PRIMS Full-text transcription (HTML)

AN ANTIDOTE Againſt HEN. HAGGAR'S Poy­ſonous PAMPHLET, ENTITULED, The Foundation of the FONT DISCOVERED: OR, A REPLY Wherein his Audaciouſneſs in perverting holy Scriptures and humane writings is diſcovered, his Sophiſtry in Argu­ing againſt Infant-Baptiſm, Diſcipleſhip, Church memberſhip &c. is detected, his Contradictions demonſtrated, his Cavils againſt M. Cook, M. Baxter, and M. Hall Anſwered, his Raylings Rebuked, and his Folly Manifeſted.

By Aylmar Houghton Miniſter of the Goſpel of Jeſus Chriſt, and Teach­er to the Congregation of Prees, in the County of Salop.

2 Tim. 3.6, 7, 8, 9.

Of this ſort are they which creep into houſes and lead captive ſilly women la­den with ſins, led away with diverſe luſts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the TRƲTH. Now as Jannes and Jambres withſtood Moſes, ſo do THESE alſo reſiſt the TRƲTH, men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the Faith. But THEY ſhall proceed no fur­ther, for their FOLLY ſhall be manifeſt to all men, as THEIRS alſo was.

Meritò debet eſſe nobis ſuſpectum, uicquid ab ANABAPTISTARUM officinâ prodi­rit, quae tot portenta, & Fabricata eſt, & quotidiè Fabricatur,

Calv. Pſychopannychia, p. 476.

LONDON, Printed for Tho. Parkhuſt, and are to be ſold at his ſhop over-againſt the great Conduit, at the lower end of Cheapſide, 1653.

To the truly honoured, and his indeared friend the worſhipfull THOMAS HUNT Eſq Major of the Corporation of Salop. A praiſe-worthy Patriot, and profeſſed Patron of piety, without reſpect of perſons even of all that love the truth in Sincerity.

Whorthy SIR!

YOu may cenſure me for over-much boldneſs to ſet to you, or uſe your name in this inſu­ing Treatiſe for Patronage without your leave or licence, but that is Plea ſufficient, that you did not know it, if any danger, or diſgrace ſhould befall it, or it miſcarry.

But the truth of Chriſt needs no defence, for Chriſt himſelf will grace his own truth in, and for his Saints that love it, if they ſhould hold their peace.

Sir, I deſire io know no man after the Fleſh, but after the Spirit, and am determined not to know any thing here below, but Jeſus Chriſt, and him crucified, and with that ſpirituall eye do I deſire to look upon you, and love you, and is the onely motive moving me to make thus bold with you.

Sir, It is the Politick practice of impoſtors (like cun­ning crafty masking mummers) to hide their faces, and rattle a boxful of Counters inſtead of good Gold & Silver: So theſe men wind in their erroneous doctrines, and counterfeit opinions, and then perſwade poor ſilly people, it is the pure truth of Jeſus Chriſt: And thus have they done with ſome of my people, and by this means brought me upon this unpleaſing work, conſtraining mee to ſhape an Anſwer to a wrangler, and that only for the ſatisfacti­on of ſome of my people, and reducing (if poſſible) ſome who are ſeduced, and to confirm the reſt in the truth of Chriſt, they have been taught; and the rather alſo, be­cauſe M. Haggar's Book was brought me by one of my own peopl, but now a ſeduced Backſlider, who left it with me for this very purpoſe. In which Book I find many abſurdities, falſities, impertinencies, and Scu••ilities of and againſt men better then himſelf, but the Lord rebuke him.

It may be (Sir) you have heard of that Noble Morali­zers Fable of Amphialus, who was challenged to combate with Argalus a Knight of the Sun, who when he was pre­pared with all his Military accoutrements to meet his ene­mie; The wife of Argalus dreſs'd her ſelf in her Hus­bands Armour, and gave the onſet to Amphialus, and gave the firſt charge; whom he encounters valiantly, and overthrows with a mortall wound in the body: But when he opened the Armour, viewed his conqueſt, and ſaw it was the wife of his enemy, he could have no comfort of the day, becauſe it became not a man ſo to ruine a wo­man: Such is my caſe in this work in hand; The love of peace is glorious in the Church, even among thoſe that dif­fer in opinion. But if they wil p••on the arms of an enemy, (becauſe they wilfully will be enemies) with whom I am challenged to combate for the truth of Chriſt; I can­not help it, if they meet with a blow, though I glory not in it. But I am truly ſorry that there ſhould bee any ſuch cauſe. It is not for any evill to their perſons, but to give a mortal wound to their damnable errors.

Plutarch tells of Archidamus, who being once choſen Arbitrator in a difference betwixt two perſons, brought them to the Temple of Minerva, and there decreed, that they ſhould not depart thence till they were agreed. I could deſire that, M. Haggar, and his party would agree to come into the Temple of God, and bee tryed by the holy Scriptures faithfully explicated, and applyed.

In the mean time, I leave it to your charitable cen­ſure, and pray the favourable acceptation of this teſtimo­ny of love and thankfulneſs, that I owe, and am not able to pay, but in prayers for you, and all yours, who am

Your humble ſervant in the Faith once given to the Saints, AYLMAR HOUGHTON.

To the READER.

I Thought it meet (if not my duty) to give ſome account of theſe enſuing particulars: 1. Why M. Cook's, and M. Baxter's Treatiſes have not been Vindicated before this time, ſith M. Haggar's Anſwer (ſuch as it is) hath been extant, and they therein challenged ſome years ſince? Theſe following conſiderations might ſufficiently juſtifie their ſilence.

1. The impotency, and ſcurrility of that Anſwer (as is mani­feſt to all itelligent Readers) might be a ſufficient confuta­tion of it, and render it unworthy of any Reply but ſilence. When Rabſhakeh rayled, blaſphemed, threatned, and boaſted; The people held their peace, and anſwered them not a word, for the King's Commandement was ſaying: Anſwer him not, Iſa. 36.21. 2ly. The littleneſs, and almoſt nothingneſs of that An­ſwer to thoſe Treatiſes, (as will eaſily appear to the peruſer) though his work did lye here, viz. fully to anſwer theſe Treatiſes, which ſpecially M. Cook's) by his Goliah-like challenges, he had provoked to come forth to Vindicate the truth againſt him; yet he vainly braggs in his Epiſtle, and in the end of his Book, that he hath anſwered both (the one conſisting of ſeven ſheets, and the other of ſixty) in eighteen ſheets: When yet I believe it will appear, that not ſo much as is written in halfe a ſheet (of M. Cook's Book) hath been taken notice off, much leſs anſwered to, who could judge ſuch a vapour as this a ſuffi­cient call to undertake a reply. 3ly. M. Cook, and M. Bax­ter, did not apprehend any of their reſpective Flock in danger to receive any hurt by M. Haggar's Anſwer (which might be a call to appear againſt it) nor indeed of any other till of late. 4ly. Their employment (through God's mercy) hath been ſo full in the work of the Lord (although the Anſwerer charges all Miniſters with idleneſs) that they had no ſpare time to beſtow on ſo needleſs a buſineſs, there appearing neither cauſe nor call.

