seed and his blessing on their off-spring And he declares e) Isa 65.23 Psal 37.26 their off-spring are blessed and that the kingdom of heaven belongs to them f) Mat. 19.14 c These and the like things are not said of the children of unbelievers Therefore some difference sure 4. Yet no children are innocent absolutely but comparitatively as David was if his prayer was heard Psa 19.13 So I shall be innocent from the GREAT transgresion and Abner and Amasa were not without sins yet their blood is termed innocent blood g) 1 Kin. 2.31 32. so those children in Psal 106. were innocent as to actuall sin and in respect of those that murdered them but not free from originall sin nor spotlesse before God For had they been altogether without sin they could not have dyed Joh. 14.3.4 Psal 51.5 Rom. 5.12 14 18. and 6.23 Ephes 2 3 I say God in equity could not take away their lives if they were simply without all sin or else God iâ— cruelâ— in punishing as the places you bring seem to prove which is prodigious blasphemy 5 How is Scripture abused how impertinent is your proof man must not destroy the innocent Exod. 23 7. Prov 6.16 17. Therefore God will not Our Divines hold that God by his perogative may h) Joh. 9.12 with 2â— 3 annihilate an innocent person yea lay what evills he please as on Christ who in himself was every way innocent without any wrong to the creature and were not the Sodomites and their children i) Josh â— 24 Achan and his children punished and that without any injustice by the Lord and how many children were drowned in Noah's deluge 6. To return to Psalm 106. Those children were children of persons externally in Covenant though wicked yet not dis-covenanted for after severe corrections he is said to remember his covenant for them verse 45. 7. What you say in the rest of this p. is not at all pertinent to this Argument and therefore I passe the same by only with soâ—â—e brief animadversions in the generall we have here 〈◊〉 bundl of Arminianism or refined Pelagianism First a tacite denying or at least a sleighting k) See c. 10. ans to the 7. 〈◊〉 qu. of originall sin contrary to Scripture and experience Secondly none shall be condemned for Adam's transgression contrary to Rom. 3.23 with 5.18 19 Thirdly originall sin doth not deserve eternall death but onely temporal what other construction can be made of your words though they must all dye for Adam's transgression yet c. contrary to Rom 6.23 Fourthly In such little babes there is no Law contrary to Rom. 7.1 with 5 12. Fifthly no transgression can be imputed to them how then do they dye as you confesse for Adam's sin with a pitifull contradiction is this Sixthly None shall be judged according to originall sin contrary to Rev. 20.12 SMALL and great stood before God who were judged according to their works And if Adams transgression be every mans work save Christ's then Infants shall be judged accordingly or if for the effect then much more for the cause which is as bad if not worse you harp on the word DONE in 1 Cor. 5.10 I find no such thing in that Scripture when you correct your quotation you shall have a solution In the mean time it looks very suspitiously when the creature is more mercifull then the Creator as the pitifull Arminians seem to bee if you would take that advice you give to M. B. c. viz. Seriously consult Scripture your wonder would not bee for nine days but I hasten to your next p. SECT 3. H. H. p. 61. God hath hath one way to save men and women and another to save Infants as Rom. 5.18 whence I conclude that Infants which fell in Adam without any actuall sin or knowledge of Adam's transgression even so they dying in their Infancy c. are saved by virtue of Christ's death without any actuall faith or knowledge of Christs obedience or else it is not EVEN SO as Rom. 5.18 saith Reply 1. So then you positively assert that all Infants dying in their Infancy c. are saved by Christ c. Rom. 5.18 But 1. Here is no expresse mention made of Infants or their fall in Adam or any actuall sin or of knowledge of Adam's transgression or of their salvation by Christ's death or of their actuall faith or knowledge of Christ's obedience Here therefore is no plain proof for your assertion All the particulars fore-named are unwritten traditions additions to the Scripture take heed lest those plagues you would scare others with so often become your own portion 2. The word ALL must be taken largely or restrictively not the former For then all men women and children within and without the Church shall be saved for justification of life upon all men implies so much Now it 's impossible that those who are truly justified l) Rom. 8.30 32 34. c. should fall short of glorification If you mean as your words imply that all in their Infancy were justified though after by sinning they may perish that is repugnant to the fore-named Scripture nor restrictively For neither the woâ—d nor context admit such an exception Indeed there is a kind of universality of those that are partakers of justification of life i. e. All they that receive abundance of grace c. verse 17. i. e. All the Elect Christ's sheep regenerate and sanctified ones But where is it proved that all Infants even of Heathens so dying are such Nay it 's denyed by you 3 How can you satisfie your self with this one Scripture from whence you draw no Argument but this else it is not even so as Rom. 5.18 saith i. e. either your opinion is true or that Scripture is false But as you know that comparisons do not run on four seet so you will not yield to many Scriptures with Arguments deduced from them though never so clearly and strongly for the proof of Infant Baptism Is this impartiall dealing will you have Infants even of Heathens saved here by consequence And shall not â—e have Infants even of Christians baptized by consequence from Mat. chap. 28. verse 19. 4. I have heard of one that held universall Redemption of all from originall sin and that therefore Infants even of Heathens while such are in God's favour which I think is your opinion I am sure it is of some of your Proselytes in these parts and thence concluded that such Infants were to be baptized if parents would permit and if the Antecedent be granted which you do the consequent cannot be denyed by any but by him that absurdly did and will deny the conclusion For who can deny the seal of Redemption to them who are acknowledged to have interest in Redemption by Christ's blood 5. I will not determine what the Lord may do by prerogative neither must I believe or assert for a truth any more then his Word
more of this 2. If you mean there were no Infants at all in Rome or Philippi a man had need of the faith of an Anabaptist to believe you or it I'ts said All Jerusalem was troubled with Herod Matth. 2. ver 3. Infants could not bee troubled with him Therefore there was no Infant in Jerusalem This reasoning is as good as yours i. e. stark naught But if you mean as it seems that no little children could understand speak c. who saith so 3. It 's cold comfort to believing parents that their Infants are not Saints in Christ then sure they are little Heathens but is not this contradictory to the same Apostle who calls indefinitely children even of one believing parent 1 Cor. 7.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sancti sunt So Beza and the Old Latine g Saints so is the word in the originall and are any saved by Christ but Saints you hold all we some Infants dying in their Infancy are saved by Christ 4. Paul here undertakes nothing less then the dashing Infants-believers out of the number of Saints or Church-members The universal particles ALL and EVERY one must be restrained as was said to the scope and subject matter e.gr. All the Saints salute i. e. All that were with him at the writing of this Epistle as appears by this very Scripture which you bring Phil. 4.21 22. All the brethren salute you And so salute EVERY Saint i. e. That is capable of such salutations So that your major is not proved by this Scripture at all SECT 15. H. H. p. 71. If children are not concerned in these salutations then they are not visible Saints in Christ nor visible members of his body the Church c. For the text saith plainly Phil. 4.21 Salute EVERY Saint Reply 1. As to that they are Saints in Christ I have spoken to even now 2. The Scripture no where mentions visible Saints or visible members Must we be still troubled with your unwritten traditions 3. If you might as well conclude that Infants are no creatures for to shoot in your bow the Text saith plainly Mar. 16.15 Preach the Gospel to EVERY creature and that birds and beasts and plants c. are not creatures For the text saith plainly Col. 1.23 The Gâ—spel was preached to EVERY creature which is under heaven or that the Jews Infants were not câ—iâ—dren of Israel For the text saith plainly Numb 36.8 EVERY one of the children of Israel shall keep himself SECT 16. H. H. p. 71 72. There are many probable Arguments remaining but the answers to them take much with those that set their Faith in other mens wisedoms and not in the power and wisedom of the Word of God 1 Cor. 2 4 5. But I shall omitt them Because these twelve are undenyable c. Onely I will give you one probable Argument out of Mat. 18. 15 16 17. Reply 1. You said your 12 and last Argument p. 70. How is that your last if many or but one more bee in your budget or were they demonstrative and these probable what probable after demonstratives or were all the former at best but probable not to me but to you whose faith is built on more probabilities 2. If it might be made manifest then it seems it i. e. your Tenent is not yet made manifest to the impaâ—â—â—ll Reader 3. If you know many seeming Answers would bee made to them how could you imagine none would be made to these 12. 4. I know not who those are you rave upon except perhaps your poor deluded Proselytes who pin their faith on your sleeve and take hand over head all for Gospel which you say Onely this I know you abuse Scripture again For the words are â— Cor. 3.5 That your faith should not stand in the wisedom of men but in the power of God Will you bee still at your old Trade of ADDING Take heed of the plagues you threaten others with 5. You may now find by experience the vanity of your confidence there Aâ—guments of yours are not onely deny-able and damnable also bear with the word but truly denyed and justly damned too 6. For Mat. 18. You have SIN instead of trespass which though perhaps all one yet you should not chop and change at pleasure aâ— you have left AS For you say to thee an Heathen whose son are you now p. 42. And for the three Arguments you draw from this text there is more in the conclusion then in the premisses which heretofore hath been a great fault in Argumentation And in the end you seem to grant that the word WHOLE Church is not in the text why then did you put it into your third particular but that you had a mind to cozen your Reader Indeed by the Church here is to be understood the Church-guides as before out of Act. 8.1 as appears by the eight and ninth verses Whatsoever ye shall bind c. Whatsoever ye shall loose c. If two of you shall agree So that it is as clear as the Sun that the Church here is the Assembly of the Ministers and Elders of the Church And then your threefold cord is as easie broken as that was by Samson 7. To conclude in generall for these Arguments which are thirteen to the dozen let the Reader observe There is not one word of Church-member or Church-member-ship in any one of the Scriptures cited Yet Mr. Hag. would bear us in hand that he holds nothing but what is expressed in the Scriptures Where is your written word for your belief in this very point under debate 2. Because you import that you put but little confidence in your probable Arguments I had thought to have left them as I find them but least you and yours should crow I have given some brief Animadversions and would let you understand that it were very easie to find our without vanity be it spoken many dozens of Arguments in Moses and the Prophets that might conclude as probably against the Church-membership of the Old Testament-Infants as any you have or can bring against childrens Church-membership in the New And as easie to bring multitudes of Argumemts out of the New Testament that might as probably conclude against the salvation of any Infants so dying as any you bring against the Church-membership or Covenant-state of Christians Infants Though you profess your perswasion of the salvation of ALL Infants so dying yet by your way of Arguing ALL Infants should not only be cast out of the Church but out of salvation too CHAP. XIV Of the Disciple-ship of INFANTS SECT 1. H. H. p. 73. I proceed to prove in opposition to M. Baxter and M. Cooks Arguments that Infants are not cannot be Christ's Disciples My first Argument is from Mat. 28.19 Teach all Nations c. The plain English of which M. Baxter himself confesseth to be Make Disciples c. From whence I argue thus If those Disciples which Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize must be first
