more of this 2. If you mean there were no Infants at all in Rome or Philippi a man had need of the faith of an Anabaptist to believe you or it I'ts said All Jerusalem was troubled with Herod Matth. 2. ver 3. Infants could not bee troubled with him Therefore there was no Infant in Jerusalem This reasoning is as good as yours i. e. stark naught But if you mean as it seems that no little children could understand speak c. who saith so 3. It 's cold comfort to believing parents that their Infants are not Saints in Christ then sure they are little Heathens but is not this contradictory to the same Apostle who calls indefinitely children even of one believing parent 1 Cor. 7.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sancti sunt So Beza and the Old Latine g Saints so is the word in the originall and are any saved by Christ but Saints you hold all we some Infants dying in their Infancy are saved by Christ 4. Paul here undertakes nothing less then the dashing Infants-believers out of the number of Saints or Church-members The universal particles ALL and EVERY one must be restrained as was said to the scope and subject matter e.gr. All the Saints salute i. e. All that were with him at the writing of this Epistle as appears by this very Scripture which you bring Phil. 4.21 22. All the brethren salute you And so salute EVERY Saint i. e. That is capable of such salutations So that your major is not proved by this Scripture at all SECT 15. H. H. p. 71. If children are not concerned in these salutations then they are not visible Saints in Christ nor visible members of his body the Church c. For the text saith plainly Phil. 4.21 Salute EVERY Saint Reply 1. As to that they are Saints in Christ I have spoken to even now 2. The Scripture no where mentions visible Saints or visible members Must we be still troubled with your unwritten traditions 3. If you might as well conclude that Infants are no creatures for to shoot in your bow the Text saith plainly Mar. 16.15 Preach the Gospel to EVERY creature and that birds and beasts and plants c. are not creatures For the text saith plainly Col. 1.23 The Gâ—spel was preached to EVERY creature which is under heaven or that the Jews Infants were not câ—iâ—dren of Israel For the text saith plainly Numb 36.8 EVERY one of the children of Israel shall keep himself SECT 16. H. H. p. 71 72. There are many probable Arguments remaining but the answers to them take much with those that set their Faith in other mens wisedoms and not in the power and wisedom of the Word of God 1 Cor. 2 4 5. But I shall omitt them Because these twelve are undenyable c. Onely I will give you one probable Argument out of Mat. 18. 15 16 17. Reply 1. You said your 12 and last Argument p. 70. How is that your last if many or but one more bee in your budget or were they demonstrative and these probable what probable after demonstratives or were all the former at best but probable not to me but to you whose faith is built on more probabilities 2. If it might be made manifest then it seems it i. e. your Tenent is not yet made manifest to the impaâ—â—â—ll Reader 3. If you know many seeming Answers would bee made to them how could you imagine none would be made to these 12. 4. I know not who those are you rave upon except perhaps your poor deluded Proselytes who pin their faith on your sleeve and take hand over head all for Gospel which you say Onely this I know you abuse Scripture again For the words are â— Cor. 3.5 That your faith should not stand in the wisedom of men but in the power of God Will you bee still at your old Trade of ADDING Take heed of the plagues you threaten others with 5. You may now find by experience the vanity of your confidence there Aâ—guments of yours are not onely deny-able and damnable also bear with the word but truly denyed and justly damned too 6. For Mat. 18. You have SIN instead of trespass which though perhaps all one yet you should not chop and change at pleasure aâ— you have left AS For you say to thee an Heathen whose son are you now p. 42. And for the three Arguments you draw from this text there is more in the conclusion then in the premisses which heretofore hath been a great fault in Argumentation And in the end you seem to grant that the word WHOLE Church is not in the text why then did you put it into your third particular but that you had a mind to cozen your Reader Indeed by the Church here is to be understood the Church-guides as before out of Act. 8.1 as appears by the eight and ninth verses Whatsoever ye shall bind c. Whatsoever ye shall loose c. If two of you shall agree So that it is as clear as the Sun that the Church here is the Assembly of the Ministers and Elders of the Church And then your threefold cord is as easie broken as that was by Samson 7. To conclude in generall for these Arguments which are thirteen to the dozen let the Reader observe There is not one word of Church-member or Church-member-ship in any one of the Scriptures cited Yet Mr. Hag. would bear us in hand that he holds nothing but what is expressed in the Scriptures Where is your written word for your belief in this very point under debate 2. Because you import that you put but little confidence in your probable Arguments I had thought to have left them as I find them but least you and yours should crow I have given some brief Animadversions and would let you understand that it were very easie to find our without vanity be it spoken many dozens of Arguments in Moses and the Prophets that might conclude as probably against the Church-membership of the Old Testament-Infants as any you have or can bring against childrens Church-membership in the New And as easie to bring multitudes of Argumemts out of the New Testament that might as probably conclude against the salvation of any Infants so dying as any you bring against the Church-membership or Covenant-state of Christians Infants Though you profess your perswasion of the salvation of ALL Infants so dying yet by your way of Arguing ALL Infants should not only be cast out of the Church but out of salvation too CHAP. XIV Of the Disciple-ship of INFANTS SECT 1. H. H. p. 73. I proceed to prove in opposition to M. Baxter and M. Cooks Arguments that Infants are not cannot be Christ's Disciples My first Argument is from Mat. 28.19 Teach all Nations c. The plain English of which M. Baxter himself confesseth to be Make Disciples c. From whence I argue thus If those Disciples which Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize must be first
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
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
