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
seed of Abraham i) Gal. 3.7 9 14 29. and that they are blessed with faithfull Abraham and that the blessing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles and consequently that the covenant whereof Mr. C. spake and not Church-fellowship made with Abraham and the Faithfull under the Gospel is the same for substance being an everlasting covenant Gen. 17.19 Though differing in manner of dispensation by circumcision in the room whereof Bapâ—isme succeeds Col. 2.11.12 It is evident that the same covenant made with Abraham continues to us Christians as is plain also in that wee Gentiles are planted into the true Olive k) Rom. 11.17 from whence the Jews were broken off which is more largely proved in that Book you pretend to answer 3. For proving that they and their children were admitted into Church-fellowship Do you not know that there are 13 Arguments in that Book which you have not answered onely you speak a little to one which how miserably it is done will appear I hope in its proper place In the mean time the truth is M. C. hath done something to which you answer nothing upon the matter CHAP. VII Of Nationall Churches SECT 1. H. H. You Mr. C. seem to prove l) Font uncovered p. 2. a National Church in that the Lord said to Abraham Gen. 22.18 In his seed all Nations should be blessed I answer He doth not say that all of all Nations shal be blessed nor that all of any Nation shal be blessed I am perswaded you think in your conscience some in this Nation are not blessed Reply 1. That Book wherein Mr. C. declares his judgment briefly and you answer largely saith Though wee boast not of Nationall Churches nor is there any necessity that the mention of Nationall Churches should come into this dispute yet we are not ashamed of the name of a Nationall Church But seeing you urge it on us as odious we desire to consider So that Mr. Hag. you might have kept you to the main business and spared your pains about this by-businesse also but that you had a mind to digresse and quarrell 2. You have no cause to think nor doth the holy Scripture say that ALL of ALL Churches or ALL of ANY one particular Church on earth are blessed For cursed hypocrites are ordinarily in the most refined Churches yet that hinders not but all particular Churches may be called Churches and blessed For 3. The Nation of the Jews was confessedly a National Church that whole Nation as being in covenant with God was a blessed Nation Deut. 23.29 Psal 33.12 and 89.15 And yet every particular person in that Nation was not blessed Deut. 27.15 to the end and 28.15 to the end and chap. 29.19.20 These and other Scriptures shew plainly that as the Jewish Nationall Church was a blessed Nation so every blessed Nation is a Nationall Church at least in so considerable a part as may give it such a denomination and though many particular persons therein may be far from blessednesse yet this hinders not such from the name of a blessed Nation and of a people in covenant and that at the Nation of the Jews was blessed first in Abraham's seed So all the Nations of the earth should in some sense bee blessed by being at last brought into the Covenant and Church-state through the same seed of Abraham You need not therefore make your appeal to Master C. conscience 4. I wonder at your opinion in the close of this Section which you apply viz. A penitent Thief c. and Murderer c. may not justly be put to death because he is the Temple of the Holy Ghost c The penitent Thief was blessed you acknowledge him in a saving condition pag. 25. as he acknowledgeth m) In 22.4 he suffers justly and as I think you dare not deny that he was the Temple of the Holy Ghost yea I wonder more that you dare call the execution of such an offender a destruction of the Temple of God not without horrible abuse of Scripture But you began to lispe in the language of Tho. Muntzer s) Sleid. com l. 10. your predecessor against the Christian Magistracy whatsoever you said seemingly to the contrary p. 31.32 SECT 2. H. H. pag. 27. You bring this Scripture Psal 22.27.28 I answer when that day shall come and that Prophecie be fulfilled we will grant it is fulfilled but for the present All Nations do not serve him neither do all in this Nation worship him Peter's words are true n) Acts 10 34. But there are many in this Nation that do not fear God nor work righteousness Therefore no Nationall Church Reply 1. Though I question the fulfilling of your promise for many Prophecies may be fulfilled which you either do not or will not acknowledg and you may take some fulfilled which are not yet your concession is enough that a National Church in the time of the Gospel is no such absurd or strange thing as you and som would make it 2. Albeit this Prophecy is not fulfilled yet it may be in the fulfilling For though all Nations are not brought to a Church-state yet some may be for present and others by degrees successively in Gods due time 3. It is neither proved by you nor indeed can be easily that ALL i. e. the generality in this Nation do not worship God for worship may be taken here in a large sense yet if granted it wil not thence follow that this is no Nationall Church sith even when the Israelites were a Nationall Church they might and did doubtlesse fall short of the true worship of God as much and more then the people of England 4. Your ground whence you infer that we are no Nationall Church is very unsound viz because ALL do not fear God c. Hereby you must not only deny the Jewish Church to have been a Nationall Church but also the primitive Churches and all other particular Churches whether Congregationall or otherwise called to be Churches For in all visible Churches a great part are Hypocrites without the fear of God c. SECT 3. H. H. You say Isa 49.23 Kings shall be thy nursing Fathers c. I answer That it shall be so I deny not but prove you that it is so As for Englands Kings and Queens it 's well known how they would have nursed the Church if they had but had their minds c. Reply 1. It cannot be denied without ingratitude that England hath been blessed with pious Princes who have nursed the Church in this Nation Was not King Edward the sixth a nursing Father and Queen Elisabeth a nursing Mother for instance deny it if you can 2. Your inference is as weak as the former It 's well known how Saul Ahaziah Athaliah Mannasses c. would have nursed the Church if they had but had their minds as you phrase it Therefore the Jews could have no Nationall Church 3. For our siding with Cavaleers c.
2.41 8.12 14.3 wherein we see our selves conformable to the image of Christ and walk according to the Primitive pattern being far from compelling any to be baptized till they can understand what they do and amend their lives c. Reply 1. Those Scriptures cannot be properly applied to us but are wofully misapplied by you Why do you rave of the sign of the Cross which with other Ceremonies groaned under by the godly are removed Or of receiving the mark of the Beast i. e. z) Mode on Rev. 4. p. 76. a subjecting our selves to his Authority and acknowledging him to be our Lord when you cannot but know that yoke hath been happily cast off long since But it seems you had a mind to set the mark of the Beast on us in favour of the Church of Rome for whom you are a Factor But further to shew your error in that misapplication I pray what miracles are done by us As Rev. 13.14 and 18.20 I fear you shew too much the mark of the Beast by your kicking and wincing at and dabling those that are travelling towards heaven 2. You intimate that he who is Rantizâ—d as you scornfully speak is not baptized as if I should say H. Hag. is a man and therefore not a living creature but you acknowledge these 3000 were baptized and it 's most probable they were a) Acts 2.41 Videntur 3000 uno die à paucis Apostolicis non potuisse baptizari si singuli mersi fuissent Cham. 1.4 l. 5. c 2. s 6. rantized onely there 's no mention made of Fonts and Rivers 3. I wonder in what glass you lookt when you could see a Font in Jer 2.12 13. pag 8. and the sign of the Cross in this of the Revel and yet cannot see one plain Scripture for Infant-baptism 4. Were those mentioned in the Acts baptized before as you say we were pag. 24. or were they Church-members Receivers of the Lord's Supper c. as those were whom you re-baptize If not for shame do not say that you see your selvs in the glass of the Gospel more conformable to Christ and the Primitive pattern 5. Though you want the Argument of force which yet you would fain have yet you want not the force of Argument though feigned to compell some ignorant and carnal people whom I could name to be baptized by you 6. I may not forget to make good my charge also that you are a Blasphemer if to blaspheme be to speak evil as it is often rendred in the New Testament b) E g. Jude 10 c. 1 Pet. 4. ver 4. For you say Infant-baptism is of Sathan pag 35. when no Scripture speaks so That it is an invention of the Pope page 15. when it hath been practiced in the Church of Christ before the c) Universa Ecclisia baptismuÌ„ Insantumtenuit antequam intelligeretur quid sibi vellet Regnum Papae aut quicquam de eo auditum esset Cal Iust in Anab p. 478. Pope was born That Mr. B. Mr. C. and other godly Ministers that dissent from you are fools wicked Antichristian c. and that they make Proselytes seven fold more the children of Sathan then they were before p. 38. with a great deal of more filthy stuff disgorged from your rancorous stomach all along your book I say no more but that time is coming that you shall give an account to him that is ready to judge quick and dead 1 Pet. 4 ver 4 5. SECT 27. H. H. pag. 39 40. You say Pos 10. Evident Consequences or Arguments drawn by reason from Scripture are as true proof as the very express words of a Text and if we have the words without the meaning and reason we have no proof at all for the Divel used the words of the Scripture to Christ To all which I Answer Iâ— That Consequences or Arguments drawn from Scripture are as true proofs as Scripture This is but one of your untruths For most certain it is that what the Scripture saith we need not prove by Consequence As Gen. 1.1 3 7 8. And this I do believe without any Consequence And if you will deny it because it is plain Scripture without any Consequence you may if you please but your folly will be manifest as it is to me already Reply 1. You seem here to deny all Consequences when you granted some pag. 11. One of these must be one of your untruths for both members of a contradiction cannot be true observing the laws of a contradiction 2. Must that be an untruth in Mr. Baxter which is a truth in you For you have asserted plain Scripture-proof for giving thanks at Meals praying with our Families Womens receiving the Lord's Supper p. 12 13 14. which are but Consequences and Arguments drawn from Scripture and yeâ— as true proofs as Scripture it self so you judge and I deny not 3. If you mean what the Scripture saith Expresly it 's granted we need not prove by Consequence if otherwise it 's denied Christ himself Mr. Baxter tells you proves the Resurrection by Consequence out of Exod. 3.6 so that you might have spared the quotations out of Gen. 1.1 c. who denies all or any of these But you have a notable faculty to prove that which none of your Adversaries deny 4. If Mr. Baxter c. do believe those Scriptures cited by you and not deny the same then is your folly made manifest in making such an inference as you do SECT 28. H. H. p. 40. Secondly when you say If we have the words without the meaning and reason we have no proof at all This is a most subtill Sophistry much like to that of Satan when he beguiled Eve saving Gen. 3.4 5. which was both a truth and a lie The truth is if we have not God's meaning and the reason why he speaks to us how can we understand as we ought But both are plainly declared to the sons of men by the Word of Truth and so plainly that if you or an Angel from heaven shall add to it or take from it you shall be accursed and he will add c. all which if you do not know read Prov. 30.6 Gal. 1.8 9. Rev. 22.18 Reply 1. Mr. Baxter's expressiâ—n and Satan's are very unlike you acknowledge a truth and a lie in Satan's but you have shewed no lie in M. Baxter's nor indeed can you unless you will also condemne your self 2. If we cannot understand unless we have God's meaning and reason then Mr. Baxter is in the truth viz If we have the Word without the meaning and reason we have no proof at all Shuffle no longer 3. Mr. Baxter knows and hath read those Scriptures menâ—ioned by you but do you read them more seriously and then you may know more clearly whether you be not obnoxious to those plagues and curses for you are guilty of adding to the Word e. g. p 4. you add That forth wilderness in Mark 1.3 4 5.
