more of this 2. If you mean there were no Infants at all in Rome or Philippi a man had need of the faith of an Anabaptist to believe you or it I'ts said All Jerusalem was troubled with Herod Matth. 2. ver 3. Infants could not bee troubled with him Therefore there was no Infant in Jerusalem This reasoning is as good as yours i. e. stark naught But if you mean as it seems that no little children could understand speak c. who saith so 3. It 's cold comfort to believing parents that their Infants are not Saints in Christ then sure they are little Heathens but is not this contradictory to the same Apostle who calls indefinitely children even of one believing parent 1 Cor. 7.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sancti sunt So Beza and the Old Latine g Saints so is the word in the originall and are any saved by Christ but Saints you hold all we some Infants dying in their Infancy are saved by Christ 4. Paul here undertakes nothing less then the dashing Infants-believers out of the number of Saints or Church-members The universal particles ALL and EVERY one must be restrained as was said to the scope and subject matter e.gr. All the Saints salute i. e. All that were with him at the writing of this Epistle as appears by this very Scripture which you bring Phil. 4.21 22. All the brethren salute you And so salute EVERY Saint i. e. That is capable of such salutations So that your major is not proved by this Scripture at all SECT 15. H. H. p. 71. If children are not concerned in these salutations then they are not visible Saints in Christ nor visible members of his body the Church c. For the text saith plainly Phil. 4.21 Salute EVERY Saint Reply 1. As to that they are Saints in Christ I have spoken to even now 2. The Scripture no where mentions visible Saints or visible members Must we be still troubled with your unwritten traditions 3. If you might as well conclude that Infants are no creatures for to shoot in your bow the Text saith plainly Mar. 16.15 Preach the Gospel to EVERY creature and that birds and beasts and plants c. are not creatures For the text saith plainly Col. 1.23 The Gâ—spel was preached to EVERY creature which is under heaven or that the Jews Infants were not câ—iâ—dren of Israel For the text saith plainly Numb 36.8 EVERY one of the children of Israel shall keep himself SECT 16. H. H. p. 71 72. There are many probable Arguments remaining but the answers to them take much with those that set their Faith in other mens wisedoms and not in the power and wisedom of the Word of God 1 Cor. 2 4 5. But I shall omitt them Because these twelve are undenyable c. Onely I will give you one probable Argument out of Mat. 18. 15 16 17. Reply 1. You said your 12 and last Argument p. 70. How is that your last if many or but one more bee in your budget or were they demonstrative and these probable what probable after demonstratives or were all the former at best but probable not to me but to you whose faith is built on more probabilities 2. If it might be made manifest then it seems it i. e. your Tenent is not yet made manifest to the impaâ—â—â—ll Reader 3. If you know many seeming Answers would bee made to them how could you imagine none would be made to these 12. 4. I know not who those are you rave upon except perhaps your poor deluded Proselytes who pin their faith on your sleeve and take hand over head all for Gospel which you say Onely this I know you abuse Scripture again For the words are â— Cor. 3.5 That your faith should not stand in the wisedom of men but in the power of God Will you bee still at your old Trade of ADDING Take heed of the plagues you threaten others with 5. You may now find by experience the vanity of your confidence there Aâ—guments of yours are not onely deny-able and damnable also bear with the word but truly denyed and justly damned too 6. For Mat. 18. You have SIN instead of trespass which though perhaps all one yet you should not chop and change at pleasure aâ— you have left AS For you say to thee an Heathen whose son are you now p. 42. And for the three Arguments you draw from this text there is more in the conclusion then in the premisses which heretofore hath been a great fault in Argumentation And in the end you seem to grant that the word WHOLE Church is not in the text why then did you put it into your third particular but that you had a mind to cozen your Reader Indeed by the Church here is to be understood the Church-guides as before out of Act. 8.1 as appears by the eight and ninth verses Whatsoever ye shall bind c. Whatsoever ye shall loose c. If two of you shall agree So that it is as clear as the Sun that the Church here is the Assembly of the Ministers and Elders of the Church And then your threefold cord is as easie broken as that was by Samson 7. To conclude in generall for these Arguments which are thirteen to the dozen let the Reader observe There is not one word of Church-member or Church-member-ship in any one of the Scriptures cited Yet Mr. Hag. would bear us in hand that he holds nothing but what is expressed in the Scriptures Where is your written word for your belief in this very point under debate 2. Because you import that you put but little confidence in your probable Arguments I had thought to have left them as I find them but least you and yours should crow I have given some brief Animadversions and would let you understand that it were very easie to find our without vanity be it spoken many dozens of Arguments in Moses and the Prophets that might conclude as probably against the Church-membership of the Old Testament-Infants as any you have or can bring against childrens Church-membership in the New And as easie to bring multitudes of Argumemts out of the New Testament that might as probably conclude against the salvation of any Infants so dying as any you bring against the Church-membership or Covenant-state of Christians Infants Though you profess your perswasion of the salvation of ALL Infants so dying yet by your way of Arguing ALL Infants should not only be cast out of the Church but out of salvation too CHAP. XIV Of the Disciple-ship of INFANTS SECT 1. H. H. p. 73. I proceed to prove in opposition to M. Baxter and M. Cooks Arguments that Infants are not cannot be Christ's Disciples My first Argument is from Mat. 28.19 Teach all Nations c. The plain English of which M. Baxter himself confesseth to be Make Disciples c. From whence I argue thus If those Disciples which Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize must be first
putting on Christ be a profession Then some Infants may professe Christ and so be baptized For if they be saved by Christ as you say surely they put on Christ as a garment i e. passively and so Beza renders it u) Christo induti fuisâ—is Bein Gal. 3.27 have been cloathed with Christ Now by your comparison little children may professe by wearing those garments to all spectators wherewith they are dressed by their mothers or nurses unlesse a little child is not a man contrary to Gen. 4.1 as before 2. What an evil surmise is this That we will own Mr. Baxters Doctrine though we cavil with the Scriptures For cavilling with and wresting the Scripture I leave them to you who are old-excellent that way Mr. Baxter I acknowledge to be a pious and learned Minister yet I own his Doctrine here and elswhere no further then it is agreeable to Scripture and I believe Mr. Baxter would not have it otherwise 3. It 's not evident either out of Mr. Cook 's mouth or yours that baptism doth constitute a Church or Church-member The eleven Apostles did put on Christ and yet we read not one word of their being baptized SECT 9. H. H. p. 25. You say that Baptism is a sign or pledge of peoples admission into the Church Well Then it follows that they are not in before to any man's sight and if not in the Church much less constituted and established Church-members Reply 1. That follows not e. g. The Sheep which a man hath bought may be known to be his before he set on them his mark which may further signifie their relation to him and his owning of them but that doth not constitute his right to them A Servant may be truly hired before he receive an earnest which yet doth not constitute him such a man's servant Abraham was in Covenant with God and known to be so before he was circumcised The Lord's Supper is a sign and pledge of peoples admission into the Church and yet were in it before which sufficiently declares the vanity of your Argument 2. In that you take Constituted for Established it appears pears you neither know what is meant by Constitution in its proper signification nor indeed what you your self means I thought at fiâ—st you meant by constituting a Church the giving of its first being but here you take it for Establishing Surely you might with better reason say That Chuâ—ches are constituted by the Lord's Supper for this more properly is a sign and seal of Establishment in the Church then Baptism is SECT 10. H. H. You say The Thief on the Cross was saved without Baptism I Answer We deny it not For he declared openly his Faith in Christ and owned him when he was disowned almost of all which shews he would have been baptized had he been at liberty Therefore the Lord accepting the will for the deed v) 2 Cor. 8.12 saith to him This day thou shall be with me c. But what makes this for the baptizing of Infants c. It proves that little babes might be saved though unbaptized for they can profess no Faitg nor confess no sin neither hath Christ required them to obey any command before they understand and believe the Gospel * Rom. 14.23 For whatsoever is not of Faith is sin But you say we do not rightly apply that Scripture and why Because it spoils your practice But doth not the word Whatsoever include all matters and duties wee owe to God Cannot the Scriptures be in quiet for you But because this offends you we will give you another x) Heb. 11.6 Without Faith it is impossible to please God Reply 1. In that you grant the penitent Thief was a Church-member and that visibly though unbaptized you clearly yield the cause viz. That Baptism doth not constitute a Church-member For what doth constitute a Church-member is necessary to the being of a Church-member But Baptism is not necessary to the being of a Church-member Therefore it doth not constitute The Major is clear by the nature and Definition of that which constitutes any thing the Minor you grant in the instance of the Thief and I hope you will not deny the Conclusion any more 2. You shew what a miserable Disputant you are in saying What makes this for the baptizing of Infants The question is not here about Infant-baptism but about constitution of Churches which you assert to be done by Baptism and that y) Font uncovered p. 1. book denies and brings this very instance which you deny not and therefore was very pertinent to the by question of constituting Church-members 3. M. Cook hath dealt more honestly with this Text then you have done with Jerem. 2.12 13. p. 8. and many more For hence we prove against Papists and others who hold an absolute necessity of Baptism to Church-membership and salvation that even Infants may be saved and must be owned members of the Church being born of Church-members though they die in their Infancy without baptism Thus you and they being of the same judgment are confuted together by this instance of the Thief 4. Seeing you grant that Infants by this example may be saved without Baptism I pray you consider whether it will not follow unanswerably To whom salvation belongs now to them the sign and seal of salvation belongs But to Infants you grant salvation belongs now therefore baptism also the sign and seal of salvation For it 's said z) 1 Pet. 3.21 Baptism saveth Again as the Thief on the Cross being in a state of salvation had a right to baptism so Infants of believing parents being in a state of salvation as you grant have right to baptism 5. Those Scriptures alleged by you are impertinent you do but still more pitifully intangle your self and abuse the Scriptures but not at all spoil our practice or judgment For though the word whatsoever a) As the word All is to be restrained to the matter treated of 1 Cor. 6.12 so is the word Whatsoever Mat. 7.12 and here also may be taken so as to include all sinful matters which cannot be done in Faith and so are sins and all external duties which though conjoined for the matter yet not done in Faith become sins in the doer yet the Apostle in Rom. 14.23 speaks most properly of things in their own nature indifferent which God hath neither commanded nor forbidden and expresly of meats yea such kind of meats as God hath left free to be eaten or forborn Now mark the vanity of your own reasoning Infants must not bee baptized because they want Faith for whatsoever is not of Faith is sin and without Faith it 's impossible to please God Like this Infants must not be fed because they want Faith for whatsoever is not of Faith is sin and without Faith it 's impossible to please God 2 The latter sentence in Heb. 11.6 is spoken of Enoch who lived long before Abraham and makes as
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