New Testament for observing a Sabbath giving thanks at Meals praying with our families baptizing of women giving them the Supper baptizing several sorts or degrees of men as Kings Queens Lords Citizens Husbandmen c. Will the Anabaptists therefore do none of them To this purpose saith Mr. Cook a) Font uncovered p. 28. and Mr. Baxter b) Plain Scripture proof for Infant-baptism p. 3 4 8. but I answer This reasoning is the life of all your Religion for without it they have nothing to say as they themselvs confess neither do they know how to delude poor souls which desire to make the Scriptures their rule and to walk according to what is written but by these sleights c. Reply 1. If your conscience were not feared with an hot iron you durst not have said This reasoning is the life of all our Religion I would have you know the greatest part of our Religion is grounded on expresse Scripture 2. If you would be understood concerning the point under debate I do say and that truly you have nothing to prove your own way of baptizing but what is by consequence from Scripture For you have no expresse command in so many words Go and baptize visible Saints or actual Believers Dip or plunge such in Rivers and Fountains c. which you indeavor to prove by consequences wherein also you are miserably mistaken as I shall hereafter shew What now Is not this reasoning the very life of all your Religion I say the very life of all your Religion wherein you differ from us 3. You your self do as good as confess and you must too whether you will or no that without this reasoning viz. by Consequence you have nothing to say for giving thanks at Meals praying with or in our families giving the Lords Supper to Women baptizing Citizens c. As appears in your pages 12 13 14. For where are these in so many words written in the holy Scriptures Are not you one of those who delude poor souls by these sleights and cunning craftiness of men whereby you lie in wait to deceive See Eph. 4.14 But let us hear your answers in particular SECT 3. H. H. Pag. 11. 1. You abuse us much to say that this is our reasoning that we should do nothing but what we have a command for but we say command or example which last you left out Reply 1. If Mr. Hall abuse you much you may thank some of your own party for the objection is so laid by them which was faithfully laid down by him and fully answered also by him sundry waies But as your manner is with Mr. C. and Mr. B. you catch at a piece of his first Answer and passe by the other two wherein two leavs are spent in silence 2. Let the word Example be put in yet it nothing helps you For 1. Your Argument is false in Form consisting of meer Negatives and so nothing is concluded 2. If you mean expressness of command or example then the major Proposition is false you your self being judg in your own Instances If you mean a command or example by consequence the Minor is false also even in your own judgment and practice SECT 4. H. H. page ibid. 2. We do not deny you All consequences although you are pleased to say we do and accuse us falsly in that But we deny your consequences which you bring to make void written commands and examples That dealing we will by no means allow of to you nor to our selves for in so doing we might soon make all the commands of Christ and examples of the Apostles of none effect by our traditions brought in by such consequences and become such as the Lord speaks of Mar. 7.7 to the 14 Verse Reply 1. Indeed all consequences that make for you you allow and grant but ALL consequences that make against you you disallow and deny is this fair dealing Let the consequence be never so clear from Scripture for Infant-baptism you are sure to deny the consequence and it may be the conclusion too You are not fasly accused here 2. It 's a false accusation and a meer calumny that any of our consequences from Scripture for Infant-baptism make void any written command or example The same commands and examples are binding to us in the same condition we baptize Jews and infidells converted to the faith so that in allusion to that Scripture c) Rom. 3.31 Do wee then make void the law through faith God forbid yea we establish the law I may say Do we by Infant-baptism make void the commands of Christ and examples of his holy Apostles God forbid yea we establish them SECT 5. H. H. same pag. It is to be observed that these men are so taken up with your 1000 unwritten things that they seldome read the holy Scriptures if they did they could not be so ignorant of what is written in them For 1. What if a Sabbath be not spoken of in the N. T. yet it is spoken of in the old But Insants baptism in neither 2. For giving of thanks at meals doth not the Scripture plainly speak Jo. 6.11 Acts 27.35.1 Thes 5.18.3 For family prayer 1 Thes 5.17.1 Tim. 2.8 Now let Infant-Baptism be as plainly proved and we will freely grant it and confesse our sin in disowning it which must be done thus Reply 1. The men vou scoffe at and charge so uncharitably read the holy Scriptures oftner then you do I am sure to better purpose then you read and pervert Jer. 2.12 13. p. 8. 2. You falsly accuse us in saying we confesse that Infant-Baptism is no where spoken of in the old or N. T. it is spoken of as plainly as giving of thanks at meals praying in our families c. according to the texts alledged by you Enough is spoken in the Old Testament d) Dent. 29.10 11 12 13. of Infants being in covenant and of your Church-membership which is not repealed in the New A plain ground for Infant-baptism else the Gentiles should be in a worse condition since Christ's comming then before and the Church of Christ not in a better condition then before 3. M. Hall said There is no expresse command in the N. T. of such particulars mentioned and you your self grant it for the Sabbath and you cannot deny it for the other for though the Scriptures speak PLAINLY of such things yet not EXPRESLY but you cannot distinguish between these 4. Let all rational men judge whether the consequence be not as clear for baptizing Infants from Mat. 28.19 because they are a considerable part of any Nation as for Family prayer from 1 Tim. 2.8 For you say If Paul wils us to pray every where then in his Family so say I If Christ bids us to baptize All Nations then Infants 5. It s too much boldness in you to prescribe how or with what weapon we must fight There are more ways to the wood then one yet you say It must be
you or me secret things belong to the Lord. Deut. 29. Reply 1. You mis-cite Mr. Cook who saith p) Font uncovered p. 1â— Faith OR interest in Christ or the Covenant of grace constitutes c. Not faith and interest in Christ There is a broad difference between a disjunctive and copulative proposition If one should say you are an Anabaptist or a Romish Priest or a Jesuite you would acknowledge this proposition true but if one should say you are an Anabaptist and a Romish Priest and a Jesuite it may be you would say it's false though others think it true Beside you leave out those words viz. or Covenant of grace It s plain you had a design here to deceive For in your p. 22 23. you truly set down the words when you had no purpose to answer them but here you chop and change them all least the words should speak for themselvs as they do apparently You confound those things Mr. Cook doth distinguish who holds that either professed faith or interest in Christ and the Covenant makes one a Christian which last is the case of Infants according to Gods gracious q) Gen. 17.7 Luk. 18.16 Acts 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 grant and declaration In a word They who have true faith have interest in Christ and in the Covenant of grace yet all who have interest in Christ and the Covenant of grace have not actuall faith 2 Now all may see the lameness of your Argument viz. Infants have no interest in Christ because they cannot make it out which makes as much against Circumcision as against Infant-baptism at least is as absurd as if an Infant had no interest in that which is conveighed to him by a deed of gift because forsooth he cannot make it out and in brief it 's as false as that you boldly affirm without any