter tamen aspice Horat. I will embrace good counsell ever from an enemy for those 1000 you talk of I have replyed to 4. In the conclusion though you have thrust us out at the window yet you have unawares let us into the Church at the door for if we plead Scripture more truly then the Anabaptist for what we hold you need not to be ashamed to own us for Christians before all men But 5. Will Mr. H. indeed own all for Christians that plead Scripture his words can bear no other construction then not only Hereticks but Satan himself may come in for a room among Christians Did not Satan plead s) Mat. 4 6. Et sient caput tunc capiti nunc quoque memhrâ— membris c. com c. 51. Scripture to Christ Mat. 4.6 And as impertinently as you have done as hath been shewed and have not his first born children I mean Hereticks both pleaded and boasted of Scriptures Now let any Heretick have but his book and by your doctrine he wil never be condemned Is this boasting and pleading Scripture good Certainly you are too lavish now when you cut the Devill and his Imps a piece of the childrens bread Thus you stand upon such a guard your self as defends and patronizes the worst of men and the vilest opinions of those worst of men Why may not any who plead Scripture with confidence be as good Christians as Anabaptists are or boast themselvs to bee SECT 40. H. H. As for your other sort you talk of that are above Scripture that confound all things c. I and all that own the Scriptures do deny and defie them and their ways and you do wickedly to call them Anabaptists whom Calv. calls Libertines as you confesse p. 141. Reply 1. I believe all that own the Scripure as they should do deny and defie them and their ways But I doubt whether you do as you say for then you deny and defie Anabaptism for that is their way still though they fly higher then yet you have done But as many in word defie the Devill and spit at the mention of his name yet own him in life So I fear you do with those Anabaptists 2. To pass by the overflowings of your gall against M. B. the meanest may see you would fain creep out at any hole Calvin calls them Libertines Therefore M. B. doth wickedly in calling them Anabaptists like this Protestants are of two sorts either Lutherans or Calvinists Therefore he that calls the Calvinists Protestants doth wickedly therein Or if I should say there are two sorts of Christians viz. Protestants and Anabaptists is it maliciously done to say Anabaptists are Christians upon the supposall SECT 41. H. H. p. 108. You say pag. 142. No man can shew you one man of the Anabaptists that is not tainted with some of these foresaid wickednesses Answ If any of us should say wee were never lyars wee should be still lyars Rom. 3.10 to 16. This is the condition of all men before faith and repentance Luk. 13.2 3 4. again 1 Cor. 6.9.10 11. And I dare not say but such as have been gross sinners may on their conversion be brought into the Anabaptists Churches c. Reply 1. I will not quarrell with you about the first part of this your rambling Answer It s to be acknowledge with shame and sorrow we are vile by nature 2. Surely you have the Art of breathing on your Converts with Knipperdoling u) Sleid com 〈◊〉 â—0 bidding them to receive the holy Ghost If those of the Anabaptists Church though grosse sinners when of our Church are now Saints which is nothing else but a blasphemous crack or vain brag a Paradox to me and shall be believed when you prove your Dipping an Ordinance of Christ and your Baptizing exepere operato the Laver of regeneration for the
the dust you have raised and noise you have made can neither hide from him nor plunder him off SECT 2. H. H. same p. What have you to do to call Christ Lord and yet will not do the things which he saith Luk. 6.46 Which is to preach the Gospell to all and baptize them that believe and gladly receive it Mark 16.15 16. with 2.41 8.12 This Gold will endure the fire when your Rantizing babes will perish Though you plead for cozening poor Children in their Cradles and when you have done you have made them seven times harder to be converted to the Faith of the Gospel then they were before Reply 1. There is no 41 verse in Mark. 2. nor any thing to your purpose in Mark 8.12 I suppose the Printer hath abused you for Acts 2.41 and 8.12 But those and the other Scriptures have been Answered before though you please your self in singing the Cuckow 's song 2. All verily is not Gold that glisters your Gold you brag of proves but gilded brasse Infant-Baptism will last when your mode shall vanish like smoke in the air 3. It 's well known and may be spoken to God's glory that many after Infant-Baptism and still owning it have been converted from their natural and sinfull estate to the obedience of the Faith Now if Infants before your Baptizing were seven times more easie to be converted then after what is become of all your noise concerning Infants capacity to repent and believe Is your mind changed now Are you indeed perswaded that Infants unbaptized