AN ANTIDOTE Against HEN. HAGGAR'S Poisonous PAMPHLET, ENTITLED, 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 etc. is detected, his Contradictions demonstrated, his Cavils against M. Cook, M. Baxter, and M. Hall Answered, his Rail 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 divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the TRUTH. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do THESE also resist the TRUTH, 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, vicquid ab ANABAPTISTARUM officinâ prodi●rit, quae tot portenta, & Fabricata est, & quotidiè Fabricatur,  Calv. Psychopannychia, p. 476. 
LONDON, Printed for Tho. Parkhust, and are to be sold at his shop over-against the great Conduit, at the lower end of Cheapside, 1653.   

To the truly honoured, and his endeared friend the worshipful THOMAS HUNT Esq Major of the Corporation of Salop. A praiseworthy 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 overmuch boldness to set to you, or use your name in this ensuing 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 spiritual eye do I desire to look upon you, and love you, and is the only motive moving me to make thus bold with you.  
Sir, It is the Politic practice of impostors (like cunning crafty masking mummers) to hid 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 persuade 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 me 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 than himself, but the Lord rebuke him.  
It may be (Sir) you have heard of that Noble Moralisers Fable of Amphialus, who was challenged to combat with Argalus a Knight of the Sun, who when he was prepared with all his Military accoutrements to meet his enemy; The wife of Argalus dressed herself in her Husband's Armour, and gave the onset to Amphialus, and gave the first charge; whom he encounters valiantly, and overthrows with a mortal 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 ruin 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 will p●● on the arms of an enemy, (because they wilfully will be enemies) with whom I am challenged to combat 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 be any such cause. It is not for any evil 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 departed thence till they were agreed. I could desire that, M. Haggar, and his party would agree to come into the Temple of God, and be tried by the holy Scriptures faithfully explicated, and applied.  
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 own, and am not able to pay, but in prayers for you, and all yours, who am  
Your humble servant in the Faith once given to the Saints, AYLMAR HOUGHTON. Prees, From my Study July 12, 1658.   

To the READER.  
I Thought it meet (if not my duty) to give some account of these ensuing particulars: 1. Why M. Cook's, and M. Baxter's Treatises have not been Vindicated before this time, sigh M. Haggar's Answer (such as it is) hath been extant, and they therein challenged some years since? These following considerations might sufficiently justify their silence.  
1. The impotency, and scurrility of that Answer (as is manifest to all intelligent Readers) might be a sufficient confutation of it, and render it unworthy of any Reply but silence. When Rabshakeh railed, blasphemed, threatened, and boasted; The people held their peace, and answered them not a word, for the King's Commandment 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 lie 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 brags 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 half 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 perpetual 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 men's speeches, than the truth or ground thereof) are in actual danger, as thinking thus, whosoever hath the last word, goes away with the victory; for whose sake something should be done, to undeceive them, if it may be. 3. It is as well 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 than 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 shall 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, etc. 1 Pet. 2.23. Yet I acknowledge it's good to take notice of those Reproaches, which in M. Haggar's Answer are belched forth, against Ministry, Ministers, Ordinances, and Churches of Christ, knowing that God hath a special 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 quickening to prayer, Isa. 34. ver. 3, 4, 14, 15, 16. Nor can the Devil vex Job, but he can acknowledge God's hand in it, Job 1.21. and if by occasion of his suffering and smart, he spoke 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 material 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 avoid 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 SUPERFLVOUS, and NEEDLESS WORDS. And I assure the Reader, I am not conscious to myself 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 be 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 behalf 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, and relieved in this case; knowing that Satan the Prince of darkness, and their own natural darkness, and corruption, may take occasion, by such persons, Pamphlets, and practices as are abroad, to disquiet their Spirits, & to draw them into crooked paths; specially those within my own special charge, of whom I travel in birth, till Christ be form 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.   

We Ministers of the Gospel, whose names are subscribed, do certify, that we have perused the Reply of our Reverend Brother, M. Aylmar Houghton, Entitled, an ANTIDOTE, etc. and do judge it in the main to be solid, and very useful (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. Steel.   

Imprimatur  
EDMUND CALAMY.   


CHAP. I. Concerning the Saint's 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 layeth— with Eph●●. 2.20. 1 Pet. 2.3, 4, 5.  
Reply 1.  
If Christ be the Saint's foundation, then either you and your disciples are not Saints; or else you and they build (in matters both of Doctrine and of practice) beside the foundation, as in the points of original sin, freewill, falling away from grace, dipping, etc. (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 layeth, but no man can lay; 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  you break your own rule so often inculcated by you, (specially p. g. 40.) with direful threaten. 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 himself; for if there be no other foundation but Christ, 1 Cor. 3.11. how comes it to pass that the same Apostle speaks of the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Ephes. 2.20. 
* Yea, good works are called a foundation, 1 Tim. 6.19.  Nayin this same place he doth distinguish Christ from the foun, dation of the Apostles and Prophets: Indeed 
b) Distinguo fundamentum in propr. dictum & ministe jail. 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, unless 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 than insinuate, that Christ is not a stone; which is contrary to your own quotation, Ephes. 2.20.— Christ himself being the chief cornerstone, (though I confess it is not the same word in the original 
d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ) nay contrary to divers o●her Scriptures, where Christ is expressly 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 bvilders— 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 gratify your dear mother the Church of Rome, notwithstanding your loud cry, as the Papists say. The Learned give us better reasons. To instance only in one 
e) Chemn. Har. mon cap. 24.  Peter hath his name [ab illa petra] from that rock for two causes: 1. Because notwithstanding Satan's subtlety, 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 Christ's words 
f) Mat. 16.18.  that the Saints ought to build on Christ the foundation, than something may be plain by consequence, which is not expressed 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, etc. 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 persuasion 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 only 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 aught to build on this rock Christ? which is clearly answered by these following Scriptures, Mat. 7.24. Whosoever heareth these say of mine and doth them, I will liken him to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, etc. Therefore to build on the rock Christ, is to hear the say, and do them, and the contrary likened to a foolish man, etc. liable 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 say of mine, and doth them not, etc. Ver. 26. Every one that heareth These say of mine, etc. In which Sermon Christ spoke not one word of the nature or subject of Baptism; 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. Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings (indefinitely) and doth them— and Verse 49 He that heareth and doth not, etc. Yet this Scripture shows 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 writ very rawly, and indistinctly. For certainly there are some temporary commands or say of Christ, e. g. Mat, 10.8. 
g) Hoc symbolum pro illotempore praeceptum quo certior ipsis esset divinae providentiae experientia ut re●ti Chrysost. notavit, Grot.  Heal the sick, cleanse the Lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils, 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 shoes, nor yet staves, etc. Are they all fit to wear a fools coat, who do not these commands in these times: or do you take yourself now obliged to that command, Mat. 19.21. Go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor— I have been always of this mind; that THAT was a command of Trial, and not of Obedience, unless it be when God requires it, as in times of public persecution. Or are you bound to wash one another's feet, as Joh. 13.14. or salute one another with an holy kiss, as Rom. 16.16. or anoint the sick with oil? 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 counted 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 than a thousand years, who have not been baptised 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 Christ's 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, etc.  
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 Judas 
h) Act. 1.25.  by transgression fell from his Apostleship, I cannot find you among the eleven. 
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 annexed 
k) Mat. 28 20.  I am with you always 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, is clear to him that will not shut his eyes. 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 special 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 needful, and seasonable, if they were to be excluded.   

SECT. 2.  
2. Observe. H. H. The end was that they might believe it.  
Reply. 

1. These words are not expressly 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 household. 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. Observe. H. H. That those which did believe the Gospel, should be baptised into his name.  
Reply 1. If you understand it of Infidels converted to the faith, (not excluding their children) we believe it, and accordingly practice, as well as you; for the Scriptures alleged by you; prove that where the Gospel is first preached, whether to Jews o● Gentiles, Turks, or Pagans (who perhaps never heard of Christ before) they must first be instructed, and embrace the Gospel, before they be baptised, (as Abraham was, before he was circumcised) but this hinders not their children from baptism: no more than Abraham's children from circumcision, nor infants not believing from salvation; for you say, 
(l) Foundat▪ p. 61  infants are saved— without actual faith, though the Text alleged by you saith 
(m) Mark 16.16.  he that believeth not shall be damned.  
2. If you mean, as your practice speaks, that such who have been baptised once (for so you grant p. 24.— Be baptised again as we are,) and have received the Lords Supper often, and therefore owned as Church members, should be baptised by you, I say this doctrine and practice hath no sooting on the Texts alleged by you, either by clear consequence from, or expresseness of those Scriptures; as hereafter shall be more fully evinced.   

SECTION 4.  
Fourth Observe. H. H. That those baptised 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. It's our practice to teach infants after baptism, assoon as they are capable. 
(n) Gen. 18 19  As Abraham taught his children a good while after circumcision; but if you mean it presently after Baptism, and so continually to their lives end, I grant it of grown persons, such baptised believers in the same, or like juncture of Circumstances.  
Secondly yet I do not find express mention made, that the Eunuch was instructed by Philip, after he was baptised by Philip, but rather the contrary; for it's said: 
(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) Act. 9.18, 19  Then was Saul certain days with the disciples at Damas●us, or that Saul (now Paul) instructed the Jailor 
(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,   

SECTION 5.  
H. H. Observe. Fifth. To this practice (viz.) to a people thus walking according to this rule, hearing his say, and doing them. The Lord Christ hath promised his presence, saying, Lo, 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 baptised believers which do thus walk.  
Reply 1. In the Texts of Matt. and Mark cited by you, there is no express mention made of these words, viz. To this practice, or to a people thus walking according to this rule, etc. They are your dictates, and fancies.  
2. If by the world's end is meant the particular age wherein the Apostles lived (as some of late hold) than it will not follow, that Christ is still with those baptised believers, which do thus walk. Now though I profess ingeniously that I disclaim that sense as false and impertinent (not only because of the terms in this promise used, always 
r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  or rather all days (and succession of times) but also because your phrase 
s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the end of the world, is understood by the same Evangelist, of Christ's second coming, and that three several times: 
t) Mat. 13.39, 40, 49.  yet you might have foreseen and prevented such an exception which quite takes away the edge of the argument, and have answered the seekers, (as they are called) whose gloss this is, and who are (for the most part) branches that came out of your Church.  
3. Though I deny not the spiritual presence of Christ among all true believers (as is clear by other Scriptures,) yet these words in Matth. 28.19. I am with you etc. appertain principally (if not only) to the Apostles and their successors; 
u) Vobiscum evo nec vobiscum tantum, s●d et (vobis mortu is cum vestris succ●ssor bus. Par. in Loc.  for to them our Saviour spoke, ver. 18. with 16. They are bidden to go, ver. 19 Go ye, and are commanded to disciple all Nations, in the same verse teach ye 
*) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  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 Christ's special spiritual presence is made to Ministers, rather than to the people, to Teachers, rather than to them who are taught; to Baptizers, rather than to the Baptised.  
4. You do not distinguish between the corporal and spiritual presence of Christ; (as hath been hinted by me) but say largely, and generally, Christ hath promised his presence, etc. Hence the Argument for Christ's corporal 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 gross monopoly of Christ's spiritual presence, as if it belonged only to you; and to such as are baptised after your mode. No marvel, for one of your silly Proselytes 
x) N. G.  preached, (or rather prated) lately in private, saying, Christ is with us here, and not yonder (pointing to a Chapel near adjoining) but this is a trick of the old Donatists (your predecessors) who confined (as is commonly known) the Church of Christ within a corner of Africa, abusing that Scripture, (as you do many) Where thou makest thy stock to rest at noon 
y) Cant. 1.7.  the Latin hath it, in●meridie, therefore forsooth, they couching in the south, it must be with them▪  
6. I wonder you pass 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 baptised or unbaptised can be saved. 3. it follows hereupon, that Infants who cannot actually believe shall be damned. For (in Mark 
z) ch. 16.15, 16.  believing, and being baptised are as nearly connexed to salvation, as (in Matt. 
* ch. 28 19, 20. ) baptising is to teaching, and in order of phrase, Faith and Baptism are as closely joined 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 shown the order of the words, as they were spoken by the Lord himself.  
Reply. Sir, by your showing the order of Christ's words and your shaping some observations from them, you do more than intimate, that Teaching must go before baptising, for (if we may believe you) the Gospel must be first preached, then believed, and then, and not till then Baptism administered; I confess Christ mentioneth teaching (as our English Bibles have it) in the first place, and baptising after, 
a) J. G. Catabaptism, p. 167.  but this is not to instruct them, to teach in the first place, and then to baptise them after, but only in the first place to instruct them, to teach, and in the second to baptise.  
2. Order of things i●not always or commonly so exactly expressed in Scripture, by the position of the words. Therefore from Christ's mentioning teaching in the first place, and baptising in the second; it cannot be proved that persons must always be first taught before they be baptised, no more than Christ 
b) Mar. 115.  putting repenting before believing, proves that Repentance precedes faith, or 
c) Rom. 10.9.  naming confession with the mouth, before belief of the heart, proves that confession must go before faith as to salvation, beside the second person is mentioned 
d) 2 Cor. 13.14.  before the first, and the third person 
e) Rev. 1.4, 5,  before the second, and I find Daniel 
f) Ezech. 14.14.  named before Job, who was notwithstanding, a long time after him; with many more instances which might be given; but perhaps we shall more fully speak to this in its proper place.  
3. Though I am of his mind 
g) Nec admodum refert, utrum discipulatus baptismum, vel baptismus discipulatum antecedat, ne quis hîc more Anabaptistarum vanè sit scrupulosus Muscul. in Jo. 4.19.  that it is not greatly material, whether discipling go before baptising, or baptising before discipling, yet let it be granted, that this Scripture compared with others, hold out, that some are to be taught before they are baptised, (as before p. 4.) yet it will not help your cause one jot, unless there be a concurrence of the like or the same circumstances. For a difference is to be made between the constituting of a Church and a Church constituted. Some things may be done in in the former, which are not requisite to be done in the latter.    

CHAP. III. Concerning Examples.  

SECT. I.  
H. H. same page. If it can be proved by ANY word of God, that any baptised 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 man's 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 referred? to the Word of God? I think you meant not that; yet they that practise it, are not only to be born with, but to be commended also: Or to little Babes—? That's both incongruous, and nonsensical. If to Infant's baptism, or the practice of baptising 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 men's 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. baxter's, Mr. Cooks, etc. the tithe 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 baptised (I hope that is the word) If so, 
h) Mat. 19.13. Mark 10.33.  you are too blame, and we to be born with.   

SECT. 2.  
H. H. pag. 4. Mat. 3.5, 6. with Mar. 1.3, 4, 5. 
Of John Baptist.  Where we read first of the voice of one crying in the wilderness, To prepare the way of the Lord, and to make his paths strait. 2. That John baptised in that wilderness, and whom he baptised is evident in the following words: And he preached the Baptism 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 baptised of him in ●ordan, confessing their sins, etc.  
Reply. You mis-cite the words of Mark, by adding to them, and diminishing from them 
i) Contrary to Deut. 4.2.  1. By adding to ●hem, in saying, To prepare— and to make— Whereas the text hath it— 
k) Mar. 1.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make ye his paths strait. Which words tell us what the people were to do, not what John Baptist did. 2. By diminishing from them in some respect: For the text runs clearly thus 
l) Ver. 4.  John did baptise in the (not that) wilderness, and preach— before which you have cast a mist, lest 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 expressly, John did baptise and preach— Take heed lest those 
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 baptised of John— were such as could and did confess their sins; but Infants cannot confess their sins, Therefore none such were baptised by John.  
Reply 1. In saying Infants cannot confess their sins, do not you imply that Infants have their sins? (What other construction can any rational man make of your words?) If so, how can you call them innocent so oft? 
n) Pag. 60.   
2. It's neither here, nor any where else expressed in Scripture, that none were baptised of John, but such as could, and did confess 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 clothed with Camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about your loins, and eating locusts and wild 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 show the weakness of your Argument, I thus argue 
o) Exod. 12.35.  The children of Israel borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver and of gold, and raiment; but the Jewish Infants did not borrow, etc. Therefore none of the Jewish Infants were children of Israel. The conclusions of both Arguments are equally false, though I dare not be absurd, as you are 
p) Nar. of a Dispute, p 6.  in denying the conclusion.   

SECT. 4.  
H. H. Thus it's clear by the Scriptures, that John baptised 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 baptised men and women that could believe and confess— For in those Scriptures there is no express mention made of any one woman baptised by John; (For though it be said 
q) Mat. 3.5, 6.  all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan were baptised, and 
r) Mar. 1.5.  all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem were all baptised of him— Yet the word [all] cannot be taken universally; for who I pray you, were they, whom 
s) Joh. 3.22.  Christ baptised, or rather whom his Disciples 
t) Joh. 4.2.  baptised?) no express mention made of any one's 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 confess their sins; now you mince the matter, and tell us of those that could believe and confess; you durst not say they did believe; for how is it probable that they did believe, whom John calls 
u) Mat. 3.7.  a generation of Vipers; or that they could believe, when Christ saith, 
* Joh. 5. 4●.  How can ye believe which receiv● honour one from another—? And 
x) Joh. 12.39, 43.  therefore they could not believe— Why? For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.  
3. But to shoot in your own bow, what a wise argument is this? John baptised men and women that could believe, etc. 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 days old was ●crcamcised.  
4. If you say (as you do) Not a word spoken of sucking children being baptised by John, as there is of their being circumcised; I answer, As the Argument remains in its full strength for all that; so it's a known rule that 
y) A non dicti ad non factum non valet conequentia.  no good consequence can be drawn, that such a thing was not done, because it's not recorded. There is not one word spoken of the twelve Apostles being baptised, nor of the Church of Antioch, Acts 11— Nor of the seven Churches of Asia. Therefore by Mr. Haggars Logic we must conclude and believe, they were not baptised. You see by this time you had sorry success 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 baptised, and added to the Church, etc. But little babes of eight days, weeks, or months old cannot gladly receive the Word of God, because they understand it not; Ergo, none such were baptised 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 aching tooth against Logic & learning, for by these means, your Sophistry, and fallacy comes to be detected, and rejected, which by your illiterate proselytes are swallowed down, and digested as gallant arguments, and solid reasons. Blow out the light, or bring your disciples into a dark shop, and you may quickly vend your false or gross 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 baptised. Answ. I grant the promise was to them, vers. 38. that if they did repent, and be baptised 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 Gospel 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 express mention made of these words, viz. faith obeying the Gospel, and condition, they are in the number of your own additions, though I deny not but they may be employed.  
2. By being CALLED, do you mean obeying the Gospel? that's true of an effectual 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 Gospel, and to be baptised? surely than you truss up Gospel's obedience in a narrow compass.  
4. In granting the promise was to them etc. You give up the cause, and grant that children may be baptised; for what is the promise but the Covenant, for they are interchangeably set down one for the other 
a) Gal. c. 3.  and the Covenant runs upon promises 
b) Ephes 2.21.  specially consists of that grand promise. Gen. 3.15. — The seed of the Woman shall bruise the serpent's head—) Now if the Covenant is theirs, who can deny the initial sign and seal of the Covenant, which is baptism? Let it be observed, that this Text is the first Argument used after Christ's ascension to provoke the Jews to repent etc. as discovering the new Testament-application of the Covenant, and it is continuation to believers and their seed, as to Abraham and his in the old Testament. Now that children of believing parents are within the Covenant of grace shall be made evident hereafter.  
5. In saying the promise doth belong to their and our children, but they must be called first, I answer. 

1. Why may not children be said to be called in their parents, aswell as Levi is said 
c) H●b. 7.9.10.  to pay either in the loins of Abraham? And that God is said 
d) Hos. 12, 4.  to speak with the Israelites, when he spoke with Jacob in Bethel?  
2. If you will needs understand it of a direct immediate, and personal call, and so exclude children from the promise, till they believe, repent, etc.   This gloss doth rather darken then enlighten the Text, and cannot pass currant for these ensuing reason's. For if children should be excluded out of the promise. 1. What privilege above others, have the children of repenting parents? Now it is clear, the Apostle adds children in the Text, to show that they had some special 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 be excluded out of the promise, who stood in it for 2000 years before, under the other Administration.  
3. what cold comfort would this be to your wounded hearts for crucifying Jesus Christ. That they indeed on their repentance should be saved; but their children should be the same with Heathens? Now here the scope of the Text is urged by the Apostle for consolation, aswell as encouragement.  
4. What hope could they have of your children's salvation? For hope without promise is presumption, though you say infants are saved by Christ without actual faith (p. 61.); That shall be examined in its proper place.  
5. What a loss would the believing Jews be at; for their children had once a right to the Covenant, and to the seal of it, but now neither to covenant nor to Baptism, 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 Lord's blessing) became happily instrumental to reduce an Anabaptist 
e) See the Leper cleansed, pag. 7, 8, 9  and (through the Lord's blessing) may prevail with some that follow you, as they did Absalon 
f) 2 Sam. 15.11.  in the simplicity of their heart, knowing nothing of the depth of your design, no more than they did of Absalon's. Neither do I altogether despair of your conversion; for Mart. Cellar 
g) J.G. Catabapt. pag. 145. Et Melob. Adam. de vita Borrhavi, p. 400.  who after he had stood by his sect several years, went and settled at Basill, where he taught divinity, and being ashamed to be known, or called by that name under which he had professed Anabaptism, changed his name from Cellarius into Borrhaus, under which name he wrote very learned commentaries upon the 5 books of Moses etc. To say nothing of those converted by Musculus. 
h) Melch. Adam de vita Musculi p. 377.   
And now I hope you will have little cause to brag as you do in the close of this Section. Thus the objection is fully answered; whereas indeed it remains unanswered.   

SECT. 7.  
H. H. pag. 5. Again, If ever the Apostle baptised children, it must needs be now, according to their argument, who say, the promise is to children, ergo, but that they baptised no such children, is evident; because they that were baptised were such as could and did GLADLY receive the word, 
v. 42.  & continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, etc. All which little babes, that cannot speak words, nor understand reason, cannot possibly do, Therefore none such baptised.  
Reply 1. This is the same Argument with the former: Therefore let it receive the same Answer, which may suffice. But because it's dressed up in another form, and put into a seemingly better Garb: Therefore secondly the weakness of it, is made evident by this Argument: they are rational creatures, who can understand reason and speak, but Infants cannot possibly do all, or any of these. Therefore they are not rational creatures. 3. In saying, if ever the Apostles baptised children, it must needs be now, you art too peremptory in divining and determining. It's a received maxim, that 
1) Argumentum ad Authoritate duum negative non valet.  a negative Argument from authority proves nothing.   

SECT. 8.  
H. H. Act. 8.12. Where we read, 
2. Instance  that when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised both men and wowen, in express terms, but we never read a word of little children.  
Reply 1. We never read a word of little children? What, not in all the Bible? where were your eyes? 
k) Mat. 19.13.  Then were brought to him LITTLE CHILDREN, 
l) 6.14.  but Jesus said, Suffer LITTLE CHILDREN. Surely the Gospel of Matthew is part of the Word of God. Your wide and wild expression is liable, you see, to just exception.  
2. If you mean (as I suppose) we never read a word of the baptising of little children, Why did you not speak out? It's said of Barnabas that 
m) Acts 11.24  he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost, and of Faith; but we read never a word of his being baptised; must we therefore conclude and believe, that he was not baptised? What Sophistry is this?  
3. Sometimes in Scripture where men are only named, Women and children are understood: Ex. gr 
n) Mat. 6.44. . They that did eat of the Loaves were about 5000 men. 
o) Mat. 14.21.  And they that had eaten were about 5000 men, beside Women and Children; surely there's no contradiction between Mark and Matthew. Again under the expression of men and women, children are understood; as 
p) Josh. 8.25.  12000 men and women of Ai fell, where children must be understood; for it's said 
q Ver. 264.  Joshua utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai, and no exception is made but 
r) Ver. 27.  only of the  and spoil, and it's utterly improbable, that in that City, and among so many thousands, no children should be 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 baptised? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayst; but little Babes cannot believe with all their hearts, therefore they may not be baptised.  
Reply 1. 
s) Beza, Jun. &c Trem. Grotius, 〈◊〉 etc.  Divers learned men assert, that the whole 37 verse is not to be found in many Greek copies, and sundry ancient Translations, as the Syriack, etc. What then will become of your Argument? No building can stand long without a foundation.  
2. Admit that verse to be in the Original; the Major, whether you take it as an hypothetical Proposition (if people believe with all their hearts, they may be baptised) or as an universal Categorical proposition equivalent thereto (whosoever believeth with all his heart, may be baptised) is granted to be a solid truth, if it be understood of those that are not yet baptised: For those that are already baptised, must not be baptised 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 God's omnipotency, who is able to regenerate and sanctify Infants, 
s) Luke 1.41.  * as John Baptist in his mother's 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 pass 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 always 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 fourfooted beasts are living creatures, but Anabaptists are not fourfooted beasts, Therefore Anabaptists are not living creatures. Or thus: All that are endued with humane learning, in some eminency are reasonable creatures: But Anabaptists for the most part are not endued 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 only are to be baptised that believe with all their hearts; then the Argument is to be form thus: All those that are rightly baptised, or to be baptised, believe with all their hearts; But Infants believe not with all their hearts; Ergo, not rightly baptised, or to be baptised. Here it's granted the form is good, but the matter of the first Proposition (to say no more to the second, than what hath been said) is naught. For John the Baptist rightly baptised many without enquiry, (much less certainty) that their hearts were right in believing. S●mon Magus (in this very Chap. 
t) Acts 8.13.  was baptised, and that rightly, for Philip is not in the least blamed, but approved in that act, yet 
u) Acts 8.21.  his heart was not right before God. And multitudes we read of, that were daily baptised; of whose believing With all their hearts we read nothing; and if you must forbear baptising until you know that people believe with all their hearts, 
v) 1 Cor. 2.11.  you must never baptise (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 express terms, that none but such as believe are to be baptised.   

SECT. 10.  
H. H. the same page, Acts 10.46, 47, 48. Can any man forbidden water, that these should not be baptised, 
4. Instance.  that have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptised, etc. By which we see, that no such babes were here baptised; for all that were in this place baptised were such as had received the Holy Ghost as well as the Apostles, and they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify 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 baptised here, were such as received the Holy Ghost, etc. But children cannot receive the Holy Ghost, etc. Therefore— Just like this they that understand the Languages, wherein the Scriptures were originally written, are guilty of humane learing (for in your judgement 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 show the unreasonableness of your reasonings.  
2. Here is a clear Argument for baptising Infants: they that receive the Holy Ghost are to be baptised; 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 sign; or they who have the thing signified in Baptism, aught to have the sign, which is Baptism. The Apostle Peter justifies this principle, and by the authority and strength of it proves the lawfulness of baptising those on whom the Holy Ghost fell— Now that some infants receive the Holy Ghost as well as grown men, it's plain; for 
* Rom 8 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  if any man, (or any one) have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his, and if an Infant be none of Christ's, you must eat your words, and deny that any Infants dying in their infancy are saved by Christ 
x) p. 61. .  
If you say, by receiving the Holy Ghost is meant, the extraordinary gift of the Spirit, as ver. 44, 45, 46. Be it so; this makes the Argument stronger: for if 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 baptise grown men (for which of them I pray you spoke with tongues 
y) Ver. 46.  in the Apostles sense)? then (you say) we have for baptising Infants, that cannot speak at all. But the Apostle explains himself in the following Chapter (z) For as much then, 
Acts. 1●. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as God gave them the like gift as he did to us— Like for quality, though not for quantity. Yea it's said 
a) Heb 4.2.  unto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them— I think no man dare say, that the Gospel was as fully, and as clearly preached to the Israelites in the wilderness (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 Lydia and her household, 
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 Logic 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: Lydia and her household were baptised: Therefore no Infants. Or thus: If Lydia and her household were baptised, than no Infant was baptised: But Lydia and her household were baptised; Therefore— To this I answer, I deny your consequence, and will give you time till Doomsday to prove it: In the mean season this place is more for the baptising of Infants, than 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, than all aught to be silent; and not to believe and affirm things they know not, for that is wickedness and folly: But thus much we know: 1. That Christ commanded them to baptise them which believed. 2. Hitherto we have found them baptising of none else. 3. The Scripture speaks of no children she had, nor yet of any husband, and therefore silence gives no commands to obey, nor no promises to believe, nor no example to follow.  
Reply 1. Here you set up a man of straw, and then fight with him; you frame an objection out of your own head, and then answer it, bravely done.  
2. Is it not wickedness and folly in you to believe and affirm things you know not? The necessity of dipping in the Administration of Baptism, the salvation of Infan●s without actual faith, by virtue of Christ's death, (when no such things are expressed 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 profess you know, they have been already spoken to; and for the third, the Scripture (you say) speaks of no children she (i. e. Lydia 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 household, which were baptised? for it's said distinctly 
b) Acts 15.16.  she was baptised and her household.  
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 express mention made in the N. T. of any command for women's 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 express mention made in the Old or New Testament of any command for mens or women's 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, etc. 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 maxim you have vented; viz. That silence gives no commands to obey, nor no promise to believe, nor no examples to follow.   

SECT. 13.  
H. H. pag. 6. Again, if she had an husband, he was baptised; for she and her household were baptised: Now if he had been baptised, he would surely have born the name in the history, rather than she, being the bead of the house.  
Reply 1. Now fair fall your heart; if she had an husband, he was baptised, for she and her household were baptised; you say well: might you not as well say (as we do) If she had children they were also baptised, for she and her household were baptised: and so if she had servants they were baptised; for it's said, She and her household were baptised: If you include husband and servants in her household, how can you for shame exclude Infants; or if you conclude the baptising of her husband and servants on this account, because she and her household were baptised; why may you not as well conclude, that her Infants or children were baptised on the same account; were you not wilful and partial in yourself.  
2. To say nothing that you should have said but (not, now) if he had been baptised, he would surely have born the name, etc. Your confidence is as high, as your ignorance is great. Surely Zerviah was a woman; for she is expressly called 
c) 2 Sam. 17.25.  Joabs' mother, and 
d) 1 Chr. 2.15 16.  David's sister; Now you might have said as well, It Joab had a father, and Zerviah an husband, he would ●urely have born the name in the history, rather than she, being the head of the house; whereas the name of Zerviah is only mentioned in the history to my best observation and remembrance in those and other 
e) 1 Sam. 26.6 & 2 2.13, 18. & 3.39. & 8.16. & 14.1 & 16.9, 10. & 18 2. & 19.21, 22, & 21.17 & 23 18 1 King. 1.7. & 2.5, 22. & 1 Chron. 11.6.34. & 18.12.15. & 26.13. & 27.24.  places.   

SECT. 14.  
H. H. Lastly, we read verse 40. That when Paul and Sil●s came out of prison, they entered into the house of Lydia; and comforted the brethren— but little babes are not capable of such comforts. Therefore 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 original; Beza saith, 
f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  in very many copies, it's read unto Lydia, & so do others 
g) As the Syr. and old Latin.  translate it, and for aught appears, Lydia at that time might be in another's 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 baptised too, for it is said, she and her household were baptised.  
3. If you mean that in Lydia's house, there were no little babes that were capable of comfort, it's 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 marvel 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 saith 
g) Eaech. 16.20  are born to him, and whom he himself calleth his 
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 Jailor was baptised with his household; from whence some would draw the same Argument as from Lydia's; 
6 Instance.  and persuade us t●at there were children in his house, but the Text is plain against it. Acts 16.32, 33, 34. They spoke 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 baptised he and all his strait ways; and when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. (Thus the Scripture in plain words, as it saith the one, that he and all his were baptised; so also it saith, he with all his house believed in God.)  
Reply 1. In the beginning of the sect. you say the Jailor was baptised with his household: Look the Text 
i) Acts 16.13.  It doth not say so, here we have another addition of yours to advantage your cause; no marvel that you add to men's writings; when you are so bold to add to the Lords holy Scripture; I grant it saith, He and all His were baptised, but not, he was baptised with his household.  
2. It's very observable the Text saith 
k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  He was baptised and all his. i e. he and all that were OF him: A most emphatical phrase to denote his Children, who are properly a man's own, his natural offspring; when the Evangelist speaks of the Apostles preaching, he names the Jaylours' house in the largest acceptation. They spoke the word to him, and to all that were 
l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  in his house: but when he speaks of baptising, he changeth the term, and saith, He, and ALL HIS were baptised (that you may be sure his children were baptised) 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 baptised, but in vain. If yet you would prove your former thus. Paul and Silas spoke the word to 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 baptised here (though you say not so, as in the place foregoing) thus perhaps you may be thought to reason. The Jailer with all his house that was baptised believed in God, but infants believed not, Therefore— The weakness of this Argument appears thus; The children of Israel went up harnessed 
m) Exod. 13.14.  out of the land of Egypt: but the Jewish infants went not up harnessed, Ergo—  
4. Before I leave 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 expressly 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 baptised, 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 baptised. 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 rational men consider, what difference is between their all-rejoicing 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 baptising Jews or Heathens newly converted to the faith 
n) Font uncovered, from p. 7. to p. 23.  there are given full and large answers both in general and particular (showing 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, than 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 easy matter to answer any books.  
2, For opening the sense of this Scripture, 
o) Act. 16.32, 33.  I refer the reader to that book 
p) Font uncovered, pag. 17.18, 19 ver 32.  to which you answer nothing but this— M. Cook may conclude that none but the Jailor was baptised, etc. Now whether more than the Jailor believed, is not declared, though it's said, that they spoke 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 the 
q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he having believed ver. 34.  original is only of the singular number, referring to the Jailor alone; and the Apostles required faith of the Jailor alone, 
r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believe thou ver. 31.  as necessary and sufficient to bring him & his family in●o 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 governor's thereof; yea, Lydia & her household were baptised, though nothing be said of the faith of any of them, but of the governess. 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 expressly required in the command, & mentioned in the story. But when baptism is, mentioned it's said, 
s)—  he and all his— As before, where there are two particulars that of necessity must be understood of persons (being of the plural number) but the word that is translated— All his house, is an Adverb, 
s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  noting neither person, not number in ●●s proper signification, but may properly be referred to the Jailers rejoicing, 
x) See Mr. Cook's Font uncovered, p. forenamed.  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) 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 Jailers 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 tranquillity, 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) Luk. 8.13. Joh. 5.35. Acts 8.8.  it yields matter of joy (u) to many more than those who actually and sincerely believe— More particularly the Jailers 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 themselves 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 mother's womb, leaping for joy at the presence of Christ: for it's said, 
* Luk. 1.44. Grot.  The Babe leapt in my womb for joy. Where note by the way, that was no natural, but supernatural motion: (as 
x) Gen. 25.22.  was the struggling of those Twins in Rebeccah's womb): and beside the Noun here rendered 
y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  for Joy, is of the same derivation rivation and signification, as the word 
z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  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 administered 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 baptised both men and women. To this he answereth in his 16 p. That these words men and women are appliable to sexes rather than 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 then show 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 less 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 condemn 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 pass 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 than to ages; you do not truly set down the words of that book, 
a) Font uncovered, p. 16.  which saith; Men and Women are names rather noting the sexes than ages, and are appliable to Infants as well as to grown persons; and some instances are there given. Here you discover your falsehood and fraud.  
4. Concerning Eve, I pray you look back; 
b) Pag. 5.  where this Scripture being urged by you, 
c) Acts 8.12.  you should have brought your answer, (if you had not like to have forgotten it, as you say, or rather (as others may judge) if you had intended plain dealing) where this evasion of yours would have appeared vain; For you put the Emphasis of your proof on Men and Women, in saying— both men and women in express terms, but we read never a word of little Babes. Thus you set men and women in opposition to little babes, and therefore that answer which shows 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, etc. he that hath but half an eye may see how groundlessly and impertinently you bring it in; only when you have nothing else to say, you have the knack to fill up paper with rail 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 Corinth's hearing, believed and were baptised.  
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 only thus much:— 

1. That such believers, who had not been baptised in their Infancy, were baptised at more maturity of years.  
2. That ordinarily Scripture-baptists did admonish and exhort those (who came to them to be baptised) 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 say 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 controversy; 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 baptising those who have received the Lord's Supper among us, etc. which kind of Baptism was neither commanded by Christ, nor practised by the Apostles.  
3. If you understand Christ's command, and the Apostles practise largely, Then in the fear of God, and in your cold blood, consider whether the lying, corning, railing, perverting of Scripture, etc. (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 say of Christ, and to the practice and examples of his holy Apostles; And then yourself 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 baptising little Infants. I answer, the very notion of baptising whole households, is enough to make out an example of Infant-baptism: For 

1. 
f) Sidenham of Infant-bapt. p. 107.  It is confidence beyond example to hold, that in all those houses (said to be baptised) there were no Infants.  
2. There is stronger ground to believe the Affirmative than the Negative.  
3. Especially when the word House, or Household is put for little ones, and includes them, Gen. 45.18.   Take your households— Now that children were understood, it's plain ver. 19 Take Wagons for your little ones—  
4. Whensoever the household is spoken of in the Old Testament, 
g) see also Num. 3.15.1 Tim. 5.8.  it always 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 not 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. IU. Of the Font.  

SECT. 1.  
H. H. pag. 7. Not a word that I can find in all the Holy Scriptures, or say of Christ, the Prophets, or Apostles, about baptising in a Font; nay, not so much as the name of that abomenable Idol, the Font, is once mentioned in all the Holy Scriptures; much less 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 intent to reply to all this in the 9 Sect. of the foregoing 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 justify it, though it might be against your cavile.  
2. It's strange you could not find the name Font in all the Scriptures, and yet in the next pag. 
h) Page 8.  you can find it in Jerem. 2.12, 13. I pray you is Jeremy no part of the holy 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 Idol? Where doth the Scripture so brand it; if the nam● be not once mentioned in Scripture.  
4. What a loud and lewd slander is this? to say our children are sacrificed to the Font, as Israel's babes were to Moloch? Assuredly, Sir, we no more sacrifice our babes to the Font or Basin, than you do your Proselytes to a Marle-pit, or Horsepool, wherein some of them have been dipped.  
5. I cannot imagine what should be the ground of such an absurd comparison; unless 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 confess) is not worth the doing, were it not to discover and make manifest the folly of them, that uncover it, and guard it, for Infant's 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 saying 
i) Page 8, 9  Here is the words of the Prophet Jeremy fulfilled.  
2. Since you confess, 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: why then will you spend your time and labour about that which is like Jeremiahs' Girdle, nothing worth 
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 brethren's 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 entitled, A view of the Civil, and Ecclesiastical law, written by Sr. Thomas Ridley Knight, and Doctor of the civil law, etc. 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 Author from whence he brings his quotation, for either of them are too long to transcribe, yet I shall not pass this tedious testimony without some brief Animadversions  
1. Whether the Knight was an enemy to you, it's more than I know; or whether he was a friend to us, is more than 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 baptised received that Sacrament; but the Knight saith, where the persons to be baptised stood up and received that Sacrament, and proved it out of the Syriack, Arabic, and Hebrew languages— which you very cunningly left out, because your manner of Baptising is apparently different from theine.  
3. You say, and that truly, Christ was baptised of John in the river of Jordan; but the Knight saith, our Sabaptized John in Jordan. A foul mistake, I conceived it was the Printers fault, and I looked into the Erratas, but it's not to be found there. Now if the Knight did so grossly mistake here, why not in the rest, or most?  
4. You say— nascentes ibi ecclesiae— but the Knight saith— Nascentis— I looked among your Erratas, but find none printed; it may be, because all or most of your books is a bundle of Erratas.  
5. You say, this custom of baptising in Rivers etc. 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) 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 man's ministry may be discontinued, through sickness, etc. and yet not properly left off) yet had you meant honestly, you might have faithfully transcribed the Knight's words without chopping, and changing. But perhaps you intended to set a fair gloss on your following observations.   

SECT. 4.  
H. H. pag. 8. Hence let the Reader observe. 1. He saith the primitive practice was to baptise in rivers and fountains, which the Ancient 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 ancient Churches, but Church; let the Reader observe your own transcript a little before in the same page.  
2. How Christ is said to be baptised in Jordan shall be scanned 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 only 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, etc. for my people have committed two evils: They have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and they have hewn them out Cisterns, broken Cisterns, that can hold no water. Even so these people did forsake baptising 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 baptise babes, etc.  
Reply 1. You have professed yourself to be ignorant of Greek, and all (that have any scholarship) may discern your little skill in Latin, 
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 yourself? you said but a little before, 
n) Pag. 7.  not a word found in all the holy Scriptures about baptising 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) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  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 intent here Baptismal Fonts? and if not intended, how is this text now fulfilled? In what words are Fonts implied? in the word Fountain (the Knight indeed saith, Fonts or Fountains 
p) Pag. 8.  out the term is appropriated by the Lord to himself: They have forsaken me the Fountain, etc. No man (that I know of) holds our Fonts to be Fountains of living waters, and yourself declines at, when you make the forsaking of baptising men and women, etc. Parallel with the people's forsaking God the fountain, etc. Or in the word C●stern? in which (it seems) you have found Fonts; but the text saith, Those Cisterns are broken Cisterns, that can hold no water (which you have cunningly left out, lest your disciples should espy 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 grossly you abuse this Scripture, and consider seriously whether that Scripture be not fulfilled in you, being one of those that are unlearned and unstable, who 
q) 2 Pet. 3.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, As torturers Put a man on the rack, and make him speak that he never thought; so these set the Scripture on a rack, and draw ou● a sense which was never intended. Leigh Crit. Sacr.  wrist 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 Knight's testimony so valid, that it must be largely transcribed, when it seems to make against us: And must it be so slighted when it seems to make against you? as about the Terms, Tithe, and Church. To the first, answer shall be returned towards the end of the book: And to the second, Why may not the public 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 Jews met there to perform public worship?    

CHAP. V Of the Rise of Infant-Baptism.  

SECT. 1.  
H. H. p. 10. We must have the Rise of Infant-baptisme from those Rabbis that did practise it, or else not at all: because the Scripture is silent in it, as they themselves confess. So Mr. Hall 
r) Font guarded, p. 30.  literally, syllabically, terminis terminantibus, in express terms Infant-baptism is not commanded, nor a thousand things more. A wretched lie; 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 pass by your scornful terms, Rabbis, etc. you are guilty of falsehood, in saying, We confess 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 pass by in silence, in hope your falsehood 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 confess, the Scripture is silent in Mr. Hall's sense; i. e. It speaketh nothing of Infant-baptism in express terms, by way of command, but it is not silent in another sense, for it speaks implicitly of it. E. gr. Minister's maintenance is not expressly mentioned in those words 
s) Deut. 25.4. , Thou shalt not muzzle the Ox when he treadeth out the corn, yet it is implied in those words if you will believe the Apostle 
s) 1 Tim. 5.17.18. , for the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle, etc. And again, 
t) 1 Cor. 9.9.  For it is written in the Law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle, etc. Now Sir, Riddle me, riddle me, what's this? The Scripture is silent, and yet Saith, It is Written in the Law of Moses— And yet not one word (concerning Ministers maintenance) written expressly in Deut. quoted. 
u) p 12.  Yea, to take your own instance; A man may pray in his Family, because he may pray every where, according to 1 Tim. 2.8. Where Family-praier is implied, and so the Scripture is not silent in it, but not expressed, and so it is silent. Many more instances may be given, but these may suffice, without the imputation of a wretched lie.  
3. Suppose the Scriptures were altogether silent about Infant-baptism, it rather proves that Infants were baptised, to any  judgement; because we read not of any Controversy about a complaint against Infant-baptism; as we do concerning the Widows that were neglected 
v) Acts 6.1.  (a business of an inferior 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 show yourself as rude in Ethics, as unskilful in Rhetoric, 
x) Hyperbole.  so much used in Scripture, specially in this case: e. gr. Cities walled up to heaven 
y) Deut. 1.28.  i. e. very high; now because this was spoken by the Spies, who might tell a lie, therefore compare this text with another, viz. Deut. 9.1. City's great, and fenced up to heaven— which certainly were the words of Moses. So Mat. 23.24. Ye 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 itself could not contain the books that should be written. Abundance of more instances, which (if you can read with Latin eyes) you may find in Alsted 
z) Praecognita Theologiae, pag. 157, 158. l. 2. ; But if you can look only with English eyes, see Diodat on John forenamed. I hope you will not give the Wretched Lie to Moses, Christ, John, etc. as you do to Mr. Hall, who by those thousand things, means (according to your usual expression) a certain number for uncertain: i. e very many, or a great number, as 1 Cor. 4.15. Ten thousand Instructers in Christ.  
5. It's well you say, It's an Hard thing for Mr. Hall to prove, that God requires a thousand things of us not commanded; It seems you dare not say it's impossible, only its Hard. And what if he prove an hundred, or half an hundred (which is easy 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, baptising of women, giving them the Supper, baptising several sorts or degrees of men; as Kings, Queens, Lords, Citizens, Husbandmen, etc. Will the Anabaptists therefore do none of them? To this purpose saith Mr. Cook 
a) Font uncovered, p. 28.  and Mr. Baxter 
b) Plain Scripture proof for Infant-baptism, p. 3, 4, 8. ; but I answer, This reasoning is the life of all your Religion; for without it they have nothing to say, as they themselves confess; neither do they know how to delude poor souls, which desire to make the Scriptures their rule, and to walk according to what is written, but by these sleights, etc.  
Reply 1. If your conscience were not feared with an hot iron, you durst not have said, This reasoning is the life of all our Religion. I would have you know, the greatest part of our Religion is grounded on express Scripture.  
2. If you would be understood concerning the point under debate, I do say, and that truly, you have nothing to prove your own way of baptising, but what is by consequence from Scripture. For you have no express command in so many words, Go and baptise visible Saints, or actual Believers: Dip or plunge such in Rivers and Fountains etc. which you endeavour to prove by consequences, (wherein also you are miserably mistaken, as I shall hereafter show). What now? Is not this reasoning the very life of all your Religion? I say the very life of all your Religion wherein you differ from us.  
3. You yourself do as good as confess, (and you must too, whether you will or no) that without this reasoning (viz. by Consequence) you have nothing to say for giving thanks at Meals, praying with or in our families, giving the Lord's Supper to Women, baptising Citizens, etc. As appears in your pages, 12, 13, 14. For where are these in so many words written in the holy Scriptures? Are not you one of those who delude poor souls by these sleights and cunning craftiness of men, whereby you lie in wait to deceive? See Eph. 4.14. But let us hear your answers in particular.   

SECT. 3.  
H. H. Pag. 11. 1. You abuse us much, to say, that this is our reasoning, that we should do nothing but what we have a command for: but we say, command, or example, which last you left out.  
Reply 1. If Mr. Hall abuse you much, you may thank some of your own party; for the objection is so laid by them; which was faithfully laid down by him, and fully answered also by him sundry ways: But as your manner is with Mr. C. and Mr. B. you catch at a piece of his first Answer, and pass by the other two (wherein two leavs are spent) in silence.  
2. Let the word Example be put in, yet it nothing helps you: For 

1. Your Argument is false in Form, consisting of mere Negatives, and so nothing is concluded.  
2. If you mean expressness of command, or example, than the major Proposition is false, you yourself being judge in your own Instances.   If you mean a command or example, by consequence, the Minor is false also, even in your own judgement and practice.   

SECT. 4.  
H. H. page ibid. 2. We do not deny you All consequences, although you are pleased to say we do, and accuse us falsely in that; But we deny your consequences which you bring to make void written commands and examples. That dealing we will by no means allow of, to you, nor to ourselves; for in so doing, we might soon make all the commands of Christ, and examples of the Apostles of none effect by our traditions, brought in by such consequences, and become such as the Lord speaks of, Mar. 7.7. to the 14 Verse.  
Reply 1. Indeed all consequences that make for you, you allow and grant, but ALL consequences that make against you, you disallow and deny (is this fair dealing.) Let the consequence be never so clear from Scripture for Infant-baptism; you are sure to deny the consequence, and it may be the conclusion too. You are not falsely accused here.  
2. It's a false accusation, and a mere calumny, that any of our consequences from Scripture for Infant-baptism make void any written command, or example. The same commands and examples are binding to us in the same condition, we baptise Jews and infidels converted to the faith: so that in allusion to that Scripture, 
c) Rom. 3.31.  (Do we then make void the law through faith, God forbidden, yea we establish the law) I may say, Do we by Infant-baptism make void the commands of Christ, and examples of his holy Apostles? God forbidden, yea we establish them.   

SECT. 5.  
H. H. same pag. It is to be observed, that these men are so taken up with your 1000 unwritten things, that they seldom read the holy Scriptures; if they did, they could not be so ignorant of what is written in them. For 1. What if a Sabbath be not spoken of in the N. T. yet it is spoken of in the old? But Insants' baptism in neither. 2. For giving of thanks at meals, doth not the Scripture plainly speak? Jo. 6.11. Acts 27.35.1 Thes. 5.18.3. For family prayer 1 Thes. 5.17.1 Tim. 2.8. Now let Infant-Baptism be as plainly proved, and we will freely grant it, and confess our sin in disowning it, which must be done thus.  
Reply 1. The men you scoff at, and charge so uncharitably, read the holy Scriptures, oftener than you do, I am sure to better purpose than you read and pervert— Jer. 2.12, 13. p. 8.  
2. You falsely accuse us, in saying, we confess that Infant-Baptism is not where spoken of in the old or N. T. it is spoken of as plainly as giving of thanks at meals, praying in our families, etc. according to the texts alleged by you. Enough is spoken in the Old Testament 
d) Dent. 29.10, 11, 12, 13.  of Infants being in covenant, and of your Church-membership, which is not repealed in the New. A plain ground for Infant-baptism, else the Gentiles should be in a worse condition since Christ's coming then before, and the Church of Christ not in a better condition than before.  
3. M. Hall said, There is no express command in the N. T. of such particulars mentioned, and you yourself grant it for the Sabbath, and you cannot deny it for the other; for though the Scriptures speak PLAINLY of such things, yet not EXPRESSLY, but you cannot distinguish between these.  
4. Let all rational men judge, whether the consequence be not as clear for baptising Infants from Mat. 28.19. because they are a considerable part of any Nation, as for Family prayer from 1 Tim. 2.8.— For you say, If Paul wils us to pray every where, then in his Family: so say I, If Christ bids us to baptise All Nations, than Infants.  
5. It's too much boldness in you to prescribe, how, or with what weapon we must fight. There are more ways to the wood than one, yet you say, It must be done thus. Let's see how, I pray.   

SECT. 6.  
H. H pag. 12. 1. I prove by what is written Jo. 6.11. Christ took loaus, and gave thanks: Now let them prove by what is written Christ took little children and baptised them. If any object Christ took little children, and blessed them: I answer, So he took the loaus and fishes and blessed them: doth it therefore follow that he baptised the loaus and fishes? I hope not.  
Reply 1. You should prove that here is an express command for giving thanks at meals, or else you prove nothing; Now such an express command is neither here, nor any where else in Scripture i. e. Terminis terminantibus as M. Hall saith.  
2. I grant by what is written here, giving thanks at meals is proved, or may be proved (so do we by what is written prove sc. by consequence Infant baptism:) but what is this to your purpose.? I commend you for saying, you prove by what is written, not that it is written in so many words there.  
3. What an unreasonable task do you put upon us, that we must prove by what is written, that Christ took little children and baptised them; when it is written 
e) Jo. 4.2.  Jesus himself baptised not, but his disciples. You would hit us home indeed, if you could tell us that it is written in the holy Scripture that neither Christ nor John, nor the Apostles baptised any little children.  
4. It's your mistake in saying, So he took the loaus and fishes; for when Matthew 
f) Mat. 14. 1●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  speaks of the loaus & fishes, he useth one word; but when Mark speaks of Little children, he useth another word, 
g) Mar. 10.16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. — viz. And having taken them up in his arms, which is proper to babes and Infants, but not to loaus and fishes.  
5. Indeed it doth not follow that Christ baptised the loaus and fishes, or that he baptised little children; For I (nay the Evangelist doth) tell you 
h) Joh. 4.2.  that he baptised not, but it follows, that these little children were baptised already, for imposition of hands was never practised upon any persons (that we read of in the 
i) see Acts. 6.6. and 8.17. and 13.3. and 19.6.1 Tim. 4.14. with 2 Tim. 1.6.  N.T.) but only on such as were baptised, except in order to the working of some miraculous cure: now the Evangelists neither mention any malady that these infants had, nor any cure that Christ wrought on them. Is not the Scripture here as plain for Infant-baptism? As yours is for giving thanks at meals, & c? Nay,  
6. It follows, that little children may be baptised now by u● For shall we refuse to pour water on them, on whom Christ did put his hands? shall not we baptise such persons, whom Christ himself blessed? Shall not we receive into the bosom of the Church such whom Christ 
k) The old Latin hath it Amplixans eos.  embraced in his arms? What though these words do not hold out directly an institution? yet they do hold forth plain principles and grounds for administration of Baptism. 

For first it's Christ's express scope to show, that infants under the Gospel belong to him, or to the Kingdom of Heaven.  
2. They are capable of a spiritual blessing to be conveyed by an external sign, which they understand not, else Christ might only have prayed for them, but he took them up into his arms, laid his hands on them, etc.  
3. It's Christ's will that Infants should be brought to him for a spiritual blessing. It could not be by believing (for children you say, while such, are without actual faith; and besides, the disciples could not hinder that coming) therefore it must be some outward and visible coming, viz. by their parents tender and offer, therefore by an Ordinance, and what Ordinance?   If not baptism. But Mr. Cook 
l) Font uncovered p. 31. etc.  hath fully spoke to this Argument, which together with the rest you have cunningly waved, as being unable to answer.   

SECT. 7.  
H. H. 2. I prove, that Paul 
m) Acts 27.35  took bread, and gave thanks in the midst of them all. Let them prove that P. or any other Disciple of Christ, 
n) 1 Thes. 5. ver. 18.  took little children and baptised them in the midst of so many; or one witness if they can, and we will grant all. 3. I prove by what is written, that it's the will of God, that the Saints should give thanks for all things. They must prove by what is written, that the Saints should baptise all children, before they can speak or understand: and I will grant all.  
Reply 1. Sir, you must not impose upon your adversaries; you are no Lawgiver: yet the Text in the Acts doth not say, In the midst, but presence of them all: It becomes not you to chop and change the Scripture at your pleasure.  
2. Admit there be no great difference, you may as well believe and conclude, the Apostles were not baptised, because there is no one witness to prove it.  
3. Giving thanks at Meals is also proved by these Scriptures, and that by consequence only; and so have our worthies proved Infant-baptism.  
4. Which of us do hold the Baptism of All Children? You fight against the man in the Moon. We are as much against the baptising of the children of Turks, etc. while they remain in Paganism, as you are against the baptising of the children of Christians; though according to the Scripture we can put a difference between them, but you cannot.  
5. Why may not children be baptised before they can speak or understand, as well as circumcised before— Your Argument, or rather Answer, fights against Circumcsion, as well as again Baptism of Infants 
o) Mat. 19.13, 14.15. Mat. 10.13, 14 15, 16. Luk 18.15, 16. .  
6. I have proved that those Infants (mentioned by three Evangelists) on whom Christ laid his hands, were baptised; I hope you will now be as good as your word, grant all.   

SECT. 8.  
H. H. pag. 13. 4. I have proved by what is written, that men ought to pray every where. They must prove that men ought to baptise every where, or any where, if they can. 5. I prove by Scriptures, that the seventh day was the Sabbath of the Lord in the Old Testament; and likewise in the New Testament that the Saints met together on the first day of the week to break bread. Exod. 20.10. with Acts 20.7. Now let them prove by Old or New Testament, if ever any children were baptised; or that the Saints did baptise Infants, if they can.  
Reply 1. As to that of praying every where, I have answered already; and I love not Tautology, as you do.  
2. In speaking of Saints baptising Infants, you smell too strong of the Arminian and Popish cask 
p) Quid obstat, our in casu necessit at is non potest à fideli Aliquo Infans Aquam tingi? Armin. Apol. c. 25. p. 246. ; as if any disciple of Christ, any Saint might baptise in some cases: for in Acts 20.7. you distinguish between the saints or disciples that met together, and Paul that preached to them.  
3. The Jews were to keep the seventh day of the week as the Lord's Sabbath; therefore we Christians are bound by virtue of that command, to keep the first day of the week as God's Sabbath. This consequence you seem to grant to be good, though in the New Testament there be no express command or example for it. I now appeal to all Divinity and Logic, whether this consequence from the command of Circumcision to Baptism, be not every way as strong and good: viz. Infants were circumcised in the Old Testament; Ergo Children are to be baptised in the New. For as the first day of the week comes in room of the seventh day of the week, so Baptism in the room of Circumcision, as the Apostle plainly 
q) Col. 2.10, 11 12.  holds forth 
(r) Spanhem. part. 3 Dub. Evang. 27. p. 94 : else the Apostle should not prove what he intended, viz. Circumcision is not to be retained.  
4. That Children were baptised, I find in some of Paul's writings, 
f) 1 Cor. 10.2.  And were all baptised— All the Jews that passed through the sea, are here expressly said to be baptised; now that there were among them children, ●nd little ones, it's as clear in Pharaohs speech to Moses, Exod 10 24 Let your little ones also go with you: And in the Narrative of Moses, Exod. 12.37. Six hundred thousand men, beside CHILDREN.   

SECT. 9  
H. H. 6. I prove by the Scriptures, that Christians were Magistrates, or men in Authority (which Mr. Bax●● desireth to see in bis first position, p. 3.) for the Eunuch that was baptised, Acts 8.38. was a man of great Authority under Candace Queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, ver. 27: which title in our days is no less than Lord Treasurer. And Sergius Paulus— was the Deputy of the Country; which men we commonly call, Lord Deputies, Acts 13.7, to 13. Now let them prove as plainly, that any children were baptised, etc.  
Reply 1. How you bring in these instances, I know not, unless by head and shoulders (as they say): Mr. Hall doth not question a Christian Magistracy; so far I can see in what you have transcribed from him, unless perhaps it be comprehended in, and concluded from you, etc. p. 11.  
2. You endeavour to prove that which Mr. Baxter denies not, neither desires to see. He saith, How sparing is the New Testament? and instanceth in four cases, all which you have here cunningly concealed, save one: I desire you to see your mistake in the position and p. cited by you.  
3. You disprove the Anabaptists (your fellows) who cried, Where find you a Christian in the New Testament that exercised the place of a King, or Parlamentman, or Justice of the Peace, and the like: You can find a Lord Treasurer, and a Lord Deputy, it seems, but none of the other can you find: but of this in your 31 p.  
4. If the Eunuch was a Lord Treasurer, and Serg●us Paulus a Lord Deputy (which is but your conjecture) yet they were not Christian Magistrates in Mr. Baxters' sense.  
5. But come, I desire to see how you prove by the Scripture that Christians were Magistrates. Was the Eunuch a Christian Magistrate because he believed with all his heart? So (you say) your disciples believe, and yet none of them Lord Treasurers, or Christian Magistrates that I know of; or because he was baptised, than Sergius Paulus was no Lord Deputy, for we read nothing of his being baptised: 
s) And the Eunuch had these Titles before he was baptised.  or because he was a man of great Authority (under the Queen of the Ethiopians), so is every Bassa under the great Turk. Beside the word signifies one that is eminent for birth or wealth 
t) B●zi in Luk. 1.52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And were they Christian Magistrates of whom the Virgin Mary makes mention? He hath put down the mighty— where the same word isused; Or because he had the charge of all her treasure? Then the Treasurer of the great Cham of Tartary is a Christian Magistrate (u). 
A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia.  I deny not, but the Eunuch was a great Officer, while he was a Jewish Proselyte, for it's so in the same verse: He came to Jerusalem to worship, but whether he continued in his office after he was baptised, it's more than I know, or you dare affirm.  
6. Let it be observed (supposing the Eunuch was a Christian Magistrate) you make use of a mere consequence to prove it by: for neither the word Christian, nor Magistrate is in that history. Acts 8.27.   