proof viz. All our Infants are baptized into the Church of England unless it be taken with a grain of salt 3. By your saying Very well if any sense can be made of your words you grant that faith and interest in Christ constitutes a Christian Hold you to this and there 's an end of this controversie viz. That Baptisme doth not constitute a Christian For Baptisme is neither faith nor interest in Christ both which may be without Baptisme as you confesse in the penitent Thief and Baptisme may be without either as in Simon Magus and all hypocrites 4. For your Query If by making out c. you mean an infallible discovery of saving Faith and real interest in Christ from communion with him we who are ignorant of mens hearts expect no such making out But if you mean such a discovery of your interest in the Covenant of grace as hath been always accounted sufficient for externall Church-membership it 's sufficiently made out in your Book yea and in that very Chapter r) Deut. 29.10 11 12. you cite and elswhere In a word God's promise and the parents Faith are not such secret things as not belonging to you and me but things clearly revealed in God's Word as the fore-mentioned Scriptures shew SECT 7. H. H. Again you say that joint and orderly profession of Faith and interest in the Covenant doth constitute a Church Very well and is not Repentance and Baptisme an orderly profession of the Faith Doth not the Apostle sâ—â— Å¿) Acts 2.38 Repent and be baptized And is not putting on Christ profession c. Gal. 3.27 Reply 1. Here again is another instance in wronging Mr. Cook for you have lest out these words Font uncovered p. 1. viz. s or God's owning a people to be his in Covenant Now though adult Jews and Gentiles might and ought to make profession of their Faith and Interest in the Covenant for themselvs and theirs also according to the Tenor of the Covenant yet Infants it 's granted could not make such a profession for themselvs But God 's owning them for his people is an Authentical declaration of their interest in the Covenant according to the fore-named and other places of Scripture 2. If Repentance and Baptism be an orderly profession of Faith then not Baptisme alone and if so Then Baptism doth not constitute a Christian For the cause must not be partial but total which compleats the effect 3. Repentance and Baptism are not of the like necessity though you conjoin them Without Repentance adult people cannot be saved no such thing can be truly said of Baptism If you take them severally that Repentance is a sufficient profession in some and Baptism in others then Infants that cannot repent may make a sufficicient profession of Christ 4. Though the use of and submission to Baptism is a part of Christian profession yet not exclusively to other duties as the use of the Word Praier Lord's Supper c. which yet do not constitute a Church-member but presuppose Church-membership onely let it be remembred That as the professed Repentance of the wicked Jews and Gentiles is a profession of their interest in the Covenant and a declaration of their right to Baptism which is a sign of Church-membership So God's owning Believers Infants is no lesse a declaration of their right to Baptism wherein Church-membership is sealed 5. You need not prove that Baptism is a part of our profession of Christ we grant it is an Ordinance of Christ in the observation of which among others Christ is professed but that it is the whole or onely or first profession of Christ whereby a Christian is constituted is not yet proved by you 6. The Apostle doth not say Gal. 3.27 have put on Christ in or by Baptism that is your Glosse put on the Apostles text The Galathians might and did put on Christ other waies Though your Baptism might be a sign of it and that in part onely And indeed the Apostles meaning is not that baptisme is properly and adequately but Sacramentally and significatively a putting on of Christ Because 1. else all that are truly baptized should in that very act truly put on Christ but that did not Simon Magus nor any Hypocrite now 2. The Apostle in exhorting baptized Saints to put t) Rom. 13.14 on Christ which is to bee done daily should exhort them to be baptized daily which is absurd 3. We should with the Papists hold that the Sacraments of the N. T. do by the work done confer grace SECT 8. H. H. Consider it again Doth not a man that puts on a garment profess to wear it to all spectators whilst it is upon him So they that put on Christ profess to own him before all men And Mr. Baxter himself calls it A listing engaging Ordinance I hope you will not deny his Doctrine to be Orthodox though you cavil with the Scriptures Now seeing by Baptism we put on and professe Christ it 's evident out of your own mouth that it constitutes a Church or else you must say They are constituted before they put on Christ Reply 1. If
putting on Christ be a profession Then some Infants may professe Christ and so be baptized For if they be saved by Christ as you say surely they put on Christ as a garment i e. passively and so Beza renders it u) Christo induti fuisâ—is Bein Gal. 3.27 have been cloathed with Christ Now by your comparison little children may professe by wearing those garments to all spectators wherewith they are dressed by their mothers or nurses unlesse a little child is not a man contrary to Gen. 4.1 as before 2. What an evil surmise is this That we will own Mr. Baxters Doctrine though we cavil with the Scriptures For cavilling with and wresting the Scripture I leave them to you who are old-excellent that way Mr. Baxter I acknowledge to be a pious and learned Minister yet I own his Doctrine here and elswhere no further then it is agreeable to Scripture and I believe Mr. Baxter would not have it otherwise 3. It 's not evident either out of Mr. Cook 's mouth or yours that baptism doth constitute a Church or Church-member The eleven Apostles did put on Christ and yet we read not one word of their being baptized SECT 9. H. H. p. 25. You say that Baptism is a sign or pledge of peoples admission into the Church Well Then it follows that they are not in before to any man's sight and if not in the Church much less constituted and established Church-members Reply 1. That follows not e. g. The Sheep which a man hath bought may be known to be his before he set on them his mark which may further signifie their relation to him and his owning of them but that doth not constitute his right to them A Servant may be truly hired before he receive an earnest which yet doth not constitute him such a man's servant Abraham was in Covenant with God and known to be so before he was circumcised The Lord's Supper is a sign and pledge of peoples admission into the Church and yet were in it before which sufficiently declares the vanity of your Argument 2. In that you take Constituted for Established it appears pears you neither know what is meant by Constitution in its proper signification nor indeed what you your self means I thought at fiâ—st you meant by constituting a Church the giving of its first being but here you take it for Establishing Surely you might with better reason say That Chuâ—ches are constituted by the Lord's Supper for this more properly is a sign and seal of Establishment in the Church then Baptism is SECT 10. H. H. You say The Thief on the Cross was saved without Baptism I Answer We deny it not For he declared openly his