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
God hath opened the mouth of the Ass to reprehend the madness of these Prophets 2. When we accuse the Anabaptists our Bill is against ALL we say and that truly there is not a man of them that is not guilty of some of those fore-mentioned crimes Now though you have face enough yet you dare not say all the Ministers or all the people of the Church of England were guilty of some of those wickednesses the voyces of a few are not the qualifications of all m) Tantum in propriis essentialibus à particulari ad universale valet consequentia 3. You say you have playd the fools part I think so too it had been pity such a Comedy should have been Acted without you and so unawares you have given us thirteen to the dozen 4. Did the tongues and pens of M. Baxter and M. Hall flye at more uncertainties then yours Are not the writings of Calvin Bullinger c. as true as the first Century of Scandalous Ministers c. and is not M. B. as faithfull a reporter as M. Haggar SECT 48. H. H. p. 117. to 120. Now let the impartiall Reader consider whether this generation of men are not those spoken of 2 Tim. 3.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. Jer. 23.14 15 16 17. Ezek. 22.26 27 28. Mich. 3.12 Phil. 3.18 19. 2 Pet. 2.9 to 19. So that I may say with Jeremiah 5. ver 30 31. Reply 1. To all this I will say only thus much The Lord will cut out the proud tongue and the monthes of Lyars shall be stopped I shall spread all before the Lord as Hezekiah did Rashake's letter and the Lord be Judge between us Withall know Sir that you must one day answer for this * Jude 15. and for abusing Scripture to the venting of your own wrath bitterness and malice for which end the Scriptures were never written That such Scriptures may be used out of a holy zeal against the known enemies of God his Church against false teachers I deny not but it 's not fit you should vomit up your gall in them this is but to put Satans brats in God's childrens cloaths and to raise up the Devill in Samuel's mantle Yet 2. You say p. 117. we are false accusers for we accuse you and are in fault our selves A wise reason If reduced into form They that accuse the Anabaptists and are in fault themselvs are false accusers But we accuse you c. 1. Your Major is notoriously false Those Scribes and Pharisees accused the woman taken in Adultery in the very act yet they were not false accusers of her though they were in fault in themselves Joh. 8.3 to 12. The penitent thief accused the other thief for railing on Christ and yet he was no false accuser of him though as deep in robbery as the other 3. You say also the Lord hath promised they shal proceed no further c. 2 Tim. 3.9 It 's to be considered whether it be not a threatning rather then a promise we have only your bare word for this last which I cannot credit for it 's said their folly shall bee made manifest as theirs also was i. e. Jannes and Jambres now that was a judgment executed and is not this then a judgment threatned 4. Other Fopperies mentioned in the close of this answer are but repititions to a loathing I 'le say no more SECT 49. H. H. p. 120. Thus having made an end with M. Baxter I shall conclude with M. Cook 's last end of his Font uncovered p. 46. where he seems to answer this Objection Reply And have you done with M. Baxter Truly then you have done your work but by halves What do you say to his tryall q) c. 15. p. 152. to 160. of the strength of your cause by antiquity what not a word to all this what 's become of your old way of disputing never an Odium to cast upon him no clawing Apostrophe to the Reader or people never a mist to cast before mens eyes that they may not see the truth Cannot you tell M. Baxter hee lyes and all that he writes are but lyes why are you thus cowardly without any noise to quit the field Is not this to acknowledge you are conquered But you are about to encounter with M. Cook again Let 's see how you charge here if any whit better then before CHAP. XVI SECT 1. H. H. p. 121. He saith The truth oft lyes deep and will not easily be sound out As it is more pretious then Gold and Silver so it requires more diligent search Gold mines are not obvious to every eye much skill and labour are requisite to find them out and bring the Gold to light Answ Sir I am afraid that this is your Gold that you have deceived so many poor souls withall which you have taken great pains to dig out of the mountains of antient Fathers the mines of mens inventions you may well compare your work to Digging for Isa 29.15 c. Reply 1. That you might be thought it seems to have fully answered that little Book Though you never spake to the substance of it as you have nibbled at some few words in the beginning so now you take notice of some few words in the close of that Book But whereas you say you are afraid I tell you the wicked fear where none pursues and Hypocrites pretend to fear the sins of others when they intend most to hide and dissemble their own 2. It appears indeed you were afraid of somthing when you keep at such distance from the body of that little book which you pretend to encounter only making a few slieghty velitations first at the van and then at the rear and presently run away not daring to come near the main body which stands still in it's full strength and sees you running away only giving some bragging and rayling words as you look behind you which any coward may do 3. If you did discern any counterfeit Gold there why did you not discover it by the touch-stone of the Word to bee so 4. What occasion you have to complain of Ancient Fathers c. I know not for they were not urged in that book But what was there asserted was confirmed by Scripture Though we blesse God for any help we have from ancient or modern writers and their inventions For the finding out of the truth and understanding the Scriptures you that stand not in need of the help of others may scorn them if you please being sufficient of your self 5. You may perceive now your perversenesse in abusing Scripture r) Diodat on Isa 26.15 for they carried on their design secretly with in themselvs never informing themselvs of the wil of God nor commending their said designs to him in prayer for a blessing Malice it self cannot charge M. C. thus Nay rather he is like those who have digged deep to find hid treasures and to expose them to open view which all
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.
