the originall Beza saith f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in very many copies it 's read unto Lydia so do others g) As the Syr. and old Latine translate it and for ought appears Lydia at that time might be in anothers house aswell as her own 2. What a silly Argument is this H. H. went into a Cheese-Factours house to ordain a Cheese-Factour to the office of a preaching Elder Therefore there were no Infants in his house So Paul and Silas might enter in Lydia's house admitting the translation to comfort the brethren and yet there might be Infants in her house and baptized too for it is said she and her houshold were baptized 3. If you mean that in Lydia's house there were no little babes that were capable of comfort it s granted but this hinders not but little babes are or may be capable of Baptism though not of comfort as the Jewish Infants were capable of circumcision though not of consolation but if you mean no little babes supposing there were such can be called brethren I do not marvail at it since you deny them to be Disciples Church-members Covenanters Saints and make no difference between the Infants of Pagans and of Christians I pray you Sir why may you not call them brethren and sisters if God be your Father whom the Lord saith g) Eaech 16.20 are born to him and whom he himself calleth his h) ver 21. children not only by creation but by Covenant which had been made with your Ancestors as appears out of that whole Chapter specially verse 60.62 4. You conclude there is no ground to believe from Scripture or reason that there were Infants in Lydia's house shall be answered by and by SECT 15. H. H. same p. The Jaylour was baptized with his houshold from whence some would draw the same Argument as from Lydia's 6 Instance and perswade us tâ—at there were children in his house but the Text is plain against it Acts 16.32 33 34. They spake the word of the Lord to him and to all in his house and he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes and was baptized he and all his straight ways and when he had brought them into his house he set meat before them and rejoyced believing in God with all his house Thus the Scripture in plain words as it saith the one that he and all his were baptized so also it saith he with all his house believed in God Reply 1. In the beginning of the sect you say the Jaylour was baptized with his houshold Look the Text i) Acts 16.13 It doth not say so here we have another addition of yours to advantage your cause no marvail that you add to mens writings when you are so bold to add to the Lords holy Scripture I grant it saith He and all His were baptized but not he was baptized with his houshold 2. It 's very observable the Text saith k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was baptized and all his i. e. hee and all that were OF him A most emphaticall phrase to denote his Children who are properly a mans own his naturall off-Spring when the Evangelist speaks of the Apostles preaching he names the Jaylours house in the largest acceptation They spake the word to him and to all that were l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his house but when he speaks of baptizing he changeth the terme and saith He and ALL HIS were baptized that you may be sure his children were baptized without doubt M. Haggars children his horse cannot be said to be his on the same account This phrase therefore in the Text must primarily be referred to his children 3 I expected here also an Argument in form to prove there were no children in the Jaylours house or if so that they were not baptized but in vain If yet you would prove your former thus Paul and Silas spake the word to all in his house but P. and S. did not speak the word to infants therefore no infants in his house The answer is in brief it 's a Sophistical Argument the conclusion should be therefore Infants were not at all in his house or all in his house were not infants which is granted but what is this to your purpose If you can cast it into a better mould it shall receive another answer Now to prove that no infants were baptized here though you say not so as in the place foregoing thus perhaps you may bee thought to reason The Jalour with all his house that was baptized believed in God but infants believed not Therefore The weakness of this Argument appears thus The children of Israel went up harnessed m) Exod. 13.14 out of the land of Egypt but the Jewish infants went not up harnessed Ergo 4. Before I leav you here one thing is to be observed For if it be plain that children were not in the Jaylours house As you would bear your reader in hand out of this Text Then something may be is plain by consequence which is not expresly written in so many words in Scripture SECT 16. H. H. Thus the Scripture in plain words as it saith the one that he and all his were baptized so also it saith he with all his house believed in God and therefore if M. Cook will evade the one by his learned Exposition in his 17. p. We may aswell evade the other and so conclude that none but he was baptized But consider the result of his labours when he hath laboured by all his wit and skill to pervert the Text yet he confesseth that the Syriack translation reads it thus and he exulted and all the children of his house even all of them in the faith of God I pray you let all rationall men consider what difference is between their all-rejoycing and believing God and exulting even all of them in the faith of God Reply 1. Let it be observed that to the foregoing Scriptures as holding forth commands or examples of baptizing Jews or Heathens newly converted to the faith n) Font uncovered from p. 7. to p. 23. there are given full and large answers both in general and particular shâ—wing that they make nothing for M. Haggars purpose and also to those Arguments which he after frames from the precept and practice of Christ and the incapacity of the subject as he would gather from these Scriptures yet he is pleased to take notice of two very short sentences passing by all the rest which I believe amount to an hundred times more then what he seems to answer to what other construction can be made thereof but that he finding himself unable to answer the rest thought good to pick out two or three lines which being singled from the rest he as he imagined might have more advantage against If this be sufficient it 's an easie matter to answer any books 2 For opening the sence of this Scripture o) Act.
they have it But I pray try us with some first and see I confess we cannot understand this Book of yours to be plain Scripture proof for c. because you have packt it so full of such Whimsies as these Geometry Arithmetick Grammar c. But Sir God's Word is of another nature Psal 19.7.8 119.98 99 100. all which I believe you will find to be true before we have done Reply 1. It 's possible that some men cannot understand plain Scripture if they hear it and Mr. Baxter in this 3d Position gives a reason of it Otherwise one man should know as much as another and all as much as their Teachers seeing they all read and hear the same Word If you will not believe Mr. Baxter nor Scripture nor experience will you believe your own words for a little after the beginning of this pag. 34. you say The Apostles preacht very plainly and yet there were Many hearers which rejected their words though very plain It 's possible and plain that you can quickly contradict and confound your self and yet perhaps it 's not possible that you will believe it 2. You have been tried sufficiently with plain Scripture and we see you will not believe it nor understand it Like those who are complained on a) Isa 28.9 Whom shall he teach knowledg and make to understand doctrine Them that are weaned from the milk and drawn from the breasts c. 3. It 's very strange to say as you do often that in Mr. Baxters book there is no plain Scripture proof for Infant-Church-membership and Baptism and yet you have plain b) See the Title of the Foundation of the Font discovered Scripture-proof for the baptizing of men and women they believ as a standing Ordinance of Jesus Christ I pray you where are those words A Standing Ordinance of Jesus Christ written in the Scripture 4. Yea it 's stranger to say Mr. Baxters Book is packt so full of such Whimsies as these Geometrie Arithmetick Grammar c. 1. I am mistaken if Mr. B. mentioneth these but onely in this third Position 2. You that profess your self to be a Teacher how can you understand many places of Scripture or make the people to understand them if they come to you for resolution without some skill in these things which you call Whimsies E. g. Without c) Maltae sunt in Bibliâ—s quae numerandi scientian quam dicimus Arithmeticam deposcunt multae quae sine Geometria intelligi non possunt Alst Plaecâ—g l. 2. p. 76 skill in Geometrie how can you understand the Cubits of the length and breadth and height of Noah's Ark made by God's own direction And without Arithmetick d) Dan. 9.25 26. Daniel's seven weeks and sixty two weeks And without Grammar whether the Relative e) Gen. 6.14 15. THIS is to be referred in the end of the 20 ver of the 5. chap. of the of John This is the true God Whether to the Father as the Arrians and Socinians say or to the Son Jesus Christ as the Orthodox most truly say Or without Astronomy how can you understand that Text which maketh Arcturus Orion and Pleiades and the chambers of the South Unlesse you look with other mens eies and take things upon meet trust 3. Now let the Godly judge whether it be not a kind of blasphemy wickedly to term these he like Arts by the name of WHIMSIES f) Joh â— 8 But Learning against which you do so often inveigh hath no enemie but him that is ignorant and unlearned 5. We honor the Word of God as much as you and through grace in some measure know by experience the nature and effects of it and I believ we shall discover that light which is in you to be darkness before we have done SECT 12. H. H. p. 35. You sâ—â— Poâ—â—â— 4. When the cause is so dâ—fficult we must follow the most probâ—ble â—aâ—â— Answ â—hen iâ— seems it 's very difficult for you to prove that Infants ought to be baptized by your own confession and indeed so I believ for that must needâ— be difficult to prove that there is not one word of God in all the Bible for I cannot blame you to say That it 's difficult to prove Reply 1. That it 's difficult to prove Infant-baptism is not Mr. Baxter's confâ—ssion but your own collection yet you would make your Proselytes believ who are very credulouâ— taking all for Gospel that you say that it is Mr. Baxters own confession 2. Admit this Confession it makes nothing for you noâ— against us but rather for uâ— if that saying be tâ—uâ— g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Difficâ—â—â— quae puâ—câ—â—a The more difficult the more excellent It 's â—ard to prove by express Scripture the Christian weekly Sabâ—ath Family-praier twice a day Womens receiving the Lord's Supper and the reâ—t mentioned before h) Chap 5. sect 1. c. with many more yet it hurts not us who conscienciously observ the same noâ— help such who are enemies to them and us Such is the case of Infant-baptism 3. It 's but a vain Repetition of 〈◊〉 loud and lewd calumny that there is not one word of God in all the Bible for Infant-baptism To what end have you sweat so much in answering some of those Scriptures which are usually and rightly brought for Infant-Baptism Sure the Scriptures are the Word of God contained in the Bible SECT 13. H. H. But you say we must follow the most probable way Come on then that we will Now whether it is most probable â—hâ—â— that practice which is no where commanded nor written in Scripture should be of God or of Satan Judge yee Now that Infant-baptism is such a practice as is not written in Scripture both M. Hag. and your self confess Therefore it 's not of God but of Satan Reply 1. Your Argument consists of pure Negatives i) Altera saltem praeâ—issâ—rum sit affiâ—mans â—anex duabus praemissis negaÌ„tibus nil pâ—â—est legitiâ—â—e concluâ—i Eu stach de Syllo p 132. and so concludes nothing For this is the sum and substance of it That which is not written in the Word of God is not of God but of Satan But Infant-baptism is not written in the Word of God Therefore it 's not of God but of Satan 2. You father another untruth on M. H. and M. B. They no where confess that Infant-baptism is not written in Scripture for how many Scriptures do they bring to prove the practise of Infant-baptism 3. You do but eqâ—ivocate in the word WRITTEN for if you mean expresly in so many words and syllablâ—s then your Major is falâ—e and rests on you to be proved In the mean time the falshood may be thus discovered to any Reader from your own principle That which is not wâ—itten expresly in the Word of God is not of God but oâ— Satan but womens receiving the Lords Supper Family prayer morning and evening c. are not
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
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
Mr. B. said 3. You would make Mr. Baxter odious by saying He takes the Divels part c. But Sir you know the proverb A man must give the Divel his due Surely those godly Ministers do not take the Divel's part when they tell sinneâ—s that many times they be-lye the Divel in fathering their sins on him rather then on themselvs Mat. 15.19 Out of the hâ—art proceeds evil thoughts c. Jam. 1.14 Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust 2 Pet. 1. ver 4. Corruption is in the world through lust 4. I fear that fault charged on Mr. Baxter will bee found within your own girdle before I leave you Though you say you will now make it appear It seems then you failed in making it to appear as you said in the foregoing page But just so you have learned the Divels deceit in adding to Scripture E. g Baptism is to be deferred til a man can believe which is not written in the Bible but in Mr. Haggars book p. 38. and you say p. 61. God hath one way to save men and women and another way to save little children which is no where written in the holy Scriptures Again in the same page you say Infants dying in their infancy are saved by virtue of Christ's death without actual Fâ—ith which is no where written c. who now writes after the Divels copie Who takes the Divels part SECT 34. H. H. p. 43. The Divel said to Christ If you be the Son of God cast thy self down which is no where written as the Lord saith but the contrary viz. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord c. So do you say if you be the children of God Baptize your children which is no where written but the contrary Mat. 28.29 Mar. 15 16. Acts 2.38 41. 8.37.12.37 But you know there is no children in the Text neither can they do any thing of those things notwithstanding all this you do the works of Satan Reply 1. Though what is said in the foregoing Sect. is a sufficient reply as to this also yet I am sure Christ proves two things contrary to you 1. The lawfulness of arguing from Scripture by Consequences 2. That is Scripture which is contained though not expressed therein e. g. Christ must not cast himself down for it is written in Deut. 6. ver 16. Thus. If the Lord must not be tempted then I must not cast my self down But the Lord must not be tempted Therefore 2. You bewray your ignorance in saying contrary for the baptizing of Infidels converted to the Faith and Infants also of one or both Christian parents are not contrary but subordinate k) Subordinate non pugnant there is a consistency of both 3. The Scriptures you cite in Mat. and Mark and the Acts have been answered before you do but trouble your self and tire the Reader with vain Repetitions Yet to your last I say Children are expresly mentioned in Acts 2. ver 39. which you have cunningly left out as if to use your own expression you meant to take the Divels part and so to do his work Beside your allegations are as strong against Circumcision as against infant-baptism for you know they could not repent nor believe with all their hearts c. and yet were circumcised But let us see how Mr. B. or we do the works of Satan SECT 35. H. H. As he tempted Christ to cast himself down before God's time was come to send his Angels to take him down and to that end would have applied a promise falsly Psal 91.11 12 leaving out In all thy waies So do you tempt men and women to baptize their children before God's time is come to beget them by his Word Joh. 3.5 James 1.18 That they might be born again nor onely of water but of the Spirit And to that end you tell them It is written They are disciples and Church-members and they were circumcised under the Law therefore they must be baptized under the Gospel c. Reply 1. You drive on the Popish design handsomly for here you open a wide door for unwritten Traditions What Scripture have you that saith expresly of the coming of God's time to send his Angels to take down Christ 2. Here is a very spiteful parallel What likenesse between Casting thy self down and baptizing Children 3. We have another unwritten Tradition viz. We tempt men and women to baptize their Children before God's time is come 4. You cannot deny but God doth beget some Infants by his Spirit without the Word else they are none of his Rom. 8.9 5. Your Gloss on John 3.5 smells too strongly of the Popish Cask most Orthodox Divines understand by Water and Spirit one and the same thing the latter being exegetical to the former as Mat. 3.11 to be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with Fire is all one which you distinguish as different in saying not onely of Water but also of the Spirit 6. What a strange piece of Non-sense have we here God doth beget us by his Word that we might be born again when God's begetting of us and our being born again in Scripture are all one l) 1 Joh 4.18 He that is born of God sinneth not but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself c. See also verse 1. 7. These Arguments to prove Infant-baptism drawn from Circumcision Church-membership Discipleship c. you cannot answer but by railing which shall have no other Reply from me but Silence and Patience SECT 36. H. H. p. 44. You tell us that if we have the meaning and reason we have enough for evidence for words are but to express sense Answ Then it seems the meanings and reasons you talk of without the Word are without sense by your own confession And thus you see or may see that God by weak instruments can take you wise ones in your own craftiness But again are not the words of the Scripture as good and better sens and reason then any you can speak or give Reply 1. It is not Mr. Baxter's confession but Mr. Haggar's profession to wrest M. Baxter's words as well as Scripture Let any 〈…〉 of judiciousness read M. Baxter's 10. Position and he will quickly 〈◊〉 Baxter's plainness and M. Haggar's craftiness 2. It 's granted that the words of the Scripture in Hebrew and Greek were given by the inspiration of the Spirit but our English words into which they are translated are not we may without blasphemy say If you deny this I must needs conclude you are so far from being high-flown that with the Serpent you creep on the ground and pave the way for making the Vulgar Translation Authentical as you would the English SECT 37. H. H. You say further Would it not make a man pity such sensless ignorant wretches that will call for express words of Scripture when they have evident Consequences Is Scripture-reason no reason Answ Sir me thinks you are very pitiful but you are a