seed and his blessing on their off-spring And he declares e) Isa 65.23 Psal 37.26 their off-spring are blessed and that the kingdom of heaven belongs to them f) Mat. 19.14 c These and the like things are not said of the children of unbelievers Therefore some difference sure 4. Yet no children are innocent absolutely but comparitatively as David was if his prayer was heard Psa 19.13 So I shall be innocent from the GREAT transgresion and Abner and Amasa were not without sins yet their blood is termed innocent blood g) 1 Kin. 2.31 32. so those children in Psal 106. were innocent as to actuall sin and in respect of those that murdered them but not free from originall sin nor spotlesse before God For had they been altogether without sin they could not have dyed Joh. 14.3.4 Psal 51.5 Rom. 5.12 14 18. and 6.23 Ephes 2 3 I say God in equity could not take away their lives if they were simply without all sin or else God iâ— cruelâ— in punishing as the places you bring seem to prove which is prodigious blasphemy 5 How is Scripture abused how impertinent is your proof man must not destroy the innocent Exod. 23 7. Prov 6.16 17. Therefore God will not Our Divines hold that God by his perogative may h) Joh. 9.12 with 2â— 3 annihilate an innocent person yea lay what evills he please as on Christ who in himself was every way innocent without any wrong to the creature and were not the Sodomites and their children i) Josh â— 24 Achan and his children punished and that without any injustice by the Lord and how many children were drowned in Noah's deluge 6. To return to Psalm 106. Those children were children of persons externally in Covenant though wicked yet not dis-covenanted for after severe corrections he is said to remember his covenant for them verse 45. 7. What you say in the rest of this p. is not at all pertinent to this Argument and therefore I passe the same by only with soâ—â—e brief animadversions in the generall we have here 〈◊〉 bundl of Arminianism or refined Pelagianism First a tacite denying or at least a sleighting k) See c. 10. ans to the 7. 〈◊〉 qu. of originall sin contrary to Scripture and experience Secondly none shall be condemned for Adam's transgression contrary to Rom. 3.23 with 5.18 19 Thirdly originall sin doth not deserve eternall death but onely temporal what other construction can be made of your words though they must all dye for Adam's transgression yet c. contrary to Rom 6.23 Fourthly In such little babes there is no Law contrary to Rom. 7.1 with 5 12. Fifthly no transgression can be imputed to them how then do they dye as you confesse for Adam's sin with a pitifull contradiction is this Sixthly None shall be judged according to originall sin contrary to Rev. 20.12 SMALL and great stood before God who were judged according to their works And if Adams transgression be every mans work save Christ's then Infants shall be judged accordingly or if for the effect then much more for the cause which is as bad if not worse you harp on the word DONE in 1 Cor. 5.10 I find no such thing in that Scripture when you correct your quotation you shall have a solution In the mean time it looks very suspitiously when the creature is more mercifull then the Creator as the pitifull Arminians seem to bee if you would take that advice you give to M. B. c. viz. Seriously consult Scripture your wonder would not bee for nine days but I hasten to your next p. SECT 3. H. H. p. 61. God hath hath one way to save men and women and another to save Infants as Rom. 5.18 whence I conclude that Infants which fell in Adam without any actuall sin or knowledge of Adam's transgression even so they dying in their Infancy c. are saved by virtue of Christ's death without any actuall faith or knowledge of Christs obedience or else it is not EVEN SO as Rom. 5.18 saith Reply 1. So then you positively assert that all Infants dying in their Infancy c. are saved by Christ c. Rom. 5.18 But 1. Here is no expresse mention made of Infants or their fall in Adam or any actuall sin or of knowledge of Adam's transgression or of their salvation by Christ's death or of their actuall faith or knowledge of Christ's obedience Here therefore is no plain proof for your assertion All the particulars fore-named are unwritten traditions additions to the Scripture take heed lest those plagues you would scare others with so often become your own portion 2. The word ALL must be taken largely or restrictively not the former For then all men women and children within and without the Church shall be saved for justification of life upon all men implies so much Now it 's impossible that those who are truly justified l) Rom. 8.30 32 34. c. should fall short of glorification If you mean as your words imply that all in their Infancy were justified though after by sinning they may perish that is repugnant to the fore-named Scripture nor restrictively For neither the woâ—d nor context admit such an exception Indeed there is a kind of universality of those that are partakers of justification of life i. e. All they that receive abundance of grace c. verse 17. i. e. All the Elect Christ's sheep regenerate and sanctified ones But where is it proved that all Infants even of Heathens so dying are such Nay it 's denyed by you 3 How can you satisfie your self with this one Scripture from whence you draw no Argument but this else it is not even so as Rom. 5.18 saith i. e. either your opinion is true or that Scripture is false But as you know that comparisons do not run on four seet so you will not yield to many Scriptures with Arguments deduced from them though never so clearly and strongly for the proof of Infant Baptism Is this impartiall dealing will you have Infants even of Heathens saved here by consequence And shall not â—e have Infants even of Christians baptized by consequence from Mat. chap. 28. verse 19. 4. I have heard of one that held universall Redemption of all from originall sin and that therefore Infants even of Heathens while such are in God's favour which I think is your opinion I am sure it is of some of your Proselytes in these parts and thence concluded that such Infants were to be baptized if parents would permit and if the Antecedent be granted which you do the consequent cannot be denyed by any but by him that absurdly did and will deny the conclusion For who can deny the seal of Redemption to them who are acknowledged to have interest in Redemption by Christ's blood 5. I will not determine what the Lord may do by prerogative neither must I believe or assert for a truth any more then his Word
determined by a known rule in Scripture Therefore no just cause of contentions because it is according to the will of Christ as I have proved by those Scriptures in the foregoing Argument 2. Nay your practice is a thing for which there is no known Rule in all the Word of God Thus I have thrown your Argument on your owne head and you are fallen into the same pit you digged for others c. Reply 1. Tâ—â— same Reply might serve here But me thinks you shouâ—â— blush to say that the Scriptures so often mentioned by you prove what you would have them I have seen a Dog mumbling and gnawing a bone and then licking in his owne slabber as if it had been marrow from the bone bear with the comparison so you tosse and tumble the Holy Scriptures and then take in if not give out your own fancy in stead of the word of God nay let the Reader observe that M. Haggar hath not brought one Scripture to prove his doctrines and let him doe it if he can and I will be his Proselyte viz. that children of Christians are not to be baptized till they be of age upon their own profession for that is the Question and me thinks they that cry cut for Scripture from the one side should bring Scripture g) Et hanc veniaâ—â— petimus dabimusque vicissim when urged by the other side 2. It is observable that M. Baxter hath spent almost two pages proving by impregnable reasons what contention among christians what tyrany and Lordlyness among Ministers this practice would introduce all which M. Haggar passeth by Is this to answer a book If this Argument had been false you might have denyed it if weak overthrown it your silence speakes neither and thus you have given up the cause in the open field and left Anabaptisme to shift for it selfe and the reader to believe that for all that 's said it is an Incendiary both in Church and state 3. Is this M. Baxter's own Argument As much as the wooden dagger in the signe is George of Horse-back's own Sword to say no more of your unlict Lump of Logick your Minor should have been But the baptizing of little babes before they come to years of discretion will necessarily fill the Church with perpetuall contentions This you had not the face I hope you are grown somewhat modest to affirm If you had the experience of a thousand yeares would have confuted you and if you can instance what breach it ever made what fire it ever kindled 4. It is false which you say There is no known rule for Infant-baptism in all the word of God The Affirmative is sufficiently proved by Scripture but you will not see and you have not yet proved the negative by any express Scripture must the world believe it because you say it did you in your travells run your head upon the Popes Chair of Infallibility 5. It seems you are of a somewhat quarelsom disposition for let the premises be what they will you are resolved to contend against Infant-baptism and that PERPETUALLY This shewes your spleen but as little of your reason as of your Logick 6. Fie for shame Yet more boasting and so little acting How you have thrown M. Baxter's Argument on his own head let the wise judg had it lighted on his head without an helmet it would not have hurt him you have been so far from retorting that you have not rightly repeated his Argument and is M. Baxter in a pit If there be water there you may hope he is dipt but do you take heed of the pit wherein there is no water and from whence there is no Redemption As for your folly charged on him I will say nothing but this both he and we are willing to be counted fools h) 1. Cor. 4.10 for Christ's sake whilst you are wise in your own conceit SECT 7. H. H. p. 90. and 91. M. Baxter's fifth Argument is this Because this Doctrine viz. That those onely should be baptised that are directly made disciples by the preaching of men sent according to the text Mat. 28.19 20. would turne baptism for the most part out of the Churches of the Saints Answer 1. It seems M. Baxter's judgment is that they that preach and Baptise according to that Commandement are those which turn Baptisme out of the Church yet he shewes not one Scripture for the baptizing of any but such as were made disciples by preaching I confesse such a doctrine doth not almost but altogether turn M. Baxter's Baptism out of the Church for we have no such custome nor the Churches of God as to baptize Infants Reply I am at a stand even to admiration that M. Baxter having warned i) Chap. 11. p. 132. that this argument is against the Ground of your practice you say nothing in answer to his premises This silence in you gives the conquest to him for if you had had any thing to have said you would now have spoken such an imminent danger impending over Anabaptisme 2. It is a reproach to say it seems it is M. Baxter's judgment c. you can raile better then reason and you have as good as confessed that it 's your fancy and not M. Baxter's judgment in saying IT SEEMS To whom Onely to you and your party whose eyes it is to be feared the God of this world hath blinded But if it do seem so k) Malta videntâ—â— quae non sunt must it needs be so poor proof Doth the bell alwaies tink as M. Haggar doth think 3. It 's certain M. Baxter doth not find fault with the command but with your comment not with the precept but with your practice in vindicating that Scripture l) Mat. 28.19.20 from your corrupt glosse whence M. Baxter infers and that truly that this would near turn the ordinances of Baptism out of the Churches of the Saints For though in a Church constitured some few in comparison may be and are converted by Ministeriall teaching yet most receive the beginings of grace by godly education as M. B. proves largely m) p. 133 from Scripture experience to which you answer not a word so that these not being discpled by Ministeriall teaching are not to be baptized according to the sense you would put upon the Text. Neither is in enough to say they have faith and so may be baptized for the words speak of working faith according to your Gloss by ministeriall teaching And if this doctrine be true it were best for parents not to teach their children betimes as they are n) Deut. 6.7 Prov. 22.6 Eph. 6.4 commanded a sad and most contradictory principle that the carefullest parent should he the cruellest foe and whiles he seekes to bring his children into Heaven you should bolt them out of the Church on earth 4. In condemning M. Baxter for not shewing one Scripture c. You broach two errours at once First That the discipling of any