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
expresly written in the Word of God Therefore womenâ— receiving the Lord's Supper family-prayer morning and evening c. are not of God but of Satan You have now brought your Pigs to a fair market But if by the word WRITTEN you mean Consequentially written Then your Minor is false For Infant-baptism is so written in the Word of God i. e. Consequentially as hath been abundantly k) Sâ—e M Marshallâ— Defence p. 209 c. shewed out of Mat. 28.19 Acts 2.38 39. c. Where there are Consequentiall commands for Infant-baptism As by your own confession p. 12. Family-prayer c. is written in 1 Tim. 2.8 c. So that hence I conculde Infant-baptism is written in the Word of God and therefore of God and not of Satan as you blasphemously speak and write SECT 14. H. H. In your 5 Position you tell the people that if any have taken up this pâ—nion and have not read and studied Mr. Cobbet and Mr. Church and other chief Books and been able to confute them they have but discovered a seared conscience which either dare venture on sin without fear or else do count error no sin To all which I answer How now Mr. B. are you grown to this height what must not men obey what they find written in the holy Scripture till they have asked M. Cobbet and M. Churches counsel I pray you where learned you this Divinity at Rome I thought all this while the holy Scriptures had been able to make us wise to salvation but it seems they are not If you say True but we must be beholding to M. Cobbet and M. Church Reply 1. The greatest part of M. B. 5 Position you pass by in silence as being it seems unable to answer it and the piece you catch at you curtail also as the intelligent Reader may quickly observe 2. What you seem to answer to is in a Magisteriall Prelatical and scornfull way e. g. How now M. B are you grown to this height what must not men obey c. till they have asked M. Cobbets and M. Churches counsell I pray where learned you this Divinity at Rome I am very sorry that you are grown to that height as to fit in the seat of the scornfull l) Psal 1.1 3. The Scriptures I acknowledge is able to make us wise to salvation and yet we may and must read other Books for all that m) 1 Tim 4.14 with Eccl. 12.12 give attendance to reading I believe you speak this out of the height of your bitternesse and malice against all humane learning which shall be defended in its place 4. What a poor and pitifull reason do you give Mr. Cobbets and Mr. Churches Books must not be read because the Scripture is able to make us wise to salvation n) Foundation p. 15. to 21. Why then did M. Haggar read if he hath read those Books mentioned in pag. 15. which make up three whole leaves Are not the Scriptures able to make M. Haggar wise to salvation without them Nay why have you printed this Book of yours if not to be read and yet for all that the Scripture is able to make us wise to salvation through Faith in Christ SECT 15. H. H. p. 36 But I pray how did men before M. Cobbets and M. Church's Bâ—oks were writen and how do those â—ow who cannot come by their Books or never heard of them If it be as you say you may do well to send some men up and down the Country to sell them But I believe this is but one of your scare-Crows with which you use to affright silly souls that set their Faith in your wisedom and not in the power of God but your folly is a making manifest and light and freedom is breaking forth to them which you have kept in darkness and bondage Reply 1. Pehaps you might as well ask how did men before the Scriptures were written But 2. You speak in the language of ignorant superstitious Popish and prophane persons what are become of our Ancestors c How did our Forefathers before there were so much preaching c The same plaister may be applied to both sores viz. They stand and fall to their Master Where much is given much is required that little measure of light might be saving to them which will not be to us But M. Baxter tells you p. 6. If any of you have taken up this opinion without reading M. Cobbets c. and being able to confute them at least to himself which words you have left out you have discovered a seared conscience c. To which you answer not a word 3. Your scoffing scorning and censuring are unworthy of any reply only it seems as yet you have not made M. B. folly manifest for you say His folly is a making manifest and I am confident that that light and freedom you talk of will be found in the event darkness and Thraldome 4. Consider in your cold blood whether you do not keep your Proselytes in darknesse and bondage by keeping them from the publick Ministry By the light whereof your errors are discovered under the odious terms of Antichristian c. one of your Scare-Crows with which you use to affright silly souls And by keeping them to your Ministry or to some private gifted-brother as he is called what is this but to be kept in bondage or set in the stocks SECT 16. H. H. same p In your sixth Position you say you will discover a most frequent cause of mens falling into errors viz. All men in the beginning do receive many truths upon weak and fals grounds and so hold them a while till they are beaten out of their old Arguments and then presently they suspect the cause it self and you are perswaded that it is Mr. Tomb's case Answ As for Mr. Tombs he is of age and able to answer for himself I never knew any receive Infant-baptism upon any ground at all weak or strong neither can they being uncapable of understanding what they do Therefore you may well say they