2. But why then doth any reply come out at laſt? ſhould not theſe reaſons (if valid) impoſe a perpetuall ſilence on all? It is known by ſome what proud challenges have been made by the Anſwerer (and to me in particular by one of M. Haggar's Proſelytes, heretofore a ſeeming friend, and ſheep of my flock) which may (and it is to be feared, do) work much upon ſome weak perſons (who may be under a temptation, by reaſon of thoſe big ſwelling words) whom we are bound to pity. 2. Yea, it's known, that ſome credulous perſons (that more regard the confidence of mens ſpeeches, then the truth or ground thereof) are in actuall danger, as thinking thus, whoſoever hath the laſt word, goes away with the victory; for whoſe ſake ſomthing ſhould be done, to undeceive them, if it may be. 3. It is as wel known, that this crazy body of mine is on the declining hand, (& I am bound to patch up this old cottage, till my Landlord calls for the Tenant) which hath kept this reply on my hand longer then I intended. And I thought I was bound to do him this ſer­vice before I put off this my Tabernacle, which (in all proba­bility) will not be long.

3. For the manner of replying. 1. I ſhal not render (at leaſt in deſign, & deſire) Reproach, for reproach, nor reviling for reviling If any think they have the beſt cauſe and conſcience, that can ſcold, and rail moſt, for me let the Anſwerer have the honour with them, I ſhall not envy it; I deſire to follow the example of Christ, who when he was reviled, reviled not again, &c. 1 Pet. 2.23. Yet I acknowledge it's good to take notice of thoſe Reproaches, which in M. Haggar's Anſwer are belch'd forth, againſt Ministry, Miniſters, Ordinances, and Churches of Chriſt, knowing that God hath a ſpeciall hand of providence therein, calling to ſelf-examination; humiliation, ſupplication, and reformation. Shimei cannot curſe, unleſs God bid him, 2 Sam. 16.10, 11, 12. Nor can Rabſhekah rail, or Senna­cherib blaſpheme, but ſome good uſe is to be made thereof, ſpe­cially for quickning to prayer, Iſa. 34. ver. 3, 4, 14, 15, 16. Nor can the Devill vex Job, but he can acknowledge God's hand in it, Job 1.21. and if by occaſion of his ſuffering and ſmart, he ſpake unadviſedly, he will acknowledge himſelf vile, lay hands on his mouth, and abhor himſelf in duſt and aſhes, Job. 40.4. and 42.6. 2. Yet if any thing be materiall in his Anſwer, I ſhall fully Reply to it, not willingly paſſing by any thing that may ſeem to make againſt thoſe Treatiſes, or for the Anſwerer. 3. Yet I ſhall avoyd tediouſneſs, being as brief as I may, without prejudice to the truth, and doing that for M. Haggar, which he promiſed to do in his Epiſtle, but performs not in his book, viz. to lay aſide SƲPERFLƲOƲS, and NEED­LESS WORDS. And I aſſure the Reader, I am not conſcious to my ſelf of wronging M. Haggar purpoſely, when I am con­ſtrained to abbreviate his WORDY Anſwer.

4. To whom, and for whoſe uſe is this Reply made? Even to M. Haggar and his followers, if they be not ſuch as God and Chriſt hath warned us not to bee meddled with, Prov. 9.8. Mat. 7.6. which I fear, as to moſt of them, though ſome per­haps may be engaged that way through ignorance, and ſo capable of mercy. But however, it is in the behalfe of thoſe weak ones, who in ſincerity, and love to the truth, deſire to know God's will and follow it, who being ſtaggered with the confidence of the Anſwerer, and unſettled with the long ſilence, as to matter of reply, are to be pitied, ond relieved in this caſe; knowing that Satan the Prince of darkneſs, and their own naturall darkneſs, and corruption, may take occaſion, by ſuch perſons, Pam­phlets, and practiſes as are abroad, to diſquiet their Spirits, & to draw them into crooked paths; ſpecially thoſe within my own ſpeciall charge, of whom I travel in birth, till Chriſt be formed in them; and for whoſe Souls I am bound to watch, as one that ſhortly muſt give account. Thus have I given you the reaſons of the publication of this Treatiſe. If thou ſhalt find any help for thy confirmation in the faith of Chriſt, give God the praiſe, and forget not to put up one prayer for

The meaneſt of the Servants of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, A. H.

WEe Miniſters of the Goſpel, whoſe names are ſub­ſcribed, do certifie, that we have peruſed the Reply of our Reverend Brother, M. Aylmar Houghton, Entituled, an ANTIDOTE, &c. and do judge it in the main to bee ſolid, and very uſefull (for which end the bleſſing of hea­ven go along with it); to prevent the ſpreading of the Gangrene in this County of Salop, and the Counties Ad­jacent.

Tho. Porter. Andrew Parſons. Rob. Bermey. Rich. Steele.



CHAP. I. Concerning the Saints Foundation.

SECT. 1.

H. H. Pag. 1. THe Foundation which the Saints ought to build upon is Chriſt, 1 Cor. 3.11. for〈◊〉foun­dation no man laieth with Eph••. 2.20. 1 Pet. 2.3, 4, 5.

Reply 1.

If Chriſt be the Saints foundation, then either you and your diſciples are not Saints; or elſe you and they build (in matters both of Doctrine and of practiſe) beſide the foundation, as in the points of original ſin, free-will, fal­ling away from grace, dipping, &c. (of which laſt there is no expreſs command or example in the New Teſtament) as ſhall be evidenced (God willing) in their proper places.

2. It's not ſaid in 1 Cor. 3.11. No man laieth, but no man can lay;aa〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. you break your own rule ſo often incul­cated by you, (pecially p. g. 40.) with direful threatnings. It's ominous to ſtumble in the threſhold.