Faith in Christ and owned him when he was disowned almost of all which shews he would have been baptized had he been at liberty Therefore the Lord accepting the will for the deed v) 2 Cor. 8.12 saith to him This day thou shall be with me c. But what makes this for the baptizing of Infants c. It proves that little babes might be saved though unbaptized for they can profess no Faitg nor confess no sin neither hath Christ required them to obey any command before they understand and believe the Gospel * Rom. 14.23 For whatsoever is not of Faith is sin But you say we do not rightly apply that Scripture and why Because it spoils your practice But doth not the word Whatsoever include all matters and duties wee owe to God Cannot the Scriptures be in quiet for you But because this offends you we will give you another x) Heb. 11.6 Without Faith it is impossible to please God Reply 1. In that you grant the penitent Thief was a Church-member and that visibly though unbaptized you clearly yield the cause viz. That Baptism doth not constitute a Church-member For what doth constitute a Church-member is necessary to the being of a Church-member But Baptism is not necessary to the being of a Church-member Therefore it doth not constitute The Major is clear by the nature and Definition of that which constitutes any thing the Minor you grant in the instance of the Thief and I hope you will not deny the Conclusion any more 2. You shew what a miserable Disputant you are in saying What makes this for the baptizing of Infants The question is not here about Infant-baptism but about constitution of Churches which you assert to be done by Baptism and that y) Font uncovered p. 1. book denies and brings this very instance which you deny not and therefore was very pertinent to the by question of constituting Church-members 3. M. Cook hath dealt more honestly with this Text then you have done with Jerem. 2.12 13. p. 8. and many more For hence we prove against Papists and others who hold an absolute necessity of Baptism to Church-membership and salvation that even Infants may be saved and must be owned members of the Church being born of Church-members though they die in their Infancy without baptism Thus you and they being of the same judgment are confuted together by this instance of the Thief 4. Seeing you grant that Infants by this example may be saved without Baptism I pray you consider whether it will not follow unanswerably To whom salvation belongs now to them the sign and seal of salvation belongs But to Infants you grant salvation belongs now therefore baptism also the sign and seal of salvation For it 's said z) 1 Pet. 3.21 Baptism saveth Again as the Thief on the Cross being in a state of salvation had a right to baptism so Infants of believing parents being in a state of salvation as you grant have right to baptism 5. Those Scriptures alleged by you are impertinent you do but still more pitifully intangle your self and abuse the Scriptures but not at all spoil our practice or judgment For though the word whatsoever a) As the word All is to be restrained to the matter treated of 1 Cor. 6.12 so is the word Whatsoever Mat. 7.12 and here also may be taken so as to include all sinful matters which cannot be done in Faith and so are sins and all external duties which though conjoined for the matter yet not done in Faith become sins in the doer yet the Apostle in Rom. 14.23 speaks most properly of things in their own nature indifferent which God hath neither commanded nor forbidden and expresly of meats yea such kind of meats as God hath left free to be eaten or forborn Now mark the vanity of your own reasoning Infants must not bee baptized because they want Faith for whatsoever is not of Faith is sin and without Faith it 's impossible to please God Like this Infants must not be fed because they want Faith for whatsoever is not of Faith is sin and without Faith it 's impossible to please God 2 The latter sentence in Heb. 11.6 is spoken of Enoch who lived long before Abraham and makes as
And ye have added the word Church to Acts 2.41 and the Condition of Faith c to Acts 2.39 Many more instances might be given 4. I confess all adding to the Word is if it may be so called not simply forbidden For then all Annotations on the Bible or Expositions on any Text should be unlawful which concludes you as well as us but all Additions for words or meaning contrary to the Word according to that usual saying by way of Sarcasme d) Benedicta Glossa quae corrumpit textum Blessed is that Glosse which doth corrupt the Text Now if we are guilty of such a crime it remains on you to prove it your calumnie to this purpose hath been discovered in your page 11. SECT 29. H. H. p 41. You would make us believe that what is written is not able to inform us aright but you must add or take from it at your pleasure and those additions or substractions you call the meanings and reasons of the Word of God But I shall prove that the Word of God alone is able to make us wise to salvation without the adding to or taking from 2 Tim. 3.15 16 17. Jam. 1.21 Acts 20.32 Reply 1. Would we make you believe so c. This is one of those evil surmizings of yours which is condemned in 1 Tim. 6.4 2. You prove that the Word of God is able to make us wise unto salvation you are very good at proving that which none of us denies But 3. The Scriptures alleged by you do not prove what you undertake For where is the word Alone in any of these Texts Is not this one of those Additions contrary to the fore-named Scriptures SECT 30. H. H. And now seeing the holy Scriptures are able to do all these things I will boldly and safely conclude that we have no need of your reasons and senses to help thèm but you have need to help your reasons and senses by the holy Writings or else you will be one of those insensible unreasonable men e) 2 Thes 3.2 who have not Faith and how can you have faith Joh. 5.44 And do not you receive honour one of another when you prefer one anothers words above the Words of GOD c Reply 1. You will boldly and safely conclude you should have said boldly and falsly and then you had hit it 2. By drawing such a conclusion you put your self into the number of those unreasonable men For what an unreasonable reasoning is this The Scriptures are able to make us wise to salvation Therefore we have no need of sense and reason Besides Vatablus translates the f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek word Absurd men and are not you such an one in denying the Conclusion in a publick Disputation The Syriack Insolent and who save the Quakers trample on godly Ministers with scorn and reviling more then you à lapide of no settled abode but as vagrants and vagabonds and do not you wander from one Country to another from one place to another to subvert souls and trouble the peace of Christians Our English renders it and you read it Vnreasonable and are not you one of them whom no reason though never so clearly grounded on the Word will satisfie Nay what an unreasonable thing is it that you must allow your self Consequences for the proving of your Tenents and disallow all our Consequences brought to prove infant-baptism 3. The close of this Section of yours is a meer calumny we do not prefer one anothers words above God's Word and the Scripture brought to prove it is impertinent SECT 31. H. H. pag. 42. Whereas you say wickedly that if we have