understood Ex. gr n) Mat. 6.44 They that did eat of the Loaves were about 5000 men o) Mat. 14.21 And they that had eaten were about 5000 men beside Women and Children surely there 's no contradiction between Mark and Matthew Again under the expression of men and women children are understood as p) Josh 8.25 12000 men and women of Ai fell where children must be understood for it 's said q Ver. 264. Joshua utterly destroied all the inhabitants of Ai and no exception is made but r) Ver. 27. onely of the cattel and spoil and it 's vtterly improbable that in that City and among so many thousands no children should bee found SECT 9. Hen. Hag. Acts 8.36 37. The Eunuch said to Philip See 3. Instance here is water what hinders me to be baptized And Philip said If thou believest with all thy heart thou maist but little Babes cannot believe with all their hearts therefore they may not be baptized Reply 1. Å¿) Beza Jun. c Trem. Grotius 〈◊〉 c. Diverse learned men assert that the whole 37 verse is not to be found in many Greek copies and sundry antient Translations as the Syriack c. What then will become of your Argument No building can stand long without a foundation 2. Admit that verse to be in the Original the Major whether you take it as an hypothetical Proposition if people believe with all their hearts they may be baptized or as an universal Categorical proposition equivalent thereto whosoever believeth with all his heart may be baptized is granted to be a solid truth if it be understood of those that are not yet baptized For those that are already baptized must not be baptized again every day or every hour because they believe with all their hearts one Baptism is sufficient and agreeable to the rule 3. As to your Minor though you prove not that Infants cannot believe with all their hearts neither may you nor any man else put bounds to Gods omnipotency who is able to regenerate and sanctifie Infants Å¿) Luke 1.41 * as John Baptist in his mothers womb yet it 's granted that such a formal rational and professed faith as is required in grown persons they have not and in that sense let your Assumption passe for currant But now this is the misery that when it might be expected that both propositions being yielded the conclusion should be unquestionably assentâ—â—â— to which yet I deny not the syllogism you make is stark naught and a palpable Paralogism as having a negative assumption in the first Figure wherein the Assumption must alwaies be affirmative else the reasoning is fallacious and unsound which is evident to the meanest capacity e. g. The Sun Moon and Stars shine and give light but fire on the hearth and candles on the table are neither Sun Moon nor Stars Therefore fire and candles do not shine or give light Or thus All four-footed beasts are living creatures but Anabaptists are not four-footed beasts Therefore Anabaptists are not living creatures Or thus All that are indued with humane learning in some eminency are reasonable creatures But Anabaptists for the most part are not indued with humane learning in eminency Therefore Anabaptists for the most part are not reasonable creatures Thus your sophistry and folly is discovered 4. If you say your meaning was to prove from that Scripture that they onely are to be baptized that believe with all their hearts then the Argument is to be formed thus All those that are rightly baptized or to be baptized believe with all their hearts But Infants believe not with all their hearts Ergo not rightly baptized or to be baptized Here it 's granted the form is good but the matter of the first Proposition to say no more to the second then what hath been said is naught For John the Baptist rightly baptized many without enquiry much lesse certainty that their hearts were right in believing Sâ—mon Magus in this very Chap. t) Acts 8.13 was baptized and that rightly for Philip is not in the least blamed but approved in that act yet u) Acts 8.21 his heart was not right before God And multitudes we read of that were daily baptized of whose believing With all their hearts we read nothing and if you must forbear baptizing untill you know that people believe with all their hearts v 1 Cor. 2.11 you must never baptize u For what man knoweth the things of man save the spirit of man which is in him Nay neither that nor any other Scripture holds forth in expresse terms that none but such as believe are to be baptized SECT 10. H. H. the same page Acts 10.46 47 48. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized 4. Instance that have received the Holy Ghost as well as wee And he commanded them to be baptized c. By which wee see that no such babes were here baptized for all that were in this place baptized were such as had received the Holy Ghost as well as the Apostles and they heard them speak with tongues and magnifie God which children that cannot speak at all cannot possibly do all rational men will grant Reply 1. Your Argument from hence is sick of the same disease with the former viz. All that were baptized here were such as received the Holy Ghost c. But children cannot receive the Holy Ghost c. Therefore Just like this they that understand the Languages wherein the Scriptures were originally written are guiltie of humane learing for in your judgment humane learning is matter of guilt But you do not understand the Languages wherein the Scriptures were originally written as you would bear us in hand by your inveyghing against humane learning Therefore you are not guilty of humane learning This is enough to shew the unreasonablenesse of your reasonings 2. Here is a clear Argument for baptizing Infants they that receive the Holy Ghost are to be baptized but some Infants receive the Holy Ghost Therefore the Major shines clear by its own light They who partake of the inward grace may partake of the outward signe or they who have the thing signified in Baptism ought to have the sign which is Baptism The Apostle Peter justifies this principle and by the authority and strength of it proves the lawfulnesse of baptizing those on whom the Holy Ghost fell Now that some infants receive the Holy Ghost as well as grown men it 's plain for * Rom 8 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if any man or any one have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his and if an Infant be none of Christs you must eat your words and deny that any Infants dying in their infancy are saved by Christ x) p. 61. If you say by receiving the Holy Ghost is meant the extraordinary gift of the Spirit as ver 44 45 46. Be it so this makes the Argument stronger for if
say Here is fulfilled Clap your hands and leap for joy and say with the Philosopher in another case o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have found I have found viz. the Font in Jeremy though I cannot find it in all the holy Scriptures 3. Can you say without blushing Here the words of the Prophet are fulfilled Did the Spirit of God ever intend here Baptismal Fonts and if not intended how is this text now fulfilled In what words are Fonts implied in the word Fountain the Knight indeed saith Fonts or Fountains p) Pag. 8. out the term is appropriated by the Lord to himself They have forsaken me the Fountain c. No man that I know of holds our Fonts to be Fountains of living waters and your self declines at when you make the forsaking of baptizing men and women c. Parallel with the peoples forsaking God the fountain c. Or in the word Câ—stern in which it seems you have found Fonts but the text saith Those Cisterns are broken Cisterns that can hold no water which you have cunningly left out lest your disciples should espie your foul mistake but our Fonts could and did hold water Sir I must tell you had not your brain been cracked you had never imagined our Fonts to be broken Cisterns Therefore let the Reader observe how grosly you abuse this Scripture and consider seriously whether that Scripture be not fulfilled in you being one of those that are unlearned and unstable who q) 2 Pet. 3.