3. I fear it was your deſign to make ſome believe, that the Apoſtle did, and doth contradict himſl; for if there be no other foundation but Chriſt, 1 Cor. 3.11. how comes it to paſſe that the ſame Apoſtle ſpeaks of the foun­dation2 of the Apoſtles and Prophets, Epheſ. 2.20. **Yea, good works are cal­led a founda­tion, 1 Tim. 6.19.Nay­in this ſame place he doth diſtinguiſh Chriſt from the foun, dation of the Apoſtles and Prophets: Indeedb)b)Diſtinguo fundamentum in propr. dictum & mini­ſte iale. Cham. lib. 3. c. 3. n. 46 Chriſt is the perſonal foundation, and the Apoſtles and Prophets are the doctrinal foundation; which (though upon the matter) they are all one, yet you might have done well to have let fall ſuch a diſtinction, unleſſe you had a mind to make your Reader believe the Apoſtle did claſh againſt himſelf.

SECT. 2.

H. H. Again, It's alſo plain in the words of Christ to Pe­ter Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church Obſerve upon what rock; not Peter, as the Papiſts ſay; for Peter is called a ſtone, but Chriſt is called a rock, 1 Cor. 10.

Reply, 1. In ſaying Chriſt is called a rock, and Peter a ſtone; Do you not more then inſinuate, that Chriſt is not a ſtone; which is contrary to your own quotation, Epheſ. 2.20. Chriſt himſelf being the chief corner-ſtone, (though I confeſs it is not the ſame word in the originald)d)〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.) nay contrary to diverſe oher Scriptures, where Chriſt is expreſly called a ſtone. e. gr. Iſa. 28.16. Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation, a STONE. Act. 4.11. This is the STONE which was ſet at nought by you builders Yea in the very place even now by you cited,Pſal. 118.22. with Mat. 21.42. 1 Pet. 2.4. To whom coming as unto a living STONE

2. Though I am far from believing that the Church is built on Peter in the Popiſh ſenſe, yet I may truly and ſafe­ly hold, that in ſome ſenſe the Church is built on Peter, for it's plain that Peter was an Apoſtle; and it's as plain Epheſ. 2 20. We are built upon the foundation of the Apoſtles. This is no whit helpful to the Papiſts, nor hurt­ful to us.

3. Admit the Church is not built upon Peter; yet your reaſon is very weak, becauſe, forſooth Peter (is, or) is cal­led a Stone. Sure you had a mind to gratifie your dear mo­ther3 the Church of Rome, notwithſtanding your loud cry, as the Papiſts ſay. The Learned give us better reaſons. To inſtance onely in onee)e)Chemn. Har. mon cap. 24. Peter hath his name [ab illa petra] from that rock for two cauſes: 1. Becauſe notwithſtan­ding Sathan's ſubtilty, and his own infirmity, Luke 22.31, 32 he ſhould adhere to that rock, and be as a living ſtone built on him. 2. Becauſe by his Miniſtry and confeſſion, Mat. 16.18. Chriſt would build his Church on himſelf the true rock.

4. If it be plain in Chriſts wordsf)f)Mat. 16.18. that the Saints ought to build on Chriſt the foundation, then ſomething may be plain by conſequence, which is not expreſt in the text: You are for conſequences betimes.

SECT. 3.

H. H. pag. 2. And who that is a Chriſtian knoweth not; that the Church of Chriſt is built on the rock Chriſt: Therefore David ſaith, 2 Sam. 22.2. The Lord is my rock And Verſe 47. Bleſſed be the God of the rock of my ſalvation, &c. all which I ſuppoſe, will not be denied by any that own Chriſt.

Reply 1. You may do well to examine throughly, whe­ther your Church be built on the rock Chriſt.

2. To ſay nothing that you do not cite the words of David as they are in our Bible, ſpecially verſe 47. If every Chriſtian knows that the Church of Chriſt is built on the rock Chriſt, and none that own Chriſt will deny it; then I ſuppoſe you will own me, and the reſt of my perſwaſion for Chriſtians and owners of Chriſt, who are neither igno­rant of the one, nor deniers of the other. This is the beſt, if not the onely piece of charity that is to be found in the Book.

SECT. 4.

H. H. But the main queſtion is, How the Saints may and ought to build on this rock Chriſt? which is clearly anſwered by theſe following Scriptures, Mat. 7.24. Whoſoever heareth theſe ſayings of mine and doth them, I will liken him to a4 wiſe man that built his houſe upon a rock, &c. Therefore to build on the rock Chriſt, is to hear the ſayings, and do them, and the contrary likened to a fooliſh man, &c. lyable to danger and deſtruction, Act. 3.22, 23. with 2 Theſ. 1.8, 9. 1 Joh. 2.4. Rev. 21.8.

Reply 1. Let the Reader conſider, whether thoſe words in Mat. admit not clearly a limitation to that Sermon preached by Chriſt in the Mount; for it's ſaid ver. 24. Whoſo­ever heareth THESE ſayings of mine, and doth them not, &c. Ver. 26. Every one that heareth Theſe ſayings of mine, &c. In which Sermon Chriſt ſpake not one word of the nature or ſubject of Baptiſme; and ſo the deſign you drive at (in alleging theſe words) is quite ſpoiled.

2. Admit the words be of a larger extent, becauſe it's ſaid, Luke 6 47. Whoſoeuer cometh to me, and heareth my ſayings (indefinitely) and doth them and Verſe 49 He that heareth and doth not, &c. Yet this Scripture ſhews not how the Saints build on this rock (as you pretend) but who they are that build on him, or build not on him.

3. You write very rawly, and indiſtinctly. For certain­ly there are ſome temporary commands or ſayings of Chriſt, e. g. Mat, 10.8. g)g)Hoc ſymbo­lum pro illotem­pore praeceptum quo certior ipſis eſſet divinae pro­videntiae expe­rientia ut re­ti Chryſoſt. notavit, Grot. Heal the ſick, cleanſe the Lepers, raiſe the dead, caſt out divels, freely ye have received, freely give. Verſe 9. Provide neither gold, nor ſilver, nor braſs in your purſes. 10. Nor ſcrip for your journey, neither two coats, nor ſhoos, nor yet ſtaves, &c. Are they all fit to wear a fools coat, who do not theſe commands in theſe times: or do you take your ſelf now obliged to that command, Mat. 19.21. Go and ſell that thou haſt, and give to the poor I have been alwaies of this mind; that THAT was a command of Trial, and not of Obedience, unleſſe it be when God re­quires it, as in times of publick perſecution. Or are you bound to waſh one anothers feet, as Joh. 13.14. or ſalute one another with an holy kiſſe, as Rom. 16.16. or anoint the ſick with oyl? Jam. 5.14. and many more which I could mention, which neither you nor I do: muſt there­fore you and I be likened to fooliſh men? nay, be counted5 liars, and be in danger of damnation? By this time you may perceive what it is to write at random, to ſhoot at ro­vers, and talk ſo wildly. For

4. What a bloody ſentence is this, to ſend to hell all Chriſtians for more then a thouſand years, who have not been baptized after your mode. For we read not of Ana­baptiſts, till within this three or four hundred years, or thereabouts at moſt, to my beſt obſervation.