We would have Mr. Baxter and all men know that we take all the sayings of Christ to be as good Scripture and of as great authority as any part of the Bible Therefore now Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook 's folly and wickedness is manifest who would insinuate into peoples minds that Christ did not bring Scripture to prove the Resurrection of the Dead but they must help him by their Consequences But their deceit lies in this that because Christ did not bring some other Scripture to prove the Resurrection therefore they conclude he proved it by consequence never minding that what he said was Scripture and what he approved of is approved and ought to be of all without murmurings and disputings Reply 1. Do you take all the sayings of Christ to be as good Scripture and of as great authority as any part of the Bible If you understand it of Christ's sayings left upon Record in holy Writ I am of the same belief but because you speak so largely and indistinctly I imagine without breach of charity your design is to open a wide door for unwritten Traditions to come in and be received as the Council of Trent hath determined pari pietatis affectu * Vide primuâ—â— Dâ—cretum qua tae sessionis Comcilii Tridentiâ—â— Pet. Suar. l. 2. p. 127. i. e. with the like affection of piety as any part of the Bible And this is not a groundless imagination for both your tenents and practices speak a promoting of the Catholick cause as it is so called for which it's strongly suspected and rumor'd that you are an Agent I pray call to mind the Jesuit who pretended to be a Jew and converted and was admitted a member of an Anabaptistical Congregation at Hexham in the North. 2. Your silly evasion a Cole wort more then twice sodden is as apparent now as the detection of that Jesuit and needs no further reply 3. It 's a notorious slander that Mr. Baxter and M. Cook c. would insinuate into peoples minds that Christ did not bring Scripture to prove the Resurrection of the Dead For they say plainly u) Mr. Cooks Font uncovered p. 24. that Christ proves the doctrine of the Resurrection against the Sadduces by Consequence from that Scripture I am the God of Abraham c. you are one of those men as Mr. Baxter saith p 8. who have reported abroad That Christ was not able to confute the Sadduces or to bring any Scripture for his Doctrine What say you now for you say nothing in this page to Mr. Baxter's motion Will you allow of such an Argument for Infant-baptism as Christ here brings for the Resurrection Will you confess it to be a sufficient Scripture proof 4. If what Christ approved of is and ought to be approved of all and it 's certain that Christ approves this way of arguing from Scripture by Consequence as you cannot deny then do you approve it without murmurings or disputings This was Christ's usual way E. g also he proves the lawfulness of his Disciples v) Mat. 12.3 â— 5 6 7. pulling the ears of corn and eating them on the Sabbath day by consequence from Scripture viz. from David's eating of the Shew-bread 2. From the Priest's sacrificing on the Sabbath And 3. From that Expression in Hos 6.6 I will have mercy and not sacrifice To conclude this I see you are like a bird in a net the more you stir the faster you are held notwithstanding your fluttering SECT 49. H H. p. 48. But now to make their folly manifest I will reason with them another way and if they prove as plainly that Infants are to be baptized as Christ did there prove that the dead should rise they shall have it and I will confess my self in an error And now to the matter Reply 1. Here is another confession of yours that Christ plainly proves there the Resurrection of the Dead now either it is Expresly or by Consequence x not Expresly for there is not one word of the Resurrection in Exodus 3 6. Therefore by Consequence will you now confess your error and say That some doctrine is contained plainly in Scripture which is not expresly written therein 2. You will Now make their folly manifest You had said but a little before in the same page that it is now manifest Surely you have manifested your own folly in indeavoring to do that now which you said was done before 3. It seems all this while you came not to the matter but fell short or beside the mark for you say And now to the matter SECT 50. H. H. Mark 12.25 When they shall rise from the dead they neither marry Now do you shew a Scripture that saith And when they shall baptize little children they shall c. Reply 1. This is but the same answer in another form 2. When you bring a Scripture that saith When they shall dipp actual believers or visible Saints they shall c. we will shew you then a Scripture that saith as you say SECT 51. H. H. vers 26. As touching the dead that they rise have you not read c. Now do you produce such a Scripture if you can that saith As touching little children that they may be baptized have you not read c. Bring you but Striptures that come but thus near the matter and we will grant you Infant-baptism but till then you are unreasonable in your reasoning Reply 1. Produce you a Scripture out of Exodus that saith The dead shall rise and then you shall have such a Scripture That children shall be baptized 2. You say and unsay Even now you approved of arguing by Consequence from Scripture and now nothing will serve turn but Express Scripture 3. You would make the people believe that we deny the Resurrection of the Dead God forbid We hold Christ proves the Resurrection by Consequence which you cannot deny 4. When you cannot answer then you fall a railing you accuse and condemn your self nay Christ as well as us as unreasonable in our reasoning SECT 52. H. H. pag. 49. Some will object that I tye Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook to plain Scripture but I my self have written many words in this book that are not plain Scripture Answ It 's one thing for a man to use words to express himself to those that will not believe the Scriptures as they are written and another thing to bring the Scriptures to shew men a rule to walk by and what their duty is in matters of faith and obedience The former we allow but not the latter either to our selves or others c. Reply 1. You take to your self that liberty which you deny to others who may not without a check from you use the word Sacrament p. 14. nor Negative p. 29. c. 2. The phrase of not believing the Scriptures as they are written is dark and doubtful you had need of an Expositor yet I know not who those are that will
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
have them void of all humane learning Truly when I see the boldness and confidence of Mr. Haggar and perceiv that he is an unlearned and ignorant man I cannot but marvel 5. Thus all men to be sure judicious may see whether the Priests of this Nation as M Hag. scornfully calls them do walk contrary to Christ and his Discipes SECT 5. H. H. same p. Object Christ was able to teach them all wisedom and did give them extraordinary gifts for the perfecting of his work but now there is none such Therefore men must get abilities by humane learning Answer This is a gross mistake for we have nothing else to do but to believe and obey that Word which was by them preached when they were so endued with those gists aforesaid And now if any man preach he must preach that Word 2 Tim. 4.2.3 4. For that is able to do all the work of conversion and sanctification and to make us wise to Salvation c. 2 Tim. 3.15 16 17. See whom the Apostle accurseth Gal. 1.8 9. Therefore we are commanded 2 Thes 2.15 and Christ prayeth Joh. 17.20 Therefore they are the preachers by whom 〈◊〉 do believe and the Word is already preached that I must believe and obey Therefore no need of a little dirty humane learning to make a man a preacher of that which is so plainly preached already but every Englishman man declare it to his native Country-men and so may men in all Nations Reply 1. Here we have again some ropes of sand if that word must be preached which is able to convert sanctifie and save Then the preacher hath no need of Humane Learning 2. They are accursed that preach any other Gospel c. Therefore no need of Humane Learning 3. We must stand fast and hold the traditions we have been taught 4. Christ prays for all those that shall believe in him c. Therefore no need of Humane Learning Are you not ashamed of such absurd Arguings If you will not serve and Apprenticeship at either of our Universities I will give you twice so many years to prove the consequence you may delude your unlearned ignorant Proselytes but not us who can distinguish between a Syllogism and a Paralogism 2. What nothing else to do but to believe and obey that word which was by them preached must not I read and meditate on that word And must not you work at your calling in the week day or ride up and down the Country to make a Proselyte May not any man preach and declare the Word by your doctrine Nay why did you write print and publish this Book if you had nothing else to do but to believe and obey that Word c. If any of the particulars be expressed or implyed in that Word I would fain know how without Humane Learning the Scriptures could have been translated out of their Originalls into known tongues Suppose English or how you could have read and preached in English without Humane Learning but enough of this before 3. Me thinks I see you in Hieram's temper p) 1 K 9.13 who called the Land that Solomon gave him Cabul which word in the Phaenician Language q) Jun. Tremel Bercho of Humane learning saith justi â—ecipiunt docti respiciunt stulti despiciunt signifies displeasing and by some of the Jews it signifies Dirty So that Humane Learning which Christ greater then Solomon hath given to some of his Ministers is displeasing to you and therefore you call it DIRTY Learning in scorn and indignation No marvel it makes your folly manifest 4. Whereas you say any English man may declare the Word to his Country men and so may men in all Nations either you lispe in the language of the Quakers who cal even the holy Scriptures but a Declaration or if by declaring you mean preaching as in your page 64. women may preach or declare the mind of God to others then least women should want tongues by your doctrine men in ALL Nations may preach by virtue of M. Haggar's Ordination or Approbation CHAP. XVIII Of Infant-Baptism H. H. Secondly your Rantizing or Cozening of poor babes in their Cradles take away that and you have no Church But others who have Faithfully preached the Gospell and converted souls to the Faith and baptized them too in the name of Jesus Christ have a far greater Reply 1. How many crude Allegations do you here assert without any proof at all as that we Rantize babes nay cozen them nay in their Cradles c. all which are as truly denied by us as they are confidently yet barely affirmed by you 2. If baptism according to your Doctrines confuted be essentiall to constitute a Church then take away that and we have no Church but the Antecedent is false and therefore the Consequent 3. If by others you mean the Anabaptists I deny that you or they have faithfully preached the Gospell witnessed the many errours vented by them and discovered to be such in this book or that you have converted souls to the faith I never heard of an ignorant profane person wrought upon by your Ministry only you build on our foundation and gather where you never scattered subverting simple and unstable souls 4. How pitifully do you again contradict your self For if you have a far greater Church then we how is it that we have no Church If Goliah be a greater man then David doth that hold out that David is no man 5. I suppose you mean that Infant-Baptism is one of our pillars on which our Church stands The answer to the first may suffice here But whether Infant Baptism be according to the will of Christ hath been the main subject of this debate And therefore let the Reader compare your Answer and this Reply together and judge accordingly Only I will close with this This Pillar remains unshaken or is more settled by being shaken CHAP. XIX Of Tithes SECT 1. H. H. p. 123. Thirdly Your Tithes or forced maintenance The wages of unrighteousness 2 Pet 2.15 after which you all go astray take away that and wee may preach who will for all you By which it appeareth you are all Hirelings and will labour no longer then you are payd for it neither do you care for the Flock any longer then you are paid for it by all which you make that old Papisticall Proverb good upon your selves viz. No penny no Pater Noster So say you all in effect no mony no preaching c. Reply 1. If our Tithes be the wages of unrighteousness in the place cited by your corrupt gloss r) Numb 23.23 and 24. with Josh 13.22 a Soath-sayer or Magician The Prayers of them must be Balak's the receivers of them must be Balaam's then preaching must be cursing of God's people and what then must H. H. be who speaking with man's voyce Å¿) 1 Pet. 2.16 rebukes But 2. Our Tythes are not wages of unrighteousness neither doth the Holy Ghost call
k) Mat. 28 20. I am with you alway even to the end of the world I pray you what is it to preach the Gospel but to open and hold forth the Covenant the Covenant I say made with Abraham whereof this was one branch I am thy God and of thy seed Compare Gen. 12.3 and 17.17 with Gal. 3.8 13 14. Now that the Infants of Covenanters are within the Covenant aswell as grown persons is clear to him that will not shut his eies If not It shall be made clear by the assistance of the Lord in this ensuing reply to avoid Tautologies 3. Consider also as what they were to do so to whom every creature all nations now that Infants should be none of the creatures or nations is unsuitable to reason and religion specially considering that they were included as speciall subjects when the Church was in so small a plot of ground and Christ doth not exclude them by any restriction or exception which had been needfull and seasonable if they were to be excluded SECT 2. 2. Observ H. H. The end was that they might beleeve it Reply 1. These words are not expresly set down in the places cited viz. Matt. and Mark They are drawn but by consequence 2. Neither do they hold forth the end of preaching so much as the event But thirdly whether end or event if your meaning be that they might believe it for their seed and houshold As Acts 16.31 Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and thine house You and I are agreed in this SECT 3. 3. Observ H. H. That those which did believe the Gospell should be baptized into his name Reply 1. If you understand it of Infidells converted to the faith not excluding their children we believe it and accordingly practice as well as you for the Scriptures alleaged by you prove that where the Gospell is first preached whether to Jews oâ— Gentiles Turks or Pagans who perhaps never heard of Christ before they must first be instructed and embrace the Gospell before they be baptized as Abraham was before he was circumcised but this hinders not their children from baptisme no more then Abrahams children from circumcision nor infants not believing from salvation for you say (l) Foundat p. 61 infants are saved without actuall faith though the Text alleaged by you saith (m) Mark 16.16 he that believeth not shall be damned 2. If you mean as your practice speaks that such who have been baptized once for so you grant p. 24. Be baptized again as we are and have received the Lords Supper often and therefore owned as Church members should bee baptized by you I say this doctrine and practice hath no sooting on the Texts alleaged by you either by clear consequence from or expresseness of those Scriptures as hereafter shall be more fully evinced SECTION 4. Fourth Observ H. H. That those baptized believers were after to be taught to observe all other things whatsoever Christ had commanded his Apostles to teach them Reply 1. After to be taught If you mean a good while after It s our practice to teach infants after baptism assoon as they are capable (n) Gen. 18 19. As Abraham taught his children a good while after circumcision but if you mean it presently after Baptisme and so continually to their lives end I grant it of grown persons such baptized believers in the same or like juncture of Circumstances Secondly yet I do not find expresse mention made that the Eunuch was instructed by Philip after he was baptized by Philip but rather the contrary for it s said (o) Act 8 39. And when they were come up out of the water the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip that the Eunuch saw him no more Or that Ananias instructed Saul after Baptism though its said (p) Act. 9.18 19. Then was Saul certain dayes with the disciples at Damasâ—us or that Saul now Paul instructed the Jailour (q) Act. 16.33 34. after Baptism You may by this time perceive that your observation stood in need of being bounded with some caution 3. You do not tell us by whom they are to be taught afterward surely you left the door open for a private gifted brother SECTION 5. H. H. Observ Fifth To this practice viz. to a people thus walk ing according to this rule hearing his sayings and doing them The Lord Christ hath promised his presence saying Loe I am with you always to the end of the world but the end of the world is not yet Therefore Christ is still with those baptized believers which do thus walk Reply 1. In the Texts of Matt. and Mark cited by you there is no expresse mention made of these words viz. To this practice or to a people thus walking according to this rule c. They are your dictates and fancies 2. If by the worlds end is meant the particular age wherein the Apostles lived as some of late hold then it will not follow that Christ is still with those baptized believers which do thus walk Now though I professe ingeniously that I disclaim that sense as false and impertinent not only because of the termes in this promise used alwaies r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather all days and succession of times but also because your phraise s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the end of the world is understood by the same Evangelist of Christs second coming and that three severall times t) Mat. 13.39 40 49. yet you might have foreseen and prevented such an exception which quite takes away the edg of the argument and have answered the seekers as they are called whose glosse this is and who are for the most part branches that came out of your Church 3. Though I deny not the spirituall presence of Christ among all true believers as is clear by other Scriptures yet these words in Matth. 28.19 I am with you c. appertain principally if not onely to the Apostles and their successors u) Vobiscum evo nec vobiscum tantum sâ—d et vobis mortu is cum vestris succâ—ssor bus Par. in Loc. for to them our Saviour spake ver 18. with 16. They are bidden to go ver 19. Go yee and are commanded to disciple all Nations in the same verse teach ye *) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or disciple ye all Nations and ver 19. Whatsoever I have commanded you and then presently And lo I am with you So that this promise of Christs special spirituall presence is made to Ministers rather then to the people to Teachers rather then to them who are taught to Baptizers rather then to the Baptized 4. You do not distinguish between the corporall and spirituall presence of Christ as hath been hinted by me but say largely and generally Christ hath promised his presence c. Hence the Argument for Christs corporall presence seems to be as strong for the Ubiquitaries as yours is for the Anabaptists and may
H. H. Thus we see that all that were baptized of John were such as could and did confess their sins but Infants cannot confess their sins Therefore none such were baptized by John Reply 1. In saying Infants cannot confesse their sins do not you imply that Infants have their sins What other construction can any rational man make of your words If so how can you call them innocent so oft n) Pag. 60. 2. It 's neither here nor any where else exprest in Scripture that none were baptized of John but such as could and did confesse their sins 3. What if it were granted which I do not it remains on you to be proved that this example is binding to us which I shall believe when I hear or see you cloathed with Camels hair and with a girdle of a skin about your loins and eating locusts and wilde honey For the 5. and 6. verses are connected together with the Conjunction And. 4. But to drive out one wedge with another and to shew the weaknesse of your Argument I thus argue o) Exod. 12.35 The children of Israel borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver and of gold and raiment but the Jewish Infants did not borrow c. Therefore none of the Jewish Infants were children of Israel The conclusions of both Arguments are equally false though I dare not be absurd as you are p) Nar. of a Dispute p 6. in denying the conclusion SECT 4. H. H. Thus it 's clear by the Scriptures that John baptized men and women that could believe and confess their sins 2. Of the Apostles and not a word spoken of sucking children Now I proceed to the practice of the Apostles commissionated by Christ Reply 1. It is not yet clear by those Scriptures alleged by you that John baptized men and women that could believe and confesse For in those Scriptures there is no expresse mention made of any one woman baptized by John For though it be said q) Mat. 3.5 6. all Judea and all the region round about Jordan were baptized and r) Mar. 1.5 all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem were all baptized of him Yet the word all cannot be taken universally for who I pray you were they whom Å¿) Joh. 3.22 Christ baptized or rather whom his Disciples t) Joh. 4.2 baptized no expresse mention made of any ones believing whether man or woman you have foisted the word believing into the text Contrary to the former injunction Deut. 4.2 Ye shall not add unto the Word Is not now that doom due to you which you thunder out against others pag. 40. 2. A little before you tell us of such who could and did confesse their sins now you mince the matter and tell us of those that could believe and confesse you durst not say they did believe for how is it probable that they did believe whom John calls u) Mat. 3.7 a generation of Vipers or that they could believe when Christ saith * Joh. 5 4â— How can yee believe which receivâ— honour one from another And x) Joh. 12.39 43. therefore they could not believe Why For they loved the praise of men more then the praise of God 3. But to shoot in your own bow what a wise argument is this John baptized men and women that could believe c. Therefore no Infants Just like this Abraham was circumcised when he was adult therefore no Infant was circumcised Or Abraham who could and did believe was Circumcised therefore no child of eight daies old was â—crcamcised 4. If you say as you do Not a word spoken of sucking children being baptized by John as there is of their being circumcised I answer As the Argument remains in its full strength for all that so it 's a known rule that y) A non dicti ad non factum non valet conequentia no good consequence can be drawn that such a thing was not done because it 's not recorded There is not one word spoken of the twelve Apostles being baptized nor of the Church of Antioch Acts 11 Nor of the seven Churches of Asia Therefore by Mr. Haggars Logick we must conclude and believe they were not baptized You see by this time you had sorry successe with the practice of John Baptist now proceed to the practice of the Apostles SECT 5. H. H. Same page 1. Instance Acts 2.40 41. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized and added to the Church c. But little babes of eight daies weeks or months old cannot gladly receive the Word of God because they understand it not Ergo none such were baptized there Reply 1. The word Church is not in the fourth verse that is of your own adding Will you yet be guilty of that crime and doom which you charge upon others though to give you your due you have rightly cited the Scripture in your page 24. 2. Your Argument is vicious or faulty For being in the first figure the Assumption or Minor Proposition should not be negative as yours is as Scholars know By the way no marvel you have such an aking tooth against Logick learning for by these means your Sophistry and fallacy comes to be detected and rejected which by your illiterate proselytes are swallowed down and digested as gallant arguments and solid reasons Blow out the light or bring your disciples into a dark shop and you may quickly vend your false or grosse wares SECT 6. H. H. But some will object from vers 39. That the promise was to them and their children and therefore children may be baptized Answ I grant the promise was to them vers 38. that if they did repent and be baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of sins they should receive the gift of the holy Ghost and this is true also to their children if they did repent and obey the Gospell as aforesaid and so it is to us and our children though never so far off upon the same condition of faith repentance and baptism for it is to all that the Lord our God shall call but they must be CALLED first observe that ver 39. And thus is the Objection fully answered Reply 1. In the vers 39. There is no expresse mention made of these words viz. faith obeying the Gospell and condition they are in the number of your own additions though I deny not but they may be implyed 2. By being CALLED do you mean obeying the Gospell that 's true of an effectuall call in such as are adult but not of an effectual call for so many are called who do not obey e. g. Prov. 1.24 I have called and ye refused Mat. 22.3 He sent forth his servants to CALL them that were bidden to the Wedding and they would not come 3. Is it all one with you to obey the Gospell and to be baptized surely then you trusse up Gospell obedience in a narrow compasse 4. In granting the promise