the words of God without the meaning and reason we have no proof Answ I am sure I may conclude that if we have your words and meanings and reasons without the Word of God we have no proof that we may safely trust For Rom. 3.4 Jerem 17.5 And thus your folly is manifest c. Reply 1. Any Adversary may be easily answered with saying You say wickedly but you have not proved yet that Mr. Baxter saith wickedly as to the Position in hand 2. Mr. Baxter saith truly and holily That if we have the words of God without the meaning and reason we have no proof E. g. You have the words of God in Jer. 2.12 13. g) Pag. 8.9 but without the true meaning and reason as you do bring them with impudence and confidence enough and yet we have no proof our of that text against Infants-baptism or Fonts 3. We may more honestly and in the fear of God conclude That if we have the Word of God with your meaning and reason and not the Lord's we have no proof that we may safely trust E. g. You bring us the Word of God 1 Tim. 2.12 for Womens preaching provided that they usurp not authority over their husbands p. 64. where I shall make your folly manifest 4. You may now honestly and in the fear of God conclude That having God's Word with the true meaning and reason you have proof sufficient on which you may safely trust because nothing is affirmed by us but what is confirmed by the Word of God 5. The rest is not worthy of a Reply unlesse I may say you have made Mr. Baxter's folly manifest as he did confute Bellarmine in one word saying Robert Bellarmine thou liest SECT 32. H. H. pag. Ibid. To your proof The Divel used the words of God to tempt Christ Answ Doth it follow that because the Divel and wicked men do sometimes use the Word of God to deceive with That therefore the Saints must not use it to make them wise to salvation Reply 1. Which of us ever said so you do but fight with your own shadow and so let it vanish SECT 33. H. H. You much mistake the matter The Divels deceit did not lye in bringing the Scriptures but in adding to and taking foâ—m Compare Psal 91.11.12 with Mat. 4.6 and Luke 4.9.10.11 Where the Tempter added Cast thy self down and at any time and left out in all thy waies And yet Mr. Baxter takes the Divels part and saith The Divel used the words of the Scriptures to Christ But this is but a small fault with you for you have learned to take the same leave your self as I shall now make it appear Reply 1. You mistake the matter and Mr. Baxter too for he made no mention of the Divel's deceit or wherein it lies but that the Divel used Sripture words without the meaning and reason Though I deny not but the Devils design was to deceive Christ if it had been possible 2. What though the Divels deceit did lie in adding to and taking from the Scriptures I freely acknowledg yet were not those Scripture words which he made use of viz. He shall give his Angells charge over thee to keep thâ—â— and in their hands they shall bear thee up least thou dash thy soot against a stone This confirms what
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
Indeed it may seem strange that the Land of Canaan should be given to Christ Gen. 15.18 But the Apostle so interpreting it you and I must believe it though perhaps we cannot satisfactorily explain it yet for the Readers instruction I conceive that as the Evangelists and Apostles do unfold many mysteries wrapped up in sacred Oracles that we perhaps could never have thought on without their explication e.g. ministers maintenance 1 Tim. 5.18 with Deut. 25.4 and Elias praier Jam. 5.17 18. with 1 King 17.1 and 18.42 and many more instances so God would have us know that as to us Christians *) 2 Cor. 1.20 all promises are yea and Amen in Christ exhibited so to the Israelites in Christ to be exhibited and that they could not have right to that earthly Canaan much lesse enjoy it by Covenant least of all the heavenly kingdom shadowed thereby but by Christ that according to the Flesh was to be born of Abraham's seed whose humane nature had then no existence but that person in whom the humane nature should subsist was in being before to whom the Father committed the disposal of this inheritance c. in which respect it 's said I have given Gen. 15.18 SECT 5. H. H. p. 56. I wonder how the Preachers of the Church of England dare affirm That Believers children are in Covenant before believing by virtue of their parents Faith and yet they hold that God did hate and had reprobated Esau before he was born or had done good or evil c. Reply 1. You need not wonder if you will consider the distinction even now hinted of being in Covenant viz. Externally thus all that profess acceptance of the covenant are by God's grant with their children in covenant and internally so as to partake of the saving benefits of the covenant Thus none but those who are circumcised in heart are in covenant This distinction is none of our coyning but obvious in Scripture To go no further then your instance of Esau who was in covenant outwardly though not inwardly for he was circumcised as well as Jacob because of God's command Gen. 17.10 11 12. where parents circumcising their seed is called a keeping of God's covenant and circumcision a token of the covenant and the omitting of it a breaking of his covenant and yet he was hated of God Rom. 9.12 13. before he had done good or evil And when he was come to age x) Heb. 12.16 17. he was an hypocrite and prophane person and so wanted the inward efficacy of the Covenant The children of Believers may be in covenant then externally though reprobated externally Rom. 11.1 2. where it's evident all Israel were his people in covenant outwardly but onely his Flect whom he fore-knew his people in covenant internally 2. I wonder rather that you should hold that God did not hate Esau before he had done good or evil Are not you one of those y) Your p. 53. Qu. 6. that deny faith in part of the Scripture for it is so written Rom 9 11 13. Here again you smell too strong of the Arminian cask who deny peremptory or personal reprobation of any 3. Mr. B. and Mr. C. have weighed you and your principles in the ballance of the Sanctuary and have found you and them too light and they do not marvel that you confound your own principles and other mens too for want of a Scripture-distinction SECT 6. H. H. Again If Believers children be in covenant because they are believers children then grace comes by Generation and not by Regeneration which is absurd Reply We do not say Believers children are in covenant because Believers children but because God hath made a covenant with the faithful and their seed much lesse do we say that the inward blessing of the Covenant is given to anâ— because believers children though we grant it an effect of God's favour or grace that those which are born of parents in covenant are externally in covenant as born of such by virtue of God's promise Least of all do we say That grace i. e. the favour of God comes by generation or regeneration either That any are born visible and external Church-members is a fruit of God's meer common grace or favour that any are made members of Christ by Regeneration and indued with true holiness is a fruit of his peculiar grace but neither Generation nor Regeneration the cause of grace properly taken SECT 7. H. H. If they be in Covenant by virtue of their believing parents then all the world ever since righteous Noah must