CHAP. II. Concerning Chriſts Precept.

SECT. 1.

H. H. pag. 3. Mat. 28.18, 19, 20. with Mark. 16.15, 16. whence obſerve: Firſt, that Chriſt commanded the Goſpel to be preached to every creature, or all nations, which words we ought to hear and obey, &c.

Reply 1. Are you bound indeed to obey this command? Then you have obeyed it, or not: If not, are not you found in the number of thoſe, whom Chriſt ſharply re­proves (as you mention p. 2.) who call him Lord, Lord, and yet do not the things he ſaith, Luke 6.46. If you ſay, yea, I cannot believe you; for ſince Judash)h)Act. 1.25. by tranſ­greſſion fell from his Apoſtleſhip, I cannot find you among the eleven. i)i)Acts 1.13.

Secondly, but if this command is to be obeyed in the ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles, as Goſpel-Miniſters (for the Apoſtles as ſuch have no ſucceſſors, as is clear by the pro­miſe annexedk)k)Mat. 28 20. I am with you alway even to the end of the world) I pray you what is it to preach the Goſpel, but to open and hold forth the Covenant; the Covenant, I ſay, made with Abraham, whereof this was one branch; I am thy God, and of thy ſeed. Compare Gen. 12.3. and 17.17. with Gal. 3.8, 13, 14. Now that the Infants of Covenan­ters are within the Covenant, aſwell as grown perſons, is6 clear to him that will not ſhut his eies. If not, It ſhall be made clear (by the aſſiſtance of the Lord) in this enſuing reply to avoid Tautologies. 3. Conſider alſo, as what they were to do, ſo to whom, every creature, all nations, now that Infants ſhould be none of the creatures, or nations is unſuitable to reaſon, and religion, ſpecially conſidering that they were included as ſpeciall ſubjects, when the Church was in ſo ſmall a plot of ground, and Chriſt doth not exclude them by any reſtriction, or exception, which had been needfull, and ſeaſonable, if they were to be exclu­ded.

SECT. 2.

2. Obſerv. H. H. The end was that they might beleeve it.


  • 1. Theſe words are not expreſly ſet down in the places cited. viz. Matt. and Mark. They are drawn but by conſequence.
  • 2. Neither do they hold forth the end of preaching ſo much as the event. But thirdly whether end, or event, if your meaning be that they might believe it for their ſeed and houſhold. As Acts 16.31. Believe on the Lord Jeſus, and thou ſhalt be ſaved, and thine houſe. You and I are agreed in this,

SECT. 3.

3. Obſerv. H. H. That thoſe which did believe the Goſ­pell, ſhould be baptized into his name.

Reply 1. If you underſtand it of Infidells converted to the faith, (not excluding their children) we believe it, and accordingly practice, as well as you; for the Scriptures alleaged by you; prove that where the Goſpell is firſt prea­ched, whether to Jews oGentiles, Turks, or Pagans (who perhaps never heard of Chriſt before) they muſt firſt be in­ſtructed, and embrace the Goſpell, before they be baptized, (as Abraham was, before he was circumciſed) but this hinders not their children from baptiſme: no more then Abrahams children from circumciſion, nor infants not be­lieving7 from ſalvation; for you ſay,(l)(l)Foundat p. 61 infants are ſa­ved without actuall faith, though the Text alleaged by you ſaith(m)(m)Mark 16.16. he that believeth not ſhall be damned.

2. If you mean, as your practice ſpeaks, that ſuch who have been baptized once (for ſo you grant p. 24. Be bap­tized again as we are,) and have received the Lords Sup­per often, and therefore owned as Church members, ſhould bee baptized by you, I ſay this doctrine and practice hath no ſooting on the Texts alleaged by you, either by clear conſequence from, or expreſſeneſs of thoſe Scriptures; as hereafter ſhall be more fully evinced.


Fourth Obſerv. H. H. That thoſe baptized believers were after to be taught to obſerve all other things whatſoever Chriſt had commanded his Apoſtles to teach them.

Reply. 1. After to be taught ? If you mean a good while after. Its our practice to teach infants after baptiſm, aſſoon as they are capable. (n)(n)Gen. 18 19.As Abraham taught his children a good while after circumciſion; but if you mean it preſently after Baptiſme, and ſo continually to their lives end, I grant it of grown perſons, ſuch baptized belie­vers in the ſame, or like juncture of Circumſtances.

Secondly yet I do not find expreſſe mention made, that the Eunuch was inſtructed by Philip, after he was baptized by Philip, but rather the contrary; for its ſaid:(o)(o)Act 8 39. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the Eunuch ſaw him no more. Or that Ananias inſtructed Saul after Baptiſm: though its ſaid(p)(p)Act. 9.18, 19. Then was Saul certain dayes with the diſciples at Damaſ­us, or that Saul (now Paul) inſtructed the Jailour(q)(q)Act. 16.33, 34. after Baptiſm. You may by this time perceive, that your ob­ſervation ſtood in need of being bounded with ſome cau­tion.

3. You do not tell us by whom they are to be taught afterward, ſurely you left the door open for a private gif­ted brother,



H. H. Obſerv. Fifth. To this practice (viz.) to a people thus walk ing according to this rule, hearing his ſayings, and doing them. The Lord Chriſt hath promiſed his preſence, ſaying, Loe, I am with you always to the end of the world; but the end of the world is not yet. Therefore Chriſt is still with thoſe bap­tized believers which do thus walk.

Reply 1. In the Texts of Matt. and Mark cited by you, there is no expreſſe mention made of theſe words, viz. To this practice, or to a people thus walking according to this rule, &c. They are your dictates, and fancies.