SECT. 10.  
H. H. Lastly, as for their saying we cannot prove, that men of all ranks and qualities were baptised. I answer, It's a mere Fable, a cunning devised Fable, which they have invented, with many more like it, to turn aside men's ears from the truth, 2 Pet. 1.16.2 Tim. 4.3, 4. For we can easily prove, that God calleth or commandeth all men every where to repent. Acts 27. ver. 30. And those that did repent were baptised, Acts 8.12. as many of the Corinthians, Acts 18.8. And the Corinthians were citizens of Corinth a City. Therefore Citizens were baptised, and that Cavil answered. Now let them prove by the Scripiures, that children of any degree or quality, were baptised before they could speak or understand, and we grant all; if they cannot, let them for shame be silent.  
Reply 1. I am ashamed of your railing, and therefore am silent to that; only I say, The Lord rebuke you.  
2. There's no command to repent, in Acts 27.30. but in Acts 17.30. I might deal with you, as you do with Mr. Baxter; but I spare you, and blame the Printer  
3. Our Worthies have as easily proved Infant-Baptism, 
Foundation, p. 79, 80.  as you do, that men of all ranks and qualities were baptised; which is by consequence, and not in expressed terms: e. g. If all that did repent, and believe the Gospel were baptised, than men of all ranks and qualities; but the former is true, therefore the latter. And the Corinthians were baptised; the Corinthians were Citizens, therefore some Citizens were baptised: Very good, but where is it written, That men of all ranks and qualities were baptised? (Though Mr. Hall spoke only of several sorts, or degrees of men) or is the word Citizens in Acts 18.8. Wipe your eyes, and look a little better; you may as well prove Kings, Queens, Lords, Husbandmen, etc. as Citizens baptised: that is to say, by Consequence. How partial are you in yourself? not allowing the same way to us for proof of Infant-baptism, for which there is as plain and clear Scripture, as for any of your  instances.   

SECT. 11.  
H. H. pag. 14. One thing more I had like to have forgotten, viz. They say, that we cannot prove that women received the Sacrament. I answer, neither do we read the word Sacrament in all the holy Scriptures; therefore how should we prove that women did receive it? But we read that the Disciples met together to break bread, Acts 20.7. And that women were disciples is evident, Acts 9.36. There was a certain disciple named Tabytha, etc. Now let Mr. Baxter, or any, bring one Scripture that saith, There was a disciple in any place, or of any name, that was a little Babe, and they say well. Again, we have plain words for it, That all the body do partake of that one bread, 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. Now that women are of the body of Christ, I think none dare deny, Gal. 3.27, 28, 29.  
Reply 1. It seems you have a treacherous memory: but a Liar (as the proverb is) had need of a good memory. You speak here the same language to Mr. Hall, as you did to Mr. Cook, 
v) Pag. 6.  and it may receive the same answer.  
2. Further, you lisp in the language of Ashdod. The Socinians say as you do; viz. The word Sacrament is a barbarous word, and no where to be found in holy Scripture, What then? It's a true and common saying of our Divines; The thing (though not the name) is in Scripture, as the word Trinity, etc.  
3. But what vain jangling is this? Mr. Hall did not speak of women's receiving the Sacrament, but of our giving them the Supper, as it's recited by yourself, p. 10.  
4. It is not evident by expressness of Scripture, but by Consequence only, that women were disciples, or that women received the Lord's Supper. It is said indeed expressly that Tabytha was a Disciple, and that Tabytha was a woman, and therefore it follows, that a woman was a disciple, or (if you will) women were disciples; neither of these consequences or conclusions are expressly in Scripture. Nay, you do not prove, that women received the Lord's Supper but by consequences— because the disciples came together to break bread, and by consequent to receive the Lord's Supper; which none of us deny. And is it not as evident, that Infants ought to be baptised, because they are disciples.  
5. In the language of Christ, who was best able to express his own sense: to belong to Christ, is to be a disciple of Christ: compare Mat. 10.42, with Mar. 9.41. and Mat. 18.5. And were not some of them Infants on whom the false teachers would have laid the yoke of Circumcision, who are expressly called disciples, Acts 15.10. And is it not said expressly, that the Disciples, 
Acts 21 4, 5.  with the wives and children, brought Paul on his way?— Now as the affections and lusts are flesh, Gal. 5.24. because it's said, the flesh, with its affections and lusts: So here, wives and children are disciples, because it's said; The disciples, with their wives and children— Do we now say something?  
6. Answer shall be returned to 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. when I come to the page 66.67. in the mean time I say, that some Infants are of the body of Christ, and I think you dare not deny it: For Christ is the Saviour of the body, 
Page 6.  Eph. 5.23. And you say that Infants dying in their infancy, are saved by virtue of Christ's death.—   

SECT. 12.  
Hen. Hag. same page. Thus having discovered the vanity of all their unreasonable reasonings; I commit it even to our enemies to judge between us in these things, who hath the Scripture most on their side, they or we. And thus notwithstanding all their cunning craftiness, it is evident, they have not one Scripture for Infant-baptism, and therefore not of God, etc.  
Reply 1. What a pitiful contradiction is here? viz. That we have not one Scripture for Infant-baptisme; and yet you would have us judge, who hath most Scripture on their side: For suppose you have the most, doth not that imply that we have some Scriptures on our side? Sure none and some are contradictions?  
2. If you mean we have no Scripture by consequence, that is palpably false; unless all this while you have answered not one Scripture for Infant-baptisme. If you mean express Scripture, than you have not one Scripture for Anabaptism. Now let all rational men judge, whether you have not discovered the vanity of your unreasonable reasoning.   

SECT. 13.  
Hen. Hag. p. 15, 16, 17. We cannot find Infant-baptism in all the holy Scriptures; Therefore to the fountain, whence it flows that all men may see, that it comes not from the fountain of living waters, which is the holy Scriptures.  
Reply. I wonder you can find a Font for Infant-baptism in Jer. 2.12, 13. pag. 8. and yet cannot find Infant-baptism in all the holy Scriptures. Who so blind as he that will not see?  
2. You told us even now, p. 9 That the baptising of Believers in Rivers and Fountains, etc. was the fountain of living waters (or else your comparison is lame): Now, that the holy Scripture is the fountain of living waters. Either there are two fountains of living waters, or else you miserably contradict and confound yourself.   

SECT. 14.  
H. H. ibid. Now that Christ never commanded, nor his Apostles never practised the baptising of Infants, even your own Poets confess; as Paul saith in another case, Acts 17. ver. 28.  
Reply 1. I desire the Reader to peruse the Authors with their testimonies, as they are cited by Mr. Haggar, because they are too many to transcribe. Mr. Hagg. hath empanelled a July of 22, but I hope he will do me that favour, nay that justice, to challenge some of them, and to consider (if not to demur) on the Verdict of the rest.  
1. Erasmus is one of yours, as well as ours: If an Anabaptist be a Papist, or a Protestant, or a Neuter, or both. For in point of an Oath, and Lawsuits 
y) S●e B●z● in Mat. 5.34.  he seems not 
z) Id in Rom. 5 14.  to descent from the opinion of the Anabaptists, and in point of sin he is a Pelagian, or Papist, * thinking it proceeds rather from example, then from nature, yet he seems to be a Protestant. For he said that was heresy in Luther which was good divinity in Austin; and being promised a fat Bishopric if he would write against Luther, he answered (t) Luther was too great for him to write against; 
*) Melch Adam. de vita Lutheri p. 115.  nay so great, that he professed, he learned more out of one little leaf of Luther, then out of Aquina's his volumes. But how sleight and unsound he was about the deity of Christ Jesus, specially in Phil. 2.6. Tit. 2.13. They that read him cannot but stand and wonder. I speak not this to smut his reputation, but to show your vanity, scornfully calling him one of our own Poets.  
2. Bishop Rossensis, and Doctor Eck, Ludovicus vives etc. are (or were) notorious Papist●. In calling these our own Poets, I may better say to you, than you do to 
a) Foundat. p. 10.  M. Hall p. 10. A WRETCHED LIE, but I love not bitterly to retort.  
3. The rest (who are Orthodox) say no more than what (you say that (that your Adversaries generally confess, viz. There is no command, nor Example, literally, Syllabically in express terms for Infant-baptism, which is no advantage to your cause, nor disadvantage to ours; no more than there is for women's receiving the Lords Supper, Family prayer, etc. before spoken to.  
4. You have dealt with some of their writings, as Satan did with the Scripture, leaving out 
b) Mal. 4.6. with Psal 91.11.  that which makes against you, as he did, what might make against him; e. gr. Calvin bringing in that objection, that it's no where found, that any one Infant was baptised by the hand of the Apostles, answers 
c) Calv. Inst. l 4. c. 16. sect. 8.  That though the Evangelists do not expressly mention it, yet infants are not excluded, where mention is made of baptising whole Families, Acts 16.15.32, 33.— Ergo. Who but a mad man would conclude, that they were not baptised? If such Arguments were valid, women in like manner should be debarred from the Lords Supper, to which we do not READ, that they were admitted in the time of the Apostles; yet considering the scope and nature of those Ordinances, it is evident, that as women are to receive the Lords Supper: So Infants aswell as grown persons are to be baptised. Eo itaque privari nequeant quin Dei Authoris voluntati fraus manifesta fiat. i e. They therefore cannot be deprived of it, but MANIFEST FRAUD; (or affront) is made to the will of God, the Author. Now M. Haggar do you and your party make a wise use of this Testimony: you cannot but know, that Calvin in the chap. forecited, and elsewhere 
d) Inst. Advers. Anabap. Articl. 1.  proveth Infant Baptism from many Scripture grounds.  
Again though Beza saith, as you cite him, yet a little after 
e) Beza in Mat. 3.11.  he gives the reason, why he translates (not in water bu●) with water (as we do, and Luk. 3.16. with out the Preposition In) lest any should think there is some force in thi● particle, as they do, who are persuaded, children are not rightly baptised, except they be altogether dipped in the w●ter.  
Where the Reader may observe, that though John did baptise such as did confess their sins, etc. Yet that makes nothing against Infant-Baptism: And again more plainly 
f) Beza in mar. ●. 4.  in Mark. (though the place be not named by you) where he saith, seeing the Sacraments are seals; Doctrine or instruction is to go before sealing; He adds (which you have left out) There is no reason that the Anabaptists should catch at this against Infant-baptism, for John had to do with grown persons, and even then, when Infants are baptised, the word is not severed from the sign in the Church of God. The Reader by this taste may guess how M. Haggar hath dealt with the rest, whom for brevity sake I pass by, ex ungua Leonem.  
So that now setting aside those that were challenged of Mr. Haggars Grand-Jury of 22, there are not left so many as will make a petty Jury of 12. unless you allow some of them to have three votes a piece; as Luther, and Bucer, and some four, as Zuinglius, which is not reasonable.   

SECT. 15.  
H. H. pag. 17. Thus much out of those teachers own writings, which observe and use children's baptism; from whence the Reader may take notice of the unsoundness of your principles, and what little ground. 

1. There is for it in the word of God, as they themselves confess.  
2. Therefore what great cause have we to search the Scriptures for better information, let the sober minded judge.    
Reply 1. I verily believe you never read the writings of those Teachers.  
2. I observe you mince the matter here, and dare not call them 
g) as p. 15.  our Poets, but those Teachers, etc.  
3. The Judicious Reader cannot infer from thence the unsoundness of your principles, by any reasonable reasoning.  
4. A little before (yea often you said) we have no ground in the word of God for infant-baptism; you now grant we have a little, you begin to yield a little ground; well done M. Haggar.   

SECT. 16.  
H. H. pag. 18. Moreover I shall further prove out of their own writings, that infant-baptism is a ceremony, and Ordinance of man brought into the Church by Teachers after the Apostles times, and instituted and commanded by Councils, Popes, and Emperors.  
Reply 1. Calvin in the place alleged by you 
h) Calv. inst. l. 4. c. 16. sect. 8.  saith, that whereas the Anabaptists spread it among the simple vulgar, that Infant-baptism was not known (or practised) till very many years after Christ's Resurrection; in that 
i) Foedissimè● mentiuntur.  they lie most filthily, for there is not one ancient writer, that doth not for CERTAIN refer the original of it to the Apostles times. Sure your evidence must be clear, to overthrow the confident Testimony of this pious, and learned man, and to prove, it was brought into the Church after the Apostles times.  
2. You empanel here another Jury of 21. I desire again (for brevity sake) that the Reader would peruse them in your book, I shall take (if you will not allow) the liberty in challenging, as before.  
First. Erasmus is again challenged on the former account. Though his words are, They are not to be condemned that doubt, whether the baptism of Infants were ordained by the Apostles; which words evidently imply, that it was their weakness to doubt, and that (it seems) he had other thoughts of those, who did not only doubt of it but did refuse and oppose it.  
2. Are you not ashamed to call Pope Gregory the fourth Ecchius, Cassander, etc. Our own Poets (as p. 20?) (If this be not Poetical licentiousness I know not what is.) Nay from that Pope etc. to conclude, it is a Tradition of the Father's according to our own confession?  
3. You begin with Origen 
k Hom 8. in Levit.  who calleth baptism of children a ceremony and tradition of the Church. It's your unhappiness to stumble in the threshold: you had perhaps a mind to favour your dear Mother the Church of Rome. For you might as well prove out of her 

1. The obscurity of the Scriptures.  
2. The Canonicalness of the History of Susanna.  
3. Auricular confession.  
4. Purgatory, etc. Certainly 
l vide censuram quorundam Scriptorum veterum, à Rob. Coco. p. 71. m P●oinde Homilias illas non esse magnae Authoritatis. Bellarm. de verb. Dei. l. 4. c. 11.  those Homilies are bastard writings.   And undoubtedly there is more ingenuity in your dear brother Bellarmine (then in you) who denies them to be Cyrils (as some were of opinion) and dares not affirm them to be origen's, but leavs it with a Nescio cujus (m) who every where destroys the letter, and frames out of his head mystical senses, and so concludes, wherefore those Homilies are of no great Authority.  
Now that Origen calls the Baptism of Infants a Tradition of the Church 
* in Epist. ad Rom. l. 5.  so he may call it, in the sense of the Apostle: 2 Thes. 2.15.— Hold the Traditions which ye have been taught, &c— with 1 Cor. 15.3. I delivered to you that which I received, etc. where we see, that Tradition signifies a doctrine delivered— And it is well known that the greatest points of faith are called by the name of traditions in the language of the ancients.  
4. Augustine 
n De Genesi adliteram. l. 1● c. 23.  you say, calleth it a common custom of the Church; true, but he saith in the very same place, that it (viz. Infant-baptism) is in no sort to be contemned, or accounted superfluous (as it is by you) which words you have cunningly left out. 2. What hurt is there in so calling it? So is the observation of the first day of the week, and imposition of hands on Church officers called a custom of the Church, and yet you cannot deny, but that they are grounded on Scripture. 3. To kill two birds (as they say) with one stone, Austin was not only present at that counsel, called Milevitanum, but (as it is said) Precedent also; who returning answer to those that desired divine authority for infant-baptism, first produceth that rule 
o) Quod universa tonet Ecclesia, nec consiliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi autbo i●ate Apostolicum traditum, vertissimè creditur, Aug de bapt. contra donat. l. 4. c. 23.  viz. That which the whole Church holdeth, and was not ordained by any Counsels, but hath ever been held, that is rightly believed to be an Apostolical Authority. This, that great and famous light of the Christian world in his days, took to be sufficient; yet for fuller satisfaction, he proceeds to dispute for it from the holy Scriptures; where we see, what he means by the custom of the Church, and by what Authority, that Council did appoint the baptism of Infants  
5. Luther you bring in, asserting that Infant baptism was established by Pope Innocent. Indeed you speak somewhat warily, for some of your party would bear us in hand, that Pope Innocent was the first that brought in Infant-baptism, which is contrary to the stream of Ancient Ecclesiastical History 
p See Doctor Holmes Animad. on M. Tombs exercit. p. 191. etc.  and neither you, nor they tell us which Pope Innocent it was. But whoever he was, it's well known that Infant baptism was practised many hundred years before this Pope was born. Nor is the practice of it to be counted, or called Antichristian superstition, man's tradition (as you do, p. 3) because a Pope decreed the establishment, or confirmation of it, more than this doctrine. 
q) Acts 16.16, 17, 18.  These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation, because it was preached and avouched by the Devil.  
6. For Cyprian you are very confident, that Infant-baptism began in the year 248, and that by Fidus a Priest, opposed by Cyprian and his Council, who ordained that young Children should be timely brought thereto. But 

1. who this Fidus was, is not apparent out of Cyprian 
r) Epist. lib. 3. Ep. 8. , who (I am sure) doth not call him by the scornful name of Priest, but, most dear brother, and that three times in that Epistle.  
2. The question by Fidus was not, Whether Infants should be baptised at all, but whether before the eighth day, (as appears by your own expressions, p. 19) Now this clearly holds forth, that Infant-baptism was used and practised long before.  
3. Neither did Cyprian decree simply the practice of it, but only by his decree confirmed the practice of it.  
4. What a gross mistake is this about the time When, it began?   For how could it begin in Cyprians time? when the F●●●man of your Jury tells us it was used in origen's t●●e, which must needs be 20 years at least before. You deserve the Whetstone for abusing Cyprian and your Reader so grossly. For what a bundle of lies have we here together? 

1. Infant-baptism began in the year of our Lord 248.  
2. Brought in by Fidus a Priest.  
3. That Cyprian and 66 Bishops and Elders ordained it;   And 4. by our own confessions, it's an ordinance and tradition of man, nay Will-worship and Idolatry? All palpably false.  
7. Let it be observed, that your Jurymen are not agreed on the Verdict concerning the time that Infant-baptism was brought into the Church. Origen speaks in effect, It must be within 200 years after Christ, (for he died in the year of Christ 220) you speak for Cyprian Anno 248. Cassander saith 300 years after the Apostles. Luther, in Pope Innocents' time— as you allege him, when yet he saith it was Established (not begun) in that Pope's time, page 19  
8. The Carthaginian Council is brought in p. 19 We will that Children be baptised: Thus (say you) we see it is, We WILL, therefore Will-worship. But 1. mark the ground of Baptism there, because Children are within the Covenant, which you cannot endure to hear of. 2. What a ridiculous Inference do you make? me thinks you shame yourself and all your friends. You tell us, that (on a supposal) you 
s) Found p. 29.  Will confess your error, or justify your practice: If I should infer— Thus we see it is, I will— therefore Will-worship in Mr. Haggar, 
Risum tenea●●s amiei!  I should be justly laughed at. So Josh. 24.15. We will serve the Lord, therefore Will-worship, etc.  
9 I am loath to spend any more time in answering the particulars here alleged; what hath been replied to, may be satisfactory to any judicious Reader: I shall conclude with this, That you who are an enemy to Humane Learning, are not guilty of much learning, or else guilty of much dissembling: I am persuaded of the former, for these quotations are but as stolen waters; you never read these Authors, whose testimonies are alleged by you: For what Scholar would have written Bullinger: 
s) As p. 19 numb. 14.  in ex Augustino? unless you had a mind to make more sport, and to play in and out? Or that Anselm, Legate of the Church of Rome 
t) Ibid. num. 17  was present with Austin at the Miletan Council? I have read of Milevitan, but never of the Miletan Council till now. And how could Austin and Anselm be present at that Council? when Austin flourished in the year of our Lord 430, and Anselm in the year 1080, as he that can but read English may see 
u) Clarks marrow of Ecclesiastical History, p 162. & 188. . Or what learned man can tell what Tuicensi (pag. 20. numb. 19) should be, except perhaps Tuitiensis? or Bilander (n. 21) for Bibliander, etc. If these and the like were the Printers faults, why have we them not (with most of your book) among the Erratas.  
2. You do not set down these Authors (whom you bring) in the right order, according to the Centuries wherein they lived.  
3. You repeat one and the self same Author twice, and make a needless distinction to increase the number of your Jurers; as Cassander, p. 18. numb. 7, & 10. 4. You set them together by the ears, and make them contradict one another, as is obvious to any judicious eye, that will compare 
v) Pag. 18, 19  your Origen, Cassander, and Cyprian together. Thus with a flourish of humane learning, you would blear the eyes of the world: but especially your silly Proselytes. If you are guilty of dissembling your learning, it may be well suspected that you are a Wolf in a Sheep's skin, and the rather because you say, p. 39 We know you are Scholars.   

SECT. 17.  
Hen. Hag. p. 20. Thus out of the mouths of your own Poets you have it, and by them confessed, That baptising of babes is will-worship, etc.  
Reply 1. I will forbear to say to you, (as you to Mr. Hall, p. 10.) A wretched lie: But I dare say, that not any one of the aforesaid Authors, do so much as mention will-worship. This is your own absurd, and ridiculous inference, 
* Page 19  you rack the holy Scriptures; as Jer. 2.12, 13. p. 8. no marvel therefore men's writings.  
2. You said, p. 19 That it is Will-worship and Idolatry, appeareth by their own confessions, as followeth. But as no mention is made of will-worship, much less of Idolatry, lest of all, that we confess it. For shame give over lying; and if you love your soul, think seriously of that Scripture which is brought by you, p. 2. All liars shall have their part in that Lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death, Rev. 21.8.  
3. Lay aside those that are challenged, neither have you here a sufficient number to make a Jury, unless on the former account; if there be, yet they are not agreed upon the Verdict.   

SECT. 18.  
H. H. Thus having discovered the foundation of the Font; and having shown whence, and when, and by whom Infant-Baptism came; I leave it to the view of all: Only for better satisfaction, the book is suddenly to be reprinted— and is entitled as followeth: A very plain and well-grounded Treatise concerning Baptism, etc.—  
Reply 1. How many untruths are here tacked together? You have neither shown whence, nor when, nor by whom Infant-baptisme came in.  
2. You have discovered your own vanity, folly, want of ingenuity, peity, and learning, to the view of all.  
3. Were we with Child, you would make us long after your Treatise; else you would not give such timely advertisement of it, unless it were to spare the labour in a Diurnal. But either it is stifled in the womb; or will come forth with sharp teeth (as 
x) Speeds History of Great Brit. p. 882.  Richard the third was born) for it is now four years since you hinted the sudden reprinting of it, by whom to be sold, where, and what title: But for my part I have neither seen nor heard the printing of it, much less the Reprinting.    

CHAP. VI Of Constituting Churches, and Church-members.  

SECT. 1.  
H. H. p. 23. In this our stating the Question, you say divers things must be animadverted, that we deceive not ourselves and others, through darkening the truth by words without knowledge: For we deny that Churches are constituted by baptising, or sprinkling of Infants.  
I Answer; It's to be observed, that Mr. Cook can say nothing, nor give any answer in the least to our Writing, as we wrote them; and therefore he cunningly saith, That in stating the Question, many things must be animadverted, or changed in the mind; and then he states the Question according to his own mind, etc.  
Reply 1. I desire the Reader to peruse the Narrative of Mr. Hag. p. 21, 22. concerning an offer of reasoning with some Ministers at Stafford about Baptising— which Narrative is too long to transcribe. But this I say, it may be justly suspected to be untrue, because of Mr. Haggar's misrepresenting Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook in other particulars, as hereafter shall be made evident. And whereas he saith (not without abuse of Scripture) 
y) Psal 53.5.  They were in great fear, where no fear was, as appears by Mr. Cook's Epistle. Truly no such thing pppeareth to my best observation, but rather the contrary, as appeareth by his eighth Reason 
z) See Mr. Cook's Epistle before his Font Uncovered.  which together with the other seven, you might have done well to have answered, if you could.  
2 Do not abuse Mr. Cook, and triumph before the victory; It's rather to be observed, that you can say nothing to Mr. Cooks Answer in three particulars (at the least) there mentioned, or else you would not have passed them by in silence.  
3. All orderly reasoning requires the right stating of the Question at first; yet our Writings are fully answered, though as you wrote them, they needed clearing. For I am persuaded you know not what is meant by Constituting Churches, which you stick to, as if it were done by Baptism. And if you were put to define, or describe [Constitution] perhaps you would give us as wise an account thereof, as you do of the word [Animadverted], which you interpret, changed in mind,: whereas the word signifies, considered, by serious turning the mind to a thing: e. gr. 
a) Haggai 1.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Consider your ways: i e. Set your hearts on, or turn your minds to— You may then be as grossly mistaken in the word Constituted, as you are in the word Animadverted; and argue for a word, the meaning whereof you know not. It had been well therefore, if you had cleared your own meaning, (if you could) seeing you are so offended with that book, which endeavours to clear the state of the question.   

SECT. 2.  
H. H. same pag. First, if you deny the Churches are constituted by baptising, you differ from the rest of your brethren and forefathers; who generally with one consent (till within these ten or twelve years) did conclude, that children were made members of Christ, etc. in Baptism, (witness the old Catechism) than they were not so before.  
Reply 1. Since you have not proved, that our brethren and forefathers said, That Baptism did Constitute a Church, or give it its being and form (which is the usual and proper signification of the word) you have not showed any difference between Mr. Cook and them.  
2. Though we are not bound to own every expression in those Writings (which for the main are sound) yet that phrase, of being made a member of Christ, may admit a good Construction, according to that good rule 
b) Bains help to true happiness. ; Things are said to be, or made; when they are declared, manifested, and acknowledged so to be: e. gr. 
c) Joh. 1.12. with 1 Joh. 3.1  To be the sons of God, is expounded, to be called the sons of God. And the Jews charged Christ 
d) Joh. 19.7.  that he made himself the Son of God: i. e. he affirmed, and declared himself. And look as Baptism is said to save, 1 Pet. 3.21. not that it constitutes our salvation, but signifies, and seal● it; so in Baptism we may be said to be made members of Christ: i. e. our membership is signified, etc. thereby, and not constituted.  
3. It doth not follow, that if Children are made members of Christ, etc. then they were not before, no more than this: 
e) Acts 2.36.  God made Christ Lord after his Resurrection— therefore he was not so before: or that a man is in marriage made such a woman's husband; therefore he was not so before, though precontracted.   

SECT. 3.  
H. H. Now if you disown the Common-praier-book, and that Catechism, you may disown your Baptism which you had by it, and be baptised again as we are.  
Reply 1. I thank you for this. Let the Reader, or any rational man judge, whether you do not here grant, that we were once baptised. Now it is a received truth, that Baptism is but once to be administered to one and the same person, as the Jews were but once Circumcised, and we are born but once. Now baptism is a sign of our new-birth 
e) Tit. 3, 5. . That place 
f) Acts 19.5.  which only seems to favour you, doth not befriend you; for it's not said, They were rebaptized, or baptised Again. Nay it's clear those words are the words of Paul, not of Luke penning that story, as appears by the 
g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. see B●za in loc. and so excellently Cham. t. 4. l. 5. c. 13. n. 44.  particles in the 4. and 5. verses; showing plainly, that they who were baptised of John, were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, or else John's Baptism and Christ's differ; which is Popery.  
2. I appeal to any man, whether you may not, (nay must) own the name Anabaptist (which so oft in your book you seem to disown); For you ingeniously acknowledge that you are baptised again: And so much doth the word Anabaptist signify. Thus out of your own mouth you are condemned; Do not then condemn them for nick naming you, who call you, and the men of your persuasion ANABAPTISTS.  
3. We have no reason to disown our Baptism, because of some imaginary, nay real corruptions in the Administration, no more than the Jews were to renounce their Circumcision, because of such corruptions, which indeed do not nullify the Ordinance. Shall a Decree in Chancery be rejected, because the present Officer is rotten and corrupt? Is a Writ or Patent naught and void, because signed and sealed by naughty men? Was Circumcision ever the worse because jacob's sons had abused it, to overreach 
h) Gen. 34.  the Shechemites? No more is our Baptism on the former supposal.   

SECT. 4.  
H. H. pag. 24. 2. I suppose you will not be so absurd, as to own any unbaptized person for a Church-member, (that hath an opportunity to be baptised) neither do I think any of you will have communion with any such in the Lord's Supper, or other Ordinances.  
Reply 1. That we will not hold communion with such persons in the Lord's Supper, you think right; but in that you add, or in other Ordinances, you think amiss. For may we not hold communion with such in hearing the Word preached? I trow, yes 
i) 1 Cor. 14.24, 25. ; the Apostle seems to hold it out: and I do not find that the Corinthians gave over hearing or preaching, because of the presence of an Infidel. Now hearing the Word is an Ordinance without doubt, and an act of communion also in some sense. 
k) Rh●t●●f. of Presbyr. c. 9 p. 269, etc.   
2. You sufficiently answer yourself: For if those that cannot be baptised through want of opportunity, though they earnestly desire it, and have right (as your Answer implies) ought to be taken for Church-members; notwithstanding the want of Baptism (as in the case of the penitent Thief) then surely Baptism doth not constitute Churches and Church-members: The effect cannot be, where the cause is wanting.  
3. It's very true, profane sleighters, and proud rejecters of Baptism, are justly reputed not Church-members; not because Baptism constitutes Church-members, but because obstinate slighting and rejecting the Sign and Seal of Church-membership, is a slighting and rejecting the thing signified, and sealed: e. g. The rejecting of Circumcision when it might be had, 
l) Gen 17.14.  was a breaking of the Covenant; though Circumcision did not constitute the Covenant.   

SECT. 5.  
H. H. 3. No people in Scripture since the Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, were ever called a Church of Christ, without Baptism: Prove it if you can, etc.  
Reply 1. What say you to Acts 7.38.— A Church in the Wilderness? where Stephen calls the Israelites in the Wilderness a Church, which was after Christ's Resurrection and Ascension; though I confess, the people themselves were long before Christ's Incarnation. But to put it out of doubt, were not those people the Church of Christ with whom Barnabas and Saul assembled themselves 
m) Acts 11.26  in Antioch? Yes sure; for the Church (you say) consists of Disciples; and it's said, the Disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. There is a Church of Christ without Baptism; for there is no express mention made of Baptism there, as was noted before: Nay, are not the seven Candlesticks called by Christ, the seven 
n) Rev. 1 20. etc. 2. etc. 3.  Churches, and by yourself acknowledged to be Churches, pag. 28. and yet there is not one word of their Baptism in those two Chapters mentioned.  
2. What though we read not in Scripture of a people called a Church after Christ's Ascension without working of miracles? Will it follow therefore that Churches are constituted by working of miracles? And that it is no true Church that wants miracles?  
Many things may be in a Church (and that according to the will of Christ) that yet do not constitute a Church: We read not of any Churches in Scripture without afflictions, persecutions, and temptations (in some kind or other) yet afflictions, persecutions, and temptations do not constitute Churches, and Church-members. Armies appear not in the field without their Colours; yet Colours do not constitute an Army. Markets and Fairs are not kept by a people (except perhaps some Quakers) without their  on them; yet  (or putting them on) do not constitute Markets and Fairs.  
3. That place cited by you 
o) Act. 2.41▪ 47.  doth not expressly speak of Addition by Baptism, it only shows the number, not your manner of your being added (to the Church)   

SECT. 6.  
H. H. 4. Yourself saith, that faith, and interest in Christ, constitute a Christian; very well then: But why do you baptise such as cannot believe in Christ, nor yet make out their interest in the Covenant of grace?— They then that do not, cannot do so (as Infants) are not constituted Christians. What they are to God is nothing to you or me, secret things belong to the lord Deut. 29.  
Reply 1. You mis-cite Mr. Cook, who saith 
p) Font uncovered p. 1●.  Faith, OR interest in Christ, or the Covenant of grace constitutes etc. Not, faith and interest in Christ. There is a broad difference between a disjunctive, and copulative proposition. If one should say you are an Anabaptist, or a Romish Priest, or a Jesuit, you would acknowledge this proposition true: but if one should say you are an Anabaptist, and a Romish Priest, and a Jesuit, it may be you would say its false, though others think it true. Beside you leave out those words, viz. or Covenant of grace. It's plain, you had a design here to deceive. For in your p. 22, 23. you truly set down the words, when you had no purpose to answer them, but here you chop and change them all, lest the words should speak for themselves, as they do apparently. You confound those things Mr. Cook doth distinguish, who holds; that either professed faith, or interest in Christ and the Covenant, makes one a Christian; which last is the case of Infants, according to God's gracious 
q) Gen. 17.7. Luk. 18.16. Acts 2.39. 1 Cor. 7.14.  grant and declaration.  
In a word. They who have true faith, have interest in Christ and in the Covenant of grace; yet all who have interest in Christ, and the Covenant of grace, have not actual faith.  
2 Now all may see the lameness of your Argument, viz. Infants have no interest in Christ, because they cannot make it out, which makes as much against Circumcision as against Infant-baptism, at least is as absurd, as if an Infant had no interest in that which is conveyed to him by a deed of gift, because (forsooth) he cannot make it out; and in brief, it's as false as that you boldly affirm without any proof. viz. All our Infants are baptised into the Church of England, (unless it be taken with a grain of salt.)  
3. By your saying Very well— (if any sense can be made of your words) you grant that faith, and interest in Christ, constitutes a Christian. Hold you to this, and there's an end of this controversy. viz. That Baptism doth not constitute a Christian. For Baptism is neither faith nor interest in Christ; both which may be without Baptism, (as you confess in the penitent Thief) and Baptism may be without either; as in Simon Magus, and all hypocrites.  
4. For your Query. If by making out, etc. you mean an infallible discovery of saving Faith, and real interest in Christ (from communion with him) we who are ignorant of men's hearts, expect no such making out. But if you mean such a discovery of your interest in the Covenant of grace, as hath been always accounted sufficient for external Church-membership, it's sufficiently made out in your Book, yea, and in that very Chapter 
r) Deut. 29.10, 11, 12.  you cite, and elsewhere. In a word, God's promise, and the parents Faith are not such secret things, as not belonging to you and me: but things clearly revealed in God's Word, as the  Scriptures show.   

SECT. 7.  
H. H. Again you say, that joint and orderly profession of Faith, and interest in the Covenant, doth constitute a Church. Very well, and is not Repentance and Baptism an orderly profession of the Faith. Doth not the Apostle s●●, 
s) Acts 2.38.  Repent and be baptised? And is not putting on Christ, profession? etc. Gal. 3.27.  
Reply 1. Here again is another instance in wronging Mr. Cook; for you have lest out these words, 
Font uncovered, p. 1.  viz. (s) or God's owning a people to be his in Covenant. Now though adult Jews and Gentiles might and ought to make profession of their Faith and Interest in the Covenant for themselves, and theirs also (according to the Tenor of the Covenant) yet Infants (it's granted) could not make such a profession for themselves— But God's owning them for his people is an Authentical declaration of their interest in the Covenant, according to the forenamed, and other places of Scripture.  
2. If Repentance and Baptism be an orderly profession of Faith, than not Baptism alone; and if so, Then Baptism doth not constitute a Christian. For the cause must not be partial, but total, which completes the effect.  
3. Repentance and Baptism are not of the like necessity, though you conjoin them: Without Repentance adult people cannot be saved; no such thing can be truly said of Baptism. If you take them severally, that Repentance is a sufficient profession in some, and Baptism in others, than Infants that cannot repent may make a sufficient profession of Christ.  
4. Though the use of and submission to Baptism is a part of Christian profession, yet not exclusively to other duties; as the use of the Word, Prayer, Lord's Supper, etc. which yet do not constitute a Church-member; but presuppose Church-membership, only let it be remembered, That as the professed Repentance of the wicked Jews and Gentiles is a profession of their interest in the Covenant, and a declaration of their right to Baptism (which is a sign of Church-membership) So God's owning Believers Infants, is no less a declaration of their right to Baptism (wherein Church-membership is sealed).  
5. You need not prove that Baptism is a part of our profession of Christ, we grant it is an Ordinance of Christ; in the observation of which (among others) Christ is professed; but that it is the whole, or only, or first profession of Christ, whereby a Christian is constituted, is not yet proved by you.  
6. The Apostle doth not say, Gal. 3.27.— have put on Christ in or by Baptism; that is your Gloss put on the Apostles text. The Galathians might and did put on Christ other ways; Though your Baptism might be a sign of it, and that in part only. And indeed the Apostles meaning is not, that baptism is properly and adequately, but Sacramentally and significatively a putting on of Christ. Because 1. else, all that are truly baptised; should in that very act truly put on Christ; but that did not Simon Magus, nor any Hypocrite now. 2. The Apostle in exhorting baptised Saints to put 
t) Rom. 13.14.  on Christ, (which is to be done daily) should exhort them to be baptised daily (which is absurd). 3. We should (with the Papists) hold, that the Sacraments of the N. T. do (by the work done) confer grace.   

SECT. 8.  
H. H. Consider it again; Doth not a man that puts on a garment profess to wear it to all spectators, whilst it is upon him? So they that put on Christ, profess to own him before all men. And Mr. Baxter himself calls it, A listing engaging Ordinance; I hope you will not deny his Doctrine to be Orthodox, though you cavil with the Scriptures. Now seeing by Baptism we put on and profess Christ; it's evident out of your own mouth, that it constitutes a Church; or else you must say, They are constituted before they put on Christ.  
Reply 1. If putting on Christ be a profession— Then some Infants may profess Christ and so be baptised: For if they be saved by Christ (as you say), surely they put on Christ as a garment; i e. passively; and so Beza renders it 
u) Christo induti fuis●is, Bein Gal. 3.27.  have been clothed with Christ, Now by your comparison, little children may profess by wearing those garments (to all spectators) wherewith they are dressed by their mothers, or nurses; unless a little child is not a man, contrary to Gen. 4.1. as before.  
2. What an evil surmise is this? That we will own Mr. Baxter's Doctrine, though we cavil with the Scriptures. For cavilling with, and wresting the Scripture, I leave them to you, who are old-excellent that way. Mr. Baxter I acknowledge to be a pious and learned Minister, yet I own his Doctrine here and elsewhere no further than it is agreeable to Scripture, and I believe Mr. Baxter would not have it otherwise.  
3. It's not evident either out of Mr. Cook's mouth or yours, that baptism doth constitute a Church, or Church-member. The eleven Apostles did put on Christ, and yet we read not one word of their being baptised.   

SECT. 9  
H. H. p. 25. You say, that Baptism is a sign or pledge of people's admission into the Church. Well: Then it follows, that they are not in before to any man's sight; and if not in the Church, much less constituted and established Church-members.  
Reply. 1. That follows not: e. g. The Sheep which a man hath bought may be known to be his, before he set on them his mark, which may further signify their relation to him, and his owning of them, but that doth not constitute his right to them. A Servant may be truly hired, before he receive an earnest; which yet doth not constitute him such a man's servant. Abraham was in Covenant with God, and known to be so before he was circumcised. The Lord's Supper is a sign and pledge of people's admission into the Church, and yet were in it before; which sufficiently declares the vanity of your Argument.  
2. In that you take Constituted for Established, it appears pears you neither know what is meant by Constitution, (in its proper signification) nor indeed what you yourself means. I thought at fi●st you meant by constituting a Church, the giving of its first being: but here you take it for Establishing. Surely you might with better reason say, That Church's are constituted by the Lord's Supper; for this more properly is a sign and seal of Establishment in the Church, than Baptism is.   

SECT. 10.  
H. H. You say, The Thief on the Cross was saved without Baptism. I Answer, We deny it not: For he declared openly his Faith in Christ, and owned him, when he was disowned almost of all; which shows he would have been baptised, had he been at liberty. Therefore the Lord accepting the will for the deed, 
v) 2 Cor. 8.12.  saith to him, This day thou shall be with me, etc. But what makes this for the baptising of Infants, etc. It proves that little babes might be saved, though unbaptised; for they can profess no Faitg, nor confess no sin, neither hath Christ required them to obey any command, before they understand and believe the Gospel: 
* Rom. 14.23.  For whatsoever is not of Faith is sin; But you say, we do not rightly apply that Scripture, and why? Because it spoils your practice. But doth not the word Whatsoever include all matters and duties we own to God. Cannot the Scriptures be in quiet for you? But because this offends you, we will give you another, 
x) Heb. 11.6.  Without Faith it is impossible to please God.  
Reply 1. In that you grant the penitent Thief was a Church-member (and that visibly, though unbaptised) you clearly yield the cause, viz. That Baptism doth not constitute a Church-member. For what doth constitute a Church-member, is necessary to the being of a Church-member. But Baptism is not necessary to the being of a Church-member; Therefore it doth not constitute— The Major is clear by the nature and Definition of that which constitutes any thing: the Minor you grant in the instance of the Thief; and I hope you will not deny the Conclusion any more.  
2. You show what a miserable Disputant you are; in saying, What makes this for the baptising of Infants? The question is not here about Infant-baptism, but about constitution of Churches; which you assert to be done by Baptism, and that 
y) Font uncovered p. 1.  book denies, and brings this very instance; which you deny not: and therefore was very pertinent to the by question of constituting Church-members.  
3. M. Cook hath dealt more honestly with this Text, than you have done with Jerem. 2.12, 13. p. 8. and many more. For hence we prove against Papists and others, who hold an absolute necessity of Baptism to Church-membership and salvation, that even Infants may be saved, and must be owned members of the Church (being born of Church-members) though they die in their Infancy without baptism. Thus you and they being of the same judgement, are confuted together by this instance of the Thief.  
4. Seeing you grant, that Infants (by this example) may be saved without Baptism; I pray you consider, whether it will not follow unanswerably? To whom salvation belongs now, to them the sign and seal of salvation belongs: But to Infants (you grant) salvation belongs, now therefore baptism also, the sign and seal of salvation. For it's said 
z) 1 Pet. 3.21  Baptism saveth.  
Again, as the Thief on the Cross (being in a state of salvation) had a right to baptism; so Infants of believing parents, being in a state of salvation (as you grant) have right to baptism.  
5. Those Scriptures alleged by you are impertinent; you do but still more pitifully entangle yourself, and abuse the Scriptures, but not at all spoil our practice or judgement. For though the word whatsoever 
a) As the word All is to be restrained to the matter treated of, 1 Cor. 6.12. so is the word Whatsoever, Mat. 7.12. and here also.  may be taken so as to include all sinful matters (which cannot be done in Faith, and so are sins) and all external duties, (which though conjoined for the matter, yet not done in Faith, become sins in the doer) yet the Apostle in Rom. 14.23. speaks most properly of things (in their own nature) indifferent, which God hath neither commanded nor forbidden; and expressly of meats, yea such kind of meats as God hath left free, to be eaten or forborn. Now mark the vanity of your own reasoning: Infants must not be baptised, because they want Faith; for whatsoever is not of Faith is sin, and without Faith it's impossible to please God. Like this: Infants must not be fed, because they want Faith; for whatsoever is not of Faith is sin; and without Faith it's impossible to please God. 2, The latter sentence in Heb. 11.6. is spoken of Enoch, who lived long before Abraham, and makes as much against Circumcision in Abraham's time and after, as it is now against the baptising of Infants i e. nothing at all. Thus whatsoever is not of faith is sin, and without faith it's impossible to please God; but the Infants among the Jews had no faith, (though faith is the condition of the Covenant of Grace, ever since it was set on foot) For alas (they are your own words) b they can profess no Faith, etc. Therefore the Circumcision of Infants among the Jews was sin. If this Conclusion be absurd and blasphemous, confess the other, not a jot the better. For (to use your own words again) doth not the word Whatsoever include all matters & c? Then Circumcision sure as much as Baptism.   

SECT. 11.  
H. H. This your precedent of the Thief on the Cross will not at all help you, except in the like condition— Then I confess a multitude of such penitent ones might be reckoned to be in a saving condition, though not baptised. But neither you nor I are in that straight as yet. Therefore it will be no plea for us; but if either of us be unbaptised, we have time and liberty enough to consider and turn, Psal. 119.59, 60.  
Reply 1. Here you again yield the cause: viz. Baptism doth not constitute a Church-member, etc. for out of the Church there is no salvation. 
r) 1 Pet. 3.20. with Eph. ●. 23▪ 26.  Otherwise to use your own expression pag. 29. Secret things belong to God. I hope now you will not flinch.  
2. Your supposal that neither you nor Mr. Cook are in the straight the poor Thief was in is nothing to the purpose: Though you intimate that Mr. Cook and his brethren may be; and I believe it, if you had your will, as those Joh. 16.2. for you that unchurch us, would make no bones to kill us.  
3. You say, If either of us be unbaptised— A needless If. For you granted p. 24. That we were once baptised, and you make no question but you have been baptised (twice for failing) at least you do not think yourself unbaptised.  
4. It's a miserable begging of the question, that baptising after your mode is the testimony and commandment of the Lord, unless (as hath been said) in the like case.  
5. There is not one word of Baptism in Psal. 119. ver. 59, 60. How pitifully do you pervert and misapply this Scripture also? And I may say, They who have made haste to be rebaptized, have made more haste then good speed.   

SECT. 12.  
H. H. pag. 26. You tell us, that the Church of England was constituted in or anon after the Apostles days, and by the Ministry of the Word were converted from Heathenism to Christianity; and then persons of years were baptised upon profession of Faith and Repentance. I Answer, What then? what is your Church now the better for that which was done 1600 years ago, if you walk not in the same footsteps which they did then? I can prove as well the Church of Rome 
d) Rom. 1.7.  was then a constituted Church, according to the order of the Gospel. But doth that make the Pope and his Crew now to be a true Church: If they be, why do you separate from them; but they are not, neither are you, etc.  
Reply 1. I accept of your grant, That the Church of England was constituted in or near the Apostles dates; and acknowledge we are not now the better for it, if we had razed the Foundation, relapsed to Heathenism, and had been called 
e) Hos. 1.6, 7.  Loruhamah, and Lo ammi. But seeing God (since the plantation of the Gospel in this Nation) hath raised up some faithful witnesses, & reserved some sincere Professors of his truth, and still the Fundamentals of Christian Religion have been owned, and Antichrists yoke cast off. It cannot (without great injury) but be acknowledged, that the first constitution of the Church in this Land is much to us; who desire and endeavour to be built, and to build on that Foundation, Eph. 2.20. The Church of the Jews was the better for God's constituting their Church in Abraham's family (if we may believe their 
f) 2 Chron. 20, 7. Neh. 9 vers. 7, 8.  plea) and though they did degenerate, yet the Foundation was never razed, nor the first constitution abolished.  
2. On the former account, we are better (without question) for outward privileges, and possibility of salvation, as the Jews were, Rom. 3.1.2. with Chap. 9, 4.5. or as the poor cripple 
g) John. 5.5.  that did lie at the Pool o● Bethesda for cure.  
3. If by our not walking in the footsteps of those who were first constituted a Church in this Nation; you mean that we do not first repent, and then be Baptised. You might as well charge the Jews, who circumcised their children on the eighth day, for not walking in Abraham's steps, and therefore not a jot the better that their Church was first constituted in him, for he was circumcised at 
h) Gen. 17.26.  99 years old. Nay it seems you charge us for not taking care that all the children in this Nation may live in ignorance, and Idolatry; that so being by the Gospel converted, they may be baptised after their example. For they cannot be converted from Heathenism as they were, and so be baptised after their example exactly, unless they live in Heathenism, as they did. If this be your meaning and charge, I pray, Lord lay not this sin to your charge.  
4. That Scripture doth not prove what you assert, unless by a far-fetched and strained consequence. And as the word Constituted is not there; so neither those words ACCORDING to the ORDER of the GOSPEL there or elsewhere in any one place of Scripture. You are wise above what is written, though I deny not but the Church of Rome, was once a rightly constituted Church.  
5. Seeing you declare yourself so great a friend to the Church of Rome, as equalling us with them; and also pronounce us no Church (and so excommunicate us with your brute Thunderbolt, as if you were another Pope) and disregard the counsel and admonition of the Church (so censured, and nullified by you) I leave you to the judgement of him who is Lord and King, Husband and Patron of his Church, wishing you (if you be not past hope of profiting by Scripture) to weigh what is written Judas 8. to the 17 verse.   

SECT. 13.  
H. H. You say that they and their children were then admitted into the Covenant and Church, as Abraham and his family were by circumcision. I answer, that it still remains for you to prove that they and their children were admitted into Church-fellowship. I deny it, prove it if you can, or else you have done nothing, etc.  
Reply 1. As you say of the Sacrament, pag. 14. So we do not read (in your sense) of the word Church-fellowship in all the holy Scriptures. Therefore how should we prove that children were admitted into Church-fellowship? But  
2 That all the Faithful are the children or seed of Abraham 
i) Gal. 3.7, 9, 14, 29.  and that they are blessed with faithful Abraham, and that the blessing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles, and consequently that the covenant (whereof Mr. C. spoke, and not Church-fellowship) made with Abraham and the Faithful under the Gospel, is the same for substance, being an everlasting covenant, Gen. 17.19. Though differing in manner of dispensation by circumcision in the room whereof Baptism succeeds, Col. 2.11.12. It is evident, that the same covenant made with Abraham continues to us Christians; as is plain also, in that we Gentiles are planted into the true Olive 
k) Rom. 11.17.  from whence the Jews were broken off; which is more largely proved in that Book you pretend to answer,  
3. For proving that they and their children were admitted into Church-fellowship. Do you not know that there are 13 Arguments in that Book, which you have not answered, only you speak a little to one, which how miserably it is done, will appear (I hope) in its proper place. In the mean time, the truth is M. C. hath done something to which you answer nothing upon the matter.    

CHAP. VII Of Nationall Churches.  

SECT. 1.  
H. H. You (Mr. C.) seem to prove 
l) Font uncovered p. 2.  a National Church in that the Lord said to Abraham, Gen. 22.18. In his seed all Nations should be blessed. I answer, He doth not say that all of all Nations shall be blessed; nor that all of any Nation shall be blessed. I am persuaded you think in your conscience, some in this Nation are not blessed.  
Reply 1. That Book (wherein Mr. C. declares his judgement briefly, and you answer largely) saith. Though we boast not of Nationall Churches, nor is there any necessity that the mention of Nationall Churches should come into this dispute, yet we are not ashamed of the name of a Nationall Church. But seeing you urge it on us, as odious, we desire to consider— So that Mr. Hag. you might have kept you to the main business, and spared your pains about this by-businesse also, but that you had a mind to digress and quarrel.  
2. You have no cause to think, nor doth the holy Scripture say, that ALL of ALL Churches, or ALL of ANY one particular Church on earth are blessed. For cursed hypocrites are (ordinarily) in the most refined Churches, yet that hinders not, but all particular Churches may be called Churches, and blessed— For  
3. The Nation of the Jews was (confessedly) a National Church & that whole Nation, (as being in covenant with God) was a blessed Nation, Deut. 23.29. Psal. 33.12. and 89.15. And yet every particular person in that Nation was not blessed, Deut. 27.15. to the end, and 28.15. to the end, and chap. 29.19.20. These and other Scriptures show plainly, that as the Jewish Nationall Church was a blessed Nation, so every blessed Nation is a Nationall Church, at least in so considerable a part as may give it such a denomination, and though many particular persons therein may be far from blessedness; yet this hinders not such from the name of a blessed Nation, and of a people in covenant; and that at the Nation of the Jews was blessed first in Abraham's seed. So all the Nations of the earth should (in some sense) be blessed, by being at last brought into the Covenant and Church-state, through the same seed of Abraham. You need not therefore make your appeal to Master C. conscience.  
4. I wonder at your opinion (in the close of this Section) which you apply: viz. A penitent Thief etc. and Murderer, etc. may not justly be put to death, because he is the Temple of the Holy Ghost, &c  
The penitent Thief was blessed, (you acknowledge him in a saving condition, pag. 25.) as he acknowledgeth, 
m) In 22.4.  he suffers justly, and as I think you dare not deny, that he was the Temple of the Holy Ghost; yea, I wonder more, that you dare call the execution of such an offender, a destruction of the Temple of God, not without horrible abuse of Scripture. But you began to lisp in the language of Tho. Muntzer 
s) Sleid. come. l. 10.  your predecessor, against the Christian Magistracy; whatsoever you said seemingly to the contrary, p. 31.32.   

SECT. 2.  
H. H. pag. 27. You bring this Scripture, Psal. 22.27.28. I answer, when that day shall come, and that Prophecy be fulfilled; we will grant it is fulfilled; but for the present All Nations do not serve him— neither do all in this Nation worship him. Peter's words are true 
n) Acts 10 34.  But there are many in this Nation, that do not fear God, nor work righteousness. Therefore no Nationall Church.  
Reply 1. Though I question the fulfilling of your promise, (for many Prophecies may be fulfilled, which you either do not, or will not acknowledge, and you may take some fulfilled, which are not) yet your concession is enough, that a National Church in the time of the Gospel, is no such absurd, or strange thing as you, and some would make it.  
2. Albeit, this Prophecy is not fulfilled, yet it may be in the fulfilling. For though all Nations are not brought to a Church-state, yet some may be for present, and others by degrees successively in Gods due time.  
3. It is neither proved by you, nor indeed can be easily, that ALL (i. e. the generality) in this Nation, do not worship God, (for worship may be taken here in a large sense) yet if granted, it will not thence follow, that this is no Nationall Church, sigh even when the Israelites were a Nationall Church, they might and did doubtless fall short of the true worship of God, as much and more than the people of England.  
4. Your ground whence you infer, that we are no Nationall Church is very unsound, viz because ALL do not fear God etc. Hereby you must not only deny the Jewish Church to have been a Nationall Church, but also the primitive Churches, and all other particular Churches (whether congregational, or otherwise called) to be Churches. For in all visible Churches a great part are Hypocrites, without the fear of God, etc.   

SECT. 3.  
H. H. You say, Isa. 49.23. King's shall be thy nursing Fathers, etc. I answer; That it shall be so I deny not, but prove you that it is so. As for England's Kings and Queens, it's well known how they would have nursed the Church, if they had but had their minds, etc.  
Reply 1. It cannot be denied without ingratitude, that England hath been blessed with pious Princes, who have nursed the Church in this Nation. Was not King Edward the sixth a nursing Father, and Queen Elisabeth a nursing Mother? (for instance) deny it if you can?  
2. Your inference is as weak as the former. It's well known how Saul, Ahaziah, Athaliah, Mannasses, etc. would have nursed the Church, if they had but had their minds (as you phrase it); Therefore the Jews could have no Nationall Church.  
3. For our siding with Cavaliers, & c. I will say but this, It is you and your party that strengthens the hands, and revives the hopes of the Cavaliers. And if by their opposites, you mean the Round heads (as they are called) difference in opinion (beside the foundation) doth not take away the name and nature of a National Church, no more then among the Jews.   

SECT. 4.  
H. H. You say Isa. 52 15. Christ shall sprinkle many Nations. Answ. It's granted; but it doth not follow, that he doth sprinkle whole Nations. For believers have their hearts sprinkled 
o) Heb. 10.22.  etc. Therefore no National Church And I much wonder that you Ministers of the Church of England, who for the generality hold, that Christ did not die for all men, but only for some few elect persons, should yet preach up Nationall Churches, etc.  
Reply 1 Mr. C. did not say that Christ sprinkles Whole, (but MANY) Nations; which phrase imolies that so many as are sprinkled by Christ in thos● Nations, may give them the Denomination of sprinkled Nations; if so, why not of Nationall Churches?  
2. That all the Elect (which have been, are and shall be) in this world) should be called (simply) some few persons 
p) Ames. Anti. Synod. de morte Christi. c. 2. p. 176.  is a malignant restriction borrowed from your friends the Arminians.  
3. Your wonder may be stayed, if you please to consider, that they who hold that Christ died not for the salvation of ALL, but only of the Elect (
q Mat 17.13.14 and 20.16.  who comparatively are but a few indeed) do not make election, or Christ's intention, or interest in Christ's death, (which in themselves are invisible things) The adequate ground or rule of Church-membership: but acceptance of, and incerest in the Covenant as it is externally, and conditionally administered. So that the visible Church is far more numerous than the elect, or those for whose salvation Christ died. Judas was a member of the visible Church; yet Christ died not for his salvation. (Though Christ's death was in itself sufficient) For than he had been saved; it being impossible that the intention of the Father in giving Christ, and of Christ in giving himself, should be frustrated. So then to preach that Christ did not die for ALL men (in our and the Scripture sense) and yet to preach up Nationall Churches, are not things inconsistent.  
4. For your scoff of being seven years at the University, I heed not, but had you been two years there; you might have learned to distinguish between inward and outward Covenant, (as to the Administration) and to draw better conclusions, or (at least) not to deny the conclusion in a public dispute.   