was to them c. You give up the cause and grant that children may be baptized for what is the promise but the Covenant for they are interchangeably set down one for the other a) Gal. c. 3. and the Covenant runs upon promises b) Ephes 2.21 specially consists of that grand promise Gen. 3.15 The seed of the Woman shall bruise the serpents head Now if the Covenant is theirs who can deny the initiall sign and seal of the Covenant which is baptism Let it be observed that this Text is the first Argument used after Christ's ascention to provoke the Jews to repent c. as discovering the new Testament-application of the Covenant and it is continuation to believers and their seed as to Abraham and his in the old Testament Now that children of believing parents are within the Covenant of grace shall be made evident hereafter 5. In saying the promise doth belong to their and our children but they must be called first I answer 1. Why may not children be said to be called in their parents aswell as Levi is said c) Hâ—b 7.9.10 to pay either in the loins of Abraham And that God is said d) Hos 12 4. to speak with the Israelites when he spake with Jacob in Bethel 2. If you will needs understand it of a direct immediate and personall call and so exclude children from the promise till they believe repent c. This glosse doth rather darken then enlighten the Text and cannot passe currant for these ensuing reasonâ— For if children should be excluded out of the promise 1. What priviledge above others have the children of repenting parents Now it is clear the Apostle adds children in the Text to shew that they had some speciall priledge above those that were uncalled 2. What poor encouragement is this to such parents to submit to Christ under this Administration nay would it not have discouraged them that their children should bee excluded out of the promise who stood in it for 2000 years before under the other Administration 3. what cold comfort would this be to your wounded hearts for crucifying Jesus Christ That they indeed on their repentance should be saved but their children should be the same with Heathens Now here the scope of the Text is urged by the Apostle for consolation aswell as incouragement 4. What hope could they have of your childrens salvation For hope without promise is presumption though you say infants are saved by Christ without actuall faith p. 61. That shall be examined in its proper place 5. What a losse would the believing Jewes bee at for their children had once a right to the Covenant and to the seal of it but now neither to covenant nor to Baptisme till they believe 6. What unlikelyhood is there that the Apostle would use the same Dialect of the Covenant that was formerly used I am thy God and the God of thy seed the promise is to you and to your children if it had been his mind that children should be excluded 7. Then the word Children would be superfluous in this Text and so the Spirit of God would be charged with Tautologies which would be blasphemy to affirm 8. The Tense is changed the promise IS to you and your children in the present tense but when he speaks of the Call he speaks in the future tense As many as God SHALL call These are some of those Reasons which I thought good here to give an account of with some alteration of the phrase and method which through the Lords blessing became happily instrumental to reduce an Anabaptist e) See the Leper cleansed pag. 7 8 9. and through the Lords blessing may prevail with some that follow you as they did Absolon f) 2 Sam. 15.11 in the simplicity of their heart knowing nothing of the depth of your design no more then they did of Absolons Neither do I altogether despair of your conversion for Mart. Cellar g) J.G. Catabapt pag. 145. Et Melob Adam de vita Borrhaui p. 400. who after he had stood by his sect severall years went and setled at Basill where he taught divinity and being ashamed to be known or called by that name under which he had professed Anabaptisme changed his name from Cellarius into Borrhaus under which name he wrote very learned commentaries upon the 5 bookes of Moses c. To say nothing of those converted by Musculus h) Melch. Adam de vita Musculi p. 377. And now I hope you will have little cause to brag as you do in the close of this Section Thus the objection is fully answered whereas indeed it remains unanswered SECT 7. H. H. pag. 5. Again If ever the Apostle baptized children it must needs be now according to their argument who say the promise is to children ergo but that they baptized no such children is evident because they that were baptized were such as could and did GLADLY receive the word v. 42. continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and felloship c. All which little babes that cannot speak words nor understand reason cannot possibly do Therefore none such baptized Reply 1. This is the same Argument with the former Therefore let it receive the same Answer which may suffice But because it 's drest up in another form and put into a seemingly better Garb Therefore secondly the weaknesse of it is made evident by this Argument they are rationall creatures who can understand reason and speak but Infants cannot possibly do all or any of these Therefore they are not rationall creatures 3. In saying if ever the Apostles baptized children it must needs be now you art too peremptory in divining and determining It 's a received maxime that 1) Argumentum ad Authoritate duum negative non valet a negative Argument from authority proves nothing SECT 8. H. H. Act. 8.12 Where we read 2. Instance that when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized both men and wowen in expresse terms but we never read a word of little children Reply 1. We never read a word of little children What not in all the Bible where were your eyes k) Mat. 19.13 Then were brought to him LITTLE CHILDREN l) 6.14 but Jesus said Suffer LITTLE CHILDREN Surely the Gospel of Matthew is part of the Word of God Your wide and wilde expression is liable you see to just exception 2. If you mean as I suppose we never read a word of the baptizing of little children Why did you not speak out It 's said of Barnabas that m) Acts 11.24 he was a good man and full of the Holy Ghost and of Faith but we read never a word of his being baptized must we therefore conclude and believe that he was not baptized What Sophistry is this 3. Sometimes in Scripture where men are onely named Women and children are
understood Ex. gr n) Mat. 6.44 They that did eat of the Loaves were about 5000 men o) Mat. 14.21 And they that had eaten were about 5000 men beside Women and Children surely there 's no contradiction between Mark and Matthew Again under the expression of men and women children are understood as p) Josh 8.25 12000 men and women of Ai fell where children must be understood for it 's said q Ver. 264. Joshua utterly destroied all the inhabitants of Ai and no exception is made but r) Ver. 27. onely of the cattel and spoil and it 's vtterly improbable that in that City and among so many thousands no children should bee found SECT 9. Hen. Hag. Acts 8.36 37. The Eunuch said to Philip See 3. Instance here is water what hinders me to be baptized And Philip said If thou believest with all thy heart thou maist but little Babes cannot believe with all their hearts therefore they may not be baptized Reply 1. Å¿) Beza Jun. c Trem. Grotius 〈◊〉 c. Diverse learned men assert that the whole 37 verse is not to be found in many Greek copies and sundry antient Translations as the Syriack c. What then will become of your Argument No building can stand long without a foundation 2. Admit that verse to be in the Original the Major whether you take it as an hypothetical Proposition if people believe with all their hearts they may be baptized or as an universal Categorical proposition equivalent thereto whosoever believeth with all his heart may be baptized is granted to be a solid truth if it be understood of those that are not yet baptized For those that are already baptized must not be baptized again every day or every hour because they believe with all their hearts one Baptism is sufficient and agreeable to the rule 3. As to your Minor though you prove not that Infants cannot believe with all their hearts neither may you nor any man else put bounds to Gods omnipotency who is able to regenerate and sanctifie Infants Å¿) Luke 1.41 * as John Baptist in his mothers womb yet it 's granted that such a formal rational and professed faith as is required in grown persons they have not and in that sense let your Assumption passe for currant But now this is the misery that when it might be expected that both propositions being yielded the conclusion should be unquestionably assentâ—â—â— to which yet I deny not the syllogism you make is stark naught and a palpable Paralogism as having a negative assumption in the first Figure wherein the Assumption must alwaies be affirmative else the reasoning is fallacious and unsound which is evident to the meanest capacity e. g. The Sun Moon and Stars shine and give light but fire on the hearth and candles on the table are neither Sun Moon nor Stars Therefore fire and candles do not shine or give light Or thus All four-footed beasts are living creatures but Anabaptists are not four-footed beasts Therefore Anabaptists are not living creatures Or thus All that are indued with humane learning in some eminency are reasonable creatures But Anabaptists for the most part are not indued with humane learning in eminency Therefore Anabaptists for the most part are not reasonable creatures Thus your sophistry and folly is discovered 4. If you say your meaning was to prove from that Scripture that they onely are to be baptized that believe with all their hearts then the Argument is to be formed thus All those that are rightly baptized or to be baptized believe with all their hearts But Infants believe not with all their hearts Ergo not rightly baptized or to be baptized Here it 's granted the form is good but the matter of the first Proposition to say no more to the second then what hath been said is naught For John the Baptist rightly baptized many without enquiry much lesse certainty that their hearts were right in believing Sâ—mon Magus in this very Chap. t) Acts 8.13 was baptized and that rightly for Philip is not in the least blamed but approved in that act yet u) Acts 8.21 his heart was not right before God And multitudes we read of that were daily baptized of whose believing With all their hearts we read nothing and if you must forbear baptizing untill you know that people believe with all their hearts v 1 Cor. 2.11 you must never baptize u For what man knoweth the things of man save the spirit of man which is in him Nay neither that nor any other Scripture holds forth in expresse terms that none but such as believe are to be baptized SECT 10. H. H. the same page Acts 10.46 47 48. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized 4. Instance that have received the Holy Ghost as well as wee And he commanded them to be baptized c. By which wee see that no such babes were here baptized for all that were in this place baptized were such as had received the Holy Ghost as well as the Apostles and they heard them speak with tongues and magnifie God which children that cannot speak at all cannot possibly do all rational men will grant Reply 1. Your Argument from hence is sick of the same disease with the former viz. All that were baptized here were such as received the Holy Ghost c. But children cannot receive the Holy Ghost c. Therefore Just like this they that understand the Languages wherein the Scriptures were originally written are guiltie of humane learing for in your judgment humane learning is matter of guilt But you do not understand the Languages wherein the Scriptures were originally written as you would bear us in hand by your inveyghing against humane learning Therefore you are not guilty of humane learning This is enough to shew the unreasonablenesse of your reasonings 2. Here is a clear Argument for baptizing Infants they that receive the Holy Ghost are to be baptized but some Infants receive the Holy Ghost Therefore the Major shines clear by its own light They who partake of the inward grace may partake of the outward signe or they who have the thing signified in Baptism ought to have the sign which is Baptism The Apostle Peter justifies this principle and by the authority and strength of it proves the lawfulnesse of baptizing those on whom the Holy Ghost fell Now that some infants receive the Holy Ghost as well as grown men it 's plain for * Rom 8 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if any man or any one have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his and if an Infant be none of Christs you must eat your words and deny that any Infants dying in their infancy are saved by Christ x) p. 61. If you say by receiving the Holy Ghost is meant the extraordinary gift of the Spirit as ver 44 45 46. Be it so this makes the Argument stronger for if
that gift which is common to elect and reprobate doth in title to Baptism much more that gift of Union Adoption Regeneration proper to the elect puts the party into a capacity of receiving Baptism If you say such received the Holy Ghost as well as the Apostles and therefore the text to be understood of the same kind and degree Then by this text you have no more ground to baptize grown men for which of them I pray you spake with tongues y) Ver. 46. in the Apostles sense then you say we have for baptizing Infants that cannot speak at all But the Apostle explains himself in the following Chapter z For as much then Acts. 1â— 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as God gave them the like gift as he did to us Like for quality though not for quantity Yea it 's said a) Heb 4.2 unto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them I think no man dare say that the Gospel was as fully and as clearly preached to the Israelites in the wildernesse for to them the Apostle speaks as to us since the coming of Christ in the flesh SECT 11. H. H. same page The next is Lidia and her houshold 5. Instance Act. 16.14 15. Reply 1. I do Mr Hagger no wrong his fifth Instance as I set it down to help him is thus nakedly proposed I wonder we had not a taste of his Logick here as in the preceding instances It may be the man was not in a good mood and therefore could not set it in a good Figure having so often failed before 2. But I suppose you meant this Enthymem Lidia and her houshould were baptized Therefore no Infants Or thus If Lidia and her houshold were baptized then no Infant was baptized But Lidia and her houshold were baptized Therefore To this I answer I deny your consequence and will give you time till Dooms-day to prove it In the mean season this place is more for the baptizing of Infants then any thing that can be at least hitherto is said against SECT 12. H. H. Some may say thus Who knows but she might have little children To which I answer If none knows then all ought to be silent and not to believe and affirm things they know not for that is wickednesse and folly But thus much we know 1. That Christ commanded them to baptize them which believed 2. Hitherto we have found them baptizing of none else 3. The Scripture speaks of no children she had nor yet of any husband and therefore silence gives no commands to obey nor no promises to believe nor no example to follow Reply 1. Here you set up a man of straw and then fight with him you frame an objection out of your own head and then answer it bravely done 2. Is it not wickednesse and folly in you to believe and affirm things you know not The necessity of dipping in the Administration of Baptisme the salvation of Infanâ—s without actual faith by virtue of Christs death when no such things are exprest in so many words and syllables in Scripture and many other bold assertions in your book which shall be examined as they are met with 3. For the two first particulars which you professe you know they have been already spoken to and for the third the Scripture you say speaks of no children shee i. e. Lidia I suppose you mean had nor yet of any husband neither doth the Scripture speak I say of any servants she had I pray you then who were they that were of her houshold which were baptized for it 's said distinctly b) Acts 15.16 she was baptized and her houshold 4. As for the silence you speak of it is as good as silence or the speaking of nothing Instances are obvious and frequent E. gr There is no expresse mention made in the N. T. of any command for Womens receiving the Lord's Supper nor of any promise of comfort in or upon receiving nor any example of any one woman that did receive Nor is there any expresse mention made in the Old or New Testament of any command for mens or womens relying on the merits and satisfaction of Christ nor of any promise of peace and pardon on such relying nor of any example of any one man or woman that did rely on the merits and satisfaction of Christ yet there is sufficient warrant in Scripture by clear consequence for both these c. which is satisfactory to us but what is this to you who must have expressness of Scripture By this taste you may perceive what an unsound and erroneous maxime you have vented viz. That silence gives no commands to obey nor no promise to believe nor no examples to follow SECT 13. H. H. pag. 6. Again if she had an husband he was baptized for she and her houshould were baptized Now if he had been baptized he would surely have born the name in the history rather then she being the bead of the house Reply 1. Now fair fall your heart if she had an husband he was baptized for she and her houshold were baptized you say well might you not as well say as we do If she had children they were also baptized for she and her houshold were baptized and so if she had servants they were baptized for it 's said She and her houshold were baptized If you include husband and servants in her houshold how can you for shame exclude Infants or if you conclude the baptizing of her husband and servants on this account because she and her houshold were baptized why may you not as well conclude that her Infants or children were baptized on the same account were you not wilful and partial in your self 2. To say nothing that you should have said but not now if he had been baptized he would surely have born the name c. Your confidence is as high as your ignorance is great Surely Zerviah was a woman for she is expresly called c) 2 Sam. 17.25 Joabs mother and d) 1 Chr. 2.15 16. Davids sister Now you might have said as well It Joab had a father and Zerviah an husband he would â—urely have born the name in the history rather then shee being the head of the house whereas the name of Zerviah is onely mentioned in the history to my best observation and remembrance in those and other e) 1 Sam. 26.6 2 2.13 18. 3.39 8.16 14.1 16.9 10. 18 2. 19.21 22 21.17 23 18 1 King 1.7 2.5 22. 1 Chron. 11.6.34 18.12.15 26.13 27.24 places SECT 14. H. H. Lastly we read verse 40. That when Paul and Silâ—s came out of prison they entered into the house of Lidia and comforted the brethren but little babes are not capable of such comforts Therfore no such such brethren in Lydea's house nor any ground at all to believe it from Scripture or reason Reply 1. The word HOUSE is not in