H. H. p. 47. But though Mr. Baxter confesseth that Christ knew the best reasoning yet he is not content with his reason but adds to it these words If God be the God of Abraham then Abraham in soul is living 2. That God is not the God of the Dead but the Living 3. If Abraham's soul be living then his body must be raised 4. If Abraham's body shall rise then there is a Resurrection c. To which I Answer 1. Mr. Baxter in all these Consequences that he hath drawn hath but darkned the counsel of God spoken by the mouth of Christ Reply 1. The clear light of Mr. Baxter's Consequences hath so dazled your eies that you cannot it seems see the truth 2. How can you without blushing say that Mr. B. hath drawn all these Consequences when Christ q) Mat 22.32 Luk. 20.38 who as you confess knew a good Argument and the right way of Disputing drew and took in the second expresly 3. Because of your former concession and confession and practice too arguing in a Syllogistical way p. 63 c. Christ's Argument beinâ— put into form lies thus Abraham's body shall rise Therefore the dead shall rise The Antecedent is thus proved Abraham's soul is living therefore his body shall rise That Antecedent is proved thus God is not the God of the dead but of the living Therefore Abraham's soul is living But how is this Antecedent proved Thus God is the God of Abraham therefore his soul is living and by consequent the dead shall arise Now if this Antecedent were denied then the plain words of Scripture were denied For these words in Exod. 3.6 were spoken by the Lord long after Abraham's death and the sâ—me Lord saith not I WAS nor I WILL BE but I AM the God of Abraham c. So that now you see these are Christ's Consequences and not Mr. Baxter's onely SECT 44. H. H. 2ly The Resurrection is more plainly proved by the words of Christ without all Mr. Baxter's Consequences as appeareth by the words of the text Luk. 20.35 36 37. Thus Christ himself inplain terms hath proved the Resurrection already speaking plainly of the happiness of those who shall obtain the Resurrection from the dead and then when he had done he concludes That the Resurrection of the dead is so plain that even Moses shewed it at the Bush c. Reply 1. Why do you equivocate and juggle There is no question but to us that place in Luke is a plain proof of the Resurrection but what is this to the Sadduces whom Christ would confute as to their erroneous opinion who held r) Mat. 22.23 There is no Resurrection And without question Christ might have brought plain texts out of the Old Testament to have proved the Resurrection but you know the Sadduces onely acknowledg the five books of Moses to be Canonical Scriptures therefore out of them Christ brings his proof 2. You here lay down the Wasters or else I have lost my understanding and sences For in saying The Resurrection of the dead is so plain that even Moses shewed it at the Bush c. you grant 1. That Christ proved to the Sadduces the Resurrection of the dead by Consequence out of Exod. 3.6 2. That such a kind of proof is plain for you confess even now that Christ knew a good Argument and the right way of Disputing and 3. That somthing is plain in Scripture which is not exprest in so many words and syllables in Scripture For I pray where is the Resurrection of the Dead written in so many words in Exod. 3.6 SECT 45. H. H. 3ly Let Mr. Baxter prove if he can that Christ did draw any Consequences from his own words but left them barely as he spake them as sufficient proof without any of Mr. Baxter's Consequences Reply 1. Yes Christ drew Consequences from his own words The whole Scripture is called the word of Christ (Å¿) Totum Verbum Dei est sermo Christi Davenant in loc Col. 3.16 not onely in regard of the matter but Author also and 2 Tim. 3.16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God Now if Exod. 3.6 be a part of the Scripture and of the word of Christ as certainly it is then Christ did draw some Consequences from his own words SECT 46. H. H. 4ly If Christ had never so many Consequences to prove any thing yet his words were all Scripture and infallibly true So true that whosoever of men or Angells should add to or take from it they are accursed But Mr. Baxter's are none such therefore we weigh them not Reply 1. Are Mr. Baxter's none such What! accursed I believe his words are not accursed whatsoever you proudly say or censure Or do you mean they are not Scripture because you say you weigh them not If Scripture be written as you say p. 45. so they are But I suppose you mean s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy Scripture so indeed they are not and yet notwithstanding those Consequences of his are infallibly true because they are Christs you may do well therefore to weigh them 2. If you mean that Christ's words were all Scripture v.z. which are left upon Record who denies it And all the words that Christ spake on earth were infallibly true for he could not lie or sin in the least but all his words are not written for surely his words were more in number then his deeds all which are not written Joh. 20.30 with 21.21 SECT 47. H. H. 5ly p. 48. Whereas Mr. Baxter saith If we had stood by we would have said to Christ Give us a Scripture that saith the Dead shall rise Answ So Christ did give them two Scriptures though Mr. Baxter is so blind he cannot see them for he tells us Ver. 35. of the world to come and the Resurrection of the Dead in plain terms and ver 37. That the dead are raised Reply 1. A ridiculous shift of him who is or would be counted the Metropolitan Dipper and great Patriarch of the Anabaptists for were these words in vers 35 and 37. written when Christ spake them 2. These are plain proofs to us that the Dead shall rise as you intimate p. 50. but were they to the Sadduces as Mr. Baxter saith which words you very cunningly left out for your own end 3. Christ if he pleased could have brought express texts out of the Old Testament but on the former account he brings his proof against the Sadduces onely out of Exod. fore-named saying in Mat. 22.31 Have ye not read which you take no notice of referring them to read what was written by Moses not to what was then spoken by him to the Sadduces clearly implying that those men stood bound in conscience to have believed the Resurrection of the Dead on the account of those words in Exod. chap. 3. vers 6. 4. Mr. Baxter now is not so blind but he can see your folly made manifest SECT 48. H. H.