SECT. 5.  
H. H. pag. 28. You say from Mat. 28.19. did not Christ command his Apostles to go into all Nations and preach and baptise? I answer; Do you not know that they never baptised whole Nations, nor yet whole Cities? but most hated and abused them etc. We grant, if a whole Nation can be converted by the preaching of the Word, they ought to be baptised, etc.  
Reply 1. You chop and change Mr. C. words. He said (not whole, but) ALL Nations, but do you not know that Infants are a considerable part of any Nation; and doth not the whole include the parts?  
2. It's granted; we do not read of whole nations converted or baptised by the Apostles. For God in his providence so ordered, that the Gospel (at the first preaching) should not overspread whole nations at once, but that it should be 
r) Mat. 13.31, 32, 33.  as a grain of mustard seed, etc. As Abraham's family in process of time grew up to a Nation, i. e. one family of believers became a Nation of believers; else how can it be said 
s) Mar. 22.43.  that the Kingdom of God, (or privilege of being God's people in Covenant) should be taken from them, etc. If they to whom the Gospel was brought, and by whom it was received, were not to be a nation in Covenant as the Jews had been?  
3. Are not all nations, or any sort of nations (to whom providence should bring the Apostles) set in opposition to that only Nation of the Jews, which had hitherto been a people in Covenant. But now to be cast out, and the Gentile world to be taken in? And who can deny (without great ingratitude that some nations (since Christ's time) have made as full and universal profession of the true God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and of owning the Fundamental points of Christian Religion, as the Jews (when a Nationall Church) made, of the Lord Jehovah, and of the Jewish Religion?  
4. For our baptising Infants contrary to Acts 8.12. (as you say) answer hath been made before, and for the Apostles baptising some whole households, you seem to grant Infant-baptism (contrary to what you say p. 5.6.) If Infants be a part of any whole household baptised.  
5. I cannot but pity your ignorance and impudence in saying we read but of 7 Churches in all Asia▪ which is one quarter of the world. For these seven Churches were in Asiaminor 
t) Asiam intelligit minorem, scu eam Asiam partem, etc. Pareus in Rev. 1.4. & Heylins' Microcosm p. 520.  called now Anatolia) being but one of the 15 principal Regions of all Asia. Besides these seven Churches mentioned in the Revelation, there was a Church in Antioch 
u) Acts 11.26. with c 13.14.  which Antioch was in Pisidia, and Churches of Galatia; 
w) 1 Cor. 16.1. with Gal. 1.2.  now Pisidia and Galatia were Provinces in Asia the less, & Churches in Judea, 
x) 1 Thes. 2.14.  now Judea was certainly one of the principal regions of Asia the greater 
y) Heylin. pag. 520. and 521. see also 1 Pet. 5.13. The Church at Babylon, that is in Assyria or Chaldea. Beza and Diodat. . Many more instances might be given, but these (I hope) are sufficient to convince, that you may read (if you look better) more than seven Churches In ALICE Asia.   

SECT. 6.  
H. H. You bring Rev. 11.15. The Kingdoms of this world are become our Lords, etc. I answer. I told you already, that such times shall be, but they are not yet, if they were, we should no longer pray, Thy Kingdom come. And in that day Satan shall deceive the Nations, etc. Rev. 20.3.  
Reply 1. Your reason to prove that these times are not yet, is very weak. For though when the number of the Elect shall be made up, and be fully glorified, there will be no need of praying Thy Kingdom come; yet while the Kingdom is a coming, and in perfecting; It needs to pray so: And doubtless the nearer it comes to perfection, the more fervently it shall pray for perfection, as Natural bodies in their motion, move swifter, the nearer they come to the Centre. Now that the Kingdom will not be absolutely perfected at that time (you hint) See the place you cite. 
z) Rev. 20.3, 7, etc.  Surely the losing of Satan, and his deceiving the Nations, and in compassing the Camp of the Saints, will not be after the full glorifying of the Saints in the highest heavens.  
2. If these things are too hard for Mr. C. to understand (though a Scholar) are they easy to you? why then do you hold the Light under a Bushel? But he that hath but half an eye may see the impertinency of the Scriptures 
a) Luk. 20.21. with 1 Cor. 2.8, 9, 10.  alleged by you.   

SECT. 7.  
H. H. You say from Rev. 21.24. that the Nations of them that are saved, That walk in the light of the New Jerusalem. I answer; That's granted, but that New Jerusalem is not yet here below, for drunkards and wicked persons to walk by, but Paul saith, 
b) Gal. 4.26.  that it's above, and is free, and is the Mother of all the Saints.  
Reply. 1. To what purpose do you mention drunkards etc. when Mr. C. according to the text, Rev. 21.24. expressly mentions them that are saved.  
2. Paul doth not say expressly, neither do you undertake to prove that this New Jerusalem (in the Revelation) is the Mother of all the Saints. That's your gloss, and not the Apostles words. But whether by this New Jerusalem is meant the Church Triumphant in heaven (which is improbable, because it's said 
c) Rev. 21.2.  to descend from heaven, and expressly: The Kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it, (which you cunningly left out) or 2. The Church of truly sanctified one's on earth; which are hid in the visible Church, (as the Wheat in the chaff) or 3. of a Future glorious Church on earth, at the Jews conversion; I● holds forth that National Churches are n●t to be accounted absurd, to those who are acquainted with the Scriptures. For they that are saved are Churches, or members of Churches; but Nations are saved. Therefore, Churches, or members of Churches.  
3. The Apostle saith not, the Mother of all the Saints, (as you cite him) but of us all, as you truly cite it, p 56. I believe you have a mind to canonize all the Anabaptists for Saints, and I doubt not but there are some real Saints among them, but if there be not drunkards and wicked persons, members of your Church, you are foully belied. Such surely are of Agar.   

SECT. 8.  
H. H▪ p. 29. Lastly you say; If a company of believers in one house have been called a Church Domestical, than a multitude of believers in a Nation ma● be called a National Church. I answer, That's granted, if they be all believers, as you said at first, but little babes are not believers, etc.  
R●ply 1. Sir, review your Answers from p. 27. to this 29. and you grant seven times at ●east what Mr. C. proves, viz. a Nationall Church in a Gospel-time, which was the end of citeing the forenamed Scriptures 
d) See Font uncovered p. 2  to show that there is no cause of being ashamed of the Title of a National Church; nor of your accounting it odious and absurd. Now blessing on you, I hope you and Mr. C. will shake hands and be friends. But yet  
2. You curtel Mr. C. Arguments and Scriptures. That immediately precedent, and this present citation (of the words of that Book) witness, specially this last, where you have not only left out ten parts for one (very material to clear the consequence, but so cited here and there a word, as to make it speak little better than nonsense,) which I refer to the judgement of those that will read the Book, and mark how you have abused both it and him.  
3. If there were some babes in those households, which could not actually believe, and some adult too; who did not professedly (much less sincerely) believe, the like must be granted concerning National Churches, viz. Though every particular person therein doth not actually believe, or profess Faith, yet the major, or better part may give the Denomination, e. g. The Infancy of some, the wickedness of others hindered not but the Jews might be warrantably called a Nationall Church.  
4. Though you quite and clean mistake Mr. C. who by the by proves a National Church, and here meddles not with Infants; yet if little babes be no believers, (not so much as virtually, etc. as Mr. C. saith) how 
e) Mar. 16.16.  shall ye escape damnation?    

CHAP. VIII. Of Affirming a Negative, and teaching the Law.  

SECT. 1.  
H. H. You say in your 6 p. we affirm a Negative, viz. that the Baptism, or sprinkling of Infants is not the Baptism of Christ, etc. And here you follow us on to purpose, and tell us we are such as the Apostle speaks of 
f) 1 Tim. 1.5.6.7.  understanding not what they say, nor whereof they affirm. Here you think you hit us home; I must confess now you have catched us out of our own element, and in your own; for we know you are Scholars, and have learned to contend about words to no profit, etc.  
Reply 1. There is no cause of making this din (of being pursued to purpose, etc.) For in that Book there are very few lines sp●n● about this your absurdity; But you have bestowed almost two pages in pleading for it, with more absurdities. Nay this is not the only ground (as you untruly relate) of your charge there but one among those verall gross mistakes, which may give just cause to judge, that you are such as the Apostle saith— know not what they say, nor whereof they affirm.  
2. What vanity and audaciousness did you then discover in urging for disputes, when you confess the terms of Art, (which are needful to be known in all regular dispu●ings) are things out of your element: To dispute without Legick, and to reason (in points of learning) without Scholarship, is as wise as to undertake to judge of colours without sight and light; or to challenge to run a race without legs.   

SECT. 2.  
H. H. Seeing we erred in saying we affirm a Negative; we will either confess our error, or show you a precedent, which may justify our practice. Paul saith 
g) Kom. 3.12.  There is none that doth good, no not one: Here Paul affirmeth a Negative, for there is an Affirmative, etc.  
Reply 1. It had been far better for you ingeniously to have confessed your error, or to have passed it by in silence (as you have done many more material things in Mr. Br. and Mr. C. Books) for you are like to a beast in a Quagmire, the more you stir, the deeper you sink: What intolerable impudence is this? instead or confessing your error, and resolving to keep within your own element, to go about to justify yourself of fathering your folly on the Scripture?  
2. In that proposition of the Apostle, the negative particle is (in the 
h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  original) set before the Verb, so that (according to your interpretation) it would be rather a denying of an Affirmative, then affirming a Negative. They that understand know that where the predicate is affirmed of the subject; it's called an affirmative proposition, and where the predicate is denied of the subject, it's called a negative proposition, but never an affirming of a Negative (by them that know what they say); Nay, there is (as you lay it down) not so much as a proposition. If you will not now confess your ignorance and error, or go to the University to learn better Logic, you may erect (if you please) a new College in the Country, and teach your deluded Proselytes some new principles of a new-invented Logic.   

SECT. 3.  
H. H. Again, Isa. 45.5. I am the Lord, and beside me there is no God. Now Sir, if you dare presume to be a teacher here, it should have been thus, I deny that any God is but myself; and I pray show us the word Negative in the Scripture, if you can.  
Reply 1. Here is less colour of affirming a Negative: For whereas in the former, you would make the Verb to be the Affirmative (how absurdly I have showed) here is no Verb at all exprested in the Original, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as you might have seen by the different Characters, wherein the Verb's supplied, are set down. It's in the Hebrew thus (i) I the Lord, and none else, besides me no God.  
In the first proposition there is a pure Affirmative; viz. God is the Lord, without denying the Affirmative. In the latter a pure Negative, without affirming a Negative.  
2. By this unwarrantable, and uncouth way of yours, Atheism and blasphemy may be quickly taught and learned, in presuming to put a comma or full point at part of a proposition; as in the very place you cite: There is no God; Oh admirable! yet you can pave the way thereto. How ground lesly therefore and dangerously you apply this to your present case, I leave others to judge, considering how unreverently you deal with Scripture, comparing your expressions with its, as if it were as safe to teach the Spirit of God how to speak, as it is to teach you how to speak properly, when you acknowledge yourself out of your element.  
3. For showing the word Negative in Scripture, I might say no more but this, that we are not bound to Scripture expression in discourse or disputation, yet you yourself use many words that are not in Scripture, e. g. imminent p. 2. Antichristian, p. 3. Objection, p. 4. History, p. 6. Primitive, p. 8. Consequence p. 10. Paper-conference, p. 22. Absurd, p. 24. And a precedent in the very p. 29. and an hundred more of this nature in your Book (without a wretched lie.) Now when you have showed, when any of those words of yours are in Scripture, I shall show you where the word Negative is in Scripture. In the mean time know that Affirmative, and Negative are words of Latin Derivation, in which language the holy Scriptures were not originally written: but the things signified thereby, are oft found in them, both in the originals and translations.   

SECT. 4.  
H. H. Lastly, to conclude, Joh. 1.20.— He denied not. If John denied not, Then he affirmed: and what did he affirm? He said, I am not the Christ. Here Joh. affirmed a Negative, etc.  
Reply 1. Here in the original the Negative particle is set before the verb; as in the foregoing instance. But suppose the verb were an Affirmative (which cannot be. For there cannot be an Affirmative proposition, but where the subject and predicate are knit together by a verb affirmatively (as hath been showed), yet here is nothing like an affirming a Negative, but rat her it's like a denying an Affirmative, as was said before.  
2. It follows not, that he affirmed, if he denied not you never denied. (It may be) that you are a Turk or Pap●●●, do you therefore affirm it? A man when he is silent denies not an accusation, 
k) Mar. 14.60▪ 61.  as Christ was, 
l) Isa. 36.3.21.22.  Eliakin and Shebna held their peace at Rabshakehs blasphemies. If they were silent, they did not deny, if they denied not (by your goodly consequence) hay affirmed and so owned his blasphemies, but this could not be, because of the rending their choa●hs, etc. Thus we confess our wants and omissions, and yet we cannot be said in any propriety of speech to affirm Negatives. So that hitherto you have not proved that John affirms a Negative. For that in the 20 verse is a Negative proposition, as that in the 23 is an Affirmative, the one distinct from the other. But we will not strive about words, if you will be quiet, and give glory to the Lord by confessing your error? Nay, but you will explain yourself? How I pray?   

SECT. 5.  
H. H. p. 30. To affirm, is but to say a thing is so; and to deny, is to say a thing is not so: e. g when the Sun shines, I affirm its day; and when it's set, I affirm its night. If I will prove a man is not a live, and show others that he is dead, do not I prove he is not alive? If I say and prove a man is not in his house, do not I prove a Negative?  
Reply 1. If to affirm, is to say a thing is so, etc. It will avoidable follow, that to affirm a Negative, is to say a thing is so, which indeed is not so (or which you said, is not so) and consequently your doctrine is yea and nay, so was not the Apostles 
m) 2 Cor. 1.19  preaching.  
2. It's worse and worse with you in your instances. That of the Sun doth not prove the affirming of a Negative; for both are Affirmative Propositions: And to prove a man is not alive, or not in the house, is one thing; to affirm a Negative is another. For to affirm (you say) is but to say a thing is so, and here you prove a thing is not so.   

SECT. 6.  
H. H. Seeing you make us offenders for a word; may we not justly say, that you are one of those the Apostle speaks of 
n) 1 Tim. 6.3.4 ; for you do not dote about words, viz. the Affirmative and Negative, etc. Do not you count gain godliness? viz. 〈◊〉 100, or 200 per Annum, for preaching and baptising Infants▪ and rather then you will part with it, you dispute perversely, like a man of a corrupt mind. I beseech you in the fear of God consider it.  
Reply 1. Who is guilty of doting?— Mr. Cook, who wrote (as was said) a few lines about your offending against the laws of Disputing? (which if it were your greatest fault, might be winked at) or YOU, that writ almost two pages about them; and challenge too, any that will or can, to answer your Ten Questions, 
o) Foundar. p. 53.54.  I leave. to the judgement of the impartial.  
2. I do not know one penny allowed or required for baptising any Infant. Is not this therefore one of those evil surmisings mentioned by the Apostle?  
3. As for your blind charge of an 100 l. etc. per An. for preaching— I leave you to him for an answer; who saith, 
p) Exod. 20.7.  He will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain, whereof you are in an high degree guilty; who (to vent your own rage and malice) blindly and boldly misapply the Scripture to others, and neglect to examine yourself by it, though not a little concerned therein. I cannot but think that word sounds in your ears; Is thine eye evil, because I am good? Here is your envy mentioned by the Apostle.  
4. For charging Mr. Cook with perverse Disputing, etc. Do you think that your railing (mentioned also by the Apostle) will prevail, when your reasoning fails? I beseech you (not complementally, but cordially) in the fear of God consider it. I did not think nor dream that I should have found Mr. Haggar in the Quakers Camp, whither many of his Church are gone in Staffordshire.   

SECT. 7.  
H. H. Though we have affirmed a Negative: yet you cannot justly apply to us that Scripture, 1 Tim. 1.5, 6, 7. For we desire not to be teachers of the Law; therefore Mr. Baxter saith, We are Antinomians, and deny the Law. But I answer, both you and he desires ●o be teachers of the Law: Witness your running to Moses to prove Infant-baptism, and Church-membership; from Circumcision, and the old Covenant, etc.  
Reply 1. It's plain, that the Law (in the place mentioned) is taken for the Moral Law. Now I know no reason why any should be ashamed of being teachers of that Law, or of being desirous to be such, if their ends in desiring be sincere, their call be regular, and their gifts for that work be suitable 
q) 1 Tim. 1.3. . The Apostle doth not blame any absolutely for teaching the Law; (for he saith, We know the Law is good, if a man use it lawfully) but for undertaking a work beyond your call and abilities, as those vain janglers did, v. 5, 6, 7. Otherwise this desire is condemnable, as 1 Tim. 3 1. A worthy work, and the more desirous of, and industrious in this work, the more they are approved of God and good men. And I pray you remember our Lord Jesus Christ 
r) Mat 15.17. to the end, with c 7 12.  was a diligent teacher of this Law: So was Paul 
s) Rom. 3.31. & 13.8, 9, 10. 1 Cor. 9.8. Eph. 6.2. etc.  so was James. 
t) Jam. 2.8, 9, 10, 11.14.  Now you cannot vilify us for teaching the Law (absolutely) but you must vilify these; and if we be desirous to be teachers of the Law, we have a good copy to write after, good examples to follow.  
2. If your words bear any common sense, you plainly disclaim teaching the Law, and assent to Mr. Baxters' charge, calling you Antinomians; I accept of your acknowledgement: Let that brand stick on you, wipe it off, if you can. For Mr. Cook saith modestly, that you who would be counted great Disputers and discussers of the Truth, in so saying— give just cause to judge, that you are such men, who are there described in Timothy, and you here speak plainly, that you desire not to be teachers of the Law.  
3. Here therefore was sufficient reason to apply that Scripture to you; not only in regard of your not understanding what you say, and whereof you affirm (which was the principal thing intended) but also in regard of your professed desire to be a teacher of the Law; though here you disclaim it. Did you never teach against Drunkenness, Whoredom, Idolatry, Covetousness, Profaneness, etc. and are not these things forbidden and condemned in the Law? Did you not, do you not teach the people, that they must love God and their Neighbour, worship God rightly, sanctify his Sabbath, etc. And are not these things commended, and commanded in the Law?  
4. Though (you say) you desire not to teach the Law, do you not urge the Law when you think it may serve your turn. E. g. p. 13. you prove from Exod. 20.19. the seventh day was the Sabbath of the Lord. Without doubt the fourth Commandment is part of the Moral Law. And pag. 52. you urge the fear of God, and the keeping his Commandments, 
u) Eccl. 12.13  which is the doctrine of the Law. Now these and the like things you teach either with your will, or not. If not, who forceth you to teach against your will? If with your will; how can you truly say, you desire not to be teachers of the Law?  
5. Though you desire not to be teachers of the Law: yet you desire to be Teachers; (for you take upon you to be Teachers, witness your vocal and printed doctrine) it must needs follow, that you desire and practise the teaching of that which is against or besides the Law, (I mean God's Law, for of that the Apostle speaks) and consequently against or besides the Gospel. For though the Law, as it was misunderstood, and misapplied by the blind and unbelieving Jews, was contrary to the doctrine of the Gospel, and Law too; yet the true doctrine of the Law is agreeable to the doctrine of the Gospel, as appears clearly by many Scriptures, 
v) Matis. 17, 18, 19, 20 etc. Luk 14.44. From 3.31. & 10.4.  specially by the words of the Apostle immediately following that Scripture, 
* 1 Tim. E. ver. 7.8, 9, 10, 11.  which hath occasioned this discussion. Whence observe, 

1. All these (with the like) sins and sinners are contrary to sound Doctrine.  
2. This sound Doctrine is the doctrine of the Law, (for it's-said ver. 9 The Law is made, or rather lies 
x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  heavily with its curses—).  
3. This sound Doctrine of the Law is according to the Gospel. Now seeing you will be a Teacher, and yet disclaim teaching God's Law, which so harmoniously agrees with the Gospel, that whosoever teacheth the one rightly, must teach the other also; and whosoever rejecteth the one, must reject the other: I appeal to your consciences (if not seared) whether your Doctrine be n●t unsound, illegal, un-evangelical Doctrine; And seeing the Law is just, holy, good, spiritual, whether your Doctrine be not unholy, unjust, evil, and carnal? And if Christ tell us, 
y) Mat. 5.19.  That whosoever breaketh one of these least Commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be least in the kingdom of heaven; what think you will become of those, who teach men to reject all the Commandments and will Law, and would be accounted Teachers, but desire not to be Teachers of the Law?    
6. For your crimination of running to Moses, we do as Christ 
z) Mark. 12.26 with Luk. 10. ver. 37.  did, who did run to Moses to prove the Resurrection against the Sadduces; and 
* 1 Cor. 9.9. with 1 Tim. 5. ver. 18.  as Paul did, to prove the main en●nce for Gospel-Ministers; and as yourself doth, who run to Moses to prove a Sabbath, pag. 13. forenamed.   

SECT. 8.  
H. H. pag. 31. And thus (Mr. Cook) I shall at present take leave of you, etc.  
Reply. Indeed you do, for the present take leave of Mr. Cook, and may for the future also; for you leave the substance of his book unanswered.    

CHAP. IX. Of Mr BAXTER'S Ten Positions.  

SECT. 1.  
H. H. pag. 31. You say pag. 3. It hath pleased the Holy Ghost to speak of some things in the Scripture more fully, and of others more sparingly; and where God spoke more sparingly, the thing must needs be more difficult, and yet truth still. Answ. But he never speaks of Infant baptism in all the Scripture, neither fully, nor sparingly. Then none of his truth, nor ever was.  
Reply 1. If you could or would speak properly, you would or should have said, Either fully or sparingly; but as you express yourself, you grant, that Infant-Baptism is spoken of in Scripture one way or other. For two Negatives (in our language) make an Affirmative: but I will not insist on this.  
2. Whether the Scripture speaks of Infant-baptism, I hope it appears already in part to the impartial Reader, and afterwards will be further cleared.  
3. The Scripture speaks neither fully nor sparingly of baptismal boots, baptismal breeches, and other shifting garments used by your party; therefore (by your arguing) your Mode of Baptising is none of God's truth, nor ever was.   

SECT. 2.  
H. H. You instance in 4 particulars, but that which is pertinent to the matter in hand is your fourth, viz. The New Testament speaks more sparingly of that which is more fully discovered in the Old. What need the same thing be done twice, except men should question the authority of the Old— How silent is the New Testament, concerning a Christian Magistracy? which made the Anabaptists of old deny it, where find you in the New Testament a Christian that exercised the place of a King, or Parliament man, or Justice of the Peace, or the like. And so of an oath before a Magistrate, of War, and of the Sabbath, how sparing is the New Testament, and why? because enough is said of them in the Old. To all which I answer, you have spoken many words to no purpose, etc.  
Reply 1. How pitifully you contradict yourself? the meanest may see, by comparing together the beginning, and close of this Section. For you said, Mr. Bazters fourth Instance is pertinent to the matter in hand, and here in the end, you say, he hath spoken— to no purpose— How can it be pertinent? and yet to no PURPOSE.  
2. Why are not the other pertinent and to purpose? because you could not answer pertinently, and to purpose. For in Mr. Baxters' 1 Case he saith 
p) Plain Scripture proof for Infant-Baptism, p. 3.  the word is not spoken to Infants, therefore it speaks more sparingly of them, yet for the comfort of godly Parents, God hath much more fully revealed his mind concerning their children, then of wicked and open enemies. In the first, that Infant-baptism is not so great a point as many make it, (except by the dangerous consequences ensuing) therefore more sparingly mentioned. In the second Infant-baptism was not controverted then, as some other points, yet Scripture is sufficient to direct us for the determination of this too, if we have wisdom to apply general rules to particular cases, and have senses exercised to discern the Scope of the Spirit. Your silence to all which we will take for consent.   

SECT. 3.  
H. H. Where as you say, That which is spoken on in the Old Testament, need not to be spoken of again: I Answer; Infant-baptism is not where spoken of, neither in the Old nor New Testament; therefore you ought not for shame to speak of it.  
Reply 1. This Answer of yours might have been spared, if you had read Mr. Baxter a little further 
q) Pag. 4.  The main question is, At what age members are to be admitted into the Church? Now this is as fully determined in the Old Testament as most things in the Bible, and therefore what need any more.  
2. It's horrible audaciousness for you to say, Infant-baptism is not where spoken of in the Old or New Testament. If you mean in so many syllables, it's granted already: If you mean not so much as by good consequence, we say, so it's spoken of, as women's receiving the Lord's Supper, giving thanks at meals, prayer in and with our Family, etc. and therefore you ought not for shame speak against i●.   

SECT. 4.  
H. H. p. Ibid. As for your saying, Where find we a Christian Magistrate in the New Testament? I Answer, Surely you have forgotten the Deputy, Acts 13.12. and the Eunuch, Acts 8.27, 37, 38. and what say you to Erastus the Chamberlain of the City, Rom. 16.2, 3. and likewise those Saints of Cesar's household, Phil. 4.22.  
Reply 1. Answer hath been made to your two former instances, 
r) see chap. 5. sect. 9  which may satisfy any judicious Reader. I wonder at this vain repetition of yours, unless it should be to make up the number of your sheets, I know not the cause.  
2. In your p. 13. You think you have found a Lord Deputy, and a Lord Treasurer, and you would fain find here a Lord Chamberlain too. Would you set up these Officers again, if you were to model and mould the State a new? But to give you your due, you do not, dare not affirm Erastus to be a Lord Chamberlain, or a Christian Magistrate, only you speak very gingerly: What say you to Erastus, etc. Therefore I say—  
3. I find mention made of Erastus— in Rom. 16 23. (not 2.3) where in the Greek 
s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he is called a Steward. Now that a Steward of any Town or City is, or hath been called usually and properly, a Magistrate, is more than I know, or perhaps you can tell. Only this I must tell you, you might as well call Gaius a Christian Magistrate, of whom (in the same verse) honourable mention is made: viz. that he was Paul's Host, and of the Church; and then he that lately, or heretofore in these parts have entertained Mr. Haggar and his Church, must be a Christian Magistrate too.  
4. I dare not say that the Christians in Rome, specially they that belong to the Emperor's family (called Saints of Caesar's household, Phil. 4.22) were Christian Magistrates. If so, speak out, and prove it if you can.  
5. You wrong Mr. Baxter, in charging him to say, Where find we a Christian Magistrate in the N●w Testament? Indeed he saith, How silent is the New Testament concerning a Christian Magistracy? but presently after (within three lines) explains himself— How sparing is the New Test. etc. And you that take upon you to find so many Christian Magistrates in the New Testament, cannot find one Christian there, that exercised the place of a King, or Parliament man, or Justice of the Peace, etc. and so his Quest. (for all your fair flourish) is quite left unanswered by you.   

SECT. 5.  
H. H. p. 32. For an Oath, did you never read in the New Testam. Heb 6.16. And for War, did you never read Luk. 3.15. Act. 10.1.? For subjection to Magistrates, 1 Pet. 2.13, 14, 15. Tit. 3.1. & 1 Tim. 2.1, 2. & Rom. 13.? Is not the Scripture full of these things? and yet you do call for Scriptures. Surely you read so many other books, that you forget to read the Scriptures, etc.  
Reply 1. Mr. Baxter said, The new Testament speaks sparingly of an Oath (before a Magistrate) War, Sabbath, etc. not as if he held it made no mention at all of them, as you would make others believe. For if it speak sparingly, it's not a total silence.  
2. It seems you are not gotten yet into the highest Form of the old Anabaptists, 
s) Sleid. Comment. lib. 10. Docent non licere Christianis fo●o contendere, non gere●e Magistratum, nonjus●urandum dicere, non habe c quod proprium, sed omnia debere esse omnibus communia.  who denied a Christian Magistracy (〈◊〉 Mr. Baxter saith, and you make no Apology for them) and an Oath before a Magistrate (concerning which that place in the Hebrews speaks nothing) and the lawfulness of War too. I am glad you are not so high flown; but how soon you may be, the Lord knows 
t) 2 Tim. 3.13. , for evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse.  
3. I appeal to your own conscience, whether Peter or Paul (when they wrote) sp●ke of Christian Magistrates in the places cited by you— though we are bound to those rules, since the Lord hath blessed us with Christian Magigrates.  
4. You bring us no Scripture in the New Testament for the Sabbath, as you did for the other particulars mentioned by Mr. Baxter; I might therefore draw ●s rigid a conclusion against you, as you do (in other things) against Mr. Cook, Mr. Baxter, etc. but I had rather be a pattern of Christian charity, then of groundless jealousy. In this then, either you subscribe to the main of Mr. Baxter's position, or else you have said enough, as to the Sabbath, in your p. 13. as peradventure you imagine.  
4. As for the charge upon Mr. B. that he forgets to read the Scripture, (in reading so many other books) and your counsel to lay them aside, etc. they are both unworthy of any answer: The one savouring of Pride and uncharitableness, the other of ingratitude (at least) for the labours of the Learned. Only Sir, before I part, I pray tell me, if you had never read any book but the English Bible, how could you have empanelled two Grand Juries, 
v) Chap. 5. sect. 14. & 16.  consisting the one of 22, and the other of 21, (as hath been said) to serve your ends? or have confuted (as you think) Mr. C. Mr. B. & M. Hall, etc. And to what purpose was your book written, if we must give our selus wholly to read and ●●●dy the Scripture●.   

SECT. 6.  
H. H. In your Second Position you say, That the great difficulties of a point, is no proof that it is not truth; and a thing is not therefore to be rejected as not of God, because it is not easy to understand. You affirm also, that multitudes of silly Ignorants do the same. In all which I shall not oppose you.  
Reply 1. I am glad that Mr. Baxter and you can hi● 〈◊〉 in any thing. Here it seems you can shake hands and 〈◊〉 friends. It's well, if it be not like Joah's ●iss.  
2. Will not any sober judicious Christian conclude from hence (without breach of charity) that you are one of th●se ●●●y ign●rants whom Mr. Baxter 〈…〉 or four lines following? For because 〈…〉 no● spoken plainly (in your sense) of Infant-baptism, therefore you neither believe it, nor practise it.   

SECT. 7.  
H. H. You say, If a subtle Pagan should come amongst the people and dispute that your Scriptu●e is not the Word of God, and that Christ Jesus is not the Son of God, he would silence them more ●hen the Anabaptists can do. Answer. Here Mr. Baxter rather si●●th with Pagans and Atheists, that deny both God and Christ, and the Holy Scriptures, then with those which are falsely called Anabaptists. Though we honestly ow● God and Christ, and the Scriptures, and desire to plead nothing else for our practice▪ for which cause he crieth out against us in his ●enth Position, calling us bruit beasts; and nothing 〈◊〉 because we call to him for Scripture to prove his practice; yet now he makes, as if Atheists and Pagans had more to say for themselves then we: All which I leave to God, and the impartial Reader to judge.  
Reply 1. How dare you say without blushing, that you are falsely called Anabaptists, if you truly say, that you are baptised again, p. 24.? If you speak truly in one place, you speak falsely in the other 
u) Chap. 6. sect. 3.  but this hath been hinted before.  
2. If you did honestly own the Scriptures, you would not so dishonestly wrest them: as Jer. 2.12, 13. p. 8. nor so dishonestly play with them; as Rom. 3.12. Isa. 45.5. Joh. 1.20. p. 29. to say nothing of the Scriptures abused by you in this very 32 p. and many other in your book.  
3. It's an unchristian charge, that Mr. B. rather sides with Atheists than Anabaptists (now truly so called) When he pities, or reproves with pity a multitude of silly ignorant Christians, who are less able to answer a subtle Pagan about the authority of the Scripture, and Deity of Christ, than an Anabaptist about rebaptising. Are not those more difficult points, than these present under debate? What siding is imaginable in this? Must Christ be said to side 
* Mat. 11.10, 21, 22, 23, 24.  with Tyre, and Sidon, and Sodom, rather than with Corazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum; because he tells them it shall be more tolerable for the former, then for the latter in the day of judgement; what blasphemy would this be?  
4. It's a notorious untruth, that Mr. B. calls you bruit beasts, only because you call for Scripture to prove his practice; No, but for renouncing reason, or evident consequences drawn from Scripture, which you do in the present case. All which I also leave to God, and the impartial Reader to judge.   

SECT. 8.  
H. H. pag. 33. Mr. B. speaks great swelling words of vanity; viz. He will hazard all the reputation of his understanding on it, that there is ten times more to be said for , then can be said against Infant baptism; yea, it is twenty times more difficult (and yet you offer to dispute it with any man) and must it therefore be true? Answ. 1. As for the reputation of your understanding, I will not say what I judge what it's worth. 2. If you had said, There is ten times more to be said for Free will, then for Infant baptism, you had hit it right. Lastly, whereas you say,  is such a difficult point, I am not of your judgement in that: For I believ it's easy to them that will understand, to know, that no man in, or of himself (without God) hath any free will or power to think or do that which is good. For Acts 17.28. In him we live, &c— in and through God that gives to all men life, etc. v. 25. to the end that they might seek him, v. 27. Even the wickedest and hypocrites (the worst of men) have a will and power to do more good than they do, and that's one cause of their just condemnation. Moreover it's evident, that wicked Balaam had a will & desire 
x) Num. 23.10.  to die the death of the righteous, etc. And Paul saith plainly 
y) Rom. 7.18.  To will is present with me, etc. By all which it is evident, that  is not such a difficult point as you would make it: but it's an easy matter with you to call light darkness, and darkness light, Isa. 5.20.  
Reply 1. For the worth of Mr. Baxter's Reputation in your judgement, it's very like to the judgement of the Cock, who preterred a Barley-corn before a Pearl. I believe M. B. is of the Apostles mind, 1 Cor. 4.3. But because you will not speak it out, but it sticks in your teeth, I shall without flattery or fear tell you my judgement; That as Austin was called 
z) Malleus Pelagianorum.  the Mall of the Pelagians; so may Mr. Baxter be truly called, the Mall of the Anabaptists: 
* Malleus Anabaptistarum.  His memory shall be blessed, when your name shall rot.  
2. M Baxt. hath hit it right, but you have missed it (for all your great swelling words of vanity) if the question about  were truly stated.  
3. If you descent from Mr. Baxter about the difficulty of the point of , why will not such a brave Champion as you are, give or accept the challenge to dispute it with him? you must have better weapons then here you fight with, or I assure you he will quickly foil you.  
4. I believe Infant-baptism is easy to him that will understand. The spiritual plague is in your head; you hear, and will not understand; see, and will not perceive.  
5. The Papists and Arminians will say as much as you do, and yet they are stiff Patrons of ; who prank up nature in a proud dress: and derogate from the honour of God, and Free grace.  
6. I wonder you couple together Balaam and Paul: for Paul was a Regenerate man, and Balaam (you confess) a wicked man; and is there no difference between the will of the one, and of the other? It savours of the Arminian Cask. That as man's will lost nothing by Adam's fall, to it gets nothing by the second Adam's grace. But because this is beside the point, I shall 〈◊〉 no deeper into this Controversy; but leave you to Mr Baxter, who can handle you without Mittins, your calumnis ●es●● us no answer.   

SECT. 9  
H. H. I proceed to your fourth Position, 〈◊〉 rain you say; that if never so clear evidence of truth be produced, yet it will he dark to them that are uncapable of discerning it; For it's God's work to make people understand— Heb. 5.11, 12, 13, 14 I answer; We grant you all this. The clearest truth will be dark to some. But let us show some clear evidence of truth first, and show us where it is written, that Babes must be baptised, and then if we do not, our blood be upon us, etc.  
Reply 1. To pass by another mistake of yours (viz. the fourth Position, which indeed is the Third). It seems the doctrine of Infant-baptism, though never so clear a truth, is hid from your eyes.  
2. Mr. Baxter, and many other of our Worthies have showed, where Infant-baptism is written as clearly and plainly, as Woman's receiving the Lord's Supper, praying in the Family, &c , and many more, without a wretched lie. Yea, as clearly and plainly as you proved pag. 6. Lidra's husband was baptised, because the Scripture saith, She and her household were baptised, and yet you are so blind, that you cannot sea or held Infant-baptism.  
3. I fear your blood (according to your wish) will be upon you (as Christ's blood was and is on the Jews, according to their imprecation) for your p●●de and prejudice, ignorance and infidelity, which (Hear) as wilful and affected, for in this 34 p. 〈◊〉 profess you will not believe the clear evidence that Mr. Baxter hath brought for the proof of Infant-baptism: I see that true which Mr. B. saith in this Position; it's one thing to bring full evidence and proof, and another thing to make people apprehend and understand it. We may do the one, God only can do the other. These words are true and faithful, you grant, I leave you therefore to the Lord, whose work it is to persuade the heart. The Well of water was nigh enough to Hagar (●he bond woman, who with her son were cast on:) and yet she could not see, till God opened her eyes, Gen 23. ver. 29.   

SECT. 10.  
H. H. p. 34. As for your saying, we had need study the Controversy seven years. I Answer, What rule have you for that? Did the 3000 in Acts 2.41, 42. study this Controversy seven years, or seven dates either? Or those men and women in Acts 8.12. or the Eunuch, ●. 38? or L●d●● and the Jailor, Act. 16 etc.  
Reply 1. Mr. Baxter speaks of most Controversies: his words are, pag. 6. Most of the best (of people) have need to read Scripture, and books of Controversy seven years at least, before they will be capable of understanding most Controversies. But it's no wonder that you, who are so frequent in perverting the holy Scriptures (as hath been showed) pervert his writings. The Reader now may observe how much you have left our.  
2. Because (I concess) this is applicable to the present point, (though not only) I say, your instances our of the Acts of the Apostles are nothing to the purpose. viz. They did not study this Controversy seven years, before they (being ●du●) were baptised. Therefore we have no need to read the Scripture and books of Controversy, before we understand this Controversy of Infant-baptism A gross inconsequence.  
3. But you ask, what rule for that? Mr. Baxter hath given you a reason pag. 5. (agreeable to the rule) God changeth the wi●● 〈◊〉 a sudden; but he doth not insure knowledge (especially of difficult points) on a sudden. If this like you not, I hope you will not recede from your own rule, pag. 28. where you confess, That we have all need of seven years' education at Cambridge and Oxford, etc. therefore of seven years' study for the understanding of this Controversy, and that without any danger of incoherence or folly.   

SECT. 11.  
H. H. You say that men think they can understand plain Scripture if they hear it, but they cannot. Oh that pride would let them know, that they cannot understand the plainest Lecture of Geometry, or Arithmetic— Read the Grammar to a boy in the primer, and he understands not a word you say. Answ. Is it possible, you would make men believe they cannot understand plain Scripture, if they have it? But I pray try us with some first, and see; I confess we cannot understand this Book of yours to be plain Scripture proof for, etc. because you have packed it so full of such Whimsies, as these, Geometry, Arithmetic, Grammar, etc. But Sir, God's Word is of another nature, Psal. 19.7.8. & 119.98, 99, 100 all which I believe you will find to be true, before we have done.  
Reply 1. It's possible that some men cannot understand plain Scripture, if they hear it; and Mr. Baxter in this 3d Position gives a reason of it: Otherwise one man should know as much as another, and all as much as their Teachers, seeing they all read and hear the same Word. If you will not believe Mr. Baxter (nor Scripture, nor experience) will you believe your own words? for a little after the beginning of this pag. 34. you say; The Apostles preached very plainly, and yet there were Many hearers which rejected their words, though very plain—  
It's possible and plain, that you can quickly contradict and confound yourself— and yet perhaps it's not possible, that you will believe it.  
2. You have been tried sufficiently with plain Scripture, and we see you will not believe it, nor understand it. Like those who are complained on, 
a) Isa. 28.9.  Whom shall he teach knowledge and make to understand doctrine? Them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts, etc.  
3. It's very strange to say (as you do often) that in Mr. Baxters' book there is no plain Scripture proof for Infant-Church-membership and Baptism, and yet you have plain 
b) See the Title of the Foundation of the Font discovered.  Scripture-proof for the baptising of men and women they believ, as a standing Ordinance of Jesus Christ: I pray you, where are those words, A Standing Ordinance of Jesus Christ, written in the Scripture?  
4. Yea it's stranger to say, Mr. Baxters' Book is packed so full of such Whimsies, as these; Geometry, Arithmetic, Grammar, etc. 

1. I am mistaken, if Mr. B. mentioneth these, but only in this third Position.  
2. You that profess yourself to be a Teacher, how can you understand many places of Scripture, or make the people to understand them (if they come to you for resolution) without some skill in these things, which you call Whimsies? E. g. Without 
c) Maltae sunt in Bibli●s quae numerandi scientian quam dicimus Arithmeticam deposcunt, multae quae sine Geometria intelligi non possunt, Alst. Plaec●g. l. 2. p. 76  skill in Geometry, how can you understand the Cubits of the length, and breadth, and height of Noah's Ark, made by God's own direction? And without Arithmetic 
d) Dan. 9.25, 26.  Daniel's seven weeks, and sixty two weeks? And without Grammar, whether the Relative 
e) Gen. 6.14, 15.  THIS is to be referred in the end of the 20 ver. of the 5. chap. of the of John? This is the true God. Whether to the Father (as the Arrians and Socinians say) or to the Son Jesus Christ, as the Orthodox most truly say? Or without Astronomy, how can you understand that Text, which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleyades, and the chambers of the South? Unless you look with other men's eyes, and take things upon meet trust.  
3. Now let the Godly judge, whether it be not a kind of blasphemy, wickedly to term these, he like Arts, by the name of WHIMSIES. 
f) Joh ●. 8.  But Learning (against which you do so often inveigh) hath no enemy, but him that is ignorant and unlearned.    
5. We honour the Word of God as much as you, and (through grace in some measure) know by experience the nature and effects of it: and I believ we shall discover that light which is in you to be darkness, before we have done.   

SECT. 12.  
H. H. p. 35. You s●●, Po●●●. 4. When the cause is so difficult, we must follow the most probable ●a●● Answ. ●hen i● seems it's very difficult for you to prove, that Infants ought to be baptised, by your own confession, and indeed so I believ; for that must need● be difficult to prove, that there is not one word of God in all the Bible for. I cannot blame you to say. That it's difficult to prove.  
Reply 1. That it's difficult to prove Infant-baptism, is not Mr. Baxter's confession; but your own collection; yet you would make your Proselytes believ (who are very credulous, taking all for Gospel that you say) that it is Mr. baxter's own confession.  
2. Admit this Confession, it makes nothing for you no● against us, but rather for u●, if that saying be t●u● 
g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Diffic●●● quae pu●c●●a.  The more difficult, the more excellent. It's ●ard to prove by express Scripture, the Christian weekly Sabbath, Family-praier twice a day, women's receiving the Lord's Supper, and the re●t mentioned before, 
h) Chap 5. sect. 1. etc.  with many more▪ yet it hurts not us who conscientiously observe the same, no● help such who are enemies to them and us. Such is the case of Infant-baptism.  
3. It's but a vain Repetition of 〈◊〉 loud and lewd calumny, that there is not one word of God in all the Bible for Infant-baptism: To what end have you sweat so much in answering some of those Scriptures which are (usually and rightly) brought for Infant-Baptism? Sure the Scriptures are the Word of God contained in the Bible.   

SECT. 13.  
H. H. But you say, we must follow the most probable way. Come on then, that we will. Now whether it is most probable, ●h●● that practice which is not where commanded, nor written in Scripture, should be of God, or of Satan; Judge ye! Now that Infant-baptism is such a practice, as is not written in Scripture, both M. Hag. and yourself confess— Therefore it's not of God, but of Satan.  
Reply 1. Your Argument consists of pure Negatives 
i) Altera saltem prae●iss●rum sit affi●mans, ●anex duabus praemissis negantibus nil p●●est legiti●●e conclu●i Eu stach de Syllo. p 132.  and so concludes nothing: For this is the sum and substance of it: That which is not written in the Word of God, is not of God, but of Satan. But Infant-baptism is not written in the Word of God. Therefore it's not of God, but of Satan.  
2. You father another untruth on M. H. and M. B. They not where confess that Infant-baptism is not written in Scripture; for how many Scriptures do they bring to prove the practice of Infant-baptism?  
3. You do but equivocate in the word WRITTEN, for if you mean expressly in so many words and syllables, than your Major is fal●e, and rests on you to be proved. In the mean time the falsehood may be thus discovered to any Reader from your own principle: That which is not w●itten expressly in the Word of God, is not of God, but o● Satan; but women's receiving the Lords Supper. Family prayer morning and evening, etc. are not expressly written in the Word of God: Therefore women's receiving the Lord's Supper, family-prayer morning and evening. etc. are not of God, but of Satan. You have now brought your Pigs to a fair market. But if by the word WRITTEN, you mean Consequentially written. Then your Minor is false; For Infant-baptism is so written in the Word of God, i. e. Consequentially, as hath been abundantly 
k) S●e M Marshall● Defence p. 209, etc.  showed out of Mat. 28.19. Acts 2.38, 39 etc. Where there are Consequential commands for Infant-baptism: As (by your own confession, p. 12.) Family-prayer, etc. is written in 1 Tim. 2.8 etc.— So that hence I conculde Infant-baptism is written in the Word of God, and therefore of God, and not of Satan, as you blasphemously speak and write.   

SECT. 14.  
H. H. In your 5 Position, you tell the people, that if any have taken up this p●nion, and have not read and studied Mr. Cobbet, and Mr. Church, and other chief Books, and been able to confute them, they have but discovered a seared conscience; which either dare venture on sin without fear, or else do count error no sin. To all which I answer. How now Mr. B. are you grown to this height? what must not men obey what they find written in the holy Scripture, till they have asked M. Cobbet and M. Church's counsel? I pray you, where learned you this Divinity? at Rome? I thought all this while the holy Scriptures had been able to make us wise to salvation— but it seems they are not: If you say— True, but we must be beholding to M. Cobbet, and M. Church.  
Reply 1. The greatest part of M. B. 5 Position you pass by in silence, (as being, (it seems) unable to answer it, and the piece you catch at, you curtail also; as the intelligent Reader may quickly observe.  
2. What you seem to answer to, is in a Magisteriall, Prelatical, and scornful way: e. g. How now M. B! are, you grown to this height? what? must not men obey, etc. till they have asked M. Cobbets and M. Church's counsel? I pray where learned you this Divinity? at Rome?— I am very sorry that you are grown to that height, as to fit in the seat of the scornful? 
l) Psal. 1.1.   
3. The Scriptures (I acknowledge) is able to make us wise to salvation, and yet we may, and must read other Books, for all that, 
m) 1 Tim 4.14 with Eccl. 12.12.  give attendance to reading— I believe you speak this out of the height of your bitterness and malice against all humane learning: which shall be defended in its place.  
4. What a poor and pitiful reason do you give? Mr. Cobbets and Mr. Church's Books must not be read, because the Scripture is able to make us wise to salvation. 
n) Foundation p. 15. to 21.  Why then did M. Haggar read (if he hath read) those Books mentioned in pag. 15. which make up three whole leaves? Are not the Scriptures able to make M. Haggar wise to salvation— without them? Nay, why have you printed this Book of yours, if not to be read? and yet for all that the Scripture is able to make us wise to salvation, through Faith in Christ.   

SECT. 15.  
H. H. p. 36 But I pray, how did men before M. Cobbets and M. Church's B●oks were written? and how do those ●ow, who cannot come by their Books, or never heard of them; If it be as you say, you may do well to send some men up and down the Country to sell them. But I believe this is but one of your scare-Crows; with which you use to affright silly souls, that set their Faith in your wisdom, and not in the power of God; but your folly is a making manifest, and light and freedom is breaking forth to them which you have kept in darkness and bondage.  
Reply 1. Pehaps you might as well ask, how did men before the Scriptures were written? But  
2. You speak in the language of ignorant, superstitious, Popish, and profane persons; what are become of our Ancestors, & c? How did our Forefathers before there were so much preaching, & c? The same plaster may be applied to both sores: viz. They stand and fall to their Master. Where much is given, much is required; that little measure of light might be saving to them, which will not be to us. But M. Baxter tells you p. 6. If any of you have taken up this opinion, without reading M. Cobbets etc. and being able to confute them, at least to himself, (which words you have left out) you have discovered a seared conscience, etc. To which you answer not a word.  
3. Your scoffing, scorning, and censuring, are unworthy of any reply; only (it seems) as yet you have not made M. B. folly manifest; (for you say), His folly is a making manifest) and I am confident, that, that light and freedom (you talk of) will be found in the event, darkness and Thraldom.  
4. Consider in your cold blood, whether you do not keep your Proselytes in darkness and bondage, by keeping them from the public Ministry. (By the light whereof, your errors are discovered) under the odious terms of Antichristian, etc. (one of your Scare-Crows, with which you use to affright silly souls—) And by keeping them to your Ministry, or to some private gifted-brother (as he is called); what is this, but to be kept in bondage, or set in the stocks?   

SECT. 16.  
H. H. same p In your sixth Position, you say you will discover a most frequent cause of men's falling into errors, viz. All men in the beginning do receive many truths upon weak and falls grounds, and so hold them a while, till they are beaten out of their old Arguments, and then presently they suspect the cause itself, and you are persuaded that it is Mr. Tomb's case. Answ. As for Mr. Tombs, he is of age, and able to answer for himself. I never knew any receive Infant-baptism upon any ground at all, weak or strong; neither can they, being uncapable of understanding what they do. Therefore you may well say; they are, or may be quickly beaten off it again, etc.  
Reply 1. What you say of M. Tombs, I may more truly say of M. Baxter; he is of age, and able to answer for himself. If that be true (of which I make no question) which is said of M. Baxter; 
o) J. G. Catabap  A man as fit and able as any I know, to make strait a crooked age.  
2. M. Baxter doth not say as you represent him; but you being deceived, would deceive the simple, partly by leaving out the word ALMOST (For he saith, Almost all men— do receive many truths on weak and false grounds) and partly by not distinguishing between the receiving of Infant-baptism, and the doctrine of Infant-baptism. The Jewish Infants received Circumcision, even when and while they could not receive the doctrine of it. Your reason therefore concludes as strongly against Circumcision then, as against Infant-baptisme now.   

SECT. 17.  
H. H. same p. You say, Alas! there are far better grounds which they are not ware of. Answ. That is, it may be, because you baptise them so soon; if you would let them alone, till they are men and women, before you baptise them, as you have example in Scripture, they might receive Baptism on better grounds.  
Reply 1. Your interpretation, with, a may be, is but a mere conjecture, a fancy of your own head, and worthy of no better a reply.  
2. Though we distinguish between men, and women, and children in our language, yet the Scripture doth not always. Cain a child is called a man, Gen. 4.1. and an Infant (upon the birth) is also called in the New Testament a man, John 16.21. where the same word is used, which includes both man and woman, as you confess, p. 68 Howsoever your expression is as improper, as your advice is impertinent. viz. If you would let them alone, till they are men and women: I know not your meaning well, unless you would have every Infant an Hermaphrodite, viz. a man and woman.  
3. You have brought no example in Scripture to justify your practice, for those who are said to be baptised in Scripture, were not baptised before (that we read of) as you acknowledge we were, p. 24.   

SECT. 18.  
H. H. p. 36 and 37. In your seventh Position you confess, some Divines have reasoned very weakly for Infant-baptism, and used unfit Phrases, and mis-applyed Scriptures, and to th●se some have wrote three or four Books, and easily answered, and seemed to Triumph, and yet the truth is not shaken; but it may be, all the best Arguments and plain Scriptures, have never been answered. Answ. I desire to answer the plain Scriptures no way, but by Faith and obedience, by believing and doing them. Therefore if you know of any that speaks of Infant-baptism, bring them forth, and I will be silent. The first I see, but as for your best Arguments you talk off, I look upon them but as so many cunning devised Fables, wherewith you lie in wait to deceive simple souls, by speaking things you ought not, for filthy Lucre's sake, Titus 1 14.  
Reply 1. The first part of your answer, I cannot put into my Creed, for if you desire— why do you not endeavour? you kn●w, who saith (p) The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing, Prov. 13.4.  
2. M. B. a●d others, have brought forth plain Scripture for Infant-baptism, and you in silence have passed by the most of them, because (it seems) you could not answer them: though you confess you see them.  
3. The close of your answer, if it be a sufficient answer, than its an easy matter to answer any Argument (though never so strong) by mis-applying Scripture, and scornful terms. And I must needs tell you of your rash, and harsh judgement, contrary to Mat. 7.1. Judge not &c.— and to Rom. 14.10. etc. why dost thou judge thy brother & c.? And indeed, this last part of your answer is the reason, why I cannot believe your first.   

SECT. 19  
H. H. p. 37. You say Position 8. One sound Argument is enough to prove any thing true. Answ. Then either the great number of yours in your book of plain Scriptures are not sound, or else you need not to have brought so many by your own grant.  
Reply 1. What you say of M. Baxters' Arguments, may be said of yours more truly, viz. your twelve Arguments 
q) Foundation f●om p 63. to 73. from p. 73. to 87.  against Infants Church-membership, and your nine Arguments against Infants-discipleship, etc. which will be found as weak as water; and as unsound as rotten ground, when I shall come to them.  
2. M. Baxter tells you in this 8 Position. It is not number but weight, that must carry it. Therefore he resolved not to heap up many.  
3. It seems you take notice of the great number of M. Baxters' Arguments; and yet you dare not grapple with that huge host, but only cull out one or two, and that by snatching at a limb, and away 
r) Tanquam Caenis ad Nilum, Eras. Ad●g.  as you have done with M. Cook, etc.   

SECT. 20.  
H. H. But you say, What if all the Texts were put by save one, were not that enough? Answ. Yes, it's enough, if you can show us but one, but I pray where is that one? I cannot find it in all the book. But it seems you are afraid, that all should be put by save one. Therefore you make this Apology, but I suppose all will do you little go●d.  
Reply 1. If you wipe your eyes you may see (if you be not blind) in M. Baxters' Book more than one.  
2. I doubt you speak against your conscience. How dare you say, you cannot find one text for Infant-baptism in all M. Baxter's Book, when you seem to be more Eagle-eyed than others in seeing and finding (as you think) the Font in Jer. 2.12, 13. p. 8.  
3. M. Baxter's Apology is not made out of any such jealousy, as you pretend; as if he was afraid, that all should be put by save one, but out of a desire and endeavour to rectify the ignorant in their fond conceits; as he himself expr●sseth it, which you have cunningly left out.  
4. I will accept of your grant, and improve it in time convenient, viz. If all should be put by but one, it's enough.   

SECT. 21.  
H. H. same p. You say Position 9 The former and present customs of the holy Saints and Churches; should be of great weight with humble Christians. Answ. I grant it, if they be now according to the primitive pattern: I am sure the custom of the Churches in the Apostles days was to baptise men and women when they believed, etc. Acts 2.41. & 8.12.36, 37. & 10.47. & 16.33.34. & 18.8. Therefore let this custom be of weight to yourself, and do not baptise little babes that cannot believe, etc. because Paul saith, 1 Cor. 11.16.  
Reply 1. You condemn hereby all the Protestant Ministers of the French Churches, who preach with their hats on their heads, and yet they think they may do so without sin, notwithstanding, 1 Cor. 11.4.7.  
2. Are not you self-condemned? who (as I am informed) have broken bread on the second day of the week, when the primitive Disciples 
s) Act. 20.7.  did it on the Lord's day: viz. the first day of the week, as you grant p. 13. nay (Expositors on that place collect) they did break bread once a week, viz. on the day aforesaid, you once a month, if so oft.  
3. Those Scriptures so often repeated by you, have been answered already: I tell you again, That practice is not binding to us, but in the same or like condition. Beside, the primitive Christians had their Love-feasts, when the Lord's Supper was administered, and received (as is plain out of Scripture 
s) see Diodat. 1 Cor. 11.20.21. Judas 8.12.  and it was their custom to salute one another with an holy kiss. Do you not think it a piec of your Christian liberty to swerve from these primitive practices, etc.  
4. The custom of the Churches in baptising Infant● is of that weight with the Paedobaptists, that you must b●ing more convincing Arguments than you have yet done, to take them off from that custom. As for the manner of Baptising, Mr. Cradock (to whom Mr. Baxter refers you) tells you, 
* Gospel-liberty p. 2●. &. 4.  I hat Christ hath not made Baptism such an Ordinance," as that in all Climates, and Countries-and Regions they" must go over head and ears in a River, etc.   

SECT. 22.  
H. H. You say that you can prove, that Infant-baptism was used in the Church as high as to the Apostles, as there be many sufficient Histories extant inform us; and that the deferring of Baptism came in with the rest of Popery, upon Popish or Heretical grounds. Answ. Oh Sir! have I now sound you out? Truly seeing I have, I must not conceal your wickedness, lest I become guilty with you of the blood of souls; And therefore I do by this declare to all men, that you are both a Deceiver and a Blasphemer. The which charge I now come to prove.  
Reply 1. Nay stay a while, and consider what you say or do, you triumph before the victory. If you have but now found out Mr. Baxter, It teems you have miss of him all this while.  
2. Though I have found you out before, yet I must not conceal your weakness, wickedness, and audaciousness, lest I communicate with you in ●our sin; and here I do declare to all men hereby, that Henry Haggar is both an Imposter and a Blasphemer, the which charge I come now to prove; but first let us see how you prove the charge.   

SECT. 23.  
H. H. p. 3.38. 1. It's evident you are a Deceiver, in that you have entitled your Book, Plain Scripture proof for Infant's Church-membership, and Baptism, when indeed there is no such thing in all the Bible; but you confess that your proof is from some histories extant, which you judge sufficient, etc.  
Reply 1. You notoriously abuse Mr. Baxter, he doth not say, that proof for Infant-baptism from Histories are sufficient in his judgement, 
u) see Mr. Baxt. Position 9 p. 7.  but in opposition to Mr. T. pretences among the simple, he saith, he shall easily prove, that Infant-baptism was used in the Church as high as to the Apostles days, as there is any sufficient history extant to inform us: And if this proves Mr. Baxter to be a deceiver, than blessed 
v) see the foregoing Chap. 5. sect. 14. & Inst. 3.4. c. 16. s. 8.  Calvin is one, and many other burning and shining lights in the Churches of Christ. But your charge is indeed from an Eldern-gun, and is no Musket-shot; it makes a noise, but (God be thanked) hurts not.  
2. Besides the humane testimonies for Infant-baptism in matter of fact, M. Baxter brings abundance of plain Scriptures to prove it De jure.: And if you see them not, it is because you are wilfully blind and obstinate. It's an easy matter for you with impudence to say, there is no such thing but its hard for you to disprove those Texts of Scripture alleged by him. Therefore you have cunningly waved all, saving two or three in comparison.  
3. Your Proposition implied is false: viz. He that entitles his Book so, and yet brings ancient histories to prove the usage of Infant-baptism as high as the Apostles days, is a Deceiver; you will never set this crooked leg strait while the world stands.  
4. To set the Saddle (as they say) on the right horse, and to prove you a Deceiver, I thus argue: He that inti●uleth his Book, Plain Scripture-proof for the baptising of men and women when they believe (in Rivers and Fountains) as a Standing Ordinance in the Church of Christ, is a Deceiver: But H. H. so intituseth his Book; therefore H H. is a Deceiver. The●e is no doubt of the Minor, and the Major is as clear— because those words, viz. [A Standing Ordinance] are no where written in the Scripture of truth. and with Mr. Haggar, express and plain Scripture proof are all one.   