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As torturers Put a man on the rack and make him speak that he never thought so these set the Scripture on a rack and draw ouâ— a sense which was never intended Leigh Crit. Sacr. wrest the Scriptures I pray God it be not to your own destruction 4. For the rest cited in your p. 9. and part of the 10. I say no more but this Is the Knights testimony so valid that it must be largely transcribed when it seems to make against us And must it be so sleighted when it seems to make against you as about the Terms Tythe and Church To the first answer shall be returned towards the end of the book And to the second Why may not the publick place of worship be called a Church because the Church meets there as well as it is called the Synagogue because the Congregation of the Jewes met there to perform publick worship CHAP. V. Of the Rise of Infant-Baptism SECT 1. H. H. p. 10. Wee must have the Rise of Infant-baptisme from those Rabbies that did practise it or else not at all because the Scripture is silent in it as they themselves confess So Mr. Hall r) Font guaâ—ded p. 30. literally syllabically terminis terminantibus in expresse terms Infant-baptism is not commanded nor a thousand things more A wretched lye for it 's an hard thing for Mr. Hall to prove that God requireth of the sons of men a thousand or half a thousand things no where commanded Reply 1. To passe by your scornful terms Rabbies c. you are guilty of falshood in saying We confesse the Scripture is silent in it I know not any one that makes such a Confession if you do you might have named him or them But this you passe by in silence in hope your falshood should not be discovered but in vain a general accusation is as good as silence 2. Admit the Scripture were silent herein it makes nothing against us For it is a common and true rule as before a Negative Argument from Authority proves nothing Nay I confesse the Scripture is silent in Mr. Hall's sense i. e. It speaketh nothing of Infant-baptism in expresse terms by way of command but it is not silent in another sense for it speaks implicitly of it E. gr Ministers maintenance is not expresly mentioned in those words Å¿) Deut. 25.4 Thou shalt not muzzle the Oxe when he treadeth out the corn yet it is implied in those words if you will believe the Apostle s) 1 Tim. 5.17.18 for the Scripture saith Thou shalt not muzzle c. And again t) 1 Cor. 9.9 For it is written in the Law of Moses Thou shalt not muzzle c. Now Sir Riddle me riddle me what 's this The Scripture is silent and yet Saith It is Written in the Law of Moses And yet not one word concerning Ministers maintenance written expresly in Deut. quoted u) p 12. Yea to take your own instance A man may pray in his Family because he may pray every where according to 1 Tim. 2.8 Where Family-praier is implied and so the Scripture is not silent in it but not expressed and so it is silent Many more instances may be given but these may suffice without the imputation of a wretched lye 3. Suppose the Scriptures were altogether silent about Infant-baptism it rather proves that Infants were baptized to any unbyassed judgment because we read not of any Controversie about a complaint against Infant-baptism as we do concerning the Widows that were neglected v) Acts 6.1 a businesse of an inferiour alloy in comparison of this in hand 4. What a wretched man are you in saying a wretched lie on the account mentioned by Mr. Hall you shew your self as rude in Ethicks as unskilful in Rhetorick x) Hyperbole so much used in Scripture specially in this case e. gr Cities walled up to heaven y) Deut. 1.28 i. e. very high now because this was spoken by the Spies who might tell a lie therefore compare this text with another viz. Deut. 9.1 Cities great and fenced up to heaven which certainly were the words of Moses So Mat. 23.24 Yee blind guides who strain at a Gnat and swallow a Camel i. e. strain at things of small moment and swallow things of greater concernment So Joh. 21.25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did the which if they should be written every one I suppose that even the world it self could not contain the books that should be written Abundance of more instances which if you can read with Latine eies you may find in Alsted z) Praecognita Theologiae pag. 157 158. l. 2. But if you can look onely with English eies see Diodat on John forenamed I hope you will not give the Wretched Lie to Moses Christ John c. as you do to Mr. Hall who by those thousand things means according to your usual expression a certain number for uncertain i. e very many or a great number as 1 Cor. 4.15 Ten thousand Instructers in Christ. 5. It 's well you say It 's an Hard thing for Mr. Hall to prove that God requires a thousand things of us not commanded It seems you dare not say it 's impossible onely it's Hard. And what if he prove an hundred or half an hundred which is easie to do they are too many for you to answer SECT 2. H. H. There is no express command saith Mr. Hall in the
Sacrament I answer neither do we read the word Sacrament in all the holy Scriptures therefore how should we prove that women did receive it But we read that the Disciples met together to break bread Acts 20.7 And that women were disciples is evident Acts 9.36 There was a certain disciple named Tabitha c. Now let Mr. Baxter or any bring one Scripture that saith There was a disciple in any place or of any name that was a little Babe and they say well Again we have plain words for it That all the body do partake of that one bread 1 Cor. 10.16 17. Now that women are of the body of Christ I think none dare deny Gal. 3.27 28 29. Reply 1. It seems you have a treacherous memory but a Liar as the proverb is had need of a good memory You speak here the same language to Mr. Hall as you did to Mr. Cook v) Pag. 6. and it may receive the same answer 2. Further you lisp in the language of Ashdod The Socinians say as you do viz. The word Sacrament is a barbarous word and no where to be found in holy Scripture What then It 's a true and common saying of our Divines The thing though not the name is in Scripture as the word Trinity c. 3. But what vain jangling is this Mr. Hall did not speak of womens receiving the Sacrament but of our giving them the Supper as it 's recited by your self p. 10. 4. It is not evident by expressness of Scripture but by Consequence onely that women were disciples or that women received the Lord's Supper It is said indeed expresly that Tabitha was a Disciple and that Tabitha was a woman and therefore it follows that a woman was a disciple or if you will women were disciples neither of these consequences or conclusions are expresly in Scripture Nay you do not prove that women received the Lord's Supper but by consequences because the disciples came together to break bread and by consequent to receive the Lord's Supper which none of us deny And is it not as evident that Infants ought to be baptized because they are disciples 5. In the language of Christ who was best able to expresse his own sense to belong to Christ is to be a disciple of Christ compare Mat. 10.42 with Mar. 9.41 and Mat. 18.5 And were not some of them Infants on whom the false teachers would have laid the yoke of Circumcision who are expresly called disciples Acts 15.10 And is it not said expresly that the Disciples Acts 21 4 5. with the wives and children brought Paul on his way Now as the affections and lusts are flesh Gal. 5.24 because it 's said the flesh with its affections and lusts So here wives and children are disciples because it 's said The disciples with their wives and children Do we now say something 6. Answer shall be returned to 1 Cor. 10.16 17. when I come to the page 66.67 in the mean time I say that some Infants are of the body of Christ and I think you dare not deny it For Christ is the Saviour of the body Page 6. Eph. 5.23 And you say that Infants dying in their infancy are saved by virtue of Christs death SECT 12. Hen. Hag. same page Thus having discovered the vanity of all their unreasonable reasonings I commit it even to our enemies to judge between us in these things who hath the Scripture most