AN ANTIDOTE Against HEN. HAGGAR'S Poysonous PAMPHLET ENTITULED The Foundation of the FONT DISCOVERED OR A REPLY Wherein his Audaciousness in perverting holy Scriptures and humane writings is discovered his Sophistry in Arguing against Infant-Baptism Discipleship Church membership c. is detected his Contradictions demonstrated his Cavils against M. Cook M. Baxter and M. Hall Answered his Raylings Rebuked and his Folly Manifested By Aylmar Houghton Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Teacher to the Congregation of Prees in the County of Salop. 2 Tim. 3.6 7 8 9. Of this sort are they which creep into houses and lead captive silly women laden with sins led away with diverse lusts ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the TRVTH Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses so do THESE also resist the TRVTH men of corrupt minds reprobate concerning the Faith But THEY shall proceed no further for their FOLLY shall be manifest to all men as THEIRS also was Meritò debet esse nobis suspectum uicquid ab ANABAPTISTARUM officinâ prodiâ—rit quae tot portenta Fabricata est quotidiè Fabricatur Calv. Psychopannychia p. 476. LONDON Printed for Tho. Parkhust and are to be sold at his shop over-against the great Conduit at the lower end of Cheapside 1653. To the truly honoured and his indeared friend the worshipfull THOMAS HUNT Esq Major of the Corporation of Salop. A praise-worthy Patriot and professed Patron of piety without respect of persons even of all that love the truth in Sincerity Whorthy SIR YOu may censure me for over-much boldness to set to you or use your name in this insuing Treatise for Patronage without your leave or licence but that is Plea sufficient that you did not know it if any danger or disgrace should befall it or it miscarry But the truth of Christ needs no defence for Christ himself will grace his own truth in and for his Saints that love it if they should hold their peace Sir I desire io know no man after the Flesh but after the Spirit and am determined not to know any thing here below but Jesus Christ and him crucified and with that spirituall eye do I desire to look upon you and love you and is the onely motive moving me to make thus bold with you Sir It is the Politick practice of impostors like cunning crafty masking mummers to hide their faces and rattle a boxful of Counters instead of good Gold Silver So these men wind in their erroneous doctrines and counterfeit opinions and then perswade poor silly people it is the pure truth of Jesus Christ And thus have they done with some of my people and by this means brought me upon this unpleasing work constraining mee to shape an Answer to a wrangler and that only for the satisfaction of some of my people and reducing if possible some who are seduced and to confirm the rest in the truth of Christ they have been taught and the rather also because M. Haggar's Book was brought me by one of my own peopl but now a seduced Backslider who left it with me for this very purpose In which Book I find many absurdities falsities impertinencies and Scuâ—â—ilities of and against men better then himself but the Lord rebuke him It may be Sir you have heard of that Noble Moralizers Fable of Amphialus who was challenged to combate with Argalus a Knight of the Sun who when he was prepared with all his Military accoutrements to meet his enemie The wife of Argalus dress'd her self in her Husbands Armour and gave the onset to Amphialus and gave the first charge whom he encounters valiantly and overthrows with a mortall wound in the body But when he opened the Armour viewed his conquest and saw it was the wife of his enemy he could have no comfort of the day because it became not a man so to ruine a woman Such is my case in this work in hand The love of peace is glorious in the Church even among those that differ in opinion But if they wil pâ—â— on the arms of an enemy because they wilfully will be enemies with whom I am challenged to combate for the truth of Christ I cannot help it if they meet with a blow though I glory not in it But I am truly sorry that there should bee any such cause It is not for any evill to their persons but to give a mortal wound to their damnable errors Plutarch tells of Archidamus who being once chosen Arbitrator in a difference betwixt two persons brought them to the Temple of Minerva and there decreed that they should not depart thence till they were agreed I could desire that M. Haggar and his party would agree to come into the Temple of God and bee tryed by the holy Scriptures faithfully explicated and applyed In the mean time I leave it to your charitable censure and pray the favourable acceptation of this testimony of love and thankfulness that I owe and am not able to pay but in prayers for you and all yours who am Your humble servant in the Faith once given to the Saints AYLMAR HOUGHTON Prees From my Study July 12 1658. To the READER I Thought it meet if not my duty to give some account of these ensuing particulars 1. Why M. Cook 's and M. Baxter's Treatises have not been Vindicated before this time sith M. Haggar's Answer such as it is hath been extant and they therein challenged some years since These following considerations might sufficiently justifie their silence 1. The impotency and scurrility of that Answer as is manifest to all iâ—telligent Readers might be a sufficient confutation of it and render it unworthy of any Reply but silence When Rabshakeh rayled blasphemed threatned and boasted The people held their peace and answered them not a word for the King's Commandement was saying Answer him not Isa 36.21 2ly The littleness and almost nothingness of that Answer to those Treatises as will easily appear to the peruser though his work did lye here viz. fully to answer these Treatises which specially M. Cook 's by his Goliah-like challenges he had provoked to come forth to Vindicate the truth against him yet he vainly braggs in his Epistle and in the end of his Book that he hath answered both the one consisting of seven sheets and the other of sixty in eighteen sheets When yet I believe it will appear that not so much as is written in halfe a sheet of M. Cook 's Book hath been taken notice off much less answered to who could judge such a vapour as this a sufficient call to undertake a reply 3ly M. Cook and M. Baxter did not apprehend any of their respective Flock in danger to receive any hurt by M. Haggar's Answer which might be a call to appear against it nor indeed of any other till of late 4ly Their employment through God's mercy hath been so full in the work of the Lord although the Answerer charges all Ministers
with idleness that they had no spare time to bestow on so needless a business there appearing neither cause nor call 2. But why then doth any reply come out at last should not these reasons if valid impose a perpetuall silence on all It is known by some what proud challenges have been made by the Answerer and to me in particular by one of M. Haggar's Proselytes heretofore a seeming friend and sheep of my flock which may and it is to be feared do work much upon some weak persons who may be under a temptation by reason of those big swelling words whom we are bound to pity 2. Yea it 's known that some credulous persons that more regard the confidence of mens speeches then the truth or ground thereof are in actuall danger as thinking thus whosoever hath the last word goes away with the victory for whose sake somthing should be done to undeceive them if it may be 3. It is as wel known that this crazy body of mine is on the declining hand I am bound to patch up this old cottage till my Landlord calls for the Tenant which hath kept this reply on my hand longer then I intended And I thought I was bound to do him this service before I put off this my Tabernacle which in all probability will not be long 3. For the manner of replying 1. I shal not render at least in design desire Reproach for reproach nor reviling for reviling If any think they have the best cause and conscience that can scold and rail most for me let the Answerer have the honour with them I shall not envy it I desire to follow the example of Christ who when he was reviled reviled not again c. 1 Pet. 2.23 Yet I acknowledge it 's good to take notice of those Reproaches which in M. Haggar's Answer are belch'd forth against Ministry Ministers Ordinances and Churches of Christ knowing that God hath a speciall hand of providence therein calling to self-examination humiliation supplication and reformation Shimei cannot curse unless God bid him 2 Sam. 16.10 11 12. Nor can Rabshekah rail or Sennacherib blaspheme but some good use is to be made thereof specially for quickning to prayer Isa 34. ver 3 4 14 15 16. Nor can the Devill vex Job but he can acknowledge God's hand in it Job 1.21 and if by occasion of his suffering and smart he spake unadvisedly he will acknowledge himself vile lay hands on his mouth and abhor himself in dust and ashes Job 40.4 and 42.6 2. Yet if any thing be materiall in his Answer I shall fully Reply to it not willingly passing by any thing that may seem to make against those Treatises or for the Answerer 3. Yet I shall avoyd tediousness being as brief as I may without prejudice to the truth and doing that for M. Haggar which he promised to do in his Epistle but performs not in his book viz. to lay aside SVPERFLVOVS and NEEDLESS WORDS And I assure the Reader I am not conscious to my self of wronging M. Haggar purposely when I am constrained to abbreviate his WORDY Answer 4. To whom and for whose use is this Reply made Even to M. Haggar and his followers if they be not such as God and Christ hath warned us not to bee meddled with Prov. 9.8 Mat. 7.6 which I fear as to most of them though some perhaps may be engaged that way through ignorance and so capable of mercy But however it is in the behalfe of those weak ones who in sincerity and love to the truth desire to know God's will and follow it who being staggered with the confidence of the Answerer and unsettled with the long silence as to matter of reply are to be pitied ond relieved in this case knowing that Satan the Prince of darkness and their own naturall darkness and corruption may take occasion by such persons Pamphlets and practises as are abroad to disquiet their Spirits to draw them into crooked paths specially those within my own speciall charge of whom I travel in birth till Christ be formed in them and for whose Souls I am bound to watch as one that shortly must give account Thus have I given you the reasons of the publication of this Treatise If thou shalt find any help for thy confirmation in the faith of Christ give God the praise and forget not to put up one prayer for The meanest of the Servants of the Lord Jesus Christ A. H. WEe Ministers of the Gospel whose names are subscribed do certifie that we have perused the Reply of our Reverend Brother M. Aylmar Houghton Entituled an ANTIDOTE c. and do judge it in the main to bee solid and very usefull for which end the blessing of heaven go along with it to prevent the spreading of the Gangrene in this County of Salop and the Counties Adjacent Tho. Porter Andrew Parsons Rob. Bermey Rich. Steele Imprimatur EDMUND CALAMY CHAP. I. Concerning the Saints Foundation SECT 1. H. H. Pag. 1. THe Foundation which the Saints ought to build upon is Christ 1 Cor. 3.11 for 〈◊〉 foundation no man laieth with Ephâ—â— 2.20 1 Pet. 2.3 4 5. Reply 1. If Christ be the Saints foundation then either you and your disciples are not Saints or else you and they build in matters both of Doctrine and of practise beside the foundation as in the points of original sin free-will falling away from grace dipping c. of which last there is no express command or example in the New Testament as shall be evidenced God willing in their proper places 2. It 's not said in 1 Cor. 3.11 No man laieth but no man can lay a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you break your own rule so often inculcated by you â—pecially p. g. 40. with direful threatnings It 's ominous to stumble in the threshold 3. I fear it was your design to make some believe that the Apostle did and doth contradict himsâ—lâ— for if there be no other foundation but Christ 1 Cor. 3.11 how comes it to passe that the same Apostle speaks of the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2.20 * Yea good works are called a foundation 1 Tim. 6.19 Nayin this same place he doth distinguish Christ from the foun dation of the Apostles and Prophets Indeed b) Distinguo fundamentum in propr dictum ministe iale Cham. lib. 3. c. 3. n. 46 Christ is the personal foundation and the Apostles and Prophets are the doctrinal foundation which though upon the matter they are all one yet you might have done well to have let fall such a distinction unlesse you had a mind to make your Reader believe the Apostle did clash against himself SECT 2. H. H. Again It 's also plain in the words of Christ to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church Observe upon what rock not Peter as the Papists say for Peter is called a stone but Christ is called a rock 1 Cor. 10.