sophistical who judge of things rather as they are then as they seem And it is to be hoped the rest of your answers to this and all the other Scriptures which you passe by as unable to charge them with seeming sophisticalness are solid and satisfactory neither really nor seemingly sophistical Your silence is just ground for such an interpretation 3. In saying to this he answers These words Men and Women are appliable to sexes rather then to ages you do not truly set down the words of that book a) Font uncovered p. 16. which saith Men and Women are names rather noting the sexes then ages and are appliable to Infants as well as to grown persons and some instances are there given Here you discover your falshood and fraud 4. Concerning Eve I pray you look back b) Pag. 5. where this Scripture being urged by you c) Acts 8.12 you should have brought your answer if you had not like to have forgotten it as you say or rather as others may judge if you had intended plain dealing where this evasion of yours would have appeared vain For you put the Emphasis of your proof on Men and Women in saying both men and women in express terms but we read never a word of little Babes Thus you set men and women in opposition to little babes and therefore that answer which shews that little babes may be called men and women according to Scripture is directly to the purpose 5. As for the falseness of Mr. C. Argument c. he that hath but half an eie may see how groundlesly and impertinently you bring it in onely when you have nothing else to say you have the knack to fill up paper with railings and false accusations without either occasion or sense though not without abusing Scripture and profaning God's holy Word SECT 18. H. H p. 7. The last text is in Acts 18.8 that Crispus the chief ruler believed in the Lord with all his house and many of the Corinths hearing believed and were baptized Reply 1. I expected that in the Rear you would have brought up your strongest forces utterly to have routed your adversaries but you do not draw out one Argument that dare look the Enemy in the face Sure you made more haste then good speed 2. To this and the rest of the Scriptures hitherto alleged by you I do roundly answer That they prove onely thus much 1. That such believers who had not been baptized in their Infancy were baptized at more maturity of years 2. That ordinarily Scripture-baptists did admonish and exhort those who came to them to bee baptized to repent and believe neither of these are denied by your Adversaries nor have either of them the least shadow or colour of inconsistency with the lawfulness of Infant-baptism 3. I wonder why in citing this text and saying the chief Ruler believed you left out the word Synagogue SECT 19. H. H. Thus we have seen the command of Christ and the practice of the Apostles agreeing together by which the foundation of the Saints is discovered upon which they ought to build which is the words and sayings of Christ and the practice and examples of his holy Apostles Reply 1. To the first three or four lines I have I hope sufficiently answered in the beginning of this Reply and I would not be guilty as you are of vain repetition 2. Yet I shall take the boldness to add a word or two If you understand the command of Christ and practice of the Apostles in reference to the present controversie I tell you again the command is to be obeyed and the example may be followed in the like case and condition But what is this to your purpose and practice I dare say the command of Christ and examples of the Apostles will not bear you out in the baptizing those who have received the Lord's Supper among us c. which kind of Baptism was neither commanded by Christ nor practised by the Apostles 3. If you understand Christs command and the Apostles practice largely Then in the fear of God and in your cold blood consider whether the lying corning railing perverting of Scripture c. that makes up a great part of your book and I shall present to you view the particulars as I go along be agreeable to the words and sayings of Christ and to the practice and examples of his holy Apostles And then your self shall be judge what foundation it is you build upon 4. Because you said in pag. 6. There 's no ground from Scripture or reason to believe there were children in Lydia's house and here in this 7. p. nor can you find one word in all the holy Scriptures about baptizing little Infants I answer the very notion of baptizing whole housholds is enough to make out an example of Infant-baptism For 1. f) Sidenham of Infant-bapt p. 107. It is confidence beyond example to hold that in all those houses said to be baptized there were no Infants 2. There is stronger ground to believe the Affirmative then the Negative 3. Especially when the word House or Houshold is put for little ones and includes them Gen. 45.18 Take your housholds Now that children were understood it 's plain ver 19. Take Waggons for your little ones 4. Whensoever the houshold is spoken of in the Old Testament g) see also Num. 3.15.1 Tim. 5.8 it alwaies includes children If so it would be strange that the Apostle should borrow that term from the Old Test and use it in the New Test to exclude children 5. In the close of this Section if I knew whither the Particle It relates saying It is none of the counsel of God It is no where declared for you mention Font as well as Infant-baptism in the Antecedent I could say something that perhaps would displease you but till I know I shall be silent CHAP. IV. Of the Font. SECT 1. H. H. pag. 7. Not a word that I can find in all the Holy Scriptures or sayings of Christ the Prophets or Apostles about baptizing in a Font nay not so much as the name of that abomenable Idoll the Font is once mentioned in all the Holy Scriptures much lesse that the people of God should sacrifice their children to it as the children of Israel once sacrificed their babes to Moloch see Jer. 32.35 Reply 1. I did intend to reply to all this in the 9. Sect. of the fore-going Chapter but I have here singled it out Mr. Haggar had so jumbled together the Font and Infant baptism that the Reader might distinctly observe it 1. Mr. Cook saith The Printer put that title and term on his book he nor we will stand to justifie it though it might be against your cavile 2. It 's strange you could not find the name Font in all the Scriptures and yet in the next pag. h) Page 8. you can find it in Jerem. 2.12 13. I pray you is Jeremy no part of the holy
say Here is fulfilled Clap your hands and leap for joy and say with the Philosopher in another case o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have found I have found viz. the Font in Jeremy though I cannot find it in all the holy Scriptures 3. Can you say without blushing Here the words of the Prophet are fulfilled Did the Spirit of God ever intend here Baptismal Fonts and if not intended how is this text now fulfilled In what words are Fonts implied in the word Fountain the Knight indeed saith Fonts or Fountains p) Pag. 8. out the term is appropriated by the Lord to himself They have forsaken me the Fountain c. No man that I know of holds our Fonts to be Fountains of living waters and your self declines at when you make the forsaking of baptizing men and women c. Parallel with the peoples forsaking God the fountain c. Or in the word Câ—stern in which it seems you have found Fonts but the text saith Those Cisterns are broken Cisterns that can hold no water which you have cunningly left out lest your disciples should espie your foul mistake but our Fonts could and did hold water Sir I must tell you had not your brain been cracked you had never imagined our Fonts to be broken Cisterns Therefore let the Reader observe how grosly you abuse this Scripture and consider seriously whether that Scripture be not fulfilled in you being one of those that are unlearned and unstable who q) 2 Pet. 3.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As torturers Put a man on the rack and make him speak that he never thought so these set the Scripture on a rack and draw ouâ— a sense which was never intended Leigh Crit. Sacr. wrest the Scriptures I pray God it be not to your own destruction 4. For the rest cited in your p. 9. and part of the 10. I say no more but this Is the Knights testimony so valid that it must be largely transcribed when it seems to make against us And must it be so sleighted when it seems to make against you as about the Terms Tythe and Church To the first answer shall be returned towards the end of the book And to the second Why may not the publick place of worship be called a Church because the Church meets there as well as it is called the Synagogue because the Congregation of the Jewes met there to perform publick worship CHAP. V. Of the Rise of Infant-Baptism SECT 1. H. H. p. 10. Wee must have the Rise of Infant-baptisme from those Rabbies that did practise it or else not at all because the Scripture is silent in it as they themselves confess So Mr. Hall r) Font guaâ—ded p. 30. literally syllabically terminis terminantibus in expresse terms Infant-baptism is not commanded nor a thousand things more A wretched lye for it 's an hard thing for Mr. Hall to prove that God requireth of the sons of men a thousand or half a thousand things no where commanded Reply 1. To passe by your scornful terms Rabbies c. you are guilty of falshood in saying We confesse the Scripture is silent in it I know not any one that makes such a Confession if you do you might have named him or them But this you passe by in silence in hope your falshood should not be discovered but in vain a general accusation is as good as silence 2. Admit the Scripture were silent herein it makes nothing against us For it is a common and true rule as before a Negative Argument from Authority proves nothing Nay I confesse the Scripture is silent in Mr. Hall's sense i. e. It speaketh nothing of Infant-baptism in expresse terms by way of command but it is not silent in another sense for it speaks implicitly of it E. gr Ministers maintenance is not expresly mentioned in those words Å¿) Deut. 25.4 Thou shalt not muzzle the Oxe when he treadeth out the corn yet it is implied in those words if you will believe the Apostle s) 1 Tim. 5.17.18 for the Scripture saith Thou shalt not muzzle c. And again t) 1 Cor. 9.9 For it is written in the Law of Moses Thou shalt not muzzle c. Now Sir Riddle me riddle me what 's this The Scripture is silent and yet Saith It is Written in the Law of Moses And yet not one word concerning Ministers maintenance written expresly in Deut. quoted u) p 12. Yea to take your own instance A man may pray in his Family because he may pray every where according to 1 Tim. 2.8 Where Family-praier is implied and so the Scripture is not silent in it but not expressed and so it is silent Many more instances may be given but these may suffice without the imputation of a wretched lye 3. Suppose the Scriptures were altogether silent about Infant-baptism it rather proves that Infants were baptized to any unbyassed judgment because we read not of any Controversie about a complaint against Infant-baptism as we do concerning the Widows that were neglected v) Acts 6.1 a businesse of an inferiour alloy in comparison of this in hand 4. What a wretched man are you in saying a wretched lie on the account mentioned by Mr. Hall you shew your self as rude in Ethicks as unskilful in Rhetorick x) Hyperbole so much used in Scripture specially in this case e. gr Cities walled up to heaven y) Deut. 1.28 i. e. very high now because this was spoken by the Spies who might tell a lie therefore compare this text with another viz. Deut. 9.1 Cities great and fenced up to heaven which certainly were the words of Moses So Mat. 23.24 Yee blind guides who strain at a Gnat and swallow a Camel i. e. strain at things of small moment and swallow things of greater concernment So Joh. 21.25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did the which if they should be written every one I suppose that even the world it self could not contain the books that should be written Abundance of more instances which if you can read with Latine eies you may find in Alsted z) Praecognita Theologiae pag. 157 158. l. 2. But if you can look onely with English eies see Diodat on John forenamed I hope you will not give the Wretched Lie to Moses Christ John c. as you do to Mr. Hall who by those thousand things means according to your usual expression a certain number for uncertain i. e very many or a great number as 1 Cor. 4.15 Ten thousand Instructers in Christ. 5. It 's well you say It 's an Hard thing for Mr. Hall to prove that God requires a thousand things of us not commanded It seems you dare not say it 's impossible onely it's Hard. And what if he prove an hundred or half an hundred which is easie to do they are too many for you to answer SECT 2. H. H. There is no express command saith Mr. Hall in the
done thus Le ts see how I pray SECT 6. H. H pag. 12. 1. I prove by what is written Jo. 6.11 Christ took loavs and gave thanks Now let them prove by what is written Christ took little children and baptized them If any object Christ took little children and blessed them I answer So he took the loavs and fishes and blessed them doth it therefore follow that he baptized the loavs and fishes I hope not Reply 1. You should prove that here is an expresse command for giving thanks at meals or else you prove nothing Now such an expresse command is neither here nor any where else in Scripture i. e. Terminis terminantibus as M. Hall saith 2. I grant by what is written here giving thanks at meals is proved or may be proved so do we by what is written prove sc by consequence Infant baptism but what is this to your purpose I commend you for saying you prove by what is written not that it is written in so many words there 3. What an unreasonable task do you put upon us that wee must prove by what is written that Christ took little children and baptized them when it is written e) Jo. 4.2 Jesus himself baptized not but his disciples You would hit us home indeed if you could tell us that it is written in the holy Scripture that neither Christ nor John nor the Apostles baptized any little children 4. It 's your mistake in saying So he took the loavs and fishes for when Matthew f) Mat. 14 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaks of the loavs fishes he useth one word but when Mark speaks of Little children hee useth another word g) Mar. 10.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. And having taken them up in his armes which is proper to babes and Infants but not to loavs and fishes 5. Indeed it doth not follow that Christ baptized the loavs and fishes or that he baptized little children For I nay the Evangelist doth tell you h) Joh. 4.2 that he baptized not but it follows that these little children were baptized already for imposition of hands was never practized upon any persons that we read of in the i) see Acts. 6.6 and 8.17 and 13.3 and 19.6.1 Tim. 4.14 with 2 Tim. 1.6 N.T. but only on such as were baptized except in order to the working of some miraculous cure now the Evangelists neither mention any malady that these infants had nor any cure that Christ wrought on them Is not the Scripture here as plain for Infant-baptism As yours is for giving thanks at meals c Nay 6. It follows that little children may be baptized now by u◠For shal we refuse to pour water on them on whom Christ did put his hands shall not we baptize such persons whom Christ himself blessed Shall not we receive into the bosome of the Church such whom Christ k) The old Latine hath it Amplixans eos embraced in his arms What though these words do not hold out directly an institution yet they do hold forth plain principles and grounds for administration of Baptism For first it 's Christs expresse scope to shew that infants under the Gospell belong to him or to the Kingdom of Heaven 2. They are capable of a spirituall blessing to bee conveighed by an external sign which they understand not else Christ might only have prayed for them but he took them up into his arms laid his hands on them c. 3. It s Christs will that Infants should be brought to him for a spirituall blessing It could not be by believing for children you say while such are without actuall faith and besides the disciples could not hinder that comming therefore it must be some outward and visible comming viz. by their parents tender and offer therefore by an Ordinance and what Ordinance If not baptism But Mr. Cook l) Font uncovered p. 31. c. hath fully spoke to this Argument which together with the rest you have cunningly waved as being unable to answer SECT 7. H. H. 2. I prove that Paul m) Acts 27.35 took bread and gave thanks in the midst of them all Let them prove that P. or any other Disciple of Christ n) 1 Thes 5. ver 18. took little children and baptized them in the midst of so many or one witness if they can and we will grant all 3. I prove by what is written that it 's the will of God that the Saints should give thanks for all things They must prove by what is written that the Saints should baptize all children before they can speak or understand and I will grant all Reply 1. Sir you must not impose upon your adversaries you are no Law-giver yet the Text in the Acts doth not say In the midst but presence of them all It becomes not you to chop and change the Scripture at your pleasure 2. Admit there be no great difference you may as well believe and conclude the Apostles were not baptized because there is no one witness to prove it 3. Giving thanks at Meals is also proved by these Scriptures and that by consequence onely and so have our worthies proved Infant-baptism 4. Which of us do hold the Baptism of All Children You fight against the man in the Moon We are as much against the baptizing of the children of Turks c. while they remain in Paganism as you are against the baptizing of the children of Christians though according to the Scripture we can put a difference between them but you cannot 5. Why may not children be baptized before they can speak or understand as well as circumcised before Your Argument or rather Answer fights against Circumcsion as well as again Baptism of Infants o) Mat. 19.13 14.15 Mat. 10.13 14 15 16. Luk 18.15 16. 6. I have proved that those Infants mentioned by three Evangelists on whom Christ laid his hands were baptized I hope you will now be as good as your word grant all SECT 8. H. H. pag. 13. 4. I have proved by what is written that men ought to pray every where They must prove that men ought to baptize every where or any where if they can 5. I prove by Scriptures that the seventh day was the Sabbath of the Lord in the Old Testament and likewise in the New Testament that the Saints met together on the first day of the week to break bread Exod. 20.10 with Acts 20.7 Now let them prove by Old or New Testament if ever any children were baptized or that the Saints did baptize Infants if they can Reply 1. As to that of praying every where I have answered already and I love not Tautologie as you do 2. In speaking of Saints baptizing Infants you smell too strong of the Arminian and Popish cask p) Quid obstat our in casu necessit at is non potest à fideli Aliquo Infans Aquam tingi Armin. Apol. c. 25. p. 246. as if any disciple of Christ
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
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
is good For Acts 17.28 In him we live c in and through God that gives to all men life c. v. 25. to the end that they might seek him v. 27. Even the wickedest and hypocrites the worst of men have a will and power to do more good then they do and that 's one cause of their just condemnation Moreover it 's evident that wicked Balaam had a will desire x) Num. 23.10 to die the death of the righteous c. And Paul saith plainly y) Rom. 7.18 To will is present with me c. By all which it is evident that Free-will is not such a difficult point as you would make it but it 's an easie matter with you to call light darkness and darkness light Isa 5.20 Reply 1. For the worth of Mr. Baxter's Reputation in your judgment it 's very like to the judgment of the Cock who preterred a Barley-corn before a Pearle I believe M. B. is of the Apostles mind 1 Cor. 4.3 But because you will not speak it out but it sticks in your teeth I shall without flattery or fear tell you my judgment That as Austin was called z) Malleus Pelagianorum the Mall of the Pelagians so may Mr. Baxter be truly call'd the Mall of the Anabaptists * Malleus Anabaptistarum His memory shall be blessed when your name shall rot 2. M Baxt. hath hit it right but you have mist it for all your great swelling words of vanity if the question about Free-will were truly stated 3. If you dissent from Mr. Baxter about the difficulty of the point of Free-will why will not such a brave Champion as you are give or accept the challenge to dispute it with him you must have better weapons then here you fight with or I assure you he will quickly foil you 4. I believe Infant-baptism is easie to him that will understand The spiritual plague is in your head you hear and will not understand see and will not perceive 5. The Papists and Arminians will say as much as you do and yet they are stiff Patrons of Free-will who prank up nature in a proud dresse and derogate from the honor of God and Free grace 6. I wonder you couple together Balaam and Paul for Paul was a Regenerate man and Balaam you confess a wicked man and is there no difference between the will of the one and of the other It savors of the Arminian Cask That as man's will lost nothing by Adam's fall to it gets nothing by the second Adam's grace But because this is beside the point I shall 〈◊〉 no deeper into this Controversie but leave you to Mr Baxter who can handle you without Mittins your calumnis â—esâ—â— vs no answer SECT 9 H. H. I proceed to your fourth Position 〈◊〉 rein you say that if never so clear evidence of truth be produced yet it will hee dark to them that are uncapable of discerning it For it 's Gods work to make people understand Heb. 5.11 12 13 14 I answer We grant you all this The clearest truth will be dark to some But let us shew some clear evidence of truth first and shew us where it is written that Babes must be baptized and then if we do not our blood be upon us c. Reply 1. To passe by another mistake of yours viz. the fourth Position which indeed is the Third It seems the doctrine of Infant-baptism though never so clear a truth is hid from your eies 2. Mr. Baxter and many other of our Worthies have shewed where Infant-baptism is written as clearly and plainly as Women's receiving the Lord's Supper praying in the Family c before-mentioned and many more without a wretched lie Yea as clearly and plainly as you proved pag. 6. Lidra's husband was baptized because the Scripture saith She and her houshold were baptized and yet you are so blind that you cannot sea or held Infant-baptism 3. I fear your blood according to your wish will be upon you as Christ's blood was and is on the Jews according to their imprecation for your pâ—â—de and prejudice ignorance and infidelity which Hear as wilful and affected for in this 34 p. 〈◊〉 professe you will not believe the clear evidence that Mr. Baxter hath brought for the proof of Infant-baptism I see that true which Mr. B. saith in this Position it 's one thing to bring full evidence and proof and another thing to make people apprehend and understand it We may do the one God onely can do the other These words are true and faithful you grant I leave you therefore to the Lord whose work it is to perswade the heart The Well of water was nigh enough to Hagar â—he bond woman who with her son were cast on and yet she could not see till God opened her eies Gen 23. ver 29. SECT 10. H. H. p. 34. As for your saying we had need study the Controversie seven years I Answer What rule have you for that Did the 3000 in Acts 2.41 42. study this Controversie seven years or seven dates either Or those men and women in Acts 8.12 or the Eunuch â— 38 or Lâ—dâ—â— and the Jailor Act. 16 c. Reply 1. Mr. Baxter speaks of most Controversies his words are pag. 6. Most of the best of people have need to read Scripture and books of Controversie seven years at least before they will be capable of understanding most Controversies But it 's no wonder that you who are so frequent in perverting the holy Scriptures as hath been shewed pervert his writings The Reader now may observe how much you have left our 2. Because I concess this is applicable to the present point though not onely I say your instances our of the Acts of the Apostles are nothing to the purpose viz. They did not study this Controversie seven years before they being â—duâ— were baptized Therefore we have no need to read the Scripture and books of Controversie before we understand this Controversie of Infant-baptism A gross inconsequence 3. But you ask what rule for that Mr. Baxter hath given you a reason pag. 5. agreeable to the rule God changeth the wiâ—◠〈◊〉 a sudden but he doth not insure knowledge eâ—pecially of difficult points on a sudden If this like you not I hope you will not recede from your own rule pag. 28. where you confess That we have all need of seven years education at Cambridge and Oxford c. therefore of seven years study for the understanding of this Controversie and that without any danger of incoherence or folly SECT 11. H. H. You say that men think they can understand plain Scripture if they hear it but they cannot Oh that pride would let them know that they cannot understand the plainest Lecture of Geometry or Arithmetick Read the Grammar to a boy in the Primmer and he understands not a word you say Answ Is it possible you would make men believe they cannot understand plain Scripture if
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.