SECT. 24.  
H. H. 2. You are a Blasphemer; for you say, deferring of Baptism came in with the rest of Popery. Answ. But Sir, do you not know that our glorious Lord Jesus Christ deferred his baptism till he was thirty years of age, Luke 3.21, 22, 23. And yet he was the child of believing Parents, I think you dare not deny?  
Reply 1. If this example be binding, none ought to be baptised till they are thirty years old, which (I persuade myself) is against your judgement and practice.  
2. Luke saith not, that Christ deferred his Baptism, till he was thirty years of age. This is your inference, not his Assertion. He doth not say, Christ was thirty years of age before (or when) he was baptised, much less than the Deferred his Baptism till then— but thus; 
* Luke 2.23.  Jesus himself began to be About thirty years of age, etc.  
3. Christ was not till then baptised; partly to answer the Types, 
x) Numb. 4.3, 35, 39, 43, 47.  and chief to receive that Testimony from Heaven, in the midst of such a great confluence of people, that came to John to be baptised, which is hinted by Mat. 3.5, 6— 13 Then— and held forth by Luke c. 3.21, 22. Therefore this was not properly a deferring, 
* see Diodat. on 2 Pet. 3 9  unless perhaps in the judgement of the Flesh: as, Hab. 2. vers. 3.2 Pet. 3.9.   

SECT. 25.  
H. H. p. ibid. Again, doth not the Commission of Christ defer Baptism till believing, Mark 16.15, 16. and Philip also, Acts 8 36, 37. showing by these words plainly, that if he did not believe, it was to be deferred, etc.  
Reply 1. In Mark and in the Acts cited, there is not one word of deferring till believing; you manifest your own folly, and delude poor souls, etc.  
2. You are now for Consequences, when you think they will serve your turn. Mr. Baxter hath brought more plain Scripture-proof for Infant Church-membership and Baptism, than you have done for deferring Baptism.  
3. I am mistaken, if you are not guilty of a plain contradictions; For in your pag. 26. in your exhortation, you do more than imply, that Baptism is not to be deferred, saying; Let us not delay the time, (with a woeful misapplication of Scripture 
y) ●sal. 119.60.  but here in this page. Baptism is to be deferred, as you plead.  
4. The rest of this page contains nothing but an idle Repetition, or abominable Censuring, with horrible abuse of Scripture, and therefore shall have no other answer, but what is made already.   

SECT. 26.  
H. H. pag. 39 The sum of which is, that Rev 19.20. and 13.16, 17. are most properly applied to you, the sign of the Cross being a mark of the Beast, on the child's forehead, when it was baptised, or rather rantized. Here is a looking-glass for you but the Gospel is our looking-glass, Acts 2.41. & 8.12. & 14.3. wherein we see ourselves conformable to the image of Christ, and walk according to the Primitive pattern, being far from compelling any to be baptised, till they can understand what they do, and amend their lives, etc.  
Reply 1. Those Scriptures cannot be properly applied to us, but are woefully misapplied by you. Why do you rave, of the sign of the Cross, which with other Ceremonies (groaned under by the godly) are removed? Or of receiving the mark of the Beast: i. e. 
z) Mode on Rev. 4. p. 76.  a subjecting ourselves to his Authority, and acknowledging him to be our Lord, when you cannot but know, that yoke hath been happily cast off long since? But it seems you had a mind to set the mark of the Beast on us, in favour of the Church of Rome, for whom you are a Factor. But further to show your error in that misapplication; I pray, what miracles are done by us? As Rev. 13.14. and 18.20. I fear you show too much the mark of the Beast, by your kicking, and wincing at, and dabbling those that are travelling towards heaven.  
2. You intimate that he who is Rantiz●d (as you scornfully speak) is not baptised: as if I should say, H. Hag. is a man, and therefore not a living creature: but you acknowledge these 3000 were baptised, and it's most probable they were 
a) Acts 2.41. Videntur 3000 uno die à paucis Apostolicis non potuisse baptizari si singuli mersi fuissent, Cham. 1.4 l. 5. c, 2. s. 6.  rantized only, there's no mention made of Fonts and Rivers.  
3. I wonder in what glass you looked, when you could see a Font in Jer 2.12, 13. pag 8. and the sign of the Cross in this of the Revel. and yet cannot see one plain Scripture for Infant-baptism.  
4. Were those mentioned in the Acts baptised before, as you say we were, pag. 24. or were they Church-members, Receivers of the Lord's Supper, etc. as those were whom you re-baptize? If not, for shame do not say, that you see your selus in the glass of the Gospel more conformable to Christ, and the Primitive pattern.  
5. Though you want the Argument of force (which yet you would fain have) yet you want not the force of Argument (though feigned) to compel some ignorant and carnal people (whom I could name) to be baptised by you.  
6. I may not forget to make good my charge also, that you are a Blasphemer, if to blaspheme be to speak evil, as it is often rendered in the New Testament 
b) E g. Judas 10, etc. 1 Pet. 4. ver. 4.  For you say, Infant-baptism is of Satan, pag 35. when no Scripture speaks so: That it is an invention of the Pope, page 15. when it hath been practised in the Church of Christ before the 
c) Universa Ecclisia baptismum Insantumtenuit antequam intelligeretur, quid sibi vellet Regnum Papae, aut quicquam de eo auditum esset. Call Iust. in Anab. p. 478  Pope was born: That Mr. B. Mr. C. and other godly Ministers that descent from you are fools, wicked, Antichristian, etc. and that they make Proselytes seven fold more the children of Satan, than they were before, p. 38. with a great deal of more filthy stuff disgorged from your rancorous stomach all along your book. I say no more, but that time is coming that you shall give an account to him that is ready to judge quick and dead, 1 Pet. 4▪ ver. 4, 5.   

SECT. 27.  
H. H. pag. 39, & 40. You say Pos. 10. Evident Consequences, or Arguments drawn by reason from Scripture, are as true proof as the very express words of a Text; and if we have the words without the meaning and reason, we have no proof at all; for the Devil used the words of the Scripture to Christ. To all which I Answer; I● That Consequences or Arguments drawn from Scripture, are as true proofs as Scripture: This is but one of your untruths. For most certain it is, that what the Scripture saith, we need not prove by Consequence— As Gen. 1.1▪ 3, 7 8. And this I do believe without any Consequence: And if you will deny it, because it is plain Scripture, without any Consequence, you may if you please; but your folly will be manifest, as it is to me already.  
Reply 1. You seem here to deny all Consequences, when you granted some, pag. 11. One of these must be one of your untruths, for both members of a contradiction cannot be true (observing the laws of a contradiction).  
2. Must that be an untruth in Mr. Baxter, which is a truth in you? For you have asserted plain Scripture-proof for giving thanks at Meals, praying with our Families, women's receiving the Lord's Supper, p. 12, 13, 14. which are but Consequences and Arguments drawn from Scripture, and ye● as true proofs as Scripture itself: so you judge, and I deny not.  
3. If you mean, what the Scripture saith Expressly, it's granted, we need not prove by Consequence, if otherwise it's denied. Christ himself (Mr. Baxter tells you) proves the Resurrection by Consequence, out of Exod. 3.6. so that you might have spared the quotations out of Gen. 1.1. etc. who denies all, or any of these? But you have a notable faculty to prove that, which none of your Adversaries deny.  
4. If Mr. Baxter, etc. do believe those Scriptures cited by you, and not deny the same; then is your folly made manifest, in making such an inference as you do.   

SECT. 28.  
H. H. p. 40. Secondly, when you say, If we have the words without the meaning and reason, we have no proof at all. This is a most subtle Sophistry, much like to that of Satan, when he beguiled Eve, saving, Gen. 3.4, 5. which was both a truth and a lie. The truth is, if we have not God's meaning, and the reason why he speaks to us, how can we understand as we ought? But both are plainly declared to the sons of men by the Word of Truth, and so plainly, that if you, or an Angel from heaven shall add to it, or take from it, you shall be accursed, and he will add, etc. all which if you do not know, read Prov. 30.6. Gal. 1.8, 9 Rev. 22.18.  
Reply 1. Mr. Baxter's expression and Satan's are very unlike; you acknowledge a truth and a lie in Satan's, but you have showed no lie in M. Baxter's, nor indeed can you, unless you will also condemn yourself.  
2. If we cannot understand, unless we have God's meaning and reason, than Mr. Baxter is in the truth▪ viz If we have the Word without the meaning and reason, we have no proof at all. Shuffle no longer.  
3. Mr. Baxter knows, and hath read those Scriptures mentioned by you; but do you read them more seriously, and then you may know more clearly, whether you be not obnoxious to those plagues and curses; for you are guilty of adding to the Word, e. g. p 4. you add, That (forth) wilderness, in Mark 1.3, 4, 5. And ye have added the word Church to Acts 2.41. and the Condition of Faith, &c, to Acts 2.39. Many more instances might be given.  
4. I confess all adding to the Word is (if it may be so called) not simply forbidden: For then all Annotations on the Bible, or Expositions on any Text, should be unlawful, which concludes you as well as us; but all Additions for words or meaning contrary to the Word, according to that usual saying by way of Sarcasme, 
d) Benedicta Glossa quae corrumpit textum.  Blessed is that Gloss which doth corrupt the Text: Now if we are guilty of such a crime, it remains on you to prove it, your calumny to this purpose hath been discovered, in your page 11.   

SECT. 29.  
H. H. p, 41. You would make us believe, that what is written is not able to inform us aright, but you must add, or take from it at your pleasure, and those additions or subtractions you call the meanings and reasons of the Word of God. But I shall prove, that the Word of God alone is able to make us wise to salvation, without the adding to, or taking from, 2 Tim. 3.15, 16 17. Jam. 1.21. Acts 20.32.  
Reply 1. Would we make you believe so etc.—? This is one of those evil surmisings of yours, which is condemned in 1 Tim. 6.4.  
2. You prove that the Word of God is able to make us wise unto salvation, you are very good at proving that, which none of us denies. But,  
3. The Scriptures alleged by you, do not prove what you undertake. For where is the word Alone in any of these Texts? Is not this one of those Additions, contrary to the forenamed Scriptures?   

SECT. 30.  
H. H. And now seeing the holy Scriptures are able to do all these things; I will boldly and safely conclude, that we have no need of your reasons and senses to help thèm, but you have need to help your reasons and senses by the holy Writings; or else you will be one of those insensible unreasonable men 
e) 2 Thes. 3.2.  who have not Faith, and how can you have faith? Joh. 5.44. And do not you receive honour one of another, when you prefer one another's words above the Words of GOD, & c?  
Reply 1. You will boldly and safely conclude; you should have said, boldly and falsely, and then you had hit it.  
2. By drawing such a conclusion: you put yourself into the number of those unreasonable men. For what an unreasonable reasoning is this? The Scriptures are able to make us wise to salvation: Therefore we have no need of sense and reason. Besides, Vatablus translates the 
f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Greek word, Absurd men, and are not you such an one, in denying the Conclusion in a public Disputation? The Syriack Insolent; and who (save the Quakers) trample on godly Ministers with scorn and reviling more than you? à lapide, of no settled abode; but as vagrants, and vagabonds; and do not you wander from one Country to another, from one place to another to subvert souls, and trouble the peace of Christians? Our English renders it, (and you read it) Unreasonable, and are not you one of them, whom no reason (though never so clearly grounded on the Word) will satisfy? Nay, what an unreasonable thing is it, that you must allow yourself Consequences for the proving of your Tenants, and disallow all our Consequences brought to prove infant-baptism?  
3. The close of this Section of yours is a mere calumny; we do not prefer one another's words above God's Word, and the Scripture brought to prove it is impertinent.   

SECT. 31.  
H. H. pag. 42. Whereas you say wickedly, that if we have the words of God without the meaning and reason, we have no proof. Answ. I am sure— I may conclude, that if we have your words, and meanings, and reasons without the Word of God, we have no proof that we may safely trust. For Rom. 3.4. Jerem. 17.5. And thus your folly is manifest, etc.  
Reply 1. Any Adversary may be easily answered with saying, You say wickedly; but you have not proved yet, that Mr. Baxter saith wickedly, as to the Position in hand.  
2. Mr. Baxter saith truly and holily, That if we have the words of God without the meaning and reason, we have no proof. E. g. You have the words of God in Jer. 2.12, 13. 
g) Pag. 8.9.  but without the true meaning and reason, as you do bring them, with impudence and confidence enough, and yet we have no proof our of that text, against Infants-baptism, or Fonts.  
3. We may more honestly, and in the fear of God conclude, That if we have the Word of God with your meaning and reason (and not the Lord's) we have no proof, that we may safely trust. E. g. You bring us the Word of God, 1 Tim. 2.12. for women's preaching, provided that they usurp not authority over their husbands, p. 64. where I shall make your folly manifest.  
4. You may now honestly, and in the fear of God conclude, That having God's Word, with the true meaning and reason, you have proof sufficient, on which you may safely trust; because nothing is affirmed by us, but what is confirmed by the Word of God.  
5. The rest is not worthy of a Reply, unless I may say, you have made Mr. Baxter's folly manifest, as he did confute Bellarmine in one word, saying, Robert Bellarmine thou liest.   

SECT. 32.  
H. H. pag. Ibid. To your proof. The Devil used the words of God to tempt Christ. Answ. Doth it follow, that because the Devil and wicked men do sometimes use the Word of God, to deceive with. That therefore the Saints must not use it to make them wise to salvation.  
Reply 1. Which of us ever said so? you do but fight with your own shadow; and so let it vanish.   

SECT. 33.  
H. H. You much mistake the matter. The Devil's deceit did not lie in bringing the Scriptures; but in adding to, and taking fo●m. Compare, Psal. 91.11.12, with Mat. 4.6. and Luke 4.9.10.11. Where the Tempter added, Cast thyself down, and, at any time; and left out, in all thy ways. And yet Mr. Baxter takes the Devil's part, and saith, The Devil used the words of the Scriptures to Christ. But this is but a small fault with you, for you have learned to take the same leave yourself, as I shall now make it appear.  
Reply 1. You mistake the matter, and Mr. Baxter too; for he made no mention of the Devil's deceit, or wherein it lies; but that the Devil used Sripture words without the meaning and reason. Though I deny not, but the Devil's design was to deceive Christ, if it had been possible.  
2. What though the Devil's deceit did lie in adding to, and taking from the Scriptures (I freely acknowledge) yet were not those Scripture words which he made use of? viz. He shall give his Angels charge over thee to keep th●●, and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest thou dash thy soot against a stone? This confirms what Mr. B. said.  
3. You would make Mr. Baxter odious, by saying, He takes the Devil's part, etc. But Sir, you know the proverb, A man must give the Devil his due. Surely those godly Ministers do not take the Devil's part, when they tell sinners, that many times they belie the Devil, in fathering their sins on him rather than on themselves, Mat. 15.19. Out of the heart proceeds evil thoughts, etc. Jam. 1.14. Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust— 2 Pet. 1. ver. 4.— Corruption is in the world through lust.  
4. I fear that fault charged on Mr. Baxter, will be found within your own girdle, before I leave you. Though you say, you will now make it appear. It seems than you failed in making it to appear, as you said in the foregoing page. But just so you have learned the Devil's deceit in adding to Scripture. E. g Baptism is to be deferred till a man can believe, which is not written in the Bible, but in Mr. Haggars book, p. 38. and you say p. 61. God hath one way to save men and women, and another way to save little children, which is not where written in the holy Scriptures. Again, in the same page you say, Infants dying in their infancy, are saved by virtue of Christ's death, without actual F●ith, which is not where written, etc. who now writes after the Devil's copy? Who takes the Devil's part?   

SECT. 34.  
H. H. p. 43. The Devil said to Christ; If you be the Son of God, cast thyself down, which is not where written, as the Lord saith, but the contrary, viz. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord, etc. So do you say if you be the children of God, Baptise your children, which is not where written, but the contrary, Mat. 28.29. Mar. 15, 16. Acts 2.38, 41. & 8.37.12.37. But you know there is no children in the Text, neither can they do any thing of those things, notwithstanding all this, you do the works of Satan.  
Reply 1. Though what is said in the foregoing Sect. is a sufficient reply as to this also, yet I am sure Christ proves two things contrary to you. 

1. The lawfulness of arguing from Scripture by Consequences.  
2. That is Scripture which is contained though not expressed therein, e. g.   Christ must not cast himself down; for it is written in Deut. 6. ver. 16. Thus. If the Lord must not be tempted, than I must not cast myself down. But the Lord must not be tempted; Therefore—  
2. You bewray your ignorance in saying contrary; for the baptising of Infidels converted to the Faith, and Infants also of one or both Christian parents are not contrary, but subordinate: 
k) Subordinate non pugnant.  there is a consistency of both.  
3. The Scriptures you cite in Mat. and Mark, and the Acts have been answered before; you do but trouble yourself, and tyre the Reader with vain Repetitions: Yet to your last I say, Children are expressly mentioned in Acts 2. ver 39 which you have cunningly left out, as if (to use your own expression) you meant to take the Devil's part, and so to do his work. Beside, your allegations are as strong against Circumcision, as against infant-baptism; for you know they could not repent, nor believe with all their hearts, etc. and yet were circumcised. But let us see how Mr. B. or we do the works of Satan.   

SECT. 35.  
H. H. As he tempted Christ to cast himself down before God's time was come to send his Angels to take him down, and to that end would have applied a promise falsely, Psal. 91.11, 12 leaving out In all thy ways: So do you tempt men and women to baptise their children before God's time is come to beget them by his Word, 
Joh. 3.5.  James 1.18. That they might be born again, nor only of water, but of the Spirit: And to that end you tell them, It is written, They are disciples and Church-members, and they were circumcised under the Law; therefore they must be baptised under the Gospel, etc.  
Reply 1. You drive on the Popish design handsomely; for here you open a wide door for unwritten Traditions; What Scripture have you that saith expressly of the coming of God's time to send his Angels to take down Christ?  
2. Here is a very spiteful parallel: What likeness between, Casting thyself down, and baptising Children?  
3. We have another unwritten Tradition, viz. We tempt men and women to baptise their Children before God's time is come.  
4. You cannot deny but God doth beget some Infants by his Spirit without the Word, else they are none of his, Rom. 8.9.  
5. Your Gloss on John 3.5. smells too strongly of the Popish Cask: most Orthodox Divines understand by Water and Spirit, one and the same thing, (the latter being exegetical to the former, as Mat. 3.11. to be baptised with the Holy Ghost, and with Fire is all one) which you distinguish as different, in saying, not only of Water, but also of the Spirit.  
6. What a strange piece of Nonsense have we here? God doth beget us by his Word, that we might be born again; when God's begetting of us, and our being born again in Scripture are all one 
l) 1 Joh 4.18.  He that is born of God sinneth not, but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, etc. See also verse 1.  
7. These Arguments (to prove Infant-baptism) drawn from Circumcision, Church-membership, Discipleship, etc. you cannot answer, but by railing, which shall have no other Reply from me, but Silence and Patience.   

SECT. 36.  
H. H. p. 44. You tell us, that if we have the meaning and reason, we have enough for evidence, for words are but to express sense. Answ. Then it seems the meanings and reasons you talk of without the Word, are without sense by your own confession. And thus you see, or may see, that God by weak instruments can take you wise ones, in your own craftiness. But again, are not the words of the Scripture as good, and better since and reason, than any you can speak or give.  
Reply 1. It is not Mr. Baxter's confession, but Mr. Haggar's profession, to wrest M. Baxter's words as well as Scripture. Let any (〈…〉 of judiciousness) read M. Baxter's 10. Position, and he will quickly 〈◊〉 Baxter's plainness, and M. Haggar's craftiness.  
2. It's granted, that the words of the Scripture (in Hebrew and Greek) were given by the inspiration of the Spirit, but our English words (into which they are translated) are not, we may without blasphemy say. If you deny this, I must needs conclude, you are so far from being highflown, that with the Serpent you creep on the ground, and pave the way, for making the Vulgar Translation Authentical, as you would the English.   

SECT. 37.  
H. H. You say further, Would it not make a man pity such senseless ignorant wretches, that will call for express words of Scripture, when they have evident Consequences? Is Scripture-reason no reason? Answ. Sir, me thinks you are very pitiful, but you are a miserable Comforter; for when you have done, you fall a railing on us, calling us, Senseless, ignorant wretches, that will call for express Scripture, when we have your Consequences. But I have told you already, we dare not trust your Consequences. Indeed Scripture-reason is good reason, and it's that we would have from you, for which you call us, ignorant, senseless wretches.  
Reply 1. It seems, a just reproving in pity, is a railing with you: If so, you are far-gone, and very highflown indeed.  
2. It's your subtle sophistry to call evident Consequences drawn from Scripture, Our Consequences.  
3. If Mr. Baxter say true, (and you do not disprove him) that evident Consequences drawn from Scripture, are as true proof, as the very express words of a Text, (which you cannot but grant, p. 12, 13, 14) you may trust them better then, or as well as your own Consequences, which you often bring.   

SECT. 38.  
H. H. p. 45. We call Scripture-reason, written reason; now if you would show us where your reason is written in the Book of God (the holy Writings) the Controversy were at an end, but till than you have done nothing. But you might do well to inform the ignorant wretches, that the holy Scriptures in English are holy writings— And thus the people would know what you mean by Scripture-reasons? i. e. written reasons.  
Reply 1. If I mistake not, here is a pure Socinian Principle, viz. Nothing is written in Scripture, but what is expressed in so many words: Then farewell the doctrine of the Trinity, justification by Faith only, trusting in Christ's satisfaction, etc. All which, and many more particulars, are not written (in your sense) in the book of God, but written (in our sense) therein, because drawn by evident consequence from thence.  
2. Christ saith, Joh. 5.46. That Moses wrote of him, 
m) Gen. 3.15. Deut. 18.15.  which is true (in our sense), but Truth if self must have the Lie given him in your sense. For there is not one express written word of Christ in all the book of Moses, I mean the person of Christ, God-man.  
3. We do inform the ignorant wretches as you advise us, nay, we have done it before you advized us; and they do, or may know, that Infant-baptism is written in the Book of God as plainly, as women's Receiving the Lord's Supper, and those particulars mentioned in your pag. 12, 13, 14. Will you now stand to your word? and say with Mr. Saltmarsh in another case: An end of a Controversy.   

SECT. 39  
H. H. You say, we disdain reason; and therefore not to be reasoned with: and if we once renounce reason, we are bruit-beasts, and who will go to plead with a beast? It's reason that differeth a man from a beast, etc. Answ. You put me in mind how l●ke one of your forefathers you are; for (to my best remembrance) you speak his very words, and I question not, but if you had an opportunity, you would do his deeds, viz. Doctor Story to Mr. Philpot: see Fox Martyr. p. 1972.  
Reply 1. Mr. Haggar brings in a long story of Dr. Story his conference with Mr. Philpot the Martyr. I desire the Reader to view either Mr. Haggar, or Mr. Fox, which for brevity take I cannot transcribe: Yet I say truly, that a Lia● had need have a good memory. Mr. Baxter doth not speak Dr. Story's words. This Doctor called Philpot a beast, simply and absolutely. M. Baxter calls you so hypothetically and conditionally, if reason be renounced; nay, he includes himself as well as Anabaptists on that supposition, as you transcribe him, IF WE—   

SECT. 40.  
H. H. pag. 46. See how like your forefather Dr. Story you speak and behave you. self— or would do, if you had but liberty. You are children of one father, whose works you do, Joh. 8. ver. ●4.  
Reply 1. No more like, than an Apple is like an Oyster, (as they say) the parallel is not right; for beside the forementioned difference. Dr. Story was a Papist, M. Baxter a Protestant, Henry Haggar an Anabaptist and railer, Mr. Philpot neither, but a meek Martyr. That learned and godly Mr Philpot was no Anabaptist its plain 
n) S●e Fox vol. 3. p. 600. etc. Anno 1555. , for in a Letter to a fellow-pris●ner, thus he writes: The Apostles of Christ d●d baptise Children. And in another; The Apostles baptised Infants, since Baptism is in place of Circumcision. In a thi●d, The Apostles did baptise Infants, and not only men of lawful age. And again, Why do not these rebellious Anabaptists obey the Commandment of the Lord? Mark 10.13, 14, 15, 16 Now let the Reader consider, whether you or Mr. Baxter is most like to that blessed Martyr— and whether you are more like to Dr. Story, if you had liberty; 
o) Sleid. l. 10.  your predecessors at Munster show of what spirit you are.  
2. Gild of Conscience make you fearful of punishment, and uncharitably censorious of your betters; who without vanity may say, 
p) Mat. 23.9.  One is our Father which is in heaven.   

SECT. 41.  
H. H. Where as you say, we disclaim reason. I Answer; It's but one of your false accusations, we own all things written in the Scripture, etc.  
Reply 1. You disclaim the plainest and clearest reason deduced out of Scripture, and so it's no false accusation.  
2. If you did own all things written in the Scripture, the Controversy were at an end, as you say, p. 45.  
3. What perverseness and partiality is this? that you can own Woman's Discipleship, and their Receiving the Lord's Supper, etc. (a● p. 14.) as things written in Scripture, and yet disclaim some Infant's Discipleship, Church-membership, and Baptism, which are written in the Scriptures of truth, as well as the former, and many other instances which might be given.   

SECT. 42.  
H. H. pag. 47. Mr. Baxter saith; Do you think the Lord Jesus knew a good Argument, or the right way of Disputing? Why how did he prove the Resurrection to the Sadduces? from that text, I am the God of Abraham, etc. Answ. The Lord Jesus knew a good Argument, and the right way of Disputing better than Mr. Baxter, or myself, or any man else, I humbly confess to his praise; and therefore I desire to make use of his words that he hath already spoken, knowing that he hath reasoned and proved all things better than I can.  
Reply 1. Then you grant, that there can be no arguing from Scripture but by deduction; for in all Arguments there must be a Medium, and a Conclusion; a Proposition, and an Inference, as appears by your own Arguments, p. 63, etc.  
2. You grant as much as is desired, that to argue by evident Consequence from Scripture, is a right way of disputing, as Christ's was. Humbly confess this also to Christ's praise, and join hands and hearts also with Mr. Baxter, and say, I shall think it no weak arguning which is like to Christ's; nor shall I take myself to be out of the way, while I follow him.   

SECT. 43.  
H. H. p. 47. But though Mr. Baxter confesseth, that Christ knew the best reasoning, yet he is not content with his reason, but adds to it these words; If God be the God of Abraham, than Abraham in soul is living. 2. That God is not the God of the Dead, but the Living. 3. If Abraham's soul be living, than his body must be raised. 4. If Abraham's body shall rise, than there is a Resurrection, etc.— To which I Answer, 1. Mr. Baxter in all these Consequences that he hath drawn, hath but darkened the counsel of God, spoken by the mouth of Christ.  
Reply 1. The clear light of Mr. Baxter's Consequences hath so dazzled your eyes, that you cannot (it seems) see the truth.  
2. How can you without blushing say, that Mr. B. hath drawn all these Consequences: when Christ, 
q) Mat 22.32. & Luk. 20.38.  (who as you confess, knew a good Argument, and the right way of Disputing) drew and took in the second expressly.  
3. Because of your former concession, and confession (and practice too, arguing in a Syllogistical way, p. 63, etc.) Christ's Argument bein● put into form, lies thus: Abraham's body shall rise, Therefore the dead shall rise. The Antecedent is thus proved: Abraham's soul is living; therefore his body shall rise. That Antecedent is proved thus: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living; Therefore Abraham's soul is living. But how is this Antecedent proved? Thus; God is the God of Abraham, therefore his soul is living, and by consequent the dead shall arise: Now if this Antecedent were denied, than the plain words of Scripture were denied. For these words in Exod. 3.6. were spoken by the Lord long after Abraham's death, and the s●me Lord saith, not I WAS, nor I WILL BE, but I AM the God of Abraham, etc. So that now you see, these are Christ's Consequences, and not Mr. Baxter's only.   

SECT. 44.  
H. H. 2ly. The Resurrection is more plainly proved by the words of Christ without all Mr. Baxter's Consequences, as appeareth by the words of the text, Luk. 20.35, 36, 37. Thus Christ himself (inplain terms) hath proved the Resurrection already; speaking plainly of the happiness of those, who shall obtain the Resurrection from the dead; and then when he had done, he concludes, That the Resurrection of the dead is so plain, that even Moses shown it at the Bush, etc.  
Reply 1. Why do you equivocate, and juggle? There is no question but to us that place in Luke is a plain proof of the Resurrection: but what is this to the Sadduces, whom Christ would confute as to their erroneous opinion, who held, 
r) Mat. 22.23.  There is no Resurrection. And without question Christ might have brought plain texts out of the Old Testament to have proved the Resurrection, but you know the Sadduces only acknowledge the five books of Moses to be Canonical Scriptures, therefore out of them Christ brings his proof.  
2. You here lay down the Wasters, or else I have lost my understanding and senses; For in saying, The Resurrection of the dead is so plain, that even Moses shown it at the Bush, etc. you grant, 

1. That Christ proved to the Sadduces the Resurrection of the dead by Consequence out of Exod. 3.6.  
2. That such a kind of proof is plain, (for you confess even now, that Christ knew a good Argument, and the right way of Disputing) and  
3. That something is plain in Scripture, which is not expressed in so many words and syllables in Scripture.   For I pray where is the Resurrection of the Dead written in so many words, in Exod. 3.6.   

SECT. 45.  
H. H. 3ly. Let Mr. Baxter prove if he can, that Christ did draw any Consequences from his own words, but left them barely as he spoke them, as sufficient proof without any of Mr. Baxter's Consequences.  
Reply 1. Yes, Christ drew Consequences from his own words. The whole Scripture is called the word of Christ, 
(s) Totum Verbum Dei est sermo Christi Davenant in loc.  Col. 3.16. not only in regard of the matter, but Author also; and 2 Tim. 3.16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God: Now if Exod. 3.6. be a part of the Scripture, and of the word of Christ (as certainly it is) than Christ did draw some Consequences from his own words.   

SECT. 46.  
H. H. 4ly. If Christ had never so many Consequences to prove any thing, yet his words were all Scripture, and infallibly true. So true, that whosoever of men or Angels should add to, or take from it, they are accursed. But Mr. Baxter's are none such; therefore we weigh them not.  
Reply 1. Are Mr. Baxter's none such? What! accursed? I believe his words are not accursed, whatsoever you proudly say, or censure. Or do you mean they are not Scripture (because you say you weigh them not)? If Scripture be written (as you say p. 45.) so they are: But I suppose you mean 
s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  holy Scripture, so indeed they are not; and yet notwithstanding those Consequences of his are infallibly true, because they are Christ's, you may do well therefore to weigh them.  
2. If you mean, that Christ's words were all Scripture, (u.z. which are left upon Record) who denies it? And all the words that Christ spoke on earth, were infallibly true; for he could not lie, or sin in the least: but all his words are not written, for surely his words were more in number then his deeds, all which are not written, Joh. 20.30. with 21.21.   

SECT. 47.  
H. H. 5ly. p. 48. Whereas Mr. Baxter saith; If we had stood by, we would have said to Christ, Give us a Scripture that saith, the Dead shall rise. Answ So Christ did give them two Scriptures, though Mr. Baxter is so blind, he cannot see them, for he tells us, Ver. 35. of the world to come, and the Resurrection of the Dead in plain terms: and ver. 37. That the dead are raised—  
Reply 1. A ridiculous shift of him, who is, or would be counted the Metropolitan Dipper, and great Patriarch of the Anabaptists: for were these words in vers. 35, and 37. written when Christ spoke them?  
2. These are plain proofs to us, that the Dead shall rise (as you intimate, p. 50.) but were they to the Sadduces? (as Mr. Baxter saith), which words you very cunningly left out, for your own end.  
3. Christ (if he pleased) could have brought express texts out of the Old Testament, but on the former account he brings his proof against the Sadduces only out of Exod. forenamed, saying in Mat. 22.31. Have ye not read (which you take no notice of) referring them to read what was written by Moses, & not to what was then spoken by him to the Sadduces; & clearly implying, that those men stood bound in conscience to have believed the Resurrection of the Dead, on the account of those words in Exod. chap. 3. vers. 6.  
4. Mr. Baxter now is not so blind, but he can see your folly made manifest.   

SECT. 48.  
H. H. We would have Mr. Baxter and all men know, that we take all the say of Christ to be as good Scripture, and of as great authority as any part of the Bible: Therefore now Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook's folly and wickedness is manifest, who would insinuate into people's minds, that Christ did not bring Scripture to prove the Resurrection of the Dead, but they must help him by their Consequences. But their deceit lies in this, that because Christ did not bring some other Scripture to prove the Resurrection, therefore they conclude, he proved it by consequence, never minding that what he said was Scripture, and what he approved of, is approved, and aught to be of all without murmur and dispute.  
Reply 1. Do you take all the say of Christ to be as good Scripture, and of as great authority as any part of the Bible? If you understand it of Christ's sayings left upon Record in holy Writ, I am of the same belief; but because you speak so largely and indistinctly, I imagine (without breach of charity) your design is to open a wide door for unwritten Traditions to come in, and be received (as the Council of Trent hath determined) pari pietatis affectu 
* Vide primu●● D●cretum qua tae sessionis Comcilii Tridenti●● Pet. Suar. l. 2. p. 127.  i. e. with the like affection of piety, as any part of the Bible. And this is not a groundless imagination, for both your tenants and practices speak a promoting of the Catholic cause (as it is so called), for which (its strongly suspected, and rumoured) that you are an Agent. I pray call to mind the Jesuit, who pretended to be a Jew, and converted, and was admitted a member of an Anabaptistical Congregation at Hexham in the North.  
2. Your silly evasion, (a Coal wort more than twice sodden) is as apparent now, as the detection of that Jesuit, and needs no further reply.  
3. It's a notorious slander, that Mr. Baxter and M. Cook, etc. would insinuate into people's minds, that Christ did not bring Scripture to prove the Resurrection of the Dead; For they say plainly 
u) Mr. Cooks Font uncovered, p. 24. , that Christ proves the doctrine of the Resurrection against the Sadduces by Consequence from that Scripture, I am the God of Abraham, etc. & you are one of those men (as Mr. Baxter saith, p 8.) who have reported abroad, That Christ was not able to confute the Sadduces, or to bring any Scripture for his Doctrine. What say you now (for you say nothing in this page to Mr. Baxter's motion)? Will you allow of such an Argument for Infant-baptism, as Christ here brings for the Resurrection? Will you confess it to be a sufficient Scripture proof.  
4. If what Christ approved of, is, and aught to be approved of all; and it's certain that Christ approves this way of arguing from Scripture by Consequence (as you cannot deny), then do you approve it without murmur or dispute. This was Christ's usual way: E. g also, he proves the lawfulness of his Disciples 
v) Mat. 12.3, ●, 5, 6, 7.  pulling the ears of corn, and eating them on the Sabbath day, by consequence from Scripture: viz. from David's eating of the Shewbread. 2. From the Priest's sacrificing on the Sabbath: And 3. From that Expression in Hos. 6.6. I will have mercy and not sacrifice. To conclude this; I see you are like a bird in a net, the more you stir, the faster you are held notwithstanding your fluttering.   

SECT. 49.  
H H. p. 48. But now to make their folly manifest, I will reason with them another way; and if they prove as plainly that Infants are to be baptised, as Christ did there prove, that the dead should rise, they shall have it, and I will confess myself in an error. And now to the matter.  
Reply 1. Here is another confession of yours, that Christ plainly proves there the Resurrection of the Dead: now either it is Expressly, or by Consequence (x); not Expressly, for there is not one word of the Resurrection in Exodus 3 6. Therefore by Consequence will you now confess your error, and say, That some doctrine is contained plainly in Scripture, which is not expressly written therein?  
2. You will Now make their folly manifest? You had said but a little before in the same page, that it is now manifest. Surely you have manifested your own folly, in indeavoring to do that now, which you said was done before.  
3. It seems all this while you came not to the matter, but fell short, or beside the mark; for you say, And now to the matter.   

SECT. 50.  
H. H. Mark 12.25— When they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry— Now do you show a Scripture that saith, And when they shall baptise little children, they shall, etc.  
Reply 1. This is but the same answer in another form.  
2. When you bring a Scripture that saith, When they shall dipp actual believers, or visible Saints, they shall &c. we will show you then a Scripture that saith as you say.—   

SECT. 51.  
H. H. vers. 26. As touching the dead, that they rise, have you not read, etc. Now do you produce such a Scripture, if you can, that saith— As touching little children, that they may be baptised, have you not read, etc. Bring you but Scriptures that come but thus near the matter, and we will grant you Infant-baptism, but till then, you are unreasonable in your reasoning.  
Reply 1. Produce you a Scripture out of Exodus that saith, The dead shall rise, and then you shall have such a Scripture, That children shall be baptised.  
2. You say, and unsay: Even now, you approved of arguing by Consequence from Scripture, and now nothing will serve turn but Express Scripture.  
3. You would make the people believe, that we deny the Resurrection of the Dead; God forbidden: We hold, Christ proves the Resurrection by Consequence, which you cannot deny.  
4. When you cannot answer, than you fall a railing; you accuse and condemn yourself, nay Christ as well as us, as unreasonable in our reasoning.   

SECT. 52.  
H. H. pag. 49. Some will object, that I tie Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook to plain Scripture, but I myself have written many words in this book that are not plain Scripture. Answ. It's one thing for a man to use words to express himself to those that will not believe the Scriptures as they are written, and another thing to bring the Scriptures to show men a rule to walk by, and what their duty is in matters of faith and obedience: The former we allow; but not the latter, either to ourselves, or others, etc.  
Reply 1. You take to yourself that liberty, which you deny to others; who may not (without a check from you) use the word Sacrament, p. 14. nor Negative, p. 29. etc.  
2. The phrase of not believing the Scriptures as they are written, is dark and doubtful, you had need of an Expositor, yet I know not who those are that will not so believe.  
3. You distinguish foolishly between Faith and Obedidience; for Faith itself is an obediential act, It's called the obedience of Faith, 
a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e Ut homines fide obediant Deo, Beza in loc,  Rom. 1.5. & 16.26. and to believe is to obey, as appear● by the opposition, Joh 3.36. 
b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  He that believeth not the Son: i. e. He that obeyeth not the Son, as Beza translates it; and children of unbelief are called, Eph. 22— children of disobedience.  
4. It seems by your confession, that your words whereby you express yourself, do not pertain to the rule of Faith and Obedience.  
5. I wonder you daresay, that you put not men on believing or doing any thing as a duty, that is not written in Scripture; For do you not put men to believe, that Infants are neither Disciples, nor Church-members, nor in Covenant, etc. That they dying in their Infancy are saved by Christ's death without actual faith, pag. 61. And have you not rightly proved praying in a man's family, giving thanks at meals, Woman's receiving the Lord's Supper, etc. to be duties? yet none of the foresaid particulars are expressly written in Scripture, and would you have them done, but not in faith.   

SECT. 53.  
H. H. Herein lies the depth of all deceits, viz. Because Christ expounded the Scriptures of the Prophets, therefore men will take in hand to expound his Expositions. q. We could make them plainer than he hath left them, or make any thing true that is not written in them. And because Philip opened the Scripture to the Eunuch, Act. 8. therefore men will take in hand to open Philip's words, so as to make them to appear otherwise then they are written.  
Reply 1. You are fallen deep into the pit of Deceit, if no Minister may preach, e. g. on Mat. 5. where Christ expounds the true meaning of the Law, and clears it from the Pharisees false glosses: or on Mark 4.34. where Christ Expounded all to his Disciples: or on Luk. 24.27. where beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, he Expounded to them, etc. or on Acts 8. (instanced in by yourself): For what is it to preach, but to expound and apply the Word of the Lord.  
2. You bewray your weakness and wickedness (things usual to persons wedded to their opinions) in contradicting yourself, for you take upon you (all along) to expound the Expositions of Christ and his Apostles, Do not you make their sayings plainer than they have left them? But I cry you mercy, you make them appear otherwise then they are written.   

SECT. 54.  
H. H. For the plainer manifestation of the truth, I desire all impartial men to consider these following things. 1. If I would prove by Scripture, that God created heaven and earth; I must bring a Scripture that speaks so, as Gen. 1.1. 2ly. Or that God created man upright, Eccles. 7.29. Or 3ly. that all men since Adam's fall were sinners, Rom. 3.23. Or 4ly. That God sent his Son to redeem those sinners, 1 Tim. 1.15. & Chap. 2.6. Or 5ly. That the dead shall rise, Mar. 12. ver. 25, 26, etc.  
Reply 1. What need this vain repetition? your first instance hath been answered before in your p. 40. and your last, in p. 48.  
2. The other Scriptures do not say in express terms, what (yet) you truly affirm, you swerve from your own pattern. Let the Reader view your quotations, and compare them with your expressions.  
3. What blindness and blockishness is here? If you would prove that men must give thanks at meals, pray in and with their families, that women are to receive the Lord's Supper, bring some Scriptures that speak so, but you cannot in express terms, though you do it by consequence, p. 12, 13, 14. so do we for Infant-baptism.   

SECT. 55.  
H. H. p. 50. To conclude: If I would prove that men and women should be baptised when they believe— I must bring a Scripture that says so; as Acts 8.12, 37. And now if any man will prove that little babes should be baptised, let them bring one Scripture to prove it, and then they will do honestly, otherwise, etc.  
Reply 1. This Scripture, and the challenge, have been answered before. I will not trouble the Reader with Tautologies, as you do.    

CHAP. X. Concerning Consequences drawn from Scripture, etc.  

SECT. 1.  
H. H. But now a word to Mr. Cook, who saith that we never read in the Scriptures; Go H. H. and J. B. teach all nations, and baptise, etc. nor do we read, that Christ gave a command to you two to preach the Gospel, etc. Answ. This is but a cunning devised Fable, a subtle sophistry of Mr. Cooks to deceive the hearts of the simple, but easily discovered by them to whom the Lord hath given understanding. We do not desire Mr. B. and Mr. C. to bring a Scripture that saith, Go R. B. or go W. C. and baptise Children that cannot speak, nor understand what you preach, etc.  
Reply 1. Bravely done Mr. Haggar! when you cannot shape an handsome answer to Mr. C. then (according to your custom) you cry, A cunning devised fable, subtle sophistry, etc. which charge (how unjustly as well as absurdly, after a long digression, it comes in here, I leave to the judgement of the intelligent) must pass as words of course, to please or fright the simple.  
2. He hath lost his understanding (I think) that cannot see you (here) quite and clean yielding the cause to Mr. C. by a  granting, that H. Hag. and J. Brown are by consequence from Matth. 28.19. commanded to teach and baptise, etc. For you say, We do not desire, etc.  
3. Infant-baptism hath been largely proved by many Scriptures, and Arguments grounded on Scriptures, specially in that very book of Mr. Cooks, which you pretend to answer, but scarce meddle with, unless a lap, and snatch, and away.  
4. As to that instance in that book, requiring you to make out your practice by express Scripture, it is not so easily answered as you imagine. For 1. whereas you say, you desire not Mr. B. or Mr. C. to bring a Scripture that saith, Go R. B. go W. C. etc. that's nothing: We have no more reason to be satisfied in your practice without express and immediate Scripture, than you have in ours without such Scripture, (though many Consequences from Scripture are clearly brought). Or rather (if you were impartial) you should have justified your own practice by express Scripture without Consequences, before you had urged us thereto. For 2ly, where is it expressed in Scripture, that you are appointed to go up and down in several parts of England, and to draw people (being Christians by profession, and brought up from their childhood in that Religion, wherein to they were baptised in Infancy) to renounce their Infant-baptism, and to be dipped in such a pit or Pool, etc. before such a company, whether naked or covered, with such a form of English words as you use, etc. Nay 3ly, you are hereby challenged to prove, even by good consequence from Scripture, that you have a regular call to preach and baptise, (I have not heard of any, neither do I know that you ever undertook to clear it). If your Call be extraordinary (as Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists) a proof from Scripture grounds is required of you, and we shall own you for such: If Ordinary (as Pastors, & Teachers) make it to appear according to Scripture-rule, 
c) Acts 14.23. 1 Tim. 3, to 8. Tit. 1.5, 6, 7, 8 9 1 Tim. 4.11 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. 1 Pet: 5.1, 2.  and we shall rejoice therein. If you cannot prove such a Call; What boldness is it in you to cry down our Ministry, etc. But they who will bring in a false Ministry, etc. have held it their policy, to cry out against the true.   

SECT. 2.  
H. H. p. 51. Mr. Hall saith, p. 91. That the Scriptures are the chiefest strong holds of the Anabaptists, and being pursued, hither we run for refuge, etc. Answ. It's well they do so, they are then sure and safe. For Psal. 119.89. Joh. 8.31, etc.  
Reply 1. Let the Reader take notice, that those Scriptures alleged by Mr. Hag. in the middle of this p. have been answered already; I forbear therefore the transcribing, and answering them, lest I be guilty of his usual crime, Tautology.  
2. It makes for the dignity and authority of the Scriptures, that men of all persuasions (who have owned the Scriptures for a rule) have fled to them for shelter; yet Heretics and Schismatics who have done so, were neither sure nor safe, but were found faulty, even at the horns of the Altar, as Joab was, 1 King. 2.28.  
3. Mr. Hall doth not blame you simply for running to the Scriptures for refuge, 
d) See Mr. Hall's Font Guarded, p. 91, & 92.  but for misunderstanding and mis-applying them, and so your running to them is in vain, not only as he saith, but showeth also by six Reasons, which you take no notice of; and the reason is, because you could not frame a reasonable answer to them.   

SECT. 3.  
H. H. p. 52. Mr. Hall hath never a word to run to for Infant-baptism, as he himself confesseth, p. 30. in his fifth Argument, in express terms, Infant-baptism is not commanded, etc.—  
Reply 1. Heaven and earth may be astonished at your impudent charge, viz. Mr. Hall confesseth he hath never a word to run to for Infant-baptism.  
2. Lay your Argument right, and it's your absurd conclusion from his candid confession: Thus; He that confesseth Infant-baptism is not commanded expressly in Scripture, hath never a word to run to for Infant-baptism; But Mr. Hall confesseth so— Therefore— Sir, your Major is false, which may appear thus to the meanest capacity out of your own mouth. The Christian Sabbath, and Family-praier twice a day, etc. are not expressly commanded in the Scripture. If I therefore should conclude Mr. Haggar hath never a word to run to, for the Sabbath, and such prayer, etc. he would cry out that I wrong him: For as Mr. Haggar brings Scriptures in his p. 12, 13, 14. to prove the same by Consequence: so doth Mr. Hall prove Infant-baptism.   

SECT. 4.  
H. H. I shall now conclude with showing ten undeniable Reasons, why the Word of God must be understood and obeyed as it is written, without adding to, or taking from I. Because God never without words made known his mind to men, Heb. 1. ver. 12.  
Reply 1. Your Reasons may be called undeniable, as the Spanish Armado in 88 was called Invincible.  
2. If all these Reasons were granted, yet none of them prove what you undertake: viz. The Word of God must be understood and obeyed as it is written.  
3. They conclude as strongly against you, as against us; who prove many points of Religion by Consequence from Scripture, as well as we.  
4. They are impertinent to the main business, and therefore not meet to be replied to; but lest you should crow, I will give you a taste how easily they may be answered. To your first, If you mean of words written, (or else you say nothing) its false, though it should be Heb. 1. ver. 1, 2. For God made known his mind to the Patriarches long before his will was committed to writing: 
e) Gen. 37 41.  E. gr. To Joseph, read the Catechism with the Exposition (you mention pag. 96.) and you will find, God made known his mind divers ways without words. To the third; Were not those Scriptures the five Books of Moses, wherein the doctrine of the Resurrection was written, and might have been read by the Sadduces? To the 9th (it should be 2 Tim. 4.1.2.) compare this with the beginning of your answer, pag. 49. and here is another contradiction of yours. To the tenth, Shall the Heathen be judged by those words they never heard nor read? I trow not, Rom. 2.12. yet you say Christ will judge All Men by his words;— which terms [All Men] are not in Joh. 12.48. Do not you therefore pass that dreadful doom 
f) Rev. 22.18, 19  on yourself for adding to the Word.   

SECT. 5.  
H. H. p. 53. Lastly, I shall propound these ten following Queries, with a desire to have them answered by any who will, or can.  
Reply 1. You said pag. 52. I shall now conclude, and here you come with your Lastly.—  
2. These Ten following Queries are as impertinent, as your ten precedent Reasons: though (according to the proverb) a fool may ask more questions than a wiseman can answer; yet I may (warrantably) 
g) Prov. 26.5.  answer a fool according ●o his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit; and by the assistance of the Lord, I shall answer briefly upon the former account.  
Querie 1. Whether God doth require the sons of men to believe any thing in point of Justification, that is not recorded in the holy Scriptures of truth?  
Answ If by the sons of men you understand Infants you answer yourself, pag. 25. Christ hath no where required them to obey any command, before they can understand, etc. Therefore not to believe— But if you mean grown persons, I answer; If by recorded (which yet is no Scripture word) you mean contained in the Scripture (as in your second and fourth Querie) I say. No. For the Scripture is the full adequate object o● Faith. Therefore could the 
h) Rom. 10.9.]  word of Faith; if you mean expressly written (as in the eighth Querie), I say, Yes: And I think you dare not deny, that God requires of us to trust in the merits and satisfaction of Christ alone for Justification, which is not expressly written in Scripture. This instance may suffice among many.  
Qu. 2. Whether God doth require, or command us to obey any thing after believing, which is not contained in the Word of truth?  
Answ. 1. If by contained— you mean (as in the seventh Querie) in express terms, you answer yourself; God doth command us (after believing) to give thanks at Meals, to pray in Families, etc. I hope you will not eat your own words: 
i) P. 12, 13, 14.  And I say, such a trust (forementioned) is our duty contained in the Word, though not expressed, as 1 Pet. 2.6. with Isa. 28.16. where the Apostle saith, It is contained in the Scripture, etc. and yet those words, elect and not confounded, are not expressed in Isa. 28.16.  
Querie 3. Whether the Saints have any ground to believe the Resurrection from the Dead, and eternal life in glory, but as it is recorded in Scripture?  
Answ. The Sadduces had ground to believe the Resurrection— as it is recorded; i. e. contained in Exod. 3.6. and the Saints too, as it is expressly written in Scripture, elsewhere.  
Qu. 4. Whether, if a man believe and obey all the known precepts and promises contained in the Word of God (as much as in him lieth) will God condemn and punish him at that great day, because he hath believed and done no more?  
Answ. A captious Interrogatory, looking towards Quakerism (that new-refined Papism) about absolute perfection, or freedom from sin in this life; or toward Arminianism, about the salvation of the moral Heathens; yet I say, God may condemn a man for the least sin of ignorance, without Christ, 
k) Levit. 4, 2, 3, 13, 22, 37. with Luk. 12.48.  and for the least defect in duty, Nehem. 14.22. with Rom. 6.23.  
Qu. 5. If the Scriptures ought to be believed and obeyed as they are written, then how dare some deny faith in, and obedience to some part of them, and impose things not written in the Scriptures to be obeyed in stead of the Ordinances of Christ?  
Answ. That phrase [as they are written] is ambiguous: Were your meaning clear, answer should be returned; however I know none that deny such faith and obedience, much less who impose things not written, i. e. not contained in the Scriptures (as Qu. 2.) to be obeyed in stead of Christ's Ordinances: your Qu. implies a malicious calumniation, and so let it pass.  
Querie 7. If the Scriptures be not a perfect rule of faith and obedience (without the help of any man's inventions) what is? Or who may we trust? or at whose mouth must we seek wisdom?  
Answ. The Scripture is a rule, Eccl. 12.10. with Gal. 6. ver. 16. and a perfect rule, Psal. 19.7. and that of faith and manners (as Austin doth phrase it). God we may, and must trust, 2 Chron. 20.20. with Isa. 7.9. at God's mouth must we seek wisdom, Isa. 8. ver. 20. with Acts 17. ver. 11.  
Qu. 7. Whether there be any sin or corruption incident to man, that the Scriptures doth not reprove, or make manifest in express terms?  
Answ. 
l) Indeed you answer yourself, p. 69.  Yes; 1. Original fin, Gen. 5.3. Job 14.4 and 15.14. Psal. 51.5. Eph. 2.3. Rom. 5.12. 2ly. Some actual sins; as Incest, Buggery, Sodomy, Polygamy, (of which last you have cause to examine yourself) and many more. 3ly. There are many Errors and Heresies (which in the general are called works of the flesh, Gal. 5. ver. 19, 20.) Egr. Euty chianism, Ernomianism, Nestorianism, Arrianism, Arminianism, Papism, (with others more without number) which surely are corruptions incident to man (to use your own phrase) and yet which the Scriptures doth not reprove and make manifest in express terms.  
Qu. 8. Whether there be any virtue or praise in any thing that the best of men ever did, but what is expressly commanded or commended in the Scripture of truth?  
Answ. Yes; there was some virtue or praise in the Disciples eating some ears of Corn on the Sabbath-day, yet not expressly commanded or commended in 1 Sam. 21.6. To which our Saviour doth refer the Pharisees, to whom he said, Have you not read what David did, etc. Mat. 12.3, 4. yea, you yourself imagine (at least) there is virtue and praise in Dipping in a Mere, or Marle-pit, or Horsepool, etc. and yet no where expressly commanded or commended in Scripture.  
Querie 9 I appeal to every man's conscience in the sight of God, whether their consciences do not condemn them, when they walk contrary to what is written in Scripture?  
Answ. If by what is written you mean, as in your seventh and tenth Querie, I say, yes; unless the conscience be blind, seared, or asleep, as I fear yours is; for your frequent, (if not constant) railing and reviling (to name no more) is contrary to what is written expressly in Scripture.  
Qu. 10. Whether every man's conscience doth not justify him, when he walks according to what is contained in the Word?  
Answ. The answer immediately foregoing, will serve here also, without more ado.   

SECT. 6.  
H. H. p. 54. If all these Queries be granted (as they are stated) to be true, than those that teach and persuade men to do any thing in matter of justification or salvation more or less than is plainly written and expressed in the Word of God, are such as add to, and take from the Word of God, and are guilty of those plagues, Rev. 22.18, 19 But Infant-baptism is not where written nor expressed in all the Scriptures, as Mr. Hall, Mr. B. Mr. C. confess; Therefore—  
Reply 1. Some of your Queries are stated sillily; e. g. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6. as is obvious to any.  
2. How can you suppose all to be granted, when some are granted, some denied, and some in several respects (being doubtfully propounded) may be granted, or denied?  
3. What a wide door do you open again here to Popery, against justification by Faith only? For you say, to do A▪ N▪ Y thing in matter of justification— more than is expressed in the Word, is an adding to the Word; this is one of your dictates, we must take your bare word (without any offer of proof) for it: but if you make this out, both you and I must fling up a great part of our Religion.  
4. As you pass again that dreadful doom on yourself, as well as on us; so you be-lie (in plain English) those three Worthies, who no where confess in their books (that I can find) that Infant-baptism is No where written in Scripture; though they say, It is not where expressed in Scripture, which you miserably confound, for want of wit, or grace to distinguish.   

SECT. 7.  
H. H. Thus I have answered to Mr. Baxters' Ten Positions, which (saith he, p. 3.) must be necessarily understood, before we can understand the point in hand: So that if these Positions are not true, than the rest of his book cannot be true, by his own confession. Now if I have fully answered the one, I need say but little to the other. etc.  
Reply 1. How this comes in (by head and shoulders) I know not: Thus after a long digression he closeth. The Reader must not blame me in following the Wild-goose-chase; I must follow my leader, except into an hors-pool.  
2. Whereas you say, if you have sully answered these Positions, you need say but little to the rest of Mr. Baxter's Book. I assume, But you have not fully answered these Positions, therefore you had need say more to the rest— All which I leave to the consideration of the judicious Reader.    

CHAP. XI. Of Believers Infants being in Covenant in Gospel-times.  

SECT. 1.  
H. H. p. 55. Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter make the Covenant with Abraham, and his natural seed under the Law, all one with the Covenant made with Abraham, and his spiritual seed, born of the Spirit under the Gospel. In answer to which, I thus reason—  
Reply 1. In stead of answering Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter, you wisely wave their Arguments (with the illustrations, and confirmations,) and argue against some of those Mediums used by them to prove Infants right to Baptism, which whether it be not contrary to the rules of reasoning, your promise, and Title of your book; and whether it import not your inability to answer those Arguments, I leave to the Reader to consider of.  
2. That which you charge of Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter is palpably false, you find no such things in their Books, (specially Mr. Cooks) which you undertake to answer, and that's the reason (perhaps) that you named neither book nor page, as you have done elsewhere, and at other times. For we know 

1. That the Covenant made with Abraham and his seed, 
o) Gal. 3.17.  was four hundred years and more before the giving of the Law.  
2ly. Abraham's servants also were taken into that Covenant: 
p) Gen. 17.12.13.14.23.27.  viz. such as were bought with money, and those that were born of them in his house, who were circumcised with him; Nay strangers of any Country whatsoever, becoming Proselytes, were allowed and bound 
q) Exod. 12.44 48.  to be Circumcised, and to eat of the Passe-over (both ordinary seals of the Covenant) sure these could not be called properly, Abraham's natural seed.  
3. If Abraham in any good sense, may be said to have a spiritual seed, than he had such, E. gr. Isaac, 
r) Gal. 4.29.  who was born after the Spirit.  
4. Of these who are called Abraham's seed under the Gospel, being by faith, and the profession thereof 
s) Rom. 11.17 to 22.  planted into that Olive, from which the Israelites were broken off by unbelief: Many are but carnal, fleshly, 
s) 1 Cor. 10.1, to 12. Gal. 3.26, 27, 28, 29. with verse 12, 13, 14.  as sundry of the Jews were; and I think you dare not profess, that all your Church-members are born of the Spirit: sad experience would confute such a presumption. Now let us hear your Reason.     