any Saint might baptize in some cases for in Acts 20.7 you distinguish between the saints or disciples that met together and Paul that preacht to them 3. The Jews were to keep the seventh day of the week as the Lord's Sabbath therefore we Christians are bound by virtue of that command to keep the first day of the week as God's Sabbath This consequence you seem to grant to be good though in the New Testament there be no expresse command or example for it I now appeal to all Divinity and Logick whether this consequence from the command of Circumcision to Baptism be not every way as strong and good viz. Infants were circumcised in the Old Testament Ergo Children are to be baptized in the New For as the first day of the week comes in room of the seventh day of the week so Baptism in the room of Circumcision as the Apostle plainly q) Col. 2.10 11 12. holds forth (r) Spanhem part 3 Dub. Evang. 27. p. 94 else the Apostle should not prove what he intended viz. Circumcision is not to be retained 4. That Children were baptized I find in some of Paul's writings f) 1 Cor. 10.2 And were all baptized All the Jews that passed through the sea are here expresly said to be baptized now that there were among them children â—nd little ones it 's as clear in Pharaohs speech to Moses Exod 10 24 Let your little ones also go with you And in the Narrative of Moses Exod. 12.37 Six hundred thousand men beside CHILDREN SECT 9. H. H. 6. I prove by the Scriptures that Christians were Magistrates or men in Authority which Mr. Baxâ—â— desireth to see in bis first position p. 3. for the Eunuch that was baptized Acts 8.38 was a man of great Authority under Candace Queen of the Ethiopians who had the charge of all her treasure ver 27 which title in our daies is no lesse then Lord Treasurer And Sergius Paulus was the Deputy of the Country which men we commonly call Lord Deputies Acts 13.7 to 13. Now let them prove as plainly that any children were baptized c. Reply 1. How you bring in these instances I know not unlesse by head and shoulders as they say Mr. Hall doth not question a Christian Magistracy so far I can see in what you have transcribed from him unlesse perhaps it be comprehended in and concluded from you c. p. 11. 2. You indeavour to prove that which Mr. Baxter denies not neither desires to see He saith How sparing is the New Testament and instanceth in four cases all which you have here cunningly concealed save one I desire you to see your mistake in the position and p. cited by you 3. You disprove the Anabaptists your fellows who cried Where find you a Christian in the New Testament that exercised the place of a King or Parlament-man or Justice of the Peace and the like You can find a Lord Treasurer and a Lord Deputy it seems but none of the other can you find but of this in your 31 p. 4. If the Eunuch was a Lord Treasurer and Sergâ—us Paulus a Lord Deputy which is but your conjecture yet they were not Christian Magistrates in Mr. Baxters sense 5. But come I desire to see how you prove by the Scripture that Christians were Magistrates Was the Eunuch a Christian Magistrate because he believed with all his heart So you say your disciples believe and yet none of them Lord Treasurers or Christian Magistrates that I know of or because he was baptized then Sergius Paulus was no Lord Deputy for we read nothing of his being baptized s) And the Eunuch had these Titles before he was baptized or because he was a man of great Authority under the Queen of the Ethiopians so is every Bassa under the great Turk Beside the word signifies one that is eminent for birth or wealth t) Bâ—zi in Luk. 1.52 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And were they Christian Magistrates of whom the Virgin Mary makes mention Hee hath put down the mighty where the same word isused Or because he had the charge of all her treasure Then the Treasurer of the great Cham of Tartaria is a Christian Magistrate u A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia I deny not but the Eunuch was a great Officer while he was a Jewish Proselite for it 's so in the same verse He came to Jerusalem to worship but whether hee continued in his office after he was baptized it 's more then I know or you dare affirm 6. Let it be observed supposing the Eunuch was a Christian Magistrate you make use of a meer consequence to prove it by for neither the word Christian nor Magistrate is in that history Acts 8.27 SECT 10. H. H. Lastly as for their saying we cannot prove that men of all ranks and qualities were baptized I answer It 's a meer Fable a cunning devised Fable which they have invented with many more like it to turn aside mens ears from the truth 2 Pet. 1.16.2 Tim. 4.3 4. For we can easily prove that God calleth or commandeth all men every where to repent Acts 27. ver 30. And those that did repent were baptized Acts 8.12 as many of the Corinthians Acts 18.8 And the Corinthians were citizens of Corinth a City Therefore Citizens were baptized and that Cavil answered Now let them prove by the Scripiures that children of any degree or quality were baptized before they could speak or understand and we grant all if they cannot let them for shame be silent Reply 1. I am ashamed of your railing and therefore am silent to that onely I say The Lord rebuke you 2. There 's no command to repent in Acts 27.30 but in Acts 17.30 I might deal with you as you do with Mr. Baxter but I spare you and blame the Printer 3. Our Worthies have as easily proved Infant-Baptism Foundation p. 79 80. as you do that men of all ranks and qualities were baptized which is by consequence and not in exprest terms e. g. If all that did repent and believe the Gospel were baptized then men of all ranks and qualities but the former is true therefore the latter And the Corinthians were baptized the Corinthians were Citizens therefore some Citizens were baptized Very good but where is it written That men of all ranks and qualities were baptized Though Mr. Hall spake onely of several sorts or degrees of men or is the word Citizens in Acts 18.8 Wipe your eies and look a little better you may as well prove Kings Queens Lords Husbandmen c. as Citizens baptized that is to say by Consequence How partial are you in your selfe not allowing the same way to us for proof of Infant-baptism for which there is as plain and clear Scripture as for any of your fore-mentioned instances SECT 11. H. H. pag. 14. One thing more I had like to have forgotten viz. They say that we cannot prove that women received the
whom you bring in the right order according to the Centuries wherein they lived 3. You repeat one and the self same Author twice and make a needlesse distinction to increase the number of your Jurers as Cassander p. 18. numb 7 10. 4. You set them together by the ears and make them contradict one another as is obvious to any judicious eie that will compare v) Pag. 18 19. your Origen Cassander and Cyprian together Thus with a flourish of humane learning you would blear the eies of the world but especially your silly Proselites If you are guilty of dissembling your learning it may be well suspected that you are a Wolf in a Sheeps skin and the rather because you say p. 39. We know you are Scholars SECT 17. Hen. Hag. p. 20. Thus out of the mouths of your own Poets you have it and by them confessed That baptizing of babes is will-worship c. Reply 1. I will forbear to say to you as you to Mr. Hall p. 10. A wretched lie But I dare say that not any one of the aforesaid Authors do so much as mention will-worship This is your own absurd and ridiculous inference * Page 19. you rack the holy Scriptures as Jer. 2.12 13. p. 8. no marvel therefore mens writings 2. You said p. 19. That it is Will-worship and Idolatrie appeareth by their own confessions as followeth But as no mention is made of will-worship much lesse of Idolatrie least of all that we confesse it For shame give over lying and if you love your soul think seriously of that Scripture which is brought by you p. 2. All liars shall have their part in that Lake which burns with fire and brimstone which is the second death Rev. 21.8 3. Lay aside those that are challenged neither have you here a sufficient number to make a Jury unlesse on the former account if there be yet they are not agreed upon the Verdict SECT 18. H. H. Thus having discovered the foundation of the Font and having shewen whence and when and by whom Infant-Baptism came I leave it to the view of all Onely for better satisfaction the book is suddenly to be reprinted and is intituled as followeth A very plain and well-grounded Treatise concerning Baptism c. Reply 1. How many untruths are here tackt together You have neither shewed whence nor when nor by whom Infant-baptisme came in 2. You have discovered your own vanity folly want of ingenuity peity and learning to the view of all 3. Were we with Child you would make us long after your Treatise else you would not give such timely advertisement of it unlesse it were to spare the labour in a Diurnal But either it is stifled in the womb or will come forth with sharp teeth as x) Speeds History of Great Brit. p. 882. Richard the third was born for it is now four years since you hinted the sudden reprinting of it by whom to be sold where and what title But for my part I have neither seen nor heard the printing of it much lesse the Reprinting CHAP. VI. Of Constituting Churches and Church-members SECT 1. H. H. p. 23. In this our stating the Question you say diverse things must be animadverted that we deceive not our selves and others through darkning the truth by words without knowledg For we deny that Churches are constituted by baptizing or sprinkling of Infants I Answer It 's to be observed that Mr. Cook can say nothing nor give any answer in the least to our Writing as we wrote them and therefore he cunningly saith That in stating the Question many things must be animadverted or changed in the mind and then he states the Question according to his own mind c. Reply 1. I desire the Reader to peruse the Narrative of Mr. Hag. p. 21 22. concerning an offer of reasoning with some Ministers at Stafford about Baptizing which Narrative is too long to transcribe But this I say it may be justly suspected to be untrue because of Mr. Haggar's misrepresenting Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook in other particulars as hereafter shall be made evident And whereas he saith not without abuse of Scripture y) Psal 53.5 They were in great fear where no fear was as appears by Mr. Cooks Epistle Truly no such thing pppeareth to my best observation but rather the contrary as appeareth by his eighth Reason z) See Mr. Cooks Epistle before his Font Uncovered which together with the other seven you might have done well to have answered if you could 2 Do not abuse Mr. Cook and triumph before the victory It 's rather to be observed that you can say nothing to Mr. Cooks Answer in three particulars at the least there mentioned or else you would not have passed them by in silence 3. All orderly reasoning requires the right stating of the Question at first yet our Writings are fully answered though as you wrote them they needed clearing For I am perswaded you know not what is meant by Constituting Churches which you stick to as if it were done by Baptism And if you were put to define or describe Constitution perhaps you would give us as wise an account thereof as you do of the word Animadverted which you interpret changed in mind whereas the word signifies considered by serious turning the mind to a thing e. gr a) Haggai 1.