needs be in Covenant for they and we all came of him Reply 1. It follows not Noah's sons presently Apostatized from their father's God and so did the greatest part of the other families Of Ishmael and Esau though born of godly parents and so they did cast themselvs out of Covenant 2. If parents dedicate their children to the true God whom they own and bring them up in the true Religion which they profess and become not Apostates to Idolatrie Atheism and Hethenism they and their children are externally at least in covenant But if they so Apostatize they cast themselvs and their children out of covenant who so remain till by the Gospel they are brought back again into covenant else the faith of one parent continuing in the faith intitles the child to federal holiness according to God's Word and promise 1 Cor. 7 14. SECT 8. H. H. But Mr. C. saith in his Font Uncovered pag. 45. That he doth not hold falling from the inward efficacy of grace and true sanctification c. Answ So then it seems by his own confession it is not true and then it must needs be false and it 's well if they fall from false grace and sanctification c. for they that fall from false must needs fall to true as they that fall from true fall to false else they abide as they were Reply 1. Of four answers made by Mr. C. to a second Objection you have snatch at one for your advantage as you think and passe by all the other which you could not reply to Cunningly done 2. That very one singled out by you discovers as your strange humour to pick quarrels so your miserable impotency to overthrow the truth For these very words you cite hold forth the distinction of being outwardly under the Covenant of Grace which is common to the whole visible Church Elect and Reprobate and the partaking of the inward efficacy of grace which is peculiar to the effectually called which distinction turns your charge into meer smoke 3. The Arminians argue in their writings a) Called scripta Antisynodalia just as you do yet the consequence is as sensless as the former For there is no necessity of falling from false grace to true c. For they may and oft do fall to open wickedness which is no very good fall though you say b) 2 Pet. 2.20 21 22. it 's well if
seed and his blessing on their off-spring And he declares e) Isa 65.23 Psal 37.26 their off-spring are blessed and that the kingdom of heaven belongs to them f) Mat. 19.14 c These and the like things are not said of the children of unbelievers Therefore some difference sure 4. Yet no children are innocent absolutely but comparitatively as David was if his prayer was heard Psa 19.13 So I shall be innocent from the GREAT transgresion and Abner and Amasa were not without sins yet their blood is termed innocent blood g) 1 Kin. 2.31 32. so those children in Psal 106. were innocent as to actuall sin and in respect of those that murdered them but not free from originall sin nor spotlesse before God For had they been altogether without sin they could not have dyed Joh. 14.3.4 Psal 51.5 Rom. 5.12 14 18. and 6.23 Ephes 2 3 I say God in equity could not take away their lives if they were simply without all sin or else God iâ— cruelâ— in punishing as the places you bring seem to prove which is prodigious blasphemy 5 How is Scripture abused how impertinent is your proof man must not destroy the innocent Exod. 23 7. Prov 6.16 17. Therefore God will not Our Divines hold that God by his perogative may h) Joh. 9.12 with 2â— 3 annihilate an innocent person yea lay what evills he please as on Christ who in himself was every way innocent without any wrong to the creature and were not the Sodomites and their children i) Josh â— 24 Achan and his children punished and that without any injustice by the Lord and how many children were drowned in Noah's deluge 6. To return to Psalm 106. Those children were children of persons externally in Covenant though wicked yet not dis-covenanted for after severe corrections he is said to remember his covenant for them verse 45. 7. What you say in the rest of this p. is not at all pertinent to this Argument and therefore I passe the same by only with soâ—â—e brief animadversions in the generall we have here 〈◊〉 bundl of Arminianism or refined Pelagianism First a tacite denying or at least a sleighting k) See c. 10. ans to the 7. 〈◊〉 qu. of originall sin contrary to Scripture and experience Secondly none shall be condemned for Adam's transgression contrary to Rom. 3.23 with 5.18 19 Thirdly originall sin doth not deserve eternall death but onely temporal what other construction can be made of your words though they must all dye for Adam's transgression yet c. contrary to Rom 6.23 Fourthly In such little babes there is no Law contrary to Rom. 7.1 with 5 12. Fifthly no transgression can be imputed to them how then do they dye as you confesse for Adam's sin with a pitifull contradiction is this Sixthly None shall be judged according to originall sin contrary to Rev. 20.12 SMALL and great stood before God who were judged according to their works And if Adams transgression be every mans work save Christ's then Infants shall be judged accordingly or if for the effect then much more for the cause which is as bad if not worse you harp on the word DONE in 1 Cor. 5.10 I find no such thing in that Scripture when you correct your quotation you shall have a solution In the mean time it looks very suspitiously when the creature is more mercifull then the Creator as the pitifull Arminians seem to bee if you would take that advice you give to M. B. c. viz. Seriously consult Scripture your wonder would not bee for nine days but I hasten to your next p. SECT 3. H. H. p. 61. God hath hath one way to save men and women and another to save Infants as Rom. 5.18 whence I conclude that Infants which fell in Adam without any actuall sin or knowledge of Adam's transgression even so they dying in their Infancy c. are saved by virtue of Christ's death without any actuall faith or knowledge of Christs obedience or else it is not EVEN SO as Rom. 5.18 saith Reply 1. So then you positively assert that all Infants dying in their Infancy c. are saved by Christ c. Rom. 5.18 But 1. Here is no expresse mention made of Infants or their fall in Adam or any actuall sin or of knowledge of Adam's transgression or of their salvation by Christ's death or of their actuall faith or knowledge of Christ's obedience Here therefore is no plain proof for your assertion All the particulars fore-named are unwritten traditions additions to the Scripture take heed lest those plagues you would scare others with so often become your own portion 2. The word ALL must be taken largely or restrictively not the former For then all men women and children within and without the Church shall be saved for justification of life upon all men implies so much Now it 's impossible that those who are truly justified l) Rom. 8.30 32 34. c. should fall short of glorification If you mean as your words imply that all in their Infancy were justified though after by sinning they may perish that is repugnant to the fore-named Scripture nor restrictively For neither the woâ—d nor context admit such an exception Indeed there is a kind of universality of those that are partakers of justification of life i. e. All they that receive abundance of grace c. verse 17. i. e. All the Elect Christ's sheep regenerate and sanctified ones But where is it proved that all Infants even of Heathens so dying are such Nay it 's denyed by you 3 How can you satisfie your self with this one Scripture from whence you draw no Argument but this else it is not even so as Rom. 5.18 saith i. e. either your opinion is true or that Scripture is false But as you know that comparisons do not run on four seet so you will not yield to many Scriptures with Arguments deduced from them though never so clearly and strongly for the proof of Infant Baptism Is this impartiall dealing will you have Infants even of Heathens saved here by consequence And shall not â—e have Infants even of Christians baptized by consequence from Mat. chap. 28. verse 19. 