are or may be quickly beaten off it again c. Reply 1. What you say of M. Tombs I may more truly say of M. Baxter he is of age and able to answer for himself If that be true of which I make no question which is said of M. Baxter o) J. G. Catabap A man as fit and able as any I know to make straight a crooked age 2. M. Baxter doth not say as you represent him but you being deceived would deceive the simple partly by leaving out the word ALMOST For he saith Almost all men do receive many truths on weak and false grounds and partly by not distinguishing between the receiving of Infant-baptism and the doctrine of Infant-baptism The Jewish Infants received Circumcision even when and while they could not receive the doctrine of it Your reason therefore concludes as strongly against Circumcision then as against Infant-baptisme now SECT 17. H. H. same
liberty to swerve from these primitive practices c. 4. The custome of the Churches in baptizing Infantâ— is of that weight with the Paedobaptists that you must bâ—ing more convincing Arguments then you have yet done to take them off from that custom As for the manner of Baptizing Mr. Cradock to whom Mr. Baxter referrs you tells you * Gospel-liberty p. 2â— 4. I hat Christ hath not made Baptism such an Ordinance as that in all Climates and Countries-and Regions they must go over head and ears in a River c. SECT 22. H. H. You say that you can prove that Infant-baptism was used in the Church as high as to the Apostles as there be many sufficient Histories extant inform us and that the deferring of Baptism came in with the rest of Popery upon Popish or Heretical grounds Answ Oh Sir have I now sound you out Truly seeing I have I must not conceal your wickedness least I become guilty with you of the blood of souls And therefore I do by this declare to all men that you are both a Deceiver and a Blasphemer The which charge I now come to prove Reply 1. Nay stay a while and consider what you say or do you triumph before the victory If you have but now found out Mr. Baxter It teems you have missed of him all this while 2. Though I have found you out before yet I must not conceal your weakness wickedness and audaciousness least I communicate with you in â—our sin and here I do declare to all men hereby that Henry Haggar is both an Imposter and a Blasphemer the which charge I come now to prove but first let us see how you prove the charge SECT 23. H. H. p. 3.38 1. It 's evident you are a Deceiver in that you have intituled your Book Plain Scripture proof for Infant 's Church-membership and Baptism when indeed there is no such thing in all the Bible but you confess that your proof is from some histories extant which you judge sufficient c. Reply 1. You notoriously abuse Mr. Baxter he doth not say that proof for Infant-baptism from Histories are sufficient in his judgment u) see Mr. Baxt. Position 9. p. 7. but in opposition to Mr. T. pretences among the simple he saith he shall easily prove that Infant-baptism was used in the Church as high as to the Apostles daies as there is any sufficient history extant to inform us And if this proves Mr. Baxter to be a deceiver then blessed v) see the foregoing Chap. 5. sect 14. Inst 3.4 c. 16. s 8. Calvin is one and many other burning and shining lights in the Churches of Christ But your charge is indeed from an Eldern-gun and is no Musket-shot it makes a noise but God be thanked hurts not 2. Besides the humane testimonies for Infant-baptism in matter of fact M. Baxter brings abundance of plain Scriptures to prove it De jure And if you see them not it is because you are wilfully blind and obstinate It 's an easie matter for you with impudence to say there is no such thing but it's hard for you to disprove those Texts of Scripture alledged by him Therefore you have cunningly waved all saving two or three in comparison 3. Your Proposition implied is false viz. He that intitles his Book so and yet brings antient histories to prove the usage of Infant-baptism as high as the Apostles daies is a Deceiver you will never set this crooked legg straight while the world stands 4. To set the Saddle as they say on the right horse and to prove you a Deceiver I thus argue He that intiâ—uleth his Book Plain Scripture-proof for the baptizing of men and women when they believe in Rivers and Fountains as a Standing Ordinance in the Church of Christ is a Deceiver But H. H. so intituseth his Book therefore H H. is a Deceiver Theâ—e is no doubt of the Minor and the Major is as clear because those words viz. A Standing Ordinance are no where written in the Scripture of truth and with Mr. Haggar express and plain Scripture proof are all one SECT 24. H. H. 2. You are a Blasphemer for you say deferring of Baptism came in with the rest of Popery Answ But Sir do you not know that our glorious Lord Jesus Christ deferred his baptism till he was thirty years of age Luke 3.21 22 23. And yet he was the child of believing Parents I think you dare not deny Reply 1. If this example be binding none ought to be baptized till they are thirty years old which I perswade myself is against your judgment and practice 2. Luke saith not that Christ deferr'd his Baptism till he was thirty years of age This is your inference not his Assertion He doth not say Christ was thirty years of age before or when he was baptized much less tha the Deferr'd his Baptism till then but thus * Luke 2.23 Jesus himself began to be About thirty years of age c. 3. Christ was not till then baptized partly to answer the Types x) Numb 4.3 35 39 43 47. and chiefly to