SECT. 2.  
H. H. That there is two Covenants, it's evident, Gal. 4.24. If so, then either we are under the old Covenant still, or else the new is come in place.  
Reply 1. To pass by your improper expression, there is two Covenants. The text you cite, and the Grammar (which you call a whimsy, p. 35.) might have taught you better: I grant two Covenants in a ●ight sense in the same Church, 
* Deut. 29.1.  and in the same age, yea, and with the same person, Gen. 15.18. & 17.2. But that is the most famous distinction of the Covenants: 1. Old, which was made with the people of God in Christ to be exhibited, and who was signified by Types, &c, And 2ly, New, made in Christ exhibited, and who hath fulfilled what was so prefigured: Yet these (as different in manner of Administration are two, and therefore called 
u) Eph. 2.12.  Covenants) in substance are one, and therefore called 
v) Act● 3.25.  the Covenant. As the same common clement of love, 
* 1 Joh. 2.7, 8. wi●h Joh. 13.34.  in divers respects is both old and new, and the same Church, servile and free, Gal. 4.1, 2, 3. The same person that was a child, is now a man (as we use to say); So the same Covenant of grace (in regard of essentials) was the Old Covenant, as is the New, the faithful under that 
x) Acts 15.11.  being saved by the grace of God, even as we.  
2. You might have saved your labour in proving, that the New Covenant is come in place of the Old; It's granted, as the Gospel-ministry, People, Sabbath, Sacraments (or seals of the Covenant) are come in the place of the Levitical, and Jewish— as manly age (in tract of time) comes in the room of childlike, but all this makes against you, and for us.  
3. We do not bring our proof for children's right to the seal of Initiation, from that Covenant in Sinai, of which the Apostle 
y) Gal. 4.24.25.  expressly speaks, and sers the Covenant as perverted by the Jews (expecting righteousness from the work of the Law) but from the Covenant made with Abraham 430 years before that time 
z) Gen. 15.18. & 17.7, 8. Gal. 3.16, 17. ; so that though it were proved by you, and granted by us, that the Covenant on Mount Sinai was a Covenant of works, yet our Argument from the Covenant made with Abraham (which was undeniably a Covenant 
a) Gal. 3.8, 16, 17.  of grace) stands unshaken.  
4. Yet I humbly conceive, that that Covenant on mount Sinai (though it was attempered to the condition of an unbroken people for their humiliation (and therefore said to 
b) Gal. 4 24.  gender to bondage) and grace was revealed therein more darkly, and temporal prou●ises and threatenings expressed therein more ●ully, ●et it) was a Covenant of Grace, according 
c) See Dr Holmes Epist. Preface to Mr. Craddocks' G●spel-liberty, & Dr. Reynolds 3 Treat●ses.  to God's primary intention, and as used by the godly, for whose sake it was principally made. Because 

1. God ●el●s lirael, if they will keep that Covenant, 
d) Exo. 19.5, 6.  they shall be his peculiar treasure, a kingdom of Priests, and an holy Nation, which ●ame tides are given to God's people in 
e) Tit. 2.14. 1 Pet. 2.9.  Gospel-times; what though all d●d not keep Covenant (no more than any visible Church now) yet some d●d; as Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Caleb, and many others, with whom God was well pleased (as is implied 1 Cor. 10.5) which could not be without faith 
f) Heb. 11.6  a● you yourself confess, p. 25.  
2. God calls himself their God, 
g) Exod. 20.2, 7, 10.  not of their bod●●● only, but of their souls also, 
h) Mat. 22.31.32. with Heb. 11.16.  and that not temporally, but eternally.  
3. It was confirmed by sacrifices, etc. Psal. 50.5. by which they had communion with God, which could not be without Faith, Heb 11.4.6. and Faith looks at Christ the object, (though then not so clearly revealed, yet) signified by those sacrifices, and all the Levitical service.  
4. They that kept this Covenant sincerely, (as many did) 
i) Exd. 20.6. & 34.6, 7. Psal. 32.1, 2. Rom. 4.6, 7, 8. & Psal. 103.17, 18.  were partakers of pardoning, beatifical, and everlasting mercies.  
5. All those Worthies hinted at from Moses to Christ; were famous for their faith, 
k) Heb. c. 11. & Acts 15.11.  and saved by grace.  
6. (To name no more) Christ is the end of the Law, etc. Rom. 10.3. and the end of the Law (for that is the Commandment 
l) 1 Tim. 1.5, 7, 8, 9  as appears by the coherence) is love out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and faith unfeigned. What more can be said of the Gospel-Covenant (as now dispensed) then to bring us to Christ, Faith unfeigned, etc.     

SECT. 3.  
H. H. p. 55, & 56. The old Covenant did properly belong to the fleshly seed, which had but the promise of an earthy Canaan, under the curse bringing forth children to bondage, Gal. 4.24, 25. sealed by the blood of Bulls, etc. Heb. 9.19, 20. and found fault with, Heb. 8.6. etc.  
Reply 1. Here is another piece of pure Socinianism, viz. The old Covenant had but the promise of an earthly Canaan. But by you● leav●, i● held forth also spiritual and eternal blessings by Christ: E. gr (beside the foregoing instances) 
m) Ames. medul●l. 1. c. 38. n. 23.  Redemption in Melchisedecs person, and blessing, Gen. 14 with Heb. 7 Vocation, Heb. 11.8, 9, 10. Justincation, Rom. 3.3.9. Sanctification, Deut. 30.6. with Col. 2 11. and Glorification in heaven, whereof that earthly Canaan was a Type, Heb. 4.1.— and Chap. 11. ver. 13.14, 15, 16.  
2. The Covenant of Grace, though it hath been one and the same for substance since Adam's fall, yet it hath been dispensed gradually (as plants, bruits, and men come to their perfection in their kind by degrees) as is evident, if we consider how little at first was revealed to Adam fallen, more to Noah, more yet to Abraham, far yet more to Moses and the Church in his time, etc. and yet more plentifully in David's and Solomon's time, and more fully in the latter Prophets: E. gr. A Child is put into a Covenant for a Living, enjo●es the benefit of it, and is educated answerably, though for the present he understands but little of the privileges and engagements of the Covenant; but when at years, is more fully instructed in the nature of the Covenant, that he may perform the Articles, and reap the benefits of it. So was Israel 
n) Ezek 16.34 36, etc. Hos. 11 1. Gal. 4.1, 23.  owned in Covenant with God, from its Infancy, etc. So then it's true, the Covenant of Grace is now more clearly and perfectly dispensed; yet it follows not, that the former Covenant was not a Covenant of Grace, but rather the Covenant of Grace in another dress. Hence the New Covenant is a better Covenant, i.e. gradually, not specifically; and the Old Covenant 
o) Heb. 8.7, 8.  faulty, not simply (for it was the institution of God), but comparatively, God complaining 
p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  (as the word signifies) of its imperfection, in respect of man's corruption, and promising an higher dispensation.  
3 We must distinguish between the right use the godly made of the Old Covenant,  to God's primary intention, and the misapprehension, and the misapplication thereof by most of the Jews. On the former account it was a Covenant of Grace, as the foregoing instances show; on the latter it was looked on as the Covenant of Works, most of them expecting Justification, etc. by the works of the Law, or partly by Works, and partly by Faith, which indeed are inconsistent. For they were bound to take God for their God for justification, (which could not be but by Christ) though not so clearly known) and then to square their lives according to the Law, as an evidence of that Faith. Notwithstanding it's granted, that those commands in that Covenant were needful to drive them to the promise, as well as the promise applied by Faith, was to draw them to obedience of those commands. But when they mistook the proper use of this Covenant, and sought for justification by the Law, they fell under the curse and condemnation of it, 
q) 2 Cor. 3.6, ●, 9  thus separating the letter from the Spirit, it became a ministry of Death and condemnation, but taken with the Spirit, and used by Faith, it was a Ministry of life and salvation to the faithful in those times; yet this doth not make it a Covenant of Works, no more than now the New Covenant among us, because too many professing to embrace that covenant, seek righteousness by their own works without a lively faith in Christ.   

SECT. 4.  
H. H. p. 56. Paul knew as well the intent and meaning of the Covenant of God with Abraham, as Mr. B. and Mr. C. and yet he applieth it not to a fleshly seed, Gen. 17.7. with Gal. 3.16, 29. Rom. 4.13 & 9 7.8. etc.  
Reply 1. You do not offer any proof, that one and the same seed is to be understood in Gen. 17.7. and Gal. 3.16. your bare word will not be taken, and that for these ensuing reasons to the contrary: 

1. The seed in Gen. 17. is called 
r) Gen. 17.7, 8 9, 10.  four times Abraham's seed after him, and twice after him in their Generations; implying, that Abraham was the primary party in covenant; and his seed the secondary, succeeding in time and dignity, but Christ, as to his person 
s) Joh. 8.58.  was before Abraham, and in the Covenant of Grace his Superior, yea his Lord, 
s) Psal. 110.1. with Mat. 22.44.  as well as David's.  
2ly. That seed imports many, as ver. 8. I will be their God; but Christ is one, as the Apostle urges in that place.  
3. That seed had their several generations, or births successively springing up, as ver. 7. and 9 Their generations, so had not Christ.  
4ly, All the males of that seed were to be circumcised (which were great multitudes) but we cannot say properly, that all the males of Christ were circumcised: The coherence would afford more reasons, if there were need.    
2. Admit (which is not yet granted) that Christ mystical: i. e. the members with Christ the Head, make one Christ, 
* 1 Cor. 12.12.  or blessed seed, it makes nothing against their being of many in covenant visibly, who fall short of justification and salvation: Our question is not concerning the saving benefits of the Covenant, (certainly known to the seacher of the heart only) but concerning external being in Covenant according to God's gracious grant. Now the place in Gen. ●7. shows, that not only Abraham and his children, but Proselytes and their children were taken into covenant, which grant was never repealed by God, but often confirmed in the Old and New Testament, the proofs whereof stand firm in Mr. C. book, which you pretend to answer.  
3. The Apostle refers to Gen. 15. 
u) Gen 15.6, 9 10, etc.  where after Abraham had professed his faith in that promise, ver. 5. and thereupon was accounted righteous, ver. 6. The covenant was confirmed by sacrifice, God saying, ver. 18 In that same day— Unto thy seed have I given, &c Now this confirmation was 430 years before the Law: Whereas that which is mentioned, Gen. 17.7. was not so long a time as is 
v) See Pareus on Gal. 3.16.  exactly and largely showed. Indeed it may seem strange, that the Land of Canaan should be given to Christ, Gen. 15.18. But the Apostle so interpreting it, you and I must believe it, though perhaps we cannot satisfactorily explain it, yet (for the Readers instruction) I conceive, that as the Evangelists and Apostles do unfold many mysteries wrapped up in sacred Oracles, that we perhaps could never have thought on, without their explication (e.g. ministers maintenance, 1 Tim. 5.18. with Deut. 25.4. and Elias prayer, Jam. 5.17, 18. with 1 King. 17.1. and 18.42— and many more instances) so God would have us know, that as to us Christians 
*) 2 Cor. 1.20.  all promises are yea, and Amen in Christ exhibited, so to the Israelites in Christ to be exhibited, and that they could not have right to that earthly Canaan, much less enjoy it by Covenant, lest of all the heavenly kingdom (shadowed thereby) but by Christ; that according to the Flesh, was to be born of Abraham's seed, whose humane nature had then no existence, but that person (in whom the humane nature should subsist) was in being before; to whom the Father committed the disposal of this inheritance. etc. in which respect it's said, I have given,— Gen. 15.18.   

SECT. 5.  
H. H. p. 56. I wonder how the Preachers of the Church of England dare affirm, That Believers children are in Covenant before believing, by virtue of their parent's Faith, and yet they hold that God did hate, and had reprobated Esau before he was born, or had done good or evil, etc.  
Reply 1. You need not wonder, if you will consider the distinction (even now hinted) of being in Covenant: viz. Externally; thus all that profess acceptance of the covenant, are (by God's grant) with their children in covenant, and internally (so as to partake of the saving benefits of the covenant). Thus none but those who are circumcised in heart are in covenant. This distinction is none of our coining, but obvious in Scripture. To go no further than your instance of Esau, who was in covenant outwardly, though not inwardly; for he was circumcised as well as Jacob, because of God's command, Gen. 17.10, 11, 12. (where parents circumcising their seed, is called a keeping of God's covenant, and circumcision a token of the covenant, and the omitting of it a breaking of his covenant) and yet he was hated of God, Rom. 9.12, 13. before he had done good or evil— And when he was come to age, 
x) Heb. 12.16, 17.  he was an hypocrite, and profane person, and so wanted the inward efficacy of the Covenant. The children of Believers may be in covenant then externally, though reprobated externally, Rom. 11.1, 2. where its evident, all Israel were his people in covenant outwardly, but only his Flect whom he fore-knew, his people in covenant internally.  
2. I wonder rather, that you should hold, that God did not hate Esau before he had done good or evil. Are not you one of those, 
y) Your p. 53. Qu. 6.  that deny faith in part of the Scripture, for it is so written, Rom 9 11, 13. Here again you smell too strong of the Arminian cask, who deny peremptory, or personal reprobation of any.  
3. Mr. B. and Mr. C. have weighed you and your principles in the balance of the Sanctuary, and have found you and them too light: and they do not marvel, that you confound your own principles, and other men's too, for want of a Scripture-distinction.   

SECT. 6.  
H. H. Again, If Believers children be in covenant because they are believers children, than grace comes by Generation, and not by Regeneration, which is absurd.  
Reply. We do not say, Believers children are in covenant, because Believers children, but because God hath made a covenant with the faithful and their seed: much less do we say, that the inward blessing of the Covenant is given to an●, because believers children (though we grant it an effect of God's favour or grace, that those which are born of parents in covenant, are externally in covenant, as born of such by virtue of God's promise): Lest of all do we say. That grace (i. e. the favour of God) comes by generation or regeneration either. That any are born visible and external Church-members, is a fruit of God's mere common grace or favour, that any are made members of Christ by Regeneration, and endued with true holiness, is a fruit of his peculiar grace, but neither Generation nor Regeneration the cause of grace properly taken.   

SECT. 7.  
H. H. If they be in Covenant by virtue of their believing parents, than all the world ever since righteous Noah, must needs be in Covenant, for they and we all came of him.  
Reply 1. It follows not. Noah's sons presently Apostatised from their father's God, and so did the greatest part of the other families. Of Ishmael and Esau, though born of godly parents, and so they did cast themselves out of Covenant.  
2. If parents dedicate their children to the true God, whom they own, and bring them up in the true Religion which they profess, and become not Apostates to Idolatry, Atheism, and Hethenism, they and their children are externally (at least) in covenant. But if they so Apostatise, they cast themselves, and their children out of covenant, who so remain, till by the Gospel they are brought back again into covenant; else the faith of one parent (continuing in the faith) entitles the child to federal holiness, according to God's Word and promise, 1 Cor. 7▪ 14.   

SECT. 8.  
H. H. But Mr. C. saith in his Font Uncovered, pag. 45. That he doth not hold falling from the inward efficacy of grace, and true sanctification, etc. Answ. So than it seems by his own confession it is not true, and then it must needs be false; and it's well, if they fall from false grace and sanctification, etc. for they that fall from false, must needs fall to true; as they that fall from true, fall to false, else they abide as they were.  
Reply 1. Of four answers made by Mr. C. to a second Objection, you have snatch at one for your advantage (as you think) and pass by all the other, which you could not reply to. Cunningly done.  
2. That very one singled out by you, discovers as your strange humour to pick quarrels, so your miserable impotency to overthrow the truth. For these very words you cite, hold forth the distinction of being outwardly under the Covenant of Grace, which is common to the whole visible Church, Elect and Reprobate, and the partaking of the inward efficacy of grace, which is peculiar to the effectually called; which distinction turns your charge into mere smoke.  
3. The Arminians argue in their writings, 
a) Called, scripta Antisynodalia.  just as you do, yet the consequence is as senseless as the former. For there is no necessity of falling from false grace to true, etc. For they may, and oft do fall to open wickedness, which is no very good fall, (though you say, 
b) 2 Pet. 2.20, 21, 22.  it's well if they fall from false grace) if you go out of one false way, must you need go into the true way; the by-paths are many, the true way but one. Nay, some fall from a false and 
c) Luk. 8.18. John. 15.2.  seeming apprehension of the graces and blessings of the Covenant, to anapparent rejection & loss thereof, being not only stripped of common gifts and graces (as they are called) whereby they are kept from shameful practices, and rewarded with common blessings, (as Ahab's 
d) 1 King 21.29.  humiliation was) but also of common Church-privileges (as I'm enjoied, while he was in the Ark with Noah) and (which is worse) are deprived of possibility of conversion, and salvation (being cut off from the visible Church by total Apostasy) which thousands (who were at first but external Church-members only) obtained, by being outwardly in Covenant, and so were brought through the outward court into the holy place, yea Holy of Holies.   

SECT. 9  
H. H. But to make the folly of these wise men manifest, consider with me 1. What the New Covenant is. 2. Then judge whether Infants can be in it or no. Heb. 8.8 9, 10, 11. This is the New Covenant of Grace—  
Reply 1. Seeing Mr. C. made not mention of false grace, falls justification, etc. but of falling from the outward dispensation of the Covenant— from what they Seemed to have, I fear you will be found in the number of those, 
e) Rom. 1.22.  who professing themselves wise— etc.  
2. You do not prove, that this text is to be understood of the covenant as outwardly administered, concerning which our question is. If of the inward efficacy of the covenant, the seals thereof must not be administered, till we certainly know who are interessed in this covenant. I suppose you will not maintain all your Church-members are such. The covenant of God consists of many branches; and yet the name of Covenant given sometimes to one, and sometimes to another, yet not exclusively to the rest. e. gr. 1. To the commands. Deut. 4.13. 2. To the command and curse, or threatening. Deut. 29.1.12. to 22.— Jerem. 11.3, 4. 3. To the promises. Jerem. 31.33, 34, & 32, 40. 4. To the seals. Gen. 17.9.10, 11; 13. Luk. 22.20. and 1 Cor. 11.25. Where the Cup is called the New Testament, Though the word 
f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  is usually translated Covenant else where  
3. This Covenant belongs not only to us Christians, but did also to the Jews (the house of Israel and Judah) and in some sort made good to some of them upon their return from the Babylonian Captivity. 
g) Jer. 31 31, 32, 43: 34, 38, 39, 40.  Now if this Covenant should exclude Christians children, it would have excluded the Jews children; But it's certain, their children continued the outward dispensation of the Covenant, till the whole body of the Jews was cast off by unbelief. Or if it may be understood of their last conversion in the end of the World, They shall have interest in the Covenant, for their children, as well as the old Jews had, and so have we; For our conversion from Gentilism is called 
h) Rom. 11.17, 19, 23.  a graffing into that Stock, as theirs is a re-ingraffing.  
4. There are divers expressions here, which bear a favourable aspect to the being of Infants in this Covenant. 

1. It's said, I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: Cannot God do so in the hearts and minds of Infants by the spirit of Regeneration?  
2. I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. Did you never read, 
i) Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 13.  that God would be a God to Infants, or little ones? or is it impossible for them to be God's people, because they are such?  
3. All shall know me, from the least to the greatest.   Who then dare den● infants to be included, who are the least (as 
k) p. 59, & 65.  you imply?) are they not of all others most incapable of being taught by their neighbours, and therefore likeliest to be the subject of this promise, as it lies before us? or because men cannot teach them, until the souls Organs be ripened will it follow that God cannot? Are they not rational souls (whilst Infants) capable of knowledge, and is not God able to Supply the defect of Organs, and instruments, as outward senses, etc. Christ of water could make true Wine immediately, without husbandry, as plantine Vine●, etc. Though we are tied to means (when afforded) for attaining the end, yet God is not, 
l) 1 Cor. 2.9, 10, 11, 14.  As all means without the spirit cannot work saving knowledge; so the spirit can work it, etc. without 
m) Joh. 3.8.  means, where he pleaseth.  
5. To your close. No one place of Scripture calls it the Covenat of grace 
n) Ball of the covenant, p. 9  expressly in so many words and syllables; and I deny not but it may be so called, Comparatively, in respect of the plenty of grace now vouchsafed. For surely the faithful under the old Covenant were not simply, and absolutely without grace. Act. 15.11. But let us hear your Reasons.   

SECT. 10.  
H. H. pag. 58.1. Because Infants have not the laws of God in their minds, nor written in their hearts; as not being in a capacity to know the mind and law of God, as is plain. Isai. 7.14, 15, 16. Nay Christ (when he was an Infant) was not capable of discerning between things that differ. Luk. 2.40 52. Much less do other children understand God's law; Therefore not in Covenant.  
Reply 1. The writing of the law in the heart, etc. 
o) see Dr. Prest. of the covena.  Is nothing else but an holy disposition to conformity with the Law, or all one with that circumcision, Deut. 30.6. or Regeneration, of which children are capable, or else they cannot be saved. John 3.3. Now you make no question of the salvation of all Infants dying in their infancy. p. 60, 61.  
2. If Infant's incapacity to know etc. be so plain, then by your grant, some consequences from Scripture are plain Scripture proof, which justifies Mr. B. and Mr. Cook.  
3. Your Argument from Sensitive, Rational, and natural knowledge (which is understood by knowing good and evil: etc.) to supernatural, infused, and spiritual knowledge, i● (plainly) naught▪ many have the former, who want the latter, and no reason can be given why many may not have the latter, who want the former. Sith, it depends not on the ●enses as the other. The reasonable so●l hath no Infan●●y, nor decrepit age (no more than other intellectual spirits, as Angels) but is capable of immediate imp●●ssions from God. Doth it not reason, when senses are bound up? And when it's disrobed of the body, the understanding is more perfect, then while in the body▪ Heb. 12 23— the spirit of just men made perfect.  
4. You are grisly mistaken (not to say impudent) with the Scripture, and with our glorious Lord Christ himself) in the exposition of Isa. 7.15, 16. and interpreting the same of Christ. For though ver. 14. is doubtless meant of Chris●, yet the two latter verses mean Shear-Jashub; the Prophet's little son, ver 3. by whom, as by a sign, the Prophet assures Ah●z, etc. That Judah should be in such peace, that that child should be brought up (without fear of war) in peace and plenty▪ and that before he was grown up: Those two smoking Firebrands, ver. 4. should be quenched: What s●ay could it be to a trembling King? and a troubled People of God a● Jerusalem, to hear that those two Firebrands (which threatened the ruin of all) should be overthrown, before Christ should come to mature years, which was many hundred yea●s after. But this promise (concerning the Prophet's Son) being believed, might be a suitable support to their trembling hearts in that juncture.  
5. To your proof concerning Christ. 
p) Lu. 2.40.52.  I say truly, you do still like yourself. For before you can make any consequence from the Scripture, you must approve some gross absurdity, or blasphemy. viz. They that grow and wax strong in spirit and wisdom, had none before that time they are said to grow. Whereas the growth of a thing presupposeth the being of it. e. gr. we are commanded to 
q) 2 Pet. 3.18.  grow in grace and knowledge, will it follow, that we are void of grace and knowledge? 2. By your Reason, Christ (while he was an Infant) had no spirit, no grace of God upon him, no stature, no favour with God or man; For in these Christ is said to increase, as well as in wisdom. What Christian ear tingles not at such blasphemies? which yet your unreasonable reasonings (with a witness) pre-suppose or imply (if not express) for the making up of your conclusion. Now what think you? had not Christ the law written in his heart in his infancy? deny it if you dare, or can; all Orthordox Divines hold, 
r) Ames medu. l. 1. c. 21. Jo 1.14. with Luk. 2.40.52.  that Christ in the first instant of his conception, received in the humane nature fullness of grace, in respect of the first act; yet so, as there was room for growth in respect of the second acts, and of extension to new objects. So that n●w! must again proclaim you a blasphemer. The charge is now more clearly confirmed, by this your BLASPHEMY against Christ himself.   

SECT. 11.  
H. H. But some will object for want of wisdom, that upon this account Christ will be excluded the Covenant in his innocency. I Answer, such people know not what they say. For he was given for a Covenant, Isa. 42.6. and 49.8. And he is the Mediator of the Covenant, Heb. 12.2, 5. and his blood is the blood of the Covenant, chap, 13, 10. with Luk. 22.40. And he is the seed to whom the promises were made, Gal. 3.13. and in him they are yea, and Amen; with 1 Cor. 1.20. etc. And therefore vain and foolish it would be, for any man to make such an objection.  
Reply 1. To say nothing of some of the Scriptures which should be, Heb. 12.24. Luk. 22.20. 2 Cor. 1.20. you yourself do not know, what to say in answer to the Objection; you seem therefore to be a vain and foolish man, to conjure up such a spirit which you could not lay, for want of wisdom.  
2. All you have said, doth not untie the knot, but ties it faster; unless you grant that Christ in his Infancy was in the Covenant, which yet you do not deny. And thus you seem to confess one Infant (at least) the holy Child Jesus, to be within the Covenant, otherwise your answer to the Objection propounded by you is weak enough, and strange for a man of common sense to give. The Objection stands firm.   

SECT. 12.  
H. H. p. 59 They that are in Covenant shall know the Lord, from the greatest to the least, Heb. 8.11. But Infants cannot: For they know no● their own parents, nor their right hand from their left, Jon. 4.11. Therefore the Lord saith plainly, That children are innocent, 
s) Ps. 106.37, 38.  even of those which do sacrifice to the devil. Therefore (though Innocent) are not, nor cannot be in Covenant. For that which is born of flesh is flesh, but the New Covenant is spiritual, and they which enter into it must be born again, for those that worship, must worship him in Spirit, etc. Jo 4.24.  
Reply 1. What hath been said to the former, might serve here. As many know earthly and natural things, which know not the Lord: So God can convey the knowledge of himself, to those 
s) Mat. 11.25.  that know little or nothing of natural things, and though natural knowledge cannot be but by natural means; yet supernatural knoweldge may be, and is oft conveyed without natural means. Notwithstanding they who have use of reason and senses, are bound to make use of them, to get the knowledge of God (where God's Ordicances are vouchsafed) though God himself is not tied to these means.  
2. That phrase [from the greatest to the least] is a proverbial kind of speech, frequently used in Scripture, to express the generality of a thing, good or bad, among persons of all sorts and ranks; you may aswell conclude, Infants went up into the house of the Lord, because it is said 
t) 2 Chron. 3●. 30.  All the people great and small— went up, and that little babes were feasted by Ahasuerus, because it's said, 
u) Esth. 1.5.  He made a feast— both unto great and small; and that Infants were given to covetousness, for it's said 
v) Jer. 6 15.  Every one (from the least to the greatest) is given to covetousness.  
3. Your Sophistry is discernible. The text ●aith, shall know the Lord, You say CANNOT know— Now if you rightly assume, Infants shall not know, you contradict the Lords promise, which he will perform in his time. Beside, the conclusion is not to purpose, viz. They shall not be in Covenant, or else there are four terms in your Argument.  
4. What miserable consequences and conclusions are here made? (as your Book abounds with many more, whereby you abuse yourself and others) First, The Children of Ninivee knew not the right hand from the left. Therefore the Lord saith plainly, that children are innocent. Secondly, The children of those that sacrifice to Devils are innocent. Therefore little babes (though innocent) cannot be in Covenant. I shall speak to babes innocency in your next page. But how will you make good your consequence? The absurdity whereof I leave to the Reader to consider. Yet if children because innocent, cannot be in Covenant (as you say), Then it follows clearly, that David, Daniel, and other holy men, 
* Ps. 73.13. Dan. 6.22. Job. 17.8.  whom the Scriptures commend to be innocent, were not in Covenant? and if innocency keep children out of Covenant, why not the aged also? Nay, Infant's innocency is so far from making them uncapable of being in Covenant, that even the children of Idolaters and murderers are called God's children, and born to him, 
x) Ezec. 16.8.20, 21.  viz. in respect of the Covenant, which though broken by them, yet a bill of divorce was not yet given to them. Therefore God owns their children as his in Covenant. Thirdly, They are in Covenant (say you) because that which is born of the flesh is flesh. As if they were not capable of Regeneration, even while Infants, if so, no Infants dying can be saved; 
y) Jo. 3, 3, 5.  but you grant they may and must be saved, pag. 60. Therefore of necessity, they must be born again. But it's no strange thing to find you either confounding or contradicting yourself.  
5. To conclude this debate about Heb. 8. Observe, 

1. M. Hag. quotes it not right, pag. 57 f. who writes it, But this is the Covenant: whereas it is in the place cited, FOR— which is a Ratiocinative, not an adversative participle.  
2. It's not said here, or elsewhere in Scripture, that none are under the new Covenant (no not under the outward dispensation thereof) but they which have those spiritual, and saving works on their hearts.  
3. Neither doth he say, that all those gracious works shall be wrought on them, the first day of their admission into Covenant. Though the habits may be infused at once, yet the growth and actings of those habits are by degre●s. Else we should deny them to be within the Covenant internally, who cannot discern distinctly such heart-works.  
4. When we are speaking of such an external visible interest in the Covenant, as gives to the seed right of entrance into Covenant; It is a manifest flying off from the Question, to talk of the internal Covenant, proper only to the Elect. Especially it is a mere subterfuge, to deny children's being in Covenant, and so right to the seal, because they have not this spiritual blessing of the Covenant; when they themselves dare not undertake, that all (or perhaps any are) of those whom they admit to the seal of the Covenant, have these spiritual blessings, or be in this respect within the New Covenant.      

CHAP. XII. Whether the Infants of Christians, and of Heathens, are in the same condition, as to their Souls?  

SECT. 1.  
H. H. p. 59 f. M. B. saith p. 71, 72. in his 21, and 22. Arguments, that our doctrine is false. For it denies any Infants to be members of the visible Church, and leaves us no sound grounded hope of the justification, and salvation of any Infants in the world. The same saith M. C. in his 13. Argument, p. 44. It puts the Infants of christians into the same condition with the children of Turks, and Infidels, and leaves them in the visible kingdom of the Devil, etc. I Answ. 1. Denying that any children are saved by virtue of visible Church-membership, or being in the Covenant, as believers are, and let M. B. M. C. or any for them prove it by the Scriptures, if they can.  
Reply 1. What a wide leap have we here? you fairly pass by twenty Arguments of M. Baxters, and twelve of M. Cooks, though you pretend to answer them in your Title page. Very good reason, because you could not (or would not) make any colour or show of an answer.  
2. What you here say is, no answer at all to any part of the Arguments propounded, may your expression (of being saved by virtue of visible Church-membership, or being in Covenant as believers are) is very ambiguous and fallacious; Though their Church-member-ship and Covenantship (if so I may say) have been proved by many Arguments, which you have not so much assayed to answer.  
3. Ye● I shall (ex abundanc●, prove it (because you challenge any man) by these few Arguments grounded on Scripture, etc. Though you grant Infants are saved, and that cannot be but by Covenant, etc. First, They that are saved by Christ, are saved by Covenant; for Christ is the Covenant, his blood is the blood of the Covenant, as you acknowledge 
a) p. 58. from Is. 49.8 Heb. 13.20.  b●t those children that are saved, are saved by Christ, Rom. 5.18. Therefore— Secondly, They that are saved by the Mediator of the New Covenant, are saved by means of being in the New Covenant. (For there is no other Mediator, 1 Tim. 2 5. and ●hrist saves none as Mediator of the Covenant, but those whom he brings into covenant, else why called a Medit●our of the covenant?) but some children are saved by the Mediator of the New covenant. Therefore— Thirdly, they who are without Christ, Church-membership, and covenant, ●re without hope, without God in the world, and in a perishing condition, but Elect Infants are not without God without hope, & in a perishing condition. Therefore not without Christ, Church-membership, & covenant. 4. The Church & all his members are in covenant with God, (for it is by covenant 
b) Hos. 2.19, 20.  that she is made the Spouse of Christ) but some infants are made Church-members, (for whom Christ died, 
c) Ep. 5.26, 27.  as well as for grown persons) herefore they are in covenant, & by consequence saved by virtue thereof. Fifthly▪ from your ground, which (surely) you lay on Scripture. He that proves, Infants dying are saved by Christ's death, proves that they are saved by virtue of the covenant (for the covenant is ratified by Christ's death) but M. H●g. proves, that Infants dying, are saved by virtue of Christ's death (p. 61.) or else he doth not prove it by Scripture. Therefore M. Hag. proves, that Infants dying, are saved by virtue of the covenant. I hope you will not deny your own assertion, and therefore not yours and my Conclusion.  
4. This labour might have been spared. For you confess (if your words bear any sense) that Infants are in covenant, though not in that manner as believers are.   

SECT. 2.  
H. H. p. 60. Secondly I answer, there is no difference between the children of believers and unbelievers in their Nonage. For the children of the one (at best) are but innocent, and so are the children of unbelievers Psal. 106.37, 38.— and those that are innocent, God will not destroy, Exod. 23.7. with Job 22.30. Prov. 6.16, 17.  
Reply 1. If there be no difference— you grant M. Cooks Minor proposition, and therefore must own the Conclusion. Abominable doctrine indeed, viz. that puts no difference between the children of Christians and of Turks, to be abhorred of all those that have heard of God's Covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the people of Israel, and Church of the New Covenant, which I leave to be considered and lamented.  
2. I suppose the word BUT should be left out: (they are BUT innocent) unless you mean, they are only freed from, and acquitted of the gift of sin, but without inherent and imputed righteousness, which is as abominable as the former, and contrary to your allegation, Rom. 5.16. p. 6●.  
3. But if the best be made of them, they are more than innocent, 
d) Isa. 44.3.  for God hath promised to power his spirit on the believers seed, and his blessing on their offspring. And he declares 
e) Isa. 65.23. Psal. 37.26.  their offspring are blessed, and that the kingdom of heaven belongs to them 
f) Mat. 19.14.  &c, These and the like things are not said of the children of unbelievers. Therefore some difference sure.  
4. Yet no children are innocent absolutely, but comparitatively, as David was (if his prayer was heard) Psa. 19.13.— So I shall be innocent from the GREAT transgresion, and Abner, and Amasa, were not without sins, yet their blood is termed innocent blood, 
g) 1 Kin. 2.31, 32.  so those children in Psal. 106. were innocent, as to actual sin, and in respect of those that murdered them, but not free from original sin, nor spotless before God. For had they been altogether without sin, they could not have died, Joh. 14.3.4. Psal. 51.5. Rom. 5.12, 14, 18. and 6.23 Ephes. 2 3 I say, God in equity could not take away their lives, if they were simply without all sin, or else God i● cruel● in punishing, as the places you bring seem to prove, which is prodigious blasphemy.  
5 How is Scripture abused? how impertinent is your proof? man must not destroy the innocent, Exod. 23, 7. Prov 6.16, 17. Therefore God will not. Our Divines hold, that God by his prerogative may 
h) Joh. 9.12. with 2●. 3.  annihilate an innocent person; yea, lay what evils he please, (as on Christ who in himself was every way innocent) without any wrong to the creature, and were not the Sodomites and their children. 
i) Josh. ●. 24.  Achan and his children punished (and that without any injustice) by the Lord? and how many children were drowned in Noah's deluge?  
6. To return to Psalm 106. Those children were children of persons externally in Covenant though wicked, yet not discovenanted, for after severe corrections, he is said to remember his covenant for them, verse 45.  
7. What you say in the rest of this p. is not at all pertinent to this Argument, and therefore I pass the same by, only with so●●e brief animadversions; in the general, we have here 〈◊〉 bundl of Arminianism, or refined Pelagianism; First, a  denying (or at least a slighting) 
k) See c. 10. & ans. to the 7. 〈◊〉 qu.  of original sin, contrary to Scripture and experience. Secondly, none shall be condemned for Adam's transgression, contrary to Rom. 3.23, with 5.18, 19 Thirdly, original sin doth not deserve eternal death, but only temporal (what other construction can be made of your words?) though they must all die for Adam's transgression, yet &c.) contrary to Rom 6.23. Fourthly, In such little babes there is no Law contrary to Rom. 7.1. with 5▪ 12. Fifthly, no transgression can be imputed to them, how then do they die (as you confess) for Adam's sin, with a pitiful contradiction is this? Sixthly, None shall be judged according to original sin, contrary to Rev. 20.12.— SMALL and great stood before God— who were judged according to their works. And if Adam's transgression, be every man's work (save Christ's) than Infants shall be judged accordingly, or if for the effect, then much more for the cause, which is as bad if not worse, you harp on the word DONE in 1 Cor. 5.10. I find no such thing in that Scripture, when you correct your quotation, you shall have a solution. In the mean time it looks very suspiciously, when the creature is more merciful, than the Creator (as the pitiful Arminians seem to be) if you would take that advice, you give, to M. B. etc. viz. Seriously consult Scripture, your wonder would not be for nine days, but I hasten to your next p.   

SECT. 3.  
H. H. p. 61. God hath hath one way to save men and women, and another to save Infants, as Rom. 5.18. whence. I conclude, that Infants which fell in Adam without any actual sin, or knowledge of Adam's transgression, even so they dying in their Infancy, etc. are saved by virtue of Christ's death without any actual faith or knowledge of Christ's obedience, or else it is not EVEN SO, as Rom. 5.18. saith.  
Reply 1. So than you positively assert, that all Infants dying in their Infancy, etc. are saved by Christ, etc. Rom. 5.18. But 1. Here is no express mention made of Infants, or their fall in Adam, or any actual sin, or of knowledge of Adam's transgression, or of their salvation by Christ's death, or of their actual faith or knowledge of Christ's obedience. Here therefore is no plain proof for your assertion. All the particulars forenamed are unwritten traditions, & additions to the Scripture; take heed lest those plagues you would scare others with so often, become your own portion.  
2. The word ALL must be taken largely, or restrictively, not the former. For then all men, women, and children, within and without the Church shall be saved, for justification of life upon all men implies so much. Now it's impossible, that those who are truly justified, 
l) Rom. 8.30, 32, 34. etc.  should fall short of glorification. If you mean (as your words imply) that all in their Infancy were justified, though after by sinning, they may perish, that is repugnant to the forenamed Scripture, nor restrictively. For neither the wo●d, nor context, admit such an exception. Indeed there is a kind of universality of those that are partakers of justification of life. i e. All they that receive abundance of grace, etc. verse 17. i e. All the Elect, Christ's sheep, regenerate, and sanctified ones; But where is it proved, that all Infants (even of Heathens) so dying, are such? Nay, it's denied by you.  
3 How can you satisfy yourself with this one Scripture, from whence you draw no Argument but this; else it is not even so, as Rom. 5.18. saith, i. e. either your opinion is true, or that Scripture is false: But as you know that comparisons do not run on four feet, so you will not yield to many Scriptures with Arguments deduced from them (though never so clearly, and strongly) for the proof of Infant Baptism. Is this impartial dealing? will you have Infants (even of Heathens) saved here by consequence? And shall not ●e have Infants (even of Christians) baptised by consequence, from Mat. chap. 28. verse 19  
4. I have heard of one, that held universal Redemption of all from original sin, and that therefore Infants (even of Heathens) while such, are in God's favour, (which I think is your opinion, I am sure it is of some of your Proselytes in these parts) and thence concluded that such Infants were to be baptised, (if parents would permit) and if the Antecedent be granted (which you do) the consequent cannot be denied by any, but by him that absurdly did and will deny the conclusion. For who can deny the seal of Redemption to them, who are acknowledged to have interest in Redemption by Christ's blood?  
5. I will not determine what the Lord may do by prerogative, neither must I believe or assert for a truth any more than his Word holds forth. Leaving therefore secret things to the Lord, I further will clear it, that Infants while Infants (even of Heathens) so dying, are not saved by Christ, as being justified by him, etc.  
1. Whatsoever is to be believed by us, is contained in the Scriptures. This you cannot deny, but that Infants (ever of Heathens) are in state of justification and salvation, is not contained in the Scriptures, (no not in Rom. 5.18. as is showed before) Therefore—  
2. Remission of sins and justification are peculiar to those (m) who are in Covenant. But Infants of Heathens, while such, are not in Covenant, as all parties agree: Therefore— Or thus; All justified persons are in Covenant, Infants of Heathens are not in Covenant. Therefore not justified.  
3. (To contract myself) Because Esau while an Infant was not justified, though the child of godly parents (as you said p. 57) much less the Infants of Heathens, whilst such.  
4. Then it would be a work of mercy to cut their throats, and send them to heaven, which is absurd (at least) you will judge: Must Herod be a Saviour of Infants? Did he them a good turn or no?  
5. They are without Regeneration, as having neither word, spirit, sign, promise, or covenant of Regeneration, hence said to be without.  
7. Baptism doth not belong to them, (as you and we agree) which is the sign and seal of justification. Therefore not justification by Christ's blood, which is (at least a part of) the thing signified.  
More might be added, but I forbear; only I wish you to consider seriously, how one absurdity draws on many more, whilst some are resolved to maintain their fancies. What a monstruous thing is it, that all the children of Heathens shall be partakers of the kingdom of heaven in glory, and yet to deny to Infants of Christians the sign and seal of admission into the kingdom of heaven on earth: or to them faith? (if the free gift come on them to justification of life) I cannot find in Scripture, specially in this Chapter, Rom. 5.1.16. Such justification without faith.   

SECT. 4.  
H. H. same p. and 62. Secondly, that God hath one way to save men and women, and another to save Infants, is evident, Rev. 2.7, 11, 17, 29. and chap. 3.6, 13. because the Spirit often calls to such who have ears to hear, but we never find him calling to Infants to hear, & obey commandments, etc. Thirdly, Life and salvation is promised to them that believe in Christ, Joh. 3.15, 16. with Heb. 5.9. but salvation is not promised to Infants on these terms. Fourthly, Death and damnation is threatened 2 Thes. 1.7, 8, 9 to those that know not God, and obey not the Gospel, but they cannot know God, for they know not the right hand from the left— etc. Fifthly, The ordinary means of salvation is the preaching of the Gospel, Rom. 1.16. 1 Cor. 1.21. Thus is their great invincible objection (or rather cavil) answered clearly and plainly by the Scripture of truth.  
Reply 1. It is in none of these Scriptures expressly said, that God hath one way to save men and women, and another way to save little children; you are wise above what is written. Must we trust you, or seek wisdom at your mouth? as you say, in your p. 53. qu. 5. Secondly, neither do you prove it clearly and evidently, but by (pitiful) consequences. May not I say to you, as he in another case? Therefore thou art inexcusable oh man, whosoever thou art that judgest, for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself, etc.  
3. They rather prove the damnation than the salvation of Infants, for (you say) they cannot hear, believe, know, obey, confess to salvation.  
4. Is there not another contradiction? for hare you say, we never find little babes bidden to hear the Commandments— And yet you say, p. 52. the sons of men are commanded to hear Christ, I hope some little babes are the sons of men.  
5. Sure you live by ill neighbours, you do oft commend yourself, but you are strongly and strangely infatuated to believe, that you have both proved what you undertook, and clearly & plainly answered this invincible objection, etc. (as you scornfully call it) when any rational man (fearing God) may see that you have done neither.   

SECT. 5.  
H. H. And the truth is, they may as well debar little babes from food, because it is said in Scripture, He that will not work, let him not eat, as to debar them from salvation, because they are not Church-members, etc.  
Reply 1. You debar them from Baptism, because they cannot believe, why not also from salvation hereafter (on that Scripture, Mark 16.16.) as from food here on this, 2 Thes. 3.10.  
2. Infant's Church-membership shall be spoken to in answer to your twelve Arguments. But it's your gross mistake, that they are no Church-members, because they cannot perform the work of a Church-member. The same may be said of the Jews Infants, yet they were circumcised, and were Church-members. Nay we find them joined in Church-Ordinances, as prayer, fasting, etc. 2 Chron. 20.16. Joel 2 16.  
3. That God will give them salvation without observing Church-Ordinancer, overthrows your 12 following Arguments, with the last, which a probable one, you say, p. 72.    

CHAP. XIII. Whether Infants of Believing Parents are Church-members?  

SECT. 1.  
H. H. p. 63. 2ly, Infants are not Church-members, neither can Church membership do them any good, but rather the contrary Argument 1. from Joh. 15.2. etc.  
Reply 1. Instead of answering our Arguments for Infant Church membership (which yet you undertook) you tu●n opponent, and dispute after your manner against their Church-membership: But let any Logician read this your first Argument, and he will easily see how monstrous and mishapen it is, without any true form. To make the best of it, it's this; If every branch that is in Christ must bring forth fruit, or else be cut off; then Infants cannot be branches in Christ, for they cannot bring forth fruit, neither shall they be cut off: But the former is true, therefore the latter, and by consequent are no Church-members— 1. You prove what you have undertaken by Consequences. May they not be rejected by us, as ours are by you, saying, (p. 47.) We weigh them not.  
2. If you must have that liberty which you deny to us, you have here as many Consequences as M. Baxter had, which (in the aforesaid p.) you find fault with. As 

1. If Infants be Church-members, they must be branches in Christ.  
2. If branches, they must be fruitful.  
3. If fruitful, they must abide in Christ, etc.  
4. If not, they must be cast into the fire, which is absurd. Review I pray. Rom. 2.1. Wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest, dost the same things.    
3. Your Argument proves as strongly, or more— against all Infant's interest in Christ, and so salvation by him, contrary to your own judgement p. 61. or more confidently and clearly for the damnation of Infants, according to that; He that believeth not, shall be damned, Mark 16.16. which yet you understand only of persons of understanding, etc. as 2 Thes. 3.10. pag. 62. your answer there, answers this here.  
4. Your Consequence is denied, with your Reason; for though Infants whiles such, cannot brin forth visible fruit, yet they may have some invisible fruit (as to man, but not to God) by virtue of their Regeneration; in which estate, if they die, God is glorified in their salvation.  
5. The Similitude you bring, clears the truth: For as the tender branches of a Vine are not presently cut off, though (for the present) they bring forth no fruit; so neither little children, the tender branches of the Church, but some time is allowed to grow, till the season of fruitfulness comes, and not till then are they to be judged by men, worthy to be cut off. If God cut off some in their infancy, he may do as he please, gathering his Elect (who if they lived to years, would certainly have brought forth visible fruit) into heavenly glory, and so glorifying his mercy, and leaving the vessels of wrath to their dead condition, and glorifying his Justice on them.  
6. Christ doth not here 
* Joh. 15.2.7.  speak of or to Infants, who cannot (you say) understand, hear, or speak, neither can they pray; but to his Apostles (who were not Infants, as you truly say, p. 64.) as appears from the 3. verse to the 22. but specially he showeth who are the branches expressly, verse 5. Ye are the Branches.  
7. It is too narrow for you to expound words by commandments; for promises and threaten were to abide in the Disciples (I trow) as well as commandments, verse 7.  
8. The absurdity (you talk of) follows unavoidably upon your own premises, you may look on it as a brat of your own begetting.   

SECT. 2.  
H. H. Second Argument from Acts 8.1, 4.— There was a great persecution against the Church which was as Jerusalem, and they were all scattered, etc. except the Apostles, etc. And they that were scattered went every where, etc.  
Reply. This Argument (as propounded by you) is almost as mishapen as the former; therefore (for brevity sake) I passed by divers things there spoken: only, 

1. Your Argument concludes, as if there were no Infants at all in the Church at Jerusalem, which is very improbable, 
x) Acts 2.4.  considering the many thousands which were converted.  
2. As it is not said, All they that were scattered abroad did preach— but they that were scattered— ver. 4 so the word Every where is not in the original, though our English translation so reads; neither doth the text say, And (as you do) But, Therefore—  
3. By the Church is not meant the community or society of the faithful, but only the Church guides, or Church-officers. 

1. Because it's said, verse 3. Saul made havoc of the Church:  
And 2ly, because express mention is made 
y) Acts 11.22.  of the Church in Jerusalem, notwithstanding that storm of persecution.  
3ly Because it's said, verse 1. Except the Apostles: Now the Particle translated here [Except], and el● where [
z) Mark 12.32 Joh. 8.10. Acts 15.18.  But] (with the Genitive case) is Exceptive of the like kind. And indeed to what purpose should the Apostles stay at Jerusalem amongst Wolus, if all their flock were fled? must they officiate, and preach to the walls? Their staying then at Jerusalem would have been perilous to themselves, and useless to others, if all the Church (simply) had been scattered, having none to preach to, or oversee.  
4ly, Because that phrase (a) Preaching the Word is (in the original) no where used, but of such as were in office.  
5ly, Because of the instance given, verse 5. Then Philip, etc. not Philip the Apostle, (he was excepted, verse 1) but he that was numbered among the Deacons, Acts 6▪ 5. and expressly called an Evangelist, Acts 21.8.  
6ly, Because Women should preach also; for women were scattered as well as men. To this last you answer anon by prevention; In the mean time I must tell you, that by the Church, is meant Church-officers, (as it's certain) your consequence is very lame therefore.       

SECT. 3.  
H. H. p. 64. Though the Ministers in our days would have neither women nor men preach, but themselves; yet women did prophesy, 1 Cor. 11.4, 5. Acts 21.9. & 2.17 18. with 1 Cor. 14.3. Therefore women may preach— provided, they be gifted, and do not usurp authority over the men, 1 Tim. 2.12.  
Reply 1. It's well you will own us at last for Ministers, (whom all this while, and after too, you scornfully call Priests) I commend you for it.  
2. You do merely calumniate us, for we would have none preach (in public) ordinarily and constantly, but such who are ordained (c) by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, 
e) 1 Tim. 4.14. with 5.22. Tit. 1.5.  in a regular way.  
3. By Prophesying (in 1 Cor. 11.4, 5.) is meant singing in, and with the public Assembly, as in 1 Sam. 10.5.— and they shall prophesy— their instruments argue what kind of prophecy this was, viz. praising God with spiritual songs, but specially thrice in 1 Chron. 25.1, 2, 3. where prophesying is expounded by giving thanks, and praising the Lord. Now what a poor Argument is this? Women did then sing— therefore they may now preach.  
4. By Prophesying, in Acts 21.9. is meant, the foretelling of things to come, 
e) Numb. 22.28, 30. with 2 Pet. 2.16. Judas ver. 11.  by the extraordinary work of the Spirit, as 
d) 2 Chron. 34 22.  Huldah the Prophetess. It is not warrantable or prudential, to make an ordinary rule of an extraordinary act: E. gr. Because Balaam's Ass did speak, must we expect that other Asses should speak too? The same is to be understood of Acts 2 17, 18. which prophecy of Joel is said then to be fulfilled, ver. 16.  
5. What an absurd ridiculous gloss do you make on 1 Tim. 2.12. To speak in in a Church-assembly, by way of teaching and instructing others, is plainly held forth as an act of superiority, which did not belong to Women, because that sex was to be in subjection, ver. 11. And if a woman might teach (with your proviso) how is or should she be in silence (which words you slily left out) verse 12? Nay in that very chapter (which you bring for the meaning of the word Prophesying) if you had looked further, you might have found, Let your women keep silence in the Churches, for it is not permitted to them to speak, etc. 1 Cor. 14.34. Again, if they preach, why not baptise too? He that is half-blind may see how cunningly you would bring in Popery. But it may be, you have been so wont to Curtain-lectures, that in a manner you have been cudgeled into this belief, that Women may preach. So that all may see, the objection is sorrily answered by you.   

SECT. 4.  
H. H. Third Argument from 1 Cor. 1, 2, 10, 12. Infant's cannot understand, nor speak, etc. Therefore no Church members—  
Reply If your Argument run thus, They that cannot speak, etc. are no Church-members; But Infants cannot— Therefore— It consists all of Negatives, and it is an undeniable Maxim in Logic: From pure Negatives, nothing is concluded. Or if thus: All Church-members can speak, etc. But Infants cannot, etc. Your Major Proposition is manifestly false. Or thus, when improved to the best: The Saints at Corinth were such as prayed, spoke, could say every one of them, I am of Paul, etc. Infant's cannot do any of these— Therefore— To this I say,  
1. It is not said, that ALL which were Saints in Corinth did call on Christ's name, but thus, ver. 2. Unto the Church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints; with all that in every place call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, &c where the latter is distinguished from the former. Neither must those words [Every one] be taken largely of all the members of that Church, as if every one of the Corinthians should say, I am of Paul, and every one say, I am of Apollo, etc. much less that all of them were schismatical, as appears by the Apostle's thankfulness, ver. 4, 5, 6, 7. and narrative, ver. 11. Some therefore did complain of those divisions, and sought a redress of them, and so were not guilty of them. The guilty therefore are exhorted to speak one thing: what is this to Infants?  
2. These Saints when fast asleep, cannot put forth any of those acts; do they therefore cease to be Church-members. Or it a Palfie or Lethargy, that takes away the use of speech or understanding, (when not asleep) had seized on any of them, were they therefore no Church-members? And why not children also, who are called holy, or saints, 1 Cor. 7.14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— (the same word used) who in time may be instructed in this, and other Scriptures, to take heed of Schism, as 2 Tim. 3.15. Surely Christian parents are bound to instruct their children, in the doctrine of the Scriptures, no less than the Jewish were, Ephes. 6.4. Deut. 6, ver. 7.  
3. To show to the meanest, the palpable weakness of your Argument: Every one that doth righteousness is born of God, 1 Joh. 2.29. No Infant doth so: Therefore no Infant is born of God.   

SECT. 5.  
H. H. p. 65. Fourth Argument from 1 Cor. 6.4, 5. Infant's cannot judge, etc. in such cases; Therefore none such members in the Church at Corinth.  
Reply 1. This Argument is false, both for matter and form, as before: the meanest may see by this; He that loveth not Christ is accursed, 1 Cor. 16.22. But no Infant can love Christ: Therefore accursed. It's a poor evasion to say, the Apostle speaks of a man, not an infant: when the particle 
k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If any one. etc.  is indefinite, and the Scripture calls Cain (an infant) a man (as hath been showed) Gen. 4 1.  
2. The word (rendered lest esteemed) is but one word, 
l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which might be translated contemptible, as 2 Cor. 10.10. or despised, as Luk. 18.9. or set at naught, Rom. 14.10. Now you yourself (in your cold blood) may be judge, whether the Corinthians Infants were contemptible, despised, or set at naught. But if the word lest were in the original, (as certainly it is not) it cannot be understood of littleness in regard of stature, but of state, as ellwhere often, Mat. 11.11. & 25.40. Luk. 9.48. 1 Cor. 15 9 Ephes. 3.8. etc.  
3. It's plain that the Apostle speaks of such who are able to judge; doth it therefore follow, that Infants are no Church-members at all? I trow not. Suppose a man being confident of his cause opposed, should say, he would be judged by the meanest persons in the Town or Country, are therefore Infants no persons in the Town or Country?  
4. Since the Apostle would have such differences composed by them that are least esteemed in the Church, rather than judged by Infidel-magist●ates; therefore I humbly conceive, that by the Church is to be understood, the ruling Church, or church-guide; for such doubtless they had, 1 Cor. 12.28. (the title of the whole being given to the part,) and the word Church, or Congregation, is in the Old and New Testament taken for the Officers of the Congregation, Exod. 12.3, 21. Numb. 35.12. Psal. 82.1, Mat. 18.17, 18, 19 Acts 8.1. 1 Cor. 5.4.   

SECT. 6.  
H. H. Fifth Argument from 1 Cor. 10.16.17. with 11. ver. 28, 29.  
Reply. If I understand your meaning (for yet you have no Syllogistical form) your Argument is this: All Church-members did partake of the Lord's Supper; But Infants did not— Therefore— 1. See the weakness of it, as in this very glass: e. gr. 1 King. 8.63. All Israel feasted with Solomon; But the Jewish Infants did not; Therefore they were none of Israel. If this be sophistical or childish, yours is no better.  
2. The Apostle doth not in this, or any other place, say, that all Church-members did partake of the Lord's Supper, (or of Bread and Wine) but speaking of himself, and grown professors of Christianity, he dissuades Them, who had been partakers of that one bread, etc. and so professedly incorporated into that mystical body of Christ the Church, not to partake with Idolaters in Idol-Temples, for that were to incorporate themselves into the body of Idolaters. So then when he saith, we are all partakers of that one Bread, he neither comprehends Infants in the word [all], nor excludes them from the number of Church-members.   

SECT. 7.  
H. H. p. 66. But if they be Church-members, they are to partake of the Bread and Wine: Either than they are no members, or else they eat and drink damnation to themselves, not discerning the Lord's body. Which absurdity, let any man avoid it, if they can.  
Reply 1. To pass by your calumny, concerning our discovery of abundance of ignorance, and your misapplication of holy Scripture, 1 Tim 1.7. which hath been sufficiently spoken to in your p. 30. you seem to go beyond the Erastians', and Prelatical persons, who would have no Church-member (of age) secluded from the Lord's Supper, unless juridically excommunicated; but you would have Infants also, if Church-members, admitted thereto.  
2. Your reasons do not prove it, not the first; for one and the same body is not to be understood in verses 16, 17, as you yourself (if a man can make sense of your confused expression p. 65.) intimate. Nor the second; for only those did partake, to whom the Apostle did speak, as to wise ●●en, and to whom he appeals for judgement, ver. 15. They that did bless the Cup, and break the Bread, ver. 16. Now you tell us that Infants cannot speak, judge, etc. So our Infants eat not their own damnation, because they partake not— And they partake not, not because they are not Church-members, but because they cannot examine themselves, 1 Cor. 11.28. Thus the supposed absurdity is easily avoided, and the h●rns of your Dilemma are run into your side, get them out if you can.   

SECT. 8.  
H. H. Pag. ibid. Sixth Argument from 1 Cor. 10 16, 17. with cap. 11.28.  
Reply 1. This is the same Argument with the former, and may receive the same answer; yet (it seems) what you cannot make out in weight, you will in number. But put it into form, and so the vanity of it is easily discovered. For if thus: They that partake of that Bread can examine themselves, but infants cannot, therefore they partake not of that Bread. We grant this A●gament; if it will do you any good, it hurts not us. Or thus: All Church-members are to examine themselves, Infants cannot— Then we deny the Major, and that truly, prove it if you can. This makes not against us, but against you; if you hold that Infants may partake of that, we do not.  
2. This Particle ALL must be restrained to the subject matter in hand, as in this very chapter, ver. 23. And I pray you, whom doth the Apostle reprove and instruct but such as can understand, judge, speak, etc. None of these debar Infants from Church-membership.   

SECT. 9  
H. H. p. 67. If any object, we may as well exclude Women as children. I Answer: It discovers but a wicked cavilling spirit; for that women did partake of it, I have proved; and that they are members of the body, approve it by Gal. 3.27. Acts 8.12. 1 Cor. 11.4, 5, 11. Acts 9.36. Rom. 16.1. & 2 Joh. ver. 13. Now if women are members of the body, than they did partake, 1 Cor. 10.17. 2. For the word Woman in the Text, it's all one with Gen. 5.1, 2. and here th● word Man includes both sexes, as the Greck and Latin word show.  
Reply 1. You take the shadows of mountains for men, who are they that discover such a spirit? I dare say neither Mr. Baxter, nor Mr. Cook, who deny not but women did partake of the Lord's Supper, but upon a better account than you give; for what a pitiful arguing is this? Women did partake of it, because it is the communion of the body, and women are members of the body of Christ, which is the Church, Eph. 1.22, 23. as though that body in 1 Cor. 10. verse 16. were the same with this in the Ephes.  
2. You spend your time and labour in vain, in proving what is not denied; yet when you have done, you prove it but by consequence, and that far fetched. As there is no express word for women's receiving of the Lord's Supper, so your proof from 1 Corinth. chap. 11. verse 4, 5.11. that they are members of the body, is far-fetched, and stretched too.  
3. How doth the word [Man] include the Woman in verse 28—? When it's said, Thou— 
r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Himself, and Him, which are of the Masculine gender? Yea the word Man is so far from including the Woman, that it signifies very often the man only. As the Centurion said, I am a Man under authority, Mat. 8. ver. 9 and Christ said, What went you out to see? A man clothed, etc. i. e. John Baptist, Mat. 11. ver. 8. and the Evangelist saith, There was a Man which had his hand withered, Mat. 10. ver. 12. and Joh. 1. ver. 6. There was a Man sent of God— etc. 3.1. A Man of the Pharisees, etc.  
4. If you are no Scholar, you amuse your Reader with stolen stuff, in citing so many Authors, ancient and modern, from your pag 15, to 21. If you are, you grossly dissemble, avoid this absurdity if you can.   