according to the mind of Christ was and is onely by Ministeriall teaching Secondly That none but such so discipled were or are to be baptized But on the contrary are not examples obvious in Scripture As the thief on the Crosse who was a Disciple yet not Discipled by Ministeriall preaching the Gospel whom yet you acknowledge to be in a saving condition p. 25 26. and baptized in will though not in deed and to omit many instances Paul was a Disciple o) Acts 9.22 yet not by the preaching of the Gospell and was baptized too and I trow both according to the mind of Christ to say nothing of p) Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 6. c. 2. Origens and Austins q) Confess l. 8. 〈◊〉 12. Discipleship the one by his parents education the other by a Voice from Heaven 5. For your confession c. It had been more ingenuity to have confessed your own errours with which your book is stuffed as may appear by this reply or your impudence with a witness in denying that which you cannot but know to be the custom of the Churches of God for more then a 1000 years See your p. 3. or your uncharitableness in disowning them for the Churches of God who have owned Infant-baptism What your custom is I matter not you shall be none of my presidents though God may make you an example and then I shall remember you as I do Å¿) Luk 17.32 Lot's wife SECT 8. H. H. p. 91. But to retort M. Baxter's Argument this Doctrine of M. Baxters and the rest of the Priests of England viz. That all Children should be Baptized in their None-age according to their practice doth turn the Baptisme of Christ which is to baptize men and women when they believe quite out of the Churches of the saints therefore c. This his Sword is turned with the edg against himself Reply 1. In generall you should have given no more then his own you have made so little use of the Argumenâ— that you deserve to pay no interest but how have you put the sheep in Wolves clothing and besmeered M. Baxter's modest and meek expression with the excrements of your own passion 2. In particular 1. You call us Priests in derision you shew your selfe to be the Son of Hagar by your scoffing that Nick-name neither gaines you not loses us any thing Secondly we do not say all children but the children of believeing parents are to be baptized And those I trow are not All children s) Isa 28.15 Thus you make lies your refuge and under falsehood have you hid your self Thirdly you say that our Doctrine turns Christ's Baptism out of the Church because the baptizing of men and women when they believe is the baptisme of Christ This is bâ—t a pittifull begging of the Question and yet without Question both the Baptism of Infants of the other are consistent It 's well known that many Jewes Heathens converted to the Faith have been Baptized by us as well as the Infants of believeing Parents Thus indeed the edge of M. Baxter's Sword is so turned that for very bluntnesse it hath not so much as pierced the skin SECT 9. H. H. Same p. His Sixth Argument is against the mannes of Baptizing by Dipping as being a branch of the Sixth Commandement because it doth ordinarily tend to the overthrow of man's health and lives therefore no Ordinance of God but an hainous sinne c. Answer In order First Observe M. Baxter useth not one Scripture the ground of faith to prove it murder c. he hath used many vain words which prove nothing c. Reply 1. Here is a fair promise of aningenuous proceeding t) Quind dignum tanto seret hic promissor hiatu partuturiunt montes nasceturridicuâ—is mus Horat but not a suitable performing seeing folly marches in the Van rather let it be observed that you suffer the ground and foundation of your practice to be undermined and razed and yet you make no stir but what a great bussle do you make when M. Baxter comes to the Manner This is Lapwing if not Jesuite-like to cry loudest when furthest from the Nest 2. You will not be kept from your old custom of Fly-blowing mens writings with your corrupt breath M. Baxter doth not exhort the Magistrates p. 134. and 136. to destroy the Anabaptists as well as High-way murderers M. Baxter and I have so much charity u) Sic Diligendisunt homines ut non diliguntur eorum errores Prosp for you and yet Zeal for the truth that we would have noâ— your persons but your erroneous practises destroyed if so be the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 5.5 3. It was needless for M.B. to bring senseless for you to demand Scripture for the proving of usual dipping to be murder Hath not God made us men as well as Christians and given us reason as well as Religion Is there not a morall as well as a divine Faith And is there an incompossibility of both these Cannot we act the one but we must decline the other If therefore M. Baxter had proved dipping to be murder by a morall-convincing Argument I might have believed him and yet made the word of God the ground of my Faith as it is granted to be yet 4. Who did ever produce Scripture-testimonies for the proof of a bond Or Gospel-evidence for title to Land Hath the Grand Jury Scripture for to prove matter of fact e. g. Murder yet the bill is found and the murder justly condemned I have heard it considently affirmed that Mr. Haggar hath been married to two wives which are both yet living Now unless he can bring Scripture to prove the contrary by his own Logick none is bound to believe him Let him therefore take heed of such arguing 5. But Mr. B. proves it by Scripture If the sixth commandement be the word of God which forbids the ordinary use of any thing which tendeth directly to overthrow health and life how else can you prove the tortures inflicted on the primitive Christians to be murder but by such a Medium as this is unless it be your opinion That their tormenters were no murderers Though the tormented were indeed Martyrs Nay you your self allow the lighting of one candle by another v) Gospell worship no wrok for Infants p. 38. So the first be lightted by the fire of of the Altar i. e. The pure word of God You see Mr. B. doth so it is then a Scripture-argument by your own grant So that you might well have forborn that peremptory charge that Mr. Baxters proof is by affirming from out of his own mouth only c. 5. The Reader may do well to observe your First without a Second only when you cannot answer then you fall to your old haunt to cavill c. SECT 10. H. H. p. 92. But he proceeds I dare not say that in Cities like London and
them which cannot be understood and improved without skill in Rhetotorick specially the knowledge of Tropes and Figures is necessary least men affixâ— monsters on the Scriptures as the Anthrapomorphits Transubstantiaries and Consubstantiaries do There is the strongest reasoning and arguing therein and excellent method which cannot be rightly discerned without skill in Logick In a word there are none of the Liberal Arts no part of genuine Philosophie but may be useful and helpful for the more clear and solid understanding of the Scriptures Indeed these Arts and Sciences the Scriptures do not professedly teach but presuppose in those who will be expert in the word of righteousness 6. Must not those gallant Monuments of Learning and piety antient and modern lie without use as to us and be utterly lost as some of you have burnt all your books save the Bible if we have not Learning Indeed you may think it no loss but scorn us for using them though in our private studies yet sure it is great unthankfulness to God and those his instruments pride and sloth in our selvs and injury to the Church if we should wave such helps for the understanding of the Scripture and the state of the Church in several ages and places And tell me what do you think of this your book whether learned or unlearned let others judg Is it worthy to be read or no If no To what purpose was all this waste if yea how can it bee read and understood without humane Learning Though there are a thousand of books besides more worthy to be read then yours Nay the blessed Bible it self is wrested by them that are Vnlearned 2 Pet. 3.16 7. How could you have attained to any knowledge of the Scriptures of which you boast with the Jews Rom. 2.17 18 c. without the help of Humane Learning or have read them translated without it or heard them read as some of you know not one letter in an English Bible without it For I pray is not the learning of the A B C a point of humane learning And yet I am sure you cannot read the Bible without the knowledge of the Letters And if to be able to read and write English be a good gift of God though a small piece of humane learning sure much more to be able to read and understand the Scriptures in some good measure in the Original Languages Nay how could you hear of Jesus Christ and know the meaning of those learned words without humane learning The one being an Hebrew i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word signifying a Saviour the other a Greek word k signifying Anointed 8. Doth not this inveighing against Humane Learning proceed from a three-fold spring Dominus noster Jesus qui liberat nos à peccatis morte inferno Schind Pentaglot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. From Carnal Lusts Jesuites and Satan 1. From Carnal Lusts as 1. Pride which as it is usually accompanied with and cherished by ignorance for such as are proud know nothing 1 Tim. 6.4 but doat about questions and the most knowing the most humble Psal 19.13 1 Cor. 13.12 so who insult over Learning and Learned men more then the ignorant and unlearned Oh how sweet is it to proud Diabolical natures to sit in the Throne and make Learning stand Acts 25.16 as arraigned condemned and presently drawn to execution at their command Though this bee done but in your fancy yet it mightily pleaseth them But because Pride is scarce counted a Lust of the the flesh what say you of ease and sensuality They who have tasted Learning to purpose have found by experience that much study is weariness to the flesh Eccl. 12 13. and the work of the Ministry a painful work when men must give attendance to reading exhortation and doctrine meditate on these things give themselvs wholly unto them c. 1 Tim. 4.13 14 15 16. Now what an easie pleasant life have these who count humane learning so needless that they judg it dangerous and execrable You need take little or no pains for the instruction of the people Nay Mr. Haggar is not ashamed to say Take away humane learning and all men may preach as well as we nay better Is not this the singing of a Requiem But the lust of Covetousness and desire of filthy Lucre is another bitter root of this opinion and practice Though you have the cunning to cite Whore first who knows not that mean Artificers Day-laborers and broken Tradesmen who usually have large Parishes or rather Diocesses who say Sirs you know that by this craft we have our wealth Acts 19. ver 25. have got more by unlearned preaching or railing against Learning then by their Callings and if they follow them too they have two strings to their bow however they need not lay out their moneys on Books on their supposal Secondly from the Jesuits those Emissaries of the Prince of Darkness If the hand of Joab be not yet the head and hand of a Jesuits is in this though not discerned by all Jesuites and Pâ—â—â—â—s know well enough what deadly blows their Kingdom and cause hath received by the sword of the Spirit wiâ—â—â—d by Learned Arms I mean the tongues and pens of 〈◊〉 Learned as well as pious Champions which our Lord Christ â—â—th made usâ— of again and again to rout the Antichristian forces But in decrying Learning and Universiâ—ies you carry on the Jesuites design *) See Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelii by the Provincial Assembly of London p. 62. c. Adam Conizen a politick Jesuite in his Politicks among other things prescribed for the reducing of Popery this is one To banish Learning out of the Common-wealth and that at once if it can conveniently be if not insensibly and by degrees And if you have not learned this subtilty of the Jesuite I pity you if you have borrowed it from Julian r) Speed's History p. 168. Primum vetuit ne Gaâ—iâ—ae sic Christianos â—umcupabat Poericam Rhetoricam aut Philosophiam discorent Theatot l. 3. c. 7. the Apostate who among other designs to root out Christianity forbad Christians the publick Schools and study of the Arts and Tongues Thirdly from Satan who hath a principal hand in this which I think needs no proof beside what hath been said but this His great design is to hinder the glory of God the Kingdom of Christ and the salvation of men he knows all this is done by keeping people from Christ that is done by keeping them from Faith that is done by keeping them from Scripture and the right knowledg of it This will be certainly done if prople be deprived of right Translations and Interpretations of Scripture which must needs be wanting if there be no Learning nor Learned men For it is as possible for people to see the letters and words wherein Scripture was written without open eies or to hear the sound of them without open ears as to understand the
H. H. Thus we see that all that were baptized of John were such as could and did confess their sins but Infants cannot confess their sins Therefore none such were baptized by John Reply 1. In saying Infants cannot confesse their sins do not you imply that Infants have their sins What other construction can any rational man make of your words If so how can you call them innocent so oft n) Pag. 60. 2. It 's neither here nor any where else exprest in Scripture that none were baptized of John but such as could and did confesse their sins 3. What if it were granted which I do not it remains on you to be proved that this example is binding to us which I shall believe when I hear or see you cloathed with Camels hair and with a girdle of a skin about your loins and eating locusts and wilde honey For the 5. and 6. verses are connected together with the Conjunction And. 4. But to drive out one wedge with another and to shew the weaknesse of your Argument I thus argue o) Exod. 12.35 The children of Israel borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver and of gold and raiment but the Jewish Infants did not borrow c. Therefore none of the Jewish Infants were children of Israel The conclusions of both Arguments are equally false though I dare not be absurd as you are p) Nar. of a Dispute p 6. in denying the conclusion SECT 4. H. H. Thus it 's clear by the Scriptures that John baptized men and women that could believe and confess their sins 2. Of the Apostles and not a word spoken of sucking children Now I proceed to the practice of the Apostles commissionated by Christ Reply 1. It is not yet clear by those Scriptures alleged by you that John baptized men and women that could believe and confesse For in those Scriptures there is no expresse mention made of any one woman baptized by John For though it be said q) Mat. 3.5 6. all Judea and all the region round about Jordan were baptized and r) Mar. 1.5 all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem were all baptized of him Yet the word all cannot be taken universally for who I pray you were they whom Å¿) Joh. 3.22 Christ baptized or rather whom his Disciples t) Joh. 4.2 baptized no expresse mention made of any ones believing whether man or woman you have foisted the word believing into the text Contrary to the former injunction Deut. 4.2 Ye shall not add unto the Word Is not now that doom due to you which you thunder out against others pag. 40. 