receive that Testimony from Heaven in the midst of such a great confluence of people that came to John to be baptized which is hinted by Mat. 3.5 6 13 Then and held forth by Luke c. 3.21 22. Therefore this was not properly a deferring * see Diodat on 2 Pet. 3 9. unless perhaps in the judgment of the Flesh as Hab. 2. vers 3.2 Pet. 3.9 SECT 25. H. H. p. ibid. Again doth not the Commission of Christ defer Baptism till believing Mark 16.15 16. and Philip also Acts 8 36 37. shewing by these words plainly that if he did not believe it was to be deferred c. Reply 1. In Mark and in the Acts cited there is not one word of deferring till believing you manifest your own folly and delude poor souls c. 2. You are now for Consequences when you think they will serve your turn Mr. Baxter hath brought more plain Scripture-proof for Infant Church-membership and Baptism then you have done for deferring Baptism 3. I am mistaken if you are not guilty of a plain contradictions For in your pag. 26. in your exhortation you do more then implie that Baptisme is not to be deferred saying Let us not delay the time with a woful misapplication of Scripture y) â—sal 119.60 but here in this page Baptism is to be deferred as you plead 4. The rest of this page contains nothing but an idle Repetition or abominable Censuring with horrible abuse of Scripture and therefore shall have no other answer but what is made already SECT 26. H. H. pag. 39. The summe of which is that Rev 19.20 and 13.16 17. are most properly applied to you the sign of the Cross being a mark of the Beast on the childs forehead when it was baptized or rather rantized Here is a looking-glass for you but the Gospel is our looking-glass Acts
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.
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
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
is not tied himself And that Christ should speak of such little ones as John writes to 1 Joh. 2.12 it 's but one of your Dictates But let us see how Christ answereth it as you say SECT 14. H. H. p. 81. It 's clear that Matth. and Luke speak of one and the same thing by comparing Luke 9 46. with Mat. 18.1 c. Therefore not Infants for age but for quality are meant i. e. humble and converted Christians as 1 Cor. 14.20.1 Pet. 2. ver 1. Reply 1. You that father your Solecisms and blasphemies on God p. 29 c. it 's no marvel you father your Gloss on Christ The mouth of the Lord himself hath spoken it It was usual with false Prophets to crie The Word of the Lord the mouth of the Lord c. How else could they deceive simple souls 2. If Christ speaks of actual Believers as you say and I have proved some Infants such then the mouth of the Lord himself hath spoken of little children of a few daies old to use your phrase Again compare the Evangelists together and it 's plain For Christ said Whosoever shall receive This Child viz. which he took and set by him in my name Luke 9.47 48. with Mat. 18.5 And whoso shall receive one Such little child in my name i. e. not onely this individual child but any one such for age c. 3. It is your frequent expression e. g. p. 4. Therefore none Such were baptized by John And pag. 64. No Such Infants in the Church at Jerusalem and pag. 65. to name no more None Such members of the Church at Corinth Surely you meant if any sense can be made of your words such for age Though I deny not but Christ might and did aim at a further document But let us hear your Reason for your Exposition SECT 15. H. H. If we understand that little Children are Believers in this place then whosoever is a believer and chastiseth his son betimes as Solomon adviseth it were better for him to have a mill-stone hanged about his neck c. For certain we are that whosoever correcteth his child will off end him which is an absurdity Reply 1. A ridiculous reason For you should have said Then it follows that whosoever chastiseth a believer c. not whosoever is a believer and chastneth c. else you say nothing to purpose but you were affraid to acknowledge little children believers 2. You set the Scripture together by the ears to bring in your absurdity It this Saint-like done Now mark He that offendeth his child sinneth this is plainly implied by Christ But he that correcteth his child sinneth not this is evident by Solomon Prov. 13 24. with 19.18 Therefore certain we are that he that correcteth his child doth not offend him 3. Your absurdity will not follow if you allow the old received distinction of an offence l) Scandalum datum vel acceptum or scandal given or taken The Pharisees were offended at Christ's saying Mat. 15 12. they took offence but Christ gave none and children when corrected may be offended though they are offended more waies then by whipping Children take offence but parents give none Thus I haue discovered your foolish carpings and cavills at Mr. Baxter's Arguments and the woful weakness of your own Now proceed to your second Argument SECT 16. H. H. p. 82. My second Argument is from Joh. 8.31 32. the summe whereof is this They that continue in Christ's words are Christ's Disciples indeed and shall know the truth and be made free by it But Infants cannot abide c. Therefore not disciples indeed The Third from Joh. 15.8 They that bring forth much fruit to God's glory are Christ's Disciples But little children cannot c. Therefore Reply 1. I have joined these two Arguments together for being the sams form they may receive the same answer 1. The Syllogisms themselvs are false for Form as a Fresh-man in Logick may see for they are both