SECT. 10.  
H. H. p. 68 Seventh Argument from 1 Cor. 12.25, 26. Church members should have care one of another; But Infants cannot— Therefore not visible members— If they be, they are to be dealt with, and reproved, for not having that care.  
Reply 1 Any Freshman in Logic can espy four terms in this your sophistical Argument.  
2. It's neither said in, nor by this, or any other Scripture, that all Church-members are able, or bound at all times actually to take care one of another; but only bound hereto when they have ability and call. The best of them being fast asleep, or deadly sick, or suddenly in a swound, etc. are not in a capacity to take that care, till they are awake, or well, or come to themselves (as we say): So Infants as soon as they come to the use of reason, etc. they are bound actually to be careful of, and serviceable to the Church.  
3. Comparisons illustrate, but do not prove; or if they do, they must not be stretched too far, least blood be drawn instead of milk. The care here is not proper, but Metaphorical; viz. the exercise of the members, offices, and operations for the common good of the body, though they cannot actually intent it. Now when you can persuade us that the hand and feet, etc. of an Infant, are no natural members of the natural body (because the exercise of reason is wanting to direct the members in their actings) you shall persuade us, that Infants of the Church are no members of the mystical body.   

SECT. 11.  
H. H. same page. My eighth Argument is from Eph. 2. ver. 23. where Paul speaking to the Church of Ephesus, saith, That they all had their conversation, etc. But Infants had not, could not have such a conversation; all that they are charged with, is, but Original sin; therefore no Infants were Church-members amongst them.  
Reply 1. I grant the Church of Ephesus, because it's expressly so called elsewhere, Rev. 2.1. but here is no express mention made of Paul's writing or speaking to the Church of Ephesus in Eph. 2.23. (it should be ver. 2, 3. which is either your, or the Printer's fault) though the word Church is seven times used in this Epistle.  
2. In charity, I passed by (in a manner) the [But] in your pag. 60. because it might be the Printer's mistake, but meeting with it here so solemnly, I must conclude, you smell too much of the Popish cask, making a [But] of Original sin, and so extenuating & mincing that Quagmire of corruption, that hell of the heart, (as some understand, Jam. 3.6.) which the Saints of God have aggravated and lamented with tears of blood. I fear you are a stranger (in experience) to the woeful depravation of man's corrupted nature, and the baseness and badness of your own heart, though here unawares you answer your own seventh Qu. pag. 53, 54.  
3. Your Major again is justly denied: neither doth that Scripture (you bring) prove it; For the Apostle saith, that he himself, and the adult Ephesians (to whom he immediately directs his Epistle) before their conversion (his from Pharisaïsm, theirs from Heathenism, both from a state of nature and sinful life) were wicked livers, yet here is nothing said, that all Church-members are, or have been actually gross sinners.  
4. The Jews were oft charged with their fore past wickedness, Deut. 9 and Jer. 5.3, 4, 5, 30, 31. yet it follows not that their children must be charged with those actual sins, or else not be owned Church-members; Nay it's plain they were Church-members, Deut. 29.10, 12, 13. Now these converted Ephesians were incorporated into the same body, and partakers of the same privileges for themselves, and their children, Eph. 2.19.20. Rom. 11.17.  
5. As Jews and Gentiles of ripe yea●●, in regard of original sin, and the fruits thereof, needed Christ, the Covenant of Grace, and Church-membership to save them from the dominion and damnation of sin; so Infants who a e under original sin (as you acknowledge) and which is all sin (radically, virtually, eminently,) no less need Christ, the Covenant of Grace, and Church-membership, being the only revealed way of communicating Christ and his merits, to save sinners from the wrath of God, dominion of sin, and eternal damnation.   

SECT. 12.  
H. H. pag. 69. My ninth Argument is from 1 Thes. 5. ver. 2, 4, 5.  
Reply. To make the best of your Argument, it's thus: All Church-members are children of the Light, and know that the day of the Lord cometh as a Thief, etc. But Infants are not children of the light, nor know, etc. 1. The same Answer might here serve, sigh the Fallacy is the same.  
But 2. If a man should argue, that John baptised Infants, because it's said, Mat. 3.5, 6. All Judea, and all the Regions round about (and Infants may be said to go out too, though carried in their parents arms, Exod. 10.9, 10, 24. & 12.37.) went out and were baptised of him— you would not well resent it, for it would spoil your cause, and yet the conclusion follows more clearly than yours.  
3. If some Infants be not children of the light, and of the day, they are children of darkness, and of the right: The Scripture knows not a third state; but it may be, to carry on your design for Popery, you can tell us of a Limbus Infantum.  
4. The Apostle doth not say, that the Saints unto whom he wrote at Thessalonica, did all know perfectly that the Lord's coming should be as a Thief in the night (there it no universal particle in the second verse) neither doth he mean, that they ●●●●e ALL the children of the Light; as if there had been none in the world besides those grown Christians in that Church; (ver. 5. speaks of another matter) lest of all doth the Apostle say, or imply here, or elsewhere, That all Church-members know perfectly, etc. ver. 2. This you prove not all.   

SECT. 12.  
H. H. Tenth Argument, from 1 Thes. 2.11. If Paul did exhort and charge every one of the Church to do these things, than there were no Infants (for they are not capable of exhortation, consolation, etc. ver. 11.) Therefore—  
Reply. This (I confess) hath some form of a Syllogism, viz. Hypothetical (though for brevity, it might have been Categorical) to which I say;  
1. The Major is granted, if it be understood of immediate present exhortation, to every particular member of that Church without exception. But then your assumption, or Minor is denied (though you think it guarded with Scripture); for it is not said, we exhorted every particular Church-member, but you, i. e. to those grown Christians to whom he immediately wrote: And though it be directed to the Church, 1 Thes. 1.1. yet it's not said, every particular Church-member was bound to read, hear, understand, and obey this Epistle so soon as it came. It was enough that it was directed to the principal members (which oft have the denomination of the whole) by whom it might be (as there was occasion) communicated to others. The Apostle calls this Church (for all whom he gives thanks, 1 Thes. 1. ver. 1, 2, 3, 4.) Brethren, will it follow therefore, that Women among them (who are not brethren) are not Church-members?  
2. Doth not the same Apostle say, If ANY— would not work, neither should they eat? yet you are so pitiful, that you will not deny food to little Babes, pag 62. methinks you should be as pitiful, not to deny to them Church-membership, though they cannot perform all the acts of a Church-member, no more than the Circumcised Infants of the Jews could.  
3. Yet again to your Major, though the Apostle did not speak or write directly or immediately to Infants, yet mediately and indirectly he did, in speaking and writing to their parents, who were to lay hold on the promises, etc. for themselves and their children; and being instructed in their duties, were to teach their children when capable, Gen. 18.19. Deut. 6.7. 2 Tim. 3.15. Ephes. 6.4. If in this sense Paul's teaching be taken, (as there is no just reason to the contrary) then the consequence is so far from being true; that the opposite conclusion must needs be true.   

SECT. 13.  
H. H. p. 70. Eleventh Argument from Heb. 6.11, 12. We desire every one of you to show the same diligence— etc. Little children cannot— Therefore not s●ch Babes were Church-members in the Church of the Hebrews.  
Reply 1. I do not remember that in this Epistle there is express mention made of the Church of the Hebrews. Will you be guilty of that fault which you charge often on your Adversaries, viz. Of adding to the Word? Take heed.  
2. This Argument is like the former, and therefore the same answer might serve. This Exhortation was directly and immediately given to persons of years; yet remotely to the children of the faithful, who were bound to bring them up (when grown) as Abraham and the Israelites did theirs, Gen. 18. Deut. 6. Psal. 78. of Abraham, I say; for of his chief the Author speaks, ver. 12, 13, etc.  
3. By this Arguing it might be proved, that none of their Infants were Hebrews, thus; Every one of the Hebrews is desired to show the same diligence to, etc. But none of the Infants were desired— Therefore. Or; Because a Master of a family writes, that every one in the family should be diligent and faithful in their places, shall any conclude that his little children are no members of that family?  
4. There is a like universal charge given to all Israel, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12,— 18, 19, 20. yet because little ones could not understand, etc. must they be concluded (or excluded rather) out of the Covenant? No, there is express mention made of their being taken into Covenant.   

SECT. 14.  
H. H. p. 70, & 71. My 12th and last Argument from Phil. 4. ver. 21, 22. (the sum is this) All the Saints at Rome, whence this Epistle came, sent salutations to the Saints at Philippi, but no Infants at Rome did salute, nor any Infants at Philippi could receive salutations. Therefore no infants (at either place) are Church-members. The Major proved by this Scripture, the Minor by rason and common sense.  
Reply 1. If you believe the Subscription of this Epistle to be Canonical Scripture (for you confidently avouch, this Epistle came from Rome) you smell again strongly of the Popish cask. Beza saith, in one copy it is thus; It is finished, without any other addition. But no more of this.  
2. If you mean there were no Infants at all in Rome or Philippi, a man had need of the faith of an Anabaptist to believe you or it. I''s said, All Jerusalem was troubled with Herod, Matth. 2. ver. 3. Infant's could not be troubled with him, Therefore there was no Infant in Jerusalem— This reasoning is as good as yours, i. e. stark naught. But if you mean (as it seems) that no little children could understand, speak, etc. who saith so?  
3. It's cold comfort to believing parents, that their Infants are not Saints in Christ (then sure they are little Heathens) but is not this contradictory to the same Apostle, who calls (indefinitely) children even of one believing parent, 
1 Cor. 7.14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sancti sunt. So Beza, and the Old Latin.  (g) Saints (so is the word in the original) and are any saved by Christ, but Saints? you hold all (we some) Infant's dying in their Infancy are saved by Christ.  
4. Paul here undertakes nothing less, than the dashing Infants-believers out of the number of Saints, or Church-members. The universal particles ALL, and EVERY one, must be restrained (as was said) to the scope and subject matter e.gr. All the Saints salute— i. e. All that were with him, at the writing of this Epistle, as appears by this very Scripture, which you bring, Phil. 4.21, 22. All the brethren salute you— And so salute EVERY Saint, i. e. That is capable of such salutations. So that your major is not proved by this Scripture at all.   

SECT. 15.  
H. H. p. 71. If children are not concerned in these salutations, than they are not visible Saints in Christ, nor visible members of his body the Church— etc. For the text saith plainly, Phil. 4.21. Salute EVERY Saint—  
Reply 1. As to that, they are Saints in Christ, I have spoken to even now.  
2. The Scripture no where mentions visible Saints, or visible members— Must we be still troubled with your unwritten traditions?  
3. If you might as well conclude, that Infants are no creatures, for (to shoot in your bow) the Text saith plainly, Mar. 16.15. Preach the Gospel to EVERY creature; and that birds, and beasts, and plants, etc. are not creatures, For the text saith plainly, Col. 1.23. The Gospel was preached to EVERY creature which is under heaven, or that the Jews Infants were not children of Israel. For the text saith plainly, Numb. 36.8. EVERY one of the children of Israel shall keep himself—   

SECT. 16.  
H. H. p. 71, 72. There are many probable Arguments remaining, but the answers to them, take much with those, that set their Faith in other men's wisdoms, and not in the power and wisdom of the Word of God, 1 Cor. 2▪ 4, 5. But I shall omit them. Because these twelve are undeniable, etc. Only I will give you one probable Argument out of Mat. 18. 15, 16, 17.—  
Reply 1. You said your 12 and last Argument p. 70. How is that your last, if many, or (but) one more be in your budget? or were they demonstrative, and these probable; what? probable after demonstratives? or were all the former at best but probable? not to me, but to you, whose faith is built on more probabilities.  
2. If it might be made manifest, than it seems, it (i. e. your Tenent) is not yet made manifest to the impa●●●ll Reader  
3. If you know many seeming Answers would be made to them, how could you imagine, none would be made to these 12.  
4. I know not who those are (you rave upon) except perhaps your poor deluded Proselytes, who pin their faith on your sleeve, and take (hand over head) all for Gospel, which you say. Only this I know, you abuse Scripture again. For the words are, ● Cor. 3.5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Will you be still at your old Trade of ADDING,— Take heed of the plagues you threaten others with.  
5. You may now find by experience the vanity of your confidence, there Arguments of yours are not only denyable, and damnable also, (bear with the word) but truly denied, and justly damned too.  
6. For Mat. 18. You have SIN instead of trespass (which though perhaps all one, yet you should not chop and change at pleasure) a● you have left AS, For you say, to thee an Heathen; whose son are you now? p. 42. And for the three Arguments you draw from this text, there is more in the conclusion then in the premises, which heretofore hath been a great fault in Argumentation. And in the end, you seem to grant that the word WHOLE Church is not in the text, why then did you put it into your third particular, but that you had a mind to cousin your Reader? Indeed by the Church, here is to be understood the church-guide (as before out of Act. 8.1.) as appears by the eight and ninth verses: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc. Whatsoever ye shall lose, etc. If two of you shall agree. So that it is as clear as the Sun, that the Church here is the Assembly of the Ministers and Elders of the Church. And then your threefold cord is as easy broken, as that was by Samson.  
7. To conclude in general, for these Arguments (which are thirteen to the dozen) let the Reader observe; There is not one word of Church-member, or Church-member-ship in any one of the Scriptures cited. Yet Mr. Hag. would bear us in hand, that he holds nothing but what is expressed in the Scriptures. Where is your written word for your belief in this very point under debate? 2. Because you import, that you put but little confidence in your probable Arguments. I had thought to have left them, as I find them, but lest you and yours should crow, I have given some brief Animadversions; and would let you understand, that it were very easy to find our (without vanity be it spoken) many dozen of Arguments in Moses and the Prophets, that might conclude as probably against the Church-membership of the Old Testament-Infants, as any you have, or can bring against children's Church-membership in the New. And as easy to bring multitudes of Argumemts out of the New Testament, that might as probably conclude against the salvation of any Infants (so dying) as any you bring against the Church-membership or Covenant-state of Christians Infants. Though you profess your persuasion of the salvation of ALL Infants so dying, yet by your way of Arguing, ALL Infants should not only be cast out of the Church, but out of salvation too.    

CHAP. XIV. Of the Discipleship of INFANTS.  

SECT. 1.  
H. H. p. 73. I proceed to prove in opposition to M. Baxter and M. Cook's Arguments, that Infants are not, cannot be Christ's Disciples. My first Argument is from Mat. 28.19. Teach all Nations etc. The plain English of which M. Baxter himself confesseth to be— Make Disciples, etc. From whence I argue thus; If those Disciples which Christ commanded the Apostles to baptise, must be first made so, Then they were not so born; if they had, they should not have need to be made so. Again, If make Disciples All Nations, and teach all Nations be all one, as M. Baxter affirms, than it is clear, that Disciples are made by preaching the Word, But Infants that understand not earthly things, if we tell them, can much less understand the things of the kingdom of heaven, declared by the preaching of the Gospel. Therefore—  
Reply 1. You still forget the work you had undertaken, which was to answer: but instead of answering the Arguments brought to prove Infants-Disciple-ship, you take the opponents place, and say, you will prove, that they are not, cannot be Disciples.  
2. Your Argument here is like that earth, Gen. 1.2. without Form, and void, confused Chaos, without head or foot, in no mood or figure, (as Logicians know) and therefore I have transcribed it at large (only paring away some superfluous words) that all may see what a Babel you have built.  
3. Admit your first conclusion were granted, (as nothing touching us) which should be thus— Therefore not born so, if you understand the Apostles making Disciples of adult Heathens only: But your reason is false and foolish; For not only he that is a Disciple already, need to be made still a better Disciple or Scholar. But also sometimes to be made and to be born is all one. Christ himself was made King, Psal. 2.6. I have set (or as the word is, anointed) my King— and yet he was born King, Mat. 2.2. Where is he that is born King—? Say the wise men. It matters not how they came to know it, whether from the Prophecy of Balaam, or some other of Daniel, etc. or from the Revelation of the Angel, which appeared to them, as to the Shepherds, saying, There is born to you this day a Saviour, Luk. 2.11. which is the Christ (or the anointed) Lord, i. e. Prince, or King. The same in another phrase with this here in Mat. 1. with an Emphasis on THE, i. e. the expected King or Messiah. Only it's clear, that Christ in God's wise and eternal decree, was made a King, and yet born a King: And to put it out of doubt, Christ is said to be made of a woman— Gal. 4.4. with Mat. 1.16. What is that but to be born of a woman?  
4. As for the Apostles making Disciples by teaching, etc. Whereof Infants are uncapable, there is not the same reason of a Church to be constituted, and of a Church already constituted, taken into Covenant. The former was the subject about which principally the Apostles were employed, the latter of ordinary Pastors and Ministers. Though these Heathens and their children were not Disciples, nor in Covenant by any birth privilege, when the Apostles were first to preach the Gospel out of the Pale of Judea, they and theirs were under the power of the Devil, born and brought up in his school of Infidelity and Idolatry. But when they were converted, and constituted a Church, the children of such thus called, were born (by virtue of God's Covenant apprehended by faith, Ma●. 10.14. 1 Cor. 7.14. Acts 2.39.) Subjects of Christ's Kingdom, and holy, and (so consequently) Disciples, and Scholars, in the school of Christ, as is proved at large in M. Baxters and M. Cook's Books, which you pretend to answer, but indeed answer nothing to the greatest, and most material part therein.  
5. As for teaching, It is outward, or inward; immediate, or remote; formal, or virtual. Infants (while such) though not ordinarily, capable of outward, immediate, formal teaching by men, yet may be said (truly) to be taught remotely, and virtually in the teaching of their parents, who are engaged (by admission into covenant, and further instruction) to hand over these saving truths to their children, who are for the present dedicated to Christ (as his Disciples) to be trained up in his School, Gen. 17.7, 8.9. and 18, 19 as Isaac, and other children in Abraham's Family, were consecrated to God, to be taught by Abraham in the doctrine of the Covenant; which order holds now in the time of the Gospel, 2 Tim. 3.15. Ephes. 6.4. And as for the inward teaching of Christ and his Spirit, who can doubt but believers Infants (whilst such) are capable of it, (though God's ●●eer power, and the passive capacity could be no ground of our persuasion or expectation, that it should be so, yet they being taken into the School of Christ, kingdom of God, and under the influence of the Spirit, are within the compass of those promises, Deut. 30.6. Isa. 54.23. Jer 31.33, 34. Mat. 11, 25▪) Howsoever it lest become you (of all others) to deny or doubt, that Christ by his Spirit can illuminate Infants, when you hold unquestionably, That by virtue of Christ's death, they (even the Infants of Heathens) are justified, and saved by virtue of Christ 〈◊〉 death, p. 60.61. Surely Christ is made wisdom, and sanctification to them, to whom he is made justification and redemption, 1 Cor. 1.30.   

SECT. 2.  
H. H. Here M. Baxter and I must have discourse before we part, for he tells us of divers ways to make Disciples, besides teaching them, which in plain terms, is to say; There are divers ways to make Scholars, besides, or without teaching of them, which to me is a paradox.  
Reply 1. M. Baxter's distinction of a Disciple complete and incomplete, largely and strictly taken, etc. pag. 14. (which you wisely take no notice of, because you cannot answer) cuts in sunder the sinews of your Argument, and so makes your arguing of none effect.  
2. He saith, p, 23. There are more ways of teaching, then by PREACHING in a Pulpit; as mothers teach by action, as well as by voice; For Gideon with briers and thorns, TAUGHT the men of Succoth, Judg. 8.16. And Solomon tells us, a naughty person, a wicked man, that TEACHETH with his fingers, Prov. 6.13. as you have done by writing this poisonous Pamphlet of yours. All preaching (I confess) is teaching, but all teaching is not preaching; A Schoolmaster cannot be said to preach to his Scholars in the School, when yet he teacheth them their Lessons.  
3. It is a Paradox to you, that there are more ways than one of making Scholars, then by preaching (as M. Baxter saith) so were Christ's Aporisms, Paradoxes to flesh and blood, Mat. 5.3. to 12. as the doctrine of Christ, and the Resurrection were to the Epicureans and Stoics, and yet Orthodox to sound judgements, Acts 17. verse 18, 19  
I had thought here to have proceeded to your second Argument, and to have left the Vindication of M. Baxter to himself, who intends to deal with you, and the rest of your Gang (as I am credibly informed) but because you would construe this as a mere evasion, I shall (by the help of the Lord) go on, Though I may say as truly of him, as you do of M. T. (p. 36.) He is of age, and able to answer for himself, yea and more truly too. For you p. 95. contradict his judgement (for baptising in warm water) and condemn him of weakness therein, but I have no reason to do so to M. Baxter.   

SECT. 3.  
H. H. It's enough (saith M. Baxter, p. 23.) to make them Disciples, that they are devoted to learning, if they live, etc. So that he would prove them Disciples or Scholars first, and have them taught afterwards strange doctrine, and unheard of Divinity.  
Reply 1. You leave out M. Baxter's first answer, viz. They can partake of the protection, and provision of their Master (as the children of those the Israelites bought) and enjoy the privileges of the Family and School, and be under his charge and Dominion, and that is enough to make them capable of being his Disciples. This is not the first time you abuse M. Baxter, and your Reader.  
2. You are like those mentioned even now, Act. 17.18, 19 no matter how strange his doctrine be, if true.  
3. I think it is neither strange Doctrine, nor unheard of Divinity, to call the Jewish Infants, Moses Disciples, Jo. 9.28. (and so Christ's to whom Moses was subordinate, as M. Baxter p. 22. which you cunningly pass by) And were not the Twelve first Disciples (and Paul also) and taught afterwards, Act. 9 Secondly, you bewray your ignorance of the Scriptures, which you charge on M B. and M. H. etc. very insolently.   

SECT. 4.  
H. H. p. 74. But M. B. stoutly backs it with a learned Argument. Is it not common to call the whole Nation of Turks Mahometans, old and young, and why not then ourselves and children, Disciples of Christ? As the man that hired a Philosopher to teach him and his children, were they not all then Disciples of that Philosopher? Answer, But is this M. baxter's plain Scripture proof—? I admire, that a man professing so much seriousness, etc. (p. 2.) should resolve to make the Apostles words true of himself, 2 Tim. 4.3, 4. etc.  
Reply 1. You told us a story of Dr. Story, p. 55, 56. may not M. Baxter say; Is this M. Haggar's plain Scripture proof that he tells us of, in the title of his Book? Physician heal thyself.  
2. You need not admire, (to be sure, not much admire) at this story (as you call it) It's brought rather for illustration, then for probation.  
3. I rather much more admire, that you who profess so much purity, should bespatter him with so much impure language; as wickedness, folly, blasphemy, etc. with which your book is stuffed.   

SECT. 5.  
H. H. If I should grant, that little children, as soon as they go to School, are Scholars; yet are they then fit to learn the things of God, Jo. 3, 12.  
Reply 1. M. B. tells you, p. 14. That believers Infants are Disciples relatively, long before they actually learn; to which you say nothing.  
2. When they begin to learn their letters, 
g) Prov. 22.6. Eph. 6.4. 2 Tim. 3.15.  we are with the soon to teach them the things of God.  
3. Though they may not be fit to learn the things of God, yet it's fit we should teach them, even grown persons within our charge may and must be taught, though by reason of their ignorance, sottishness, and dulness, they are unfit to learn.  
4. What gross mis-application of Scripture have we here again? But it's your guise, to apply that to Infants, which is spoken to adult.   

SECT. 6.  
H. H. p. 75. He is a man void of reason, that sends his child to School before it can speak or understand, yet M. B. affirms such to be Christ's Disciples, and would have them sent to Christ's School. But the comparison should be thus: As little children, when first they go to school to learn their letters, are called men's Disciples; so those babes in Christ, 1 Joh. 5.12. the first day they go to Christ's School to learn the Principles, etc. Heb. 6.1. are Christ's Disciples; or as we call all the Turnks, old and young, that are born of the flesh, Mahometans, so all born of the Spirit— Christians, i. e. such as are spoken of 1 Joh. 2.12, 13. with 5.21.— As for M. Baxter's man that heard the Philosopher, I pass it over as a cunning devised Fable, etc.  
Reply 1. If M. B. affirm such to be Christ's Scholars, how can you for shame say, he would have them sent to Christ's School, their being Scholars, presupposeth a sending.  
2. You set up again a man of straw, and then fight with it. Valiantly done. Comparisons (you know) do not run on all four. Here is the piety and prudence of Christ, to count, and own them (who cannot speak or understand) his Scholars; belonging to him the Master of the Church— Mar. 9.41.  
3. Why do you say, they that are born again, etc. are christian's (and not Disciples): Are not all Christians Disciples? Acts 11.26. Now if some Infants are born again by the Spirit into the kingdom of Christ, they must be Christians or Disciples, especially by your former Doctrine, viz. Dying in Infancy, they are saved by Christ. Are any saved by Christ but such as are sanctified, born again, Disciples? Here you plainly yield the cause.  
4. If that concerning the hired Philosopher be a story, how is it a Fable? This cunning devised answer of yours is not worthy of a reply.   

SECT. 7.  
H. H. p. 76. Mothers (say M. Baxter) can teach their children partly by action, and gesture, and partly by voice, etc. And me thinks you should not make an Infant less teachable than some bruits. But nurses will tell you more in this, than I can. Answer, Oh excellent Divinity, and plain scripture-proof! whence it follows, that Nurses are better Divines then M. B. 2. That some bruits are capable of being Christ's Disciples, (I am sure that his words imply noless) Therefore his answer to M. T. (for want of a better) may be more fitly applied to him then to M. T. viz. Oh, what cause have we, etc. 
m) M Baxter's plain Scripture p. 19   
Reply 1. I have given the Reader the sum of this 76 p. leaving the bibble-babble to yourself and silly Proselytes.  
2. Your arguing is so ridiculous, that I may justly cry out, Oh excellent Divinity! and plain Scripture-proof promised in your title page. For Nurses can tell better than I, (saith M. Baxter) how teachable Infants are; Therefore (you infer) Nurses are better Divines then M. Baxter, which is just like this; Banks can tell you how teachable his horse was, and an Huntsman how teachable his dogs are. Therefore Banks & an Huntsman are better Divines then M. Haggar. Or (if those please you not) a Blacksmith, or a Butcher can tell you how teachable their Apprentices are. Therefore a Blacksmith or a Butcher are better Divines then M. Haggar. Again M. Baxter saith, ye should not (me thinks) make a child less teachable than some bruits, you infer here (and you are SURE his words imply no less) that some bruits are capable of being Christ's Disciples. I deny your Major or consequences, viz. If Infants are not less teachable than some bruit beasts, than some bruits are capable of being Christ's Disciples. And all the wit you have (for I fear you have no grace, I am sure you have no Scripture) will never prove it. I had thought a Shear-man could have dressed a piece of cloth more handsomely; if you can, keep to your trade only, and leave off preaching, and such ridiculous arguing, for very shame.  
3. M. Baxter had other answers to M. T. but you cunningly take no notice of them.   

SECT. 8.  
H. H. p. 77. M. Baxter proves from Acts 15.10. That Infants are Disciples, to all that will not grossly overlook the text, and pervert it; because the false teachers would have laid the yoke of Circumcision on the Disciples; now that yoke was to be laid on the Jews and their children, according to Moses' Law. Answer, 

1. An heavy charge against us, I confess, to be perverters of the Scripture—  
2. If the Argument were granted, M. Baxter hath done but half his work, for then only man-children are to be baptised.—    
Reply 1. You do not deny the charge to be true; for you say, how true it will prove, you shall see by and by. It may prove true for all this.  
2. The charge is as true as heavy. How grossly have you perverted, Jer. 2.12, 13. p. 8. q. Our Fonts (lately in use) were those broken Cisterns, etc. And indeed this is your frequent work through your book. How grossly are those Scriptures perverted, which you bring to prove your baptising of men and women, when they believe, as you say? and all those, that Infants are not Church-members, from your p. 63. to 72. which are 12. at least? (as hath been made to appear) and those you bring for plungeing and dipping under water? As you shall find hereafter.  
3. You may do well to give M. Baxter this whole Argument, as you do others, in answering nothing to them, by your own confession in your Epistle about the end.  
4. M. Baxter hath done his whole work by your grant, for his ●ask was to prove that some Infants may be baptised, because they are Disciples, which is quite opposite to your Tenent, That no Infants may be baptised, because no Infant (as you say) can be a Disciple. Indeed it's true, none but male-childrens were circumcised actually (The females being uncapable) yet the females were virtually (and so reputed as if they had been actually) Circumcised. The Israelitish Damsel is brought in as opposed to Shechem, one uncircumcised, Gen. 34.14. and how else could women lay claim to that promise, Deut. 30.6. The Lord will circumcise thy heart, etc. or be within the Covenant of grace? (whereof Circumcision was a sign, Gen. 17.11. Nay, called, the Covenant of Circumcision, Act. 7.8.) did Peter preach only to the male Jews, when it's said, the Gospel of the Circumcision was committed to him? Gal. 2.7, 9 Or when he, James and John went to the Circumcision? Was Christ a Minister of the Circumcision to Jewish men only, and not to women also, Rom. 15.8. Or did the blessedness of justification come on the male Jews only, or on the female also? Rom. 4.9. For the Apostle saith, It cometh not only on the Circumcision, but on the uncircumcision also, if this includes both Sexes among the Gentiles, believing, that cannot exclude the Jews, (at least believing) whether male or female. And were not women as well as men said to be of the Circumcision? Acts 10.45. and 11.2. Rom. 4.12. Surely women are not to be excluded, but included in this very phrase, I trow. But what need I produce any more instances in so plain a truth.  
5. Nay you yourself grant M. B. Argument towards the end of this p. For you acknowledge in plain terms; the yoke here was Circumcision, according to the Law of Moses, and this yoke was laid on the Jews, AND THEIR CHILDREN; only according to your senseless custom, you deny the CONCLUSION, and undertake to prove the contrary.   

SECT. 9  
H. H. p. 78. If M. Baxter or M. Cook prove Infant's Discipleship, than we grant they are those on whom the false teachers would have put the yoke of Circumcision, but the Disciples are such as could deny themselves, etc. Luk. 14. which Infants cannot do. As they cannot hear the Word, and believe, Acts 15.7. Nor receive the Holy Ghost, verse 8. etc. Therefore they are not at all concerned in that place.  
Reply 1. M. B. and M. C. have proved Infants Disciples by clear Arguments, to which you say nothing, though you undetook to answer them; How then dare you say, it remains STILL for them to prove, & c? I hope now you will grant they are Disciples, on whom the yoke was to be put, and therefore that Infants also are Disciples.  
2. Your Argument to the contrary is not worth a straw. Your Major is again justly denied, viz. All (or else you prove nothing) Luk. 14.27. The Disciples of Christ can deny themselves, take up the Cross and follow Christ. It's like this. Subjects can fight for their Prince. Infant's cannot. Therefore— If the Proposition be understood of all, it's false. If of some, than the Syllogism is false for form, as before.  
3. For Acts 15. It's granted p. 16.— by M. B. that they who heard the Word, etc. were Disciples, but not only they; and M. B. prove● it out of the coherence, Acts. 5.1. 5.24. three times it's so. Except ye be Circumcised after the manner of Moses, verse 1. And it was needful to Circumcise them, and to keep the Law, ver. 5. and ye must be Circumcised, and keep the Law, ver. 24. So that Infants are clearly concerned in this place, who as well as their parents were (by the doctrine of the false teachers) to be Circumcised, and so necessary engaged to keep the Law.  
4. Though Infants (suppose) cannot partake of the Holy Ghost, as to the miraculous gifts, yet I wonder you deny them the ordinary gifts of regeneration, and sanctification, specially when you are strongly perswaded of their salvation by Christ, as p. 60. and 61.   

SECT. 10.  
H. H. Another Argument of M. Baxter is, page 18, 19 thus: If Infants be capable of being God's servants, then of being Christ's Disciples; If God call them servants, why may not we call them Disciples? Levit. 25.41, 42. Answer, It's strange he should take on him to prove them Disciples, and when he cannot find such a word in all the Scriptures, he would turn us off with the word servants, I say, we may call Nabuchadnezzar God's servant, Jer. 25.9. and 27.6. and 43.10. And yet if M. Baxter call him Christ's Disciple, his folly is manifest to all men, as it is now to me.  
Reply 1. You would prove women to be Church-members, because they are Disciples, page 67. May not we retort, when you cannot find such a word in all the Scriptures, you would turn us off with the word Disciples, and presume to call them Church-members, and then say, if God call them one thing, why may not we call them another?  
2. If you prove Infants are not Church-members, because they are not branches (how poorly God knows) It should not seem strange to you, that M. Baxter proves them Disciples, because they are servants, specially if you consider (to foil you with your own weapon) that Scripture no where calls them expressly Church-members, (though we believe they are) but doth expressly call them Disciples 
* I. G. Catab. p, 165. Sidenh. exercit. p. 126.  here, and servants too in the place quoted by M. Baxter.  
3. By your Divinity I may not call Paul a Disciple of Christ, whom he calleth a servant, and his servant too: For you say, (even in persons) we must not call them Disciples of Christ, whom God calleth servants.  
4. If you had not been wilfully blind, M. Baxter prevented this cavil (p. 20, which I shall improve) Moses and Nabuchadnezzar are called the servants of God, but not on the same account, Isa. 42.1. with Rev. 1.1. Christ and John— are called God's servants, but not in the same sense, when their use and sufferings were so unlike, Psal. 119.89, 90. The Heavens and believers are called God's servants, but not in the same sense, when their actings do so broadly differ. So Nabuchadnezzar and the Church's children. He in respect of the work to which he was designed, and they in respect of the state, wherein they were invested. Nabuchadnezzar was never brought out of Egypt, nor to have any benefit of the year of Jubilee, as is said of these children with their parents, Levit. 25.41, 42.   

SECT. 11.  
H. H. p. 79. Another Argument of M. Baxters' p 21. If Infants be capable of being Christ's Subjects, then, of being Christ's Disciples. Answer, A learned Argument. All the children in this Nation are capable of being Subjects in this Commnon-wealth, Ergo, of being Vniversity-Scholars.  
Reply 1. An unlearned answer. There is a capability remote, and immediate. Now remotely all Infants here are capable of being University-Scholars, but not immediately; they must first be Country-Scholars, before they are University-Scholars. An Infant is capable of being an Abecedarian by propinque-power, but a stone etc. is not, either by a propinque, or remote power.  
2. You seem to insinuate, that no child is capable of being a Subject in this Commonwealth (what truth is in M. B. or yours, you leave to the wise to judge); your Logic will not save a whore from the gallows, who hath been arraigned; or condemned for murdering her Bastard.   

SECT. 12.  
H. H. His third Argument is p. 23. Christ would have some children received as Disciples, Lo● 2 47, 48 Mar. 19.5. Mark 9.41. Now what the two first Sori●●ures are to the purpose, I leave to all that can read, and understant English, to judge. If the Printer have done him wrong, I have not, neither is there any in his Erratas; and truly I dare be no Interpreter of his meaning without his words: I shall therefore only speak to that in Mark, etc.  
Reply 1. What a cunning devised Fable have where, to mis-cite Mr. Baxter's two h●d Scriptures and to write them out at large, that Mr Baxter might be rendered odious, or (at least) inexpert in the Word of righteousness? wh●n in the very page cited, they are Luke 9 and Mat. 18. and for the first, you confess you after ●od Luke 9 quoted in that page; Would not you think it dis-inge●●ty to be so dealt with? If I should write out in words at length, Luke 14.10. (so it's cited by you, pag. 42.) and then make such a flame, as you do? What a great cry is here, and no Wool? Where were your eyes? or your mind rather? If seems after you had put on your Spectacies, you could see better, and read English; you seek for a ●not in a Rush.   

SECT. 13.  
H. H. p. 80. I Answer: 

1. The word Disciple is not in the Text, etc.  
2ly, in Mark 9.41, 42. It's evident he spoke to the Twelve, and of actual believers.  
3ly, To that in Luke 9 ver. 48. the Lord Christ himself answers, Mat. 18.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. at large.    
Reply 1. No more is Church-member, or visible Saints in all or any one of those 13 Texts, which you produce from pag. 63. to 73— and from whence you have drawn 13 doughty Arguments, to show, that such Infants as we baptise, cannot be Church-members, neither doth Church-membership do them any good, but the contrary (pag. 63) your answer here might have served for our Reply there. But I have replied punctually to every Scripture and Argument there. And what if the word Disciple be not expressly found in one or two of these texts, yet in Mat. 18.5. (which Mr. Baxter had rightly and truly cited, for all your audacious outfacing the matter) he speaks of receiving one such little child in my name; what's that? Mark 9.41. Because ye belong to Christ; or (as it is in the original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mark. 9.41.) because ye are Christ's, and what are both these, but in the name of a Disciple, Mat. 10.42. Now to receive in Christ's name, and as belonging to Christ, and as a Disciple of Christ, in Christ's language is all one. Much more is said in the places (quoted by you) by Mr. B. which you thought a piece of wisdom to pass by, because you could not answer.  
2. To that in Mark I might say, as you a little before; The word [actual Believers] is not to be found in the text; Therefore by your divinity it is not Evident, that he speaks of Actual Believers; or else some things are evident, which are not expressly mentioned in Scripture. And what though Christian's Infants are not actual believers, it's enough if they be habitual believers, and then Christ speaks of them. But because you utterly deny, that any Infants are actual Believers, and challenge any to prove it by Scripture, if they can, I shall try your strength by these few Arguments (though I do not positively assert it) 

1. David saith, God did make●him hope when he was on his mother's breasts, Psal. 22.9. Now to hope and to believe are all one, or very nigh of kin. In him shall the Gentiles trust, or hope, Rom. 15.12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
2. You have taught me, that justification of life belongs to Infants, pag. 61. out of Rom. 5.18. Now the Scripture knows no justification of life without actual faith; even in that Chap. it's said, Rom. 5.1. we are justified by faith, What is that but actual faith? as appears from the illative particle, Therefore; being the conclusion of an Argument drawn from a famous example of justification, viz. Abraham's, which was without doubt by actual faith, you dare not deny, it's so evident, Gen. 15. with Rom. 4.  
3 lie, John Baptist in his mother's womb leapt for joy, Luk. 1.41, 44. which was no natural, but a spiritual motion (as hath been said) now joy is the joy of faith, Rom. 15.33. with Phil. 1.25. True (you say) faith comes by hearing, Rom. 10.17. i.e. Ordinarily. But though God binds us to the means, yet he is not tied himself. And that Christ should speak of such little ones as John writes to, 1 Joh. 2.12. it's but one of your Dictates. But let us see how Christ answereth it, as you say.     

SECT. 14.  
H. H. p. 81. It's clear that Matth. and Luke speak of one and the same thing, by comparing Luke 9 46. with Mat. 18.1. etc. Therefore not Infants for age, but for quality are meant, i. e. humble and converted Christians, as 1 Cor. 14.20.1 Pet. 2. ver. 1.  
Reply 1. You that father your Solecisms and blasphemies on God, p. 29, etc. it's no marvel you father your Gloss on Christ; The mouth of the Lord himself hath spoken it. It was usual with false Prophets to cry, The Word of the Lord, the mouth of the Lord, etc. How else could they deceive simple souls?  
2. If Christ speaks of actual Believers (as you say) and I have proved some Infants such, than the mouth of the Lord himself hath spoken of little children of a few days old, (to use your phrase). Again, compare the Evangelists together, and it's plain; For Christ said, Whosoever shall receive This Child (viz. which he took and set by him) in my name, Luke 9.47, 48. with Mat. 18.5. And— whoso shall receive one Such little child in my name, i. e. not only this individual child, but any one such for age, etc. 3. It is your frequent expression, e. g. p. 4. Therefore none Such were baptised by John: And pag. 64. No Such Infants in the Church at Jerusalem, and pag. 65. (to name no more) None Such members of the Church at Corinth: Surely you meant (if any sense can be made of your words) such for age— Though I deny not but Christ might and did aim at a further document. But let us hear your Reason for your Exposition.   

SECT. 15.  
H. H. If we understand that little Children are Believers in this place, than whosoever is a believer, and chastiseth his son betimes, (as Solomon adviseth) it were better for him to have a millstone hanged about his neck, etc. For certain we are, that whosoever correcteth his child, will off end him, which is an absurdity.  
Reply 1. A ridiculous reason: For you should have said, Then it follows, that whosoever chastiseth a believer, etc. not, whosoever is a believer, and chasteneth, etc. else you say nothing to purpose; but you were afraid to acknowledge little children believers.  
2. You set the Scripture together by the ears, to bring in your absurdity: It this Saintlike done? Now mark: He that offendeth his child, sinneth; (this is plainly implied by Christ) But he that correcteth his child, sinneth not; (this is evident by Solomon, Prov. 13, 24. with 19.18) Therefore (certain we are that) he that correcteth his child, doth not offend him.  
3. Your absurdity will not follow, if you allow the old received distinction, of an offence 
l) Scandalum datum, vel acceptum.  or scandal given, or taken. The Pharisees were offended at Christ's saying, Mat. 15, 12. they took offence, but Christ gave none, and children when corrected may be offended (though they are offended more ways then by whipping); Children take offence, but parents give none. Thus I have discovered your foolish carpings, and cavils at Mr. Baxter's Arguments, and the woeful weakness of your own. Now proceed to your second Argument.   

SECT. 16.  
H. H. p. 82. My second Argument is from Joh. 8.31, 32. (the sum whereof is this) They that continue in Christ's words, are Christ's Disciples indeed, and shall know the truth, and be made free by it. But Infants cannot abide, etc. Therefore not disciples indeed. The Third from Joh. 15.8. They that bring forth much fruit to God's glory, are Christ's Disciples. But little children cannot, etc. Therefore.  
Reply 1. I have joined these two Arguments together; for being the sams form, they may receive the same answer. 1. The Syllogisms themselves are false for Form, as a Freshman in Logic may see, (for they are both in the first Figure, having the Assumptions Negative) and the meanest rational man may discern, thus: They who have perfectly learned all the Liberal Arts and Sciences, are Scholars indeed: But Abecedarians have not learned all the Liberal Arts and Sciences; Therefore they are not Scholars indeed.  
2. Here is a Fallacy 
* Ignoratio Elenchi. , for our question is not of such Disciples who are truly Regenerate, and shall be certainly fruitful, etc. which belongs only to the invisible Church. We never affirmed that all the children of believing parents are such— But our Question is concerning those that are visible Disciples, in his visible School, etc. And you cannot deny, many may and must be owned disciples in the Visible Church, who fall short of those visible characters; as Judas, Simon Magus, Ananias and Sapphirae, etc. This your arguing then, makes as much against the Primitive Apostolical Churches, as against ours. For they did not stay from owning people Disciples, till they knew whether they would continue in the Word, and bring forth much fruit to God's glory.  
3. The Assumptions in both (taken universally) are not true; for Jacob, Jeremy, John the Baptist, Timothy, etc. even from children abode in the truth, and persevered to glorify God. And it's not impossible now; but in regard of the promise, we may judge it usual in many Infants, though not all. This is enough: For there was never any society or Church of Men-disciples on earth, of which any man could say infallibly, that all of them were truly sanctified.   

SECT. 17.  
H. H. p. 83. The fourth Argument (put to the best) is from Joh. 13.34, 35. Christ's Disciples are known to all men by loving one another, as Christ loved them. But Infants cannot love one another so (for they know not it's their duty.) Therefore—  
Reply 1. This is sick of the same disease with the two former: For 

1. It hath a Negative Assumption in the first Figure, like this: They that writ in the Hebrew and Greek Languages are known to be Scholars: But they that are in some (woman's) Country-school cannot do so; Therefore no Scholars.  
2. The Question is not of those true, real, internal Disciples, taught of God to love one another with a supernatural love, 1 Thes. 4. (for persons of any false Religion, may love one another with a carnal, and natural love) for these shall not be known of all men till the day of judgement, Mat. 25.31, 32, etc. But our Question is concerning visible Disciples, who are to be esteemed members in the School of the visible Church on earth, and to have Baptism the sign of Admission into his School. Will you take none to be Christ's Disciples, and to be baptised, until they be known by all men to love one another, as Christ loved his people? If so, you must cease (to the world's end) from gathering Churches. Was not Judas a Disciple of Christ? and yet he had no true love to Christ, or to his fellow-disciples?    
2. Though this is one mark by which true disciples may be known by them who can discern, as a man's renewed conscience in this world, and all men at the last day; yet this is not the only mark (others have been named before) much less is it the only mark of That Discipleship, which is necessary to make a member of the visible Church.  
3. Doubtless many Infants of visible Church-members are regenerated, and sanctified, or endued with the Holy Ghost; so that if they should live to years, they would actually love Christ and his members with a spiritual love. Therefore having this love wrought in them by God's Spirit, seminally, radically, or habitually (though they cannot actually put it forth as grown persons); they may not be judged altogether to want this love, as may appear by the forenamed instances, specially of John the Baptist, Luke 1.15, 41, 44. So also by that promise, I will power my spirit on thy seed, and my blessing on thy offspring.   

SECT. 18.  
H. H. Fifth Argument from Luke 21.36. with Mark 13. ver. 37. Christ bids all to watch and pray: But little children cannot; Therefore none of Christ's Disciples.  
Reply 1. Beside the same diseases that this Argument is sick of (which for brevity I repeat not) 1. The Word [Disciples] is not in the premises, nor in this Scripture (though the Disciples were concerned) on which one or both should be grounded; therefore (by your Answer, p. 80) to be slighted. So that there is more in the conclusion, then in the premises (which spoils an Argument). The Conclusion should have been; Therefore little children are none of those [all] that Christ bids watch and pray.  
2. You might with as good (if not fairer) colour have argued against little children's escaping destruction, standing before Christ at the day of Judgement, and against their salvation too, from this Scripture. Thus: They that are to escape, and stand before the Son of man, etc. must watch and pray: But little children cannot watch and pray; Therefore neither escape, nor stand before Christ. Our Saviour speaks only to all that heard, and so to all to whom by reading, preaching, etc. this commandment may come. But Infants (while such) cannot read, or hear, etc. this Commandment.   

SECT. 19  
H. H. p. 84. My sixth Argument from Mat. 13.10, 11. (the sum whereof is this) It's given to Disciples to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. But it's not given to Infants to know, etc.— Therefore Infants cannot be Christ's Disciples.  
Reply 1. Here indeed mention is made of Disciples, i. e. of the Twelve whom Christ spoke unto, yet ALL they are not meant; for he pronounceth them blessed that know those mysteries, ver. 16. Yea above many Prophets and righteous men, who (in this respect) were not Disciples (in regard of the clear discovery of those mysteries, verse 17.) but Judas was not blessed. If you take Disciples in this (which is the most proper and immediate) sense. The Conclusion will be, that Infants (while such) were none of those Twelve (or rather Eleven) blessed Disciplet, which is granted.  
2. It may be granted (in a good sense) that what was immediately spoken to those Disciples, may be applied to others, viz. to all the Elect in Gospel-times, who upon hearing of the Word are savingly enlightened, as may be gathered, Mat. 13.12, 16, 17. Then the Conclusion will be concerning invisible Church-members and Disciples, whereas our Question is about visible ones, as before.  
3. This would conclude no less against the blessedness, than Discipleship of Infants, verse 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. which Conclusion (without question) you will deny, as holding that ALL Infants (so doing) are blessed.  
4. Seeing some Infants may be filled with the Spirit, from (yea in) their mother's wombs (as before in John Baptist) what hinders, but that they may know the mystest●r●es of the Kingdom of heaven? As sense and reason (in their fullest ripeness) cannot reach to these without the special working of the Spirit, 1 Cor. 2.8, 9, 10. So the Spirit can reveal them, where sense and reason are defective.   

SECT. 20.  
H. H. Thus far I have gone to prove, that Infants ARE NOT Christ's Disciples; now it followeth, that they CANNOT BE his Disciples, etc.  
Reply 1. Oh admirable skill and method, in setting the Cart before the Horse! If you had first proved, that they CANNOT be Christ's Disciples, it would have followed indeed, that they ARE NOT. But let us hear your proof.   

SECT 21.  
H. H. My seventh Argument is from the same text, Mat. 13.11. If it be given to none but the Disciples of Christ to know the Kingdom; Then children (to whom it is not given) cannot at that present be Christ's Disciples. But it is given to none but the Disciples of Christ to know the mysteries of the Kingdom (for to others it is not given ver. 11.) Therefore children (to whom it is not given) cannot be Christ's Disciples.  
Reply 1. Your Argument I have set down in your own words, partly that you and others may see your great learning, and art in arguing; and partly to intimate, what great need I had (in divers of your Arguments) to mend the Form, and make the best of them. And it being (as you say) from the same text, the same answer might serve here.  
2. Yet I shall add only this. Your Hypothetical proposition hangs together like ropes of sand, there being no appearance of necessity that the consequence should follow on the Antecedent. It's like this; If none but Scholars understand Mathematics, and Metaphysics, than Petties (that cannot understand them) are no Scholars; but the former is true: Therefore the latter. Or thus: (because I know you will cry whimsies) If none but living creatures can (properly) fly in the air, th●n men, which cannot (properly) fly in the air, are no living creatures. The absurdity of which Propositions all may see.  
3. That which you add in the rest of your page 84. and part of page 85. is partly a Reperition, therefore to be passed by, and partly an Assertion, wherein (if I mistake not) you grant Infant Baptism. For you believe (you say) that little children according to the Scriptures belong to the Kingdom of heaven, and partake of— the Redemption that is in Christ, though they know nor believe nothing of it, etc. If so, why may they not be baptised as well as Jewish Infants Circumcised, who had no more knowledge, nor faith ordinarily then they? specially since you say, all free born subjects in a kingdom belong to it, and may enjoy all the privileges in that kingdom, so far as little children need to enjoy, though they know not the mysteries of the government, and order of that kingdom, nor the rights, and customs of it, till they be of years, etc. I profess I have lost my understanding, if you do not give up the cause in the open field.   

SECT. 22.  
H. H. same p. My eighth Argument is from Luk. 14.27. (which in its full strength, ●hough in fewer words, is this) Christ's Disciples must and do bear his Cross, and come after him. But Infants (while such) cannot bear his Cross, and come after him. Therefore they cannot be his Disciples.  
Reply 1. This Argument is of the same nature with most of the former. It concludes only of such as are adult Disciples, savingly taught of God, sanctified by the Spirit, and accepted of Christ, whereas (again) the Question is of such who may make visible Church-members, of which sort many are and must be Disciples, who are without those characters, as Judas, and all Hypocrites more particularly.  
2. This is spoken to, and of persons of years, not to, or of Intants as such, verse 25.33.  
3. (Though this is spoken to, 
t) See Sect. 9 of this Chap.  in your p. 78. yet) They that are Infants now may hereafter do (coming to years) all this; yea, they have these principles in them by the Spirit (as hath been said and proved) that will certainly enable them (if they live to years) to do this.  
4. As Infants may and do with their parents enjoy the privileges of the Covenant (as you say freeborn subjects do of a Kingdom) so they may and do, undergo the burdens, and sufferings of the Cross of Christ, and follow him in suffering. So that Christ suffered (in his Infancy) poverty, contempt, banishment, etc. Luk. 2.7. Mat. 2.13, to 19 So they, penury, exile, and death too for that Faith in Christ, which their parents profess, and they implicitly in and with them. He is a●st anger in Israel, that hath not heard of the Massacrings, and sufferings of Infants with their parents for Religion sake.  
5. And this fully answers your ninth Argument, being not new, but dressed up in a new fashion; only you have the knack of multiplying, and so filling up Paper; whereas you might have comprehended all these in one, and made me but one labour; but for the sake of the weaker, I have been content to follow you in repeating (as you inurging) the same thing for substance.  
6. Only let the Reader (if you will not) behold as in a glass clearly the rudeness, and wildness of your arguing; which reflects on the the Apostles, as well as on us. For if these characters (mentioned in your nine foregoing Arguments) be necessary for the making, owning and sealing of Disciples, and if the Apostles did not keep them from Baptism till they had such characters, (much less till they knew they had such). Then either those which they baptised were not Disciples, or else they went beyond and beside their Commission, or rather their Commission required impossibilities of them. What absurdities (if not blasphemies) do your unreasonable reasonings lead unto? I will press this no further, nor say any thing of your wont uncharitable censuring, (as if we never yet learned what a Disciple is, and are none ourselves).    

CHAP. XV. Whether the Anabaptist's way of Baptising be Sinful.  

SECT. 1.  
H. H. p. 86. I proceed to answer M. Baxter's eight Arguments, by which (he saith) he proveth the Anabaptist's way of baptising sinful. His first is this: There is no word of precept or example in all the Scripture for the baptising of the child of any one Christian at years of discretion. Therefore to defer the baptising them till then, is not the Scripture way. Answer, page 87. I give him an example, viz. Christ, who was baptised at years of discretion, Luk. 3.21, 22. If M. Baxter deny his mother to be a Christian, Luk. 1.46, 46. I say he knows not what a Christian is, and is no Christian himself. But to retort, there is no word of precept nor example in all the Scripture for baptising an Infant; Therefore that way is sinful.  
Reply 1. If by Christian, you mean the name or title, I will be bold to say, (without danger of your charge) that Mary was no Christian; for the Disciples were called Christians, FIRST in Antioch, Acts 11.26. And I would gladly know whether you do, or dare judge (to use your own expression) Marry the mother of Jesus to be no Disciple. If you deny, I am bold to say you err, not knowing the Scriptures, you know not what a Disciple is, and that you are none yourself. But if you understand the substance and truth (as I may say) of a Christian, I cordially acknowledge her a Christian. The name Protestant was not used till about Luther's time, yet our Divines prove sound against the Papists, that the Protestant Doctrine, (i. e. The substance of our Religion) was professed and practised long before, even from the time of Christ and his Apostles to Luther's days. This is helpful, not hurtful to us; but hurtful, not helpful to you. For as it shows that (for substance) the Covenant of grace under the Old and New Testament is one and the same, though different in manner of administration (as hath been proved); so the same seal of initiation, though in a different way of dispensation—  
2. As the mother of Jesus was a Christian (So John Baptist even in his mother's womb, may be called a Christian, who is said to leap for joy, the same word with Mary's rejoicing, (only there, 
z) Luk. 1.44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 47. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the Noun; here 
a) Jo. 8.58.  the Verb) Thus Abraham was a Christian, who rejoiced (the same word used by Mary) to see Christ's day, to whom also the GOSPEL was preached, Gal. 3.8. And thus all the faithful of the Old Testament were Christians). Now if you prove by consequence from that Scripture, and truly, that Mary was a Christian, because she rejoiced in Christ— May not we prove Infant-Baptism, etc. by consequence from Scripture too? What? will you not give YET that liberty, which you take?  
3. For that in Luke 3. concerning Christ his being baptised, I have spoken sufficiently to it, (and will not repeat) in your page 38.  
4. Your retorting the Argument, hath wrought the extorting of this answer. It's strange you can find a Font in a broken Cistern (page 8.) and yet cann●● find in Scripture precept or example for baptising one child, before years of discretion, though never so plainly held forth to you. So that M. B. is so far from being wounded with the edge of his own sword, that with the keenness thereof, it cuts you to the heart.   

SECT. 2.  
H. H. same p. M. Baxter's second Argument is; It's utterly inconsistent with obedience to the rule of Baptising. Answer, This is the same with the first Argument, Therefore the same answer may serve.  
Reply 1. Then the same Reply might serve too. But Secondly, you have cunningly left out the word ORDINARILY in M. Baxter's Argument, which was a seasonable qualification, and very needful to prevent mistakes, to which you have exposed him, out of a spiteful design.  
3. Nay you answer not one word to all the Scriptures and reasons 
b) See plain Scripture proof. c. 8. from p. 126. to 130.  he brings clearly and sound to confirm his Minor. In which (it seems) you found so much strength, that after you had cast a squib, you run away like a coward, ●ut for all that he hath reached you such a backblow, which you cannot claw off.   

SECT. 3.  
H. H. p. 88 Nay, to give him his Argument again: Infant Baptism is utterly inconsistent, with the obedience to Christ's rule. First, because there is neither precept nor practice for it, as he grants. Secondly because by their Rantizing, or sprinkling of babes, they make the command of Christ of none effect, Mat. 7.7, 8, 9 and Mat. 15.8, 9 Thus they bind two sins together, and in the one, they shall not go unpunished.  
Reply 1. If giving be granting, you do well to give it him.  
2. The first reason of your retortion, is but the Cuckoos song. M. Baxter hath been so far from granting it, that he hath abundantly showed you, both precept and example, but you are so wilfully blind, that you cannot see wood for trees.  
3. Your Third is both a mere Calumniation, and a miserable begging the Question. Infant-Baptism is neither a Tradition (in your sense) nor a making of Christ's Command of none effect (in our sense) as hath been showed. But I may not nauseate the Reader with vain repetitions as you do.  
4. If we shall go unpunished in the one, I believe in the other too.   

SECT. 4.  
H. H. Whereas M. Baxter would make us offenders for nothing, i. e. for not baptising children in their Nonage. I Answer, First, he can never make it a sin, till he show us what Command we have broken, etc. Secondly, There is both precept and practice for baptising men and women when they believe, Mar. 16.16. Act. 8.12. and 10.48.  
Reply 1. Then it seems a swarving from an example in Scripture is no sin. What if women should never Break Bread (or receiv the Lords Supper) is it not a sin, since there is no express command for it, and no example but by consequence? Your Scriptures shall be spoke to anon, if not heretofore.  
2. It hath been proved, that you utterly mistake those Commands, and examples for baptising men and women at years of discretion, unless you will make the party's parallel, i. e. mere Heathens newly converted, etc. But I must not fall into the same crime with you, of idle and senseless Repetitions; only let the Reader observe, That I have orderly digested this page of yours, which you had confusedly set down, for the building of your Tower of Babel.   