2. A little before you tell us of such who could and did confesse their sins now you mince the matter and tell us of those that could believe and confesse you durst not say they did believe for how is it probable that they did believe whom John calls u) Mat. 3.7 a generation of Vipers or that they could believe when Christ saith * Joh. 5 4â— How can yee believe which receivâ— honour one from another And x) Joh. 12.39 43. therefore they could not believe Why For they loved the praise of men more then the praise of God 3. But to shoot in your own bow what a wise argument is this John baptized men and women that could believe c. Therefore no Infants Just like this Abraham was circumcised when he was adult therefore no Infant was circumcised Or Abraham who could and did believe was Circumcised therefore no child of eight daies old was â—crcamcised 4. If you say as you do Not a word spoken of sucking children being baptized by John as there is of their being circumcised I answer As the Argument remains in its full strength for all that so it 's a known rule that y) A non dicti ad non factum non valet conequentia no good consequence can be drawn that such a thing was not done because it 's not recorded There is not one word spoken of the twelve Apostles being baptized nor of the Church of Antioch Acts 11 Nor of the seven Churches of Asia Therefore by Mr. Haggars Logick we must conclude and believe they were not baptized You see by this time you had sorry successe with the practice of John Baptist now proceed to the practice of the Apostles SECT 5. H. H. Same page 1. Instance Acts 2.40 41. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized and added to the Church c. But little babes of eight daies weeks or months old cannot gladly receive the Word of God because they understand it not Ergo none such were baptized there Reply 1. The word Church is not in the fourth verse that is of your own adding Will you yet be guilty of that crime and doom which you charge upon others though to give you your due you have rightly cited the Scripture in your page 24. 2. Your Argument is vicious or faulty For being in the first figure the Assumption or Minor Proposition should not be negative as yours is as Scholars know By the way no marvel you have such an aking tooth against Logick learning for by these means your Sophistry and fallacy comes to be detected and rejected which by your illiterate proselytes are swallowed down and digested as gallant arguments and solid reasons Blow out the light or bring your disciples into a dark shop and you may quickly vend your false or grosse wares SECT 6. H. H. But some will object from vers 39. That the promise was to them and their children and therefore children may be baptized Answ I grant the promise was to them vers 38. that if they did repent and be baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of sins they should receive the gift of the holy Ghost and this is true also to their children if they did repent and obey the Gospell as aforesaid and so it is to us and our children though never so far off upon the same condition of faith repentance and baptism for it is to all that the Lord our God shall call but they must be CALLED first observe that ver 39. And thus is the Objection fully answered Reply 1. In the vers 39. There is no expresse mention made of these words viz. faith obeying the Gospell and condition they are in the number of your own additions though I deny not but they may be implyed 2. By being CALLED do you mean obeying the Gospell that 's true of an effectuall call in such as are adult but not of an effectual call for so many are called who do not obey e. g. Prov. 1.24 I have called and ye refused Mat. 22.3 He sent forth his servants to CALL them that were bidden to the Wedding and they would not come 3. Is it all one with you to obey the Gospell and to be baptized surely then you trusse up Gospell obedience in a narrow compasse 4. In granting the promise
was to them c. You give up the cause and grant that children may be baptized for what is the promise but the Covenant for they are interchangeably set down one for the other a) Gal. c. 3. and the Covenant runs upon promises b) Ephes 2.21 specially consists of that grand promise Gen. 3.15 The seed of the Woman shall bruise the serpents head Now if the Covenant is theirs who can deny the initiall sign and seal of the Covenant which is baptism Let it be observed that this Text is the first Argument used after Christ's ascention to provoke the Jews to repent c. as discovering the new Testament-application of the Covenant and it is continuation to believers and their seed as to Abraham and his in the old Testament Now that children of believing parents are within the Covenant of grace shall be made evident hereafter 5. In saying the promise doth belong to their and our children but they must be called first I answer 1. Why may not children be said to be called in their parents aswell as Levi is said c) Hâ—b 7.9.10 to pay either in the loins of Abraham And that God is said d) Hos 12 4. to speak with the Israelites when he spake with Jacob in Bethel 2. If you will needs understand it of a direct immediate and personall call and so exclude children from the promise till they believe repent c. This glosse doth rather darken then enlighten the Text and cannot passe currant for these ensuing reasonâ— For if children should be excluded out of the promise 1. What priviledge above others have the children of repenting parents Now it is clear the Apostle adds children in the Text to shew that they had some speciall priledge above those that were uncalled 2. What poor encouragement is this to such parents to submit to Christ under this Administration nay would it not have discouraged them that their children should bee excluded out of the promise who stood in it for 2000 years before under the other Administration 3. what cold comfort would this be to your wounded hearts for crucifying Jesus Christ That they indeed on their repentance should be saved but their children should be the same with Heathens Now here the scope of the Text is urged by the Apostle for consolation aswell as incouragement 4. What hope could they have of your childrens salvation For hope without promise is presumption though you say infants are saved by Christ without actuall faith p. 61. That shall be examined in its proper place 5. What a losse would the believing Jewes bee at for their children had once a right to the Covenant and to the seal of it but now neither to covenant nor to Baptisme till they believe 6. What unlikelyhood is there that the Apostle would use the same Dialect of the Covenant that was formerly used I am thy God and the God of thy seed the promise is to you and to your children if it had been his mind that children should be excluded 7. Then the word Children would be superfluous in this Text and so the Spirit of God would be charged with Tautologies which would be blasphemy to affirm 8. The Tense is changed the promise IS to you and your children in the present tense but when he speaks of the Call he speaks in the future tense As many as God SHALL call These are some of those Reasons which I thought good here to give an account of with some alteration of the phrase and method which through the Lords blessing became happily instrumental to reduce an Anabaptist e) See the Leper cleansed pag. 7 8 9. and through the Lords blessing may prevail with some that follow you as they did Absolon f) 2 Sam. 15.11 in the simplicity of their heart knowing nothing of the depth of your design no more then they did of Absolons Neither do I altogether despair of your conversion for Mart. Cellar g) J.G. Catabapt pag. 145. Et Melob Adam de vita Borrhaui p. 400. who after he had stood by his sect severall years went and setled at Basill where he taught divinity and being ashamed to be known or called by that name under which he had professed Anabaptisme changed his name from Cellarius into Borrhaus under which name he wrote very learned commentaries upon the 5 bookes of Moses c. To say nothing of those converted by Musculus h) Melch. Adam de vita Musculi p. 377. And now I hope you will have little cause to brag as you do in the close of this Section Thus the objection is fully answered whereas indeed it remains unanswered SECT 7. H. H. pag. 5. Again If ever the Apostle baptized children it must needs be now according to their argument who say the promise is to children ergo but that they baptized no such children is evident because they that were baptized were such as could and did GLADLY receive the word v. 42. continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and felloship c. All which little babes that cannot speak words nor understand reason cannot possibly do Therefore none such baptized Reply 1. This is the same Argument with the former Therefore let it receive the same Answer which may suffice But because it 's drest up in another form and put into a seemingly better Garb Therefore secondly the weaknesse of it is made evident by this Argument they are rationall creatures who can understand reason and speak but Infants cannot possibly do all or any of these Therefore they are not rationall creatures 3. In saying if ever the Apostles baptized children it must needs be now you art too peremptory in divining and determining It 's a received maxime that 1) Argumentum ad Authoritate duum negative non valet a negative Argument from authority proves nothing SECT 8. H. H. Act. 8.12 Where we read 2. Instance that when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized both men and wowen in expresse terms but we never read a word of little children Reply 1. We never read a word of little children What not in all the Bible where were your eyes k) Mat. 19.13 Then were brought to him LITTLE CHILDREN l) 6.14 but Jesus said Suffer LITTLE CHILDREN Surely the Gospel of Matthew is part of the Word of God Your wide and wilde expression is liable you see to just exception 2. If you mean as I suppose we never read a word of the baptizing of little children Why did you not speak out It 's said of Barnabas that m) Acts 11.24 he was a good man and full of the Holy Ghost and of Faith but we read never a word of his being baptized must we therefore conclude and believe that he was not baptized What Sophistry is this 3. Sometimes in Scripture where men are onely named Women and children are
that gift which is common to elect and reprobate doth in title to Baptism much more that gift of Union Adoption Regeneration proper to the elect puts the party into a capacity of receiving Baptism If you say such received the Holy Ghost as well as the Apostles and therefore the text to be understood of the same kind and degree Then by this text you have no more ground to baptize grown men for which of them I pray you spake with tongues y) Ver. 46. in the Apostles sense then you say we have for baptizing Infants that cannot speak at all But the Apostle explains himself in the following Chapter z For as much then Acts. 1â— 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as God gave them the like gift as he did to us Like for quality though not for quantity Yea it 's said a) Heb 4.2 unto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them I think no man dare say that the Gospel was as fully and as clearly preached to the Israelites in the wildernesse for to them the Apostle speaks as to us since the coming of Christ in the flesh SECT 11. H. H. same page The next is Lidia and her houshold 5. Instance Act. 16.14 15. Reply 1. I do Mr Hagger no wrong his fifth Instance as I set it down to help him is thus nakedly proposed I wonder we had not a taste of his Logick here as in the preceding instances It may be the man was not in a good mood and therefore could not set it in a good Figure having so often failed before 2. But I suppose you meant this Enthymem Lidia and her houshould were baptized Therefore no Infants Or thus If Lidia and her houshold were baptized then no Infant was baptized But Lidia and her houshold were baptized Therefore To this I answer I deny your consequence and will give you time till Dooms-day to prove it In the mean season this place is more for the baptizing of Infants then any thing that can be at least hitherto is said against SECT 12. H. H. Some may say thus Who knows but she might have little children To which I answer If none knows then all ought to be silent and not to believe and affirm things they know not for that is wickednesse and folly But thus much we know 1. That Christ commanded them to baptize them which believed 2. Hitherto we have found them baptizing of none else 3. The Scripture speaks of no children she had nor yet of any husband and therefore silence gives no commands to obey nor no promises to believe nor no example to follow Reply 1. Here you set up a man of straw and then fight with him you frame an objection out of your own head and then answer it bravely done 2. Is it not wickednesse and folly in you to believe and affirm things you know not The necessity of dipping in the Administration of Baptisme the salvation of Infanâ—s without actual faith by virtue of Christs death when no such things are exprest in so many words and syllables in Scripture and many other bold assertions in your book which shall be examined as they are met with 3. For the two first particulars which you professe you know they have been already spoken to and for the third the Scripture you say speaks of no children shee i. e. Lidia I suppose you mean had nor yet of