on their side they or we And thus notwithstanding all their cunning craftiness it is evident they have not one Scripture for Infant-baptism and therefore not of God c. Reply 1. What a pitiful contradiction is here viz. That we have not one Scripture for Infant-baptisme and yet you would have us judge who hath most Scripture on their side For suppose you have the most doth not that imply that we have some Scriptures on our side Sure none and some are contradictions 2. If you mean we have no Scripture by consequence that is palpably false unlesse all this while you have answered not one Scripture for Infant-baptisme If you mean expresse Scripture then you have not one Scripture for Anabaptism Now let all rational men judge whether you have not discovered the vanity of your unreasonable reasoning SECT 13. Hen. Hag. p. 15 16 17. We cannot find Infant-baptism in all the holy Scriptures Therefore to the fountain whence it flows that all men may see that it comes not from the fountain of living waters which is the holy Scriptures Reply I wonder you can find a Font for Infant-baptism in Jer. 2.12 13. pag. 8. and yet cannot find Infant-baptism in all the holy Scriptures Who so blind as hee that will not see 2. You told us even now p. 9. That the baptizing of Believers in Rivers and Fountains c. was the fountain of living waters or else your comparison is lame Now that the holy Scripture is the fountain of living waters Either there are two fountains of living waters or else you miserably contradict and confound your self SECT 14. H. H. ibid. Now that Christ never commanded nor his Apostles never practised the baptizing of Infants even your own Poets confess as Paul saith in another case Acts 17. ver 28. Reply 1. I desire the Reader to peruse the Authors with their testimonies as they are cited by Mr. Haggar because they are too many to transcribe Mr. Hagg. hath empanell'd a July of 22 but I hope he wil do me that favour nay that justice to challenge some of them and to consider if not to demur on the Verdict of the rest 1. Erasmus is one of yours as well as ours If an Anabaptist be a Papist or a Protestant or a Neuter or both For in point of an Oath and Law-suits y) Sâ—e Bâ—zâ— in Mat. 5.34 he seems not z) Id in Rom. 5 14. to dissent from the opinion of the Anabaptists and in point of sin he is a Pelagian or Papist * thinking it proceeds rather from example then from nature yet he seems to be a Protestant For he said that was heresie in Luther which was good divinity in Austin and being promised a fat Bishoprick if he would write against Luther he answered t Luther was too great for him to write against *) Melch Adam de vita Lutheri p. 115. nay so great that he profest he learned more out of one little leaf of Luther then out of Aquina's his volumes But how sleight and unsound he was about the deity of Christ Jesus specially in Phil. 2.6 Tit. 2.13 They that read him cannot but stand and wonder I speak not this to smut his reputation but to shew your vanity scornfully calling him one of our own Poets 2. Bishop Rossensis and Doctor Eck Ludovicus vives c. are or were notorious Papistâ— In calling these our own Poets I may better say to you then you do to a) Foundat p. 10. M. Hall p. 10. A WRETCHED LYE but I
Mr. B. said 3. You would make Mr. Baxter odious by saying He takes the Divels part c. But Sir you know the proverb A man must give the Divel his due Surely those godly Ministers do not take the Divel's part when they tell sinneâ—s that many times they be-lye the Divel in fathering their sins on him rather then on themselvs Mat. 15.19 Out of the hâ—art proceeds evil thoughts c. Jam. 1.14 Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust 2 Pet. 1. ver 4. Corruption is in the world through lust 4. I fear that fault charged on Mr. Baxter will bee found within your own girdle before I leave you Though you say you will now make it appear It seems then you failed in making it to appear as you said in the foregoing page But just so you have learned the Divels deceit in adding to Scripture E. g Baptism is to be deferred til a man can believe which is not written in the Bible but in Mr. Haggars book p. 38. and you say p. 61. God hath one way to save men and women and another way to save little children which is no where written in the holy Scriptures Again in the same page you say Infants dying in their infancy are saved by virtue of Christ's death without actual Fâ—ith which is no where written c. who now writes after the Divels copie Who takes the Divels part SECT 34. H. H. p. 43. The Divel said to Christ If you be the Son of God cast thy self down which is no where written as the Lord saith but the contrary viz. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord c. So do you say if you be the children of God Baptize your children which is no where written but the contrary Mat. 28.29 Mar. 15 16. Acts 2.38 41. 8.37.12.37 But you know there is no children in the Text neither can they do any thing of those things notwithstanding all this you do the works of Satan Reply 1. Though what is said in the foregoing Sect. is a sufficient reply as to this also yet I am sure Christ proves two things contrary to you 1. The lawfulness of arguing from Scripture by Consequences 2. That is Scripture which is contained though not expressed therein e. g. Christ must not cast himself down for it is written in Deut. 6. ver 16. Thus. If the Lord must not be tempted then I must not cast my self down But the Lord must not be tempted Therefore 2. You bewray your ignorance in saying contrary for the baptizing of Infidels converted to the Faith and Infants also of one or both Christian parents are not contrary but subordinate k) Subordinate non pugnant there is a consistency of both 3. The Scriptures you cite in Mat. and Mark and the Acts have been answered before you do but trouble your self and tire the Reader with vain Repetitions Yet to your last I say Children are expresly mentioned in Acts 2. ver 39. which you have cunningly left out as if to use your own expression you meant to take the Divels part and so to do his work Beside your allegations are as strong against Circumcision as against infant-baptism for you know they could not repent nor believe with all their hearts c. and yet were circumcised But let us see how Mr. B. or we do the works of Satan SECT 35. H. H. As he tempted Christ to cast himself down before God's time was come to send his Angels to take him down and to that end would have applied a promise falsly Psal 91.11 12 leaving out In all thy waies So do you tempt men and women to baptize their children before God's time is come to beget them by his Word Joh. 3.5 James 1.18 That they might be born again nor onely of water but of the Spirit And to that end you tell them It is written They are disciples and Church-members and they were circumcised under the Law therefore they must be baptized under the Gospel c. Reply 1. You drive on the Popish design handsomly for here you open a wide door for unwritten Traditions What Scripture have you that saith expresly of the coming of God's time to send his Angels to take down Christ 2. Here is a very spiteful parallel What likenesse between Casting thy self down and baptizing Children 3. We have another unwritten Tradition viz. We tempt men and women to baptize their Children before God's time is come 4. You cannot deny but God doth beget some Infants by his Spirit without the Word else they are none of his Rom. 8.9 5. Your Gloss on John 3.5 smells too strongly of the Popish Cask most Orthodox Divines understand by Water and Spirit one and the same thing the latter being exegetical to the former as Mat. 3.11 to be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with Fire is all one which you distinguish as different in saying not onely of Water but also of the Spirit 6. What a strange piece of Non-sense have we here God doth beget us by his Word that we might be born again when God's begetting of us and our being born again in Scripture are all one l) 1 Joh 4.18 He that is born of God sinneth not but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself c. See also verse 1. 