2. If by the worlds end is meant the particular age wherein the Apoſtles lived (as ſome of late hold) then it will not follow, that Chriſt is ſtill with thoſe baptized be­lievers, which do thus walk. Now though I profeſſe inge­niouſly that I diſclaim that ſenſe as falſe and impertinent (not only becauſe of the termes in this promiſe uſed, al­waiesr)r)〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. or rather all days (and ſucceſſion of times) but alſo becauſe your phraiſes)s)〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the end of the world, is un­derſtood by the ſame Evangeliſt, of Chriſts ſecond coming, and that three ſeverall times:t)t)Mat. 13.39, 40, 49. yet you might have fore­ſeen and prevented ſuch an exception which quite takes away the edg of the argument, and have anſwered the ſee­kers, (as they are called) whoſe gloſſe this is, and who are (for the moſt part) branches that came out of your Church.

3. Though I deny not the ſpirituall preſence of Chriſt among all true believers (as is clear by other Scriptures,) yet theſe words in Matth. 28.19. I am with you &c. ap­pertain principally (if not onely) to the Apoſtles and their ſucceſſors;u)u)Vobiſcum e­vo nec vobiſcum tantum, ſd et (vobis mortu is cum veſtris ſuccſſor bus. Par. in Loc. for to them our Saviour ſpake, ver. 18. with 16. They are bidden to go, ver. 19. Go yee, and are commanded to diſciple all Nations, in the ſame verſe teach ye*)*)〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. or diſciple ye all Nations, and ver. 19. Whatſoe­ver I have commanded you, and then preſently, And lo I am with you So that this promiſe of Chriſts ſpecial ſpiritu­all preſence is made to Miniſters, rather then to the peo­ple,9 to Teachers, rather then to them who are taught; to Baptizers, rather then to the Baptized.

4. You do not diſtinguiſh between the corporall and ſpirituall preſence of Chriſt; (as hath been hinted by me) but ſay largely, and generally, Chriſt hath promiſed his preſence, &c. Hence the Argument for Chriſts corporall preſence, ſeems to be as ſtrong for the Ubiquitaries, as yours is for the Anabaptiſts; and may 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 Proſelytesx)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 noony)y)Cant. 1.7. the La­tine hath it, inmeridie, 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 Markz)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)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 inot 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 Chriſtb)b)Mar. 115. putting repenting be­fore believing, proves that Repentance precedes faith, orc)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 mentionedd)d)2 Cor. 13.14. before the firſt, and the third perſone)e)Rev. 1.4, 5, before the ſecond, and I find Danielf)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 mindg)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.


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)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 pre­pare12 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 inordan, confeſſing their ſins, &c.

Reply. You miſ-cite the words of Mark, by adding to them, and diminiſhing from themi)i)Contrary to Deut. 4.2. 1. By adding tohem, in ſaying, To prepare and to make Whereas the text hath it k)k)Mar. 1.2. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 thusl)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 thoſem)m)Pag. 40. dreadful thunder­bolts you ſhoot againſt others, light on your own pate.

SECT. 3.

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)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,13 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 argueo)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 arep)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 ſaidq)q)Mat. 3.5, 6. all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan were baptized, andr)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, whomſ)ſ)Joh. 3.22. Chriſt baptized, or rather whom his Diſciplest)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 callsu)u)Mat. 3.7. a generation of Vipers; or that they could believe, when Chriſt ſaith,**Joh. 5.4. How can yee be­lieve14 which receivhonour one from another ? Andx)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 wascrcamciſed.

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 thaty)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,15 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 inter­changeably16 ſet down one for the othera)a)Gal. c. 3. and the Cove­nant runs upon promiſesb)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 ſaidc)
    c)Hb. 7.9.10.
    c) to pay either in the loins of Abraham? And that God is ſaidd)
    d)Hoſ. 12, 4.
    d) 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 reaſon. 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 the17 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 Anabaptiſte)e)See the Le­per cleanſed, pag. 7, 8, 9. and (through the Lords bleſſing) may prevail with ſome that follow you, as they did Abſolonf)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. Cellarg)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 com­mentaries18 upon the 5 bookes of Moſes &c. To ſay nothing of thoſe converted by Muſculus. h)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, that1)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)k)Mat. 19.13.Then19 were brought to him LITTLE CHILDREN,l)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 thatm)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 underſtood: Ex. grn)n)Mat. 6.44.. They that did eat of the Loaves were about 5000 men. o)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; asp)p)Joſh. 8.25. 12000 men and wo­men of Ai fell, where children muſt be underſtood; for it's ſaidqqVer. 264. Joſhua utterly deſtroied all the inhabitants of Ai, and no exception is made butr)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. ſ)ſ)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,20 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,ſ)ſ)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 aſſent•••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. S­mon Magus (in this very Chap.t)t)Acts 8.13. was baptized, and that rightly, for Philip is not in the leaſt blamed, but approved in that act, yetu)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 the22 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. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 Chriſtx)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 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 tonguesy)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 following23 Chapter (z) For as much then,Acts. 1.17. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. as God gave them the like gift as he did to us Like for quality, though not for quantity. Yea it's ſaida)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 of24 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 Infans 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 di­ſtinctlyb)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 ſilence25 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 calledc)c)2 Sam. 17.25. Joabs mother, andd)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 wouldurely 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 othere)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 Sils came out of priſon, they entered into the houſe of Lidia; and26 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 the originall; Beza ſaith,f)f)〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. in very many copies, it's read unto Lydia, & ſo do othersg)g)As the Syr. and old Latine. tranſlate it, and for ought appears, Lydia at that time might be in anothers houſe, aſwell as her own.

2. What a ſilly Argument is this? H. H. went into a Cheeſe-Factours houſe, to ordain a Cheeſe-Factour to the office of a preaching Elder. Therefore there were no In­fants in his houſe. So Paul and Silas might enter in Ly­dia's houſe (admitting the tranſlation) to comfort the brethren, and yet there might be Infants in her houſe, and baptized too, for it is ſaid, ſhe and her houſhold were bap­tized.

3. If you mean that in Lydia's houſe, there were no lit­tle babes that were capable of comfort, its granted; but this hinders not, but little babes are, or may be capable of Baptiſm, though not of comfort; as the Jewiſh Infants were capable of circumciſion, though not of conſolation; but if you mean, no little babes (ſuppoſing there were ſuch) can be called brethren, I do not marvail at it; ſince you deny them to be Diſciples, Church-members, Covenanters, Saints, and make no difference between the Infants of Pa­gans, and of Chriſtians; I pray you Sir why may you not call them brethren and ſiſters (if God be your Father) whom the Lord ſaithg)g)Eaech. 16.20 are born to him, and whom he himſelf calleth hish)h)ver. 21. children, not only by creation, but by Covenant, which had been made with your Anceſtors, as appears out of that whole Chapter, ſpecially verſe. 60.62.