any husband neither doth the Scripture speak I say of any servants she had I pray you then who were they that were of her houshold which were baptized for it 's said distinctly b) Acts 15.16 she was baptized and her houshold 4. As for the silence you speak of it is as good as silence or the speaking of nothing Instances are obvious and frequent E. gr There is no expresse mention made in the N. T. of any command for Womens receiving the Lord's Supper nor of any promise of comfort in or upon receiving nor any example of any one woman that did receive Nor is there any expresse mention made in the Old or New Testament of any command for mens or womens relying on the merits and satisfaction of Christ nor of any promise of peace and pardon on such relying nor of any example of any one man or woman that did rely on the merits and satisfaction of Christ yet there is sufficient warrant in Scripture by clear consequence for both these c. which is satisfactory to us but what is this to you who must have expressness of Scripture By this taste you may perceive what an unsound and erroneous maxime you have vented viz. That silence gives no commands to obey nor no promise to believe nor no examples to follow SECT 13. H. H. pag. 6. Again if she had an husband he was baptized for she and her houshould were baptized Now if he had been baptized he would surely have born the name in the history rather then she being the bead of the house Reply 1. Now fair fall your heart if she had an husband he was baptized for she and her houshold were baptized you say well might you not as well say as we do If she had children they were also baptized for she and her houshold were baptized and so if she had servants they were baptized for it 's said She and her houshold were baptized If you include husband and servants in her houshold how can you for shame exclude Infants or if you conclude the baptizing of her husband and servants on this account because she and her houshold were baptized why may you not as well conclude that her Infants or children were baptized on the same account were you not wilful and partial in your self 2. To say nothing that you should have said but not now if he had been baptized he would surely have born the name c. Your confidence is as high as your ignorance is great Surely Zerviah was a woman for she is expresly called c) 2 Sam. 17.25 Joabs mother and d) 1 Chr. 2.15 16. Davids sister Now you might have said as well It Joab had a father and Zerviah an husband he would â—urely have born the name in the history rather then shee being the head of the house whereas the name of Zerviah is onely mentioned in the history to my best observation and remembrance in those and other e) 1 Sam. 26.6 2 2.13 18. 3.39 8.16 14.1 16.9 10. 18 2. 19.21 22 21.17 23 18 1 King 1.7 2.5 22. 1 Chron. 11.6.34 18.12.15 26.13 27.24 places SECT 14. H. H. Lastly we read verse 40. That when Paul and Silâ—s came out of prison they entered into the house of Lidia and comforted the brethren but little babes are not capable of such comforts Therfore no such such brethren in Lydea's house nor any ground at all to believe it from Scripture or reason Reply 1. The word HOUSE is not in
you or me secret things belong to the Lord. Deut. 29. Reply 1. You mis-cite Mr. Cook who saith p) Font uncovered p. 1â— Faith OR interest in Christ or the Covenant of grace constitutes c. Not faith and interest in Christ There is a broad difference between a disjunctive and copulative proposition If one should say you are an Anabaptist or a Romish Priest or a Jesuite you would acknowledge this proposition true but if one should say you are an Anabaptist and a Romish Priest and a Jesuite it may be you would say it's false though others think it true Beside you leave out those words viz. or Covenant of grace It s plain you had a design here to deceive For in your p. 22 23. you truly set down the words when you had no purpose to answer them but here you chop and change them all least the words should speak for themselvs as they do apparently You confound those things Mr. Cook doth distinguish who holds that either professed faith or interest in Christ and the Covenant makes one a Christian which last is the case of Infants according to Gods gracious q) Gen. 17.7 Luk. 18.16 Acts 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 grant and declaration In a word They who have true faith have interest in Christ and in the Covenant of grace yet all who have interest in Christ and the Covenant of grace have not actuall faith 2 Now all may see the lameness of your Argument viz. Infants have no interest in Christ because they cannot make it out which makes as much against Circumcision as against Infant-baptism at least is as absurd as if an Infant had no interest in that which is conveighed to him by a deed of gift because forsooth he cannot make it out and in brief it 's as false as that you boldly affirm without any proof viz. All our Infants are baptized into the Church of England unless it be taken with a grain of salt 3. By your saying Very well if any sense can be made of your words you grant that faith and interest in Christ constitutes a Christian Hold you to this and there 's an end of this controversie viz. That Baptisme doth not constitute a Christian For Baptisme is neither faith nor interest in Christ both which may be without Baptisme as you confesse in the penitent Thief and Baptisme may be without either as in Simon Magus and all hypocrites 4. For your Query If by making out c. you mean an infallible discovery of saving Faith and real interest in Christ from communion with him we who are ignorant of mens hearts expect no such making out But if you mean such a discovery of your interest in the Covenant of grace as hath been always accounted sufficient for externall Church-membership it 's sufficiently made out in your Book yea and in that very Chapter r) Deut. 29.10 11 12. you cite and elswhere In a word God's promise and the parents Faith are not such secret things as not belonging to you and me but things clearly revealed in God's Word as the fore-mentioned Scriptures shew SECT 7. H. H. Again you say that joint and orderly profession of Faith and interest in the Covenant doth constitute a Church Very well and is not Repentance and Baptisme an orderly profession of the Faith Doth not the Apostle sâ—â— Å¿) Acts 2.38 Repent and be baptized And is not putting on Christ profession c. Gal. 3.27 Reply 1. Here again is another instance in wronging Mr. Cook for you have lest out these words Font uncovered p. 1. viz. s or God's owning a people to be his in Covenant Now though adult Jews and Gentiles might and ought to make profession of their Faith and Interest in the Covenant for themselvs and theirs also according to the Tenor of the Covenant yet Infants it 's granted could not make such a profession for themselvs But God 's owning them for his people is an Authentical declaration of their interest in the Covenant according to the fore-named and other places of Scripture 2. If Repentance and Baptism be an orderly profession of Faith then not Baptisme alone and if so Then Baptism doth not constitute a Christian For the cause must not be partial but total which compleats the effect 3. Repentance and Baptism are not of the like necessity though you conjoin them Without Repentance adult people cannot be saved no such thing can be truly said of Baptism If you take them severally that Repentance is a sufficient profession in some and Baptism in others then Infants that cannot repent may make a sufficicient profession of Christ 4. Though the use of and submission to Baptism is a part of Christian profession yet not exclusively to other duties as the use of the Word Praier Lord's Supper c. which yet do not constitute a Church-member but presuppose Church-membership onely let it be remembred That as the professed Repentance of the wicked Jews and Gentiles is a profession of their interest in the Covenant and a declaration of their right to Baptism which is a sign of Church-membership So God's owning Believers Infants is no lesse a declaration of their right to Baptism wherein Church-membership is sealed 5. You need not prove that Baptism is a part of our profession of Christ we grant it is an Ordinance of Christ in the observation of which among others Christ is professed but that it is the whole or onely or first profession of Christ whereby a Christian is constituted is not yet proved by you 6. The Apostle doth not say Gal. 3.27 have put on Christ in or by Baptism that is your Glosse put on the Apostles text The Galathians might and did put on Christ other waies Though your Baptism might be a sign of it and that in part onely And indeed the Apostles meaning is not that baptisme is properly and adequately but Sacramentally and significatively a putting on of Christ Because 1. else all that are truly baptized should in that very act truly put on Christ but that did not Simon Magus nor any Hypocrite now 2. The Apostle in exhorting baptized Saints to put t) Rom. 13.14 on Christ which is to bee done daily should exhort them to be baptized daily which is absurd 3. We should with the Papists hold that the Sacraments of the N. T. do by the work done confer grace SECT 8. H. H. Consider it again Doth not a man that puts on a garment profess to wear it to all spectators whilst it is upon him So they that put on Christ profess to own him before all men And Mr. Baxter himself calls it A listing engaging Ordinance I hope you will not deny his Doctrine to be Orthodox though you cavil with the Scriptures Now seeing by Baptism we put on and professe Christ it 's evident out of your own mouth that it constitutes a Church or else you must say They are constituted before they put on Christ Reply 1. If
much against Circumcision in Abrahams time and after as it is now against the baptizing of Infants i. e. nothing at all Thus whatsoever is not of faith is sin and without faith it 's impossible to please God but the Infants among the Jews had no faith though faith is the condition of the Covenant of Grace ever since it was set on foot For alas they are your own words b they can professe no Faith c. Therefore the Circumcision of Infants among the Jews was sin If this Conclusion be absurd and blasphemous confesse the other not a jot the better For to use your own words again doth not the word Whatsoever include all matters c Then Circumcision sure as much as Baptism SECT 11. H. H. This your president of the Thief on the Cross will not at all help you except in the like condition Then I confess a multitude of such penitent ones might be reckoned to be in a saving condition though not baptized But neither you nor I are in that streight as yet Therefore it will be no plea for us but if either of us be unbaptized we have time and liberty enough to consider and turn Psal 119.59 60. Reply 1. Here you again yield the cause viz. Baptism doth not constitute a Church-member c. for out of the Church there is no salvation r) 1 Pet. 3.20 with Eph. â— 23 26. Otherwise to use your own expression pag. 29. Secret things belong to God I hope now you will not flinch 2. Your supposal that neither you nor Mr. Cook are in the streight the poor Thief was in is nothing to the purpose Though you intimate that Mr. Cook and his brethren may be and I believe it if you had your will as those Joh. 16.2 for you that unchurch us would make no bones to kill us 3. You say If either of us be unbaptized A needless If. For you granted p. 24. That we were once baptized and you make no question but you have been baptized twice for failing at least you do not think your self unbaptized 4. It 's a miserable begging of the question that baptizing after your mode is the testimony and commandment of the Lord unlesse as hath been said in the like case 5. There is not one word of Baptism in Psal 119. ver 59 60. How pitifully do you pervert and misapply this Scripture also And I may say They who have made haste to be Re-baptized have made more haste then good speed SECT 12. H. H. pag. 26. You tell us that the Church of England was constituted in or anon after the Apostles daies and by the Ministry of the Word were converted from Heathenism to Christianity and then persons of years were baptized upon profession of Faith and Repentance I Answer What then what is your Church now the better for that which was done 1600 years ago if you walk not in the same footsteps which they did then I can prove as well the Church of Rome d) Rom. 1.7 was then a constituted Church according to the order of the Gospel But doth that make the Pope and his Crew now to be a true Church If they be why do you separate from them but they are not neither are you c. Reply 1. I accept of your grant That the Church of England was constituted in or near the Apostles dates and acknowledge we are not now the better for it if we had razed the Foundation relapsed to Heathenism and had been called e) Hos 1.6 7. Loruhamah and Lo ammi But seeing God since the plantation of the Gospel in this Nation hath raised up som faithful witnesses reserved some sincere Professors of his truth and still the Fundamentals of Christian Religion have been owned and Antichrists yoke cast off It cannot without great injury but be acknowledged that the first constitution of the Church in this Land is much to us who desire and indeavour to be built and to build on that Foundation Eph. 2.20 The Church of the Jewes was the better for God's constituting their Church in Abrahams family if we may believe their f) 2 Chron. 