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consider your waies i. e. Set your hearts on or turn your minds to You may then be as grosly mistaken in the word Constituted as you are in the word Animadverted and argue for a word the meaning whereof you know not It had been well therefore if you had cleared your own meaning if you could seeing you are so offended with that book which endeavours to clear the state of the question SECT 2. H. H. same pag. First if you deny the Churches are constituted by baptizing you differ from the rest of your brethren and forefathers who generally with one consent till within these ten or twelve years did conclude that children were made members of Christ c. in Baptism witnesse the old Catechism then they were not so before Reply 1. Since you have not proved that our brethren and forefathers said That Baptism did Constitute a Church or give it its being and form which is the usual and proper signification of the word you have not shewed any difference between Mr. Cook and them 2. Though we are not bound to own every expression in those Writings which for the main are sound yet that phrase of being made a member of Christ may admit a good Construction according to that good rule b) Bains help to true happinesse Things are said to be or made when they are declared manifested and acknowledged so to be e. gr c) Joh. 1.12 with 1 Joh. 3.1 To be the sons of God is expounded to be called the sons of God And the Jews charged Christ d) Joh. 19.7 that he made
is good For Acts 17.28 In him we live c in and through God that gives to all men life c. v. 25. to the end that they might seek him v. 27. Even the wickedest and hypocrites the worst of men have a will and power to do more good then they do and that 's one cause of their just condemnation Moreover it 's evident that wicked Balaam had a will desire x) Num. 23.10 to die the death of the righteous c. And Paul saith plainly y) Rom. 7.18 To will is present with me c. By all which it is evident that Free-will is not such a difficult point as you would make it but it 's an easie matter with you to call light darkness and darkness light Isa 5.20 Reply 1. For the worth of Mr. Baxter's Reputation in your judgment it 's very like to the judgment of the Cock who preterred a Barley-corn before a Pearle I believe M. B. is of the Apostles mind 1 Cor. 4.3 But because you will not speak it out but it sticks in your teeth I shall without flattery or fear tell you my judgment That as Austin was called z) Malleus Pelagianorum the Mall of the Pelagians so may Mr. Baxter be truly call'd the Mall of the Anabaptists * Malleus Anabaptistarum His memory shall be blessed when your name shall rot 2. M Baxt. hath hit it right but you have mist it for all your great swelling words of vanity if the question about Free-will were truly stated 3. If you dissent from Mr. Baxter about the difficulty of the point of Free-will why will not such a brave Champion as you are give or accept the challenge to dispute it with him you must have better weapons then here you fight with or I assure you he will quickly foil you 4. I believe Infant-baptism is easie to him that will understand The spiritual plague is in your head you hear and will not understand see and will not perceive 5. The Papists and Arminians will say as much as you do and yet they are stiff Patrons of Free-will who prank up nature in a proud dresse and derogate from the honor of God and Free grace 6. I wonder you couple together Balaam and Paul for Paul was a Regenerate man and Balaam you confess a wicked man and is there no difference between the will of the one and of the other It savors of the Arminian Cask That as man's will lost nothing by Adam's fall to it gets nothing by the second Adam's grace But because this is beside the point I shall 〈◊〉 no deeper into this Controversie but leave you to Mr Baxter who can handle you without Mittins your calumnis â—esâ—â— vs no answer SECT 9 H. H. I proceed to your fourth Position 〈◊〉 rein you say that if never so clear evidence of truth be produced yet it will hee dark to them that are uncapable of discerning it For it 's Gods work to make people understand Heb. 5.11 12 13 14 I answer We grant you all this The clearest truth will be dark to some But let us shew some clear evidence of truth first and shew us where it is written that Babes must be baptized and then if we do not our blood be upon us c. Reply 1. To passe by another mistake of yours viz. the fourth Position which indeed is the Third It seems the doctrine of Infant-baptism though never so clear a truth is hid from your eies 2. Mr. Baxter and many other of our Worthies have shewed where Infant-baptism is written as clearly and plainly as Women's receiving the Lord's Supper praying in the Family c before-mentioned and many more without a wretched lie Yea as clearly and plainly as you proved pag. 6. Lidra's husband was baptized because the Scripture saith She and her houshold were baptized and yet you are so blind that you cannot sea or held Infant-baptism 3. I fear your blood according to your wish will be upon you as Christ's blood was and is on the Jews according to their imprecation for your pâ—â—de and prejudice ignorance and infidelity which Hear as wilful and affected for in this 34 p. 〈◊〉 professe you will not believe the clear evidence that Mr. Baxter hath brought for the proof of Infant-baptism I see that true which Mr. B. saith in this Position it 's one thing to bring full evidence and proof and another thing to make people apprehend and understand it We may do the one God onely can do the other These words are true and faithful you grant I leave you therefore to the Lord whose work it is to perswade the heart The Well of water was nigh enough to Hagar â—he bond woman who with her son were cast on and yet she could not see till God opened her eies Gen 23. ver 29. SECT 10. H. H. p. 34. As for your saying we had need study the Controversie seven years I Answer What rule have you for that Did the 3000 in Acts 2.41 42. study this Controversie seven years or seven dates either Or those men and women in Acts 8.12 or the Eunuch â— 38 or Lâ—dâ—â— and the Jailor Act. 16 c. Reply 1. Mr. Baxter speaks of most Controversies his words are pag. 6. Most of the best of people have need to read Scripture and books of Controversie seven years at least before they will be capable of understanding most Controversies But it 's no wonder that you who are so frequent in perverting the holy Scriptures as hath been shewed pervert his writings The Reader now may observe how much you have left our 2. Because I concess this is applicable to the present point though not onely I say your instances our of the Acts of the Apostles are nothing to the purpose viz. They did not study this Controversie seven years before they being â—duâ— were baptized Therefore we have no need to read the Scripture and books of Controversie before we understand this Controversie of Infant-baptism A gross inconsequence 3. But you ask what rule for that Mr. Baxter hath given you a reason pag. 5. agreeable to the rule God changeth the wiâ—◠〈◊〉 a sudden but he doth not insure knowledge eâ—pecially of difficult points on a sudden If this like you not I hope you will not recede from your own rule pag. 28. where you confess That we have all need of seven years education at Cambridge and Oxford c. therefore of seven years study for the understanding of this Controversie and that without any danger of incoherence or folly SECT 11. H. H. You say that men think they can understand plain Scripture if they hear it but they cannot Oh that pride would let them know that they cannot understand the plainest Lecture of Geometry or Arithmetick Read the Grammar to a boy in the Primmer and he understands not a word you say Answ Is it possible you would make men believe they cannot understand plain Scripture if
p. You say Alas there are far better grounds which they are not aware of Answ That is it may be because you baptize them so soon if you would let them alone till they are men and women before you baptize them as you have example in Scripture they might receive Baptisme on better grounds Reply 1. Your interpretation with a may be is but a meer conjecture a fancy of your own head and worthy of no better a reply 2. Though we distinguish between men and women and children in our language yet the Scripture doth not always Cain a child is called a man Gen. 4.1 and an Infant upon the birth is also called in the New Testament a man John 16.21 where the same word is used which includes both man and woman as you confess p. 68. Howsoever your expression is as improper as your advice is impertinent viz. If you would let them alone till they are men and women I know not your meaning well unless you would have every Infant an Hermaphrodite viz. a man and woman 3. You have brought no example in Scripture to justifie your practice for those who are said to be baptized in Scripture were not baptized before that we read of as you acknowledge we were p. 24. SECT 18. H. H. p. 36 and 37. In your seventh Position you confess some Divines have reasoned very weakly for Infant-baptism and used unfit Phrases and mis-applyed Scriptures and to thâ—se some have wrote three or four Books and easily answered and seemed to Triumph and yet the truth is not shaken but it may be all the best Arguments and plain Scriptures have never been answered Answ I desire to answer the plain Scriptures no way but by Faith and obedience by believing and doing them Therefore if you know of any that speaks of Infant-baptâ—sm bring them forth and I will be silent The first I see but as for your best Arguments you talk off I look upon them but as so many cunning devised Fables wherewith you lye in wait to deceive simple souls by speaking things you ought not for filthy Lucres sake Titus 1 14. Reply 1. The first part of your answer I cannot put into my