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
Authority Now that Origen calls the Baptism of Infants a Tradition of the Church * in Epist ad Rom. l. 5. so he may call it in the sence of the Apostle 2 Thes 2.15 Hold the Traditions which ye have been taught c with 1 Cor. 15.3 I delivered to you that which I received c. where we see that Tradition signifies a doctrine delivered And it is well known that the greatest points of faith are called by the name of traditions in the language of the ancients 4. Augustine n De Genesi adliteram l. 1â— c. 23. you say calleth it a common custome of the Church true but he saith in the very same place that it viz. Infant-baptism is in no sort to be contemned or accounted superfluous as it is by you which words you have cunningly left out 2. What hurt is there in so calling it So is the observation of the first day of the week and imposition of hands on Church officers called a custome of the Church and yet you cannot deny but that they are grounded on Scripture 3. To kill two birds as they say with one stone Austin was not only present at that counsell called Milevitanum but as it is said President also who returning answer to those that desired divine authority for infant-baptism first produceth that rule o) Quod universa tonet Ecclesia nec consiliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi autbo iâ—ate Apostolicum traditum vertissimè creditur Aug de bapt contra donat l. 4. c. 23. viz. That which the whole Church holdeth and was not ordained by any Councells but hath ever been held that is rightly believed to be an Apostolicall Authority This that great and famous light of the Christian world in his daies took to be sufficient yet for fuller satisfaction he proceeds to dispute for it from the holy Scriptures where wee see what he means by the custome of the Church and by what Authority that Councill did appoint the baptism of Infants 5. Luther you bring in asserting that Infant baptisme was established by Pope Innocent Indeed you speak somewhat warily for some of your party would bear us in hand that Pope Innocent was the first that brought in Infant-baptism which is contrary to the stream of Antient Ecclesiasticall History p See Doctor Holmes Animad on M. Tombs exercit p. 191. c. and neither you nor they tell us which Pope Innocent it was But whoever he was it 's wel known that Infant baptism was practiced many hundred years before this Pope was born Nor is the practice of it to bee counted or called Antichristian superstition mans tradition as you do p. 3 because a Pope decreed the establishment or confirmation of it more then this doctrine q) Acts 16.16 17 18. These men are the servants of the most high God which shew unto us the way of salvation because it was preached and avouched by the Divel 6. For Cyprian you are very confident that Infant-baptism began in the year 248 and that by Fidus a Priest opposed by Cyprian and his Council who ordained that young Children should be timely brought thereto But 1. who this Fidus was is not apparent out of Cyprian r) Epist lib. 3. Ep. 8. who I am sure doth not call him by the scornful name of Priest but most dear brother and that three times in that Epistle 2. The question by Fidus was not Whether Infants should be baptized at all but whether before the eighth day as appears by your own expressions p. 19. Now this clearly holds forth that Infant-baptism was used and practised long before 3. Neither did Cyprian decree simply the practice of it but onely by his decree confirmed the practice of it 4. What a gross mistake is this about the time When it began For how could it begin in Cyprians time when the Fâ—â—â—man of your Jury tells us it was used in Origens tâ—â—e which must needs be 20 years at least before You deserve the Whetstone for abusing Cyprian and your Reader so grossly For what a bundle of lies have we here together 1. Infant-baptism began in the year of our Lord 248. 2. Brought in by Fidus a Priest 3. That Cyprian and 66 Bishops and Elders ordained it And 4. by our own confessions it 's an ordinance and tradition of man nay Will-worship and Idolatrie All palpably false 7. Let it be observed that your Jury-men are not agreeed on the Verdict concerning the time that Infant-baptism was brought into the Church Origen speaks in effect It must be within 200 years after Christ for he died in the year of Christ 220 you speak for Cyprian Anno 248. Cassander saith 300 years after the Apostles Luther in Pope Innocents time as you alledge him when yet he saith it was Established not begun in that Popes time page 19. 8. The Carthaginian Council is brought in p. 19. Wee will that Children be baptized Thus say you we see it is Wee WILL therefore Will-worship But 1. mark the ground of Baptism there because Children are within the Covenant which you cannot endure to hear of 2. What a ridiculous Inference do you make me thinks you shame your self and all your friends You tell us that on a supposal you Å¿) Found p. 29. Will confess your error or justifie your practice If I should infer Thus we see it is I will therefore Will-worship in Mr. Haggar Risum teneaâ—â—s amiei I should be justly laught at So Josh 24.15 We will serve the Lord therefore Will-worship c. 9. I am loath to spend any more time in answering the particulars here alleged what hath been replied to may be satisfactory to any judicious Reader I shall conclude with this That you who are an enemy to Humane Learning are not guilty of much learning or else guilty of much dissembling I am perswaded of the former for these quotations are but as stollen waters you never read these Authors whose testimonies are alleged by you For what Scholar would have written Bullinger s) As p. 19. numb 14. in ex Augustino unlesse you had a mind to make more sport and to play in and out Or that Anselm Legate of the Church of Rome t) Ibid. num 17 was present with Austin at the Miletan Council I have read of Milevitan but never of the Miletan Council till now And how could Austin and Anselm be present at that Council when Austin flourished in the year of our Lord 430 and Anselm in the year 1080 as he that can but read English may see u) Clarks marrow of Ecclesiastical History p 162. 188. Or what learned man can tell what Tuicensi pag. 20. numb 19 should be except perhaps Tuitiensis or Bilander n. 21 for Bibliander c. If these and the like were the Printers faults why have we them not with most of your book among the Errata's 2. You do not set down these Authors
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
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
putting on Christ be a profession Then some Infants may professe Christ and so be baptized For if they be saved by Christ as you say surely they put on Christ as a garment i e. passively and so Beza renders it u) Christo induti fuisâ—is Bein Gal. 3.27 have been cloathed with Christ Now by your comparison little children may professe by wearing those garments to all spectators wherewith they are dressed by their mothers or nurses unlesse a little child is not a man contrary to Gen. 4.1 as before 2. What an evil surmise is this That we will own Mr. Baxters Doctrine though we cavil with the Scriptures For cavilling with and wresting the Scripture I leave them to you who are old-excellent that way Mr. Baxter I acknowledge to be a pious and learned Minister yet I own his Doctrine here and elswhere no further then it is agreeable to Scripture and I believe Mr. Baxter would not have it otherwise 3. It 's not evident either out of Mr. Cook 's mouth or yours that baptism doth constitute a Church or Church-member The eleven Apostles did put on Christ and yet we read not one word of their being baptized SECT 9. H. H. p. 25. You say that Baptism is a sign or pledge of peoples admission into the Church Well Then it follows that they are not in before to any man's sight and if not in the Church much less constituted and established Church-members Reply 1. That follows not e. g. The Sheep which a man hath bought may be known to be his before he set on them his mark which may further signifie their relation to him and his owning of them but that doth not constitute his right to them A Servant may be truly hired before he receive an earnest which yet doth not constitute him such a man's servant Abraham was in Covenant with God and known to be so before he was circumcised The Lord's Supper is a sign and pledge of peoples admission into the Church and yet were in it before which sufficiently declares the vanity of your Argument 2. In that you take Constituted for Established it appears pears you neither know what is meant by Constitution in its proper signification nor indeed what you your self means I thought at fiâ—st you meant by constituting a Church the giving of its first being but here you take it for Establishing Surely you might with better reason say That Chuâ—ches are constituted by the Lord's Supper for this more properly is a sign and seal of Establishment in the Church then Baptism is SECT 10. H. H. You say The Thief on the Cross was saved without Baptism I Answer We deny it not For he declared openly his Faith in Christ and owned him when he was disowned almost of all which shews he would have been baptized had he been at liberty Therefore the Lord accepting the will for the deed v) 2 Cor. 8.12 saith to him This day thou shall be with me c. But what makes this for the baptizing of Infants c. It proves that little babes might be saved though unbaptized for they can profess no Faitg nor confess no sin neither hath Christ required them to obey any command before they understand and believe the Gospel * Rom. 14.23 For whatsoever is not of Faith is sin But you say we do not rightly apply that Scripture and why Because it spoils your practice But doth not the word Whatsoever include all matters and duties wee owe to God Cannot the Scriptures be in quiet for you But because this offends you we will give you another x) Heb. 11.6 Without Faith it is impossible to please God Reply 1. In that you grant the penitent Thief was a Church-member and that visibly though unbaptized you clearly yield the cause viz. That Baptism doth not constitute a Church-member For what doth constitute a Church-member is necessary to the being of a Church-member But Baptism is not necessary to the being of a Church-member Therefore it doth not constitute The Major is clear by the nature and Definition of that which constitutes any thing the Minor you grant in the instance of the Thief and I hope you will not deny the Conclusion any more 2. You shew what a miserable Disputant you are in saying What makes this for the baptizing of Infants The question is not here about Infant-baptism but about constitution of Churches which you assert to be done by Baptism and that y) Font uncovered p. 1. book denies and brings this very instance which you deny not and therefore was very pertinent to the by question of constituting Church-members 3. M. Cook hath dealt more honestly with this Text then you have done with Jerem. 2.12 13. p. 8. and many more For hence we prove against Papists and others who hold an absolute necessity of Baptism to Church-membership and salvation that even Infants may be saved and must be owned members of the Church being born of Church-members though they die in their Infancy without baptism Thus you and they being of the same judgment are confuted together by this instance of the Thief 4. Seeing you grant that Infants by this example may be saved without Baptism I pray you consider whether it will not follow unanswerably To whom salvation belongs now to them the sign and seal of salvation belongs But to Infants you grant salvation belongs now therefore baptism also the sign and seal of salvation For it 's said z) 1 Pet. 3.21 Baptism saveth Again as the Thief on the Cross being in a state of salvation had a right to baptism so Infants of believing parents being in a state of salvation as you grant have right to baptism 5. Those Scriptures alleged by you are impertinent you do but still more pitifully intangle your self and abuse the Scriptures but not at all spoil our practice or judgment For though the word whatsoever a) As the word All is to be restrained to the matter treated of 1 Cor. 6.12 so is the word Whatsoever Mat. 7.12 and here also may be taken so as to include all sinful matters which cannot be done in Faith and so are sins and all external duties which though conjoined for the matter yet not done in Faith become sins in the doer yet the Apostle in Rom. 14.23 speaks most properly of things in their own nature indifferent which God hath neither commanded nor forbidden and expresly of meats yea such kind of meats as God hath left free to be eaten or forborn Now mark the vanity of your own reasoning Infants must not bee baptized because they want Faith for whatsoever is not of Faith is sin and without Faith it 's impossible to please God Like this Infants must not be fed because they want Faith for whatsoever is not of Faith is sin and without Faith it 's impossible to please God 2 The latter sentence in Heb. 11.6 is spoken of Enoch who lived long before Abraham and makes as