20 7. Neh. 9. vers 7 8. plea and though they did degenerate yet the Foundation was never razed nor the first constitution abolished 2. On the former account we are better without question for outward priviledges and possibility of salvation as the Jews were Rom. 3.1.2 with Chap. 9 4.5 or as the poor cripple g) John 5.5 that did lye at the Pool oâ— Bethesda for cure 3. If by our not walking in the footsteps of those who were first constituted a Church in this Nation you mean that wee do not first repent and then bee Baptized You might as wel charge the Jews who circumcised their children on the eighth day for not walking in Abraham's steps and therefore not a jot the better that their Church was first constituted in him for he was circumcised at h) Gen. 17.26 99 years old Nay it seems you charge us for not taking care that all the children in this Nation may live in ignorance and Idolatry that so being by the Gospel converted they may be baptized after their example For they cannot be converted from Heathenism as they were and so be baptized after their example exactly unlesse they live in Heathenisme as they did If this be your meaning and charge I pray Lord lay not this sin to your charge 4. That Scripture doth not prove what you assert unlesse by a far-fetcht and strained consequence And as the word Constituted is not there so neither those words ACCORDING to the ORDER of the GOSPEL there or elsewhere in any one place of Scripture You are wise above what is written though I deny not but the Church of Rome was once a rightly constituted Church 5. Seeing you declare your self so great a friend to the Church of Rome as equalling us with them and also pronounce us no Church and so excommunicate us with your brute Thunderbolt as if you were another Pope and dis-regard the counsell and admonition of the Church so censured and nullified by you I leave you to the judgement of him who is Lord and King Husband and Patron of his Church wishing you if you bee not past hope of profiting by Scripture to weigh what is written Jude 8. to the 17 verse SECT 13. H. H. You say that they and their children were then admitted into the Covenant and Church as Abraham and his family were by circumcision I answer that it still remains for you to prove that they and their children were admitted into Church-fellowship I deny it prove it if you can or else you have done nothing c. Reply 1. As you say of the Sacrament pag. 14. So wee do not read in your sense of the word Church-fellowship in all the holy Scriptures Therefore how should we prove that children were admitted into Church-fellowship But 2 That all the Faithfull are the children or
And ye have added the word Church to Acts 2.41 and the Condition of Faith c to Acts 2.39 Many more instances might be given 4. I confess all adding to the Word is if it may be so called not simply forbidden For then all Annotations on the Bible or Expositions on any Text should be unlawful which concludes you as well as us but all Additions for words or meaning contrary to the Word according to that usual saying by way of Sarcasme d) Benedicta Glossa quae corrumpit textum Blessed is that Glosse which doth corrupt the Text Now if we are guilty of such a crime it remains on you to prove it your calumnie to this purpose hath been discovered in your page 11. SECT 29. H. H. p 41. You would make us believe that what is written is not able to inform us aright but you must add or take from it at your pleasure and those additions or substractions you call the meanings and reasons of the Word of God But I shall prove that the Word of God alone is able to make us wise to salvation without the adding to or taking from 2 Tim. 3.15 16 17. Jam. 1.21 Acts 20.32 Reply 1. Would we make you believe so c. This is one of those evil surmizings of yours which is condemned in 1 Tim. 6.4 2. You prove that the Word of God is able to make us wise unto salvation you are very good at proving that which none of us denies But 3. The Scriptures alleged by you do not prove what you undertake For where is the word Alone in any of these Texts Is not this one of those Additions contrary to the fore-named Scriptures SECT 30. H. H. And now seeing the holy Scriptures are able to do all these things I will boldly and safely conclude that we have no need of your reasons and senses to help thèm but you have need to help your reasons and senses by the holy Writings or else you will be one of those insensible unreasonable men e) 2 Thes 3.2 who have not Faith and how can you have faith Joh. 5.44 And do not you receive honour one of another when you prefer one anothers words above the Words of GOD c Reply 1. You will boldly and safely conclude you should have said boldly and falsly and then you had hit it 2. By drawing such a conclusion you put your self into the number of those unreasonable men For what an unreasonable reasoning is this The Scriptures are able to make us wise to salvation Therefore we have no need of sense and reason Besides Vatablus translates the f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek word Absurd men and are not you such an one in denying the Conclusion in a publick Disputation The Syriack Insolent and who save the Quakers trample on godly Ministers with scorn and reviling more then you à lapide of no settled abode but as vagrants and vagabonds and do not you wander from one Country to another from one place to another to subvert souls and trouble the peace of Christians Our English renders it and you read it Vnreasonable and are not you one of them whom no reason though never so clearly grounded on the Word will satisfie Nay what an unreasonable thing is it that you must allow your self Consequences for the proving of your Tenents and disallow all our Consequences brought to prove infant-baptism 3. The close of this Section of yours is a meer calumny we do not prefer one anothers words above God's Word and the Scripture brought to prove it is impertinent SECT 31. H. H. pag. 42. Whereas you say wickedly that if we have the words of God without the meaning and reason we have no proof Answ I am sure I may conclude that if we have your words and meanings and reasons without the Word of God we have no proof that we may safely trust For Rom. 3.4 Jerem 17.5 And thus your folly is manifest c. Reply 1. Any Adversary may be easily answered with saying You say wickedly but you have not proved yet that Mr. Baxter saith wickedly as to the Position in hand 2. Mr. Baxter saith truly and holily That if we have the words of God without the meaning and reason we have no proof E. g. You have the words of God in Jer. 2.12 13. g) Pag. 8.9 but without the true meaning and reason as you do bring them with impudence and confidence enough and yet we have no proof our of that text against Infants-baptism or Fonts 3. We may more honestly and in the fear of God conclude That if we have the Word of God with your meaning and reason and not the Lord's we have no proof that we may safely trust E. g. You bring us the Word of God 1 Tim. 2.12 for Womens preaching provided that they usurp not authority over their husbands p. 64. where I shall make your folly manifest 4. You may now honestly and in the fear of God conclude That having God's Word with the true meaning and reason you have proof sufficient on which you may safely trust because nothing is affirmed by us but what is confirmed by the Word of God 5. The rest is not worthy of a Reply unlesse I may say you have made Mr. Baxter's folly manifest as he did confute Bellarmine in one word saying Robert Bellarmine thou liest SECT 32. H. H. pag. Ibid. To your proof The Divel used the words of God to tempt Christ Answ Doth it follow that because the Divel and wicked men do sometimes use the Word of God to deceive with That therefore the Saints must not use it to make them wise to salvation Reply 1. Which of us ever said so you do but fight with your own shadow and so let it vanish SECT 33. H. H. You much mistake the matter The Divels deceit did not lye in bringing the Scriptures but in adding to and taking foâ—m Compare Psal 91.11.12 with Mat. 4.6 and Luke 4.9.10.11 Where the Tempter added Cast thy self down and at any time and left out in all thy waies And yet Mr. Baxter takes the Divels part and saith The Divel used the words of the Scriptures to Christ But this is but a small fault with you for you have learned to take the same leave your self as I shall now make it appear Reply 1. You mistake the matter and Mr. Baxter too for he made no mention of the Divel's deceit or wherein it lies but that the Divel used Sripture words without the meaning and reason Though I deny not but the Devils design was to deceive Christ if it had been possible 2. What though the Divels deceit did lie in adding to and taking from the Scriptures I freely acknowledg yet were not those Scripture words which he made use of viz. He shall give his Angells charge over thee to keep thâ—â— and in their hands they shall bear thee up least thou dash thy soot against a stone This confirms what
We would have Mr. Baxter and all men know that we take all the sayings of Christ to be as good Scripture and of as great authority as any part of the Bible Therefore now Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook 's folly and wickedness is manifest who would insinuate into peoples minds that Christ did not bring Scripture to prove the Resurrection of the Dead but they must help him by their Consequences But their deceit lies in this that because Christ did not bring some other Scripture to prove the Resurrection therefore they conclude he proved it by consequence never minding that what he said was Scripture and what he approved of is approved and ought to be of all without murmurings and disputings Reply 1. Do you take all the sayings of Christ to be as good Scripture and of as great authority as any part of the Bible If you understand it of Christ's sayings left upon Record in holy Writ I am of the same belief but because you speak so largely and indistinctly I imagine without breach of charity your design is to open a wide door for unwritten Traditions to come in and be received as the Council of Trent hath determined pari pietatis affectu * Vide primuâ—â— Dâ—cretum qua tae sessionis Comcilii Tridentiâ—â— Pet. Suar. l. 2. p. 127. i. e. with the like affection of piety as any part of the Bible And this is not a groundless imagination for both your tenents and practices speak a promoting of the Catholick cause as it is so called for which it's strongly suspected and rumor'd that you are an Agent I pray call to mind the Jesuit who pretended to be a Jew and converted and was admitted a member of an Anabaptistical Congregation at Hexham in the North. 2. Your silly evasion a Cole wort more then twice sodden is as apparent now as the detection of that Jesuit and needs no further reply 3. It 's a notorious slander that Mr. Baxter and M. Cook c. would insinuate into peoples minds that Christ did not bring Scripture to prove the Resurrection of the Dead For they say plainly u) Mr. Cooks Font uncovered p. 24. that Christ proves the doctrine of the Resurrection against the Sadduces by Consequence from that Scripture I am the God of Abraham c. you are one of those men as Mr. Baxter saith p 8. who have reported abroad That Christ was not able to confute the Sadduces or to bring any Scripture for his Doctrine What say you now for you say nothing in this page to Mr. Baxter's motion Will you allow of such an Argument for Infant-baptism as Christ here brings for the Resurrection Will you confess it to be a sufficient Scripture proof 4. If what Christ approved of is and ought to be approved of all and it 's certain that Christ approves this way of arguing from Scripture by Consequence as you cannot deny then do you approve it without murmurings or disputings This was Christ's usual way E. g also he proves the lawfulness of his Disciples v) Mat. 12.3 â— 5 6 7. pulling the ears of corn and eating them on the Sabbath day by consequence from Scripture viz. from David's eating of the Shew-bread 2. From the Priest's sacrificing on the Sabbath And 3. From that Expression in Hos 6.6 I will have mercy and not sacrifice To conclude this I see you are like a bird in a net the more you stir the faster you are held notwithstanding your fluttering SECT 49. H H. p. 48. But now to make their folly manifest I will reason with them another way and if they prove as plainly that Infants are to be baptized as Christ did there prove that the dead should rise they shall have it and I will confess my self in an error And now to the matter Reply 1. Here is another confession of yours that Christ plainly proves there the Resurrection of the Dead now either it is Expresly or by Consequence x not Expresly for there is not one word of the Resurrection in Exodus 3 6. Therefore by Consequence will you now confess your error and say That some doctrine is contained plainly in Scripture which is not expresly written therein 2. You will Now make their folly manifest You had said but a little before in the same page that it is now manifest Surely you have manifested your own folly in indeavoring to do that now which you said was done before 3. It seems all this while you came not to the matter but fell short or beside the mark for you say And now to the matter SECT 50. H. H. Mark 12.25 When they shall rise from the dead they neither marry Now do you shew a Scripture that saith And when they shall baptize little children they shall c. Reply 1. This is but the same answer in another form 2. When you bring a Scripture that saith When they shall dipp actual believers or visible Saints they shall c. we will shew you then a Scripture that saith as you say SECT 51. H. H. vers 26. As touching the dead that they rise have you not read c. Now do you produce such a Scripture if you can that saith As touching little children that they may be baptized have you not read c. Bring you but Striptures that come but thus near the matter and we will grant you Infant-baptism but till then you are unreasonable in your reasoning Reply 1. Produce you a Scripture out of Exodus that saith The dead shall rise and then you shall have such a Scripture That children shall be baptized 2. You say and unsay Even now you approved of arguing by Consequence from Scripture and now nothing will serve turn but Express Scripture 3. You would make the people believe that we deny the Resurrection of the Dead God forbid We hold Christ proves the Resurrection by Consequence which you cannot deny 4. When you cannot answer then you fall a railing you accuse and condemn your self nay Christ as well as us as unreasonable in our reasoning SECT 52. H. H. pag. 49. Some will object that I tye Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook to plain Scripture but I my self have written many words in this book that are not plain Scripture Answ It 's one thing for a man to use words to express himself to those that will not believe the Scriptures as they are written and another thing to bring the Scriptures to shew men a rule to walk by and what their duty is in matters of faith and obedience The former we allow but not the latter either to our selves or others c. Reply 1. You take to your self that liberty which you deny to others who may not without a check from you use the word Sacrament p. 14. nor Negative p. 29. c. 2. The phrase of not believing the Scriptures as they are written is dark and doubtful you had need of an Expositor yet I know not who those are that will