4. I have heard of one that held universall Redemption of all from originall sin and that therefore Infants even of Heathens while such are in God's favour which I think is your opinion I am sure it is of some of your Proselytes in these parts and thence concluded that such Infants were to be baptized if parents would permit and if the Antecedent be granted which you do the consequent cannot be denyed by any but by him that absurdly did and will deny the conclusion For who can deny the seal of Redemption to them who are acknowledged to have interest in Redemption by Christ's blood 5. I will not determine what the Lord may do by prerogative neither must I believe or assert for a truth any more then his Word
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
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
book I heartily return SECT 33. H. H. p. 104. Your eighth Argument followeth viz. Because the Anabaptists way and practice is such as hath been still branded and pursued with God's eminent judgments but never evidently with his blessings Therefore not likely to bee of God Answ By this Argument the Amorites were the children of God for they enjoied Canaan four hundred years and the Israelites were not the children of God for they were in bondage and misery Christ and his Disciples were branded for Hereticks c. Joh. 7.34 as you brand us but do you say they were not God's people Reply 1. You are all the Country wide Mr. Baxter spoke of God's branding and you of man's branding The Reader may see your answer is not to the purpose 2. The Israelites were oppressed in Egypt Christ and his Apostles persecuted yet God evidently followed them with his blessings They had Sun-shines as well as showers beams of mercy as well as clouds of misery The Israelites the more they were afflicted f) Exod 1.12 the more they multiplied and the more Christ his Apostles and Church were persecuted the more the Gospel flourished g) Phil. 1.12 3. a strong argument h) Graecam Philosophiam si quis Magistratus pâ—ohibuerit eaâ—tatim perit at Doctrinam Christianam oppugnant reges terrae tamen crescit Dâ—vn in Col â— 6 ex Clemente of the truth of the Gospel But the Anabaptists were never attended with any evident blessing of God but rather eminent judgments of God How hath this opinion been visibly blasted Had it been a plant of God's own setting he would have made it flourish in spite of opposition The Lilly hath grown in the midst of Thorns Thus you see your parallel is not right and therefore your answer is wrong SECT 34. H. H. The Prophet had like to stumbled at the prosperity of the wicked and to have said that they were God's people Psal 73.3 4 5. But you so stumble and fall as to speak evil of God's people because of their sufferings Reply That the prosperity of the wicked and adversity of the godly is a strong temptation to Atheism i) Cum rapianâ— mala fata bonos Solicitor aullos esse putare does Ovid I confess But you say and not prove that you are the people of God Thus did your forefathers the Donatists thus doth every Sect as Socinians Antinomians Arminians Quakers Ranters c. style themselvs the people of God till you prove the Anabaptists God's people I shall look on those judgments wherewith they are branded as on the fire and brimstone which fell on Sodom SECT 35. H. H. p. 104 105. You say further the Anabaptists hindred the Gospel in Germany there be few Divines of note who do not bear witness of it did live idly forsake their wives and children abounded with abominable lusts c. Nor can any man shew you one of the Anabaptists who is not blemished with some of the fore-named wickednesses c. Answ Now by this time I hope you have vented your deadly poison against the Anabaptists but if all this were true which is not yet it seems M. Baxter's Religion is so tottering that it must be underpropped with the Anabaptists failings or wickedness of those who have apostatized from us as if none of us were free Reply 1. Your reviling of M. Baxter will not serve your turn you are now at the Bar and now or never must plead the Anabaptists cause in the present charge drawn up But it may be this was the Preface to the Plea and you onely spit that you may speak out and what you speak is not an answer but a rambling discourse made up of fraud and folly 2. Your Etes or Spectacles or both are naught when Infant-baptism seemed to you to be Mr. Baxter's Religion Part it is but not all he looks upon it as an Ordinance yet comparatively k) See Insâ—it Bâ—p 10 11 of inferior consequence It 's truer that Anabaptists place their Religion chiefly in Re-baptizing and are gone so far in Popery that they make it necessary to salvation and Dipping essential to that Ordinance 3. Were this his Religion and ready to fall yet it needs not to be propped by the rotten posts of the Anabaptists weakness or wickedness such are rather fit to build a Babel then a Temple This hath stood many hundred years before Anabaptism was dream'd of and I should be ashamed to own the cause were Paedo-baptism onely good because Anabaptism was bad your principles and practices being so vain and vile that they are able almost to justifie any Heresie and to canonize an Atheist Infant-baptism is not onely comparatively but simply just and lawful on Scripture grounds as hath been shewed and therefore we need not the wickedness of your Apostates to support our Religion This Diamond hath a native lustre and needs no such foyl 4. You fillily shift off your charge by saying The worst of men apostatized from you c. Adam's excuse was as good when he laid the fault on Eve for they still mainteined their principle and practice of Anabaptism even when they wrote their blasphemous lines and led their beastly lives So that Mr. Baxter's light received no advantage as is pretended from their darkness That Sun will shine notwithstanding a spitting candle SECT 36. H. H. p. 106. 2. That the Anabaptists hindered the preaching of the Gospel in Germany his proof is nothing but telling us most writers of those times testifie it Answ He might as well have asked his fellow Priests if it had been lawful to take Tithes and he had been sure of their testimony for it as he hath now against the Anabaptists who had rich and potent enemies that wrote those Histories against them Zuinglius disputed with them and could not stop their mouths the Senate banished them c. Such arguments that neither Paul nor Peter nor John could answer Act. 24.5 Reply 1. What other witnesses should be brought but the writers of those times Is not that enough if there be truth in the History or Moral faith in us Would you have Scripture to prove that John of Leiden had three Wives 2. Your scornful term Priests I pass by being on my journey every bark and snarle must not stay me and for the lawfulness of Tythes that shall bee spoken to anon God willing your exception against the witnesses is insufficient for they were the most famous Orthodox Divines in those times and parts viz. Luther Melancthon Zuinglius Bullinger c. Now let the world judge which is the more creditable your Nay or their Yea and it 's a wonder to me that if those Histories were false neither you nor your brethren have discovered the falsness of them to the world since they are still on every occasion produced against you It 's not your poor evasion Ask your fellow Priests c. will bring you off 3. These potent enemies you say wrote