4. You conclude there is no ground to believe from Scripture or reaſon that there were Infants in Lydia's houſe, ſhall be anſwered by and by.


SECT. 15.

H. H. ſame p. The Jaylour was baptized with his houſhold; from whence ſome would draw the ſame Argument as from Ly­dia's;6 Inſtance. and perſwade us tat there were children in his houſe, but the Text is plain againſt it. Acts 16.32, 33, 34. They ſpake the word of the Lord to him, and to all in his houſe, and he took them the ſame hour of the night, and waſhed their ſtripes, and was baptized he and all his ſtraight ways; and when he had brought them into his houſe, he ſet meat before them, and rejoyced, be­lieving in God with all his houſe. (Thus the Scripture in plain words, as it ſaith the one, that he and all his were baptized; ſo alſo it ſaith, he with all his houſe believed in God.)

Reply 1. In the beginning of the ſect. you ſay the Jay­lour was baptized with his houſhold: Look the Texti)i)Acts 16.13. It doth not ſay ſo, here we have another addition of yours to advantage your cauſe; no marvail that you add to mens writings; when you are ſo bold to add to the Lords holy Scripture; I grant it ſaith, He and all His were baptized, but not, he was baptized with his houſhold.

2. It's very obſervable the Text ſaithk)k)〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He was bap­tized and all his. i. e. hee and all that were OF him: A moſt emphaticall phraſe to denote his Children, who are properly a mans own, his naturall off-Spring; when the Evangeliſt ſpeaks of the Apoſtles preaching, he names the Jaylours houſe in the largeſt acceptation. They ſpake the word to him, and to all that werel)l)〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in his houſe: but when he ſpeaks of baptizing, he changeth the terme, and ſaith, He, and ALL HIS were baptized (that you may be ſure his children were baptized) without doubt M. Haggars children, & his horſe, cannot be ſaid to be his on the ſame account. This phraſe therefore in the Text, muſt prima­rily be referred to his children.

3 I expected here alſo an Argument in form, to prove there were no children in the Jaylours houſe; or, if ſo, that they were not baptized, but in vain. If yet you would prove your former thus. Paul and Silas ſpake the word to28 all in his houſe, but P. and S. did not ſpeak the word to infants, therefore no infants in his houſe. The anſwer is in brief, it's a Sophiſtical Argument, the concluſion ſhould be, therefore Infants were not at all in his houſe; or all in his houſe were not infants, which is granted, but what is this to your purpoſe? If you can caſt it into a better mould, it ſhall receive another anſwer. Now to prove, that no infants were baptized here (though you ſay not ſo, as in the place foregoing) thus perhaps you may bee thought to reaſon. The Jalour with all his houſe that was baptized believed in God, but infants believed not, Therefore The weakneſs of this Argument appears thus; The children of Iſrael went up harneſſedm)m)Exod. 13.14. out of the land of Egypt: but the Jewiſh infants went not up harneſ­ſed, Ergo

4. Before I leav you here, one thing is to be obſerved. For if it be plain, that children were not in the Jaylours houſe (As you would bear your reader in hand out of this Text) Then ſomething may be & is plain by conſequence, which is not expreſly written in ſo many words in Scripture.

SECT. 16.

H. H. Thus the Scripture in plain words, as it ſaith the one, that he and all his were baptized, ſo alſo it ſaith, he with all his houſe believed in God; and therefore if M. Cook will evade the one by his learned Expoſition, in his 17. p. We may aſwell evade the other; and ſo conclude, that none but he was baptized. But conſider the reſult of his labours, when he hath laboured by all his wit and skill to pervert the Text, yet he confeſſeth that the Syriack tranſlation reads it thus: and he exulted, and all the children of his houſe, even all of them in the faith of God. I pray you let all rationall men conſider, what difference is be­tween their all-rejoycing and believing God, and exulting even all of them in the faith of God?

Reply 1. Let it be obſerved, that to the foregoing Scrip­tures (as holding forth commands or examples of bapti­zing Jews or Heathens newly converted to the faithn)n)Font unco­vered, from p. 7. to p. 23. there are given full and large anſwers both in general and29 particular (ſhwing that they make nothing for M. Hag­gars purpoſe) and alſo to thoſe Arguments which he after frames from the precept and practice of Chriſt and the in­capacity of the ſubject (as he would gather from theſe Scriptures, yet he is pleaſed to take notice of two very ſhort ſentences, paſſing by all the reſt, which (I believe) amount to an hundred times more, then what he ſeems to anſwer to, what other conſtruction can be made thereof, but that he finding himſelf unable to anſwer the reſt, thought good to pick out two or three lines, which (be­ing ſingled from the reſt) he (as he imagined) might have more advantage againſt? If this be ſufficient, it's an eaſie matter to anſwer any books.

2, For opening the ſence of this Scripture,o)o)Act. 16.32, 33. I referr the reader to that bookp)p)Font unco­vered, pag. 17.18, 19 ver 32. to which you anſwer nothing but this M. Cook may conclude that none but the Jaylour was baptized, &c. Now whether more then the Jaylour be­lieved, is not declared, though its ſaid, that they ſpake the word to him, and to all that were in his houſe, which muſt needs be underſtood of thoſe that were capable, yet the word in theq)q)〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉he having be­lieved ver. 34. originall is only of the ſingular number, referring to the Jaylour alone; and the Apoſtles required faith of the Jaylour alone,r)r)〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉believe thou ver. 31. as neceſſary and ſufficient to bring him & his family ino a ſtate of ſalvation: So that as Abraham and his family was circumciſed, even Iſhma­el and his bond-ſervants, with their children (though we read not of the faith of any of them, but of Abraham and Sarah the governours thereof; yea, Lydia & her houſhold were baptized, though nothing be ſaid of the faith of any of them, but of the governeſſe. For it was ſufficient for the ad­miſſion of this family to baptiſm, & a ſtate of ſalvation, that the Governor did believ, & his belief is only expreſly requi­red in the cōmād, & mentioned in the ſtory. But when bap­tiſm is, mentioned it's ſaid,ſ)ſ) he and all his As before, where there are two particulars that of neceſſity muſt bee underſtood of perſons (being of the plurall number) but the word that is tranſlated All his houſe, is an Adverb,30s)s)〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. noting neither perſon, not number in••s proper ſigni­fication, but may properly be referred to the Jailors re­joicing,x)x)See Mr. Cooks Font un­covered, p. fore-named. or exulting; q. d. After he had believed God, he leapt for joy in and through the whole houſe; but of this more largely in the ſaid book. *