much against Circumcision in Abrahams time and after as it is now against the baptizing of Infants i. e. nothing at all Thus whatsoever is not of faith is sin and without faith it 's impossible to please God but the Infants among the Jews had no faith though faith is the condition of the Covenant of Grace ever since it was set on foot For alas they are your own words b they can professe no Faith c. Therefore the Circumcision of Infants among the Jews was sin If this Conclusion be absurd and blasphemous confesse the other not a jot the better For to use your own words again doth not the word Whatsoever include all matters c Then Circumcision sure as much as Baptism SECT 11. H. H. This your president of the Thief on the Cross will not at all help you except in the like condition Then I confess a multitude of such penitent ones might be reckoned to be in a saving condition though not baptized But neither you nor I are in that streight as yet Therefore it will be no plea for us but if either of us be unbaptized we have time and liberty enough to consider and turn Psal 119.59 60. Reply 1. Here you again yield the cause viz. Baptism doth not constitute a Church-member c. for out of the Church there is no salvation r) 1 Pet. 3.20 with Eph. â— 23 26. Otherwise to use your own expression pag. 29. Secret things belong to God I hope now you will not flinch 2. Your supposal that neither you nor Mr. Cook are in the streight the poor Thief was in is nothing to the purpose Though you intimate that Mr. Cook and his brethren may be and I believe it if you had your will as those Joh. 16.2 for you that unchurch us would make no bones to kill us 3. You say If either of us be unbaptized A needless If. For you granted p. 24. That we were once baptized and you make no question but you have been baptized twice for failing at least you do not think your self unbaptized 4. It 's a miserable begging of the question that baptizing after your mode is the testimony and commandment of the Lord unlesse as hath been said in the like case 5. There is not one word of Baptism in Psal 119. ver 59 60. How pitifully do you pervert and misapply this Scripture also And I may say They who have made haste to be Re-baptized have made more haste then good speed SECT 12. H. H. pag. 26. You tell us that the Church of England was constituted in or anon after the Apostles daies and by the Ministry of the Word were converted from Heathenism to Christianity and then persons of years were baptized upon profession of Faith and Repentance I Answer What then what is your Church now the better for that which was done 1600 years ago if you walk not in the same footsteps which they did then I can prove as well the Church of Rome d) Rom. 1.7 was then a constituted Church according to the order of the Gospel But doth that make the Pope and his Crew now to be a true Church If they be why do you separate from them but they are not neither are you c. Reply 1. I accept of your grant That the Church of England was constituted in or near the Apostles dates and acknowledge we are not now the better for it if we had razed the Foundation relapsed to Heathenism and had been called e) Hos 1.6 7. Loruhamah and Lo ammi But seeing God since the plantation of the Gospel in this Nation hath raised up som faithful witnesses reserved some sincere Professors of his truth and still the Fundamentals of Christian Religion have been owned and Antichrists yoke cast off It cannot without great injury but be acknowledged that the first constitution of the Church in this Land is much to us who desire and indeavour to be built and to build on that Foundation Eph. 2.20 The Church of the Jewes was the better for God's constituting their Church in Abrahams family if we may believe their f) 2 Chron. 20 7. Neh. 9. vers 7 8. plea and though they did degenerate yet the Foundation was never razed nor the first constitution abolished 2. On the former account we are better without question for outward priviledges and possibility of salvation as the Jews were Rom. 3.1.2 with Chap. 9 4.5 or as the poor cripple g) John 5.5 that did lye at the Pool oâ— Bethesda for cure 3. If by our not walking in the footsteps of those who were first constituted a Church in this Nation you mean that wee do not first repent and then bee Baptized You might as wel charge the Jews who circumcised their children on the eighth day for not walking in Abraham's steps and therefore not a jot the better that their Church was first constituted in him for he was circumcised at h) Gen. 17.26 99 years old Nay it seems you charge us for not taking care that all the children in this Nation may live in ignorance and Idolatry that so being by the Gospel converted they may be baptized after their example For they cannot be converted from Heathenism as they were and so be baptized after their example exactly unlesse they live in Heathenisme as they did If this be your meaning and charge I pray Lord lay not this sin to your charge 4. That Scripture doth not prove what you assert unlesse by a far-fetcht and strained consequence And as the word Constituted is not there so neither those words ACCORDING to the ORDER of the GOSPEL there or elsewhere in any one place of Scripture You are wise above what is written though I deny not but the Church of Rome was once a rightly constituted Church 5. Seeing you declare your self so great a friend to the Church of Rome as equalling us with them and also pronounce us no Church and so excommunicate us with your brute Thunderbolt as if you were another Pope and dis-regard the counsell and admonition of the Church so censured and nullified by you I leave you to the judgement of him who is Lord and King Husband and Patron of his Church wishing you if you bee not past hope of profiting by Scripture to weigh what is written Jude 8. to the 17 verse SECT 13. H. H. You say that they and their children were then admitted into the Covenant and Church as Abraham and his family were by circumcision I answer that it still remains for you to prove that they and their children were admitted into Church-fellowship I deny it prove it if you can or else you have done nothing c. Reply 1. As you say of the Sacrament pag. 14. So wee do not read in your sense of the word Church-fellowship in all the holy Scriptures Therefore how should we prove that children were admitted into Church-fellowship But 2 That all the Faithfull are the children or
seed of Abraham i) Gal. 3.7 9 14 29. and that they are blessed with faithfull Abraham and that the blessing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles and consequently that the covenant whereof Mr. C. spake and not Church-fellowship made with Abraham and the Faithfull under the Gospel is the same for substance being an everlasting covenant Gen. 17.19 Though differing in manner of dispensation by circumcision in the room whereof Bapâ—isme succeeds Col. 2.11.12 It is evident that the same covenant made with Abraham continues to us Christians as is plain also in that wee Gentiles are planted into the true Olive k) Rom. 11.17 from whence the Jews were broken off which is more largely proved in that Book you pretend to answer 3. For proving that they and their children were admitted into Church-fellowship Do you not know that there are 13 Arguments in that Book which you have not answered onely you speak a little to one which how miserably it is done will appear I hope in its proper place In the mean time the truth is M. C. hath done something to which you answer nothing upon the matter CHAP. VII Of Nationall Churches SECT 1. H. H. You Mr. C. seem to prove l) Font uncovered p. 2. a National Church in that the Lord said to Abraham Gen. 22.18 In his seed all Nations should be blessed I answer He doth not say that all of all Nations shal be blessed nor that all of any Nation shal be blessed I am perswaded you think in your conscience some in this Nation are not blessed Reply 1. That Book wherein Mr. C. declares his judgment briefly and you answer largely saith Though wee boast not of Nationall Churches nor is there any necessity that the mention of Nationall Churches should come into this dispute yet we are not ashamed of the name of a Nationall Church But seeing you urge it on us as odious we desire to consider So that Mr. Hag. you might have kept you to the main business and spared your pains about this by-businesse also but that you had a mind to digresse and quarrell 2. You have no cause to think nor doth the holy Scripture say that ALL of ALL Churches or ALL of ANY one particular Church on earth are blessed For cursed hypocrites are ordinarily in the most refined Churches yet that hinders not but all particular Churches may be called Churches and blessed For 3. The Nation of the Jews was confessedly a National Church that whole Nation as being in covenant with God was a blessed Nation Deut. 23.29 Psal 33.12 and 89.15 And yet every particular person in that Nation was not blessed Deut. 27.15 to the end and 28.15 to the end and chap. 29.19.20 These and other Scriptures shew plainly that as the Jewish Nationall Church was a blessed Nation so every blessed Nation is a Nationall Church at least in so considerable a part as may give it such a denomination and though many particular persons therein may be far from blessednesse yet this hinders not such from the name of a blessed Nation and of a people in covenant and that at the Nation of the Jews was blessed first in Abraham's seed So all the Nations of the earth should in some sense bee blessed by being at last brought into the Covenant and Church-state through the same seed of Abraham You need not therefore make your appeal to Master C. conscience 4. I wonder at your opinion in the close of this Section which you apply viz. A penitent Thief c. and Murderer c. may not justly be put to death because he is the Temple of the Holy Ghost c The penitent Thief was blessed you acknowledge him in a saving condition pag. 25. as he acknowledgeth m) In 22.4 he suffers justly and as I think you dare not deny that he was the Temple of the Holy Ghost yea I wonder more that you dare call the execution of such an offender a destruction of the Temple of God not without horrible abuse of Scripture But you began to lispe in the language of Tho. Muntzer s) Sleid. com l. 10. your predecessor against the Christian Magistracy whatsoever you said seemingly to the contrary p. 31.32 SECT 2. H. H. pag. 27. You bring this Scripture Psal 22.27.28 I answer when that day shall come and that Prophecie be fulfilled we will grant it is fulfilled but for the present All Nations do not serve him neither do all in this Nation worship him Peter's words are true n) Acts 10 34. But there are many in this Nation that do not fear God nor work righteousness Therefore no Nationall Church Reply 1. Though I question the fulfilling of your promise for many Prophecies may be fulfilled which you either do not or will not acknowledg and you may take some fulfilled which are not yet your concession is enough that a National Church in the time of the Gospel is no such absurd or strange thing as you and som would make it 2. Albeit this Prophecy is not fulfilled yet it may be in the fulfilling For though all Nations are not brought to a Church-state yet some may be for present and others by degrees successively in Gods due time 3. It is neither proved by you nor indeed can be easily that ALL i. e. the generality in this Nation do not worship God for worship may be taken here in a large sense yet if granted it wil not thence follow that this is no Nationall Church sith even when the Israelites were a Nationall Church they might and did doubtlesse fall short of the true worship of God as much and more then the people of England 4. Your ground whence you infer that we are no Nationall Church is very unsound viz because ALL do not fear God c. Hereby you must not only deny the Jewish Church to have been a Nationall Church but also the primitive Churches and all other particular Churches whether Congregationall or otherwise called to be Churches For in all visible Churches a great part are Hypocrites without the fear of God c. SECT 3. H. H. You say Isa 49.23 Kings shall be thy nursing Fathers c. I answer That it shall be so I deny not but prove you that it is so As for Englands Kings and Queens it 's well known how they would have nursed the Church if they had but had their minds c. Reply 1. It cannot be denied without ingratitude that England hath been blessed with pious Princes who have nursed the Church in this Nation Was not King Edward the sixth a nursing Father and Queen Elisabeth a nursing Mother for instance deny it if you can 2. Your inference is as weak as the former It 's well known how Saul Ahaziah Athaliah Mannasses c. would have nursed the Church if they had but had their minds as you phrase it Therefore the Jews could have no Nationall Church 3. For our siding with Cavaleers c.