SECT. 5.  
H. H. p. 89. His Third Argument is, because the practice of baptising children of Christians at age, goes upon mere uncertainties, & hath no Scripture rule to guide it. Therefore it's not according to the will of Christ. Answer, Though this is the same in substance with the two former, yet, First, our practice is guided by Scripture rule from the Command of Christ, and examples of the Apostles, Mark 16.16. Acts 2.41. and 8.12. 37. Na●, (say 〈◊〉) your practice of Baptising little babes, goes upon mere uncertainties, having no Scripture-rule to guide it, etc.  
Reply 1. I had thought to have said nothing to your charge, on M. Baxter's chopping one Argument into so many pieces to multiply words: Therefore I did not transcribe them, yet I shall say this; It seems you had surfeited of the other two Arguments. And now your stomach turns at the naming of this. If you had no mind to multiply words: you might have spared this Cavilling Preface. Crumbs of truth are too precious to be lost, and therefore since you will not understand the Loaves (which have satisfied some Thousands) Mr. B. did well to put his fragments into the basket, 
d) part. i c. ●. p. 150.  by sending the Reader back to what went before.  
2. Though the Texts alleged by you have been Replied to, yet here your answer is both wide and weak. If you mean of a Church to be constituted, that's nothing to the purpose. Mr. Baxter's assertion is still true, though that be granted, and so your answer is wide. If of a Church constituted, and if you understand christians children at age, than your instances out of those Scriptures prove no such thing, because they were not the children of Christian parents, and so your answer is weak.  
3. As your answer is impertinent, so your return of M. Baxter's Argument is insufficient. To deal roundly. I deny your Minor. viz. There is Scripture rule for Baptising babes (notwithstanding your impudent denying it) as may be easily discerned by any who seriously, and impartially peruse Mr. Baxter's Book, or this Reply; neither do you bring any Scriptures to prove your Minor, but only this, I SAY. What arrogancy is this in you, to obtrude an opinion on the world upon your bare word? Can you persuade me that Pythagoras was a Dipper, and that his soul had transmigrated into your body, I would allow the Haggarens as well as the Pythagoreans, an IPSE DIXIT, he hath said it, and that's enough. Do you think to carry your cause, against the evidence of Scripture, practice of Antiquity, consent of Fathers, continued custom of the Churches, strength of reason, upon such a pitiful proof as this is, I SAY? How long is it since your confidence hath amounted to an Infallibility? I therefore must make bold (your premises being thus routed) to alter your conclusion. Infant Baptism is according to the mind of Christ, notwithstanding Mr. Haggars, I SAY.  
4. Because I would not have Mr. B. to be in your debt, for the return of his Argument, I return you an Argument, from one of your Scriptures 
e) Mar. 16.16.  cited; and from your own principles. For although you are not so rigid to damn Infants, and exclude them from Heaven, yet you excommunicate them out of the Church, cast them out of the Covenant, etc. Here I argue: They who may be saved without actual Faith, may be Baptised without actual faith: But Infants (specially of believing parents) may be saved without actual faith, therefore they may be Baptised without actual faith. The Minor you grant. The Major I prove thus. If faith be as necessary to salvation, as it is to Baptism, than they that may be saved without faith, may be Baptised without Faith. But the former is true, Therefore the latter. The consequence of the Major is evident from the words of the text, 
f) Mark 16.16.  where the same stress is laid upon faith to salvation, as to Baptism. And the Minor cannot be denied unless you will have admission to Baptism on Earth, more difficult then to blessedness in Heaven; and make it an harder matter to be Baptised, then to be Saved. I leave you to untie (not to cut) this knot.   

SECT. 6.  
H. H, p. 89. 90. His sourth Argument is; Because the practice of Baptising Christian's Children at age, necessarily fills the Church with perpetual contentions, as being about a matter that cannot be determined by any known rule. Answer: But the Baptising of men and women, when they believe, is a matter that can be, and is determined by a known rule in Scripture; Therefore no just cause of contentions; because it is according to the will of Christ, as I have proved by those Scriptures in the foregoing Argument. 2. Nay your practice is a thing for which there is no known Rule in all the Word of God. Thus I have thrown your Argument on your own head, and you are fallen into the same pit, you digged for others, etc.  
Reply. 1. T●● same Reply might serve here. But me thinks you shou●● blush to say, that the Scriptures (so often mentioned by you) prove what you would have them. I have seen a Dog mumbling, and gnawing a bone, and then licking in his own slabber, as if it had been marrow from the bone (bear with the comparison) so you toss and tumble the Holy Scriptures, and then take in (if not give out) your own fancy in stead of the word of God; nay, let the Reader observe, that M. Haggar hath not brought one Scripture to prove his doctrines, and let him do it if he can, and I will be his Proselyte; viz. that children of Christians are not to be baptised till they be of age, upon their own profession (for that is the Question) and me thinks they that cry cut for Scripture from the one side, should bring Scripture 
g) Et hanc venia●● petimus, dabimusque vicissim.  when urged by the other side.  
2. It is observable, that M. Baxter hath spent almost two pages, proving by impregnable reasons, what contention among christians, what tyranny and Lordlyness among Ministers, this practice would introduce, all which M. Haggar passeth by. Is this to answer a book? If this Argument had been false, you might have denied it; if weak, overthrown it; your silence speaks neither, and thus you have given up the cause in the open field, and left Anabaptism to shift for itself, and the reader to believe that (for all that's said) it is an Incendiary both in Church and state.  
3. Is this M. Baxter's own Argument? As much as the wooden dagger in the sign is George of Horse-back's own Sword (to say no more of your unlict Lump of Logic) your Minor should have been; But the baptising of little babes before they come to years of discretion, will necessarily fill the Church with perpetual contentions. This you had not the face (I hope you are grown somewhat modest) to affirm. If you had the experience of a thousand years would have confuted you, and (if you can) instance, what breach it ever made, what fire it ever kindled.  
4. It is false which you say. There is no known rule for Infant-baptism in all the word of God. The Affirmative is sufficiently proved by Scripture, but you will not see, and you have not yet proved the negative by any express Scripture, must the world believe it because you say it? did you in your travels run your head upon the Pope's Chair of Infallibility?  
5. It seems you are of a somewhat quarelsom disposition, for let the premises be what they will, you are resolved to contend against Infant-baptism, and that PERPETUALLY: This shows your spleen, but as little of your reason as of your Logic.  
6. Fie for shame! Yet more boasting, and so little acting? How you have thrown M. Baxter's Argument on his own head, let the wise judge; had it lighted on his head without an helmet, it would not have hurt him; you have been so far from retorting, that you have not rightly repeated his Argument, and is M. Baxter in a pit? If there be water there, you may hope he is dipped, but do you take heed of the pit wherein there is no water; and from whence there is no Redemption. As for your folly charged on him, I will say nothing but this, both he and we are willing to be counted fools 
h) 1. Cor. 4.10.  for Christ's sake, whilst you are wise (in your own conceit.)   

SECT. 7.  
H. H. p. 90. and 91. M. Baxter's fifth Argument is this: Because this Doctrine (viz. That those only should be baptised, that are directly made disciples by the preaching of men, sent according to the text. Mat. 28.19, 20.) would turn baptism (for the most part) out of the Churches of the Saints. Answer. 1. It seems M. Baxter's judgement is, that they that preach and Baptism according to that Commandment, are those which turn Baptism out of the Church, yet he shows not one Scripture for the baptising of any but such as were made disciples by preaching. I confess such a doctrine doth not almost, but altogether turn M. Baxter's Baptism out of the Church; for we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God, as to baptise Infants.  
Reply, I am at a stand even to admiration, that M. Baxter having warned 
i) Chap. 11. p. 132.  that this argument is against the Ground of your practice, you say nothing in answer to his premises. This silence in you gives the conquest to him; for if you had had any thing to have said, you would now have spoken; such an imminent danger impending over Anabaptism.  
2. It is a reproach to say, it seems it is M. Baxter's judgement, etc. (you can rail better than reason) and you have as good as confessed, that it's your fancy, and not M. Baxter's judgement, in saying, IT SEEMS— To whom? Only to you, and your party; whose eyes (it is to be feared) the God of this world hath blinded. But if it do seem so 
k) Malta vident●● quae non sunt.  must it needs be so? poor proof: Doth the bell always think, as M. Haggar doth think?  
3. It's certain M. Baxter doth not find fault with the command, but with your comment, not with the precept, but with your practice, in vindicating that Scripture 
l) Mat. 28.19.20.  from your corrupt gloss, whence M. Baxter infers (and that truly) that this would near turn the ordinances of Baptism out of the Churches of the Saints: For though (in a Church constitured) some few (in comparison) may be and are converted by Ministerial teaching, yet most receive the beginnings of grace by godly education, as M. B. proves largely 
m) p. 133,  from Scripture, & experience, (to which you answer not a word) so that these not being discpled by Ministerial teaching; are not to be baptised, according to the sense you would put upon the Text. Neither is in enough to say, they have faith, and so may be baptised; for the words speak of working faith, (according to your Gloss) by ministerial teaching. And if this doctrine be true, it were best for parents not to teach their children betimes, (as they are 
n) Deut. 6.7. Prov. 22.6. Eph. 6.4.  commanded) a sad, and most contradictory principle that the carefullest parent, should he the cruelest foe; and whiles he seeks to bring his children into Heaven, you should bolt them out of the Church on earth.  
4. In condemning M. Baxter for not showing one Scripture, etc. You broach two errors at once. First, That the discipling of any according to the mind of Christ, was and is only by Ministerial teaching. Secondly, That none but such (so discipled) were, or are to be baptised. But on the contrary, are not examples obvious in Scripture? As the thief on the Cross, who was a Disciple, yet not Discipled by Ministerial preaching the Gospel, whom yet you acknowledge to be in a saving condition, p. 25▪ 26. and baptised in will, though not in deed; and (to omit many instances) Paul was a Disciple, 
o) Acts 9.22.  yet not by the preaching of the Gospel, and was baptised too, and I trow both according to the mind of Christ, to say nothing of 
p) Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 2.  origen's, and Augustine's 
q) Confess. l. 8. 〈◊〉 12.  Discipleship, the one by his parent's education, the other by a Voice from Heaven.  
5. For your confession, etc. It had been more ingenuity to have confessed your own errors, with which your book is stuffed (as may appear by this reply) or your impudence (with a witness) in denying that which you cannot but know to be the custom of the Churches of God, for more than a 1000 years, 
See your p. 3.  or your uncharitableness in disowning them for the Churches of God, who have owned Infant-baptism. What your custom is I matter not, you shall be none of my precedents, though God may make you an example, and then I shall remember you as I do 
s) Luk, 17.32.  Lot's wife.   

SECT. 8.  
H. H. p. 91. But (to retort M. Baxter's Argument) this Doctrine of M. Baxters, and the rest of the Priests of England, (viz. That all Children should be Baptised in their None-age) according to their practice, doth turn the Baptism of Christ (which is, to baptise men and women when they believe) quite out of the Churches of the saints, therefore, etc. This his Sword, is turned with the edge against himself.  
Reply. 1. In general, you should have given no more than his own, you have made so little use of the Argument, that you deserve to pay no interest; but how have you put the sheep in Wolves clothing? and besmeered M. Baxter's modest and meek expression, with the excrements of your own passion.  
2. In particular, 1. You call us Priests in derision; you show yourself to be the Son of Hagar by your scoffing, that Nickname neither gains you, not loses us any thing. Secondly, we do not say all children (but the children of believing parents) are to be baptised. And those I trow, are not All children. 
s) Isa. 28.15.  Thus you make lies your refuge, and under falsehood have you hid yourself. Thirdly, you say that our Doctrine turns Christ's Baptism out of the Church, because the baptising of men and women when they believe, is the baptism of Christ. This is b●t a pitiful begging of the Question; and yet without Question, both the Baptism of Infants, & of the other, are consistent; It's well known that many Jews & Heathens converted to the Faith, have been Baptised by us, as well as the Infants of believing Parents. Thus indeed the edge of M. Baxter's Sword is so turned, that for very bluntness it hath not so much as pierced the skin.   

SECT. 9  
H. H. Same p. His Sixth Argument is, against the man's of Baptising by Dipping, as being a branch of the Sixth Commandment; because it doth ordinarily tend to the overthrow of man's health, and lives; therefore no Ordinance of God, but an heinous sin, etc. Answer. In order, First, Observe M. Baxter useth not one Scripture (the ground of faith) to prove it murder, etc. he hath used many vain words, which prove nothing, etc.  
Reply. 1. Here is a fair promise of aningenuous proceeding 
t) Quind dignum tanto seret hic promissor hiatu? partuturiunt montes, nasceturridicu●is mus. Horat  but not a suitable performing, seeing folly marches in the Van; rather let it be observed that you suffer the ground and foundation of your practice to be undermined, and razed, and yet you make no stir; but what a great bustle do you make, when M. Baxter comes to the Manner? This is Lapwing (if not Jesuite-like) to cry loudest, when furthest from the Nest.  
2. You will not be kept from your old custom of Fly-blowing men's writings with your corrupt breath? M. Baxter doth not exhort the Magistrates (p. 134. and 136.) to destroy the Anabaptists, as well as Highway murderers. M. Baxter and I have so much charity 
u) Sic Diligendisunt homines, ut non diliguntur eorum errores. Prosp.  for you, and yet Zeal for the truth, that we would have (no● your persons but) your erroneous practices destroyed, if so be the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 1 Cor. 5.5.  
3. It was needless for M.B. to bring, & senseless for you to demand Scripture, for the proving of usual dipping to be murder. Hath not God made us men, as well as Christians? and given us reason, as well as Religion? Is there not a moral as well as a divine Faith? And is there an incompossibility of both these? Cannot we act the one, but we must decline the other? If therefore M. Baxter had proved dipping to be murder by a morall-convincing Argument, I might have believed him, and yet made the word of God the ground of my Faith (as it is granted to be) yet,  
4. Who did ever produce Scripture-testimonies for the proof of a bond? Or Gospel-evidence for title to Land? Hath the Grand Jury Scripture for to prove matter of fact? e. g. Murder, yet the bill is found, and the murder justly condemned. I have heard it confidently affirmed, that Mr. Haggar hath been married to two wives (which are both yet living) Now unless he can bring Scripture to prove the contrary, by his own Logic, none is bound to believe him. Let him therefore take heed of such arguing.  
5. But Mr. B. proves it by Scripture. If the sixth commandment be the word of God, which forbids the ordinary use of any thing which tendeth directly to overthrow health, and life; how else can you prove the tortures inflicted on the primitive Christians to be murder, but by such a Medium as this is? unless it be your opinion, That their torments were no murderers, Though the tormented were indeed Martyrs. Nay you yourself allow the lighting of one candle by another 
v) Gospel's worship no wrok for Infants p. 38. ; So the first be lightted by the fire of of the Altar. i e. The pure word of God. You see Mr. B. doth so, it is then a Scripture-argument by your own grant. So that you might well have forborn that peremptory charge, that Mr. Baxters' proof is by affirming from out of his own mouth only, etc.  
5. The Reader may do well to observe, your First without a Second, only when you cannot answer, than you fall to your old haunt to cavil, etc.   

SECT. 10.  
H. H. p. 92. But he proceeds: I dare not say, that in Cities like London, and among Gentlewomen that have been tenderly brought up, etc. Their Dipping in cold water (in course of nature) would have killed hundreds, and thousands either suddenly, or by casting them into some chronical disease— Answer: Observe, all M. Baxter's proof is nothing but I dare say; Was there ever such a piece of Divinity seen as this! Surely M. Baxter is afraid of losing Gentlewomen, etc.— If he doth lose them, he loseth a great part of his Religion: They will preach no longer than they are paid for it, Therefore, Titus 1.11. Secondly, He durst not say suddenly, because hundreds, and thousands can prove him a false speaker. Thirdly, Nor doth he tell us how long after; It may be they might have died as soon, if they had not been Dipped, for all must die afterwards, or else never. Thus every fool may see his folly in this.  
Reply I had thought neither to have troubled myself with transcribing (much less with replying to) this Section, nor any one else with reading this answer, but least i● should have been cried up as unanswerable, I have forced myself to speak something.  
1. Your OBSERVE is as a finger in the margin, pointing out some remarkable passage. What is that? M. Baxter's proof is, I DARE SAY. Truly if this were all, it were a wonder; yet in our English Language (which suits best to your capacity) the phrase imports no more but a confident affirmation, and so it's clear M. Baxter intends it.  
2. But why must the Reader Observe it? Because (say you) was there ever such a piece of Divinity as this? Yes, in your Book, e. gr. to instance but in one of many. In your retorting M. Baxter's third Argument you come in with your But I SAY— p. 89. And is not his I DARE SAY as good as yours, I SAY? why did you not bid the Reader observe that?  
3. If M. Baxter lose the Gentlewomen, perhaps it may be a courtesy to you; that if you have not enough already, you may have some more to increase your number, as your predecessors at Munster had.  
4. How many calumnies are heaped up together? viz. those Gentlewomen have the heaviest purses; in losing them, we lose a great part of out Religion, etc. unworthy to spend time and paper in replying to them. Only I am compelled to say, M. Haggar would (I believe) quickly give over his trade of Dipping, did he not catch some such fish as Peter did, with money in their mouths, Mat 17.27. witness his late purse of sixty pound from his Ellesmer-Proselytes (as I am certainly informed). Therefore let him take that text Titus 1.11. to himself with 2 Pet. 2.3. to boot.  
5. You nibble a little at the matter (of which more anon) In the interim, I reply to you in your words (almost) to M. B. you have used many vain (nay vile) words that prove nothing, unless we grant Dipping exclusively to be the Ordinance of Christ, which we cannot, etc.  
6. What need M. Baxter positively say SUDDENLY? Is nothing murder, but What presently destroys? Is not a Consumption a disease, as well as the Plague? All acts of murder do not suddenly throw down, but leisurely undermine the Garrison of the body. If you should maliciously wound a man, and he die thereof within a year and a day, the Laws of England (which are grounded on (or not contrary to the) Scripture) would find it murder— If you dare say no, It is to gratify also your friends, the Jesuits, in justifying their Spanish or Italian Figgs.  
7. But grant that some have lived long after Dipping (as you say) yet that hinders not but such a Dipping TENDS to the overthrow of men's lives: As a surfeit, or a wound doth, though in providence some have escaped death thereby for the present, as the putting the three Children bound into the fiery Furnace, Daniel 3.23, 27. did tend directly to overthrow their lives, though they were miraculously preserved. So Daniel's being cast into the Lion's Den, Daniel 6, 16. (with a numberless number of the like import) So that M. Haggar's evidence being thus weak, hath called M. Baxter a false speaker too soon.  
8. Nay you are the false speaker and writer, in quoting Mr. B. falsely; for you leave out these words, IN COLD WETHER. Which being inserted, it may be truly asserted, that such Dipping will kill hundreds and thousands. I cannot tell what privilege your dipping hath (God hath not tied himself to work miracles) your pretended obebedience to the Ordinance of Christ, is but a miserable begging of the Question.  
9 As Mr. B. did not tell us how long after, so neither can Mr. Haggar tell us how soon after. Is nothing murder, upon which we cannot undoubtedly conclude the time of dying.  
10. Is this your Scripture, and experience to prove dipping no murder? It may be they might have died as sore, if they had never been dipped etc. Is not Mr. Baxters DARE SAY, better than your MAY BEE? Did ever any man see such a piece of divinity or reason from a Champion of a Cause? May not a Murderer at the bar plead as well? It's true, I wounded the party; but that did not tend to the overthrow of his life; he might have died as soon, if I had never hurt him; for he must needs die afterwards. Thus whilst you are a defender of dipping, you are a pleader for murdering. And therefore if every fool might see in this Mr. baxter's folly, that was the reason, Mr. Haggar spied it; for, I profess I discern it not.   

SECT. 11.  
H. H. p. 92. & 93. But he desperately proceeds, like a man resolved not to take heed to his tongue; which is set on fire of Hell, etc. Jam. Chap. 3. ver. 6. I know not (saith he) what trick a covetous Landlord can find out to get his Tenants to die apace, likelier than to get them to turn Anabaptists; and covetous Physicians should not be much against them because Catarrhs etc. may be bred, and increased thus— Answ. All this is proved by M. Baxters DARE SAY. Sound Divinity: did Christ and his Apostles teach such doctrine; Is not Mr. B. rather a Mountebank then a Divine, may not believers say of him as P. of Elymas? Acts 13.10 & 2 Pet. 1.5 etc. And I can truly say with a good conscience, he is spiritually blind; for Peter exhorts the Saint, to give diligence, etc. but whether he hath showed any of these virtues in all this Argument, I leave to the wise to judge, and him to stand, or fall to his master; And proceed as I am commanded. Prov. 26.5.  
Reply 1. Let the Reader judge, whose tongue is set on fire of hell; if any one's mouth ever smelled of brimstone M. Haggars doth. Here is a Scavengers Cart unloaded, you cannot leave your boys tricks of throwing dirt. Is M. B. a Mountebank rather than a Divine, any more than Luke was Empiric rather than an Evangelist 
b) Daveot. on Col. 4.14.  because he was a Physician? I fear you are sick of the Miserere, for you vent your excrements at your mouth.  
2. Yet I see an excellent fragment of charity, like pilate's justice: First to condemn M. B. as a child of the Devil; and then refer him to his Master. But it's well that there lies an appeal from Mr. Hag. to the Lord 
c) Naturam expellas Furca, licet usque recurre●  though you cannot leave your old humour, you must revile him, before you leave him. Let's now hear your answer.   

SECT. 12.  
H. H. page 94.1. If it be the only way for covetous Landlords and Physicians (as he saith) then if the Devil had not put it into your head before (yet M. B. like a diligent servant) hath done it now.  
Reply 1. What a foolish inference is this? Is Mr. Baxter a servant of the Devil, because he discovers practices of his Factors? Did 
d 1 Sam. 8.10.  Samuel prompt Saul to a Tyranny, because he painted out the oppressions of an Arbitray Government. Was Elisha a servant of the Devil, When he foretold 
e 1 King. 8.12.  Hazaells cruelty? or was our Saviour a diligent servant 〈◊〉 Satan. Matth. 26.21, 23. When he said to his Disciples, one of you shall betray me, and he that dippeth, etc. ●●●rely Christ did not put it into his head, but Satan put 〈◊〉 into his heart. Were Paul and Peter and Judas such servant's, as to put it into M. Haggars head. 2 Tim. 3.6. to creep into houses, and lead captive silly women, etc. 2 Pet. 2.3.10 To make Merchandise of souls— Judas 8. To speak evil of dignities?— and many more lessons which you have learned. But now Mr. B. must be catechised, and asked 2 Questions about these diseases.   

SECT. 13.  
H. H. Question 1. Whether Mr. Baxter can say in his conscience, that he ever did know any dipped person died of it, or fell into any of those diseases afterwards? if he had, be would have named them in his book, etc. We have many Gentlewomen, etc. that can prove Mr. Baxter a false accuser, and I can boldly say, that many who have been weak and sickly before, and given ●ver by Doctors, have recovered health and strength, etc.  
Reply 1. Though Mr. Baxter names none, yet it follows not, but some have dropped into the grave, after they came dropping out of the water, I leave him (in his reply) to give you instances enough, neither do you name any, for what you assert may not I say, I question not, if you had known any such, you would have put down their names in your Book. But  
2. You act the part of a Mountebank now, and tell us stories not inferior to the Popish Fables, concerning the consecrated Host. Did ever Christ institute that Ordinance of Baptism for a bodily cure.?  
3. Some sick persons have recovered after private Communion, and some children been cured of the Chincough, after a draught of consecrated Wine; is this therefore an owning of God's Ordinance? It is not always prudential, to judge of the cause by the event, a false Prophet may foretell a truth, (in the event) and yet not be credited, nor counted a true Prophet, Deut. 13.1, 2, 3.  
4. I would fain know, First, whether you did ever dip any in cold water in Winter, (for so M. B. lays the case, p. 134.) or ever knew any Dipped in such a season in this climate? If not, your bold assertion proves nothing. Secondly, whether you have no Winter converts; it so, according to your own rule, they must be baptised, as soon as they are Discipled; and then make an experiment, whether among all your Gentlewomen and Ladies, you canfi●nd so hot an zealot, before you talk so largely.   

SECT. 14.  
H. H. Objection, People become Ranters afterwards, and that's a sign of judgement, and not of owning God's Ordinance. Answer. That is, after they are again gone away from the Faith, and deny the Ordinance of Christ, which once they owned, then as, 2 Pet. 2.21. etc.  
Reply 1. If by the Faith you mean your way, etc. I have no Faith to believe it or you.  
2. You have conjured up a spirit which you cannot lay, and you confound (whilst you seek to confirm) your Anabaptism. As this Objection is impertinent (to prove Dipping no murder, whether any turn Ranters or no), so your answer is dis-satisfactory: For it implies, that Dippers may, and oft do fall away from the Faith, and deny the Ordinance of Christ; from such the Lord deliver us.  
3. It's true, that when men are gone from the truth, and deny the Ordinance of Christ, they turn Ranters; i e. when they deny Infant Baptism, as sad experience, and Mr. Baxter hath showed. An Anabaptist and a Ranter differ not specifically, but gradually, as a Cub and a Bear. Do you show (if you can) one simple Anabaptist, that denies nothing but Infant-Baptism, and is not tainted with some other gross Error or Heresy. Yea, the Ranters themselves do not deny, but defend (that which you call the Faith and Ordinance of Christ) Anabaptism. The school is the same, only they are gotten into the higher Form, whither M. Haggar and the rest (if God prevent not) are removing.   

SECT. 15.  
H. H. Quest. second, Whether M. Baxter be not convinced in his conscience, that some or all of those diseases he speaks of, do not frequently reign upon many that never were Dipped in cold water— Now let all impartial people judge, whether M. Baxter be a good Tree by the fruit he bears. What though his intentions be good, yet he must be one of those, Rom. 3.8.  
Reply. It is granted, many die of the  diseases that were never Dipped, and (I hope) have continued such trees to the death, as have have had no cause to be ashamed of their fruit. But I am ashamed of your scurrility, and abuse of Mr. Baxter, who saith, Dipping in cold water, in cold weather, is one (not the one●●) cause of perishing; because some temperate people die of Fevers, will it follow that Surfeiting, Riot. Drunkenness, are not a means of those mortal distempers? What poor shifts are these?   

SECT. 16.  
H. H. p. 95. The next thing that Mr. Baxter speaks of, is Mr. Tombs his salving up all this, with saying, That they may be baptised in warm water. Answ. I am not of his judgement in that, for I believe it is his weakness.  
Reply. Yet you could say, pag. 36. Mr. T. is of age, and able to answer for himself; questionless, why could you not say so here? but there you give him a bit, and here a knock; there his Advocate, here his Judge; there a Shem (in show), here a Cham (indeed) to uncover his nakedness and weakness.   

SECT. 17.  
H. H. Then we cannot agree among our selus, therefore not to be believed. Answ. 1. I would not have people believe us, but the Scripture, Acts 17.11. 2ly, The truth must be believed and practised, though we do not agree, 1 Cor. 1.12. etc. Acts 15.39. 3ly, Mr. B. and his brethren do not agree well; e. g. about the subject of Baptism, manner of Administration, etc.  
Reply 1. We are agreed, as to the first: It were well if in the main we could hit it too.  
2. Those differences in the Church of Corinth, and between the Apostles, will not justify yours, unless they were of the same kind; howsoever they might be impediments to Faith and practice for a time, and to some.  
3. You are too lavish, to say, we differ about Cross, Altar, Font, etc. since these things are laid aside: your Argument out of Jerem. 2.13. (where you took the broken Cisterns for Fonts) may make us quite out of conceit with them. You might have forborn the Rails, if you had not loved them dearly, and loath to part with them and the Scotch-Directory (as you scornfully call it) but your tongue and Ink must be of a colour. If Reformation be so far advanced, as that the shooing-horns of Popery be cast out of door, I wish you and your Proselytes in your universal Redemption, Original sin, , Falling away from Grace, do not bring in Popery at the window.   

SECT. 17.  
H. H. p. 96. Mr. Baxter denies Dipping of Believers to be the custom of the Church in the primitive times, and he is not ashamed to give the Scripture the Lie before all men, saying, It's not proved by any. And why? It may be because our Translators have not put the word Baptise into English, and called it Dipping.  
Reply 1. You are too full of your tongue. Before you had charged Mr. Baxter for giving the Scripture the Lie, you should have proved it. But this is an usual scrap of your passionate Logic.  
2. Your sore back makes you kick at every one that comes near, even at our Translators; who yet according to the customary use of the Word, and sense of the place, have truly and rightly translated it. For in reference to common actions, it cannot signify a total plungeing over head and ears, therefore well Englished [Wash], Mark 7 4. Luke 11.38. Heb. 9.10. and in reference to the Sacramental action the Holy Ghost doth never use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which signifies Dipping) but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; therefore well rendered Baptising, which is become English (by use) as well as Hallelujah, and Amen. etc.  
3. Mr. Cook 
o) Font uncovered, p. 4, 5.  would have you prove it, if you can, that the word [Baptise] imports Dipping, either from the proper signification of the Word, or from the nature of the Ordinance, or from Apostolical practice, etc. All which (with his reasons) you have clearly passed by.  
4. Suppose (which is not yet granted) that the word at first did signify Dipping, (not exclusively to all other) yet it's ordinary in Scripture to have words used in their Derivative, not Primitive acceptation. E. gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its prime signification is taken for an Opinion, or Sect, Acts 26.5. yet the context elsewhere puts this meaning on it, Heresies, Gal. 5.20. So there is a word that signifies Catechising properly, but used of any kind of Teaching, and so translated twice, Gal. 6.6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Taught— teacheth. Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Messenger, but custom, an Angel. Fashion put an estimate on , as custom doth a sense on words; or as waters lose the taste of the Fountain from whence they flow, and retain that of the Mineral through which they pass. Thus Mr. B. is clear from a Lie, and the Translators from a fault; but take notice, Mr. Haggar confesseth the Translators to be on our side.  
5. It is strange, that is answering the Qu. why is it not proved? You say, It may be; because our Translators have not put the word Baptise into English, and called it Dipping, To delude your Reader, you bring your dream; and conjecture, It may be; whereas Mr. Baxter allegeth expressly other certain Reasons, which shall be defended anon.   

SECT. 18.  
H. H. But Mr. Baxter confesseth, p. 135. the word signifieth [to wash] as well as to Dipp, and so in the Catechism; Water, wherein the person Baptised is Dipped. Therefore 1. They can no more blame us for Dipping, than we may them for Washing. 2. How are they to be blamed that do neither? but only sprinkle a few drops of water on the face of a child, and so delude the people. 3. Then it must be Washing by Dipping, or wetting all over; for who can wash a thing that is not wet.  
Reply 1. Mr. Baxter hath granted more than he needed. For the word signifies generally no more than Washing (r), 
See Mr Leighs Critica sacra.  as the learned show out of many Authors.  
2. We do not blame you simply for Dipping, but for making it Essential to the Ordinance. No Dipping, no Baptising, is your cry; Jesus Christ hath no where limited Baptising to the mode and externality of Dipping. And the Catechism which you cite saith expressly, the party is baptised by Dipping, or Sprinkling; which disjunction you have left out.  
3. Though I may safely say, with Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter, that I never saw a child sprinkled (ours being rather a pouring of water, then sprinkling), yet it's false that you say sprinkling is not washing; and therefore our people are deluded, and a third part of the Nation unbaptised. The Israelites were baptised in the Cloud, 1 Cor. 10 ver. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not that they were dipped in it, but because it dropped on them: There sprinkling is baptising. If sprinkling (you say) be neither dipping nor washing, than we have deluded the people all this while, etc. But I assume, sprinkling is washing (as is proved); Then by your own arguing we have not deluded the people, as being still unbaptised: but rather you delude the people by your silly sophistry, and bearing them in hand, that baptising signifies only dipping.  
4. Your third Inference is as weak, being without Scripture and reason. 

1. You bring no Scripture to prove the word baptising signifies a washing by dipping, but only, It must needs be, which is not a sufficient (much less a Scripture) proof. Thus your great weapon (Necessity) is soon blunted. But I will give you a Scripture or two, that holds forth a Washing, but not by Dipping, (or as you say, wetting all over). It's said Mark 7.4. When they come from the market, except they wash (the word is, they baptise, Mark 7.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) they eat not. Can any rational man imagine, the Pharisees when they came from the market plunged themselves over head and ears?— No, it's clear (they washed but their hands) from ver. 2. yea, in this verse mention is made of washing of cups, pots,— and tables (or beds) which is not usually by dipping, but sprinkling, or pouring water.  
2. Your inference is with some reason, but a silly one. For who can wash a thing that is not wet? It stuck in your teeth, you durst not speak out All over, as immediately before. For you can wash off a spot from the face of your child, though the face be not wet all over. Again, how poorly do you confound Dipping and wetting all over? when the tip of your singer may be dipped in water, and yet the finger not wet all over. I must now needs tell you, if your zeal for Dipping be no better than your Argument, it will shrink in the wetting.     

SECT. 19  
H. H. p. 97. As for M. Baxter's Objection, that Christ saith, Ye need not but wash your feet, and ye are clean every whit. I answer, Christ doth not there speak of Baptism, but of Humility, which is shown by washing of the feet, as well as of the whole body: But when he speaks of Baptism, he doth not say, He that is Baptised on his feet, etc. but is Baptised— shall be saved, Mark 16.16.2. The Eunuch and Philip went both down into the Water, and he baptised him, and not his feet only, for than they needed not to have both gone down, Acts 8.39.3. If the word him and them includes the whole man or men, than the whole man, etc. was baptised of John in the River of Jordan, and of Philip, Acts 8.12.4. Christ is said to come up out of the water, Mark 4.10. which plainly showeth, he first went down. 5. The Scripture saith, John 3. verse 23. He baptised there, because there was much water—.  
Reply 1. Let the Reader observe, that Mr. Haggar passeth by some Arguments of M. Baxter's without mentioning them. Thus he only storms the Rear, that he may scape the Van.  
2. It's granted, that Christ's washing of the Disciples feet was to teach them humility, and it follows (by what you grant here) that washing of a part, shows the washing of the whole (which is contradictory to what you even now said, that it must needs be, that washing is by wetting All over). Pride is a spreading sin, it's in the understanding, Gal. 6.3. in the spirit, Eccl. 7.8. in the heart, Prov. 16. ver. 5. in the tongue, Psal. 12.3. in looks, Prov, 6.17. in gesture, Isai. 3.5. Pride you see stains the whole man, soul and body; that primarily, this secondarily; yet (you say) the washing of the feet shows the cleansing of them every whit, as well as if the whole body had been washed. Therefore the washing of one part, signifies the washing of the whole; unless Mr. Haggar think that pride is only in the feet; because we say, proud people are high in the Instep, and stand upon their Pantofles.  
3. That washing of the feet shown more than humility; Peter then did not know it, 
Joh. 13.7. See Calvin in loc.  and Mr. Haggar doth not, or will not yet see it: for it shows either pardon of sin, or newness of life, or both. Now if justification and sanctification are signified elsewhere by sprinkling, why not also by our pouring on water, or as you call it, sprinkling water on the child's face? Thus we have Exemplum Analogum, that a partial washing may signify a total purging.  
4. As Christ did not say, He that belieus, and is baptised on his feet, shall be saved; so he doth not say, He that belieus, and is dipped over head and ears, shall be saved, every whit. If you Reply, he saith, he that is baptised, i. e. that is all one with Dipped: That's but a miserable begging of the Question, and it remains to be proved; though I leave it to be considered, whether it be proper to say, Baptised on his feet; unless it be Mr. Haggar's practice to baptise his Proselytes standing. On their feet.  
5. As for Philip and the Eunuch there is nothing in that history, that can convincingly demonstrate Dipping. 
Acts 8.38, 39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The Verbs * [going down, and coming up] cannot, for they are oft in Scripture (and why not so here?) used of a motion where was no descent into, nor coming out, (in Mr. Haggers sense) e. g. Acts 14.25. When they had preached the Word in Perga, they went down into Attalia, etc. 24.1. Ananias— descended with the Elders— etc. 25.1. Festus— ascended— to Jerusalem. Neither do the Prepositions 
i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  into, and out prove it; for the former may be well translated to, or unto, as elsewhere, Mat. 15.24. Acts 16.40. & Col. 1.20. and the latter, as Luke 1.71, 78. and 20.4. and so often in this book, Acts 14.8. & 15.29 & 17 3, 31. & 22.6. & 27.34. with many more, neither do they do jointly prove it necessarily. For 

1. That water was not so deep for Dipping all the body: they that have seen it, call it a little fountain; as not only Sandys, but Hierom and Bede many hundred years before him, which humane testimonies may be believed, as well as the history of King Henry the 8. The expression 
* Acts 8.36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  here used imports not a River, but a small Spring; therefore might be best translated, A CERTAIN (or a kind of) water.  
2. If it were granted (which yetis not) that it was a deep water, yet a man may be said to go into, and come out of the water, who had not been in it higher than the Ankles; and that they went in any further, or how far they went, cannot be demonstratively proved out of this Text.  
3. You may as well argue, that Philip was new dipped, as well as the Eunuch was baptised by Dipping; for it's said (supposing your interpretation) that they both went into, and came out of the water, without any exception; and I think you do not Dip yourself, when you Dip others, unless you and they be a Duck and a Drake in your Jordan.  
4. The text doth plainly distinguish between the act of Baptising, and their going down into, and coming out of the water (upon the former supposal) therefore no part of baptising. For if going down, etc. be a Dipping (as you would have it) than the Eunuch was dipped before he was baptised, and how then is Baptising (in English) a Dipping?  
5. Had Philip and the Eunuch made use of a Baptismal Ladder (as 
* Tho. Scilito a Naylor baptised in a Well the wife of a dear friend of mine, that since hath seen her error, and recanted.  some have done in my parish) they might more properly have been said to descend & ascend: Though we read not, that Philip, or Jo. Baptist used such utensils.  
6. But their descending here, is a coming out of the Chariot, into which Philip had ascended at the request of the Eunuch; and so both spying water below them, both went out of the Chariot to it, Acts 8.31. and as it is an usual phrase among us to say, We went down to, and from the water side, though perhaps never in it; and it's said, They that go down To the sea in ships— Psal. 107.23, to ver. 31. which Junius translates Into the sea; I trow, the ship is not plunged all over, nor are they under water in the ship, unless in case of ship wrack, etc. But that cannot be, because they are said to do business in great waters (same verse) and to see the works and wonders of the Lord in the deep, etc. and are delivered and brought to their desired Haven.    
6. We say, the whole man is baptised, when not the whole of man, but part is washed. Whole Christ was crucified, but not the whole of Christ; your arguing is very weak to all that have understanding. When a man is wounded in any one part, we say truly, the man is wounded, though not all over. Circumcision was a cutting off the foreskin of the flesh only, and yet the Jews child was Circumcised. Sir, when your tongue talks, we say Mr. Haggar speaks; will it follow, that every part of Mr. Haggar speaks? By this Argument he is all tongue, 
* Vox & praeterea nihil.  but if his heels had spoken; they might have made as wise an answer.  
7. Your next instance proves as little, that Christ was dipped when he was baptised; for the words may be read, coming up From 
q) Mar. 1 10— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the water, and that translation is more proper and suitable, because all Rivers for the most part, lie in the lower ground, in coming to which, we are said to descend; and coming from, to ascend. And indeed the Preposition is so rendered in the verse immediately foregoing, viz. Jesus came 
r) Mark 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  From Nazareth, yea it's said— The Dogs eat of the Crumbs which fall 
s) Mat. 15.17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  from their master's table; yea where the same story is recorded 
s) Mar. 3.7.13.  it's so translated twice; as, Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? and then came Jesus from Galilee, and often else where in the New Testament, what more ordinary then to say, Such a man came from Sea, Thames, etc. Here appears the weakness of your inference, and the instance doth not plainly show, that Christ went first down into the water, or else how could he come out of it? Your text in John comes now to be considered.   

SECT. 20.  
H. H. p. 67. & 98. And the Scripture saith Jo. 3.23. John Baptised in Enon— because there was much water there. But M. Baxter answers, that Traveller's report, that the river Enon is but a little brook, that a man may almost step over. 1. Surely it is want of the fear of God, and love to the truth, that he should turn aside his ear from the Scripture, that saith— There was much water— to believe a Man, a Traveller (and Travellers may lie by authority) why may not Sir John Mandevill be believed, as well as this Traveller's news? The Lord be praised that hath delivered my soul from believing him, and such as he is, Acts. 2.40.2. If it were granted, yet Enon might have much water in another place, Though but a little water where the Traveller was: As it is with many Rivers in England.  
Reply. Traveller's may lie, but may not some speak truth? If not, I shall take heed of you, and hardly believe you, who have been a Traveller, and that among the Jesuits, the most exquisite Masters of that Art, and compassers of Sea and I and to make Proselytes. And had you named the book wherein Sr John Mandevill's tale may be found, I would shape a suitable reply, but let it pass in the mean time for one of your cunning devised fables.  
2. Your vein of railing at M. Baxter, I turn a deaf care to, when you prove us an untoward generation (for you calling us so, doth not prove us so) your thanks for yourself, and caveat to others, will be seasonable. In the interim you do mock both God and man. The Turk may as well praise God, 
Luk. 18.11.  he is no Christian, and the Pharisee 
t) See 18.11.  That he was not as this Publican.  
3. What this Enon was, is disputable, 
u) Calvin in Joh. 3.23.  some think it a Town situate in the Tribe of Manasseh; Diodate, a City, as Salim was, to which (the text saith) ●t was near; Others a Fountain or small brook, 
v) As Grotius, Jun. and M. Baxter-Sandys Travels l. 3. p. 141. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As Rev. 1.15. and 14.2  Be it so; yet we are not a jot the nearer for dipping, for the phrase is elsewhere usually translated, (*) many water●. Now than it signifies many convenient places at the water, where John, and his disciples might be employed at once. Not any deep water, or great river, which commonly is hemmed in with great banks, which deny an easy access for an Administration. 2. Many waters are sometimes taken in Scripture, (and why not here) for a confluence of waters on some plain 
x) Ezech. 13.10  for the watering of meadows, and some trees, as we see in many places in England, where the ground is low it's plashy and seems to be a little Sea, and yet not knee deep. 3. Jordane the Prince of Rivers in that Country, (which hath its name from Jor, and Dan: two fountains, from whence it riseth,) was not above eight fathoms deep, nor Navigable, 
y) Isa. 33.21  what a small water then (in comparison) was Enon, not far distant from Jordane? Now though you will not believe travellers reports, yet I hope you will notreject these plain reasons.  
4. You say Enon might have much water in another place, although but little where the Traveller was. Here you have only probablity for proof, therefore as you argue 
z) p. 28.  we read but of 4. or 5. whole households were baptised, therefore not likely they (i. e. the Apostles) baptised whole; Nations, if they did, we desire to see i●. So I. It's not likely Aenon was so deep, for dipping; if so, prove it by Scripture if you can, and we will believe it.   

SECT. 21.  
H. H. p. 21. Further M. Baxter saith, The Jailor in the night in his house was baptised, but the Scripture saith; Act. 16.33.34. Now if the Jailor took Paul, and Silas, It implies they took them out, and the next words prove it plainly. viz. He brought them into his house.  
Reply. 1. Some enemies are sooner foiled, then found. I know not what to make of these Fiblets of an Answer. If the Jailor took Paul and Silas, it implies THEY took them out. who can make sense of this? It may be you mean the Jailor took them out, as may perhaps be gathered from the Antecedent of your proposition, and the proof you bring for the consequence— but it seems you know not what to say, or what you say, you are IN and OUT.  
2. May not any unprejudiced Reader, see this to be the sense of the words as they lie in the text? viz. 
a) Act. 16.24. with 30, 32, 33.  The Jailor brought Paul and Silas out of the prison, (yea the inner-Prison) into some outward room thereof, where he heard the word) and was Baptised, and then brought them into his house, which (as it was usual) joined to the prison.  
3. You do not tell us whither he took them, nor whence he brought them. It is not likely the Jailor had a pond, or large bathing vessel in his house (the nature of his office, and heat of the Climate, easily convince understanding men) neither is it likely (I am sure not expressed) that he took them in the NIGHT to any river or fountain to be dipped in, over head and ears, this Circumstance of the Time doth evince it. Though, if it were so, the action was carreid on with more modesty and less scandal than your day-dipping is.  
4. Let the Reader observe, that the word Dipping is not expressly mentioned in any of the Texts alleged by you, and that Dipping is proved only by consequence, and that very properly, e. g. Eunuch, and Philip went both down into the water, therefore dipped. Secondly, Men and women were baptised, therefore dipped; for him and them include the whole man or men. Thirdly, Christ came out of the water, Ergo, Dipped;. Fourthly, John baptised in Enon, because there was much water, etc. Therefore he dipped, etc. Is this the foundation that you would have (p. 1.) the Saints to build on? Do you not now believe and practise a duty not warranted by an express Syllabicall precept? what intolerable partiality is this, to allow consequences for dipping believers, and to deny ours for baptising believers Infants? None of our consequences for the one, are so strained, and farr-fetcht, as yours for the other.   

SECT. 22.  
H. H. p. 99 M. Baxter saith, that some desparately conclude, that if it be God's way, he will save our lives, how probabely soever the danger may seem to be. To which he answers, First, This is to beg the Question; nay I have showed, and am showing it, not God's way, Answer, 1. Let the Reader judge by the word, whether M. Baxter hath showed, that baptising believers is not God's way. Secondly, If he be a showing it, we shall take notice of it hereafter, for by his own confession he hath not showed or proved it yet.  
Reply. 1. According to your old way of Sophistry, you falsely represent the Question, which is, Whether Dipping (not whether Baptising of believers) be God's way, unless you think there is no way of baptising but Dipping: which is a begging of the Question.  
2. I confess here is a veyn of unusual modesty, in referring M. baxter's 6 Arguments, and your Answer to the Reader, to be tried by the Word, and so do I  
3. It doth not Fellow, that M. Baxter hath not proved it to purpose, because he saith, he is a showing, etc. You might argue as well against the Psalmist, 
b) Psal. 78 5  SHOWING to the generations to come the praises of the Lord, etc. And against Apollo's, 
c) Acts 18 28  SHOWING by the Scripture that Jesus was the Christ, yea against Christ himself, 
d) Luke 8 1  SHOWING the glad tidings of the Kingdom of God. Surely you did not intent this, as an Answer to M. Baxter, but a Diversion for the Reader. yet M. Baxter saith, 
e) p. 136.  God hath appointed no Ordinance contradictory to his great moral commands, of which rational proof you take no notice of.   

SECT. 23.  
H. H. Same p. M. Baxter saith, Secondly, God must not be Tempted; this was the Devil's trick to have drawn Christ, under pretence of Scripture, and trusting God, to have cast himself in danger of death. Answer, First, That way that the Devil took was never the way of God, but ours was, and is, Act. 8.12. Secondly, There was no Scripture that said, Cast thyself down; nor that said— at any time. As I have showed at large in Answer to your Tenth Position, etc.  
Reply. 1. You swarve from the Question in hand, which is now concerning the manner of baptising, not who is the subject person to be baptised.  
2. In what sense the Baptising of men and women is God's way, hath been showed, though in your sense it is not yet proved by you.  
3. For the rest, you refer the Reader to your Answer 
f) In your p. 4● etc.  and so do I, to this reply there.   

SECT. 24.  
H. H. p. 100 You say we might have said so to the Disciples, that if it were God's command to keep the Sabbath, than they needed not to rub the ears of Corn, for God could sustain them without. Answer. So we might, if God had commanded us so to keep the Sabbath, as not to eat on that day: But it's otherwise, Exodus, 16.22.23. Though they might not keep a fire to bake, seethe, or roast on that day. Therefore this your objection is nothing, for there is both command and example to baptise believers. Mat. 28.19.20. Mark, 16.15, 16. etc. Ergo, Frothy and vain.  
Reply. M. Haggar, your Bottle works out little else then Froth; for First, That Text, nor any other, forbids roasting on the Sabbath, nay it is allowed and commanded; for the Paschall Lamb was to be roasted in the fire, 
g) Exod. 12.9. Deut. 16.7.  and the Passeover might fall sometimes on the Sabbath-day; 
h) See Assem. Annota. in Joh. 19.31.  why else is it called an high-day, (or great day) but because of the concurrence of a double Celebrity, viz. The Sabbath, and Passeover?  
2. It's a great Question, whether the Pharisees blamed the Disciples for eating, or plucking the ears of Corn on the Sabbath day; this only is mentioned, Mark, 2.23.24. But if it were for eating, you grant they might do so, without breach of the Sabbath, and so M. Baxter's Inference is rather confirmed by your silly shift.  
3. In that you grant, you might say so the Disciples, & to the Dippers too, It is God's Ordinance, and he can preserve you; what is this, but to tie him to a constant working, of miracles, for the maintenance of a questionable (at least) mode of Baptising? your argument speaks as much for Transubstantiation as such preservation. There is as much ground to believe a Miracle in that, as in this Sacrament, i. e. none at all.  
4. The Texts you bring for baptising, are impertinently (and too frequently) alleged by you, And have been spoken to before. Here is your same fault, to fly from the manner (which falls now under debate) to the subject of Baptism.   

SECT. 25.  
H. H. You say, If it were a duty, yet when it is inconsistent with a greater duty, it's at any time sinful; for it's always a sin to prefer a lesser duty before a greater. But the duty of self preservation is a moral duty, and baptising is but positive; therefore it is a sin to prefer it before self preservation. Answer. Now M. Baxter lays himself open to purpose, that all may know he is one of those. 2 Tim. 3.1, 2. Lovers of themselves— For he prefers self preservation before obeying the command, and following the example of Christ. John, 14.15.21. Mat. 10.27, 38, 39 If M. Baxter make so much of following Christ into the water, how will he follow him through the fire? Mat. 3.15. etc.  
Reply 1. You falsely quote M. Baxter, who saith, it is AT THAT TIME a sin, not at any time sinful: There is a  difference in the sense, though not in the sound of the words. The one doth absolutely lay aside, the other but Relatively, and for a time suspend the lesser duty. It is grossly false to say; A duty when it is inconsistent with a greater, is at any time sinful (unless some restriction be allowed) to come to the Congregation, may occasionally be inconsistent with my health and preservation, yet it is not sinful at any time. And it is as true, that when it is inconsistent with a greater, it is at that time a sin. For it's a known Rule 
i) Semper, & adsemper.  that Negative precepts bind always, 
k) Josh. 5.5, 6, 7.  and at all times, so do not Affirmative, as is clear in the case of Circumcision. Josh, 5.5, 6, 7.  
2. You fraudulently curtail M. Baxter, in leaving out these words, viz. Especially the manner and quantity of Water in Baptism, etc. You show yourself like an Egyptian Midwife, to truth and reason, what you cannot confute, you can conceal.  
3. You maliciously infer a Calumniating conclusion from M. Baxter's principles, and premises, and therefore it deserves no other answer then M. Baxter's 
l) Mat. 12.7.  I will have mercy, and not sacrifice; if you had learned what this means, you would not have condemned the guiltless, you reflect on Christ, as well as on M. Baxter: Yet,  
4. I shall only say thus much to your impertinent Scriptures, John, 14.15. etc. It is as true, that Christ who hath loved us, and given himself for us, hath not given us any precept, which simply tends to the overthrow of our lives; we may love Christ, and keep his commandments, and yet love ourselves too: we may and must love Christ with a Superlative love, and ourselves also with a subordinate love.  
5. You might have spared this handful of dirt, which you have fling at M. Baxter, till you had proved Dipping to be the Ordinance of Christ by one express Scripture, or (at least) syllable of reason. But since you think M. Baxter so cowardly, as that he would not suffer for Christ; I must tell you, I have read of some Martyers, as Philpot (&c. mentioned in your p. 45.) that never were Anabaptists, but never read of an Anabaptist that was a Martyr. It's no Argument, because M.B. will not go with you into the water, therefore not into the fire, no more than this: Because you have gone into the water, therefore you will endure the fire. There is warrant for the one (when called) none for the other, which yet you miserably beg, as if it were the command and example of Christ, etc.  
6. You follow your old trade in abusing Scripture, e. g. Mat. 3.15. Those words do not hold forth the external Formality of the Administration, but the person that did Administer, and the old ordinance of Baptism, with the person to whom it was administered; for Christ comes to be baptised, verse. 13. John out of an high esteem of Christ, and a low apprehension of himself, forbids him, ver. 14. Then Christ replies, thus it becometh us to fulfil, etc. In what? Not in Dipping of him (there's no express mention made thereof) but in baptising him.   

SECT. 26.  
H. H. p. 101. Lastly, I desire the Reader to consider, how like M. Baxters' counsel to us, is to Peter's counsel, Mat. 16.21, 22. so doth M. Baxter say to us, and specially to Gentlewomen, old, and weak people etc. This shall not be to you, for in the course of nature it will kill hundreds, etc. But let all that fear God, learn of Christ to answer M. B. as he answered Peter. ver. 23.—  
Reply You are got into your wont haunt, to claw the people, and calumniate your adversary. There is no likeness between Peter and M. Baxters' Counsel. Peter advised Christ against that which was written and ordained. So doth not Mr. B. for where is it written expressly, that every one who is baptised must be dipped? Therefore when Mr. B. dissuades any from doing and suffering for Christ, according as it is written (in your sense) I shall say, His Counsel is like Peter's; In the mean time (as you do in the close of this Section) I leave what I have written to the judgement of them that fear God.   

SECT. 27.  
H. H. same pag. His seventh Argument is against Dipping of persons naked, which is against the seventh Commandment, Therefore an intolerable wickedness, and not God's Ordinance. Answ. 1. I am sure it is intolerable wickedness in M. Baxter, and a breach of the ninth Commandment, to say, we baptise people naked, athing which he never saw, as he confesseth, when he saith, he hears so.  
Reply 1. Here is more foul play, and the truth held in unrighteousness; for you leave out these words, OR NEXT TO NAKED, you cite Mr. B. as you answer him, that is, by halves.  
2. Were that false which he affirms, is he a greater transgressor of the ninth Commandment than you are? 
pag. 92.  who say (m) the heaviest purses of our Religion are the greatest part of our Religion, and call Mr. Baxter a child of the Devil etc. p. 93. You should not have thrown this stone, unless you had been without fault.  
3. Why is it a breach of the ninth commandment to say so? because he never saw it (you say) with his eyes. What kind of reasoning is this? Doth not this shake (if not take away) the foundation of Moral and Divine Faith? If nothing must be believed but what we see with our eyes, we must believe nothing. For that Assent the understanding yields to a thing seen, is knowledge or experience. This is to make sense saith, and the Proverb true, Seeing is believing. Contrary to Scripture. 1 Pet. 1.8. Nay then all those high charges which you have drawn up against Mr C. and Mr. B. etc. all along your book, are false, for you never saw those with your eyes. Then John and the Apostles never plunged men and women over head and ears in baptising them, for you never saw it with your eyes.  
4. But how can you tell Mr. B. never saw it with his eyes? he confesseth it when he saith, he hears so. Is not this sound Divinity? Did ever Christ and his Apostles preach such doctrine? Did ever any weak man (but Mr. Haggar) utter such a reason as this? viz. Because he heard a thing, therefore he never saw it; as if the same thing in divers respects, & at several times, could not be the Object of seeing and hearing also? you saw your ridiculous answers at Ellesmere exploded, and do you not hear of the same too?   

SECT. 28.  
H. H. p. 102. It may be that some which he accounts Christians have so little grace, and of the fear of God in them, as to tell him such lies, and he is willing to believe them, although for my part, I have baptised, and been at the baptising of many hundreds, if not a thousand, and never saw any baptised naked, etc.  
Reply 1. Whither will not malice hu-cry a man? rather than Mr. B. and his party shall go without a spot, you will bespatter Christianity itself. If Christians intelligence is not to be credited, whom shall we admit into our Creed? May not the wicked say, Christians have little grace, they tell lies, etc. and thus you bring an Odium on 
n) Act. 11.26.  that ancient, and honourable Name. Such an one Polycarp confessed himself to be, 
o) Liberò audi, Christianus si● Euseb. Eccl. Hyst. l. 4. c. 15.  such an one you would be taken to be. It is is an ill bird that defiles his own nest.  
2. Here is a bitter censure past, it is for want of grace— that they tell these (if they be) lies. An ingenious charity would have imputed it, rather to ignorance, or information (which may occasion a lie to fall sometimes from the best) not to want of grace, etc.  
3. Mr. B. must have his share as well as the Christians, they lie, and he is willing to believe them. Thus he taxes his circumspection, as if he entertained reports without consideration, when all who know that precious servant of God, know he is not credulous. But Mr. Haggar, if your will had no● committed a rape upon your understanding, you had never believed, that you had found a Font in Jerem. 2.13. or adeferring of baptism till believing, in Mark 16. verse 16. Or the Eunuch over head and ears in the water. Act. 8.37. But you was willing to have it so 
p) Quod v● lumus facile-credimus.  Therefore you believed it was so.  
4. You produce yourself as a witness, to prove the other liars. This is worse than ask my fellow, If I be a thief; you are a party, and therefore not fit to be a witness, you may fly to the lawyers maxim. None is bound to accuse himself.  
5. What arrogancy is here? you must be believed against M. baxter's Christians: why may you not have as lit-grace and fear of God, and tell a lie as well as they? sanctity and truth are not annexed to your Jordan. Your single testimony against all theirs shall then be valid, when you are infallible. In the Interim, this speaks you a Pharisee, in that you count them Publicans.  
6. But waving these things, I enter a caveat against your evidence. It is neither full, nor pertinent to the interrogatory, you speak to the naked Dipping, but not to NEXT TO NAKED. So that M. Baxter's Argument stands still in force, as he proves, p. 137. And if the beholding men and women in their shirts, etc. be not a coasting upon incivility, I have lost my understanding. Surely Christ never placed his Ordinance so near iniquity, who bids us abstain from all appearance of evil, 1 Thes. 5. ver. 22.  
7. If they who are baptised, are Dipped in their  as there is no Scripture for so doing, so it's against your principle. For to Dip (in your sense) is to plunge a person over head and ears in water, so as immediately to be wet; but he that is Dipped in his  is not immediately wet all over. For his  are Dipped primarily, and immediately, he secondarily and mediately; his  by the water, he by his . Thus you who ordained a Cheese-factor to be a public preacher, may make a cheese-clout a Dipper, and thus you have met with a Scylla, and Charybdis in the mere of Ellesmer, whether you Dip naked, or next to naked.   