3. As for your appeal, rational men may diſcern a dif­ference enough to fruſtrate your hopes of relief from that Tranſlation; For as ſalvation might be brought to Za­cheus his family,u)u)Luk. 19.9. and yet not every one in poſſeſſion of it, or actually ſaved that was in the family; ſo they might all in the Jailors family be ſaid to rejoice in or for the faith of God, though they were not all actual believers; I ſay, for, or in regard of the faith of God; whether be un­derſtood, the object of faith, Chriſt Jeſus; or the doctrine of faith, the Goſpel preached; or the gift and act of faith, in the Governor: or of the effects of faith, viz. the tran­quility, joy and feſtivity, they being (e. g. ) to the Jailor in over-blowing the deſperate fears that had ſeized on him and all his family, when they imagined the priſoners had eſcaped. For where the Goſpel (and the fruits thereof) comes,v)v)Luk. 8.13. Joh. 5.35. Acts 8.8. it yields matter of joy (u) to many more then thoſe who actually and ſincerely believe More particularly the Jailors happy and ſudden exchange from ſudden fear to faith, the preaching of the glad tidings of the Goſpel to thoſe in his family that were capable, might well put the whole family into a poſture of joy and feſtivity; In­fants themſelvs not being uncapable of joy and mirth; as it appears at Feaſts, wherein the ſpirits of thoſe little ones are exhilarated: Yea Infants are not uncapable of ſpiri­tual joy and exaltation at the preſence of ſpiritual objects, though we cannot tell how it is wrought in them: E. g. John Baptiſt, while an Infant in his mothers womb, leap­ing for joy at the preſence of Chriſt: for it's ſaid,**Luk. 1.44. Grot. The Babe leaped in my womb for joy. Where note by the way, that was no natural, but ſupernatural motion: (asx)x)Gen. 25.22. was the ſtruggling of thoſe Twins in Rebeccah's womb): and be­ſide the Noun here renderedy)y)〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. for Joy, is of the ſame de­rivation31 rivation and ſignification, as the wordz)z)〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. that is uſed to ſet forth the joy which the Jailor had in his family. So then Chriſt the object of faith, the Goſpel the doctrine of Faith, with a great deliverance from a deſperate danger being brought to this family, and ſaving faith being wrought in the heart of the Jailor (at leaſt) and Baptiſm the ſeal of the righteouſneſs of Faith being adminiſtred to them all, the whole family might well be put into a re­joicing frame, by reaſon of the faith God brought amongſt them, though they did not actually believe for the pre­ſent.

4. Whereas you call ſomewhat that was ſaid by Mr. C. for the clearing of that place, Act. 16. A learned expoſition, by way of contempt and ſcorn of humane Learning, as ap­pears by your frequent invectives againſt humane learn­ing; which in the cloſe of**Pag. 123. your Book you make one main matter of your accuſation of our Church, and a ground of ſeparation from us; it ſhall be modeſtly diſcuſ­ſed (if the Lord will) when we come to it.

SECT. 17.

H. H. pag. 6, & 7. One thing more I had like to have for­gotten, viz. This ſeeming ſophiſtical anſwer to Acts 8. ver. 12. where the text ſaith plainly, That when they believed, they were baptized both men and women. To this he anſwereth in his 16 p. That theſe words men and women are appliable to ſexes rather then to ages, and inſtanceth in Evah, who when Cain was born, ſhe ſaid, I have gotten a man from the Lord. But what is this to our purpoſe? For ſhe doth not ſay, that this man believed the things concerning the kingdom of Jeſus Chriſt, but thoſe women Acts 8.12. were ſuch as believed all theſe things: Therefore your Argument is falſe, and you are ſelf-deceiful, and wiſe to do evil; as appeareth by this your cunning craftineſs, where with you lay in wait to deceive, Eph. 4. ver. 14.

Reply 1. Had you like to have forgotten? You then32 ſhew a great defect in memory: For whereas there are very many pages ſpent in anſwering (to your urging of what Scriptures you could think of) both in general and in particular, and many particular anſwers given to each Scripture, you reſolved to reply but to two ſhort ſenten­ces of two anſwers, and you had almoſt forgotten one. Had it not been more eaſe, and little leſſe prudence, after you had promiſed an Anſwer to the Book in the Title-page, to have paſſed by the whole book (as you do all but a few lines) and to have told us, you had forgot to an­ſwer it.

2. You bewray defect in method as well as in memory; for you bring in this Scripture by Hyſteron Proteron, to which I ſhall give ſuch a Reply as I think it deſervs. You tell us of a SEEMING Sophiſtical anſwer; then out of your own mouth I may condemne you: It is, I hope, but ſeemingly, not truly ſophiſtical. Conſiderate people will not judge the worſe, becauſe it ſeems 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)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)b)Pag. 5. where this Scripture being urged by you,c)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 of33 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:35 For

  • 1. f)
    f)Sidenham of Infant-bapt. p. 107.
    f)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)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)h)Page 8. you can find it in Jerem. 2.12, 13. I pray you is Jeremy no part of the holy Scriptures? What horrible confuſion and contra­diction is this in you? If the name of the Font be not once mentioned in all the Scriptures, how is that Scripture ful­filled? But of that a little more ano.

3. How dare you call the Font an abominable Idoll? Where doth the Scripture ſo brand it; if the nambe not once mentioned in Scripture.

4. What a loud and lewd ſlander is this? to ſay our children are ſacificed to the Font, as Iſraels babes were to Moloch? Aſſurdly, Sir, wee no more ſacrifice our babes to the Font or Baſon, then you do your Proſelites to a Marle-pit, or Horſe-pool, wherein ſome of them have been dipt.

5. I cannot imagine what ſhould be the ground of ſuch an abſurd compariſon; unleſſe it be to render us odious, which I hope will never be to any ſober, judicious, and un­prejudiced Chriſtian, or to pave the way, (he being a Factor for Rome) for ſome bloody, or at leaſt unbloody ſacrifice.

SECT. 2.

H. H. Now ſeeing there is no Foundation for the Font in all the word of God, we muſt (if we will diſcover it) ſeek for it ſomewhere elſe, the which (I confeſſe) is not worth the doing, were it not to diſcover and make manifeſt the folly of them, that uncover it, and guard it, for Infants baptiſm, and to that end I ſhall do it.