H. H. p. 47. But though Mr. Baxter confesseth that Christ knew the best reasoning yet he is not content with his reason but adds to it these words If God be the God of Abraham then Abraham in soul is living 2. That God is not the God of the Dead but the Living 3. If Abraham's soul be living then his body must be raised 4. If Abraham's body shall rise then there is a Resurrection c. To which I Answer 1. Mr. Baxter in all these Consequences that he hath drawn hath but darkned the counsel of God spoken by the mouth of Christ Reply 1. The clear light of Mr. Baxter's Consequences hath so dazled your eies that you cannot it seems see the truth 2. How can you without blushing say that Mr. B. hath drawn all these Consequences when Christ q) Mat 22.32 Luk. 20.38 who as you confess knew a good Argument and the right way of Disputing drew and took in the second expresly 3. Because of your former concession and confession and practice too arguing in a Syllogistical way p. 63 c. Christ's Argument beinâ— put into form lies thus Abraham's body shall rise Therefore the dead shall rise The Antecedent is thus proved Abraham's soul is living therefore his body shall rise That Antecedent is proved thus God is not the God of the dead but of the living Therefore Abraham's soul is living But how is this Antecedent proved Thus God is the God of Abraham therefore his soul is living and by consequent the dead shall arise Now if this Antecedent were denied then the plain words of Scripture were denied For these words in Exod. 3.6 were spoken by the Lord long after Abraham's death and the sâ—me Lord saith not I WAS nor I WILL BE but I AM the God of Abraham c. So that now you see these are Christ's Consequences and not Mr. Baxter's onely SECT 44. H. H. 2ly The Resurrection is more plainly proved by the words of Christ without all Mr. Baxter's Consequences as appeareth by the words of the text Luk. 20.35 36 37. Thus Christ himself inplain terms hath proved the Resurrection already speaking plainly of the happiness of those who shall obtain the Resurrection from the dead and then when he had done he concludes That the Resurrection of the dead is so plain that even Moses shewed it at the Bush c. Reply 1. Why do you equivocate and juggle There is no question but to us that place in Luke is a plain proof of the Resurrection but what is this to the Sadduces whom Christ would confute as to their erroneous opinion who held r) Mat. 22.23 There is no Resurrection And without question Christ might have brought plain texts out of the Old Testament to have proved the Resurrection but you know the Sadduces onely acknowledg the five books of Moses to be Canonical Scriptures therefore out of them Christ brings his proof 2. You here lay down the Wasters or else I have lost my understanding and sences For in saying The Resurrection of the dead is so plain that even Moses shewed it at the Bush c. you grant 1. That Christ proved to the Sadduces the Resurrection of the dead by Consequence out of Exod. 3.6 2. That such a kind of proof is plain for you confess even now that Christ knew a good Argument and the right way of Disputing and 3. That somthing is plain in Scripture which is not exprest in so many words and syllables in Scripture For I pray where is the Resurrection of the Dead written in so many words in Exod. 3.6 SECT 45. H. H. 3ly Let Mr. Baxter prove if he can that Christ did draw any Consequences from his own words but left them barely as he spake them as sufficient proof without any of Mr. Baxter's Consequences Reply 1. Yes Christ drew Consequences from his own words The whole Scripture is called the word of Christ (Å¿) Totum Verbum Dei est sermo Christi Davenant in loc Col. 3.16 not onely in regard of the matter but Author also and 2 Tim. 3.16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God Now if Exod. 3.6 be a part of the Scripture and of the word of Christ as certainly it is then Christ did draw some Consequences from his own words SECT 46. H. H. 4ly If Christ had never so many Consequences to prove any thing yet his words were all Scripture and infallibly true So true that whosoever of men or Angells should add to or take from it they are accursed But Mr. Baxter's are none such therefore we weigh them not Reply 1. Are Mr. Baxter's none such What! accursed I believe his words are not accursed whatsoever you proudly say or censure Or do you mean they are not Scripture because you say you weigh them not If Scripture be written as you say p. 45. so they are But I suppose you mean s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy Scripture so indeed they are not and yet notwithstanding those Consequences of his are infallibly true because they are Christs you may do well therefore to weigh them 2. If you mean that Christ's words were all Scripture v.z. which are left upon Record who denies it And all the words that Christ spake on earth were infallibly true for he could not lie or sin in the least but all his words are not written for surely his words were more in number then his deeds all which are not written Joh. 20.30 with 21.21 SECT 47. H. H. 5ly p. 48. Whereas Mr. Baxter saith If we had stood by we would have said to Christ Give us a Scripture that saith the Dead shall rise Answ So Christ did give them two Scriptures though Mr. Baxter is so blind he cannot see them for he tells us Ver. 35. of the world to come and the Resurrection of the Dead in plain terms and ver 37. That the dead are raised Reply 1. A ridiculous shift of him who is or would be counted the Metropolitan Dipper and great Patriarch of the Anabaptists for were these words in vers 35 and 37. written when Christ spake them 2. These are plain proofs to us that the Dead shall rise as you intimate p. 50. but were they to the Sadduces as Mr. Baxter saith which words you very cunningly left out for your own end 3. Christ if he pleased could have brought express texts out of the Old Testament but on the former account he brings his proof against the Sadduces onely out of Exod. fore-named saying in Mat. 22.31 Have ye not read which you take no notice of referring them to read what was written by Moses not to what was then spoken by him to the Sadduces clearly implying that those men stood bound in conscience to have believed the Resurrection of the Dead on the account of those words in Exod. chap. 3. vers 6. 4. Mr. Baxter now is not so blind but he can see your folly made manifest SECT 48. H. H.
not so believe 3. You distinguish foolishly between Faith and Obedidience for Faith it self is an obediential act It 's called the obedience of Faith a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e Ut homines fide obediant Deo Beza in loc Rom. 1.5 16.26 and to believe is to obey as appear◠by the opposition Joh 3.36 b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that believeth not the Son i. e. He that obeieth not the Son as Beza translates it and children of unbelief are called Eph. 22 children of disobedience 4. It seems by your confession that your words whereby you express your self do not pertain to the rule of Faith and Obedience 5. I wonder you daresay that you put not men on believing or doing any thing as a duty that is not written in Scripture For do you not put men to believe that Infants are neither Disciples nor Church-members nor in Covenant c. That they dying in their Infancie are saved by Christ's death without actuall faith pag. 61. And have you not rightly proved praying in a man's family giving thanks at meals Women's receiving the Lord's Supper c. to be duties yet none of the foresaid particulars are expresly written in Scripture and would you have them done but not in faith SECT 53. H. H. Herein lies the depth of all deceits viz. Because Christ expounded the Scriptures of the Prophets therefore men will take in hand to expound his Expositions q. We could make them plainer then he hath left them or make any thing true that is not written in them And because Philip opened the Scripture to the Eunuch Act. 8. therefore men will take in hand to open Philip's words so as to make them to appear otherwise then they are written Reply 1. You are fallen deep into the pit of Deceit if no Minister may preach e. g. on Mat. 5. where Christ expounds the true meaning of the Law and clears it from the Pharisees false glosses or on Mark 4.34 where Christ Expounded all to his Disciples or on Luk. 24.27 where beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he Expounded to them c. or on Acts 8. instanced in by your self For what is it to preach but to expound and apply the Word of the Lord. 2. You bewray your weakness and wickedness things usual to persons wedded to their opinions in contradicting your self for you take upon you all along to expound the Expositions of Christ and his Apostles Do not you make their sayings plainer then they have left them But I crie you mercy you make them appear otherwise then they are written SECT 54. H. H. For the plainer manifestation of the truth I desire all impartial men to consider these following things 1. If I would prove by Scripture that God created heaven and earth I must bring a Scripture that speaks so as Gen. 1.1 2ly Or that God created man upright Eccles 7.29 Or 3ly that all men since Adam's fall were sinners Rom. 3.23 Or 4ly That God sent his Son to redeem those sinners 1 Tim. 1.15 Chap. 2.6 Or 5ly That the dead shall rise Mar. 12. ver 25 26 c. Reply 1. What need this vain repetition your first instance hath been answered before in your p. 40. and your last in p. 48. 2. The other Scriptures do not say in express terms what yet you truly affirm you swerve from your own pattern Let the Reader view your quotations and compare them with your expressions 3. What blindness and blockishness is here If you would prove that men must give thanks at meals pray in and with their families that women are to receive the Lord's Supper bring some Scriptures that speak so but you cannot in express terms though you do it by consequence p. 12 13 14. so do we for Infant-baptism SECT 55. H. H. p. 50. To conclude If I would prove that men and women should be baptized when they believe I must bring a Scripture that saies so as Acts 8.12 37. And now if any man will prove that little babes should be baptized let them bring one Scripture to prove it and then they will do honestly otherwise c. Reply 1. This Scripture and the challenge have been answered before I will not trouble the Reader with Tautologies as you do CHAP. X. Concerning Consequences drawn from Scripture c. SECT 1. H. H. But now a word to Mr. Cook who saith that we never read in the Scriptures Go H. H. and J. B. teach all nations and baptize c. nor do we read that Christ gave a command to you two to preach the Gospel c. Answ This is but a cunning devised Fable a subtil sophistry of Mr. Cooks to deceive the hearts of the simple but easily discovered by them to whom the Lord hath given understanding We do not desire Mr. B. and Mr. C. to bring a Scripture that saith Go R. B. or go W. C. and baptize Children that cannot speak nor understand what you preach c. Reply 1. Bravely done Mr. Haggar when you cannot shape an handsom answer to Mr. C. then according to your custome you crie A cunning devised fable subtil sophistry c. which charge how unjustly as well as absurdly after a long digression it comes in here I leave to the judgment of the intelligent must passe as words of course to please or fright the simple 2. He hath lost his understanding I think that cannot see you here quite and clean yielding the cause to Mr. C. by a tacite granting that H. Hag. and J. Brown are by consequence from Matth. 28.19 commanded to teach and baptize c. For you say We do not desire c. 3. Infant-baptism hath been largely proved by many Scriptures and Arguments grounded on Scriptures specially in that very book of Mr. Cooks which you pretend to answer but scarce meddle with unlesse a lapp and snatch and away 4. As to that instance in that book requiring you to make out your practice by express Scripture it is not so easily answered as you imagine For 1. whereas you say you desire not Mr. B. or Mr. C. to bring a Scripture that saith Go R. B. go W. C. c. that 's nothing We have no more reason to be satisfied in your practice without express and immediate Scripture then you have in ours without such Scripture though many Consequences from Scripture are clearly brought Or rather if you were impartial you should have justified your own practice by express Scripture without Consequences before you had urged us thereto For 2ly where is it expressed in Scripture that you are appointed to go up and down in several parts of England and to draw people being Christians by profession and brought up from their childhood in that Religion wherein to they were baptized in Infancy to renounce their Infant-baptism and to be dipped in such a pit or Pool c. before such a company whether naked or covered with such a form of English words
as you use c. Nay 3ly you are hereby challenged to prove even by good consequence from Scripture that you have a regular call to preach and baptize I have not heard of any neither do I know that you ever undertook to clear it If your Call be extraordinary as Apostles Prophets Evangelists a proof from Scripture grounds is required of you and we shall own you for such If Ordinary as Pastors Teachers make it to appear according to Scripture-rule c) Acts 14.23 1 Tim. 3 to 8. Tit. 1.5 6 7 8 9. 1 Tim. 4.11 12 13 14 15 16. 1 Pet 5.1 2. and we shall rejoice therein If you cannot prove such a Call What boldness is it in you to cry down our Ministrie c. But they who will bring in a false Ministrie c. have held it their policie to crie out against the true SECT 2. H. H. p. 51. Mr. Hall saith p. 91. That the Scriptures are the chiefest strong holds of the Anabaptists and being pursued hither we run for refuge c. Answ It 's well they do so they are then sure and safe For Psal 119.89 Joh. 8.31 c. Reply 1. Let the Reader take notice that those Scriptures alleged by Mr. Hag. in the middle of this p. have been answered already I forbear therefore the transcribing and answering them least I be guilty of his usual crime Tautologie 2. It makes for the dignity and authority of the Scriptures that men of all perswasions who have owned the Scriptures for a rule have fled to them for shelter yet Hereticks and Schismaticks who have done so were neither sure nor safe but were found faulty even at the horns of the Altar as Joab was 1 King 2.28 3. Mr. Hall doth not blame you simply for running to the Scriptures for refuge d) See Mr. Hall's Font Guarded p. 91 92. but for mis-understanding and mis-applying them and so your running to them is in vain not onely as he saith but sheweth also by six Reasons which you take no notice of and the reason is because you could not frame a reasonable answer to them SECT 3. H. H. p. 52. Mr. Hall hath never a word to run to for Infant-baptism as he himself confesseth p. 30. in his fifth Argument in express terms Infant-baptism is not commanded c. Reply 1. Heaven and earth may be astonished at your impudent charge viz. Mr. Hall confesseth he hath never a word to run to for Infant-baptism 2. Lay your Argument right and it 's your absurd conclusion from his candid confession Thus He that confesseth Infant-baptism is not commanded expresly in Scripture hath never a word to run to for Infant-baptism But Mr. Hall confesseth so Therefore Sir your Major is false which may appear thus to the meanest capacity out of your own mouth The Christian Sabbath and Family-praier twice a day c. are not expresly commanded in the Scripture If I therefore should conclude Mr. Haggar hath never a word to run to for the Sabbath and such praier c. he would crie out that I wrong him For as Mr. Haggar brings Scriptures in his p. 12 13 14. to prove the same by Consequence so doth Mr. Hall prove Infant-baptism SECT 4. H. H. I shall now conclude with shewing ten undeniable Reasons why the Word of God must be understood and obeied as it is written without adding to or taking from I. Because God never without words made known his mind to men Heb. 1. ver 12. Reply 1. Your Reasons may be called undeniable as the Spanish Armado in 88. was called Invincible 2. If all these Reasons were granted yet none of them prove what you undertake viz. The Word of God must be understood and obeied as it is written 3. They conclude as strongly against you as against us who prove many points of Religion by Consequence from Scripture as well as we 4. They are impertinent to the main business and therefore not meet to be replied to but least you should crow I will give you a taste how easily they may be answered To your first If you mean of words written or else you say nothing it's false though it should be Heb. 1. ver 1 2. For God made known his mind to the Patriarchs long before his will was committed to writing e) Gen. 37 41. E. gr To Joseph read the Catechism with the Exposition you mention pag. 96. and you will find God made known his mind diverse waies without words To the third Were not those Scriptures the five Books of Moses wherein the doctrine of the Resurrection was written and might have been read by the Sadduces To the 9th it should be 2 Tim. 4.1.2 compare this with the beginning of your answer pag. 49. and here is another contradiction of yours To the tenth Shall the Heathen be judged by those words they never heard nor read I trow not Rom. 2.12 yet you say Christ will judg All Men by his words which terms All Men are not in Joh. 12.48 Do not you therefore passe that dreadful doom f) Rev. 22.18 19. on your self for adding to the Word SECT 5. H. H. p. 53. Lastly I shall propound these ten following Queries with a desire to have them answered by any who will or can Reply 1. You said pag. 52. I shall now conclude and here you come with your Lastly 2. These Ten following Queries are as impertinent as your ten precedent Reasons though according to the proverb a fool may ask more questions then a wise-man can answer yet I may warrantably g) Prov. 26.5 answer a fool according â—o his folly least he be wise in his own conceit and by the assistance of the Lord I shall answer briefly upon the former account Querie 1. Whether God doth require the sons of men to believe any thing in point of Justification that is not recorded in the holy Scriptures of truth Answ If by the sons of men you understand Infants you answer your self pag. 25. Christ hath no where required them to obey any command before they can understand c. Therefore not to believe But if you mean grown persons I answer If by recorded which yet is no Scripture word you mean contained in the Scripture as in your second and fourth Querie I say No. For the Scripture is the full adequate object oâ— Faith Therefore could the h) Rom. 10.9 word of Faith if you mean expresly written as in the eighth Querie I say Yes And I think you dare not deny that God requires of us to trust in the merits and satisfaction of Christ alone for Justification which is not expresly written in Scripture This instance may suffice among many Qu. 2. Whether God doth require or command us to obey any thing after believing which is not contain'd in the Word of truth Answ 1. If by contained you mean as in the seventh Querie in express terms you answer your self God doth command us after believing to give