thanks at Meals to pray in Families c. I hope you will not eat your own words i) P. 12 13 14. And I say such a trust forementioned is our duty contained in the Word though not expressed as 1 Pet. 2.6 with Isa 28.16 where the Apostle saith It is contained in the Scripture c. and yet those words elect and not confounded are not expressed in Isa 28.16 Querie 3. Whether the Saints have any ground to believe the Resurrection from the Dead and eternal life in glory but as it is recorded in Scripture Answ The Sadduces had ground to believe the Resurrection as it is recorded i. e. contained in Exod. 3.6 and the Saints too as it is expresly written in Scripture elswhere Qu. 4. Whether if a man believe and obey all the known precepts and promises contained in the Word of God as much as in him lieth will God condemn and punish him at that great day because he hath believed and done no more Answ A captious Interrogatory looking towards Quakerism that new-refined Papism about absolute perfection or freedome from sin in this life or toward Arminianism about the salvation of the moral Heathens yet I say God may condemn a man for the least sin of ignorance without Christ k) Levit. 4 2 3 13 22 37. with Luk. 12.48 and for the least defect in duty Nehem. 14.22 with Rom. 6.23 Qu. 5. If the Scriptures ought to be believed and obeied as they are written then how dare some deny faith in and obedience to some part of them and impose things not written in the Scriptures to be obeied in stead of the Ordinances of Christ Answ That phrase as they are written is ambiguous Were your meaning clear answer should be returned however I know none that deny such faith and obedience much less who impose things not written i. e. not contained in the Scriptures as Qu. 2. to be obeied in stead of Christ's Ordinances your Qu. implies a malitious calumniation and so let it pass Querie 7. If the Scriptures be not a perfect rule of faith and obedience without the help of any man's inventions what is Or who may we trust or at whose mouth must we seek wisdom Answ The Scripture is a rule Eccl. 12.10 with Gal. 6. ver 16. and a perfect rule Psal 19.7 and that of faith and manners as Austin doth phrase it God we may and must trust 2 Chron. 20.20 with Isa 7.9 at God's mouth must we seek wisdom Isa 8. ver 20. with Acts 17. ver 11. Qu. 7. Whether there be any sin or corruption incident to man that the Scriptures doth not reprove or make manifest in express terms Answ l) Indeed you answer your self p. 69. Yes 1. Original fin Gen. 5.3 Job 14.4 and 15.14 Psal 51.5 Eph. 2.3 Rom. 5.12 2ly Some actual sins as Incest Buggery Sodomie Polygamie of which last you have cause to examine yourself and many more 3ly There are many Errors and Heresies which in the general are called works of the flesh Gal. 5. ver 19 20. Egr. Euty chianism Ernomianism Nestorianism Arrianism Arminianism Papism with others more without number which surely are corruptions incident to man to use your own phrase and yet which the Scriptures doth not reprove and make manifest in express terms Qu. 8. Whether there be any virtue or praise in any thing that the best of men ever did but what is expresly commanded or commended in the Scripture of truth Answ Yes there was some virtue or praise in the Disciples eating some ears of Corn on the Sabbath-day yet not expresly commanded or commended in 1 Sam. 21.6 To which our Saviour doth refer the Pharisees to whom he said Have you not read what David did c. Mat. 12.3 4. yea you your self imagine at least there is virtue and praise in Dipping in a Meer or Marle-pit or Horse-pool c. and yet no where expresly commanded or commended in Scripture Querie 9. I appeal to every man's conscience in the sight of God whether their consciences do not condemn them when they walk contrary to what is written in Scripture Answ If by what is written you mean as in your seventh and tenth Querie I say yes unlesse the conscience be blind seared or asleep as I fear yours is for your frequent if not constant railing and reviling to name no more is contrary to what is written expresly in Scripture Qu. 10. Whether every man's conscience doth not justifie him when he walks according to what is contained in the Word Answ The answer immediately foregoing will serve here also without more ado SECT 6. H. H. p. 54. If all these Queries be granted as they are stated to be true then those that teach and perswade men to do any thing in matter of justification or salvation more or lesse then is plainly written and expressed in the Word of God are such as add to and take from the Word of God and are guilty of those plagues Rev. 22.18 19. But Infant-baptism is no where written nor expressed in all the Scriptures as Mr. Hall Mr. B. Mr. C. confess Therefore Reply 1. Some of your Queries are stated sillily e. g. 1 3 4 5 6. as is obvious to any 2. How can you suppose all to be granted when some are granted some denied and some in several respects being doubtfully propounded may be granted or denied 3. What a wide door do you open again here to Popery against justification by Faith onely For you say to do A N Y thing in matter of justification more then is expressed in the Word is an adding to the Word this is one of your dictates we must take your bare word without any offer of proof for it but if you make this out both you and I must fling up a great part of our Religion 4. As you pass again that dreadful doom on your self as well as on us so you be-lie in plain English those three Worthies who no where confess in their books that I can find that Infant-baptism is No where written in Scripture though they say It is no where expressed in Scripture which you miserably confound for want of wit or grace to distinguish SECT 7. H. H. Thus I have answered to Mr. Baxters Ten Positions which saith he p. 3. must be necessarily understood before we can understand the point in hand So that if these Positions are not true then the rest of his book cannot be true by his own confession Now if I have fully answered the one I need say but little to the other c. Reply 1. How this comes in by head and shoulders I know not Thus after a long digression he closeth The Reader must not blame me in following the Wild-goose-chase I must follow my leader except into an hors-pool 2. Whereas you say if you have sully answered these Positions you need say but little to the rest of Mr. Baxter's Book I assume But you have not fully answered these
Indeed it may seem strange that the Land of Canaan should be given to Christ Gen. 15.18 But the Apostle so interpreting it you and I must believe it though perhaps we cannot satisfactorily explain it yet for the Readers instruction I conceive that as the Evangelists and Apostles do unfold many mysteries wrapped up in sacred Oracles that we perhaps could never have thought on without their explication e.g. ministers maintenance 1 Tim. 5.18 with Deut. 25.4 and Elias praier Jam. 5.17 18. with 1 King 17.1 and 18.42 and many more instances so God would have us know that as to us Christians *) 2 Cor. 1.20 all promises are yea and Amen in Christ exhibited so to the Israelites in Christ to be exhibited and that they could not have right to that earthly Canaan much lesse enjoy it by Covenant least of all the heavenly kingdom shadowed thereby but by Christ that according to the Flesh was to be born of Abraham's seed whose humane nature had then no existence but that person in whom the humane nature should subsist was in being before to whom the Father committed the disposal of this inheritance c. in which respect it 's said I have given Gen. 15.18 SECT 5. H. H. p. 56. I wonder how the Preachers of the Church of England dare affirm That Believers children are in Covenant before believing by virtue of their parents Faith and yet they hold that God did hate and had reprobated Esau before he was born or had done good or evil c. Reply 1. You need not wonder if you will consider the distinction even now hinted of being in Covenant viz. Externally thus all that profess acceptance of the covenant are by God's grant with their children in covenant and internally so as to partake of the saving benefits of the covenant Thus none but those who are circumcised in heart are in covenant This distinction is none of our coyning but obvious in Scripture To go no further then your instance of Esau who was in covenant outwardly though not inwardly for he was circumcised as well as Jacob because of God's command Gen. 17.10 11 12. where parents circumcising their seed is called a keeping of God's covenant and circumcision a token of the covenant and the omitting of it a breaking of his covenant and yet he was hated of God Rom. 9.12 13. before he had done good or evil And when he was come to age x) Heb. 12.16 17. he was an hypocrite and prophane person and so wanted the inward efficacy of the Covenant The children of Believers may be in covenant then externally though reprobated externally Rom. 11.1 2. where it's evident all Israel were his people in covenant outwardly but onely his Flect whom he fore-knew his people in covenant internally 2. I wonder rather that you should hold that God did not hate Esau before he had done good or evil Are not you one of those y) Your p. 53. Qu. 6. that deny faith in part of the Scripture for it is so written Rom 9 11 13. Here again you smell too strong of the Arminian cask who deny peremptory or personal reprobation of any 3. Mr. B. and Mr. C. have weighed you and your principles in the ballance of the Sanctuary and have found you and them too light and they do not marvel that you confound your own principles and other mens too for want of a Scripture-distinction SECT 6. H. H. Again If Believers children be in covenant because they are believers children then grace comes by Generation and not by Regeneration which is absurd Reply We do not say Believers children are in covenant because Believers children but because God hath made a covenant with the faithful and their seed much lesse do we say that the inward blessing of the Covenant is given to anâ— because believers children though we grant it an effect of God's favour or grace that those which are born of parents in covenant are externally in covenant as born of such by virtue of God's promise Least of all do we say That grace i. e. the favour of God comes by generation or regeneration either That any are born visible and external Church-members is a fruit of God's meer common grace or favour that any are made members of Christ by Regeneration and indued with true holiness is a fruit of his peculiar grace but neither Generation nor Regeneration the cause of grace properly taken SECT 7. H. H. If they be in Covenant by virtue of their believing parents then all the world ever since righteous Noah must needs be in Covenant for they and we all came of him Reply 1. It follows not Noah's sons presently Apostatized from their father's God and so did the greatest part of the other families Of Ishmael and Esau though born of godly parents and so they did cast themselvs out of Covenant 2. If parents dedicate their children to the true God whom they own and bring them up in the true Religion which they profess and become not Apostates to Idolatrie Atheism and Hethenism they and their children are externally at least in covenant But if they so Apostatize they cast themselvs and their children out of covenant who so remain till by the Gospel they are brought back again into covenant else the faith of one parent continuing in the faith intitles the child to federal holiness according to God's Word and promise 1 Cor. 7 14. SECT 8. H. H. But Mr. C. saith in his Font Uncovered pag. 45. That he doth not hold falling from the inward efficacy of grace and true sanctification c. Answ So then it seems by his own confession it is not true and then it must needs be false and it 's well if they fall from false grace and sanctification c. for they that fall from false must needs fall to true as they that fall from true fall to false else they abide as they were Reply 1. Of four answers made by Mr. C. to a second Objection you have snatch at one for your advantage as you think and passe by all the other which you could not reply to Cunningly done 2. That very one singled out by you discovers as your strange humour to pick quarrels so your miserable impotency to overthrow the truth For these very words you cite hold forth the distinction of being outwardly under the Covenant of Grace which is common to the whole visible Church Elect and Reprobate and the partaking of the inward efficacy of grace which is peculiar to the effectually called which distinction turns your charge into meer smoke 3. The Arminians argue in their writings a) Called scripta Antisynodalia just as you do yet the consequence is as sensless as the former For there is no necessity of falling from false grace to true c. For they may and oft do fall to open wickedness which is no very good fall though you say b) 2 Pet. 2.20 21 22. it 's well if