in the first Figure having the Assumptions Negative and the meanest rational man may discern thus They who have perfectly learned all the Liberal Arts and Sciences are Scholars indeed But Abecedarians have not learned all the Liberal Arts and Sciences Therefore they are not Scholars indeed 2. Here is a Fallacie * Ignoratio Elenchi for our question is not of such Disciples who are truly Regenerate and shall be certainly fruitful c. which belongs onely to the invisible Church Wee never affirmed that all the children of believing parents are such But our Question is concerning those that are visible Disciples in his visible School c. And you cannot deny many may and must be owned disciples in the Visible Church who fall short of those visible characters as Judas Simon Magus Ananias and Sapphirae c. This your arguing then makes as much against the Primitive Apostolical Churches as against ours For they did not stay from owning people Disciples till they knew whether they would continue in the Word and bring forth much fruit to God's glory 3. The Assumptions in both taken universally are not true for Jacob Jeremy John the Baptist Timothy c. even from children abode in the truth and persevered to glorifie God And it 's not impossible now but in regard of the promise we may judge it usual in many Infants though not all This is enough For there was never any society or Church of Men-disciples on earth of which any man could say infallibly that all of them were truly sanctified SECT 17. H. H. p. 83. The fourth Argument put to the best is from Joh. 13.34 35. Christ's Disciples are known to all men by loving one another as Christ loved them But Infants cannot love one another so for they know not it 's their duty Therefore Reply 1. This is sick of the same disease with the two former For 1. It hath a Negative Assumption in the first Figure like this They that write in the Hebrew and Greek Languages are known to be Scholars But they that are in some womans Country-school cannot do so Therefore no Scholars 2. The Question is not of those true real internal Disciples taught of God to love one another with a supernatural love 1 Thes 4. for persons of any false Religion may love one another with a carnal and natural love for these shall not be known of all men till the day of judgment Mat. 25.31 32 c. But our Question is concerning visible Disciples who are to bee esteemed members in the School of the visible Church on earth and to have Baptism the sign of Admission into his School Will you take none to be Christ's Disciples and to be baptized untill they be known by all men to love one another as Christ loved his people If so you must cease to the worlds end from gathering Churches Was not Judas a Disciple of Christ and yet he had no true love to Christ or to his fellow-disciples 2.
found so much strength that after you had cast a squib you run away like a coward â—ut for all that he hath reached you such a back-blow which you cannot claw off SECT 3. H. H. p. 88. Nay to give him his Argument again Infant Baptism is utterly inconsistent with the obedience to Christ's rule First because there is neither precept nor practise for it as he grants Secondly because by their Rantizing or sprinkling of babes they make the command of Christ of none effect Mat. 7.7 8 9. and Mat. 15.8 9. Thus they bind two sins together and in the one they shall not go unpunished Reply 1. If giving be granting you do well to give it him 2. The first reason of your retortion is but the Cuckoes song M. Baxter hath been so far from granting it that he hath abundantly shewed you both precept and example but you are so wilfully blind that you cannot see wood for trees 3. Your Third is both a meer Calumniation and a miserable begging the Question Infant-Baptism is neither a Tradition in your sense nor a making of Christ's Command of none effect in our sense as hath been shewed But I may not nauseate the Reader with vain repetitions as you do 4. If we shall go unpunished in the one I believe in the other too SECT 4. H. H. Whereas M. Baxter would make us offendors for nothing i. e. for not baptizing children in their Non-age I Answer First he can never make it a sin till he shew us what Command we have broken c. Secondly There is both precept and practice for baptizing men and women when they believe Mar. 16.16 Act. 8.12 and 10.48 Reply 1. Then it seems a swarving from an example in Scripture is no sin What if women should never Break Bread or receiv the Lords Supper is it not a sin since there is no expresse command for it and no example but by consequence Your Scriptures shall be spoke to anon if not heretofore 2. It hath been proved that you utterly mistake those Commands and examples for baptizing men and women at years of discretion unless you will make the parties parallel i. e. meer Heathens newly converted c. But I must not fall into the same crime with you of idle and senselesse Repetitions onlâ— let the Reader observ That I have orderly digested this page of yours which you had confusedly set down for the building of your Tower of Babel SECT 5. H. H. p. 89. His Third Argument is because the practise of baptizing children of Christians at age goes upon meer uncertainties hath no Scripture rule to guide it Therefore it 's not according to the will of Christ Answer Though this is the same in substance with the two former yet First our practise is guided by Scripture rule from the Command of Christ and examples of the Apostles Mark 16.16 Acts 2.41 and 8.12 37. Naâ— say 〈◊〉 your practise of Baptizing