thanks at Meals to pray in Families c. I hope you will not eat your own words i) P. 12 13 14. And I say such a trust forementioned is our duty contained in the Word though not expressed as 1 Pet. 2.6 with Isa 28.16 where the Apostle saith It is contained in the Scripture c. and yet those words elect and not confounded are not expressed in Isa 28.16 Querie 3. Whether the Saints have any ground to believe the Resurrection from the Dead and eternal life in glory but as it is recorded in Scripture Answ The Sadduces had ground to believe the Resurrection as it is recorded i. e. contained in Exod. 3.6 and the Saints too as it is expresly written in Scripture elswhere Qu. 4. Whether if a man believe and obey all the known precepts and promises contained in the Word of God as much as in him lieth will God condemn and punish him at that great day because he hath believed and done no more Answ A captious Interrogatory looking towards Quakerism that new-refined Papism about absolute perfection or freedome from sin in this life or toward Arminianism about the salvation of the moral Heathens yet I say God may condemn a man for the least sin of ignorance without Christ k) Levit. 4 2 3 13 22 37. with Luk. 12.48 and for the least defect in duty Nehem. 14.22 with Rom. 6.23 Qu. 5. If the Scriptures ought to be believed and obeied as they are written then how dare some deny faith in and obedience to some part of them and impose things not written in the Scriptures to be obeied in stead of the Ordinances of Christ Answ That phrase as they are written is ambiguous Were your meaning clear answer should be returned however I know none that deny such faith and obedience much less who impose things not written i. e. not contained in the Scriptures as Qu. 2. to be obeied in stead of Christ's Ordinances your Qu. implies a malitious calumniation and so let it pass Querie 7. If the Scriptures be not a perfect rule of faith and obedience without the help of any man's inventions what is Or who may we trust or at whose mouth must we seek wisdom Answ The Scripture is a rule Eccl. 12.10 with Gal. 6. ver 16. and a perfect rule Psal 19.7 and that of faith and manners as Austin doth phrase it God we may and must trust 2 Chron. 20.20 with Isa 7.9 at God's mouth must we seek wisdom Isa 8. ver 20. with Acts 17. ver 11. Qu. 7. Whether there be any sin or corruption incident to man that the Scriptures doth not reprove or make manifest in express terms Answ l) Indeed you answer your self p. 69. Yes 1. Original fin Gen. 5.3 Job 14.4 and 15.14 Psal 51.5 Eph. 2.3 Rom. 5.12 2ly Some actual sins as Incest Buggery Sodomie Polygamie of which last you have cause to examine yourself and many more 3ly There are many Errors and Heresies which in the general are called works of the flesh Gal. 5. ver 19 20. Egr. Euty chianism Ernomianism Nestorianism Arrianism Arminianism Papism with others more without number which surely are corruptions incident to man to use your own phrase and yet which the Scriptures doth not reprove and make manifest in express terms Qu. 8. Whether there be any virtue or praise in any thing that the best of men ever did but what is expresly commanded or commended in the Scripture of truth Answ Yes there was some virtue or praise in the Disciples eating some ears of Corn on the Sabbath-day yet not expresly commanded or commended in 1 Sam. 21.6 To which our Saviour doth refer the Pharisees to whom he said Have you not read what David did c. Mat. 12.3 4. yea you your self imagine at least there is virtue and praise in Dipping in a Meer or Marle-pit or Horse-pool c. and yet no where expresly commanded or commended in Scripture Querie 9. I appeal to every man's conscience in the sight of God whether their consciences do not condemn them when they walk contrary to what is written in Scripture Answ If by what is written you mean as in your seventh and tenth Querie I say yes unlesse the conscience be blind seared or asleep as I fear yours is for your frequent if not constant railing and reviling to name no more is contrary to what is written expresly in Scripture Qu. 10. Whether every man's conscience doth not justifie him when he walks according to what is contained in the Word Answ The answer immediately foregoing will serve here also without more ado SECT 6. H. H. p. 54. If all these Queries be granted as they are stated to be true then those that teach and perswade men to do any thing in matter of justification or salvation more or lesse then is plainly written and expressed in the Word of God are such as add to and take from the Word of God and are guilty of those plagues Rev. 22.18 19. But Infant-baptism is no where written nor expressed in all the Scriptures as Mr. Hall Mr. B. Mr. C. confess Therefore Reply 1. Some of your Queries are stated sillily e. g. 1 3 4 5 6. as is obvious to any 2. How can you suppose all to be granted when some are granted some denied and some in several respects being doubtfully propounded may be granted or denied 3. What a wide door do you open again here to Popery against justification by Faith onely For you say to do A N Y thing in matter of justification more then is expressed in the Word is an adding to the Word this is one of your dictates we must take your bare word without any offer of proof for it but if you make this out both you and I must fling up a great part of our Religion 4. As you pass again that dreadful doom on your self as well as on us so you be-lie in plain English those three Worthies who no where confess in their books that I can find that Infant-baptism is No where written in Scripture though they say It is no where expressed in Scripture which you miserably confound for want of wit or grace to distinguish SECT 7. H. H. Thus I have answered to Mr. Baxters Ten Positions which saith he p. 3. must be necessarily understood before we can understand the point in hand So that if these Positions are not true then the rest of his book cannot be true by his own confession Now if I have fully answered the one I need say but little to the other c. Reply 1. How this comes in by head and shoulders I know not Thus after a long digression he closeth The Reader must not blame me in following the Wild-goose-chase I must follow my leader except into an hors-pool 2. Whereas you say if you have sully answered these Positions you need say but little to the rest of Mr. Baxter's Book I assume But you have not fully answered these
himself in the exposition of Isa 7.15 16. and interpreting the same of Christ For though ver 14. is doubtlesse meant of Chrisâ— yet the two latter vâ—rses mean Shear-Jashub the Prophets little son ver 3. by whom as by a sign the Prophet assures Ahâ—z c. That Judah should be in such peace that that child should be brought up without fear of war in peace and plenty and that before he was grown up Those two smoaking Fire-brands ver 4. should be quenched What sâ—ay could it be to a trembling King and a troubled People of God aâ— Jerusalem to hear that those two Fire-brands which threaâ—ned the ruine of all should be overthrown before Christ should come to mature years which was many hundred yeaâ—s after But this promise concerning the Prophets Son being believed might be a suitable support to their trembling hearts in that juncture 5. To your proof concerning Christ p) Lu. 2.40.52 I say truly you do still like yourself For before you can make any consequence from the Scripture you must approve some grosse absurdity or blasphemy viz. They that grow and wax strong in spirit and wisdom had none before that time they are said to grow Whereas the growth of a thing presupposeth the being of it e. gr we are commanded to q) 2 Pet. 3.18 grow in grace and knowledg will it follow that we are void of grace and knowledg 2. By your Reason Christ while he was an Infant had no spirit no grace of God upon him no stature no favour with God or man For in these Christ is said to increase as well as in wisedom What Christian ear tingles not at such blasphemies which yet your unreasonable reasonings with a witness pre-suppose or imply if not express for the making up of your conclusion Now what think you had not Christ the law written in his heart in his infancy deny it if you dare or can all Orthordox Divines hold r) Ames medu l. 1. c. 21. Jo 1.14 with Luk. 2.40.52 that Christ in the first instant of his conception received in the humane nature fulness of grace in respect of the first act yet so as there was room for growth in respect of the second acts and of extension to new objects So that nâ—w must again proclaim you a blasphemer The charge is now more clearly confirmed by this your BLASPHEMY against Christ himself SECT 11. H. H. But some will object for want of wisedom that upon this account Christ will be excluded the Covenant in his innocency I Answer such people know not what they say For he was given for a Covenant Isa 42.6 and 49.8 And he is the Mediator of the Covenant Heb. 12.2 5. and his blood is the blood of the Covenant chap 13 10. with Luk. 22.40 And he is the seed to whom the promises were made Gal. 3.13 and in him they are yea and Amen with 1 Cor. 1.20 c. And therefore vain and foolish it would be for any man to make such an objection Reply 1. To say nothing of some of the Scriptures which should be Heb. 12.24 Luk. 22.20 2 Cor. 1.20 you your self do not know what to say in answer to the Objection you seem therefore to be a vain and foolish man to conjure up such a spirit which you could not lay for want of wisdom 2. All you have said doth not untye the knot but tyes it faster unlesse you grant that Christ in his Infancy was in the Covenant which yet you do not deny And thus you seem to confess one Infant at least the holy Child Jesus to be within the Covenant otherwise your answer to the Objection propounded by you is weak enough and strange for a man of common sense to give The Objection stands firm SECT 12. H. H. p. 59. They that are in Covenant shall know the Lord from the greatest to the least Heb. 8.11 But Infants cannot For they know noâ— their own parents nor their right hand from their left Jon. 4.11 Therefore the Lord saith plainlâ— That children are innocent Å¿) Ps 106.37 38. even of those which do sacrifice to the devill Therefore though Innocent are not nor cannot be in Covenant For that which is born of flesh is flesh but the New Covenant is spirituall and they which enter into it must be born again for those that worship must worship him in Spirit c. Jo 4.24 Reply 1. What hath been said to the former might serve here As many know earthly and naturall things which know not the Lord So God can conveigh the knowledge of himself to those s) Mat. 11.25 that know little or nothing of naturall things and though naturall knowledge cannot be but by naturall means yet super-naturall knoweldge may be and is oft conveighed without naturall means Notwithstanding they who have use of reason and senses are bound to make use of them to get the knowledge of God where God's Ordicances are vouchsafed though God himself is not tyed to these means 2. That phrase from the greatest to the least is a proverbiall kind of speech frequently used in Scripture to express the generality of a thing good or bad among persons of all sorts and ranks you may aswell conclude Infants went up into the house of the Lord because it is said t) 2 Chron. 3â— 30 All the people great and small went up and that little babes were feasted by Ahasuerus because it 's said u) Esth 1.5 He made a feast both unto great and small and that Infants were given to covetousness for it 's said v) Jer. 6 15. Every one from the least to the greatest is given to covetousness 3. Your Sophistâ—y is discernable The text â—aith shal know the Lord You say CANNOT know Now if you rightly assume Infants shall not know you contradict the Lords promise which hee will perform in his time Beside the conclusion is not to purpose viz. They shall not be in Covenant or else there are four terms in your Argument 4. What miserable consequences and conclusions are here made as your Book abounds with many more whereby you abuse your self and others First The Children of Ninivee knew not the right hand from the left Therefore the Lord saith plainly that children are innocent Secondly The children of those that sacrifice to Devills are innocent Therfore little babes though innocent cannot be in Covenant I shall speak to babes innocency in your next page But how wil you make good your consequence The absurdity whereof I leave to the Reader to consider Yet if children because innocent cannot be in Covenant as you say Then it followes clearly that David Daniel and other holy men * Ps 73.13 Dan. 6.22 Job 17.8 whom the Scriptures commend to be innocent were not in Covenant and if innocency keep children out of Covenant why not the aged also Nay Infants innocency is so far from making them uncapable of being in Covenant that even the children of Idolaters
holds forth Leaving therefore secret things to the Lord I further will clear it that Infants while Infants even of Heathens so dying are not saved by Christ as being justified by him c. 1. Whatsoever is to be believed by us is contained in the Scriptures This you cannot deny but that Infants ever of Heathens are in state of justification and salvation is not contained in the Scriptures no not in Rom. 5.18 as is shewed before Therefore 2. Remission of sins and justification are peculiar to those m who are in Covenant But Infants of Heathenâ— while such are not in Covenant as all parties agree Therefore Or thus All justified persons are in Covenant Infants of Heathens are not in Covenant Therefore not justified 3. To contract my self Because Esau while an Infant was not justified though the child of godly parents as you said p. 57. much less the Infants of Heathens whil'st such 4. Then it would be a work of mercy to cut their throats and send them to heaven which is absurd at least you will judge Must Herod be a Saviour of Infants Did he them a good turn or no 5. They are without Regeneration as having neither word spirit sign promise or covenant of Regeneration hence said to be without 7. Baptism doth not belong to them as you and we agree which is the sign and seal of justification Therefore not justification by Christ's blood which is at least a part of the thing signified More might be added but I forbear onely I wish you to consider seriously how one absurdity draws on many more whil'st some are resolved to maintain their fancies What a monstruous thing is it that all the children of Heathens shall be partakers of the kingdom of heaven in glory and yet to deny to Infants of Christians the signe and seal of admission into the kingdom of heaven on earth or to them faith if the free gift come on them to justification of life I cannot find in Scripture specially in this Chapter Rom. 5.1.16 Such justification without faith SECT 4. H. H. same p. and 62. Secondly that God hath one way to save men and women and another to save Infants is evident Rev. 2.7 11 17 29. and chap. 3.6 13. because the Spirit often calls to such who have ears to hear but wee never find him calling to Infants to hear obey commandments c. Thirdly Life and salvation is promised to them that believe in Christ Joh. 3.15 16. with Heb. 5.9 but salvation is not promised to Infants on these terms Fourthly Death and damnation is threatned 2 Thes 1.7 8 9. to those that know not God and obey not the Gospel but they cannot know God for they know not the right hand from the left c. Fifthly The ordinary means of salvation is the preaching of the Gospel Rom. 1.16 1 Cor. 1.21 Thus is their great invincible objection or rather cavill answered clearly and plainly by the Scripture of truth Reply 1. It is in none of these Scriptures expresly said that God hath one way to save men and women and another way to save little children you are wise above what is written Must we trust you or seek wisedom at your mouth as you say in your p. 53. qu. 5. Secondly neither do you prove it clearly and evidently but by pitifull consequences May not I say to you as he in another case Therefore thou art inexcusable oh man whosoever thou art that judgest for wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thy self c. 3. They rather prove the damnation then the salvation of Infants for you say they cannot hear believe know obey confess to salvation 4. Is there not another contradiction for hare you say we never find little babes bidden to hear the Commandements And yet you say p. 52. the sons of men are commanded to hear Christ I hope some little babes are the sons of men 5. Sure you live by ill neighbours you do oft commend your self but you are strongly and strangely infatuated to believe that you have both proved what you undertooke and clearly plainly answered this invincible objection c. as you scornfully cal it when any rational man fearing God may see that you have done neither SECT 5. H. H. And the truth is they may as well debar little babes from food because it is said in Scripture He that will not work let him not eat as to debar them from salvation because they are not Church-members c. Reply 1. You debar them from Baptism because they cannot believe why not also from salvation hereafter on that Scripture Mark 16.16 as from food here on this 2 Thes 3.10 2. Infants Church-membership shall be spoken to in answer to your twelve Arguments But it 's your grosse mistake that they are no Church-members because they cannot perform the work of a Church-member The same may be said of the Jews Infants yet they were circumcised and were Church-members Nay we find them joyned in Church-Ordinances as prayer fasting c. 2 Chron. 20.16 Joel 2 16. 3. That God will give them salvation without observing Church-Ordinancer overthrows your 12 following Arguments with the last which a probable one you say p. 72. CHAP. XIII Whether Infants of Believing Parents are Church-members SECT 1. H. H. p. 63. 2ly Infants are not Church-members neither can Church membership do them any good but rather the contrary Argument 1. from Joh. 15.2 c. Reply 1. Instâ—ad of answering our Arguments for Infant Church membership which yet you undertook you tuâ—n opponent and dispute after your manner against their Church-membership But let any Logician read this your first Argument and he will easily see how monstrouâ— and mishapen it is without any true form To make the best of it it 's this If every branch that is in Christ must bring forth fruit or else be cut off then Infants cannot be branches in Christ for they cannot bring forth fruit neither shall they be cut off But the former is true therefore the latter and by consequent are no Church-members 1. You prove what you have undertaken by Consequences May they not be rejected by us as ours are by you saying p. 47. We weigh them not 2. If you must have that liberty which you deny to us you have here as many Consequences as M. Baxter had which in the aforesaid p. you find fault with As 1. If Infants be Church-members they must be branches in Christ 2. If branches they must be fruitful 3. If fruitful they must abide in Christ c. 4. If not they must be cast into the fire which is absurd Review I pray Rom. 2.1 Wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thy self for thou that judgest do'st the same things 3. Your Argument proves as strongly or more against all Infants interest in Christ and so salvation by him contrary to your own judgment p. 61. or more confidently and clearly for the damnation of Infants according to that He that believeth
are not Church-members because they are not branches how poorly God knows It should not seem strange to you that M. Baxter proves them Disciples because they are servants specially if you consider to foyle you with your own weapon that Scripture no where calls them expresly Church-members though we believe they are but doth expresly call them Disciples * I. G. Catab p 165. Sidenh exercit p. 126. here and servants too in the place quoted by M. Baxter 3. By your Divinity I may not call Paul a Disciple of Christ whom he calleth a servant and his servant too For you say even in persons wee must not call them Disciples of Christ whom God calleth servants 4. If you had not been wilfully blind M. Baxter prevented this cavill p. 20 which I shall improve Moses and Nebuchadnezzar are called the servants of God but not on the same account Isa 42.1 with Rev. 1.1 Christ and John are called God's servants but not in the same sense when their use and sufferings were so unlike Psal 119.89 90. The Heavens and believers are called God's servants but not in the same sence when their actings do so broadly differ So Nebuchadnezzar and the Churches children He in respect of the work to which he was designed and they in respect of the state wherein they were invested Nebuchadnezzar was never brought out of Egypt nor to have any benefit of the year of Jubilee as is said of these children with their parents Levit. 25.41 42. SECT 11. H. H. p. 79. Another Argument of M. Baxters p 21. If Infants be capable of being Christ's Subjects then of being Christ's Disciples Answer A learned Argument All the children in this Nation are capable of being Subjects in this Commnon-wealth Ergo of being Vniversity-Scholars Reply 1. An unlearned answer There is a capability remote and immediate Now remotely all Infants here are capable of being University-Scholars but not immediately they must first be Country-Scholars before they are University-Scholars An Infant is capable of being an Abecedarian by propinque-power but a stone c. is not either by a propinque or remote power 2. You seem to insinuate that no child is capable of being a Subject in this Common-wealth what truth is in M. B. or yours you leave to the wise to judge your Logick will not save a whore from the gallows who hath been arraigned or condemned for murdering her Bastard SECT 12. H. H. His third Argument is p. 23. Christ would have some children received as Dâ—sciples Loâ— 2 47 48 Mar. 19.5 Mark 9.41 Now what the two first Soriâ—â—ures are to the purpose I leave to all that can read and understant English to judge If the Printer have done him wrong I have not neither is there any in his Erraâ—â—'s and truly I dare be no Interpreter of his meaning withoâ—â— his words I shall therefore onely speak to that in Mark c. Reply 1. What a cunning devised Fable have wâ—here to mis-cite Mr. Baxter's two hâ—d Scripturâ—s and to write them out at large that Mr Baxter might be rendered odious or at least inexpert in the Word of righteousness whâ—n in the very page cited they are Luke 9 and Mat. 18. and for the first you confess you after â—od Luke 9. quoted in that page Would not you think it dis-ingeâ—â—ty to be so dealt with If I should write out in words at length Luke 14.10 so it 's cited by you pag. 42. and then make such a flam as you do What a great crie is here and no Wooll Where were your eiâ—s or your mind rather If seems after you had put on your Spectacies you could see better and read English you seek for a â—not in a Rush SECT 13. H. H. p. 80. I Answer 1. The word Disciple is not in the Text c. 2ly in Mark 9.41 42. It 's evident he spake to the Twelve and of actual believers 3ly To that in Luke 9. ver 48. the Lord Christ himself answers Mat. 18.1 2 3 4 5 6. at large Reply 1. No more is Church-member or visible Saints in all or any one of those 13 Texts which you produce from pag. 63. to 73 and from whence you have drawn 13 doughty Arguments to shew that such Infants as wee baptize cannot be Church-members neither doth Church-membership do them any good but the contrary pag. 63 your answer here might have served for our Reply there But I have replied punctually to every Scripture and Argument there And what if the word Disciple be not expresly found in one or two of these texts yet in Mat. 18.5 which Mr. Baxter had rightly and truly cited for all your audacious out-facing the matter he speaks of receiving one such little child in my name what 's that Mark 9.41 Because ye belong to Christ or as it is in the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 9.41 because ye are Christs and what are both these but in the name of a Disciple Mat. 10.42 Now to receive in Christ's name and as belonging to Christ and as a Disciple of Christ in Christ's language is all one Much more is said in the places quoted by you by Mr. B. which you thought a piece of wisdom to pass by because you could not answer 2. To that in Mark I might say as you a little before The word actual Believers is not to be found in the text Therefore by your divinity it is not Evident that he speaks of Actual Believers or else some things are evident which are not expresly mentioned in Scripture And what though Christians Infants are not actual believers it 's enough if they be habitual believers and then Christ speaks of them But because you utterly deny that any Infants are actuall Believers and challenge any to prove it by Scripture if they can I shall try your strength by these few Arguments though I do not positively assert it 1. David saith God did makeâ—him hope when he was on his mothers breasts Psal 22.9 Now to hope and to believe are all one or very nigh of kin In him shall the Gentiles trust or hope Rom. 15.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. You have taught me that justification of life belongs to Infants pag. 61. out of Rom. 5.18 Now the Scripture knows no justification of life without actual faith even in that Chap. it 's said Rom. 5.1 we are justified by faith What is that but actual faith as appears from the illative particle Therefore being the conclusion of an Argument drawn from a famous example of justification viz. Abraham's which was without doubt by actual faith you dare not deny it 's so evident Gen. 15. with Rom. 4. 3 ly John Baptist in his mothers womb leapt for joy Luk. 1.41 44. which was no natural but a spiritual motion as hath been said now joy is the joy of faith Rom. 15.33 with Phil. 1.25 True you say faith comes by hearing Rom. 10.17 i.e. Ordinarily But though God binds us to the means yet he