7. These Arguments to prove Infant-baptism drawn from Circumcision Church-membership Discipleship c. you cannot answer but by railing which shall have no other Reply from me but Silence and Patience SECT 36. H. H. p. 44. You tell us that if we have the meaning and reason we have enough for evidence for words are but to express sense Answ Then it seems the meanings and reasons you talk of without the Word are without sense by your own confession And thus you see or may see that God by weak instruments can take you wise ones in your own craftiness But again are not the words of the Scripture as good and better sens and reason then any you can speak or give Reply 1. It is not Mr. Baxter's confession but Mr. Haggar's profession to wrest M. Baxter's words as well as Scripture Let any 〈…〉 of judiciousness read M. Baxter's 10. Position and he will quickly 〈◊〉 Baxter's plainness and M. Haggar's craftiness 2. It 's granted that the words of the Scripture in Hebrew and Greek were given by the inspiration of the Spirit but our English words into which they are translated are not we may without blasphemy say If you deny this I must needs conclude you are so far from being high-flown that with the Serpent you creep on the ground and pave the way for making the Vulgar Translation Authentical as you would the English SECT 37. H. H. You say further Would it not make a man pity such sensless ignorant wretches that will call for express words of Scripture when they have evident Consequences Is Scripture-reason no reason Answ Sir me thinks you are very pitiful but you are a
miserable Comforter for when you have done you fall a railing on us calling us Sensless ignorant wretches that will call for express Scripture when we have your Consequences But I have told you already we dare not trust your Consequences Indeed Scripture-reason is good reason and it 's that we would have from you for which you call us ignorant sensless wretches Reply 1. It seems a just reproving in pity is a railing with you If so you are far-gone and very high-flown indeed 2. It 's your subtil sophistry to call evident Consequences drawn from Scripture Our Consequences 3. If Mr. Baxter say true and you do not disprove him that evident Consequences drawn from Scripture are as true proof as the very express words of a Text which you cannot but grant p. 12 13 14 you may trust them better then or as well as your own Consequences which you often bring SECT 38. H. H. p. 45. We call Scripture-reason written reason now if you would shew us where your reason is written in the Book of God the holy Writings the Controversie were at an end but till then you have done nothing But you might do well to inform the ignorant wretches that the holy Scriptures in English are holy writings And thus the people would know what you mean by Scripture-reasons i. e. written reasons Reply 1. If I mistake not here is a pure Socinian Principle viz. Nothing is written in Scripture but what is exprest in so many words Then farewell the doctrine of the Trinity justification by Faith onely trusting in Christ's satisfaction c. All which and many more particulars are not written in your sense in the book of God but written in our sense therein because drawn by evident consequence from thence 2. Christ saith Joh. 5.46 That Moses wrote of him m) Gen. 3.15 Deut. 18.15 which is true in our sense but Truth if self must have the Lye given him in your sense For there is not one expresse written word of Christ in all the book of Moses I mean the person of Christ God-man 3. We do inform the ignorant wretches as you advize us nay we have done it before you advized us and they do or may know that Infant-baptism is written in the Book of God as plainly as womens Receiving the Lord's Supper and those particulars mentioned in your pag. 12 13 14. Will you now stand to your word and say with Mr. Saltmarsh in another case An end of a Controversie SECT 39. H. H. You say we disdain reason and therefore not to be reasoned with and if we once renounce reason we are bruit-beasts and who will go to plead with a beast It 's reason that differeth a man from a beast c. Answ You put me in mind how lâ—ke one of your forefathers you are for to my best remembrance you speak his very words and I question not but if you had an opportunity you would do his deeds viz. Doctor Story to Mr. Philpot see Fox Martyr p. 1972. Reply 1. Mr. Haggar brings in a long story of Dr. Story his conference with Mr. Philpot the Martyr I desire the Reader to view either Mr. Haggar or Mr. Fox which for brevity take I cannot transcribe Yet I say truly that a Liaâ— had need have a good memory Mr. Baxter doth not speak Dr. Stories words This Doctor called Philpot a beast simply and absolutely M. Baxter calls you so hypothetically and conditionally if reason be renounced nay he includes himself as wel as Anabaptists on that supposition as you transcribe him IF WEE SECT 40. H. H. pag. 46. See how like your forefather Dr. Story you speak and behave you self or would do if you had but liberty You are children of one father whose works you do Joh. 8. ver â—4 Reply 1. No more like then an Apple is like an Oyster as they say the parallel is not right for beside the forementioned difference Dr. Story was a Papist M. Baxter a Protestant Henry Haggar an Anabaptist and railer Mr. Philpot neither but a meek Martyr That learned and godly Mr Philpot was no Anabaptist it's plain n) Sâ—e Fox vol. 3. p. 600. c. Anno 1555. for in a Letter to a fellow-prisâ—ner thus he writes The Apostles of Christ dâ—d baptizâ— Children And in another The Apostles baptized Infants since Baptism is in place of Circumcision In a thiâ—d The Apostles did baptize Infants and not onely men of lawful age And again Why do not these rebellious Anabaptists obey the Commandement of the Lord Mark 10.13 14 15 16 Now let the Reader consider whether you or Mr. Baxter is most like to that blessed Martyr and whether you are more like to Dr. Story if you had libertie o) Sleid. l. 10. your predecessors at Munster shew of what spirit you are 2. Guilt of Conscience make you fearful of punishment and uncharitably censorious of your betters who without vanity may say p) Mat. 23.9 One is our Father which is in heaven SECT 41. H. H. Where as you say we disclaim reason I Answer It 's but one of your false accusations we own all things written in the Scripture c. Reply 1. You disclaim the plainest and clearest reason deduced out of Scripture and so it 's no false accusation 2. If you did own all things written in the Scripture the Controversie were at an end as you say p. 45. 3. What perversness and partiality is this that you can own Women's Discipleship and their Receiving the Lord's Supper c. aâ— p. 14. as things written in Scripture and yet disclaim some Infant 's Discipleship Church-membership and Baptism which are written in the Scriptures of truth as well as the former and many other instances which might be given SECT 42. H. H. pag. 47. Mr. Baxter saith Do you think the Lord Jesus knew a good Argument or the right way of Disâ—uting Why how did he prove the Resurrection to the Sadduces from that text I am the God of Abraham c. Answ The Lord Jesus knew a good Argument and the right way of Disputing better then Mr. Baxter or my self or any man else I humbly confess to his praise and therefore I desire to make use of his words that he hath already spoken knowing that he hath reasoned and proved all things better then I can Reply 1. Then you grant that there can be no arguing from Scripture but by deduction for in all Arguments there must be a Medium and a Conclusion a Proposition and an Inference as appears by your own Arguments p. 63 c. 2. You grant as much as is desired that to argue by evident Consequence from Scripture is a right way of disputing as Christ's was Humbly confess this also to Christ's praise and join hands and hearts also with Mr. Baxter and say I shall think it no weak arguning which is like to Christ's nor shall I take my self to be out of the way while I follow him SECT 43.