I will say but this It is you and your party that strengthens the hands and revives the hopes of the Cavaleers And if by their opposites you mean the Round heads as they are called difference in opinion beside the foundation doth not take away the name and nature of a National Church no more then among the Jews SECT 4. H. H. You say Isa 52 15. Christ shall sprinkle many Nations Answ It 's granted but it doth not follow that he doth sprinkle whole Nations For believers have their hearts sprinkled o) Heb. 10.22 c. Therefore no National Church And I much wonder that you Ministers of the Church of England who for the generality hold that Christ did not dye for all men but only for some few elect persons should yet preach up Nationall Churches c. Reply 1 Mr. C. did not say that Christ sprinkles Whole but MANY Nations which phrase imolies that so many as are sprinkled by Christ in thosâ— Nations may give them the Denomination of sprinkled Nations if so why not of Nationall Churches 2. That all the Elect which have been are and shall be in this world should be called simply some few persons p) Ames Anti. Synod de morte Christi c. 2. p. 176. is a malignant restriction borrowed from your friends the Arminians 3. Your wonder may be stayed if you please to consider that they who hold that Christ dyed not for the salvation of ALL but only of the Elect q Mat 17.13.14 and 20.16 who comparatively are but a few indeed do not make election or Christs intention or interest in Christs death which in themselvs are invisible things The adequate ground or rule of Church-membership but acceptance of and incerest in the Covenant as it is externally and conditionally administred So that the visible Church is far more numerous then the elect or those for whose salvation Christ dyed Judas was a member of the visible Church yet Christ dyed not for his salvation Though Christ's death was in it self sufficient For then he had been saved it being impossible that the intention of the Father in giving Christ and of Christ in giving himself should be frustrated So then to preach that Christ did not dye for ALL men in our and the Scripture sense and yet to preach up Nationall Churches are not things inconsistent 4. For your scoffe of being seven years at the University I heed not but had you been two years there you might have learned to distinguish between inward and outward Covenant as to the Administration and to draw better conclusions or at least not to deny the conclusion in a publick dispute SECT 5. H. H. pag. 28. You say from Mat. 28.19 did not Christ command his Apostles to go into all Nations and preach and baptize I answer Do you not know that they never baptized whole Nations nor yet whole Cities but most hated and abused them c. We grant if a whole Nation can be converted by the preaching of the Word they ought to be baptized c. Reply 1. You chop and change Mr. C. words He said not whole but ALL Nations but do you not know that Infants are a considerable part of any Nation and doth not the whole include the parts 2. It 's granted we do not read of whole nations converted or baptized by the Apostles For God in his providence so ordered that the Gospel at the first preaching should not overspread whole nations at once but that it should be r) Mat. 13.31 32 33. as a grain of mustard seed c. As Abrahams family in process of time grew up to a Nation i. e. one family of believers became a Nation of believers else how can it be said Å¿) Mar. 22.43 that the Kingdom of God or priviledge of being God's people in Covenant should be taken from them c. If they to whom the Gospel was brought and by whom it was received were not to be a nation in Covenant as the Jews had been 3. Are not all nations or any sort of nations to whom providence should bring the Apostles set in opposition to that only Nation of the Jews which had hitherto been a people in Covenant But now to be cast out and the Gentile world to be taken in And who can deny without great ingratitude that some nations since Christs time have made as full and universall profession of the true God Father Son and Holy Ghost and of owning the Fundamentall points of Christian Religion as the Jews when a Nationall Church made of the Lord Jehovah and of the Jewish Religion 4. For our baptizing Infants contrary to Acts 8.12 as you say answer hath been made before and for the Apostles baptizing some whole housholds you seem to grant Infant-baptism contrary to what you say p. 5.6 If Infants be a part of any whole houshold baptized 5. I cannot but pitty your ignorance and impudence in saying we read but of 7 Churches in all Asia which is one quarter of the world For these seven Churches were in Asiaminor t) Asiam intelligit minorem scu eam Asiam partem c. Pareus in Rev. 1.4 Heylins Microcosm p. 520. called now Anatolia being but one of the 15 principall Regions of all Asia Besides these seven Churches mentioned in the Revelation there was a Church in Antioch u) Acts 11.26 with c 13.14 which Antioch was in Pisidia and Churches of Galatia w) 1 Cor. 16.1 with Gal. 1.2 now Pisidia and Galatia were Provinces in Asia the less Churches in Judea x) 1 Thes 2.14 now Judea was certainly one of the principall regions of Asia the greater y) Heylin pag. 520. and 521. see also 1 Pet. 5.13 The Church at Babylon that is in Assyria or Chaldea Beza and Diodat Many more instances might be given but these I hope are sufficient to convince that you may read if you look better more then seven Churches In ALL Asia SECT 6. H. H. You bring Rev. 11.15 The Kingdoms of this world are become our Lords c. I answer I told you already that such times shall be but they are not yet if they were wee should no longer pray Thy Kingdom come And in that day Satan shall deceive the Nations c. Rev. 20.3 Reply 1. Your reason to prove that these times are not yet is very weak For though when the number of the Elect shall be made up and be fully glorified there will be no need of praying Thy Kingdom come yet while the Kingdom is a coming and in perfecting It needs to pray so And doubtlesse the nearer it coms to perfection the more fervently it shall pray for perfection as Naturall bodies in their motion move swifter the nearer they come to the Center Now that the Kingdom wil not be absolutely perfected at that time you hint See the place you cite z) Rev. 20.3 7 c. Surely the loosing of Satan and his deceiving the
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
expresly written in the Word of God Therefore womenâ— receiving the Lord's Supper family-prayer morning and evening c. are not of God but of Satan You have now brought your Pigs to a fair market But if by the word WRITTEN you mean Consequentially written Then your Minor is false For Infant-baptism is so written in the Word of God i. e. Consequentially as hath been abundantly k) Sâ—e M Marshallâ— Defence p. 209 c. shewed out of Mat. 28.19 Acts 2.38 39. c. Where there are Consequentiall commands for Infant-baptism As by your own confession p. 12. Family-prayer c. is written in 1 Tim. 2.8 c. So that hence I conculde Infant-baptism is written in the Word of God and therefore of God and not of Satan as you blasphemously speak and write SECT 14. H. H. In your 5 Position you tell the people that if any have taken up this pâ—nion and have not read and studied Mr. Cobbet and Mr. Church and other chief Books and been able to confute them they have but discovered a seared conscience which either dare venture on sin without fear or else do count error no sin To all which I answer How now Mr. B. are you grown to this height what must not men obey what they find written in the holy Scripture till they have asked M. Cobbet and M. Churches counsel I pray you where learned you this Divinity at Rome I thought all this while the holy Scriptures had been able to make us wise to salvation but it seems they are not If you say True but we must be beholding to M. Cobbet and M. Church Reply 1. The greatest part of M. B. 5 Position you pass by in silence as being it seems unable to answer it and the piece you catch at you curtail also as the intelligent Reader may quickly observe 2. What you seem to answer to is in a Magisteriall Prelatical and scornfull way e. g. How now M. B are you grown to this height what must not men obey c. till they have asked M. Cobbets and M. Churches counsell I pray where learned you this Divinity at Rome I am very sorry that you are grown to that height as to fit in the seat of the scornfull l) Psal 1.1 3. The Scriptures I acknowledge is able to make us wise to salvation and yet we may and must read other Books for all that m) 1 Tim 4.14 with Eccl. 12.12 give attendance to reading I believe you speak this out of the height of your bitternesse and malice against all humane learning which shall be defended in its place 4. What a poor and pitifull reason do you give Mr. Cobbets and Mr. Churches Books must not be read because the Scripture is able to make us wise to salvation n) Foundation p. 15. to 21. Why then did M. Haggar read if he hath read those Books mentioned in pag. 15. which make up three whole leaves Are not the Scriptures able to make M. Haggar wise to salvation without them Nay why have you printed this Book of yours if not to be read and yet for all that the Scripture is able to make us wise to salvation through Faith in Christ SECT 15. H. H. p. 36 But I pray how did men before M. Cobbets and M. Church's Bâ—oks were writen and how do those â—ow who cannot come by their Books or never heard of them If it be as you say you may do well to send some men up and down the Country to sell them But I believe this is but one of your scare-Crows with which you use to affright silly souls that set their Faith in your wisedom and not in the power of God but your folly is a making manifest and light and freedom is breaking forth to them which you have kept in darkness and bondage Reply 1. Pehaps you might as well ask how did men before the Scriptures were written But 2. You speak in the language of ignorant superstitious Popish and prophane persons what are become of our Ancestors c How did our Forefathers before there were so much preaching c The same plaister may be applied to both sores viz. They stand and fall to their Master Where much is given much is required that little measure of light might be saving to them which will not be to us But M. Baxter tells you p. 6. If any of you have taken up this opinion without reading M. Cobbets c. and being able to confute them at least to himself which words you have left out you have discovered a seared conscience c. To which you answer not a word 3. Your scoffing scorning and censuring are unworthy of any reply only it seems as yet you have not made M. B. folly manifest for you say His folly is a making manifest and I am confident that that light and freedom you talk of will be found in the event darkness and Thraldome 4. Consider in your cold blood whether you do not keep your Proselytes in darknesse and bondage by keeping them from the publick Ministry By the light whereof your errors are discovered under the odious terms of Antichristian c. one of your Scare-Crows with which you use to affright silly souls And by keeping them to your Ministry or to some private gifted-brother as he is called what is this but to be kept in bondage or set in the stocks SECT 16. H. H. same p In your sixth Position you say you will discover a most frequent cause of mens falling into errors viz. All men in the beginning do receive many truths upon weak and fals grounds and so hold them a while till they are beaten out of their old Arguments and then presently they suspect the cause it self and you are perswaded that it is Mr. Tomb's case Answ As for Mr. Tombs he is of age and able to answer for himself I never knew any receive Infant-baptism upon any ground at all weak or strong neither can they being uncapable of understanding what they do Therefore you may well say they are or may be quickly beaten off it again c. Reply 1. What you say of M. Tombs I may more truly say of M. Baxter he is of age and able to answer for himself If that be true of which I make no question which is said of M. Baxter o) J. G. Catabap A man as fit and able as any I know to make straight a crooked age 2. M. Baxter doth not say as you represent him but you being deceived would deceive the simple partly by leaving out the word ALMOST For he saith Almost all men do receive many truths on weak and false grounds and partly by not distinguishing between the receiving of Infant-baptism and the doctrine of Infant-baptism The Jewish Infants received Circumcision even when and while they could not receive the doctrine of it Your reason therefore concludes as strongly against Circumcision then as against Infant-baptisme now SECT 17. H. H. same