Though this is one mark by which true disciples may be known by them who can discern as a man 's renewed conscience in this world and all men at the last day yet this is not the onely mark others have been named before much lesse is it the onely mark of That Discipleship which is necessary to make a member of the visible Church 3. Doubtless many Infants of visible Church-members are regenerated and sanctified or indued with the Holy Ghost so that if they should live to years they would actually love Christ and his members with a spiritual love Therefore having this love wrought in them by God's Spirit seminally radically or habitually though they cannot actually put it forth as grown persons they may not be judged altogether to want this love as may appear by the fore-named instances specially of John the Baptist Luke 1.15 41 44. So also by that promise I will powr my spirit on thy seed and my blessing on thy off-spring SECT 18. H. H. Fifth Argument from Luke 21.36 with Mark 13. ver 37. Christ bids all to watch and pray But little children cannot Therefore none of Christ's Disciples Reply 1. Beside the same diseases that this Argument is sick of which for brevity I repeat not 1. The Word Disciples is not in the premisses nor in this Scripture though the Disciples were concerned on which one or both should be grounded therefore by your Answer p. 80 to be sleighted So that there is more in the conclusion then in the premisses which spoils an Argument The Conclusion should have been Therefore little children are none of those all that Christ bids watch and pray 2. You might with as good if not fairer colour have argued against little childrens escaping destruction standing before Christ at the day of Judgment and against their salvation too from this Scripture Thus They that are to escape and stand before the Son of man c. must watch and pray But little children cannot watch and pray Therâ—ore neither escape nor stand before Christ Our Saviour speaks only to all that heard and so to all to whom by reading preaching c. this commandement may come But Infants while such cannot read or hear c. this Commandement SECT 19. H. H. p. 84. My sixth Argument from Mat. 13.10 11. the summe whereof is this It 's given to Disciples to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven But it 's not given to Infants to know c. Therefore Infants cannot be Christ's Disciples Reply 1. Here indeed mention is made of Disciples i. e. of the Twelve whom Christ spake unto yet ALL they are not meant for he pronounceth them blessed that know those mysteries ver 16. Yea above many Prophets and righteous men who in this respect were not Disciples in regard of the clear discovery of those mysteries verse 17. but Judas was not blessed If you take Disciples in this which is the most proper and immediate sense The Conclusion will bee that Infants while such were none of those Twelve or rather Eleven blessed Disciplet which is granted 2. It may be granted in a good sense that what was immediately spoken to those Disciples may be applied to others viz. to all the Elect in Gospel-times who upon hearing of the Word are savingly inlightned as may be gathered Mat. 13.12 16 17. Then the Conclusion will be concerning invisible Church-members and Disciples whereas our Question is about visible ones as before 3. This would conclude no less against the blessedness then Discipleship of Infants verse 13 14 15 16 17. which Conclusion without question you will deny as holding that ALL Infants so doing are blessed 4. Seeing some Infants may be filled with the Spirit from yea in their mothers wombs as before in John Baptist what hinders but that they may know the mystestâ—râ—es of the Kingdom of heaven As sense and reason in their fullest ripeness cannot reach to these without the speciall working of the Spiâ—it 1 Cor. 2.8 9 10. So the Spirit can reveal them where sense and reason are defective SECT 20. H. H. Thus far I have gone to prove that Infants ARE NOT Christ's Disciples now it followeth that they CANNOT BE his Disciples c. Reply 1. Oh admirable skill and method in setting the Cart before the Horse If you had first proved that they CANNOT be Christ's Disciples it would have followed indeed that they ARE NOT. But let us hear your proof SECT 21. H. H. My seventh Argument is from the same text Mat. 13.11 If it bee given to none but the Disciples of Christ to know the Kingdom Then children to whom it is not given cannot at that present bee Christ's Disciples But it is given to none but the Disciples of Christ to know the mysteries of the Kingdom for to others it is not given ver 11. Therefore children to whom it is not given cannot be Christ's Disciples Reply 1. Your Argument I have set down in your own words partly that you and others may see your great learning and art in arguing and partly to intimate what great need I had in diverse of your Arguments to mend the Form and make the best of them And it being as you say from the same text the same answer might serve here 2. Yet I shall add only this Your Hypothetical proposition hangs together like ropes of sand there being no appearance of necessity that the consequence should follow on the Antecedent It 's like this If none but Scholars understand Mathematicks and Metaphysicks then Petties that cannot understand them are no Scholars but the former is true Therefore the latter Or thus because I know you will cry whimzies If none but living creatures can properly fly in the air thâ—n men which cannot properly fly in the air are no living creatures The absurdity of which Propositions all may see 3. That which you add in the rest of your page 84. and part of page 85. is partly a Reperition therefore to be passed by and partly an Assertion wherein if I mistake not you grant Infant Baptism For you believe you say that little children according to the Scriptures belong to the Kingdom of heaven and partake of the Redemption that is in Christ though they know nor believe nothing of it c. If so why may they not bee baptized as well as Jewish Infants Circumcised who had no more knowledge nor faith ordinarily then they specially since you say all free born subjects in a kingdom belong to it and may enjoy all the priviledges in that kingdom so far as little children need to enjoy though they know not the mysteries of the government and order of that kingdom nor the rights and customs of it till they be of years c. I professe I have lost my understanding if you do not give up the cause in the open field SECT 22. H. H. same p. My eighth Argument is from Luk. 14.27 which in it's full strength â—hough in fewer words is
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
according to the mind of Christ was and is onely by Ministeriall teaching Secondly That none but such so discipled were or are to be baptized But on the contrary are not examples obvious in Scripture As the thief on the Crosse who was a Disciple yet not Discipled by Ministeriall preaching the Gospel whom yet you acknowledge to be in a saving condition p. 25 26. and baptized in will though not in deed and to omit many instances Paul was a Disciple o) Acts 9.22 yet not by the preaching of the Gospell and was baptized too and I trow both according to the mind of Christ to say nothing of p) Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 6. c. 2. Origens and Austins q) Confess l. 8. 〈◊〉 12. Discipleship the one by his parents education the other by a Voice from Heaven 5. For your confession c. It had been more ingenuity to have confessed your own errours with which your book is stuffed as may appear by this reply or your impudence with a witness in denying that which you cannot but know to be the custom of the Churches of God for more then a 1000 years See your p. 3. or your uncharitableness in disowning them for the Churches of God who have owned Infant-baptism What your custom is I matter not you shall be none of my presidents though God may make you an example and then I shall remember you as I do Å¿) Luk 17.32 Lot's wife SECT 8. H. H. p. 91. But to retort M. Baxter's Argument this Doctrine of M. Baxters and the rest of the Priests of England viz. That all Children should be Baptized in their None-age according to their practice doth turn the Baptisme of Christ which is to baptize men and women when they believe quite out of the Churches of the saints therefore c. This his Sword is turned with the edg against himself Reply 1. In generall you should have given no more then his own you have made so little use of the Argumenâ— that you deserve to pay no interest but how have you put the sheep in Wolves clothing and besmeered M. Baxter's modest and meek expression with the excrements of your own passion 2. In particular 1. You call us Priests in derision you shew your selfe to be the Son of Hagar by your scoffing that Nick-name neither gaines you not loses us any thing Secondly we do not say all children but the children of believeing parents are to be baptized And those I trow are not All children s) Isa 28.15 Thus you make lies your refuge and under falsehood have you hid your self Thirdly you say that our Doctrine turns Christ's Baptism out of the Church because the baptizing of men and women when they believe is the baptisme of Christ This is bâ—t a pittifull begging of the Question and yet without Question both the Baptism of Infants of the other are consistent It 's well known that many Jewes Heathens converted to the Faith have been Baptized by us as well as the Infants of believeing Parents Thus indeed the edge of M. Baxter's Sword is so turned that for very bluntnesse it hath not so much as pierced the skin SECT 9. H. H. Same p. His Sixth Argument is against the mannes of Baptizing by Dipping as being a branch of the Sixth Commandement because it doth ordinarily tend to the overthrow of man's health and lives therefore no Ordinance of God but an hainous sinne c. Answer In order First Observe M. Baxter useth not one Scripture the ground of faith to prove it murder c. he hath used many vain words which prove nothing c. Reply 1. Here is a fair promise of aningenuous proceeding t) Quind dignum tanto seret hic promissor hiatu partuturiunt montes nasceturridicuâ—is mus Horat but not a suitable performing seeing folly marches in the Van rather let it be observed that you suffer the ground and foundation of your practice to be undermined and razed and yet you make no stir but what a great bussle do you make when M. Baxter comes to the Manner This is Lapwing if not Jesuite-like to cry loudest when furthest from the Nest 2. You will not be kept from your old custom of Fly-blowing mens writings with your corrupt breath M. Baxter doth not exhort the Magistrates p. 134. and 136. to destroy the Anabaptists as well as High-way murderers M. Baxter and I have so much charity u) Sic Diligendisunt homines ut non diliguntur eorum errores Prosp for you and yet Zeal for the truth that we would have noâ— your persons but your erroneous practises destroyed if so be the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 5.5 3. It was needless for M.B. to bring senseless for you to demand Scripture for the proving of usual dipping to be murder Hath not God made us men as well as Christians and given us reason as well as Religion Is there not a morall as well as a divine Faith And is there an incompossibility of both these Cannot we act the one but we must decline the other If therefore M. Baxter had proved dipping to be murder by a morall-convincing Argument I might have believed him and yet made the word of God the ground of my Faith as it is granted to be yet 4. Who did ever produce Scripture-testimonies for the proof of a bond Or Gospel-evidence for title to Land Hath the Grand Jury Scripture for to prove matter of fact e. g. Murder yet the bill is found and the murder justly condemned I have heard it considently affirmed that Mr. Haggar hath been married to two wives which are both yet living Now unless he can bring Scripture to prove the contrary by his own Logick none is bound to believe him Let him therefore take heed of such arguing 5. But Mr. B. proves it by Scripture If the sixth commandement be the word of God which forbids the ordinary use of any thing which tendeth directly to overthrow health and life how else can you prove the tortures inflicted on the primitive Christians to be murder but by such a Medium as this is unless it be your opinion That their tormenters were no murderers Though the tormented were indeed Martyrs Nay you your self allow the lighting of one candle by another v) Gospell worship no wrok for Infants p. 38. So the first be lightted by the fire of of the Altar i. e. The pure word of God You see Mr. B. doth so it is then a Scripture-argument by your own grant So that you might well have forborn that peremptory charge that Mr. Baxters proof is by affirming from out of his own mouth only c. 5. The Reader may do well to observe your First without a Second only when you cannot answer then you fall to your old haunt to cavill c. SECT 10. H. H. p. 92. But he proceeds I dare not say that in Cities like London and
the Miserere for you vent your excrements at your mouth 2. Yet I see an excellent fragment of charity like Pilates justice First to condemn M. B. as a child of the Divell and then refer him to his Master But it 's well that there lyes an appeal from Mr. Hag. to the Lord c) Naturam expellas Furca licet usque recurreâ— though you cannot leave your old humour you must revile him before you leave him Le ts now hear your answer SECT 12. H. H. page 94.1 If it be the onely way for coveteous Landlords and Phisicians as he saith then if the Divell had not put it into your head before yet M. B. like a diligent servant hath done it now Reply 1. What a foolish inference is this Is Mr. Baxter a servant of the Devill because he discovers practices of his Factors Did d 1 Sam. 8.10 Samuel prompt Saul to a Tyranny because he painted out the oppressions of an Arbitray Government Was Elisha a servant of the Devill When he foretold e 1 King 8.12 Hazaells cruelty or was our Saviour a diligent servant 〈◊〉 Sathan Matth. 26.21 23. When he said to his Disciâ—â—es one of you shall betray mee and he that dippeth c. â—â—â—rely Christ did not put it into his head but Sathan put 〈◊〉 into his heart Were Paul and Peter and Jude such serâ—ants as to put it into M. Haggars head 2 Tim. 3.6 to creep into houses and lead captive silly women c. 2 Pet. 2.3.10 To make Merchandize of souls Jude 8. To speak evil of dignities and many more lessons which you have learned But now Mr. B. must be catechized and asked 2 Questions about these diseases SECT 13. H. H. Question 1. Whether Mr. Baxter can say in his conscience that he ever did know any dipt person died of it or fell into any of those diseases afterwards if he had be would have named them in his book c. We have many Gentlewomen c. that can prove Mr. Baxter a false accuser and I can boldly say that many who have been weak and sickly before and given â—ver by Doctors have recovered health and strength c. Reply 1. Though Mr. Baxter names none yet it follows not but some have dropt into the grave after they came dropping out of the water I leave him in his reply to give you instances enough neither do you name any for what you assert may not I say I question not if you had known any such you would have put down their names in your Book But 2. You act the part of a Mountebanck now and tell us stories not inferior to the Popish Fables concerning the consecrated Host Did ever Christ institute that Ordinance of Baptism for a bodily cure 3. Some sick persons have recovered after private Communion and some children been cured of the Chin-cough after a draught of consecrated Wine is this therefore an owning of God's Ordinance It is not always prudentiall to judge of the cause by the event a false Prophet may foretell a truth in the event and yet not be credited nor counted a true Prophet Deut. 13.1 2 3. 4. I would fain know First whether you did ever dip any in cold water in Winter for so M. B. lays the case p. 134. or ever knew any Dipp'd in such a season in this climate If not your bold assertion proves nothing Secondly whether you have no Winter converts it so according to your own rule they must be baptized as soon as they are Discipled and then make an experiment whether among all your Gentlewomen and Ladies you canfiâ—nd so hot an zealot before you talk so largely SECT 14. H. H. Objection People become Ranters afterwards and that 's a sign of judgment and not of owning God's Ordinance Answer That is after they are again gone away from the Faith and deny the Ordinance of Christ which once they owned then as 2 Pet. 2.21 c. Reply 1. If by the Faith you mean your way c. I have no Faith to believe it or you 2. You have conjured up a spirit which you cannot lay and you confound whil'st you seek to confirm your Anabaptism As this Objection is impertinent to prove Dipping no murder whether any turn Ranters or no so your answer is dis-satisfactory For it implies that Dippers may and oft do fall away from the Faith and deny the Ordinance of Christ from such the Lord deliver us 3. It 's true that when men are gone from the truth and deny the Ordinance of Christ they turn Ranters i. e. when they deny Infant Baptism as sad experience and Mr. Baxter hath shewed An Anabaptist and a Ranter differ not specifically but gradually as a Cub and a Bear Do you shew if you can one simple Anabaptist that denies nothing but Infant-Baptism and is not tainted with some other grosse Error or Heresie Yea the Ranters themselves do not deny but defend that which you call the Faith and Ordinance of Christ Anabaptism The school is the same onely they are gotten into the higher Fourm whither M. Haggar and the rest if God prevent not are removing SECT 15. H. H. Quest second Whether M. Baxter bee not convinced in his conscience that some or all of those diseases he speaks of do not frequently raign upon many that never were Dipped in cold water Now let all impartiall people judge whether M. Baxter be a good Tree by the fruit hee bears What though his intentions be good yet he must be one of those Rom. 3.8 Reply It is granted many die of the fore-mentioned diseases that were never Dipt and I hope have continued such trees to the death as have have had no cause to be ashamed of their fruit But I am ashamed of your scurrility and abuse of Mr. Baxter who saith Dipping in cold water in cold weather is one not the oneâ—â— cause of perishing because some temperate people die of Fevers will it follow that Surfetting Riot Drunkenness are not a means of those mortal distempers What poor shifts are these SECT 16. H. H. p. 95. The next thing that Mr. Baxter speaks of is Mr. Tombs his salving up all this with saying That they may be baptized in warm water Answ I am not of his judgment in that for I believe it is his weakness Reply Yet you could say pag. 36. Mr. T. is of age and able to answer for himself questionless why could you not say so here but there you give him a bit and here a knock there his Advocate here his Judge there a Shem in shew here a Cham indeed to uncover his nakedness and weakness SECT 17. H. H. Then we cannot agree among our selvs therefore not to be believed Answ 1. I would not have people believe us but the Scripture Acts 17.11 2ly The truth must be believed and practised though we do not agree 1 Cor. 1.12 c. Acts 15.39 3ly Mr. B. and his brethren do not agree well e. g.