speak in the same language as you do 5. We have here your grosse monoply of Christs spirituall presence as if it belonged only to you and to such as are baptized after your mode No marvail for one of your silly Proselytes x) N. G. preached or rather prated lately in private saying Christ is with us here and not yonder pointing to a Chappell near adjoyning but this is a trick of the old Donatists your predecessors who confined as is commonly known the Church of Christ within a corner of Africa abusing that Scripture as you do many Where thou makest thy stock to rest at noon y) Cant. 1.7 the Latine hath it inâ—meridie therefore forsooth they couching in the south it must be with them 6. I wonder you passe by some observations as wise as some of the 5. viz. 1. It 's the duty of every Minister to preach to every man in the world 2. No unbeliever whether baptized or unbaptized can be saved 3. it follows hereupon that Infants who cannot actually believe shall be damned For in Mark z) ch 16.15 16. believing and being baptized are as nearly connexed to salvation as in Matt. * ch 28 19 20. baptizing is to teaching and in order of phrase Faith and Baptisme are as closely joyned together and it is as absolutely expressed He that believeth not shall be damned If I should say from all which I collect these three observations I think I should gather that which the Holy Ghost never scattered SECT 6. H. H. Thus have I shewed the order of the words as they were spoken by the Lord himself Reply Sir by your shewing the order of Christs words and your shaping some observations from them you do more then intimate that Teaching must go before baptizing for if we may believe you the Gospell must bee first preached then believed and then and not till then Baptism administred I confesse Christ mentioneth teaching as our English Bibles have it in the first place and baptizing after a) J. G. Catabaptism p. 167. but this is not to instruct them to teach in the first place and then to baptize them after but only in the first place to instruct them to teach and in the second to baptize 2. Order of things iâ—not alwayes or commonly so exactly exprest in Scripture by the position of the words Therefore from Christs mentioning teaching in the first place and baptizing in the second it cannot be proved that persons must always be first taught before they bee baptized no more then Christ b) Mar. 115. putting repenting before believing proves that Repentance precedes faith or c) Rom. 10.9 naming confession with the mouth before beliefe of the heart proves that confession must go before faith as to salvation beside the second person is mentioned d) 2 Cor. 13.14 before the first and the third person e) Rev. 1.4 5 before the second and I find Daniel f) Ezech. 14.14 named before Job who was notwithstanding a long time after him with many more instances which might be given but perhaps we shall more fully speak to this in it's proper place 3. Though I am of his mind g) Nec admodum refert utrum discipulatus baptismum vel baptismus discipulatum antecedat ne quis hîc more Anabaptistarum vanè sit scrupulosus Muscul in Jo. 4.19 that it is not greatly materiall whether discipling go before baptizing or baptizing before discipling yet let it be granted that this Scripture compared with others hold out that some are to be taught before they are baptized as before p. 4. yet it will not help your cause one jot unlesse there be a concurrence of the like or the same circumstances For a difference is to be made between the constituting of a Church and a Church constituted Some things may be done in in the former which are not requisite to be done in the latter CHAP. III. Concerning Examples SECT I. H. H. same page If it can be proved by ANY word of God that any baptized little babes that cannot speak or understand then I confess they that practise it may be born with and they which cry it down as Antichristian superstition and mans Tradition may be too blame Reply 1. Practise it Cry it down I pray you whither is that Relative IT twice for failing repeated to be referr'd to the Word of God I think you meant not that yet they that practice it are not onely to be born with but to be commended also Or to little Babes That 's both incongruous and non-sensical If to Infants baptisme or the practice of baptizing little babes why did you not say so for there is no such substantive in your expression to which this word It is to be referred You that take upon you to be the great Censurer of other mens writings should have been more exact in your own 2. Infant-Baptism ever since it hath been opposed hath been sufficiently proved by the Word of God many writings of the Paedobaptists remaining yet unanswered as Mr. Baxters Mr. Cooks c. the tythe of whose arguments you have not so much as lightly touched though you make a flourish of an answer to them 3. Have patience a while and it will be proved that those little children mentioned in the Gospel * were baptized I hope that is the word If so h) Mat. 19.13 Mark 10.33 you are too blame and we to be born with SECT 2. H. H. pag. 4. Mat. 3.5 6. with Mar. 1.3 4 5. Of John Baptist Where we read first of the voice of one crying in the wilderness To prepare the way of the Lord and to make his paths straight 2. That John baptized in that wilderness and whom he baptized is evident in the following words And he preacht the Baptisme of repentance for the remission of sins and there went out to him all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem and were all baptized of him in â—ordan confessing their sins c. Reply You mis-cite the words of Mark by adding to them and diminishing from them i) Contrary to Deut. 4.2 1. By adding to â—hem in saying To prepare and to make Whereas the text hath it k) Mar. 1.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prepare ye the way of the Lord and make ye his paths straight Which words tel us what the people were to do not what John Baptist did 2. By diminishing from them in some respect For the text runs clearly thus l) Ver. 4. John did baptize in the not that wilderness and preach before which you have cast a mist least your Reader should discern that sometimes Baptism precedes Preaching and indeed if there be any strength in arguing from order it will follow viz. That Baptism goes before preaching for it 's said expresly John did baptize and preach Take heed lest those m) Pag. 40. dreadful thunderbolts you shoot against others light on your own pate SECT 3.