2.41 8.12 14.3 wherein we see our selves conformable to the image of Christ and walk according to the Primitive pattern being far from compelling any to be baptized till they can understand what they do and amend their lives c. Reply 1. Those Scriptures cannot be properly applied to us but are wofully misapplied by you Why do you rave of the sign of the Cross which with other Ceremonies groaned under by the godly are removed Or of receiving the mark of the Beast i. e. z) Mode on Rev. 4. p. 76. a subjecting our selves to his Authority and acknowledging him to be our Lord when you cannot but know that yoke hath been happily cast off long since But it seems you had a mind to set the mark of the Beast on us in favour of the Church of Rome for whom you are a Factor But further to shew your error in that misapplication I pray what miracles are done by us As Rev. 13.14 and 18.20 I fear you shew too much the mark of the Beast by your kicking and wincing at and dabling those that are travelling towards heaven 2. You intimate that he who is Rantizâ—d as you scornfully speak is not baptized as if I should say H. Hag. is a man and therefore not a living creature but you acknowledge these 3000 were baptized and it 's most probable they were a) Acts 2.41 Videntur 3000 uno die à paucis Apostolicis non potuisse baptizari si singuli mersi fuissent Cham. 1.4 l. 5. c 2. s 6. rantized onely there 's no mention made of Fonts and Rivers 3. I wonder in what glass you lookt when you could see a Font in Jer 2.12 13. pag 8. and the sign of the Cross in this of the Revel and yet cannot see one plain Scripture for Infant-baptism 4. Were those mentioned in the Acts baptized before as you say we were pag. 24. or were they Church-members Receivers of the Lord's Supper c. as those were whom you re-baptize If not for shame do not say that you see your selvs in the glass of the Gospel more conformable to Christ and the Primitive pattern 5. Though you want the Argument of force which yet you would fain have yet you want not the force of Argument though feigned to compell some ignorant and carnal people whom I could name to be baptized by you 6. I may not forget to make good my charge also that you are a Blasphemer if to blaspheme be to speak evil as it is often rendred in the New Testament b) E g. Jude 10 c. 1 Pet. 4. ver 4. For you say Infant-baptism is of Sathan pag 35. when no Scripture speaks so That it is an invention of the Pope page 15. when it hath been practiced in the Church of Christ before the c) Universa Ecclisia baptismuÌ„ Insantumtenuit antequam intelligeretur quid sibi vellet Regnum Papae aut quicquam de eo auditum esset Cal Iust in Anab p. 478. Pope was born That Mr. B. Mr. C. and other godly Ministers that dissent from you are fools wicked Antichristian c. and that they make Proselytes seven fold more the children of Sathan then they were before p. 38. with a great deal of more filthy stuff disgorged from your rancorous stomach all along your book I say no more but that time is coming that you shall give an account to him that is ready to judge quick and dead 1 Pet. 4 ver 4 5. SECT 27. H. H. pag. 39 40. You say Pos 10. Evident Consequences or Arguments drawn by reason from Scripture are as true proof as the very express words of a Text and if we have the words without the meaning and reason we have no proof at all for the Divel used the words of the Scripture to Christ To all which I Answer Iâ— That Consequences or Arguments drawn from Scripture are as true proofs as Scripture This is but one of your untruths For most certain it is that what the Scripture saith we need not prove by Consequence As Gen. 1.1 3 7 8. And this I do believe without any Consequence And if you will deny it because it is plain Scripture without any Consequence you may if you please but your folly will be manifest as it is to me already Reply 1. You seem here to deny all Consequences when you granted some pag. 11. One of these must be one of your untruths for both members of a contradiction cannot be true observing the laws of a contradiction 2. Must that be an untruth in Mr. Baxter which is a truth in you For you have asserted plain Scripture-proof for giving thanks at Meals praying with our Families Womens receiving the Lord's Supper p. 12 13 14. which are but Consequences and Arguments drawn from Scripture and yeâ— as true proofs as Scripture it self so you judge and I deny not 3. If you mean what the Scripture saith Expresly it 's granted we need not prove by Consequence if otherwise it 's denied Christ himself Mr. Baxter tells you proves the Resurrection by Consequence out of Exod. 3.6 so that you might have spared the quotations out of Gen. 1.1 c. who denies all or any of these But you have a notable faculty to prove that which none of your Adversaries deny 4. If Mr. Baxter c. do believe those Scriptures cited by you and not deny the same then is your folly made manifest in making such an inference as you do SECT 28. H. H. p. 40. Secondly when you say If we have the words without the meaning and reason we have no proof at all This is a most subtill Sophistry much like to that of Satan when he beguiled Eve saving Gen. 3.4 5. which was both a truth and a lie The truth is if we have not God's meaning and the reason why he speaks to us how can we understand as we ought But both are plainly declared to the sons of men by the Word of Truth and so plainly that if you or an Angel from heaven shall add to it or take from it you shall be accursed and he will add c. all which if you do not know read Prov. 30.6 Gal. 1.8 9. Rev. 22.18 Reply 1. Mr. Baxter's expressiâ—n and Satan's are very unlike you acknowledge a truth and a lie in Satan's but you have shewed no lie in M. Baxter's nor indeed can you unless you will also condemne your self 2. If we cannot understand unless we have God's meaning and reason then Mr. Baxter is in the truth viz If we have the Word without the meaning and reason we have no proof at all Shuffle no longer 3. Mr. Baxter knows and hath read those Scriptures menâ—ioned by you but do you read them more seriously and then you may know more clearly whether you be not obnoxious to those plagues and curses for you are guilty of adding to the Word e. g. p 4. you add That forth wilderness in Mark 1.3 4 5.
charged with those actual sins or else not be owned Church-members Nay it 's plain they were Church-members Deut. 29.10 12 13. Now these converted Ephesians were incorporated into the same body and partakers of the same privileges for themselvs and their children Eph. 2.19.20 Rom. 11.17 5. As Jews and Gentiles of ripe yeaâ—â— in regard of original sin and the fruits thereof needed Christ the Covenant of Grace and Church-membership to save them from the dominion and damnation of sin so Infants who a e under original sin as you acknowledg and which is all sin radically virtually eminently no less need Christ the Covenant of Grace and Church-membership being the onely revealed way of communicating Christ and his merits to save sinners from the wrath of God dominion of sin and eternal damnation SECT 12. H. H. pag. 69. My ninth Argument is from 1 Thes 5. ver 2 4 5. Reply To make the best of your Argument it 's thus All Church-members are children of the Light and know that the day of the Lord cometh as a Thief c. But Infants are not children of the light nor know c. 1. The same Answer might here serve sith the Fallacie is the same But 2. If a man should argue that John baptized Infants because it 's said Mat. 3.5 6. All Judea and all the Regions round about and Infants may be said to go out too though carried in their parents arms Exod. 10.9 10 24. 12.37 went out and were baptized of him you would not well resent it for it would spoil your cause and yet the conclusion follows more clearly then yours 3. If some Infants be not children of the light and of the day they are children of darkness and of the right The Scripture knows not a third state but it may be to carry on your design for Popery you can tell us of a Limbus Infantum 4. The Apostle doth not say that the Saints unto whom he wrote at Thessalonica did all know perfectly that the Lord 's coming should be as a Thief in the night there it no universal particle in the second verse neither doth he mean that they â—â—â—â—e ALL the children of the Light as if there had been none in the world besides those grown Christians in that Church ver 5. speaks of another matter least of all doth the Apostle say or imply here or elswhere That all Church-members know perfectly c. ver 2. This you prove not all SECT 12. H. H. Tenth Argument from 1 Thes 2.11 If Paul did exhort and charge every one of the Church to do these things then there were no Infants for they are not capable of exhortation consolation c. ver 11. Therefore Reply This I confess hath some form of a Syllogism viz. Hypothetical though for brevity it might have been Categorical to which I say 1. The Major is granted if it be understood of immediate present exhortation to every particular member of that Church without exception But then your assumption or Minor is denied though you think it guarded with Scripture for it is not said we exhorted every particular Church-member but you i. e. to those grown Christians to whom he immediately wrote And though it be directed to the Church 1 Thes 1.1 yet it 's not said every particular Church-member was bound to read hear understand and obey this Epistle so soon as it came It was enough that it was directed to the principal members which oft have the denomination of the whole by whom it might be as there was occasion communicated to others The Apostle calls this Church for all whom hee gives thanks 1 Thes 1. ver 1 2 3 4. Brethren will it follow therefore that Women among them who are not brethren are not Church-members 2. Doth not the same Apostle say If ANY would not work neither should they eat yet you are so pitiful that you will not deny food to little Babes pag 62. me-thinks you should be as pitiful not to deny to them Church-membership though they cannot perform all the acts of a Church-member no more then the Circumcised Infants of the Jews could 3. Yet again to your Major though the Apostle did not speak or write directly or immediately to Infants yet mediately and indirectly he did in speaking and writing to their parents who were to lay hold on the promises c. for themselvs and their children and being instructed in their duties were to teach their children when capable Gen. 18.19 Deut. 6.7 2 Tim. 3.15 Ephes 6.4 If in this sense Paul's teaching be taken as there is no just reason to the contrary then the consequence is so far from being true that the opposite conclusion must needs be true SECT 13. H. H. p. 70. Eleventh Argument from Heb. 6.11 12. Wee desire every one of you to shew the same diligence c. Little children cannot Therefore no sâ—ch Babes were Church-members in the Church of the Hebrews Reply 1. I do not remember that in this Epistle there is express mention made of the Church of the Hebrews Will you be guilty of that fault which you charge often on your Adversaries viz. Of adding to the Word Take heed 2. This Argument is like the former and therefore the same answer might serve This Exhortation was directly and immediately given to persons of years yet remotely to the children of the faithful who were bound to bring them up when grown as Abraham and the Israelites did theirs Gen. 18. Deut. 6. Psal 78. of Abraham I say for of his chiefly the Author speaks ver 12 13 c. 3. By this Arguing it might be proved that none of their Infants were Hebrews thus Every one of the Hebrews is desired to shew the same diligence to c. But none of the Infants were desired Therefore Or Because a Master of a family writes that every one in the family should be diligent and faithful in their places shall any conclude that his little children are no members of that family 4. There is a like universal charge given to all Israel Deut. 29.10 11 12 18 19 20. yet because little ones could not understand c. must they be concluded or excluded rather out of the Covenant No there is express mention made of their being taken into Covenant SECT 14. H. H. p. 70 71. My 12th and last Argument from Phil. 4. ver 21 22. the summe is this All the Saints at Rome whence this Epistle came sent salutations to the Saints at Philippi but no Infants at Rome did salute nor any Infants at Philippi could receive salutations Therefore no infants at either place are Church-members The Major proved by this Scripture the Minor by rason and common sense Reply 1. If you believe the Subscription of this Epistle to be Canonical Scripture for you confidently avouch this Epistle came from Rome you smell again strongly of the Popish cask Beza saith in one copie it is thus It is finished without any other addition But no