are seven times easier to bee converted to the Faith then after Baptism But your rage carries you on to rail on us not without abuse of Scripture in most of your 122. page which is unworthy of any other answer but silence and patience SECT 3. H. H. pag. 122. We are not to be blamed if we declare nothing but the Word of God 2 Tim. 4.2 and if we have answered in eighteen sheets c. Reply 1. To the first I need say little True if you have such a Call as Paul and Timothy had or any just call warranted by the World to preach and declare God's Word but you have not yet proved that you have any such call Now then if you preach before you are sent and run without Commission the speaking of some truths will not justifie you Sathan spake sometime truth and that according to God's Word but having no Call had no thanks nor was justified therein Mat. 4.6 8.29 Acts 16.17 18. And his slaves have taken upon them to imitate the Apostles of Christ in these things whereto they had no call Acts 19.13 14 15 16. 2 Cor. 11.13 14. 2. How punctually you keep to the Word of God in your teaching and writing I hope appears by this time Papism Arâ—inianism Socinianism c. with which your book is more then sprinkled are not parts of the word of God 3. I do not marvel at your briefness in answering when you promise to answer all and indeed answer nothing Besides Tares are sooner sowen then gathered up and the ground rid of them poison is sooner prepared and devoured then the body cleansed of it An hundred houses are sooner burnt then one built yet I have transcribed you and replied to you SECT 4. H. H. p. 133. It is said wee are they that subvert whole housholds but I answer as Elijah did Ahab 1 King 18.18 We do not subvert whole Housholds for we baptize none but those that believe according to Mark 16.15 16. Acts 8.12 37. But it 's you Mr. C. that subverts whole housholds when you baptize children and all for lucres sake c. Reply Sir it 's not your Nay will serve when your practice proclaims the contrary neither can you shew any call from God to do what you do as Eliah could shew for what he did and therefore you still abuse Scripture What warrant have you for re-baptizing those that have been baptized Christ's command and his Apostles practice was to baptize Jews and Gentiles of ripe years that had until that time been Jews and Gentiles your pretending that warrant is confessing that whom you baptize are Jews or Gentiles and if you make them that were professed Christians to become Jews and Gentiles that you may baptize them after the example of the Apostles you subvert persons families and countries to purpose CHAP. XVII Of Humane Learning in a Minister of Christ SECT 1. H. H. pag. 123. I shall now shew the reasons of our dissenting from the Church of England and all other Churches which stand upon these four pillars viz. 1. Humane Learning for take away that which you had at Cambridge or Oxford and you have no Ministry but all men may preach as well as you nay I might say better Reply 1. It is a notorious untruth confidently enough asserted by you without the least colour of proof that the Church of England is built on the four pillars mentioned by you These are of your own framing and daubed with untempered mortar No Sir it 's built on that Rock against which the gates of Hell shal not prevail Mat. 16.18 and on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone Ephesians 2. ver 20. 2. If that we had at Cambridge or Oxford were taken away it doth not follow that we have no Ministry How many pretious Ministers are there in the Church of England eminent for piety and learning who never were matriculated in Cambridge or Oxford God having blest their private studies in the Country with the attainment of excellent abilities Violets may be found and gathered in the Field as well as in the Garden 3. It 's a Paradox that all men may preach as well as we * Multi imperitorum magistri sueâ—int priusâ—uam suerint doctorum discipulâ— Wittenberg Conles Artic. 20. suppose University Learning were taken away for herein you dissent from your own Church if a Church which hath been of this mind hitherto that none but gifted men may preach mistaking that Scripture * Ye may all prophesie Unless you mean that Women and Infants may preach for they are comprehended in those terms All men But Infants cannot speak you often say and Women may not 1 Cor. 14.34 as hath been shewed before 4. It 's worse to say you might say better x) Non sacile de Artibus rectè jâ—dicat qui Artes ignorat Cyprian 1 King 12.31 You know in the Fable who judged that the Cuckow â—ung better then the Nightingale It was Jeroboams sin that hee made Priests of the lowest of the people and it is your sin and shame to make Preachers of Mechanick and unlearned men Alas we would have learned Lawyers for our estates The Apostle saith who is sufficient for these things 2 Cor. 2 16. but H. H. saith who is not sufficient and learned Physicians for our bodies and not learned Ministers for our souls 5. Though