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
them which cannot be understood and improved without skill in Rhetotorick specially the knowledge of Tropes and Figures is necessary least men affixâ— monsters on the Scriptures as the Anthrapomorphits Transubstantiaries and Consubstantiaries do There is the strongest reasoning and arguing therein and excellent method which cannot be rightly discerned without skill in Logick In a word there are none of the Liberal Arts no part of genuine Philosophie but may be useful and helpful for the more clear and solid understanding of the Scriptures Indeed these Arts and Sciences the Scriptures do not professedly teach but presuppose in those who will be expert in the word of righteousness 6. Must not those gallant Monuments of Learning and piety antient and modern lie without use as to us and be utterly lost as some of you have burnt all your books save the Bible if we have not Learning Indeed you may think it no loss but scorn us for using them though in our private studies yet sure it is great unthankfulness to God and those his instruments pride and sloth in our selvs and injury to the Church if we should wave such helps for the understanding of the Scripture and the state of the Church in several ages and places And tell me what do you think of this your book whether learned or unlearned let others judg Is it worthy to be read or no If no To what purpose was all this waste if yea how can it bee read and understood without humane Learning Though there are a thousand of books besides more worthy to be read then yours Nay the blessed Bible it self is wrested by them that are Vnlearned 2 Pet. 3.16 7. How could you have attained to any knowledge of the Scriptures of which you boast with the Jews Rom. 2.17 18 c. without the help of Humane Learning or have read them translated without it or heard them read as some of you know not one letter in an English Bible without it For I pray is not the learning of the A B C a point of humane learning And yet I am sure you cannot read the Bible without the knowledge of the Letters And if to be able to read and write English be a good gift of God though a small piece of humane learning sure much more to be able to read and understand the Scriptures in some good measure in the Original Languages Nay how could you hear of Jesus Christ and know the meaning of those learned words without humane learning The one being an Hebrew i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word signifying a Saviour the other a Greek word k signifying Anointed 8. Doth not this inveighing against Humane Learning proceed from a three-fold spring Dominus noster Jesus qui liberat nos à peccatis morte inferno Schind Pentaglot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. From Carnal Lusts Jesuites and Satan 1. From Carnal Lusts as 1. Pride which as it is usually accompanied with and cherished by ignorance for such as are proud know nothing 1 Tim. 6.4 but doat about questions and the most knowing the most humble Psal 19.13 1 Cor. 13.12 so who insult over Learning and Learned men more then the ignorant and unlearned Oh how sweet is it to proud Diabolical natures to sit in the Throne and make Learning stand Acts 25.16 as arraigned condemned and presently drawn to execution at their command Though this bee done but in your fancy yet it mightily pleaseth them But because Pride is scarce counted a Lust of the the flesh what say you of ease and sensuality They who have tasted Learning to purpose have found by experience that much study is weariness to the flesh Eccl. 12 13. and the work of the Ministry a painful work when men must give attendance to reading exhortation and doctrine meditate on these things give themselvs wholly unto them c. 1 Tim. 4.13 14 15 16. Now what an easie pleasant life have these who count humane learning so needless that they judg it dangerous and execrable You need take little or no pains for the instruction of the people Nay Mr. Haggar is not ashamed to say Take away humane learning and all men may preach as well as we nay better Is not this the singing of a Requiem But the lust of Covetousness and desire of filthy Lucre is another bitter root of this opinion and practice Though you have the cunning to cite Whore first who knows not that mean Artificers Day-laborers and broken Tradesmen who usually have large Parishes or rather Diocesses who say Sirs you know that by this craft we have our wealth Acts 19. ver 25. have got more by unlearned preaching or railing against Learning then by their Callings and if they follow them too they have two strings to their bow however they need not lay out their moneys on Books on their supposal Secondly from the Jesuits those Emissaries of the Prince of Darkness If the hand of Joab be not yet the head and hand of a Jesuits is in this though not discerned by all Jesuites and Pâ—â—â—â—s know well enough what deadly blows their Kingdom and cause hath received by the sword of the Spirit wiâ—â—â—d by Learned Arms I mean the tongues and pens of 〈◊〉 Learned as well as pious Champions which our Lord Christ â—â—th made usâ— of again and again to rout the Antichristian forces But in decrying Learning and Universiâ—ies you carry on the Jesuites design *) See Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelii by the Provincial Assembly of London p. 62. c. Adam Conizen a politick Jesuite in his Politicks among other things prescribed for the reducing of Popery this is one To banish Learning out of the Common-wealth and that at once if it can conveniently be if not insensibly and by degrees And if you have not learned this subtilty of the Jesuite I pity you if you have borrowed it from Julian r) Speed's History p. 168. Primum vetuit ne Gaâ—iâ—ae sic Christianos â—umcupabat Poericam Rhetoricam aut Philosophiam discorent Theatot l. 3. c. 7. the Apostate who among other designs to root out Christianity forbad Christians the publick Schools and study of the Arts and Tongues Thirdly from Satan who hath a principal hand in this which I think needs no proof beside what hath been said but this His great design is to hinder the glory of God the Kingdom of Christ and the salvation of men he knows all this is done by keeping people from Christ that is done by keeping them from Faith that is done by keeping them from Scripture and the right knowledg of it This will be certainly done if prople be deprived of right Translations and Interpretations of Scripture which must needs be wanting if there be no Learning nor Learned men For it is as possible for people to see the letters and words wherein Scripture was written without open eies or to hear the sound of them without open ears as to understand the