found so much strength that after you had cast a squib you run away like a coward â—ut for all that he hath reached you such a back-blow which you cannot claw off SECT 3. H. H. p. 88. Nay to give him his Argument again Infant Baptism is utterly inconsistent with the obedience to Christ's rule First because there is neither precept nor practise for it as he grants Secondly because by their Rantizing or sprinkling of babes they make the command of Christ of none effect Mat. 7.7 8 9. and Mat. 15.8 9. Thus they bind two sins together and in the one they shall not go unpunished Reply 1. If giving be granting you do well to give it him 2. The first reason of your retortion is but the Cuckoes song M. Baxter hath been so far from granting it that he hath abundantly shewed you both precept and example but you are so wilfully blind that you cannot see wood for trees 3. Your Third is both a meer Calumniation and a miserable begging the Question Infant-Baptism is neither a Tradition in your sense nor a making of Christ's Command of none effect in our sense as hath been shewed But I may not nauseate the Reader with vain repetitions as you do 4. If we shall go unpunished in the one I believe in the other too SECT 4. H. H. Whereas M. Baxter would make us offendors for nothing i. e. for not baptizing children in their Non-age I Answer First he can never make it a sin till he shew us what Command we have broken c. Secondly There is both precept and practice for baptizing men and women when they believe Mar. 16.16 Act. 8.12 and 10.48 Reply 1. Then it seems a swarving from an example in Scripture is no sin What if women should never Break Bread or receiv the Lords Supper is it not a sin since there is no expresse command for it and no example but by consequence Your Scriptures shall be spoke to anon if not heretofore 2. It hath been proved that you utterly mistake those Commands and examples for baptizing men and women at years of discretion unless you will make the parties parallel i. e. meer Heathens newly converted c. But I must not fall into the same crime with you of idle and senselesse Repetitions onlâ— let the Reader observ That I have orderly digested this page of yours which you had confusedly set down for the building of your Tower of Babel SECT 5. H. H. p. 89. His Third Argument is because the practise of baptizing children of Christians at age goes upon meer uncertainties hath no Scripture rule to guide it Therefore it 's not according to the will of Christ Answer Though this is the same in substance with the two former yet First our practise is guided by Scripture rule from the Command of Christ and examples of the Apostles Mark 16.16 Acts 2.41 and 8.12 37. Naâ— say 〈◊〉 your practise of Baptizing little babes goes upon meer uncertainties having no Scripture-rule to guide it c. Reply 1. I had thought to have said nothing to your charge on M. Baxter's chopping one Argument into so many pieces to multiply words Therefore I did not transcribe them yet I shall say this It seems you had surfeited of the other two Arguments And now your stomack turnes at the naming of this If you had no mind to multiply words you might have spared this Cavilling Preface Crums of truth are too precious to be lost and therefore since you will not understand the Loaves which have satisfied some Thousands Mr. B. did well to put his fragments into the basket d) part i. c. â— p. 150. by sending the Reader back to what went before 2. Though the Texts alledged by you have been Replyed to yet here your answer is both wide and weak If you mean of a Church to be constituted that 's nothing to the purpose Mr. Baxter's assertion is still true though that be granted and so your answer is wide If of a Church constituted and if you understand christians children at age then your instances out of those Scriptures prove no such thing because they were not the children of Christian parents and so your answer is weak 3. As your answer is impertinent so your return of M. Baxter's Argument is insufficient To deal roundly I deny your Minor viz. There is Scripture rule for Baptizing babes notwithstanding your impudent denying it as may be easily discerned by any who seriously and impartially peruse Mr. Baxter's Book or this Reply neither do you bring any Scriptures to prove your Minor but only this I SAY What arrogancy is this in you to obtrude an opinion on the world upon your bare word Could you perswade me that Pythagoras was a Dipper and that his soul had transmigrated into your body I would allow the Haggarens as well as the Pythagoreans an IPSE DIXIT he hath said it and that 's enough Do you think to carry your cause against the evidence of Scripture practice of Antiquity consent of Fathers continued custom of the Churches strength of reason upon such a pitifull proof as this is I SAY How long is it since your confidence hath amounted to an Infallibility I therefore must make bold your premisses being thus routed to alter your conclusion Infant Baptisme is according to the mind of Christ notwithstanding Mr. Haggars I SAY 4. Because I would not have Mr. B. to be in your debt for the return of his Argument I return you an Argument from one of your Scriptures e) Mar. 16.16 cited and from your own principles For although you are not so rigid to damne Infants and exclude them from Heaven yet you excommunicate them out of the Church cast them out of the Covenant c. Here I argue They who may be saved without actuall Faith may be Baptized without actuall faith But Infants specially of believing parents may be saved without actuall faith therefore they may be Baptized without actuall faith The Minor you grant The Major I prove thus If faith be as necessary to salvation as it is to Baptisme then they that may be saved without faith may be Baptised without Faith But the former is true Therefore the latter The consequence of the Major is evident from the words of the text f) Mark 16.16 where the same stresse is laid upon faith to salvation as to Baptisme And the Minor cannot be denied unlesse you will have admission to Baptism on Earth more difficult then to blessedness in Heaven and make it an harder matter to be Baptized then to be Saved I leave you to unty not to cut this knot SECT 6. H. H p. 89. 90. His sourth Argument is Because the practice of Baptizing Christians Children at age necessarily fills the Church with perpetuall contentions as being about a matter that cannot be determined by any known rule Answer But the Baptizing of men and women when they believe is a matter that can be and is
determined by a known rule in Scripture Therefore no just cause of contentions because it is according to the will of Christ as I have proved by those Scriptures in the foregoing Argument 2. Nay your practice is a thing for which there is no known Rule in all the Word of God Thus I have thrown your Argument on your owne head and you are fallen into the same pit you digged for others c. Reply 1. Tâ—â— same Reply might serve here But me thinks you shouâ—â— blush to say that the Scriptures so often mentioned by you prove what you would have them I have seen a Dog mumbling and gnawing a bone and then licking in his owne slabber as if it had been marrow from the bone bear with the comparison so you tosse and tumble the Holy Scriptures and then take in if not give out your own fancy in stead of the word of God nay let the Reader observe that M. Haggar hath not brought one Scripture to prove his doctrines and let him doe it if he can and I will be his Proselyte viz. that children of Christians are not to be baptized till they be of age upon their own profession for that is the Question and me thinks they that cry cut for Scripture from the one side should bring Scripture g) Et hanc veniaâ—â— petimus dabimusque vicissim when urged by the other side 2. It is observable that M. Baxter hath spent almost two pages proving by impregnable reasons what contention among christians what tyrany and Lordlyness among Ministers this practice would introduce all which M. Haggar passeth by Is this to answer a book If this Argument had been false you might have denyed it if weak overthrown it your silence speakes neither and thus you have given up the cause in the open field and left Anabaptisme to shift for it selfe and the reader to believe that for all that 's said it is an Incendiary both in Church and state 3. Is this M. Baxter's own Argument As much as the wooden dagger in the signe is George of Horse-back's own Sword to say no more of your unlict Lump of Logick your Minor should have been But the baptizing of little babes before they come to years of discretion will necessarily fill the Church with perpetuall contentions This you had not the face I hope you are grown somewhat modest to affirm If you had the experience of a thousand yeares would have confuted you and if you can instance what breach it ever made what fire it ever kindled 4. It is false which you say There is no known rule for Infant-baptism in all the word of God The Affirmative is sufficiently proved by Scripture but you will not see and you have not yet proved the negative by any express Scripture must the world believe it because you say it did you in your travells run your head upon the Popes Chair of Infallibility 5. It seems you are of a somewhat quarelsom disposition for let the premises be what they will you are resolved to contend against Infant-baptism and that PERPETUALLY This shewes your spleen but as little of your reason as of your Logick 6. Fie for shame Yet more boasting and so little acting How you have thrown M. Baxter's Argument on his own head let the wise judg had it lighted on his head without an helmet it would not have hurt him you have been so far from retorting that you have not rightly repeated his Argument and is M. Baxter in a pit If there be water there you may hope he is dipt but do you take heed of the pit wherein there is no water and from whence there is no Redemption As for your folly charged on him I will say nothing but this both he and we are willing to be counted fools h) 1. Cor. 4.10 for Christ's sake whilst you are wise in your own conceit SECT 7. H. H. p. 90. and 91. M. Baxter's fifth Argument is this Because this Doctrine viz. That those onely should be baptised that are directly made disciples by the preaching of men sent according to the text Mat. 28.19 20. would turne baptism for the most part out of the Churches of the Saints Answer 1. It seems M. Baxter's judgment is that they that preach and Baptise according to that Commandement are those which turn Baptisme out of the Church yet he shewes not one Scripture for the baptizing of any but such as were made disciples by preaching I confesse such a doctrine doth not almost but altogether turn M. Baxter's Baptism out of the Church for we have no such custome nor the Churches of God as to baptize Infants Reply I am at a stand even to admiration that M. Baxter having warned i) Chap. 11. p. 132. that this argument is against the Ground of your practice you say nothing in answer to his premises This silence in you gives the conquest to him for if you had had any thing to have said you would now have spoken such an imminent danger impending over Anabaptisme 2. It is a reproach to say it seems it is M. Baxter's judgment c. you can raile better then reason and you have as good as confessed that it 's your fancy and not M. Baxter's judgment in saying IT SEEMS To whom Onely to you and your party whose eyes it is to be feared the God of this world hath blinded But if it do seem so k) Malta videntâ—â— quae non sunt must it needs be so poor proof Doth the bell alwaies tink as M. Haggar doth think 3. It 's certain M. Baxter doth not find fault with the command but with your comment not with the precept but with your practice in vindicating that Scripture l) Mat. 28.19.20 from your corrupt glosse whence M. Baxter infers and that truly that this would near turn the ordinances of Baptism out of the Churches of the Saints For though in a Church constitured some few in comparison may be and are converted by Ministeriall teaching yet most receive the beginings of grace by godly education as M. B. proves largely m) p. 133 from Scripture experience to which you answer not a word so that these not being discpled by Ministeriall teaching are not to be baptized according to the sense you would put upon the Text. Neither is in enough to say they have faith and so may be baptized for the words speak of working faith according to your Gloss by ministeriall teaching And if this doctrine be true it were best for parents not to teach their children betimes as they are n) Deut. 6.7 Prov. 22.6 Eph. 6.4 commanded a sad and most contradictory principle that the carefullest parent should he the cruellest foe and whiles he seekes to bring his children into Heaven you should bolt them out of the Church on earth 4. In condemning M. Baxter for not shewing one Scripture c. You broach two errours at once First That the discipling of any
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