little babes goes upon meer uncertainties having no Scripture-rule to guide it c. Reply 1. I had thought to have said nothing to your charge on M. Baxter's chopping one Argument into so many pieces to multiply words Therefore I did not transcribe them yet I shall say this It seems you had surfeited of the other two Arguments And now your stomack turnes at the naming of this If you had no mind to multiply words you might have spared this Cavilling Preface Crums of truth are too precious to be lost and therefore since you will not understand the Loaves which have satisfied some Thousands Mr. B. did well to put his fragments into the basket d) part i. c. â— p. 150. by sending the Reader back to what went before 2. Though the Texts alledged by you have been Replyed to yet here your answer is both wide and weak If you mean of a Church to be constituted that 's nothing to the purpose Mr. Baxter's assertion is still true though that be granted and so your answer is wide If of a Church constituted and if you understand christians children at age then your instances out of those Scriptures prove no such thing because they were not the children of Christian parents and so your answer is weak 3. As your answer is impertinent so your return of M. Baxter's Argument is insufficient To deal roundly I deny your Minor viz. There is Scripture rule for Baptizing babes notwithstanding your impudent denying it as may be easily discerned by any who seriously and impartially peruse Mr. Baxter's Book or this Reply neither do you bring any Scriptures to prove your Minor but only this I SAY What arrogancy is this in you to obtrude an opinion on the world upon your bare word Could you perswade me that Pythagoras was a Dipper and that his soul had transmigrated into your body I would allow the Haggarens as well as the Pythagoreans an IPSE DIXIT he hath said it and that 's enough Do you think to carry your cause against the evidence of Scripture practice of Antiquity consent of Fathers continued custom of the Churches strength of reason upon such a pitifull proof as this is I SAY How long is it since your confidence hath amounted to an Infallibility I therefore must make bold your premisses being thus routed to alter your conclusion Infant Baptisme is according to the mind of Christ notwithstanding Mr. Haggars I SAY 4. Because I would not have Mr. B. to be in your debt for the return of his Argument I return you an Argument from one of your Scriptures e) Mar. 16.16 cited and from your own principles For although you are not so rigid to damne Infants and exclude them from Heaven yet you excommunicate them out of the Church cast them out of the Covenant c. Here I argue They who may be saved without actuall Faith may be Baptized without actuall faith But Infants specially of believing parents may be saved without actuall faith therefore they may be Baptized without actuall faith The Minor you grant The Major I prove thus If faith be as necessary to salvation as it is to Baptisme then they that may be saved without faith may be Baptised without Faith But the former is true Therefore the latter The consequence of the Major is evident from the words of the text f) Mark 16.16 where the same stresse is laid upon faith to salvation as to Baptisme And the Minor cannot be denied unlesse you will have admission to Baptism on Earth more difficult then to blessedness in Heaven and make it an harder matter to be Baptized then to be Saved I leave you to unty not to cut this knot SECT 6. H. H p. 89. 90. His sourth Argument is Because the practice of Baptizing Christians Children at age necessarily fills the Church with perpetuall contentions as being about a matter that cannot be determined by any known rule Answer But the Baptizing of men and women when they believe is a matter that can be and is
You falsly quote M. Baxter who saith it is AT THAT TIME a sin not at any time sinfull There is a vaste difference in the sense though not in the sound of the words The one doth absolutely lay aside the other but Relatively and for a time suspend the lesser duty It is grossly false to say A duty when it is inconsistent with a greater is at any time sinfull unless some restriction bee allowed to come to the Congregation may occasionally be inconsistent with my health and preservation yet it is not sinfull at any time And it is as true that when it is inconsistent with a greater it is at that time a sinn For it 's a known Rule i) Semper ad-semper that Negative precepts bind alwaies k) Josh 5.5 6 7. and at all times so do not Affirmative as is cleare in the case of Circumcision Josh 5.5 6 7. 2. You fraudulently curtall M. Baxter in leaving out these words viz. Especially the manner and quantity of Water in Baptism c. You shew your selfe like an Egyptian Midwife to truth and reason what you cannot confute you can conceal 3. You maliciously infer a Calumniating conclusion from M. Baxter's principles and premises and therefore it deserves no other answer then M. Baxter's l) Mat. 12.7 I will have mercy and not sacrifice if you had learned what this means you would not have condemned the guiltless you reflect on Christ as well as on M. Baxter Yet 4. I shall onely say thus much to your impertinent Scriptures John 14.15 c. It is as true that Christ who hath loved us and given himself for us hath not given us any precept which simply tends to the overthrow of our lives we may love Christ and keep his commandements and yet love our selves too we may and must love Christ with a Superlative love and our selves also with