Creed for if you desire why do you not endeavour you knâ—w who saith p The soul of the sluggard desireth and hath nothâ—ng Prov. 13.4 2. M. B. aâ—d others have brought forth plain Scripture for Infant-baptism and you in silence have passed by the most of them because it seems you could not answer them though you confesse you see them 3. The close of your answer if it be a sufficient answer then its an easie matter to answer any Argument though never so strong by mis-applying Scripture and scornfuâ—l terms And I must needs tell you of your rash and harsh judgment contrary to Mat. 7.1 Judge not c. and to Rom. 14.10 c. why dost thou judge thy brother c. And indeed this last part of your answer is the reason why I cannot believe your first SECT 19. H. H. p. 37. You say Position 8. One sound Argument is enough to prove any thing true Answ Then either the great number of yours in your book of plain Scriptures are not sound or else you need not to have brought so many by your own grant Reply 1. What you say of M. Baxters Arguments may be said of yours more truly viz. your twelve Arguments q) Foundation fâ—om p 63. to 73. from p. 73. to 87. against Infants Church-membership and your nine Arguments against Infants-discipleship c. which wil be found as weak as water and as unsound as rotten ground when I shall come to them 2. M. Baxter tells you in this 8 Position It is not number but weight that must carry it Therefore he resolved not to heap up many 3. It seems you take notice of the great number of M. Baxters Arguments and yet you dare not grapple with that huge hoast but only cull out one or two and that by snatching at a limb and away r) Tanquam Caenis ad Nilum Eras Adâ—g as you have done with M. Cook c. SECT 20. H. H. But you say What if all the Texts were put by save one were not that enough Answ Yes it s enough if you can shew us but one but I pray where is that one I cannot find it in all the book But it seems you are afraid that all should be put by save one Therefore you make this Apologie but I suppâ—se all will do you little goâ—d Reply 1. If you wipe your eyes you may see if you be not blind in M. Baxters Book more then one 2. I doubt you speak against your conscience How dare you say you cannot find one text for Infant-baptism in all M. Baxters Book when you seem to be more Eagle-eyed then others in seeing and finding as you think the Font in Jer. 2.12 13. p. 8. 3. M. Baxters Apology is not made out of any such jealousie as you pretend as if he was afraid that all should be put by save one but out of a desire and endeavour to rectifie the ignorant in their fond conceits as he himself exprâ—sseth it which you have cunningly left out 4. I will accept of your grant and improve it in time convenient viz. If all should be put by but one it 's enough SECT 21. H. H. same p. You say Position 9. The former and present customes of the holy Saints and Churches should be of great weight with humble Christians Answ I grant it if they bee now according to the primitive pattern I am sure the custom of the Churches in the Apostles days was to baptize men and women when they believed c. Acts 2.41 8.12.36 37. 10.47 16.33.34 18.8 Therefore let this custom be of weight to your self and do not baptize little babes that cannot believe c. because Paul saith 1 Cor. 11.16 Reply 1. You condemn hereby all the Protestant Ministers of the French Churches who preach with their hats on their heads and yet they think they may do so without sin notwithstanding 1 Cor. 11.4.7 2. Are not you self-condemned who as I am informed have broken bread on the second day of the week when the primitive Disciples Å¿) Act. 20.7 did it on the Lord's day viz. the first day of the week as you grant p. 13. nay Expositors on that place collect they did break bread once a week viz. on the day aforesaid you once a month if so oft 3. Those Scriptures so often repeated by you have been answered already I tell you again That practise is not binding to us but in the same or like condition Beside the primitive Christians had their Love-feasts when the Lord's Supper was administred and received as is plain out of Scripture s) see Diodat 1 Cor. 11.20.21 Jude 8.12 and it was their custome to salute one another with an holy kiss Do you not think it a piec of your Christian
miserable Comforter for when you have done you fall a railing on us calling us Sensless ignorant wretches that will call for express Scripture when we have your Consequences But I have told you already we dare not trust your Consequences Indeed Scripture-reason is good reason and it 's that we would have from you for which you call us ignorant sensless wretches Reply 1. It seems a just reproving in pity is a railing with you If so you are far-gone and very high-flown indeed 2. It 's your subtil sophistry to call evident Consequences drawn from Scripture Our Consequences 3. If Mr. Baxter say true and you do not disprove him that evident Consequences drawn from Scripture are as true proof as the very express words of a Text which you cannot but grant p. 12 13 14 you may trust them better then or as well as your own Consequences which you often bring SECT 38. H. H. p. 45. We call Scripture-reason written reason now if you would shew us where your reason is written in the Book of God the holy Writings the Controversie were at an end but till then you have done nothing But you might do well to inform the ignorant wretches that the holy Scriptures in English are holy writings And thus the people would know what you mean by Scripture-reasons i. e. written reasons Reply 1. If I mistake not here is a pure Socinian Principle viz. Nothing is written in Scripture but what is exprest in so many words Then farewell the doctrine of the Trinity justification by Faith onely trusting in Christ's satisfaction c. All which and many more particulars are not written in your sense in the book of God but written in our sense therein because drawn by evident consequence from thence 2. Christ saith Joh. 5.46 That Moses wrote of him m) Gen. 3.15 Deut. 18.15 which is true in our sense but Truth if self must have the Lye given him in your sense For there is not one expresse written word of Christ in all the book of Moses I mean the person of Christ God-man 3. We do inform the ignorant wretches as you advize us nay we have done it before you advized us and they do or may know that Infant-baptism is written in the Book of God as plainly as womens Receiving the Lord's Supper and those particulars mentioned in your pag. 12 13 14. Will you now stand to your word and say with Mr. Saltmarsh in another case An end of a Controversie SECT 39. H. H. You say we disdain reason and therefore not to be reasoned with and if we once renounce reason we are bruit-beasts and who will go to plead with a beast It 's reason that differeth a man from a beast c. Answ You put me in mind how lâ—ke one of your forefathers you are for to my best remembrance you speak his very words and I question not but if you had an opportunity you would do his deeds viz. Doctor Story to Mr. Philpot see Fox Martyr p. 1972. Reply 1. Mr. Haggar brings in a long story of Dr. Story his conference with Mr. Philpot the Martyr I desire the Reader to view either Mr. Haggar or Mr. Fox which for brevity take I cannot transcribe Yet I say truly that a Liaâ— had need have a good memory Mr. Baxter doth not speak Dr. Stories words This Doctor called Philpot a beast simply and absolutely M. Baxter calls you so hypothetically and conditionally if reason be renounced nay he includes himself as wel as Anabaptists on that supposition as you transcribe him IF WEE SECT 40. H. H. pag. 46. See how like your forefather Dr. Story you speak and behave you self or would do if you had but liberty You are children of one father whose works you do Joh. 8. ver â—4 Reply 1. No more like then an Apple is like an Oyster as they say the parallel is not right for beside the forementioned difference Dr. Story was a Papist M. Baxter a Protestant Henry Haggar an Anabaptist and railer Mr. Philpot neither but a meek Martyr That learned and godly Mr Philpot was no Anabaptist it's plain n) Sâ—e Fox vol. 3. p. 600. c. Anno 1555. for in a Letter to a fellow-prisâ—ner thus he writes The Apostles of Christ dâ—d baptizâ— Children And in another The Apostles baptized Infants since Baptism is in place of Circumcision In a thiâ—d The Apostles did baptize Infants and not onely men of lawful age And again Why do not these rebellious Anabaptists obey the Commandement of the Lord Mark 10.13 14 15 16 Now let the Reader consider whether you or Mr. Baxter is most like to that blessed Martyr and whether you are more like to Dr. Story if you had libertie o) Sleid. l. 10. your predecessors at Munster shew of what spirit you are 2. Guilt of Conscience make you fearful of punishment and uncharitably censorious of your betters who without vanity may say p) Mat. 23.9 One is our Father which is in heaven SECT 41. H. H. Where as you say we disclaim reason I Answer It 's but one of your false accusations we own all things written in the Scripture c. Reply 1. You disclaim the plainest and clearest reason deduced out of Scripture and so it 's no false accusation 2. If you did own all things written in the Scripture the Controversie were at an end as you say p. 45. 3. What perversness and partiality is this that you can own Women's Discipleship and their Receiving the Lord's Supper c. aâ— p. 14. as things written in Scripture and yet disclaim some Infant 's Discipleship Church-membership and Baptism which are written in the Scriptures of truth as well as the former and many other instances which might be given SECT 42. H. H. pag. 47. Mr. Baxter saith Do you think the Lord Jesus knew a good Argument or the right way of Disâ—uting Why how did he prove the Resurrection to the Sadduces from that text I am the God of Abraham c. Answ The Lord Jesus knew a good Argument and the right way of Disputing better then Mr. Baxter or my self or any man else I humbly confess to his praise and therefore I desire to make use of his words that he hath already spoken knowing that he hath reasoned and proved all things better then I can Reply 1. Then you grant that there can be no arguing from Scripture but by deduction for in all Arguments there must be a Medium and a Conclusion a Proposition and an Inference as appears by your own Arguments p. 63 c. 2. You grant as much as is desired that to argue by evident Consequence from Scripture is a right way of disputing as Christ's was Humbly confess this also to Christ's praise and join hands and hearts also with Mr. Baxter and say I shall think it no weak arguning which is like to Christ's nor shall I take my self to be out of the way while I follow him SECT 43.