Humane Learning is an excellent gift of God and needs not my patronage being able to plead for it self against all the friends of ignorance and the works and workers of darkness yet I shall speak something of it in this place according to my promise and others expectance As I desire to bless God for the gifts which he hath richly bestowed on many of his servants and to bewail my own defect therein So I know God the Author of it hath and will execute severe vengeance as on the abusers so on the contemners of it But tell me 1. Doth not wise Solomon though he acknowledged wisedom i. e. humane learning in natural moral and political things in comparison of the fear of God to be but vanity and vexation of spirit Eccl. 1.17 18. 12.13 yet tells us That wisdom excells folly as far as light excells darkness Eccl. 2.12 13.14 Was not Moses learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians Acts 7 22. which sure was humane learning * Just Mart. Râ—sp ad Qu. 25. viz. in Geometrie Astronomy Astrologie c. which out of your profound ignorance or profane scornfulness you are pleased to term Whimsies pag. 35. Was not Daniel and his Companions skilful in all the Wisdom which was famous in the Court of Babylon Dan. 1.4 5 6. Was not Paul brought up at the feet of Gamaliel Acts 22.3 and endowed with all the improvements of humane learning which those times could afford What should I say of Isaiah e) Isa 50.4 The Lord hath given me the tongue of the learned Luke Apollos c. who had eminent acquired endowments which all were made serviceable to God in the work to which they were called And whatsoever some others of the Prophets and Apostles wanted in acquired endowments was supplied by infused in that they were enabled to speak with tongue without study Acts 2. 2 Cor. c. 14. What would you have separated from Moses's Church or Daniel's or the rest because they stood so much in humane learning If you say that though they used humane learning they did not ground their religion on it no more can you say and prove truly of us We ground our Religion on the Scripture but make use of humane learning to know the meaning of the Scripture knowing it is a means sanctified of God for that purpose as of humane eies to read it humane reason to understand it desiring the Lord to sanctifie this humane ability but not casting away eies ears reason or learning If you say we abuse humane learning so did not the Apostles and Prophets Be it so But will you reject good things for the abuse then must you cast away eies ears reason meat drink apparel If you will separate from societies where good things are abused you must separate from all societies and your selves too 2ly Hath not God's providence made special use of the Exactness of the Hebrew Scribes Scholars and Rabbins for the preservation of the Scriptures of the Old Testament even in the least points and tittles Yea how could the Scripture of the Old and New Testament have been conveighed to us without Humane Learning unless wee must have had continual miracles Was not humane learning both amongst the Heathen and the Jews the means of the first Translation of the Old Testament to the spreading abroad of Divine Truth amongst the Nations and to make way for their call to the Gospel And hath not this been the blessed means which God hath used for communicating the knowledge of the whole Scripture to you and many thousands more who must for ever have been ignorant of them if they had continued sealed and locked up which they must for ever have been had not the Key of Humane Learning opened this Treasure to us Oh monstrous ingratitude to spurn at so happy an instrument of conveighing the knowledge of God and of the Scriptures to us 3ly Do you not know that the times of greatest ignorance and decaies or neglects of Humane Learning in the Church were the times of greatest Superstition Idolatry and Deformation when the Prince of Darkness uncontroulably ruled by his substitute Antichrist who was in those times especially as great an enemy to humane learning as you your selvs loth to be at the pains to get it himself and disdaining that any under him should bee more knowing then himself Under whom that illiterate herd of Monks and Friers bore the greatest sway and the blind led the blind into the pit Mat. 15.14 And if here and there a learned man was found in those times their humane learning was counted a sufficient ground to charge them with Heresie or some other hainous offence And can you be ignorant that the grand design of Antichrist is to keep the people in ignorance and illiterateness concerning the Scriptures that they may neither be able to understand them in their original languages which indeed were a work of greater learning then ordinary capacities and the generality of the people can attain to nor yet so much as have them translated into known languages which cannot be without much humane learning at least of some choice men least the light of the Scripture shining forth to the people by means of humane learning the abominableness of their Darkeness should be discovered 4ly Know you not that the breaking forth of Humane Learning about 200 years ago was a preparative and introduction to the breaking forth of the Gospel from under the Cloud and restauration of Religion Doubtless the Spirit of God stirred up those generous spirits impatient of the torpid ignorance which by the cunning of Antichrist and his instruments had over-spread the world with indefatigable industrie to recover learning out of the rubbish in which it had laien buried a long time So that in a while the knowledge of the Greek Hebrew and Chaldee tongues in which the Scriptures were first written and of the Syriack and Arabick into which there were most famous and antient Translations and other Arts and Sciences by which the Writings of the Learned might be better understood were speedily brought to a wonderful splendor and perfection And then presently after these dawnings of Humane Learning Christ the Sun of Righteousness arose in the sincere preaching of the Gospel and expelled the darkness of ignorance and superstition out of many Nations in great measure 5. How is it possible that the Scriptures confessedly the rule of true Religion should be understood by us English-men or any other Christians without the help of humane Learning unless by immediate inspiration and the miraculous gift of speaking with and interpreting of strange tongues and other sudden Revelations which were peculiar to the Prophets and Apostles and those primitive times which none of you as I know pretend to and which to expect now were high presumption if not tempting of God The Original Languages of the Scripture cannot ordinarily be understood without Grammar Learning there is much Oratory in
them which cannot be understood and improved without skill in Rhetotorick specially the knowledge of Tropes and Figures is necessary least men affixâ— monsters on the Scriptures as the Anthrapomorphits Transubstantiaries and Consubstantiaries do There is the strongest reasoning and arguing therein and excellent method which cannot be rightly discerned without skill in Logick In a word there are none of the Liberal Arts no part of genuine Philosophie but may be useful and helpful for the more clear and solid understanding of the Scriptures Indeed these Arts and Sciences the Scriptures do not professedly teach but presuppose in those who will be expert in the word of righteousness 6. Must not those gallant Monuments of Learning and piety antient and modern lie without use as to us and be utterly lost as some of you have burnt all your books save the Bible if we have not Learning Indeed you may think it no loss but scorn us for using them though in our private studies yet sure it is great unthankfulness to God and those his instruments pride and sloth in our selvs and injury to the Church if we should wave such helps for the understanding of the Scripture and the state of the Church in several ages and places And tell me what do you think of this your book whether learned or unlearned let others judg Is it worthy to be read or no If no To what purpose was all this waste if yea how can it bee read and understood without humane Learning Though there are a thousand of books besides more worthy to be read then yours Nay the blessed Bible it self is wrested by them that are Vnlearned 2 Pet. 3.16 7. How could you have attained to any knowledge of the Scriptures of which you boast with the Jews Rom. 2.17 18 c. without the help of Humane Learning or have read them translated without it or heard them read as some of you know not one letter in an English Bible without it For I pray is not the learning of the A B C a point of humane learning And yet I am sure you cannot read the Bible without the knowledge of the Letters And if to be able to read and write English be a good gift of God though a small piece of humane learning sure much more to be able to read and understand the Scriptures in some good measure in the Original Languages Nay how could you hear of Jesus Christ and know the meaning of those learned words without humane learning The one being an Hebrew i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word signifying a Saviour the other a Greek word k signifying Anointed 8. Doth not this inveighing against Humane Learning proceed from a three-fold spring Dominus noster Jesus qui liberat nos à peccatis morte inferno Schind Pentaglot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. From Carnal Lusts Jesuites and Satan 1. From Carnal Lusts as 1. Pride which as it is usually accompanied with and cherished by ignorance for such as are proud know nothing 1 Tim. 6.4 but doat about questions and the most knowing the most humble Psal 19.13 1 Cor. 13.12 so who insult over Learning and Learned men more then the ignorant and unlearned Oh how sweet is it to proud Diabolical natures to sit in the Throne and make Learning stand Acts 25.16 as arraigned condemned and presently drawn to execution at their command Though this bee done but in your fancy yet it mightily pleaseth them But because Pride is scarce counted a Lust of the the flesh what say you of ease and sensuality They who have tasted Learning to purpose have found by experience that much study is weariness to the flesh Eccl. 12 13. and the work of the Ministry a painful work when men must give attendance to reading exhortation and doctrine meditate on these things give themselvs wholly unto them c. 1 Tim. 4.13 14 15 16. Now what an easie pleasant life have these who count humane learning so needless that they judg it dangerous and execrable You need take little or no pains for the instruction of the people Nay Mr. Haggar is not ashamed to say Take away humane learning and all men may preach as well as we nay better Is not this the singing of a Requiem But the lust of Covetousness and desire of filthy Lucre is another bitter root of this opinion and practice Though you have the cunning to cite Whore first who knows not that mean Artificers Day-laborers and broken Tradesmen who usually have large Parishes or rather Diocesses who say Sirs you know that by this craft we have our wealth Acts 19. ver 25. have got more by unlearned preaching or railing against Learning then by their Callings and if they follow them too they have two strings to their bow however they need not lay out their moneys on Books on their supposal Secondly from the Jesuits those Emissaries of the Prince of Darkness If the hand of Joab be not yet the head and hand of a Jesuits is in this though not discerned by all Jesuites and Pâ—â—â—â—s know well enough what deadly blows their Kingdom and cause hath received by the sword of the Spirit wiâ—â—â—d by Learned Arms I mean the tongues and pens of 〈◊〉 Learned as well as pious Champions which our Lord Christ â—â—th made usâ— of again and again to rout the Antichristian forces But in decrying Learning and Universiâ—ies you carry on the Jesuites design *) See Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelii by the Provincial Assembly of London p. 62. c. Adam Conizen a politick Jesuite in his Politicks among other things prescribed for the reducing of Popery this is one To banish Learning out of the Common-wealth and that at once if it can conveniently be if not insensibly and by degrees And if you have not learned this subtilty of the Jesuite I pity you if you have borrowed it from Julian r) Speed's History p. 168. Primum vetuit ne Gaâ—iâ—ae sic Christianos â—umcupabat Poericam Rhetoricam aut Philosophiam discorent Theatot l. 3. c. 7. the Apostate who among other designs to root out Christianity forbad Christians the publick Schools and study of the Arts and Tongues Thirdly from Satan who hath a principal hand in this which I think needs no proof beside what hath been said but this His great design is to hinder the glory of God the Kingdom of Christ and the salvation of men he knows all this is done by keeping people from Christ that is done by keeping them from Faith that is done by keeping them from Scripture and the right knowledg of it This will be certainly done if prople be deprived of right Translations and Interpretations of Scripture which must needs be wanting if there be no Learning nor Learned men For it is as possible for people to see the letters and words wherein Scripture was written without open eies or to hear the sound of them without open ears as to understand the