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
Scripture without some skill in the original or without Translation by others In the former we see with our own eies in the latter with others but neither can be ordinarily without Learning So that it 's plain Satan will set up his Kingdom of Darkness where ever the light of humane learning is suppressed 9. To convince you and the rest of your Gang Suppose you meet with an Arrian that denies the Godhead of Christ you bring for your faith those words The Word was God he replies this Text onely proves that Christ is God by office as the Angels and Magistrates are but not by nature and gives this reason because the Article is wanting in that Text * John 1.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. How without Learning wil you confute this Heretick I marvel These things I thought good to say to this unreasonable and unlearned opinion which would explode humane learning though much more might have been said if the opinion or opinionists deserved it knowing that if people be possessed with this perswasion that humane learning is unlawful whatsoever is done in way of indeavours to reduce simple seduced people from their errors will be in vain for they say All this is but the fruit of humane learning therefore to be sleighted yea abhorred SECT 2. H. H. p. 126. But you plead Humane Learning to be the glory of your Ministry sleighting all who have not served an Apprenticeship at Cambridge and Oxford calling your selvs Orthodox Divines and the other illiterate Mechanick men Reply 1. Reader I thought good to take in this which Mr. Haggar calls his second reason of dissenting from us in this place as properly belonging to this head under consideration which he hath miserably confounded in the building of his Babel Therefore 1. Where is it written that it is a sin to plead Humane Learning next to grace to be the glory of our Ministry To use your own words in the next pag. If there be such a place let us see it but if there be not for shame leave this idle fantastical reasoning 2. That Humane learning sanctified is a glorious ornament to us and our Ministry none but inhumane and illiterate men can deny since it 's no small piece of Moses his honor that he was learned in all the wisdome of the Egyptians as was said before i. e. in Mathematicks and Physicks c. Acts 6 22. as Doctor Hammond shews Now though we glorifie God for humane learning bestowed on his servants yet I say with the Apostle Gal. 6.14 God forbid that we should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ c. 3. To say nothing of your scornful term serving an Apprenticeship c. It is false that we sleight all that are not University men for we do not onely honor some godly and learned Ministers who never were brought up at the feet of Gamaliel but the Reverend Commissioners for Approbation have upon examination approved some to be publick Preachers who never saw Cambridge or Oxford 4. It 's as false that we call all those Orthodox Divines who have as you scoffingly say served an Apprenticeship at Cambridge or Oxford we know some to be Heterodox the more is the pity as your brother Brown sometime u) See his Answer to Mr. Troughton Title page of Oriel Colledge in Oxford and it is as true that we call some other illiterate mechanick men and why should not we call a Spade a Spade SECT 3. H. H. p. 27. When you are put to it you will confess that Learning is but the Handmaid and Grace the Mistris But where is this written It 's one of your cunningly devised Fables 2 Pet. 1.16 Grace in the heart can do her work without a Maid 2 Cor. 12.9 Mark 16.15 16. Mat. 24.13 John 10.27 28. He doth not say if they have Humane Learning or been educated at Cambridge or Oxford Nay God threatens to destroy the wisdom of the wise 1 Cor. 1.19 and whom doth he chuse see 1 Cor. 1.26 27 28 29. And the Lord is so far from setting up learned men above unlearned that Christ saith Luk. 10 21. Jam. 2.5 Reply 1. You might have had the wit or honesty to have told us who they are that confess Learning is Graces Handmaid I confess I have heard it acknowledged that humane Learning is an Handmaid to Divinity But be it as you say yet we say withall that the maid must not perk it over the mistris as Hagar dâ—d over Sarah 2. When you shew us in what Scripture it is written that Christening of Children is a couzening of Children and that when we have done we make them seven times harder to be converted to the Faith c. pag. 121. we will shew you where that Apophthegme is written nay this is one of your cunningly devised Fables 2 Pet. 1 16. The word is rendred by some artificially composed by others as our Translation subtilly devised that they seem to bee true which indeed are false Store we have of such in your book as is obvious to the judicious Reader 3. What if Grace can do her own work without a maid yet a gracious Minister cannot do his work handsomely without humane Learning A Minister must be able to convince gain-saiers Tit. 1.9 Now how an unlearned Minister should ordinarily convince a learned Heretick I am yet to learn 4. I cannot but express some pangs of holy indignation at your gross but usual abuse of Scripture cited by you in this pag. out of Matthew Mark Luke John and the Epistle to the Corinthians 1. None of these places expresly speak of or against humane Learning what you speak from them is but by consequence onely and that very miserably 2ly Most of these places speak nothing directly in reference to Ministers as such but to people under a Gospel-ministry 3ly It 's granted that grace saves a man without learning though learning cannot without grace yet Ministers are to be considered in a double capacity As Christians and so it 's confessed grace can do his own work without the handmaid of humane Learning or as Ministers and so it must be acknowledged that grace cannot do the work of a Minister without humane Learning unless perhaps weakly and bunglingly This is no blasphemy against the God of Grace nor disparagement to the Grace of God 4. Because I hinted a little before in the general Mr. Haggar's miserable consequences I shall present some of them to the view of the Reader which indeed I had thought to have passed by in silence as unworthy to be named Mark 16.15 16 e. gr 1. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved John 10 27 28. Therefore grace in the heart of man or woman can do her work without the maid of humane Learning 2ly Christs sheep hear his voice and follow him and none shall pluck them out of his hand Therefore grace can do her own work without a maid Beside what a
to be counted and called ways of unrighteousnesse Again is it not the Righteous practice and custome of the Church of God in this Common-wealth for many hundred years And doth not the Apostle enjoin Rom. 13.7 To render to all their dues Custome to whom custome c I remember Hierom saith somewhere that he whoever he be that shall refuse to pay tithes to the Ministers of Christ do condemn themselves for unjust menâ— The receivers therefore must be just men and Augustin saith k) res Aâ—â—enas invadune Aug. 119. Ser De Tempore Tithes are due to be paid and who-ever refuseth invadeth another mans right But I forbear to cite the judgments of the Fathers and the decrees of Councills for H. H. will turn them off with a wet finger saying He weighs them not It were well if he could weigh the learned piece of Bishop Carleton and of Sir Henry Spelman Knight Doctor Selater c. which lye unanswered to this very day For ought I know 4. It is as false which you as boldly assert that we all go astray after this wages of unrighteousnesse You cannot be ignocant unlesse willingly that many pretious Ministers in this land have their maintenance not by tythes but by a l) No man may more freely speak of Tythes then my self who receive none nor ever shall do B Hall Case of Conscience resolved p. 229. And you say in the close of this Section So nomony no preaching Some preachers then receive mony not tithes By your own confession Salary With what face then can you say that we all go astray after the same To say nothing of your wonted custome and excellent faculty in perverting Scriptures for going astray must needs refer to the right way and that is the true and sound doctrine of Christ bringing in Heathenism after the example of Balaam m) Numb 24.14 with 25 1. Jude 11. Revel 2 14. who to get a reward taught Balak to curse the Israelites by inticing them to filthinesse and idolatry together Do our Ministers so This dirt the Lord will wipe off to your shame 5. No marvell you are an enemy to Ministers maintenance when you are a sworn enemy to the Ministry of the Church of England You imagine both stand and fall together For you say take away that we may preach who will for all you This is some of your left handed Logick to make way for the taking of the Ministry by taking away Tythes This design you have learned either of Julian the Apostate who thought by this means to root out the Christian ministry or of the Jusuites whose plot in the same as before 6. It s strange that you therefore conclude we are all Hirelings and will labour no longer then we are paid for it c. But Quakers language is not strange to you If wee are Hirelings while wee labour is it not fit wee should be paid For the n) Luk. 10 7 The ministry signifies a service whereto the wages is no lesse due then meat to the payer Bishop Hall Ibid. Labourer is worthy of his HIRE I will not trouble the Reader or my self with any Answer or Reply to your inconsiderable and unseemly flirts only observe what a reverend * Mr. Ven. Milk Hony Minister of the Gospell saith Some men will bee finding fault where no fault is to be found INVEIGHING men are most commonly ENVYING men They who inveigh much are men of envy much SECT 2. H. H. p. 124. This is one reason of our dissenting from you because you take Tythes or a sorced mantenance from those whom you call Herticks whereas the Priests under the Law never demanded Tithes of the uncircumcised Gentileâ— c. Reply 1. Suppose Tithes to be a forced mainâ—enâ—nce yet it will not follow that they are unlawfull the Landlord may distreyn on his Tenant for non-payment of his Rent The Collectors on the people for non-payment of their monthly Taxe and the day-labourer for his hire or wages 2. You should have described those whom we call Hereticks who are they but you love to â—alk in the dark and keep yourself within Generalls If you mean the man of your own persâ—â—ation I am clearly oâ—â—is mind the saith o) Quiâ— regant â—â—â—th thristâ—eâ— â—â—â—um wigiâ—ale Simâ—â—â—â— sint Hereâ—â—â— Ames cas do Câ—scâ—ent l. 4. c. 4. s 9. As Anabaptists deny originall sin c. They are Hereticks And why may we not call you Hereticks as well as you compare your selves to the uncircumcised Gentiles 3. All of us do not take Tythes of such hereticks for some of us have no such cattell within our folds not an Anabaptist in many of our Parishes 4. Your parallel is not right for though the Priests under the Law did not demand Tythes of the uncircumcised Gentiles yet they might of the Jews suppoâ—â—â—ng there were hereticks among them Heb. 7.5 They have a commandement to take Tithes of the people i. e. of your Brethren whether sound or unsound in the Faith SECT 3. H. H. Ibid. Though the Jews paid Tythes under the Law to their Priests Yet the converted Gentiles did not Act. 15. ver 24 25 28 29. Wherein there is no one word or syllable spoken about the intollerable burden of Tythes which is Antichristran and denyeth Christ to come in the flesh who changed the Priesthood and therefore of necessity there is a change of the Law Heb. 7.11 12. Now seeing the Priesthood and Law are changed where is the ground to take Tythes as Priests or what Law compells the people to pay Tythes to you as unto Priests Answer if you can Reply 1. If by the Law you mean the Leviticall Law I dâ—re be bold to affirm that Tythes were payd before that Abraham payd Tythes and that of all to Melchizedeck Gen. 14.20 with Heb. 7.2 as if hee had followed the Commandement of the Apostle Gal. 6.6 Let him that is taught or Catechized communicate to him that teacheth or catechizeth in all good things or in all his goods r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jacob also vowed to give the tenth also Gen. 28.22 So that the payment of Tythes is antienter then the Leviticall Law Indeed though Levi received Tythes afterward by a particular grant from God yet he paid them generally with the Congreation in the Loyns of Abraham unto the Priesthood of Christ personated by Melchizedeck Heb. 7.9 10. Therefore they are not abolished by the Gospel but may be continued as an Evangelicall revenew for the maintenance of those who give the Sacramentall Bread and Wine the materialls of Melchizedeck's beneficence to the people 2. Though the converted Gentiles were to abstain from those four things mentioned in the Acts yet it will not follow that therefore they were to abstain from paying Tythes no more then this that therefore they were to abstain from obedience to the Roman Magistrates under whose Dominion they now were or that they were to abstain then therefore now