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
sophistical who judge of things rather as they are then as they seem And it is to be hoped the rest of your answers to this and all the other Scriptures which you passe by as unable to charge them with seeming sophisticalness are solid and satisfactory neither really nor seemingly sophistical Your silence is just ground for such an interpretation 3. In saying to this he answers These words Men and Women are appliable to sexes rather then to ages you do not truly set down the words of that book a) Font uncovered p. 16. which saith Men and Women are names rather noting the sexes then ages and are appliable to Infants as well as to grown persons and some instances are there given Here you discover your falshood and fraud 4. Concerning Eve I pray you look back b) Pag. 5. where this Scripture being urged by you c) Acts 8.12 you should have brought your answer if you had not like to have forgotten it as you say or rather as others may judge if you had intended plain dealing where this evasion of yours would have appeared vain For you put the Emphasis of your proof on Men and Women in saying both men and women in express terms but we read never a word of little Babes Thus you set men and women in opposition to little babes and therefore that answer which shews that little babes may be called men and women according to Scripture is directly to the purpose 5. As for the falseness of Mr. C. Argument c. he that hath but half an eie may see how groundlesly and impertinently you bring it in onely when you have nothing else to say you have the knack to fill up paper with railings and false accusations without either occasion or sense though not without abusing Scripture and profaning God's holy Word SECT 18. H. H p. 7. The last text is in Acts 18.8 that Crispus the chief ruler believed in the Lord with all his house and many of the Corinths hearing believed and were baptized Reply 1. I expected that in the Rear you would have brought up your strongest forces utterly to have routed your adversaries but you do not draw out one Argument that dare look the Enemy in the face Sure you made more haste then good speed 2. To this and the rest of the Scriptures hitherto alleged by you I do roundly answer That they prove onely thus much 1. That such believers who had not been baptized in their Infancy were baptized at more maturity of years 2. That ordinarily Scripture-baptists did admonish and exhort those who came to them to bee baptized to repent and believe neither of these are denied by your Adversaries nor have either of them the least shadow or colour of inconsistency with the lawfulness of Infant-baptism 3. I wonder why in citing this text and saying the chief Ruler believed you left out the word Synagogue SECT 19. H. H. Thus we have seen the command of Christ and the practice of the Apostles agreeing together by which the foundation of the Saints is discovered upon which they ought to build which is the words and sayings of Christ and the practice and examples of his holy Apostles Reply 1. To the first three or four lines I have I hope sufficiently answered in the beginning of this Reply and I would not be guilty as you are of vain repetition 2. Yet I shall take the boldness to add a word or two If you understand the command of Christ and practice of the Apostles in reference to the present controversie I tell you again the command is to be obeyed and the example may be followed in the like case and condition But what is this to your purpose and practice I dare say the command of Christ and examples of the Apostles will not bear you out in the baptizing those who have received the Lord's Supper among us c. which kind of Baptism was neither commanded by Christ nor practised by the Apostles 3. If you understand Christs command and the Apostles practice largely Then in the fear of God and in your cold blood consider whether the lying corning railing perverting of Scripture c. that makes up a great part of your book and I shall present to you view the particulars as I go along be agreeable to the words and sayings of Christ and to the practice and examples of his holy Apostles And then your self shall be judge what foundation it is you build upon 4. Because you said in pag. 6. There 's no ground from Scripture or reason to believe there were children in Lydia's house and here in this 7. p. nor can you find one word in all the holy Scriptures about baptizing little Infants I answer the very notion of baptizing whole housholds is enough to make out an example of Infant-baptism For 1. f) Sidenham of Infant-bapt p. 107. It is confidence beyond example to hold that in all those houses said to be baptized there were no Infants 2. There is stronger ground to believe the Affirmative then the Negative 3. Especially when the word House or Houshold is put for little ones and includes them Gen. 45.18 Take your housholds Now that children were understood it 's plain ver 19. Take Waggons for your little ones 4. Whensoever the houshold is spoken of in the Old Testament g) see also Num. 3.15.1 Tim. 5.8 it alwaies includes children If so it would be strange that the Apostle should borrow that term from the Old Test and use it in the New Test to exclude children 5. In the close of this Section if I knew whither the Particle It relates saying It is none of the counsel of God It is no where declared for you mention Font as well as Infant-baptism in the Antecedent I could say something that perhaps would displease you but till I know I shall be silent CHAP. IV. Of the Font. SECT 1. H. H. pag. 7. Not a word that I can find in all the Holy Scriptures or sayings of Christ the Prophets or Apostles about baptizing in a Font nay not so much as the name of that abomenable Idoll the Font is once mentioned in all the Holy Scriptures much lesse that the people of God should sacrifice their children to it as the children of Israel once sacrificed their babes to Moloch see Jer. 32.35 Reply 1. I did intend to reply to all this in the 9. Sect. of the fore-going Chapter but I have here singled it out Mr. Haggar had so jumbled together the Font and Infant baptism that the Reader might distinctly observe it 1. Mr. Cook saith The Printer put that title and term on his book he nor we will stand to justifie it though it might be against your cavile 2. It 's strange you could not find the name Font in all the Scriptures and yet in the next pag. h) Page 8. you can find it in Jerem. 2.12 13. I pray you is Jeremy no part of the holy
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
H. H. p. 47. But though Mr. Baxter confesseth that Christ knew the best reasoning yet he is not content with his reason but adds to it these words If God be the God of Abraham then Abraham in soul is living 2. That God is not the God of the Dead but the Living 3. If Abraham's soul be living then his body must be raised 4. If Abraham's body shall rise then there is a Resurrection c. To which I Answer 1. Mr. Baxter in all these Consequences that he hath drawn hath but darkned the counsel of God spoken by the mouth of Christ Reply 1. The clear light of Mr. Baxter's Consequences hath so dazled your eies that you cannot it seems see the truth 2. How can you without blushing say that Mr. B. hath drawn all these Consequences when Christ q) Mat 22.32 Luk. 20.38 who as you confess knew a good Argument and the right way of Disputing drew and took in the second expresly 3. Because of your former concession and confession and practice too arguing in a Syllogistical way p. 63 c. Christ's Argument beinâ— put into form lies thus Abraham's body shall rise Therefore the dead shall rise The Antecedent is thus proved Abraham's soul is living therefore his body shall rise That Antecedent is proved thus God is not the God of the dead but of the living Therefore Abraham's soul is living But how is this Antecedent proved Thus God is the God of Abraham therefore his soul is living and by consequent the dead shall arise Now if this Antecedent were denied then the plain words of Scripture were denied For these words in Exod. 3.6 were spoken by the Lord long after Abraham's death and the sâ—me Lord saith not I WAS nor I WILL BE but I AM the God of Abraham c. So that now you see these are Christ's Consequences and not Mr. Baxter's onely SECT 44. H. H. 2ly The Resurrection is more plainly proved by the words of Christ without all Mr. Baxter's Consequences as appeareth by the words of the text Luk. 20.35 36 37. Thus Christ himself inplain terms hath proved the Resurrection already speaking plainly of the happiness of those who shall obtain the Resurrection from the dead and then when he had done he concludes That the Resurrection of the dead is so plain that even Moses shewed it at the Bush