do business in great waters same verse and to see the works and wonders of the Lord in the deep c. and are delivered and brought to their desired Haven 6. We say the whole man is baptized when not the whole of man but part is washed Whole Christ was crucified but not the whole of Christ your arguing is very weak to all that have understanding When a man is wounded in any one part we say truly the man is wounded though not all over Circumcision was a cutting off the foreskin of the flesh onely and yet the Jews child was Circumcised Sir when your tongue talks we say Mr. Haggar speaks will it follow that every part of Mr. Haggar speaks By this Argument hee is all tongue * Vox praeterea nihil but if his heels had spoken they might have made as wise an answer 7. Your next instance proves as little that Christ was dipt when hee was baptized for the words may be read comming up From q) Mar. 1 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the water and that translation is more proper and suitable because all Rivers for the most part lye in the lower ground in comming to which wee are said to descend and coming from to ascend And indeed the Preposition is so rendered in the verse immediatly foregoing viz. Jesus came r) Mark 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From Nazareth yea it 's said The Dogs eat of the Crums which fall s) Mat. 15.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from their masters table yea where the same story is recorded Å¿) Mar. 3.7.13 it 's so translated twice as Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come and then came Jesus from Galilee and often else where in the New Testament what more ordinary then to say Such a man came from Sea Thames c. Here appears the weakness of your inference and the instance doth not plainly shew that Christ went first down into the water or else how could he come out of it Your text in John comes now to be considered SECT 20. H. H. p. 67. 98. And the Scripture saith Jo. 3.23 John Baptised in Enon because there was much water there But M. Baxter answers that Travellers report that the river Enon is but a little brook that a man may almost step over 1. Surely it is want of the fear of God and love to the truth that he should turne aside his ear from the Scripture that saith There was much water to believe a Man a Traveller and Travellers may lie by authority why may not Sr John Mandevill be believed as well as this Travellers news The Lord be praised that hath delivered my soul from believing him and such as hee is Acts. 2.40.2 If it were granted yet Enon might have much water in another place Though but a little water where the Traveller was As it is with many Rivers in England Reply Travellers may lie but may not some speak truth If not I shall take heed of you and hardly believe you who have been a Traveller and that among the Jesuits the most exquisite Masters of that Art and compassers of Sea and I and to make Proselytes And had you named the book wherein Sr John Mandevill's tale may be found I would shape a sutable reply but let it passe in the mean time for one of your cunning devised fables 2. Your veine of railing at M. Baxter I turn a deaf care to when you prove us an untoward generation for you calling us so doth not prove us so your thanks for your selfe and caveat to others will be seasonable In the interim you do mock both God and man The Turk may as well praise God Luk. 18.11 he is no Christian and the Pharisee t) See 18.11 That he was not as this Publican 3. What this Enon was is disputable u) Calvin in Joh. 3.23 some think it a Town situate in the Tribe of Manasseh Diodate a Citty as Salim was to which the text saith â—t was near Others a Fountain or small brook v) As Grotius Jun. and M. Baxter-Sandys Travells l. 3. p. 141. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As Rev. 1.15 and 14.2 Bee it so yet wee are not a jot the nearer for dipping for the phrase is elsewhere usually translated * many waterâ— Now then it signifies many convenient places at the water where John and his disciples might be employed at once Not any deep water or great river which commonly is hemmed in with great bankes which deny an easy accesse for an Administration 2. Many waters are somtimes taken in Scripture and why not here for a confluence of waters on som plain x) Ezech. 13.10 for the watering of medows and some trees as we see in many places in England where the ground is low it 's plashy and seemes to be a little Sea and yet not knee deep 3. Jordane the Prince of Rivers in that Country which hath it's name from Jor and Dan two fountains from whence it riseth was not above eight fathoms deep nor Navigable y) Isa 33.21 what a small water then in comparison was Enon not far distant from Jordane Now though you will not believe travellers reports yet I hope you will notreject these plain reasons 4. You say Enon might have much water in another place although but little where the Traveller was Here you have only probablity for proof therefore as you argue z) p. 28. we read but of 4. or 5. whole households were baptized therefore not likely they i. e. the Apostles baptized whole Nations if they did we desire to see iâ— So I. It 's not likely Aenon was so deep for dipping if so prove it by Scripture if you can and we will believe it SECT 21. H. H. p. 21. Further M. Baxter saith The Jaylour in the night in his house was baptized but the Scripture saith Act. 16.33.34 Now if the Jaylour took Paul and Silas It implies they took them out and the next words prove it plainly viz. Hee brought them into his house Reply 1. Some enemies are sooner foyled then found I know not what to make of these Fiblets of an Answer If the Jaylour took Paul and Silas it implies THEY took them out who can make sence of this It may be you mean the Jaylour took them out as may perhaps be gathered from the Antecedent of your proposition and the proof you bring for the consequence but it seems you know not what to say or what you say you are IN and OUT 2. May not any unprejudiced Reader see this to be the sense of the words as they lye in the text viz. a) Act. 16.24 with 30 32 33. The Jaylour brought Paul and Silas out of the prison yea the inner-Prison into some outward room thereof where he heard the word and was Baptized and then brought them into his house which as it was usuall joyned to the prison 3. You do not tell
You falsly quote M. Baxter who saith it is AT THAT TIME a sin not at any time sinfull There is a vaste difference in the sense though not in the sound of the words The one doth absolutely lay aside the other but Relatively and for a time suspend the lesser duty It is grossly false to say A duty when it is inconsistent with a greater is at any time sinfull unless some restriction bee allowed to come to the Congregation may occasionally be inconsistent with my health and preservation yet it is not sinfull at any time And it is as true that when it is inconsistent with a greater it is at that time a sinn For it 's a known Rule i) Semper ad-semper that Negative precepts bind alwaies k) Josh 5.5 6 7. and at all times so do not Affirmative as is cleare in the case of Circumcision Josh 5.5 6 7. 2. You fraudulently curtall M. Baxter in leaving out these words viz. Especially the manner and quantity of Water in Baptism c. You shew your selfe like an Egyptian Midwife to truth and reason what you cannot confute you can conceal 3. You maliciously infer a Calumniating conclusion from M. Baxter's principles and premises and therefore it deserves no other answer then M. Baxter's l) Mat. 12.7 I will have mercy and not sacrifice if you had learned what this means you would not have condemned the guiltless you reflect on Christ as well as on M. Baxter Yet 4. I shall onely say thus much to your impertinent Scriptures John 14.15 c. It is as true that Christ who hath loved us and given himself for us hath not given us any precept which simply tends to the overthrow of our lives we may love Christ and keep his commandements and yet love our selves too we may and must love Christ with a Superlative love and our selves also with a subordinate love 5. You might have spared this handfull of dirt which you have flung at M. Baxter till you had proved Dipping to be the Ordinance of Christ by one expresse Scripture or at least syllable of reason But since you think M. Baxter so cowardly as that he would not suffer for Christ I must tell you I have read of som Martyers as Philpot c. mentioned in your p. 45. that never were Anabaptists but never read of an Anabaptist that was a Martyr It 's no Argument becaus M.B. will not go with you into the water therefore not into the fire no more then this Because you have gon into the water therefore you will endure the fire There is warrant for the one when called none for the other which yet you miserably beg as if it were the command and example of Christ c. 6. You follow your old trade in abusing Scripture e. g. Mat. 3.15 Those words do not hold forth the externall Formality of the Administration but the person that did Administer and the old ordinance of Baptism with the person to whom it was administred for Christ comes to bee baptized verse 13. John out of an high esteem of Christ and a low apprehension of himself forbids him ver 14. Then Christ replies thus it becommeth us to fulfill c. In what Not in Dipping of him there 's no express mention made thereof but in baptizing him SECT 26. H. H. p. 101. Lastly I desire the Reader to consider how like M. Baxters counsell to us is to Peters counsell Mat. 16.21 22. so doth M. Baxter say to us and specially to Gentlewomen old and weak people c. This shall not be to you for in the course of nature it will kill hundreds c. But let all that fear God learn of Christ to answer M. B. as he answered Peter ver 23. Reply You are got into your wonted haunt to claw the people and calumniate your adversary There is no likenesse between Peters and M. Baxters Counsell Peter advised Christ against that which was written and ordained So doth not Mr. B. for where is it written expressly that every one who is baptized must be dipped Therefore when Mr. B. disswades any from doing and suffering for Christ according as it is written in your sense I shall say His Counsell is like Peters In the mean time as you do in the close of this Section I leave what I have written to the judgment of them that fear God SECT 27. H. H. same pag. His seventh Argument is against Dipping of persons naked which is against the seventh Commandement Therefore an intollerable wickedness and not Gods Ordinance Answ 1. I am sure it is intollerable wickedness in M. Baxter and a breach of the ninth Commandement to say wee baptize people naked athing which he never saw as hee confesseth when he saith he hears so Reply 1. Here is more foul play and the truth held in unrighteousnesse for you leave out these words OR NEXT TO NAKED you cite Mr. B. as you answer him that is by halves 2. Were that false which he affirms is he a greater transgressor of the ninth Commandement then you are pag. 92. who say m the heaviest purses of our Religion are the greatest part of our Religion and call Mr. Baxter a child of the Devill c. p. 93. You should not have thrown this stone unlesse you had been without fault 3. Why is it a breach of the ninth commandement to say so because he never saw it you say with his eyes What kind of reasoning is this Doth not this shake if not take away the foundation of Moral and Divine Faith If nothing must bee believed but what wee see with our eyes we must believe nothing For that Assent the understanding yields to a thing seen is knowledg or experience This is to make sense saith and the Proverb true Seeing is believing Contrary to Scripture 1 Pet. 1.8 Nay then all those high charges which you have drawn up against Mr C. and Mr. B. c. all along your book are false for you never saw those with your eyes Then John and the Apostles never plunged men and women over head and ears in baptizing them for you never saw it with your eyes 4. But how can you tell Mr. B. never saw it with his eyes he confesseth it when he saith he hears so Is not this sound Divinity Did ever Christ and his Apostles preach such doctrine Did ever any weak man but Mr. Haggar utter such a reason as this viz. Because he heard a thing therefore he never saw it as if the same thing in diverse respects at several times could not be the Object of seeing and hearing also you saw your ridiculous answers at Ellesmere exploded and do you not hear of the same too SECT 28. H. H. p. 102. It may be that some which he accounts Christians have so little grace and of the fear of God in them as to tell him such lyes and he is willing to believe them although for my part I have baptized
the dust you have raised and noise you have made can neither hide from him nor plunder him off SECT 2. H. H. same p. What have you to do to call Christ Lord and yet will not do the things which he saith Luk. 6.46 Which is to preach the Gospell to all and baptize them that believe and gladly receive it Mark 16.15 16. with 2.41 8.12 This Gold will endure the fire when your Rantizing babes will perish Though you plead for cozening poor Children in their Cradles and when you have done you have made them seven times harder to be converted to the Faith of the Gospel then they were before Reply 1. There is no 41 verse in Mark. 2. nor any thing to your purpose in Mark 8.12 I suppose the Printer hath abused you for Acts 2.41 and 8.12 But those and the other Scriptures have been Answered before though you please your self in singing the Cuckow 's song 2. All verily is not Gold that glisters your Gold you brag of proves but gilded brasse Infant-Baptism will last when your mode shall vanish like smoke in the air 3. It 's well known and may be spoken to God's glory that many after Infant-Baptism and still owning it have been converted from their natural and sinfull estate to the obedience of the Faith Now if Infants before your Baptizing were seven times more easie to be converted then after what is become of all your noise concerning Infants capacity to repent and believe Is your mind changed now Are you indeed perswaded that Infants unbaptized are seven times easier to bee converted to the Faith then after Baptism But your rage carries you on to rail on us not without abuse of Scripture in most of your 122. page which is unworthy of any other answer but silence and patience SECT 3. H. H. pag. 122. We are not to be blamed if we declare nothing but the Word of God 2 Tim. 4.2 and if we have answered in eighteen sheets c. Reply 1. To the first I need say little True if you have such a Call as Paul and Timothy had or any just call warranted by the World to preach and declare God's Word but you have not yet proved that you have any such call Now then if you preach before you are sent and run without Commission the speaking of some truths will not justifie you Sathan spake sometime truth and that according to God's Word but having no Call had no thanks nor was justified therein Mat. 4.6 8.29 Acts 16.17 18. And his slaves have taken upon them to imitate the Apostles of Christ in these things whereto they had no call Acts 19.13 14 15 16. 2 Cor. 11.13 14. 2. How punctually you keep to the Word of God in your teaching and writing I hope appears by this time Papism Arâ—inianism Socinianism c. with which your book is more then sprinkled are not parts of the word of God 3. I do not marvel at your briefness in answering when you promise to answer all and indeed answer nothing Besides Tares are sooner sowen then gathered up and the ground rid of them poison is sooner prepared and devoured then the body cleansed of it An hundred houses are sooner burnt then one built yet I have transcribed you and replied to you SECT 4. H. H. p. 133. It is said wee are they that subvert whole housholds but I answer as Elijah did Ahab 1 King 18.18 We do not subvert whole Housholds for we baptize none but those that believe according to Mark 16.15 16. Acts 8.12 37. But it 's you Mr. C. that subverts whole housholds when you baptize children and all for lucres sake c. Reply Sir it 's not your Nay will serve when your practice proclaims the contrary neither can you shew any call from God to do what you do as Eliah could shew for what he did and therefore you still abuse Scripture What warrant have you for re-baptizing those that have been baptized Christ's command and his Apostles practice was to baptize Jews and Gentiles of ripe years that had until that time been Jews and Gentiles your pretending that warrant is confessing that whom you baptize are Jews or Gentiles and if you make them that were professed Christians to become Jews and Gentiles that you may baptize them after the example of the Apostles you subvert persons families and countries to purpose CHAP. XVII Of Humane Learning in a Minister of Christ SECT 1. H. H. pag. 123. I shall now shew the reasons of our dissenting from the Church of England and all other Churches which stand upon these four pillars viz. 1. Humane Learning for take away that which you had at Cambridge or Oxford and you have no Ministry but all men may preach as well as you nay I might say better Reply 1. It is a notorious untruth confidently enough asserted by you without the least colour of proof that the Church of England is built on the four pillars mentioned by you These are of your own framing and daubed with untempered mortar No Sir it 's built on that Rock against which the gates of Hell shal not prevail Mat. 16.18 and on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone Ephesians 2. ver 20. 2. If that we had at Cambridge or Oxford were taken away it doth not follow that we have no Ministry How many pretious Ministers are there in the Church of England eminent for piety and learning who never were matriculated in Cambridge or Oxford God having blest their private studies in the Country with the attainment of excellent abilities Violets may be found and gathered in the Field as well as in the Garden 3. It 's a Paradox that all men may preach as well as we * Multi imperitorum magistri sueâ—int priusâ—uam suerint doctorum discipulâ— Wittenberg Conles Artic. 20. suppose University Learning were taken away for herein you dissent from your own Church if a Church which hath been of this mind hitherto that none but gifted men may preach mistaking that Scripture * Ye may all prophesie Unless you mean that Women and Infants may preach for they are comprehended in those terms All men But Infants cannot speak you often say and Women may not 1 Cor. 14.34 as hath been shewed before 4. It 's worse to say you might say better x) Non sacile de Artibus rectè jâ—dicat qui Artes ignorat Cyprian 1 King 12.31 You know in the Fable who judged that the Cuckow â—ung better then the Nightingale It was Jeroboams sin that hee made Priests of the lowest of the people and it is your sin and shame to make Preachers of Mechanick and unlearned men Alas we would have learned Lawyers for our estates The Apostle saith who is sufficient for these things 2 Cor. 2 16. but H. H. saith who is not sufficient and learned Physicians for our bodies and not learned Ministers for our souls 5. Though
16.32 33. I referr the reader to that book p) Font uncovered pag. 17.18 19 ver 32. to which you answer nothing but this M. Cook may conclude that none but the Jaylour was baptized c. Now whether more then the Jaylour believed is not declared though it s said that they spake the word to him and to all that were in his house which must needs be understood of those that were capable yet the word in the q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he having believed ver 34. originall is only of the singular number referring to the Jaylour alone and the Apostles required faith of the Jaylour alone r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believe thou ver 31. as necessary and sufficient to bring him his family inâ—o a state of salvation So that as Abraham and his family was circumcised even Ishmael and his bond-servants with their children though we read not of the faith of any of them but of Abraham and Sarah the governours thereof yea Lydia her houshold were baptized though nothing be said of the faith of any of them but of the governesse For it was sufficient for the admission of this family to baptism a state of salvation that the Governor did believ his belief is only expresly required in the coÌ„maÌ„d mentioned in the story But when baptism is mentioned it 's said Å¿) he and all his As before where there are two particulars that of necessity must bee understood of persons being of the plurall number but the word that is translated All his house is an Adverb s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noting neither person not number in â—â—s proper signification but may properly be referred to the Jailors rejoicing x) See Mr. Cooks Font uncovered p. fore-named or exulting q. d. After he had believed God he leapt for joy in and through the whole house but of this more largely in the said book * 3. As for your appeal rational men may discern a difference enough to frustrate your hopes of relief from that Translation For as salvation might be brought to Zacheus his family u) Luk. 19.9 and yet not every one in possession of it or actually saved that was in the family so they might all in the Jailors family be said to rejoice in or for the faith of God though they were not all actual believers I say for or in regard of the faith of God whether be understood the object of faith Christ Jesus or the doctrine of faith the Gospel preached or the gift and act of faith in the Governor or of the effects of faith viz. the tranquility joy and festivity they being e. g. to the Jailor in over-blowing the desperate fears that had seized on him and all his family when they imagined the prisoners had escaped For where the Gospel and the fruits thereof comes v) Luk. 8.13 Joh. 5.35 Acts 8.8 it yields matter of joy u to many more then those who actually and sincerely believe More particularly the Jailors happy and sudden exchange from sudden fear to faith the preaching of the glad tidings of the Gospel to those in his family that were capable might well put the whole family into a posture of joy and festivity Infants themselvs not being uncapable of joy and mirth as it appears at Feasts wherein the spirits of those little ones are exhilarated Yea Infants are not uncapable of spiritual joy and exaltation at the presence of spiritual objects though we cannot tell how it is wrought in them E. g. John Baptist while an Infant in his mothers womb leaping for joy at the presence of Christ for it 's said * Luk. 1.44 Grot. The Babe leaped in my womb for joy Where note by the way that was no natural but supernatural motion as x) Gen. 25.22 was the struggling of those Twins in Rebeccah's womb and beside the Noun here rendered y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Joy is of the same derivation rivation and signification as the word z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is used to set forth the joy which the Jailor had in his family So then Christ the object of faith the Gospel the doctrine of Faith with a great deliverance from a desperate danger being brought to this family and saving faith being wrought in the heart of the Jailor at least and Baptism the seal of the righteousness of Faith being administred to them all the whole family might well be put into a rejoicing frame by reason of the faith God brought amongst them though they did not actually believe for the present 4. Whereas you call somewhat that was said by Mr. C. for the clearing of that place Act. 16. A learned exposition by way of contempt and scorn of humane Learning as appears by your frequent invectives against humane learning which in the close of * Pag. 123. your Book you make one main matter of your accusation of our Church and a ground of separation from us it shall be modestly discussed if the Lord will when we come to it SECT 17. H. H. pag. 6 7. One thing more I had like to have forgotten viz. This seeming sophistical answer to Acts 8. ver 12. where the text saith plainly That when they believed they were baptized both men and women To this he answereth in his 16 p. That these words men and women are appliable to sexes rather then to ages and instanceth in Evah who when Cain was born she said I have gotten a man from the Lord. But what is this to our purpose For she doth not say that this man believed the things concerning the kingdom of Jesus Christ but those women Acts 8.12 were such as believed all these things Therefore your Argument is false and you are self-deceiful and wise to do evil as appeareth by this your cunning craftiness where with you lay in wait to deceive Eph. 4. ver 14. Reply 1. Had you like to have forgotten You then shew a great defect in memory For whereas there are very many pages spent in answering to your urging of what Scriptures you could think of both in general and in particular and many particular answers given to each Scripture you resolved to reply but to two short sentences of two answers and you had almost forgotten one Had it not been more ease and little lesse prudence after you had promised an Answer to the Book in the Title-page to have passed by the whole book as you do all but a few lines and to have told us you had forgot to answer it 2. You bewray defect in method as well as in memory for you bring in this Scripture by Hysteron Proteron to which I shall give such a Reply as I think it deservs You tell us of a SEEMING Sophistical answer then out of your own mouth I may condemne you It is I hope but seemingly not truly sophistical Considerate people will not judge the worse because it seems
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