a subordinate love 5. You might have spared this handfull of dirt which you have flung at M. Baxter till you had proved Dipping to be the Ordinance of Christ by one expresse Scripture or at least syllable of reason But since you think M. Baxter so cowardly as that he would not suffer for Christ I must tell you I have read of som Martyers as Philpot c. mentioned in your p. 45. that never were Anabaptists but never read of an Anabaptist that was a Martyr It 's no Argument becaus M.B. will not go with you into the water therefore not into the fire no more then this Because you have gon into the water therefore you will endure the fire There is warrant for the one when called none for the other which yet you miserably beg as if it were the command and example of Christ c. 6. You follow your old trade in abusing Scripture e. g. Mat. 3.15 Those words do not hold forth the externall Formality of the Administration but the person that did Administer and the old ordinance of Baptism with the person to whom it was administred for Christ comes to bee baptized verse 13. John out of an high esteem of Christ and a low apprehension of himself forbids him ver 14. Then Christ replies thus it becommeth us to fulfill c. In what Not in Dipping of him there 's no express mention made thereof but in baptizing him SECT 26. H. H. p. 101. Lastly I desire the Reader to consider how like M. Baxters counsell to us is to Peters counsell Mat. 16.21 22. so doth M. Baxter say to us and specially to Gentlewomen old and weak people c. This shall not be to you for in the course of nature it will kill hundreds c. But let all that fear God learn of Christ to answer M. B. as he answered Peter ver 23. Reply You are got into your wonted haunt to claw the people and calumniate your adversary There is no likenesse between Peters and M. Baxters Counsell Peter advised Christ against that which was written and ordained So doth not Mr. B. for where is it written expressly that every one who is baptized must be dipped Therefore when Mr. B. disswades any from doing and suffering for Christ according as it is written in your sense I shall say His Counsell is like Peters In the mean time as you do in the close of this Section I leave what I have written to the judgment of them that fear God SECT 27. H. H. same pag. His seventh Argument is against Dipping of persons naked which is against the seventh Commandement Therefore an intollerable wickedness and not Gods Ordinance Answ 1. I am sure it is intollerable wickedness in M. Baxter and a breach of the ninth Commandement to say wee baptize people naked athing which he never saw as hee confesseth when he saith he hears so Reply 1. Here is more foul play and the truth held in unrighteousnesse for you leave out these words OR NEXT TO NAKED you cite Mr. B. as you answer him that is by halves 2. Were that false which he affirms is he a greater transgressor of the ninth Commandement then you are pag. 92. who say m the heaviest purses of our Religion are the greatest part of our Religion and call Mr. Baxter a child of the Devill c. p. 93. You should not have thrown this stone unlesse you had been without fault 3. Why is it a breach of the ninth commandement to say so because he never saw it you say with his eyes What kind of reasoning is this Doth not this shake if not take away the foundation of Moral and Divine Faith If nothing must bee believed but what wee see with our eyes we must believe nothing For that Assent the understanding yields to a thing seen is knowledg or experience This is to make sense saith and the Proverb true Seeing is believing Contrary to Scripture 1 Pet. 1.8 Nay then all those high charges which you have drawn up against Mr C. and Mr. B. c. all along your book are false for you never saw those with your eyes Then John and the Apostles never plunged men and women over head and ears in baptizing them for you never saw it with your eyes 4. But how can you tell Mr. B. never saw it with his eyes he confesseth it when he saith he hears so Is not this sound Divinity Did ever Christ and his Apostles preach such doctrine Did ever any weak man but Mr. Haggar utter such a reason as this viz. Because he heard a thing therefore he never saw it as if the same thing in diverse respects at several times could not be the Object of seeing and hearing also you saw your ridiculous answers at Ellesmere exploded and do you not hear of the same too SECT 28. H. H. p. 102. It may be that some which he accounts Christians have so little grace and of the fear of God in them as to tell him such lyes and he is willing to believe them although for my part I have baptized
the dust you have raised and noise you have made can neither hide from him nor plunder him off SECT 2. H. H. same p. What have you to do to call Christ Lord and yet will not do the things which he saith Luk. 6.46 Which is to preach the Gospell to all and baptize them that believe and gladly receive it Mark 16.15 16. with 2.41 8.12 This Gold will endure the fire when your Rantizing babes will perish Though you plead for cozening poor Children in their Cradles and when you have done you have made them seven times harder to be converted to the Faith of the Gospel then they were before Reply 1. There is no 41 verse in Mark. 2. nor any thing to your purpose in Mark 8.12 I suppose the Printer hath abused you for Acts 2.41 and 8.12 But those and the other Scriptures have been Answered before though you please your self in singing the Cuckow 's song 2. All verily is not Gold that glisters your Gold you brag