c. Reply 1. Why do you equivocate and juggle There is no question but to us that place in Luke is a plain proof of the Resurrection but what is this to the Sadduces whom Christ would confute as to their erroneous opinion who held r) Mat. 22.23 There is no Resurrection And without question Christ might have brought plain texts out of the Old Testament to have proved the Resurrection but you know the Sadduces onely acknowledg the five books of Moses to be Canonical Scriptures therefore out of them Christ brings his proof 2. You here lay down the Wasters or else I have lost my understanding and sences For in saying The Resurrection of the dead is so plain that even Moses shewed it at the Bush c. you grant 1. That Christ proved to the Sadduces the Resurrection of the dead by Consequence out of Exod. 3.6 2. That such a kind of proof is plain for you confess even now that Christ knew a good Argument and the right way of Disputing and 3. That somthing is plain in Scripture which is not exprest in so many words and syllables in Scripture For I pray where is the Resurrection of the Dead written in so many words in Exod. 3.6 SECT 45. H. H. 3ly Let Mr. Baxter prove if he can that Christ did draw any Consequences from his own words but left them barely as he spake them as sufficient proof without any of Mr. Baxter's Consequences Reply 1. Yes Christ drew Consequences from his own words The whole Scripture is called the word of Christ (Å¿) Totum Verbum Dei est sermo Christi Davenant in loc Col. 3.16 not onely in regard of the matter but Author also and 2 Tim. 3.16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God Now if Exod. 3.6 be a part of the Scripture and of the word of Christ as certainly it is then Christ did draw some Consequences from his own words SECT 46. H. H. 4ly If Christ had never so many Consequences to prove any thing yet his words were all Scripture and infallibly true So true that whosoever of men or Angells should add to or take from it they are accursed But Mr. Baxter's are none such therefore we weigh them not Reply 1. Are Mr. Baxter's none such What! accursed I believe his words are not accursed whatsoever you proudly say or censure Or do you mean they are not Scripture because you say you weigh them not If Scripture be written as you say p. 45. so they are But I suppose you mean s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy Scripture so indeed they are not and yet notwithstanding those Consequences of his are infallibly true because they are Christs you may do well therefore to weigh them 2. If you mean that Christ's words were all Scripture v.z. which are left upon Record who denies it And all the words that Christ spake on earth were infallibly true for he could not lie or sin in the least but all his words are not written for surely his words were more in number then his deeds all which are not written Joh. 20.30 with 21.21 SECT 47. H. H. 5ly p. 48. Whereas Mr. Baxter saith If we had stood by we would have said to Christ Give us a Scripture that saith the Dead shall rise Answ So Christ did give them two Scriptures though Mr. Baxter is so blind he cannot see them for he tells us Ver. 35. of the world to come and the Resurrection of the Dead in plain terms and ver 37. That the dead are raised Reply 1. A ridiculous shift of him who is or would be counted the Metropolitan Dipper and great Patriarch of the Anabaptists for were these words in vers 35 and 37. written when Christ spake them 2. These are plain proofs to us that the Dead shall rise as you intimate p. 50. but were they to the Sadduces as Mr. Baxter saith which words you very cunningly left out for your own end 3. Christ if he pleased could have brought express texts out of the Old Testament but on the former account he brings his proof against the Sadduces onely out of Exod. fore-named saying in Mat. 22.31 Have ye not read which you take no notice of referring them to read what was written by Moses not to what was then spoken by him to the Sadduces clearly implying that those men stood bound in conscience to have believed the Resurrection of the Dead on the account of those words in Exod. chap. 3. vers 6. 4. Mr. Baxter now is not so blind but he can see your folly made manifest SECT 48. H. H.
Reply If your Argument run thus They that cannot speak c. are no Church-members But Infants cannot Therefore It consists all of Negatives and it is an undeniable Maxime in Logick From pure Negatives nothing is concluded Or if thus All Church-members can speak c. But Infants cannot c. Your Major Proposition is manifestly false Or thus when improved to the best The Saints at Corinth were such as prayed spake could say every one of them I am of Paul c. Infants cannot do any of these Therefore To this I say 1. It is not said that ALL which were Saints in Corinth did call on Christ's name but thus ver 2. Vnto the Church of God which is at Corinth to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus called to be saints with all that in every place call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ c where the latter is distinguished from the former Neither must those words Every one be taken largely of all the members of that Church as if every one of the Corinthians should say I am of Paul and every one say I am of Apollo c. much less that all of them were schismatical as appears by the Apostle's thankfulness ver 4 5 6 7. and narrative ver 11. Some therefore did complain of those divisions and sought a redresse of them and so were not guilty of them The guilty therefore are exhorted to speak one thing what is this to Infants 2. These Saints when fast asleep cannot put forth any of those acts do they therefore cease to be Church-members Or it a Palfie or Lethargie that takes away the use of speech or understanding when not asleep had seized on any of them were they therefore no Church-members And why not children also who are called holy or saints 1 Cor. 7.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same word used who in time may be instructed in this and other Scriptures to take heed of Schism as 2 Tim. 3.15 Surely Christian parents are bound to instruct their children in the doctrine of the Scriptures no less then the Jewish were Ephes 6.4 Deut. 6 ver 7. 3. To shew to the meanest the palpable weakness of your Argument Every one that doth righteousness is born of God 1 Joh. 2.29 No Infant doth so Therefore no Infant is born of God SECT 5. H. H. p. 65. Fourth Argument from 1 Cor. 6.4 5. Infants cannot judg c. in such cases Therefore none such members in the Church at Corinth Reply 1. This Argument is false both for matter and form as before the meanest may see by this He that loveth not Christ is accursed 1 Cor. 16.22 But no Infant can love Christ Therefore accursed It 's a poor evasion to say the Apostle speaks of a man not an infant when the particle k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any one c. is indefinite and the Scripture calls Cain an infant a man as hath been shewed Gen. 4 1. 2. The word rendered least esteemed is but one word l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which might be translated contemptible as 2 Cor. 10.10 or despised as Luk. 18.9 or set at naught Rom. 14.10 Now you your self in your cold blood may be judge whether the Corinthians Infants were contemptible despised or set at naught But if the word least were in the original as certainly it is not it cannot be understood of littleness in regard of stature but of state as ellwhere often Mat. 11.11 25.40 Luk. 9.48 1 Cor. 15 9. Ephes 3.8 c. 3. It 's plain that the Apostle speaks of such who are able to judge doth it therefore follow that Infants are no Church-members at all I trow not Suppose a man being confident of his cause opposed should say he would be judged by the meanest persons in the Town or Country are therefore Infants no persons in the Town or Country 4. Since the Apostle would have such differences composed by them that are least esteemed in the Church rather then judged by Infidel-magistâ—ates therefore I humbly conceive that by the Church is to be understood the ruling Church or Church-guides for such doubâ—less they had 1 Cor. 12.28 the title of the whole being given to the part and the word Church or Congregation is in the Old and New Testament taken for the Officers of the Congregation Exod. 12.3 21. Numb 35.12 Psal 82.1 Mat. 18.17 18 19. Acts 8.1 1 Cor. 5.4 SECT 6. H. H. Fifth Argument from 1 Cor. 10.16.17 with 11. ver 28 29. Reply If I understand your meaning for yet you have no Syllogistical form your Argument is this All Church-members did partake of the Lord's Supper But Infants did not Therefore 1. See the weakness of it as in this very glass e. gr 1 King 8.63 All Israel feasted with Solomon But the Jewish Infants did