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
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
do business in great waters same verse and to see the works and wonders of the Lord in the deep c. and are delivered and brought to their desired Haven 6. We say the whole man is baptized when not the whole of man but part is washed Whole Christ was crucified but not the whole of Christ your arguing is very weak to all that have understanding When a man is wounded in any one part we say truly the man is wounded though not all over Circumcision was a cutting off the foreskin of the flesh onely and yet the Jews child was Circumcised Sir when your tongue talks we say Mr. Haggar speaks will it follow that every part of Mr. Haggar speaks By this Argument hee is all tongue * Vox praeterea nihil but if his heels had spoken they might have made as wise an answer 7. Your next instance proves as little that Christ was dipt when hee was baptized for the words may be read comming up From q) Mar. 1 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the water and that translation is more proper and suitable because all Rivers for the most part lye in the lower ground in comming to which wee are said to descend and coming from to ascend And indeed the Preposition is so rendered in the verse immediatly foregoing viz. Jesus came r) Mark 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From Nazareth yea it 's said The Dogs eat of the Crums which fall s) Mat. 15.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from their masters table yea where the same story is recorded Å¿) Mar. 3.7.13 it 's so translated twice as Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come and then came Jesus from Galilee and often else where in the New Testament what more ordinary then to say Such a man came from Sea Thames c. Here appears the weakness of your inference and the instance doth not plainly shew that Christ went first down into the water or else how could he come out of it Your text in John comes now to be considered SECT 20. H. H. p. 67. 98. And the Scripture saith Jo. 3.23 John Baptised in Enon because there was much water there But M. Baxter answers that Travellers report that the river Enon is but a little brook that a man may almost step over 1. Surely it is want of the fear of God and love to the truth that he should turne aside his ear from the Scripture that saith There was much water to believe a Man a Traveller and Travellers may lie by authority why may not Sr John Mandevill be believed as well as this Travellers news The Lord be praised that hath delivered my soul from believing him and such as hee is Acts. 2.40.2 If it were granted yet Enon might have much water in another place Though but a little water where the Traveller was As it is with many Rivers in England Reply Travellers may lie but may not some speak truth If not I shall take heed of you and hardly believe you who have been a Traveller and that among the Jesuits the most exquisite Masters of that Art and compassers of Sea and I and to make Proselytes And had you named the book wherein Sr John Mandevill's tale may be found I would shape a sutable reply but let it passe in the mean time for one of your cunning devised fables 2. Your veine of railing at M. Baxter I turn a deaf care to when you prove us an untoward generation for you calling us so doth not prove us so your thanks for your selfe and caveat to others will be seasonable In the interim you do mock both God and man The Turk may as well praise God Luk. 18.11 he is no Christian and the Pharisee t) See 18.11 That he was not as this Publican 3. What this Enon was is disputable u) Calvin in Joh. 3.23 some think it a Town situate in the Tribe of Manasseh Diodate a Citty as Salim was to which the text saith â—t was near Others a Fountain or small brook v) As Grotius Jun. and M. Baxter-Sandys Travells l. 3. p. 141. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As Rev. 1.15 and 14.2 Bee it so yet wee are not a jot the nearer for dipping for the phrase is elsewhere usually translated * many waterâ— Now then it signifies many convenient places at the water where John and his disciples might be employed at once Not any deep water or great river which commonly is hemmed in with great bankes which deny an easy accesse for an Administration 2. Many waters are somtimes taken in Scripture and why not here for a confluence of waters on som plain x) Ezech. 13.10 for the watering of medows and some trees as we see in many places in England where the ground is low it 's plashy and seemes to be a little Sea and yet not knee deep 3. Jordane the Prince of Rivers in that Country which hath it's name from Jor and Dan two fountains from whence it riseth was not above eight fathoms deep nor Navigable y) Isa 33.21 what a small water then in comparison was Enon not far distant from Jordane Now though you will not believe travellers reports yet I hope you will notreject these plain reasons 4. You say Enon might have much water in another place although but little where the Traveller was Here you have only probablity for proof therefore as you argue z) p. 28. we read but of 4. or 5. whole households were baptized therefore not likely they i. e. the Apostles baptized whole Nations if they did we desire to see iâ— So I. It 's not likely Aenon was so deep for dipping if so prove it by Scripture if you can and we will believe it SECT 21. H. H. p. 21. Further M. Baxter saith The Jaylour in the night in his house was baptized but the Scripture saith Act. 16.33.34 Now if the Jaylour took Paul and Silas It implies they took them out and the next words prove it plainly viz. Hee brought them into his house Reply 1. Some enemies are sooner foyled then found I know not what to make of these Fiblets of an Answer If the Jaylour took Paul and Silas it implies THEY took them out who can make sence of this It may be you mean the Jaylour took them out as may perhaps be gathered from the Antecedent of your proposition and the proof you bring for the consequence but it seems you know not what to say or what you say you are IN and OUT 2. May not any unprejudiced Reader see this to be the sense of the words as they lye in the text viz. a) Act. 16.24 with 30 32 33. The Jaylour brought Paul and Silas out of the prison yea the inner-Prison into some outward room thereof where he heard the word and was Baptized and then brought them into his house which as it was usuall joyned to the prison 3. You do not tell
You falsly quote M. Baxter who saith it is AT THAT TIME a sin not at any time sinfull There is a vaste difference in the sense though not in the sound of the words The one doth absolutely lay aside the other but Relatively and for a time suspend the lesser duty It is grossly false to say A duty when it is inconsistent with a greater is at any time sinfull unless some restriction bee allowed to come to the Congregation may occasionally be inconsistent with my health and preservation yet it is not sinfull at any time And it is as true that when it is inconsistent with a greater it is at that time a sinn For it 's a known Rule i) Semper ad-semper that Negative precepts bind alwaies k) Josh 5.5 6 7. and at all times so do not Affirmative as is cleare in the case of Circumcision Josh 5.5 6 7. 2. You fraudulently curtall M. Baxter in leaving out these words viz. Especially the manner and quantity of Water in Baptism c. You shew your selfe like an Egyptian Midwife to truth and reason what you cannot confute you can conceal 3. You maliciously infer a Calumniating conclusion from M. Baxter's principles and premises and therefore it deserves no other answer then M. Baxter's l) Mat. 12.7 I will have mercy and not sacrifice if you had learned what this means you would not have condemned the guiltless you reflect on Christ as well as on M. Baxter Yet 4. I shall onely say thus much to your impertinent Scriptures John 14.15 c. It is as true that Christ who hath loved us and given himself for us hath not given us any precept which simply tends to the overthrow of our lives we may love Christ and keep his commandements and yet love our selves too we may and must love Christ with a Superlative love and our selves also with a subordinate love 5. You might have spared this handfull of dirt which you have flung at M. Baxter till you had proved Dipping to be the Ordinance of Christ by one expresse Scripture or at least syllable of reason But since you think M. Baxter so cowardly as that he would not suffer for Christ I must tell you I have read of som Martyers as Philpot c. mentioned in your p. 45. that never were Anabaptists but never read of an Anabaptist that was a Martyr It 's no Argument becaus M.B. will not go with you into the water therefore not into the fire no more then this Because you have gon into the water therefore you will endure the fire There is warrant for the one when called none for the other which yet you miserably beg as if it were the command and example of Christ c. 6. You follow your old trade in abusing Scripture e. g. Mat. 3.15 Those words do not hold forth the externall Formality of the Administration but the person that did Administer and the old ordinance of Baptism with the person to whom it was administred for Christ comes to bee baptized verse 13. John out of an high esteem of Christ and a low apprehension of himself forbids him ver 14. Then Christ replies thus it becommeth us to fulfill c. In what Not in Dipping of him there 's no express mention made thereof but in baptizing him SECT 26. H. H. p. 101. Lastly I desire the Reader to consider how like M. Baxters counsell to us is to Peters counsell Mat. 16.21 22. so doth M. Baxter say to us and specially to Gentlewomen old and weak people c. This shall not be to you for in the course of nature it will kill hundreds c. But let all that fear God learn of Christ to answer M. B. as he answered Peter ver 23. Reply You are got into your wonted haunt to claw the people and calumniate your adversary There is no likenesse between Peters and M. Baxters Counsell Peter advised Christ against that which was written and ordained So doth not Mr. B. for where is it written expressly that every one who is baptized must be dipped Therefore when Mr. B. disswades any from doing and suffering for Christ according as it is written in your sense I shall say His Counsell is like Peters In the mean time as you do in the close of this Section I leave what I have written to the judgment of them that fear God SECT 27. H. H. same pag. His seventh Argument is against Dipping of persons naked which is against the seventh Commandement Therefore an intollerable wickedness and not Gods Ordinance Answ 1. I am sure it is intollerable wickedness in M. Baxter and a breach of the ninth Commandement to say wee baptize people naked athing which he never saw as hee confesseth when he saith he hears so Reply 1. Here is more foul play and the truth held in unrighteousnesse for you leave out these words OR NEXT TO NAKED you cite Mr. B. as you answer him that is by halves 2. Were that false which he affirms is he a greater transgressor of the ninth Commandement then you are pag. 92. who say m the heaviest purses of our Religion are the greatest part of our Religion and call Mr. Baxter a child of the Devill c. p. 93. You should not have thrown this stone unlesse you had been without fault 3. Why is it a breach of the ninth commandement to say so because he never saw it you say with his eyes What kind of reasoning is this Doth not this shake if not take away the foundation of Moral and Divine Faith If nothing must bee believed but what wee see with our eyes we must believe nothing For that Assent the understanding yields to a thing seen is knowledg or experience This is to make sense saith and the Proverb true Seeing is believing Contrary to Scripture 1 Pet. 1.8 Nay then all those high charges which you have drawn up against Mr C. and Mr. B. c. all along your book are false for you never saw those with your eyes Then John and the Apostles never plunged men and women over head and ears in baptizing them for you never saw it with your eyes 4. But how can you tell Mr. B. never saw it with his eyes he confesseth it when he saith he hears so Is not this sound Divinity Did ever Christ and his Apostles preach such doctrine Did ever any weak man but Mr. Haggar utter such a reason as this viz. Because he heard a thing therefore he never saw it as if the same thing in diverse respects at several times could not be the Object of seeing and hearing also you saw your ridiculous answers at Ellesmere exploded and do you not hear of the same too SECT 28. H. H. p. 102. It may be that some which he accounts Christians have so little grace and of the fear of God in them as to tell him such lyes and he is willing to believe them although for my part I have baptized