of proves but gilded brasse Infant-Baptism will last when your mode shall vanish like smoke in the air 3. It 's well known and may be spoken to God's glory that many after Infant-Baptism and still owning it have been converted from their natural and sinfull estate to the obedience of the Faith Now if Infants before your Baptizing were seven times more easie to be converted then after what is become of all your noise concerning Infants capacity to repent and believe Is your mind changed now Are you indeed perswaded that Infants unbaptized are seven times easier to bee converted to the Faith then after Baptism But your rage carries you on to rail on us not without abuse of Scripture in most of your 122. page which is unworthy of any other answer but silence and patience SECT 3. H. H. pag. 122. We are not to be blamed if we declare nothing but the Word of God 2 Tim. 4.2 and if we have answered in eighteen sheets c. Reply 1. To the first I need say little True if you have such a Call as Paul and Timothy had or any just call warranted by the World to preach and declare God's Word but you have not yet proved that you have any such call Now then if you preach before you are sent and run without Commission the speaking of some truths will not justifie you Sathan spake sometime truth and that according to God's Word but having no Call had no thanks nor was justified therein Mat. 4.6 8.29 Acts 16.17 18. And his slaves have taken upon them to imitate the Apostles of Christ in these things whereto they had no call Acts 19.13 14 15 16. 2 Cor. 11.13 14. 2. How punctually you keep to the Word of God in your teaching and writing I hope appears by this time Papism Arâ—inianism Socinianism c. with which your book is more then sprinkled are not parts of the word of God 3. I do not marvel at your briefness in answering when you promise to answer all and indeed answer nothing Besides Tares are sooner sowen then gathered up and the ground rid of them poison is sooner prepared and devoured then the body cleansed of it An hundred houses are sooner burnt then one built yet I have transcribed you and replied to you SECT 4. H. H. p. 133. It is said wee are they that subvert whole housholds but I answer as Elijah did Ahab 1 King 18.18 We do not subvert whole Housholds for we baptize none but those that believe according to Mark 16.15 16. Acts 8.12 37. But it 's you Mr. C. that subverts whole housholds when you baptize children and all for lucres sake c. Reply Sir it 's not your Nay will serve when your practice proclaims the contrary neither can you shew any call from God to do what you do as Eliah could shew for what he did and therefore you still abuse Scripture What warrant have you for re-baptizing those that have been baptized Christ's command and his Apostles practice was to baptize Jews and Gentiles of ripe years that had until that time been Jews and Gentiles your pretending that warrant is confessing that whom you baptize are Jews or Gentiles and if you make them that were professed Christians to become Jews and Gentiles that you may baptize them after the example of the Apostles you subvert persons families and countries to purpose CHAP. XVII Of Humane Learning in a Minister of Christ SECT 1. H. H. pag. 123. I shall now shew the reasons of our dissenting from the Church of England and all other Churches which stand upon these four pillars viz. 1. Humane Learning for take away that which you had at Cambridge or Oxford and you have no Ministry but all men may preach as well as you nay I might say better Reply 1. It is a notorious untruth confidently enough asserted by you without the least colour of proof that the Church of England is built on the four pillars mentioned by you These are of your own framing and daubed with untempered mortar No Sir it 's built on that Rock against which the gates of Hell shal not prevail Mat. 16.18 and on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone Ephesians 2. ver 20. 2. If that we had at Cambridge or Oxford were taken away it doth not follow that we have no Ministry How many pretious Ministers are there in the Church of England eminent for piety and learning who never were matriculated in Cambridge or Oxford God having blest their private studies in the Country with the attainment of excellent abilities Violets may be found and gathered in the Field as well as in the Garden 3. It 's a Paradox that all men may preach as well as we * Multi imperitorum magistri sueâ—int priusâ—uam suerint doctorum discipulâ— Wittenberg Conles Artic. 20. suppose University Learning were taken away for herein you dissent from your own Church if a Church which hath been of this mind hitherto that none but gifted men may preach mistaking that Scripture * Ye may all prophesie Unless you mean that Women and Infants may preach for they are comprehended in those terms All men But Infants cannot speak you often say and Women may not 1 Cor. 14.34 as hath been shewed before 4. It 's worse to say you might say better x) Non sacile de Artibus rectè jâ—dicat qui Artes ignorat Cyprian 1 King 12.31 You know in the Fable who judged that the Cuckow â—ung better then the Nightingale It was Jeroboams sin that hee made Priests of the lowest of the people and it is your sin and shame to make Preachers of Mechanick and unlearned men Alas we would have learned Lawyers for our estates The Apostle saith who is sufficient for these things 2 Cor. 2 16. but H. H. saith who is not sufficient and learned Physicians for our bodies and not learned Ministers for our souls 5. Though