not Therefore they were none of Israel If this be sophistical or childish yours is no better 2. The Apostle doth not in this or any other place say that all Church-members did partake of the Lord's Supper or of Bread and Wine but speaking of himself and grown professors of Christianity he â—â—sswades Them who had been partakers of that one bread c. and so professedly incorporated into that mystical body of Christ the Church not to partake with Idolaters in Idol-Temples for that were to incorporate themselvs into the body of Idolaters So then when he saith we are all partakers of that one Bread he neither comprehends Infants in the word all nor excludes them from the number of Church-members SECT 7. H. H. p. 66. But if they be Church-members they are to partake of the Bread and Wine Either then they are no members or else they eat and drink damnation to themselvs not discerning the Lord's body Which absurdity let any man avoid it if they can Reply 1. To pass by your calumny concerning our discovery of abundance of ignorance and your misapplication of holy Scripture 1 Tim 1.7 which hath been sufficiently spoken to in your p. 30. you seem to go beyond the Erastians and Prelatical persons who would have no Church-member of age secluded from the Lord's Supper unless juridically excommunicated but you would have Infants also if Church-members admitted thereto 2. Your reasons do not prove it not the first for one and the same body is not to be understood in verses 16 17 as you your self if a man can make sense of your confused expression p. 65. intimate Nor the second for onely those did partake to whom the Apostle did speak as to wise â—â—en and to whom he appeals for judgment ver 15. They that did bless the Cup and break the Bread ver 16. Now you tell us that Infants cannot speak judge c. So our Infants eat not their own damnation because they partake not And they partake not not because they are not Church-members but because they cannot examine themselvs 1 Cor. 11.28 Thus the supposed absurdity is easily avoided and the hâ—rns
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
about the subject of Baptism manner of Administration c. Reply 1. We are agreed as to the first It were well if in the main we could hit it too 2. Those differences in the Church of Corinth and between the Apostles will not justifie yours unless they were of the same kind howsoever they might be impediments to Faith and practice for a time and to some 3. You are too lavish to say wee differ about Cross Altar Font c. since these things are laid aside your Argument out of Jerem. 2.13 where you took the broken Cisterns for Fonts may make us quite out of conceit with them You might have forborn the Rails if you had not loved them dearly and loth to part with them and the Scotch-Directory as you scornfully call it but your tongue and Ink must be of a colour If Reformation be so far advanced as that the shooing-horns of Popery be cast out of door I wish you and your Proselytes in your universal Redemption Original sin Free-will Falling away from Grace do not bring in Popery at the window SECT 17. H. H. p. 96. Mr. Baxter denies Dipping of Believers to be the custom of the Church in the primitive times and he is not ashamed to give the Scripture the Lie before all men saying It 's not proved by any And why It may be because our Translators have not put the word Baptize into English and called it Dipping Reply 1. You are too full of your tongue Before you had charged Mr. Baxter for giving the Scripture the Lie you should have proved it But this is an usual scrap of your passionate Logick 2. Your sore back makes you kick at every one that comes near even at our Translators who yet according to the customary use of the Word and sense of the place have truly and rightly translated it For in reference to common actions it cannot signifie a total plungeing over head and ears therefore well Englished Wash Mark 7 4. Luke 11.38 Heb. 9.10 and in reference to the Sacramental action the Holy Ghost doth never use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Dipping but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore well rendred Baptizing which is become English by use as well as Hallelujah and Amen c. 3. Mr. Cook o) Font uncâ—vered p. 4 5. would have you prove it if you can that the word Baptize imports Dipping either from the proper signification of the Word or from the nature of the Ordinance or from Apostolical practice c. All which with his reasons you have clearly past by 4. Suppose which is not yet granted that the word at first did signifie Dipping not exclusively to all other yet it 's ordinary in Scripture to have words used in their Derivative not Primitive acceptation E. gr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its prime signification is taken for an Opinion or Sect Acts 26.5 yet the context elswhere puts this meaning on it Heresies Gal. 5.20 So there is a word that signifies Catechizing properly but used of any kind of Teaching and so translated twice Gal. 6.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Taught teacheth Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Messenger but custome an Angel Fashion put an estimate on cloaths as custome doth a sense on words or as waters lose the taste of the Fountain from whence they flow and retain that of the Mineral through which they pass Thus Mr. B. is clear from a Lie and the Translators from a fault but take notice Mr. Haggar confesseth the Translators to bee on our side 5. It is strange that is answering the Qu. why is it not proved You say It may be because our Translators have not put the word Baptize into English and called it Dipping To delude your Reader you bring your dream and conjecture It may be whereas Mr. Baxter allegeth expresly other certain Reasons which shall be defended anon SECT 18. H. H. But Mr. Baxter confesseth p. 135. the word signifieth to wash as well as to Dipp and so in the Catechism Water wherein the person Baptized is Dipped Therefore 1. They can no more blame us for Dipping then we may them for Washing 2. How are they to be blamed that do neither but onely sprinkle a few drops of water on the face of a child and so delude the people 3. Then it must be Washing by Dipping or wetting all over for who can wash a thing that is not wet Reply 1. Mr. Baxter hath granted more then he needed For the word signifies generally no more then Washing r See Mr Leighs Critica sacra as the learned shew out of many Authors 2. We do not blame you simply for Dipping but for making it Essential to the Ordinance No Dipping no Baptizing is your crie Jesus Christ hath no where limited Baptizing to the mode and externality of Dipping And the Catechism which you cite saith expresly the party is baptized by Dipping or Sprinkling which disjunction you have left out 3. Though I may safely say with Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter that I never saw a child sprinkled ours being rather a powring of water then sprinkling yet it 's false that you say sprinkling is not washing and therefore our people are deluded and a third part of the Nation unbaptized The Israelites were baptized in the Cloud 1 Cor. 10 ver 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not that they were dipt in it but because it dropt on them There sprinkling is baptizing If sprinkling you say be neither dipping nor washing then we have deluded the people all this while c. But I assume sprinkling is washing as is proved Then by your own arguing we have not deluded the people as being still unbaptized but rather you delude the people by your silly sophistry and bearing them in hand that baptizing signifies onely dipping 4. Your third Inference is as weak being without Scripture and reason 1. You bring no Scripture to prove the word baptizing signifies a washing by dipping but onely It must needs be which is not a sufficient much lesse a Scripture proof Thus your great weapon Necessity is soon blunted But I will give you a Scripture or two that holds forth a Washing but not by Dipping or as you say wetting all over It 's said Mark 7.4 When they come from the market except they wash the word is they baptize Mark 7.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they eat not Can any rational man imagine the Pharisees when they came from the market plunged themselvs over head and ears No it 's clear they washed but their hands from ver 2. yea in this verse mention is made of washing of cups pots and tables or beds which is not usually by dipping but sprinkling or powring water 2. Your inference is with some reason but a silly one For who can wash a thing that is not wet It stuck in your teeth you durst not speak out All over as immediately before For you can wash off a spot from the face of