and been at the baptizing of many hundreds if not a thousand and never saw any baptized naked c. Reply 1. Whither will not malice hu-cry a man rather then Mr. B. and his party shall go without a spot you will bespatter Christianity it self If Christians intelligence is not to be credited whom shal we admit into our Creed May not the wicked say Christians have little grace they tell lyes c. and thus you bring an Odium on n) Act. 11.26 that antient and honourable Name Such an one Polycarp confessed himself to bee o) Liberò audi Christianus si◠Euseb Eccl. Hyst l. 4. c. 15. such an one you would be taken to be It is is an ill bird that defiles his own nest 2. Here is a bitter censure past it is for want of grace that they tell these if they be lyes An ingenious charity would have imputed it rather to ignorance or information which may occasion a lye to fall sometimes from the best not to want of grace c. 3. Mr. B. must have his share as well as the Christians they lye and he is willing to believe them Thus he taxes his circumspection as if he entertained reports without consideration when all who know that precious servant of God know he is not credulous But Mr. Haggar if your will had no◠committed a rape upon your understanding you had never believed that you had found a Font in Jerem. 2.13 or adeferring of baptism till believing in Mark 16. verse 16. Or the Eunuch over head and ears in the water Act. 8.37 But you was willing to have it so p) Quod v◠lumus facile-credimus Therefore you believed it was so 4. You produce your self as a witness to prove the other lyars This is worse then ask my fellow If I bee a thief you are a party and therefore not fit to be a witness you may flye to the Lawers maxime None is bound to accuse himself 5. What arrogancy is here you must be believed against M. Baxters Christians why may you not have as lit-grace and fear of God and tell a lye as well as they sanctity and truth are not annexed to your Jordan Your single testimony against all theirs shall then be valid when you are infallible In the Interim this speaks you a Pharisee in that you count them Publicans 6. But waving these things I enter a caveat against your evidence It is neither full nor pertinent to the interrogatory you speak to the naked Dipping but not to NEXT TO NAKED So that M. Baxter's Argument stands still in force as hee proves p. 137. And if the beholding men and women in their shirts c. be not a coasting upon incivility I have lost my understanding Surely Christ never plac'd his Ordinance so near iniquity who bids us abstain from all appearance of evill 1 Thes 5. ver 22. 7. If they who are baptized are Dipp'd in their cloaths as there is no Scripture for so doing so it 's against your principle For to Dip in your sense is to plunge a person over head and ears in water so as immediately to be wet but he that is Dipp'd in his cloaths is not immediately wet all over For his cloaths are Dipp'd primarily and immediately hee secondarily and mediately his cloaths by the water he by his cloaths Thus you who ordained a Cheese-factor to be a publick preacher may make a cheese-clout a Dipper and thus you have met with a Scylla and Charibdis in the meer of Ellesmer whether you Dip naked or next to naked SECT 29. H. H. same p. But suppose some men have been baptized naked among men that is no more offensive then bathing in the water Nay Peter was naked Joh. 21.7 Reply 1. Never stand mincing the matter with a SUPPOSE but say men and women may be baptized naked speak out and tell us that your naked dipping succeeds the Roman Lupercatia the Indian Gymnosophists would blush at this 2. You tell us of naked Peter but do not tell us the naked truth Peter was not naked in your sense the word somtimes signifies to be without any bodily covering Gen. 2.25 Secondly poor and mean clothing Job 22.6 Mat. 25 36. The poor members of Christ are said to bee naked as well as Peter and I do not think whatsoever you do that they were Adamites Thirdly them who have layd aside their upper garment as Saul and the Prophets 1 Sam. 19.24 Isa 20.2 Thus Peter was naked for neither his calling as a Fisher doth necessarily imply that he was simply without covering neither doth the modesty of a man much less the gravity of an Apostle permit it nor doth it suit with the custom of the Jews who was wont to wear a loose upper garment which being put off it was usuall to say they were naked Thus your answer is pure Quakerism 3. No truly pious or morally honest man but will judg it an immodest act for men to go stark naked in your sense There are Pudenda naturae which God and nature would have covered and to discover them is immodesty unless upon inevitable necessity why else did the sons of Noah go backward with a mantle to cover their Fathers nakedness Gen. 9.22 23. 4. If you will have your own saying viz. It is not an immodest thing for men to be naked together yet sure it is for men and women such mix'd Dipping is no more commendable then mix'd dancing Nay worse of the two 5. Whether M. Baxter will allow that men may go into the water to bath them yet not sin let those who have read the former answer judge If men may why may not women consider that sad story of David and Bathsheba 2 Sam. 11.2.4 6. You bewray the subtilty of the Serpent you mention bathing but intend baptizing That is at the top like the corn spread over the well but this like the scouts lyes at the bottom 1 Sam. 17.19 This water-man looks one way and rowes another But if it were granted it is not immodest for men to bath together yet it 's indecent for them to be baptized naked For is there no difference between bathing and baptizing Where is the honour of the Ordinance Is that comly and lawful in Sacramentals which is usuall in morals e. g. At our Tables we laugh c. may we therefore do so at the Lord's Table Eccl. 10.16 Secondly doth it not trench upon the purity of the Lord Jesus that he should institute a standing Ordinance in his Church that is very disputable whether it be a wickedness or not What only a pair of shears between a Gospel-Sacrament and a grievous sin and for all your Sophistry you cannot tell which is the finer end I am sure you do not plainly determine it Thirdly doth not this tax Christ of inconsideration that Christ should institute an Ordinance at the administration of which all believers may not be present men not see women nor women see men Dipped
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 stories and therefore may they not be true Is the book of Martyrs as it 's commonly called all Lies because an enemy to the Pope and his proceedings compiled it Had these enemies as you call them been Nero's *) Quoddum magnum bonum quod à Neâ—ome condemnatum Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 2. c. 25. their Writings had been some advantage to the Anabaptists But they were godly and learned Divines among whom that there should not be one true and impartial historian is incredible at least if those histories be false why are they not confuâ—ed at least by you who boast of answering M. Baxter Mr. Cook Mr. Hall c. with a little more labour and lesse truth you might so answer Luther Calvin c. cannot you tell us that their books are lies as well as Mr. Baxter in your p. 110 I would be loth you should have more manners then will do you good Till they be clearly answered we must take the Anabaptists for seditious filthy unclean idle c. such as they from knowledge and experience report them to be There is all the equity in the world if the evidence let who will give it be true it should be of force and valid 4. Let the Reader observe that by Mr. Haggar's confession the Anabaptists ever since they appeared met with opposition And I dare tell you you have one more rich and potent enemy then you dream of i.e. GOD himself who hath ever followed them with eminent judgments and written their wickedness in their almost unparallel'd wretchedness He that runs may read their sin in their punishment 5. No wonder Zuinglius could not stop their mouth they were so wide Anabaptists are resolved to have the last word and nimbler in reviling then reasoning being better armed with arrogancy then Arguments But I must tell you by the way you grosly mis-report Mr. Baxter pag. 140. for he saith Zuinglius had publick Disputation with them in which being convict of Error they foamed against their Antagonists with blasphemies and reproaches you might be ashamed of them that opened their mouths thus 6. Without question it is meet and just that a religious Magistracy should punish such obstinate gain-saiers and unreasonable men who were not tired with reviling nor would be satisfied with reason such mad creatures must be bound c. 7. Though the Apostles could not repell their adversaries crueltie yet they could plead their own innocency so could not the Anabaptists But what is that of the Apostles to these Will it follow because John the Baptist was beheaded therefore John of Leiden was a Martyr unless name-sake make them nigh a kin This is even like Mr. Haggar SECT 37. H. H. same pag. As the Apostles suffered Acts 24.5 so were those served at Germany yet M. Baxter saith p. 140. they did not suffer as Anabaptists but as men perjured disobedient c. Answer And so I thought indeed that as a Sheep in a Bears skin is soon worried so these learned Divines know the onely way to prison banish or hang the Anabaptists is to cloath them with filthy names and reproaches Then the people will be ready for to stone them and if any question it he is presently suspected to be an Heretick Reply Here is impudence with a witness but without a parallel So were the Anabaptists of Germany served Were they like Paul Peter or John and suffered onely under the notion not for the fault and fact of Sedition Rebellion Murder c. Let the Reader see and judg whether this be not a most gross and shameless untruth *) Sleid. Com l. 6 At Sengal one of them cut off his own brothers head before his father and mother saying The Father had commanded him The Anabaptists go to the Market-place and command all that were not baptized i. e. re-baptized to be kill'd as Pagans A little after being armed they rendevouz and drive out of the Citie all that were not of their Sect without regard of age or sex Again John of Leiden after his long sleep broaches his Doctrine of Polygamy and marrying three Wives others follow his example and such marriages were counted commendable Not long after rises from supper kills a poor souldier for a â—udas returns to supper and jests at the fact c. Did these things proceed from an Apostolick spirit were the Apostles such as these or were these tumultuous Incendiarie beastly Adulterers bloody Murtherers like the Apostles This is most brazen-faced confidence The Apostles suffered as Martyrs these as Malefactors If these were innocent sheep Hell is full of such Saints 2. What need â—hose learned Divines as you scoffingly call them 〈◊〉 Bears skin on the Anabaptists It cannot make them uglier then they are If they have clothed them with filthy names they have but call'd a Spade a Spade else why do not you put off these Bears-skins in vindicating them The truth is it passeth your art you must flea them Jer. 13 2â— Aâ—â—â—is Aethiopâ—m quid fâ—ustâ—a ab desiâ—e noctis illustrate nigrae nemo potest tenebras Aâ—ciar if you pull them off for their skins are natural But it is in vain to wash the Black-moor 3. It 's but one of your usual Liveries liberally bestowed to say we condemn them as Hereticks that will not believe this c. You might better wear it your self for you and your party count them Hereticks Antichristians Heathens c. that are not re-baptized c. 4. What you say in the close of this answer concerning Mr. Baxter's crie to the Magistrate c. It hath been spoken to already in this Reply to the sixth Argument whither I refer the Reader SECT 38. H. H. You tell us that Calvin wrote against them Answer True when they were dead and laid in their graves and so could not answer for themselvs then Calvin falls a writing against them But Mr. Baxter I write to you and to Mr. Hall and to Mr. Cook while you are alive and may answer for your selvs therefore I expect an answer from you c Reply 1. The meanest understanding may here discern your folly for all this Mantle for were the Anabaptists past answering for themselvs the grave then could that which you say Zuinglius could not And surely it had been a poor part in Calvin to become an Opponent where Death had taken away the Respondent I had thought he had been a better Civilian then to commence a suit after the winding â—heet But you deliver a notorious untruth that blessed man was not afraid p) See Mâ—lchior Adam de vita Calviâ—i p. 68.69 to encounter your living Predecessors but did conquer them too only by the Word of the Lord. But if they had been all dead and laid in their graves I pray then where was the Church If the gates of hell could not the gates of death could prevail against it Do you think youâ— Church was like the mad-man in the Gospell among Tombs
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