Reply. 1. What? no Foundation for the Font in all the word of God? then you are much miſtaken in ſay­ingi)i)Page 8, 9. Here is the words of the Prophet Jeremy fulfilled.

2. Since you confeſſe, the diſcovering of the Foundati­on of it, or ſeeking for it elſe where, is not worth the do­ing, your allegation (I believe) will not be worth the an­ſwering:37 why then will you ſpend your time and la­bour about that which is like Jeremiahs Girdle, nothing worthk)k)Jer. 13.7..

3. Your ſecret gird at M. Cook and M. Hall is born with patience; but this I muſt tell you, your diſcovering of that Foundation, will be but a diſcovering of your own folly.

4. What need all this ſtir? to what purpoſe is this waſte? Though my Reverend and Godly brethrens books have Font in the Title, ye the main drift is not for the continu­ance of Fonts, but of infant-baptiſm.

SECT. 3.

H. H. Look into a book intituled, A view of the Civill, and Eccleſiſticall law, written by Sr. Thomas Ridley Knight, and Doctor of the civill law, &c. Who though an enemy to us, yet confeſſeth, p. 176. The Rites of baptiſm in the primitive times were performed in rivers and fountains.

Reply. Here I earneſtly deſire the Reader, to peruſe M. Haggars quotation, p. 8, 9, 10. or the Authour from whence he brings his quotation, for either of them are too long to tranſcribe, yet I ſhall not paſſe this tedious teſtimony with­out ſome brief Animadverſions

1. Whether the Knight was an enemy to you, its more then I know; or whether he was a friend to us, is more then I am aſſured of: only it's well known, men of that profeſſion have been friends more to the Prelates, then to the Presbyterians.

2. You ſay where the perſons baptized received that Sacrament; but the Knight ſaith, where the perſons to be baptized ſtood up and received that Sacrament, and prov'd it out of the Syriack, Arabick, and Hebrew languages which you very cunningly left out, becauſe your manner of Baptizing is apparently different from theie.

3. You ſay, and that truly, Chriſt was baptized of John in the river of Jordan; but the Knight ſaith, our Sa­baptized John in Jordan. A foul miſtake, I conceived it38 was the Printers fault, and I lookt into the Errata's, but it's not to be found there. Now if the Knight did ſo groſ­ly miſtake here, why not in the reſt, or moſt?

4. You ſay naſcentes ibi eccleſiae but the Knight ſaith Naſcentis I lookt among your Errata's, but find none printed; it may be, becauſe all or moſt of your books is a bundle of Errata's.

5. You ſay, this cuſtome of baptizing in Rivers &c. be­ing diſcontinued, or left off, Fonts were erected in pri­vate houſes. But the Knight ſaith, diſcontinued, thoſe words, or left off, are of your own foiſting in. Therefore a man may ſay of H. H.l)l)Pſal. 36.3. he hath left off to be wiſe to be ſure, to be honeſt, in ſetting down thoſe words in the ſame character, with the Authors, as if they were the Knights. And notwithſtanding there is no great difference between diſcontinued, and left off; (though circumciſion was diſcontinued forty years in the wilderneſs, yet not properly left off; and an Univerſity man may diſcontinue there, yet not leave it off, and a mans miniſtry may be diſ­continued, through ſickneſſe, &c. and yet not properly left off) yet had you meant honeſtly, you might have faithfully tranſcribed the Knights words without chop­ping, and changing. But perhaps you intended to ſet a fair gloſſe on your following obſervations.

SECT. 4.

H. H. pag. 8. Hence let the Reader obſerve. 1. He ſaith the primitive practice was to baptize in rivers and fountains, which the Antient Churches received from the example of our Savi­our, Mat. 3.13, 14, 15, 16.2. He ſaith, that was left off: obſerve, they left off the example of Chriſt. 3. They erected Fonts in their own private houſes.

Reply 1. The Knight doth not ſay, the antient Churches, but Church; let the Reader obſerve your own tranſcript a little before in the ſame page.


2. How Chriſt is ſaid to be baptized in Jordan ſhall be ſcann'd hereafter.

3. The Knight, I tell you, doth not ſay, That was left off. So that in ſtead of your obſervation the Reader may obſerve, that you have not left off to miſ-recite, and per­vert the writings not onely of men, but of God himſelf, as followeth.

SECT. 5.

H. H. Obſerve, Here is the words of the Prophet Jeremi­ah fulfilled, Jer. 2.12, 13. Be aſtoniſhed, O heavens, at this, &c. for my people have committed two evils: They have for­ſaken me the fountain of living waters, and they have hewen them out Ciſterns, broken Ciſterns, that can hold no water. Even ſo theſe people did forſake baptizing men and women that did believe in rivers and fountains, according to the ex­ample of Chriſt and Chriſtians in the primitive times, and builded them Ciſterns, which they call Fonts, in their private houſes to baptize babes, &c.

Reply 1. You have profeſſed your ſelf to be ignorant of Greek, and all (that have any ſchollarſhip) may diſcern your little skill in Latine,m)m)Naſcentes p. 8. and we look for exactneſs in the Engliſh; but obſerve here Is (not are) the words of the Prophet; Learn to write and ſpeak better Eng­liſh.

2. How miſerably do you contradict your ſelf? you ſaid but a little before,n)n)Pag. 7. not a word found in all the holy Scriptures about baptizing in a Font; nay, not ſo much as the name of a Font once mentioned in all the ho­ly Scriptures: but it ſeems the name and thing is found and mentioned here; how elſe can you ſay, Here is ful­filled Clap your hands, and leap for joy, and ſay with the Philoſopher in another caſe,o)o)〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 in­tend40 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 Fountainsp)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 Cſtern? 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, whoq)q)2 Pet. 3.16〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 oua 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. Hallr)r)Font gua­ded, 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 wordsſ)ſ)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 Apoſtles)s)1 Tim. 5.17.18., for the Scripture ſaith, Thou ſhalt not muzzle, &c. And again,t)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, and42 yet Saith, It is Written in the Law of Moſes And yet not one word (concerning Miniſters maintenance) writ­ten expreſly in Deut. quoted. u)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 neglectedv)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)x)Hyperbole. ſo much uſed in Scripture, ſpecially in this caſe: e. gr. Ci­ties walled up to heaveny)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 Alſtedz)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)43 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 New Teſtament for obſerving a Sabbath, giving thanks at Meals, praying with our families, baptizing of women, giving them the Supper, baptizing ſeveral ſorts or degrees of men; as Kings, Queens, Lords, Citizens, Husbandmen, &c. Will the Anabaptiſts therefore do