piece of non-sense do you bring in But he doth not say if they have humane Learning or if they were educated at Cambridge or Oxford or at some Vniversity 3ly My grace is sufficient for thee 2 Cor. 12.9 Therefore c. For what if by grace is meant the favour of God as Diodat and Dr. Hammond c. expound it will it follow that therefore grace In the heart is able to do the work of the Ministry without Learning But if it be to be understood of habitual grace the Argument is much-what like this God's grace is sufficient for M. Haggar therefore Mr. Haggar is able to do the work of a Shear-man without skill in that Art or Trade 4. God will destroy the wisdom of the wise 1 Cor. 1.19 c. therefore no need of humane learning 5. The like may be said of 1 Cor. 1.19 26 27 28 29. Jam. 2.7 As if I should argue God hath chosen the poor of this world therefore not one rich man in this world and yet Abraham and David c. were rich in this world I trow in the number of God's chosen Again God hath not chosen many wise men after the Flâ—sh Therefore not any one when yet Paul that wrote that Epistle Crot. Calv. in loc was a wise man after the flesh before his Conversion and yet a chosen vessel Acts 9 15.6 Christ doth thank his Father that he hid these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes Luk. 10.21 Therefore he is far from setting up learned men above unlearned and by consequence no use of learning For what if by babes are meant those that are humble that think meanly of themselvs then by the wise and prudent must be understood by the rules of opposition those that are proud and think too highly of themselvs will it now follow that because the Father hides the mysteries of eternal salvation from the proud and reveals them to the humble he therefore prefers the unlearned above the learned But suppose by wise and prudent were meant learned ones and by babes unlearned ones experience may convince us that as all unlearned ones are not inlightned how many live without grace as well as without learning So all learned ones are not left in darkness as we may see in Moses Paul c. the Lord is a free Agent and absolute Sovereign and being not bound to any may dispense or deny his grace to whom he pleaseth *) Ad circumstantium Argumenti ne parum habet ponderis quod patrem vocat coeli tenae Dominum quia hoc modo declarat non aliunde quam à Dâ—i arbitrio pendere discrimen quod sapientes caecutiant rudes indocti ca iunt Evang clii mysteria Calv. Harm in loc Therefore Christ in his Doxologie bespeaks his Father with the title Lord of heaven and earth Now let the Reader judge whether Mr. Haggars arguings do not hang together like ropes of sand and so whether his reasonings are not like himself unreasonable and whether he need not serve an Apprenticeship as he calls it p. 126. at Cambridge or Oxford before he can prove his consequences and not then neither SECT 4. H. H. p. 128. It was alwaies God's way or for the most part to chuse his Prophets out of unlearned men and honest laboring men that knew what it was to get their living by the sweat of their brows and not such who were brought up idly so that they cannot digg and are ashamed to begg and therefore prove unjust Stewards These are not fit to be Ministers of Christ because they must preach for hire or else they cannot live c. But the Lord chose Moses a Shepherd Exod. 3.1 2. Elishâ— a Ploughman 1 King 19.19 20. David a Shepherd Psal 78.70 71. Amos an Herdsman Am. 7.14 15. and Fishermen c. Mat. 4.18 19 20 21 22. Likewise he chose ignorant and unlearned men Acts 4.13 Thus all men may see how contrary the Priests of this Nation do walk to Christ and his Disciples Reply 1. The greatest part of this Section is not the language of Canaan and of the holy Scriptures but of Ashdod and of the Quakers who being once members of your Church have since charged you to your face to preach for hire c. as you charge us Is it therefore so indeed I would have you know that maintenance is neither the cause of our preaching nor the end of our preaching Nor that which guides orders and regulates our preaching and so dear is our calling to us and so precious are the souls of our people that if maintenance should fail wee would preach the Gospel though we beg our bread 2. It 's strange to me that you say we cannot digg when you positively charge Mr. C. p. 121. and there is the same reason of others that he had taken great pains to dig for gold out of the mountains of Antient Fathers 3. You answer your self in saying for the most part God did chuse his Prophets out of unlearned men c. Therefore not alwaies by your own grant But Sir though extraordinary Prophets and Preachers were for the most part so chosen yet the Priests and Levites were not The Lord by his prerogative royal may chuse whom he pleaseth who of Shepherds Herdsmen Fisher-men c. made Prophets or Apostles will you therefore presume unlesse you be God's Ape to ordain Tanners and Tailors Nailors and Cheese-factors to the office of preaching will you make an ordinary practice of extraordinary presidents when you can shew us such a warrant we will believe till then we believe you are a Deceiver 4. Some at least of the persons chosen were learned men as Moses above-mentioned Acts 7.22 and Peter and John who had the gift of Tongues Acts 2. It 's a wonder to me that Mr. Haggar should jump in his judgment with the Priests and Rulers As if Peter and John were indeed unlearned and ignorant men But their judgments differ The first h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports they were illiterate i. e. they were not skilled in the learning of the Jews as those Lawyers i. e. expounders of the Law were For they that are called Scribes and Pharisees Mat. 23.13 are termed Lawyers Luke 11.52 The other i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word properly signifies Idiotes and so translated by some k) Beza and Old Latine i. e. not Magistrates instructed in the Laws but ordinary vulgar persons whom the Jews called by that name rendred thrice unlearned 1 Cor. 14.16 23 24. So that the meaning is when the learned Priests and Rulers as Mr. Haggar calls them observed the elocution and freeness of speech m) Dr. Hammond and Grotius with which Peter and John taught and considering withall that their education had not thus elevated them above other men being neither skill'd in the learning of the Jews nor placed in authority as Magistrates they were amazed Now Mr. Haggar would
p. You say Alas there are far better grounds which they are not aware of Answ That is it may be because you baptize them so soon if you would let them alone till they are men and women before you baptize them as you have example in Scripture they might receive Baptisme on better grounds Reply 1. Your interpretation with a may be is but a meer conjecture a fancy of your own head and worthy of no better a reply 2. Though we distinguish between men and women and children in our language yet the Scripture doth not always Cain a child is called a man Gen. 4.1 and an Infant upon the birth is also called in the New Testament a man John 16.21 where the same word is used which includes both man and woman as you confess p. 68. Howsoever your expression is as improper as your advice is impertinent viz. If you would let them alone till they are men and women I know not your meaning well unless you would have every Infant an Hermaphrodite viz. a man and woman 3. You have brought no example in Scripture to justifie your practice for those who are said to be baptized in Scripture were not baptized before that we read of as you acknowledge we were p. 24. SECT 18. H. H. p. 36 and 37. In your seventh Position you confess some Divines have reasoned very weakly for Infant-baptism and used unfit Phrases and mis-applyed Scriptures and to thâ—se some have wrote three or four Books and easily answered and seemed to Triumph and yet the truth is not shaken but it may be all the best Arguments and plain Scriptures have never been answered Answ I desire to answer the plain Scriptures no way but by Faith and obedience by believing and doing them Therefore if you know of any that speaks of Infant-baptâ—sm bring them forth and I will be silent The first I see but as for your best Arguments you talk off I look upon them but as so many cunning devised Fables wherewith you lye in wait to deceive simple souls by speaking things you ought not for filthy Lucres sake Titus 1 14. Reply 1. The first part of your answer I cannot put into my Creed for if you desire why do you not endeavour you knâ—w who saith p The soul of the sluggard desireth and hath nothâ—ng Prov. 13.4 2. M. B. aâ—d others have brought forth plain Scripture for Infant-baptism and you in silence have passed by the most of them because it seems you could not answer them though you confesse you see them 3. The close of your answer if it be a sufficient answer then its an easie matter to answer any Argument though never so strong by mis-applying Scripture and scornfuâ—l terms And I must needs tell you of your rash and harsh judgment contrary to Mat. 7.1 Judge not c. and to Rom. 14.10 c. why dost thou judge thy brother c. And indeed this last part of your answer is the reason why I cannot believe your first SECT 19. H. H. p. 37. You say Position 8. One sound Argument is enough to prove any thing true Answ Then either the great number of yours in your book of plain Scriptures are not sound or else you need not to have brought so many by your own grant Reply 1. What you say of M. Baxters Arguments may be said of yours more truly viz. your twelve Arguments q) Foundation fâ—om p 63. to 73. from p. 73. to 87. against Infants Church-membership and your nine Arguments against Infants-discipleship c. which wil be found as weak as water and as unsound as rotten ground when I shall come to them 2. M. Baxter tells you in this 8 Position It is not number but weight that must carry it Therefore he resolved not to heap up many 3. It seems you take notice of the great number of M. Baxters Arguments and yet you dare not grapple with that huge hoast but only cull out one or two and that by snatching at a limb and away r) Tanquam Caenis ad Nilum Eras Adâ—g as you have done with M. Cook c. SECT 20. H. H. But you say What if all the Texts were put by save one were not that enough Answ Yes it s enough if you can shew us but one but I pray where is that one I cannot find it in all the book But it seems you are afraid that all should be put by save one Therefore you make this Apologie but I suppâ—se all will do you little goâ—d Reply 1. If you wipe your eyes you may see if you be not blind in M. Baxters Book more then one 2. I doubt you speak against your conscience How dare you say you cannot find one text for Infant-baptism in all M. Baxters Book when you seem to be more Eagle-eyed then others in seeing and finding as you think the Font in Jer. 2.12 13. p. 8. 3. M. Baxters Apology is not made out of any such jealousie as you pretend as if he was afraid that all should be put by save one but out of a desire and endeavour to rectifie the ignorant in their fond conceits as he himself exprâ—sseth it which you have cunningly left out 4. I will accept of your grant and improve it in time convenient viz. If all should be put by but one it 's enough SECT 21. H. H. same p. You say Position 9. The former and present customes of the holy Saints and Churches should be of great weight with humble Christians Answ I grant it if they bee now according to the primitive pattern I am sure the custom of the Churches in the Apostles days was to baptize men and women when they believed c. Acts 2.41 8.12.36 37. 10.47 16.33.34 18.8 Therefore let this custom be of weight to your self and do not baptize little babes that cannot believe c. because Paul saith 1 Cor. 11.16 Reply 1. You condemn hereby all the Protestant Ministers of the French Churches who preach with their hats on their heads and yet they think they may do so without sin notwithstanding 1 Cor. 11.4.7 2. Are not you self-condemned who as I am informed have broken bread on the second day of the week when the primitive Disciples Å¿) Act. 20.7 did it on the Lord's day viz. the first day of the week as you grant p. 13. nay Expositors on that place collect they did break bread once a week viz. on the day aforesaid you once a month if so oft 3. Those Scriptures so often repeated by you have been answered already I tell you again That practise is not binding to us but in the same or like condition Beside the primitive Christians had their Love-feasts when the Lord's Supper was administred and received as is plain out of Scripture s) see Diodat 1 Cor. 11.20.21 Jude 8.12 and it was their custome to salute one another with an holy kiss Do you not think it a piec of your Christian
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