SECT. 29.  
H. H. same p. But suppose some men have been baptised naked among men; that is no more offensive than bathing in the water, Nay Peter was naked, Joh. 21.7.  
Reply 1. Never stand mincing the matter with a SUPPOSE, but say, men and women may be baptised naked; speak out, and tell us, that your naked dipping succeeds the Roman Lupercatia, the Indian Gymnosophists would blush at this.  
2. You tell us of naked Peter, but do not tell us the naked truth. Peter was not naked (in your sense) the word sometimes signifies to be without any bodily covering, Gen. 2.25 Secondly poor and mean clothing, Job. 22.6. Mat. 25 36. The poor members of Christ are said to be naked, as well as Peter, and I do not think (whatsoever you do) that they were Adamites. Thirdly, them who have laid aside their upper garment, as Saul and the Prophets, 1 Sam. 19.24. Isa. 20.2. Thus Peter was naked; for neither his calling (as a Fisher) doth necessarily imply, that he was simply without covering; neither doth the modesty of a man, much less the gravity of an Apostle permit it, nor doth it suit with the custom of the Jews, who was wont to wear a lose upper garment, which being put off, it was usual to say, they were naked. Thus your answer is pure Quakerism.  
3. No truly pious, or morally honest man, but will judge it an immodest act for men to go stark naked (in your sense). There are Pudenda naturae, which God and nature would have covered, and to discover them is immodesty, (unless upon inevitable necessity), why else did the sons of Noah go backward with a mantle to cover their Father's nakedness? Gen. 9.22, 23.  
4. If you will have your own saying, viz. It is not an immodest thing for men to be naked together, yet sure it is for men and women; such mixed Dipping is no more commendable than mixed dancing; Nay, worse of the two.  
5. Whether M. Baxter will allow, that men may go into the water to bathe them, yet not sin? let those who have read the former answer judge. If men may, why may not women? consider that sad story of David and Bathsheba, 2 Sam. 11.2.4.  
6. You bewray the subtlety of the Serpent, you mention bathing, but intent baptising. That is at the top, like the corn spread over the well, but this (like the scouts) lies at the bottom, 1 Sam. 17.19. This waterman looks one way, and rows another: But if it were granted, it is not immodest for men to bathe together, yet it's indecent for them to be baptised naked. For, is there no difference between bathing and baptising? Where is the honour of the Ordinance? Is that comely and lawful in Sacramentals, which is usual in morals? e. g. At our Tables we laugh, etc. may we therefore do so at the Lord's Table? Eccl. 10.16. Secondly, doth it not trench upon the purity of the Lord Jesus, that he should institute a standing Ordinance in his Church, that is very disputable whether it be a wickedness or not? What? only a pair of shears between a Gospel-Sacrament, and a grievous sin? and for all your Sophistry, you cannot tell which is the finer end. I am sure, you do not plainly determine it? Thirdly, doth not this tax Christ of inconsideration, that Christ should institute an Ordinance, at the administration of which all believers may not be present, men not see women, nor women see men Dipped?  
7. If it were granted that men apart and women apart may be baptised, who then shall Dip the women? If the Minister, there remains still the forenamed inconveniency. But since M. Haggar hath Ordained a Cheese-factor to be a preacher, may be not Ordain a Dairy-maid, that the one may Dip the male, the other the female-disciples? And indeed if women may preach (as you hold, p. 69.) why may they not baptise or dip, which (in your language) is all one? So that to me it is evident, that you saw your nakedness and was ashamed; else you would never have made Aprons of these Fig-leaus, of such poor shifts. And I wonder what kind of birds your Proselytes are, who are caught with such chaff as you have vented.   

SECT. 30.  
H. H. But M. Baxter doth confidently charge us with baptising maids naked, and tells it for a certain truth, therefore saith, If M. T. cold baptise all the maids in Bewdley naked, and think it no immodesty, he hath lost his common ingenuity and modesty with the truth. Answer, True, if he doth so, but M. Baxter should first prove, that M. T. or any man else, did ever baptise any maid or woman naked, in any place of England; till then, he saith all manner of evil say on us falsely, etc. Mat. 5.11.  
Reply 1. How quickly is the wind turned? Here you are M. Tomb's advocate, but in p. 45. his accuser. I see Herod and Pilate can soon be made friends, where Christ is to be Crucified: but why did you leave M. Tombs in the open fields to answer for himself (p. 36.), would not the same Apology serve here? He is of age, and able to answer for himself, I question not. Oh! there you were non-plused, here you have hit (you think) on some colour of an answer.  
2. What would you have M. B. to prove, your dipping naked, or next to naked? Is it not your known practice? Doth not M. Tombs answer (in conference) proclaim it, that in former times, it was thought no immodesty— etc. Yourself proves it in the precedent Section, saying, p. 102. If a man should be baptised naked, being none but men together, it's not such an offence as M. Baxter would make it. Would you have M. Baxter prove that your Sun is up, when it's Noonday? That M. Haggar is an Anabaptist? or would you have Scripture that M. T. and M. Hag. did say or write so? what need? you hold it lawful, nay necessary for men to be baptised naked, (else why do you plead for it)? and if men, why not maids? are they privileged? out of your own mouth you are condemned.  
3. You might have spared you false accusation, viz. that he speaks all manner of evil falsely on you, to cast dirt on the truth of Christ. If a man had a mind to scold as well as you, he might dawb you sufficiently, and not spartle the truth; the truth and you are far enough off, one from another.  
4. You can sooner spy wonders, then answer Arguments. How could he avoid the mention of it? unless he should have confuted the Anabaptists, as you do Mr. B. by saying nothing to most of his Arguments. Doth not your practice necessitate him to speak of it? he that digs in a dunghill must needs stir in the dirt.  
5. If insinuating untruths into the people's hearts do make him a liar, you shall have the whetstone. But what Monster have we here. p. 103? Is Mr. B. predestinated to be a liar? If you take predestination strictly 
b) Rom. 8.29.30.  It is nonsense, Mr. B. is as much predestinated to be a liar, as you are reprobated to be a Saint, or else it favours of the Arminians cask, 
c) Deus ab aete●no voluit ut reprobi peccarent ad peccatum impellit, Ames. Antisyn. p. 145. & 147.  for they argue thus against Reprobation. And certainly here is a superfetation of Paradoxes in your expression. Doth it not imply a 
d) Quicquid facimus mortale genus quicquid patimur venit ab alto Senec.  Stoical, and fatal necessity, nay a fathering of impieties on the Almighty, and make him the Author of sin? Here is little or no difference between that and this, you will see venture hard for a jeer, reflect on God to revenge yourself on man. Take heed of such unsavoury expressions.   

SECT 31.  
H. H. p. 103. He saith again: Me thinks Ministers should have regard to themselves, and not go so frequently into the cold water to baptise others. Answ. Truly they are careful enough, they meddle not with so good a work, they have need to take heed that they kill not themselves in the service of Christ etc.  
Reply 1. You have here bundled together some poor shreds of wit, (such as it is) in a few pitiful jeers, which deservs no other Reply, then that of Cato to Cicero on the like occasion (with a little alteration) O! quam ridiculum habemus respondentem; i. e. O! what a ridiculous Answerer is Mr. Haggar. Yet  
2. When you prove dipping (which yet you have not) to be so good a work, and a service of Christ; I say with Job, Chap. 21. ver. 3. Suffer me that I may speak, and after that I have spoken, mock on: in the mean time know, that it is a good work and service of Christ, not which you call so, but by Scripture you prove so. Now the Scripture no where calls it so. It is rather will-worship to place worship in that which God hath no where prescribed in his Word.   

SECT. 32.  
H. H. same p. But to conclude, we find that in the days of Christ and the Apostles they baptised both men and women in Rivers, Mark 1.5. Acts 1.12, 37, 38. Joh. 3.23. Now we will be bold to follow their good example, notwithstanding Mr. Baxter's foul mouth, etc.  
Reply 1. To say nothing that we have here again, your First without a Second, what if I deny your conclusion; your example at Ellesmere hath taught me: but  
2. Those Scriptures (so often) mentioned do not prove either a Dipping over head and ears, or men and women apart, or together, or with or without their , you do not therefore follow the holy example of Christ and his Apostles, but you are too bold in following John of Leiden and his Apostates.  
3. How comes it to pass that Christ and his Apostles are joined with you in the Bill? for shame never enter them for Defendants, till it's clear they are of your party. All is not hest you say; Is Mr. Baxter's mouth foul? Doth he belie you and Christ? Are you the servant of Christ, because you say so? As saying and doing with some are two things, so is saying and proving with Mr. Haggar.  
4. To the close of this Section, I confess we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, to give account of all our words and works; and then to be sure it will appear whose mouth is foul, Mr. Baxter's or Mr. Haggars. Your prayer (the greatest ingenuity in your book) I hearty return.   

SECT. 33.  
H. H. p. 104. Your eighth Argument followeth, viz. Because the Anabaptists way and practice is such, as hath been still branded and pursued with God's eminent judgements, but never evidently with his blessings. Therefore not likely to be of God. Answ. By this Argument the Amorites were the children of God; for they enjoied Canaan four hundred years; and the Israelites were not the children of God, for they were in bondage and misery. Christ and his Disciples were branded for Heretics, etc. Joh. 7.34. as you brand us but do you say they were not God's people?  
Reply 1. You are all the Country wide; Mr. Baxter spoke of God's branding, and you of man's branding. The Reader may see your answer is not to the purpose.  
2. The Israelites were oppressed in Egypt, Christ and his Apostles persecuted, yet God evidently followed them with his blessings. They had Sunshines as well as showers, beams of mercy as well as clouds of misery. The Israelites the more they were afflicted, 
f) Exod 1.12  the more they multiplied; and the more Christ, his Apostles and Church were persecuted, the more the Gospel flourished, 
g) Phil. 1.12, 3.  a strong argument 
h) Graecam Philosophiam si quis Magistratus p●ohibuerit, ea●tatim perit: at Doctrinam Christianam oppugnant reges terrae, & tamen crescit. D●vn. in Col: ●: 6: ex Clement:  of the truth of the Gospel. But the Anabaptists were never attended with any evident blessing of God, but rather eminent judgements of God. How hath this opinion been visibly blasted? Had it been a plant of God's own setting, he would have made it flourish in spite of opposition. The Lily hath grown in the midst of Thorns: Thus you see your parallel is not right, and therefore your answer is wrong.   

SECT. 34.  
H. H. The Prophet had like to stumbled at the prosperity of the wicked, and to have said, that they were God's people, Psal. 73.3, 4, 5. But you so stumble and fall, as to speak evil of God's people, because of their sufferings.  
Reply. That the prosperity of the wicked, and adversity of the godly is a strong temptation to Atheism 
i) Cum rapian● mala fata bonos— Solicitor aullos esse putare does, Ovid,  I confess. But you say, and not prove, that you are the people of God: Thus did your forefathers the Donatists, thus doth every Sect, as Socinians, Antinomians, Arminians, Quakers, Ranters, etc. style themselves the people of God; till you prove the Anabaptists God's people, I shall look on those judgements wherewith they are branded, as on the fire and brimstone which fell on Sodom.   

SECT. 35.  
H. H. p. 104, 105. You say further, the Anabaptists hindered the Gospel in Germany (there be few Divines of note, who do not bear witness of it) did live idly, forsake their wives and children, abounded with abominable lusts, etc. Nor can any man show you one of the Anabaptists, who is not blemished with some of the forenamed wickednesses, etc. Answ. Now by this time (I hope) you have vented your deadly poison against the Anabaptists: but if all this were true (which is not) yet it seems M. Baxter's Religion is so tottering, that it must be underpropped with the Anabaptists failings, or wickedness of those who have apostatised from us, as if none of us were free.  
Reply 1. Your reviling of M. Baxter will not serve your turn; you are now at the Bar, and now or never must plead the Anabaptists cause in the present charge drawn up. But it may be this was the Preface to the Plea, and you only spit that you may speak out; and what you speak, is not an answer, but a rambling discourse made up of fraud and folly.  
2. Your Etes, or Spectacles, or both are naught, when Infant-baptism seemed to you to be Mr. Baxter's Religion: Part it is, but not all; he looks upon it as an Ordinance, yet comparatively 
k) See Ins●it: Bap: 10: 11:  of inferior consequence. It's truer that Anabaptists place their Religion chief in Rebaptising; and are gone so far in Popery, that they make it necessary to salvation, and Dipping essential to that Ordinance.  
3. Were this his Religion, and ready to fall, yet it needs not to be propped by the rotten posts of the Anabaptists weakness or wickedness, such are rather fit to build a Babel, than a Temple. This hath stood many hundred years before Anabaptism was dreamed of, and I should be ashamed to own the cause, were Paedo-baptism only good, because Anabaptism was bad; your principles and practices being so vain and vile, that they are able (almost) to justify any Heresy, and to canonize an Atheist. Infant-baptism is not only comparatively, but simply just and lawful on Scripture grounds, as hath been showed, and therefore we need not the wickedness of your Apostates to support our Religion. This Diamond hath a native lustre, and needs no such foil.  
4. You fillily shift off your charge, by saying, The worst of men apostatised from you, etc. Adam's excuse was as good when he laid the fault on Eve; for they still maintained their principle and practice of Anabaptism, even when they wrote their blasphemous lines, and led their beastly lives. So that Mr. Baxter's light received no advantage (as is pretended) from their darkness. That Sun will shine, notwithstanding a spitting candle.   

SECT. 36.  
H. H. p. 106. 2. That the Anabaptists hindered the preaching of the Gospel in Germany; his proof is nothing, but telling us, most writers of those times testify it. Answ. He might as well have asked his fellow Priests, if it had been lawful to take Tithes, and he had been sure of their testimony for it, as he hath now against the Anabaptists, who had rich and potent enemies that wrote those Histories against them. Zuinglius disputed with them, and could not stop their mouths; the Senate banished them, etc. Such arguments, that neither Paul nor Peter, nor John could answer, Act. 24.5.  
Reply 1. What other witnesses should be brought, but the writers of those times? Is not that enough, if there be truth in the History, or Moral faith in us? Would you have Scripture to prove, that John of Leiden had three Wife's.  
2. Your scornful term [Priests] I pass by, being on my journey, every bark and snarl must not stay me; and for the lawfulness of Tithes, that shall be spoken to anon (God willing) your exception against the witnesses is insufficient, for they were the most famous Orthodox Divines in those times and parts, viz. Luther, Melancthon, Zuinglius, Bullinger, etc. Now let the world judge, which is the more creditable, your Nay, or their Yea: and it's a wonder to me, that (if those Histories were false) neither you nor your brethren have discovered the falseness of them to the world, since they are still on every occasion produced against you. It's not your poor evasion, Ask your fellow Priests, etc. will bring you off.  
3. These potent enemies (you say) wrote the stories, and therefore may they not be true? Is the book of Martyrs (as it's commonly called) all Lies, because an enemy to the Pope and his proceed compiled it? Had these enemies (as you call them) been Nero's, 
*) Quoddum magnum bonum quod à Ne●ome condemnatum, Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 25.  their Writings had been some advantage to the Anabaptists. But they were godly and learned Divines, among whom that there should not be one true and impartial historian, is incredible; (at least) if those histories be false, why are they not confu●ed at least by you, who boast of answering M. Baxter, Mr. Cook, Mr. Hall, etc. with a little more labour, and less truth, you might so answer Luther, Calvin, &c. cannot you tell us that their books are lies, as well as Mr. Baxter in your p. 110? I would be loath you should have more manners than will do you good. Till they be clearly answered, we must take the Anabaptists for seditious, filthy, unclean, idle, etc. such as they from knowledge and experience report them to be. There is all the equity in the world, if the evidence (let who will give it) be true; it should be of force, and valid.  
4. Let the Reader observe, that (by Mr. Haggar's confession) the Anabaptists (ever since they appeared) met with opposition. And I dare tell you, you have one more rich and potent enemy, than you dream of, i.e. GOD himself, who hath ever followed them with eminent judgements, and written their wickedness in their almost unparallelled wretchedness. He that runs, may read their sin in their punishment.  
5. No wonder Zuinglius could not stop their mouth, they were so wide. Anabaptists are resolved to have the last word, and nimbler in reviling then reasoning, being better armed with arrogancy, than Arguments. But I must tell you by the way, you grossly misreport Mr. Baxter, pag. 140. for he saith, Zuinglius had public Disputation with them, in which being convict of Error, they foamed against their Antagonists with blasphemies and reproaches, you might be ashamed of them that opened their mouths thus.  
6. Without question it is meet and just that a religious Magistracy should punish such obstinate gainsayers, and unreasonable men, who were not tired with reviling, nor would be satisfied with reason, such mad creatures must be bound, etc.  
7. Though the Apostles could not repel their adversaries cruelty, yet they could plead their own innocency; so could not the Anabaptists. But what is that of the Apostles to these? Will it follow because John the Baptist was beheaded, therefore John of Leiden was a Martyr? unless namesake make them nigh a kin. This is even like Mr. Haggar.   

SECT. 37.  
H. H. same pag. As the Apostles suffered, Acts 24.5. so were those served at Germany; yet M. Baxter saith p. 140. they did not suffer as Anabaptists, but as men perjured, disobedient, etc. Answer. And so I thought indeed, that as a Sheep in a Bear's skin is soon worried; so these learned Divines know, the only way to prison, banish, or hang the Anabaptists, is to  them with filthy names, and reproaches. Then the people will be ready for to stone them; and if any question it, he is presently suspected to be an Heretic.  
Reply. Here is impudence with a witness, but without a parallel. So were the Anabaptists of Germany served— Were they like Paul, Peter or, John? and suffered only under the notion, not for the fault and fact of Sedition, Rebellion, Murder, etc. Let the Reader see and judge, whether this be not a most gross and shameless untruth? 
*) Sleid. Com l. 6:  At Sengal one of them cut off his own brother's head, (before his father and mother) saying, The Father had commanded him. The Anabaptists go to the Marketplace, and command all that were not baptised, (i. e. rebaptized) to be killed as Pagans. A little after being armed, they rendevouz, and drive out of the City all that were not of their Sect, without regard of age or sex. Again, John of Leiden after his long sleep, broaches his Doctrine of Polygamy, and marrying three Wives, others follow his example, and such marriages were counted commendable. Not long after rises from supper, kills a poor soldier for a ●udas, returns to supper, and jests at the fact, etc. Did these things proceed from an Apostolic spirit? were the Apostles such as these? or were these tumultuous Incendiary, beastly Adulterers, bloody Murderers like the Apostles? This is most brazenfaced confidence! The Apostles suffered as Martyrs, these as Malefactors: If these were innocent sheep, Hell is full of such Saints.  
2. What need ●hose learned Divines (as you scoffingly call them) 〈◊〉 Bears skin on the Anabaptists? It cannot make them uglier than they are. If they have clothed them with filthy names, they have but called a Spade a Spade; else why do not you put off these Bears-skins in vindicating them? The truth is, it passeth your art, you must flay them, 
Jer. 13. 2●. A●●●is Aethiop●m quid f●ust●a? ab desi●e; noctis illustrate nigrae nemo potest tenebras, A●ciar.  if you pull them off; for their skins are natural. But it is in vain to wash the Black-moor  
3. It's but one of your usual Liveries liberally bestowed, to say, we condemn them as Heretics, that will not believe this, etc. You might better wear it yourself; for you and your party count them Heretics, Antichristians, Heathens, etc. that are not rebaptized, etc.  
4. What you say in the close of this answer, concerning Mr. Baxter's cry to the Magistrate, etc. It hath been spoken to already, in this Reply to the sixth Argument, whither I refer the Reader.   

SECT. 38.  
H. H. You tell us that Calvin wrote against them. Answer. True, when they were dead, and laid in their graves (and so could not answer for themselves) than Calvin falls a writing against them. But Mr. Baxter, I writ to you, and to Mr. Hall, and to Mr. Cook, while you are alive, and may answer for your selus; therefore I expect an answer from you, &c—  
Reply 1. The meanest understanding may here discern your folly, for all this Mantle; for were the Anabaptists past answering for themselves, the grave then could that which (you say) Zuinglius could not. And surely it had been a poor part in Calvin to become an Opponent, where Death had taken away the Respondent: I had thought he had been a better Civilian, then to commence a suit after the winding ●heet. But you deliver a notorious untruth, that blessed man was not afraid 
p) See M●lchior Adam. de vita Calvi●i. p. 68.69.  to encounter your living Predecessors, but did conquer them too, only by the Word of the Lord. But if they had been all dead, and laid in their graves; I pray then, where was the Church? If the gates of hell could not, the gates of death could prevail against it. Do you think you● Church was like the madman in the Gospel among Tombs? Mark 5.3, 5. but how came they dead? the Magistrate (you say) prisoned, banished, and hanged them. I easily believe, that they who were hanged, were dead; but that the prisoned, or banished were so (unless civilly dead in Law, or spiritually dead in sin) is beyond my faith. And me thinks, though the imprisoned could not write, yet the banished might have the liberty of pen and ink. Thus whilst you would scape the Bear's skin, you get into the Foxes, by misciting Mr. B.  
2. As you have manifested your folly, so you discover a piece of daring pride, in challenging those three worthies to answer you: Goliah-like done. But Sir, you must not take it unkindly, if I tell you (and so I do) your book is not worth the answering, by such worthy Champions. Nor had it been by me, had not some of your brood with a braving importunity forced this from me. Of all which, and more, I have given an account in the Epistle to the Reader.  
3. It had been more meet, in my judgement, ●hat you should first have answered Calvin, now he is dead, & laid in grave, and past answering for himself, so you might have cried quittance with him.   

SECT. 39  
H. H. p. 107. You say, Calvin in his letter shows two sorts of Anabaptists; one boasted of Scripture, and pleaded it with great confidence. Answ. 1. If they so boasted, they boasted of that which is good. 2 Cor. 11.10. Psal. 44.8. and if you would boast of them more than you do, it would be better for you. 2. Doth it displease you, to hear men plead Scripture for what they hold? are you such enemies to hold holy Scripture? Take heed, least white you boast your selus to be wise without or above them, you become foools. 1 Cor. 3.19.20, 21. If those two things be the worst that Calvin and you can say of those Anabaptists, I shall not be ashamed to own them for Christians before all men.  
Reply 1. If boasting be taken in the right sense, I agree with you; the more you and I boast of Scripture the better it is for you and me. Though those Scriptures you brought to prove this be impertinent.  
2. It doth not displease Calvin or Mr. Baxter that men boast of, and plead Scripture; but that they shamefully abuse it, to the maintenance of their cursed errors (as if God had provided arms for Satan) gathering that which the Holy Ghost never scattered, and wracking it, to speak that he never intended. And if you have a love to the truth as it is in Jesus, I think you will be displeased to see spiders gather poison from such flowers, and brats draw blood, in stead of milk from those sacred breasts, which is calvin's etc. meaning, when he says, they boast of Scripture. Christ liked the Law, but not the Pharisees Leaven. We commend the Text, but not the Anabaptists Comment. And therefore while you wonder at them, take heed you be not of those. Act. 13.41.  
3. Your civil caveat (which is as a flower in a dunghill) I thank you for it; I like not truth the worse from whomsoever it comes 
f) Si caecus mòstravet iter tamen aspice— Horat.  I will embrace good counsel ever from an enemy: for those 1000 you talk of I have replied to.  
4. In the conclusion though you have thrust us out at the window, yet you have unawares, let us into the Church at the door; for if we plead Scripture (more truly than the Anabaptist) for what we hold, you need not to be ashamed to own us for Christians before all men. But—  
5. Will Mr. H. indeed own all for Christians that plead Scripture? (his words can bear no other construction) than not only Heretics, but Satan himself may come in for a room among Christians. Did not Satan plead 
s) Mat. 4▪ 6. Et sient caput tunc capiti nunc quoque memhr●. membris, etc. come. c. 51.  Scripture to Christ? Mat. 4.6. And as impertinently as you have done (as hath been showed) and have not his first born children (I mean Heretics) both pleaded and boasted of Scriptures? Now let any Heretic have but his book, and by your doctrine he will never be condemned. Is this boasting and pleading Scripture, good? Certainly you are too lavish now, when you cut the Devil and his Imps a piece of the children's bread. Thus you stand upon such a guard yourself, as defends and patronizes the worst of men, and the vilest opinions of those worst of men. Why may not any who plead Scripture with confidence, be as good Christians as Anabaptists are, or boast themselves to be?   

SECT. 40.  
H. H. As for your other sort you talk of, that are above Scripture, that confound all things, etc. I, and all that own the Scriptures, do deny and defy them and their ways; and you do wickedly to call them Anabaptists whom Calv. calls Libertines, as you confess p. 141.  
Reply 1. I believe, all that own the Scripure as they should, do deny and defy them and their ways. But I doubt whether you do, as you say, for than you deny and defy Anabaptism; for that is their way still, though they fly higher, than yet you have done. But as many in word defy the Devil, and spit at the mention of his name, yet own him in life— So I fear you do, with those Anabaptists.  
2. To pass by the overflowings of your gall against M. B. the meanest may see you would fain creep out at any hole. Calvin calls them Libertines. Therefore M. B. doth wickedly in calling them Anabaptists, like this: Protestants are of two sorts, either Lutherans or Calvinists; Therefore, he that calls the Calvinists Protestant's, doth wickedly therein. Or if I should say, there are two sorts of Christians, viz. Protestant's and Anabaptists, is it maliciously done, to say Anabaptists are Christians upon the supposal.   

SECT. 41.  
H. H. p. 108. You say pag. 142. No man can show you one man of the Anabaptists, that is not tainted with some of these foresaid wickednesses. Answ. If any of us should say we were never liars, we should be still liars. Rom. 3.10. to 16. This is the condition of all men before faith and repentance. Luk. 13.2, 3, 4. again 1 Cor. 6.9.10, 11. And I dare not say, but such as have been gross sinners, may on their conversion, be brought into the Anabaptists Churches, etc.  
Reply 1. I will not quarrel with you about the first part of this your rambling Answer. It's to be acknowledge with shame and sorrow, we are vile by nature.  
2. Surely you have the Art of breathing on your Converts (with Knipperdoling—) 
u) Sleid come. 〈◊〉 ●0.  bidding them to receive the holy Ghost. If those of the Anabaptists Church (though gross sinners when of our Church) are now Saints, which is nothing else but a blasphemous crack, or vain brag, a Paradox to me, and shall be believed when you prove your Dipping an Ordinance of Christ, and your Baptising (exepere operato) the Laver of regeneration: for the persons you name in the next p. remained Anabaptists, though they retained their errors in judgement, or practice, or both.  
3. Your citation of Luke is impertinent, for it doth not appear that Christ spoke those words to his disciples, or converted ones, as Mr. Baxter is.   

SECT. 42.  
H. H. p. 109. But I suppose M. Baxter would make the world believe, that the Anabaptists are all so now, after they become Anabaptists, and would make that the cause of it, and would persuade the world that it is our principle and judgement. But if M. Baxter had known any such in fellowship with us, when he wrote his Book, he should have done well to have named them. Saltmarsh, Hobson, Williams, are not in fellowship with us, E●bery, etc. are apostatised and cast out long since and returned to you again. Dennis a penitent, before his death it's likely, if ye had lived in Christ's days, you would have cried down him and his ways. For one of his Disciples was a Traitor, another a Liar and perjured. The Corinthians after den●ed the Resurrection, and were incestuous persons, 1 Cor. 15.12. after Peter and others dissented, etc. Galatians 2. ver. 11.12.  
Reply 1. M. Baxter's challenge remains for all this unanswered, viz. Name one Anabaptist, that is not blemished with some of these wickednesses; lying, treachery, perjury, disobedience, sedition, idleness, desertion of their wives, filthiness. As in nature, the form gives the esse to the creature, so in humanity the principles give a moral being to a man. A man is what his principles are. This being granted, I argue thus: They that are of seditious, treacherous, unclean, lying, etc. Principles are, guilty every one of them of some of these wickednesses.— But the Anabaptists are of such principles. 
y) Dr. Featly his Dippers dipped. p. 28, 29, 30.  Therefore  
2. Here is a poor shift of yours; M. Baxter names more than you have set down, and yet you say they are not in fellowship with you. It may be there were differences among them, (and I partly believe it) but were they not Anabaptists? and maintained that opinion, when guilty of those wickednesses M. Baxter charges them with.  
3. It's a senseless thing to imagine M. Baxter should personally know these men, whose principles (which lead to such wicked practices) he may and doth know by reading their Books.  
4. It will not follow there are none such, because he doth not name them; are there no Cutpurses in London, because he cannot particularise them? or perhaps not one of them? A man may write knowingly of the nature of a Spaniel, though he cannot tell how he is called. An Anabaptist is idle, seditious, etc. though I do not particularise the person. How few of the Pharisees and Scribes did Christ nominate? or of the Romans Paul? Rom 1.26. to 32. Christ saith, Ye shall know them by their fruits, Mat. 7.16. (not their names) as you acknowledge, p. 120.  
5. It's a very uncharitable inconsequence to say, we would have cried down Christ and his ways, had we lived then, because we decry yours; there is a vast difference 'twixt Christ's ways, and yours. We do not stumble at Peter's denial, nor at Judas his treason, etc. we know tares may be among the wheat, and grace mingled with corruption, you would fain be creeping into sheep's clothing, but your paws still discover you: I say, your case is not Christ's, nor his Disciples, nor the Church of Corinth's. All Christ's Disciples did not deny nor betray their Master. All the Church of Corinth were not incestuous persons (though you were pleased to say there were more) the Apostle mentions but of one, 1 Corinth. 5.2.13) neither were all the Corinthians Sadduces, the Apostle speaks but of some, 1 Corinth. 15.34, 35. But what is objected against you, is not against one particular, or some few persons, but against ALL; there is none of you but are guilty of some of those sins, your principles lead you to them. And therefore it was not blindness in M. B. to conclude your way none of God's way.  
6. Let the Reader Observe, that you say, you have cast out those mentioned, and they are returned to us again. The former shows they were of your Church, the latter is a notorious untruth. But M. Haggar comes from Vindicating his own pretended Innocency, to sing the cuckoo's sung, viz. To answer a fool according to his folly.   

SECT. 43.  
H. H. p. 110. I wonder that M. Baxter and M. Hall should reason thus against the Anabaptists, when none are more deeply under the same condemnation than thewselves. It's strange they should complain of others for lying, and are so notorious in it themselves, for the very title of M. Baxter's Book is a :— Plain Scripture proof for, etc. and brings not one Scripture to prove either.  
Reply 1. Bravely done M. Haggar, you now again confute M. Baxter as he did Bellarmine (as was said before) Robin Bellarmine thou liest. But do not you lie, when you say, he hath not brought one Scripture to prove Infants-Church-membership and Baptism? I think I should be justly accused of Lying, If I should say, M. Haggar hath not brought one Scripture to prove woman's receiving the Lord's Supper, Family-prayer, giving thanks at meals etc.  
2. If here be not a  confession, that Anabaptists are Liars, I profess I cannot spell nor understand English, only (forsooth) M. B. and M. Hall must be deeper in the bog than they.  
3. You do not make the least offer of proof, that M. Hall is a Liar, and that charge against Mr. Baxter might have been spared, if you had listened to that voice, Physician heal thyself, Matth. 9 Do not you entitle your Book, An Answer to M. Cook, M. Baxter, and M. Hall's, when you have not answered any thing to most of their Arguments; nor to any, satisfactorily. To say nothing of the former part of your title, viz. The baptising of men and women, and prove to be a standing Ordinance of Christ, etc. when there is not one Scripture to prove it.—   

SECT. 44.  
H. H. Now for treachery; let them remember M. Love, who was beheaded for a Traitor; and for Perjury, it's easy to prove most of the Priests of England perjured, in renouncing the Bishops in their orders, which once they took an Oath to be true to; and for sedition, it's manifest to all that hear them praying, or preaching; and for Idleness, they know not how to work, etc.  
Reply 1. When you were on the King's party— I believ you would not have called M. Love a traitor; I am sure those London Ministers, who set forth some of L. books, since his death, have a better opinion of him, than you have here. If you were not partial, your Apology for M. Dennis (in your p. preceding) might more fitly and truly serve here.  
2. For Perjury (to say nothing of your scornful terms) when you have proved the Bishop's calling, and their Orders to be lawful according to the Word, we will confess our perjury; till then, you might have forborn this Calumny; an unlawful oath is void ipso facto, it being a sin to make it, it must needs be a greater to keep it. It had been better for Herod to have broken, then to have kept his Oath. No Oath is the bond of iniquity. And it's false, that our orders are renounced, except by such as you are: it's maintained as a real truth, that Bishops did Ordain, not as Bishops, but as preaching Presbyters; and though we have renounced Episcopacy, yet not our Orders, we see no need.  
3. For sedition, the witnesses you produce (for you are neither eyewitness. nor ear-witness) can prove you an accuser of the brethren, Rev. 12.10. We do not use to shoot wildfire from our Pulpits. The Anabaptists are the sons of Bichri, that blow the trumpet of Sedition. How many seditious Pamphlets have of late been printed by them, against the Lord Protector, and present Government? Is not their way of thriving, by setting Church and State on a flame? as if Salamander-like they delight to live In the fire (their proper element). What an Incendiary was John of Leyden? This miserably divided Church can sadly witness what stirs they have made.  
4. For Idleness, I wonder you are not ashamed to call us idle; is there no calling, but mechanical? no labour, but Digging, threshing, etc. Did the Apostle mean a trade, when he said he laboured more abundantly than they all, 1 Cor. 15.10. Or doth he mean carting and ploughing, or any handicraft or civil employment, when he saith, specially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine, 1 Tim. 5.17. All are not idle that work not with their hands; and if it be because the Minister● live by Tithes (of which anon), by this Argument all the Priests of the Old Law must be Idle Drones.   

SECT. 45.  
H. H. p. same. That the Anabaptists deserted their wives, is a lie among the rest— If you know any such, why do you not prosecute them according to Law, as you do your own Church-members— But your tongues are no slanders, and that I hope all men will shortly see.  
Reply 1. It seems you cannot choose but breath out incivilities, it becomes not you to give M. B. the lie: but under favour, it is no lie. I will not instance again in John of Leyden. If you have deserted her, who was your wife, than the charge is no lie, if she be your wife still, than you have more than one.  
2. If (as you say) our tongues are no slanders, than their testimony (as to this) is truth and no lie. Indeed our tongues do not slander you, but your principles and practices justly accuse you. And if you dare not act according to your principles (the Law of the Nation curbing you) yet we know not how soon, you may be that in act, which you are in judgement, when you please. A Lion is a Lion, though in chains.   

SECT. 46.  
H. H. p. 111. Are not all the whores and thieus, etc. that are hanged at every Assizes, of your Church? Did not you baptise them into it in their Infancy? do you not give to the condemned the Sacrament on Sunday, and one Church-member hang up another, on Monday morning? and yet are you so audacious as to say, the Churches of the Anabaptists cannot be of God, because they have corrupt members among them? May I not say with Christ Mat. 7.3, 4, 5?  
Reply 1. I care not to throw a proverb on you; They who are born to be hanged, will never be drowned. Some of you who have escaped the one, when they have been dipped, have met with the other at the Gallows. 
h) See John Goodwi● catab●pt. Admon. to the sheep.- 〈◊〉.  (All then, that are hanged are not of our Church) And it's observable, that at the time of his execution for murder, he confessed, that from the time of his dipping, he sensibly found God departing from him.  
2. Suppose all were of our Church. Church-membership doth not exempt from civil government, and therefore if some in our Churches fall into murder, robbery, whoredom, etc. why should they not be punished? (Indeed it is an anabaptistical 
i) Dr. ●●atly p. 29, in Dippers dipped.  principle, that malefactors should not be put to death, and your words imply so much, p. 27.) But me thinks you should rather for this commend our Justice, then condemn our Religion and Church: your Arguing proves as much against the Religion and Church of the Jews, when they were a Nation in Covenant with God.  
3. It's false, that they are baptised into our Church in their Infancy, unless as our Church is a member of the visible Church, into which properly they were baptised. But suppose they were baptised into our Church in their Infancy, that is no such fault, if they do not walk answerably to that solemn engagement, the crime is theirs, not that they were baptised. Now (to use your own Argument oft in your Book) where there is no Law, there is no transgression: now there is not one syllable of a Law, forbidding Infant-Baptism. Therefore Infant Baptism is no sin.  
4. Let those who Administer the Sacrament to the condemned, stand up and plead for it. I know no such practice, though I think it's justifiable. The penitent Thief might (nay you say would) have been baptised, and why may not any other penitent malefactor receive the other Sacrament? why should we reject them, whom God hath received?  
5. We are not audacious in saying, as you charge us, but we are bold to say (that it is not dis-proved by you) that there is not one Anabaptist, but is guilty of some of the  wickednesses; you are therefore too bold in using (or rather abusing) the words of the Lord Christ, for the beams remain in your eyes, etc. Matth. 7. ver. 3, 4, 5.   

SECT. 47.  
H. H. p. 111. to 117. To pass by the people, let's come to their Teachers, for which end I refer you to a Book printed by Order of Parliament, and Entitled, The first Century of Scandalous and Malignant Priests, etc. among whom twelve are particularly named. But I say with the Apostle in another case, I have but acted a fools part in laying open their nakedness; but M. Baxter and M. Hall have compelled me, accusing us of things which they cannot prove, as Ananias and Tertullus did with Paul, Act. 24. ver. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. with 13.  
Reply 1. All this and more is granted, that there were more vile Ministers (the shame of the Gospel) then are named in that Book; what doth this make against us? Though Elies Sons were wicked, yet the Israelites were the Children of God, and if they were sequestered (and according to your phrase cast out) might they not upon their hearty repentance (testified by some signal evidence) be received again, as well as your M. Dennis, page 111? And if they be yet alive, and have seen your Book, there may be some hopes of their Reformation; for God hath opened the mouth of the Ass to reprehend the madness of these Prophets.  
2. When we accuse the Anabaptists, our Bill is against ALL; we say, and that truly, there is not a man of them, that is not guilty of some of those  crimes. Now though you have face enough, yet you dare not say, all the Ministers, or all the people of the Church of England were guilty of some of those wickednesses, the voices of a few are not the qualifications of all 
m) Tantum in propriis & essentialibus à particulari ad universale valet consequentia. .  
3. You say, you have played the fools part, I think so too, it had been pity such a Comedy should have been Acted without you, and so unawares you have given us thirteen to the dozen.  
4. Did the tongues and pens of M. Baxter and M. Hall fly at more uncertainties than yours? Are not the writings of Calvin, Bullinger, etc. as true as the first Century of Scandalous Ministers, etc. and is not M. B. as faithful a reporter as M. Haggar?   

SECT. 48.  
H. H. p. 117. to 120. Now let the impartial Reader consider, whether this generation of men, are not those spoken of, 2 Tim. 3.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Jer. 23.14, 15, 16, 17. Ezek. 22.26, 27, 28. Mich. 3.12. Phil. 3.18, 19 2 Pet. 2.9. to 19 So that I may say with Jeremiah 5. ver. 30, 31.  
Reply 1. To all this I will say only thus much; The Lord will cut out the proud tongue, and the months of Liars shall be stopped. I shall spread all before the Lord as Hezekiah did Rashake's letter, and the Lord be Judge between us! Withal know Sir, that you must one day answer for this, 
* Judas 15.  and for abusing Scripture to the venting of your own wrath, bitterness and malice, for which end the Scriptures were never written. That such Scriptures may be used out of a holy zeal against the known enemies of God & his Church, & against false teachers. I deny not, but it's not fit you should vomit up your gall in them, this is but to put Satan's brats in God's children's , and to raise up the Devil in Samuel's mantle. Yet,  
2. You say (p. 117.) we are false accusers; for we accuse you, and are in fault ourselves. A wise reason, If reduced into form; They that accuse the Anabaptists, and are in fault themselves, are false accusers. But we accuse you, etc.— 1. Your Major is notoriously false. Those Scribes and Pharisees accused the woman taken in Adultery in the very act, yet they were not false accusers of her, though they were in fault in themselves, Joh. 8.3. to 12. The penitent thief accused the other thief for railing on Christ, and yet he was no false accuser of him, though as deep in robbery as the other. 3. You say also, the Lord hath promised, they shall proceed no further etc. 2 Tim. 3.9. It's to be considered, whether it be not a threatening, rather than a promise, we have only your bare word for this last, which I cannot credit; for it's said, their folly shall be made manifest— as theirs also was, i. e. Jannes, and Jambres, now that was a judgement executed, and is not this then a judgement threatened?  
4. Other Fopperies mentioned in the close of this answer, are but repititions to a loathing, I'll say no more.   

SECT. 49.  
H. H. p. 120. Thus having made an end with M. Baxter, I shall conclude with M. Cook's last end of his Font uncovered, p. 46. where he seems to answer this Objection—  
Reply. And have you done with M. Baxter? Truly then you have done your work but by halves. What do you say to his trial 
q) c. 15. p. 152. to 160.  of the strength of your cause by antiquity? what not a word to all this? what's become of your old way of disputing? never an Odium to cast upon him? no clawing Apostrophe to the Reader or people? never a mist to cast before men's eyes, that they may not see the truth? Cannot you tell M. Baxter he lies, and all that he writes are but lies? why are you thus cowardly, without any noise to quit the field? Is not this to acknowledge you are conquered? But you are about to encounter with M. Cook again. Let's see how you charge here, if any whit better than before.    

CHAP. XVI  

SECT. 1.  
H. H. p. 121. He saith. The truth oft lies deep, and will not easily be sound out: As it is more precious than Gold and Silver, so it requires more diligent search. Gold mines are not obvious to every eye, much skill and labour are requisite to find them out, and bring the Gold to light. Answ. Sir, I am afraid that this is your Gold, that you have deceived so many poor souls withal, which you have taken great pains to dig out of the mountains of ancient Fathers; the mines of men's inventions, you may well compare your work to Digging, for Isa. 29.15. etc.  
Reply 1. That you might be thought (it seems) to have fully answered that little Book (Though you never spoke to the substance of it) as you have nibbled at some few words in the beginning, so now you take notice of some few words in the close of that Book. But whereas you say you are afraid, I tell you the wicked fear, where none pursues, and Hypocrites pretend to fear the sins of others, when they intent most to hid, and dissemble their own.  
2. It appears indeed, you were afraid of something, when you keep at such distance from the body of that little book which you pretend to encounter, only making a few slieghty velitations first at the van, and then at the rear, and presently run away, not daring to come near the main body, which stands still in its full strength, and sees you running away; only giving some bragging, and railing words, as you look behind you, which any coward may do?  
3. If you did discern any counterfeit Gold there, why did you not discover it by the touchstone of the Word to be so?  
4. What occasion you have to complain of Ancient Fathers, etc. I know not; for they were not urged in that book. But what was there asserted, was confirmed by Scripture. Though we bless God for any help we have from ancient or modern writers, and their inventions. For the finding out of the truth, and understanding the Scriptures, you that stand not in need of the help of others, may scorn them, if you please, being sufficient of yourself.  
5. You may perceive now your perverseness in abusing Scripture, 
r) Diodat. on Isa, 26.15.  for they carried on their design secretly with in themselves, never informing themselves of the will of God, nor commending their said designs to him in prayer for a blessing. Malice itself cannot charge M. C. thus. Nay, rather he is like those who have digged deep to find hid treasures, and to expose them to open view, which all the dust you have raised, and noise you have made, can neither hid from him, nor plunder him off.   

SECT. 2.  
H. H. same p. What have you to do to call Christ Lord, and yet will not do the things which he saith, Luk. 6.46. Which is to preach the Gospel to all, and baptise them that believe and gladly receive it, Mark. 16.15, 16. with 2.41. & 8.12.— This Gold will endure the fire, when your Rantizing babes will perish— Though you plead for cozening poor Children in their Cradles, and when you have done, you have made them seven times harder to be converted to the Faith of the Gospel, than they were before.  
Reply 1. There is no 41 verse in Mark. 2. nor any thing to your purpose in Mark 8.12. I suppose the Printer hath abused you, for Acts 2.41. and 8.12. But those and the other Scriptures have been Answered before, though you please yourself in singing the cuckoo's sung.  
2. All verily is not Gold that glisters; your Gold (you brag of) proves but gilded brass; Infant-Baptism will last, when your mode shall vanish like smoke in the air.  
3. It's well known, and may be spoken to God's glory, that many after Infant-Baptism, and still owning it, have been converted from their natural and sinful estate to the obedience of the Faith. Now if Infants before your Baptising were seven times more easy to be converted then after, what is become of all your noise concerning Infants capacity to repent and believe? Is your mind changed now? Are you indeed persuaded, that Infants unbaptised are seven times easier to be converted to the Faith, then after Baptism? But your rage carries you on to rail on us, not without abuse of Scripture in most of your 122. page, which is unworthy of any other answer but silence, and patience.   

SECT. 3.  
H. H. pag. 122. We are not to be blamed, if we declare nothing but the Word of God, 2 Tim. 4.2. and if we have answered in eighteen sheets, etc.  
Reply 1. To the first I need say little. True, if you have such a Call as Paul and Timothy had, or any just call warranted by the World, to preach and declare God's Word; but you have not yet proved, that you have any such call: Now then, if you preach before you are sent, and run without Commission, the speaking of some truths will not justify you. Satan spoke sometime truth, and that according to God's Word, but having no Call, had no thanks, nor was justified therein, Mat. 4.6. & 8.29. Acts 16.17, 18. And his slaves have taken upon them to imitate the Apostles of Christ in these things, whereto they had no call. Acts 19.13, 14, 15, 16. 2 Cor. 11.13, 14.  
2. How punctually you keep to the Word of God in your teaching, and writing, I hope appears by this time. Papism, Arminianism, Socinianism, etc. with which your book is more than sprinkled, are not parts of the word of God.  
3. I do not marvel at your briefness in answering, when you promise to answer all, and indeed answer nothing. Besides, Tares are sooner sown then gathered up, and the ground rid of them; poison is sooner prepared and devoured, than the body cleansed of it. An hundred houses are sooner burnt, than one built, yet I have transcribed you and replied to you.   

SECT. 4.  
H. H. p. 133. It is said, we are they that subvert whole households, but I answer as Elijah did Ahab, 1 King. 18.18. We do not subvert whole Households, for we baptise none but those that believe, according to Mark 16.15, 16. Acts 8.12, 37. But it's you (Mr. C.) that subverts whole households, when you baptise children, and all for lucre's sake, etc.  
Reply. Sir, it's not your Nay will serve, when your practice proclaims the contrary; neither can you show any call from God to do what you do, as Eliah could show for what he did; and therefore you still abuse Scripture. What warrant have you for rebaptising those that have been baptised? Christ's command, and his Apostles practice was to baptise Jew's and Gentiles, of ripe years, that had until that time been Jews and Gentiles; your pretending that warrant, is confessing, that whom you baptise are Jews or Gentiles; and if you make them that were professed Christians to become Jews and Gentiles, that you may baptise them after the example of the Apostles, you subvert persons, families, and countries to purpose.    

CHAP. XVII. Of Humane Learning in a Minister of Christ.  

SECT. 1.  
H. H. pag. 123. I shall now show the reasons of our dissenting from the Church of England, and all other Churches which stand upon these four pillars; viz. 1. Humane Learning; for take away that which you had at Cambridge or Oxford, and you have no Ministry; but all men may preach as well as you, nay I might say better.  
Reply 1. It is a notorious untruth (confidently enough asserted by you, without the least colour of proof) that the Church of England is built on the four pillars mentioned by you. These are of your own framing, and daubed with untempered mortar; No Sir, it's built on that Rock, against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail, Mat. 16.18. and on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. Ephesians 2. ver. 20.  
2. If that we had at Cambridge or Oxford were taken away, it doth not follow, that we have no Ministry. How many precious Ministers are there in the Church of England, eminent for piety and learning, who never were matriculated in Cambridge or Oxford? God having blest their private studies in the Country, with the attainment of excellent abilities; Violets may be found and gathered in the Field, as well as in the Garden.  
3. It's a Paradox, that all men may preach as well as we; 
* Multi imperitorum magistri sue●int, prius●uam suerint doctorum discipul●. Wittenberg. Conles. Artic. 20.  (suppose University Learning were taken away) for herein you descent from your own Church, (if a Church) which hath been of this mind hitherto, that none but gifted men may preach, mistaking that Scripture, * Ye may all prophesy— Unless you mean that Women and Infants may preach; for they are comprehended in those terms, [All men]. But Infants cannot speak, you often say, and Women may not, 1 Cor. 14.34. as hath been showed before.  
4. It's worse to say you might say better. 
x) Non sacile de Artibus rectè j●dicat, qui Artes ignorat, Cyprian. 1 King. 12.31.  You know in the Fable who judged that the Cuckoo ●ung better than the Nightingale. It was Jeroboams sin, that he made Priests of the lowest of the people, and it is your sin and shame to make Preachers of Mechanic and unlearned men. Alas! we would have learned Lawyers for our estates, 
The Apostle saith, who is sufficient for these things: 2 Cor. 2: 16. but H. H. saith who is not sufficient?  and learned Physicians for our bodies, and not learned Ministers for our souls?  
5. Though Humane Learning is an excellent gift of God, and needs not my patronage (being able to plead for itself against all the friends of ignorance, and the works and workers of darkness) yet I shall speak something of it in this place according to my promise, and others expectance. As I desire to bless God for the gifts which he hath richly bestowed on many of his servants, and to bewail my own defect therein. So I know God (the Author of it) hath and will execute severe vengeance as on the abusers, so on the contemners of it. But tell me.  
1. Doth not wise Solomon (though he acknowledged wisdom (i. e. humane learning in natural, moral, and political things) in comparison of the fear of God, to be but vanity and vexation of spirit, Eccl. 1.17, 18. & 12.13. yet) tells us, That wisdom excels folly, as far as light excels darkness, Eccl. 2.12, 13.14. Was not Moses learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians? Acts 7 22. which sure was humane learning, 
* Just. Mart. R●sp. ad Qu. 25.  viz. in Geometry, Astronomy, Astrology, etc. which out of your profound ignorance, or profane scornfulness, you are pleased to term Whimsies, pag. 35. Was not Daniel and his Companions skilful in all the Wisdom, which was famous in the Court of Babylon, Dan. 1.4, 5, 6. Was not Paul brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, Acts 22.3. and endowed with all the improvements of humane learning, which those times could afford? What should I say of Isaiah, 
e) Isa. 50.4. The Lord hath given me the tongue of the learned.  Luke, Apollo's, etc. who had eminent acquired endowments, which all were made serviceable to God, in the work to which they were called? And whatsoever some others of the Prophets and Apostles wanted in acquired endowments, was supplied by infused, in that they were enabled to speak with tongue, (without study) Acts 2. & 2 Cor. c. 14. What? would you have separated from Moses' Church, or Daniel's, or the rest, because they stood so much in humane learning? If you say, that though they used humane learning, they did not ground their religion on it; no more can you say, and prove truly of us. We ground our Religion on the Scripture, but make use of humane learning to know the meaning of the Scripture, knowing it is a means sanctified of God for that purpose; as of humane eyes to read it, humane reason to understand it, desiring the Lord to sanctify this humane ability; but not casting away eyes, ears, reason, or learning. If you say we abuse humane learning, so did not the Apostles and Prophets. Be it so: But will you reject good things for the abuse? then must you cast away eyes, ears, reason, meat, drink, apparel. If you will separate from societies where good things are abused, you must separate from all societies, and yourselves too.  
2ly. Hath not God's providence made special use of the Exactness of the Hebrew Scribes, Scholars, and Rabbins, for the preservation of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, even in the least points and tittles? Yea, how could the Scripture of the Old and New Testament have been conveyed to us without Humane Learning, unless we must have had continual miracles? Was not humane learning both amongst the Heathen, and the Jews, the means of the first Translation of the Old Testament, to the spreading abroad of Divine Truth amongst the Nations, and to make way for their call to the Gospel? And hath not this been the blessed means which God hath used for communicating the knowledge of the whole Scripture to you, and many thousands more, who must for ever have been ignorant of them, if they had continued sealed, and locked up? which they must for ever have been, had not the Key of Humane Learning opened this Treasure to us. Oh monstrous ingratitude! to spurn at so happy an instrument of conveying the knowledge of God, and of the Scriptures to us.  
3ly. Do you not know, that the times of greatest ignorance and decays or neglects of Humane Learning in the Church, were the times of greatest Superstition, Idolatry, and Deformation; when the Prince of Darkness uncontrollably ruled by his substitute Antichrist? who was in those times especially, as great an enemy to humane learning, as you your selus; loath to be at the pains to get it himself, and disdaining that any under him should be more knowing then himself. Under whom that illiterate herd of Monks and Friars bore the greatest sway, and the blind led the blind into the pit, Mat. 15.14. And if here and there a learned man was found in those times, their humane learning was counted a sufficient ground to charge them with Heresy, or some other heinous offence. And can you be ignorant, that the grand design of Antichrist is to keep the people in ignorance and illiterateness concerning the Scriptures, that they may neither be able to understand them in their original languages, (which indeed were a work of greater learning then ordinary capacities, and the generality of the people can attain to) nor yet so much as have them translated into known languages (which cannot be without much humane learning, at least of some choice men) lest the light of the Scripture shining forth to the people by means of humane learning, the abominableness of their Darkeness should be discovered?  
4ly. Know you not that the breaking forth of Humane Learning (about 200 years ago) was a preparative, and introduction to the breaking forth of the Gospel from under the Cloud, and restauration of Religion? Doubtless the Spirit of God stirred up those generous spirits (impatient of the torpid ignorance, which by the cunning of Antichrist, and his instruments, had overspread the world) with indefatigable industry to recover learning out of the rubbish, in which it had lain buried a long time: So that in a while the knowledge of the Greek, Hebrew, and Chaldee tongues (in which the Scriptures were first written) and of the Syriack and Arabic (into which there were most famous and ancient Translations) and other Arts and Sciences (by which the Writings of the Learned might be better understood) were speedily brought to a wonderful splendour and perfection. And then presently after these dawnings of Humane Learning, Christ the Sun of Righteousness arose, in the sincere preaching of the Gospel; and expelled the darkness of ignorance and superstition out of many Nations in great measure.  
5. How is it possible, that the Scriptures (confessedly the rule of true Religion) should be understood by us Englishmen, or any other Christians, without the help of humane Learning, unless by immediate inspiration, and the miraculous gift of speaking with, and interpreting of strange tongues, and other sudden Revelations? (which were peculiar to the Prophets and Apostles, and those primitive times) which none of you (as I know) pretend to, and which to expect now were high presumption, if not tempting of God. The Original Languages of the Scripture cannot ordinarily be understood without Grammar Learning; there is much Oratory in them which cannot be understood and improved without skill in Rhetotorick, specially the knowledge of Tropes and Figures is necessary, least men affix● monsters on the Scriptures, as the Anthrapomorphits, Transubstantiaries, and Consubstantiaries do. There is the strongest reasoning and arguing therein, and excellent method, which cannot be rightly discerned, without skill in Logic. In a word, there are none of the Liberal Arts, no part of genuine Philosophy, but may be useful and helpful for the more clear and solid understanding of the Scriptures. Indeed these Arts and Sciences the Scriptures do not professedly teach, but presuppose, in those who will be expert in the word of righteousness.  
6. Must not those gallant Monuments of Learning and piety, ancient, and modern lie without use (as to us) and be utterly lost (as some of you have burnt all your books save the Bible) if we have not Learning? Indeed you may think it no loss, but scorn us for using them (though in our private studies) yet sure it is great unthankfulness to God, and those his instruments, pride and sloth in our selus, and injury to the Church, if we should wave such helps for the understanding of the Scripture, and the state of the Church in several ages and places. And tell me, what do you think of this your book (whether learned or unlearned let others judge)? Is it worthy to be read, or no? If no; To what purpose was all this waste? if yea, how can it be read and understood without humane Learning? Though there are a thousand of books besides more worthy to be read then yours. Nay, the blessed Bible itself is wrested by them that are Unlearned, 2 Pet. 3.16.  
7. How could you have attained to any knowledge of the Scriptures (of which you boast, with the Jews, Rom. 2.17, 18, etc.) without the help of Humane Learning? or have read them translated without it? or heard them read (as some of you know not one letter in an English Bible) without it? For (I pray) is not the learning of the A B C, a point of humane learning? And yet I am sure you cannot read the Bible without the knowledge of the Letters. And if to be able to read and write English, be a good gift of God (though a small piece of humane learning) sure, much more to be able to read and understand the Scriptures (in some good measure) in the Original Languages. Nay, how could you hear of Jesus Christ, and know the meaning of those learned words, without humane learning? The one being an Hebrew 
i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  word, signifying a Saviour; the other a Greek word, (k) signifying Anointed.  
8. Doth not this inveighing against Humane Learning proceed from a threefold spring? 
Dominus noster Jesus, qui liberat nos à peccatis, morte & inferno, Schind. Pentaglot. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  viz. From Carnal Lusts, Jesuits, and Satan. 1. From Carnal Lusts; as, 1. Pride, which as it is usually accompanied with, and cherished by ignorance (for such as are proud know nothing, 1 Tim. 6.4. but  about questions; and the most knowing, the most humble, Psal. 19.13. & 1 Cor. 13.12.) so who insult over Learning, and Learned men, more than the ignorant and unlearned? Oh how sweet is it to proud Diabolical natures to sit in the Throne, and make Learning stand (Acts 25.16.) as arraigned, condemned, and presently drawn to execution at their command? Though this be done but in your fancy, yet it mightily pleaseth them. But because Pride is scarce counted a Lust of the the flesh, what say you of ease and sensuality? They who have tasted Learning to purpose, have found by experience, that much study is weariness to the flesh, Eccl. 12, 13. and the work of the Ministry a painful work, when men must give attendance to reading, exhortation, and doctrine, meditate on these things, give themselves wholly unto them, etc. 1 Tim. 4.13, 14, 15, 16. Now what an easy, pleasant life have these, who count humane learning so needless, that they judge it dangerous, and execrable. You need take little or no pains for the instruction of the people. Nay, Mr. Haggar is not ashamed to say, Take away humane learning, and all men may preach as well as we, nay better. Is not this the singing of a Requiem? But the lust of Covetousness, and desire of filthy Lucre, is another bitter root of this opinion and practice. Though you have the cunning to cite Whore first, who knows not that mean Artificers, Day-laborers, and broken Tradesmen (who usually have large Parishes, or rather Dioceses, who say, Sirs, you know, that by this craft we have our wealth, Acts 19 ver. 25.) have got more by unlearned preaching, or railing against Learning, then by their Callings? and if they follow them too, they have two strings to their bow; however they need not lay out their moneys on Books, on their supposal.  
Secondly from the Jesuits those Emissaries of the Prince of Darkness; If the hand of Joab be not, yet the head and hand of a Jesuits is in this, though not discerned by all. Jesuits and P●●●●s know well enough what deadly blows their Kingdom and cause hath received by the sword of the Spirit, wi●●●d by Learned Arms; I mean the tongues and pens of 〈◊〉 Learned, as well as pious Champions, which our Lord Christ ●●th made us● of again, and again to rout the Antichristian forces. But in decrying Learning, and Universities, you carry on the Jesuits design. 
*) See Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelii, by the Provincial Assembly of London, p. 62. etc.  Adam Conizen a politic Jesuit in his Politics, among other things prescribed for the reducing of Popery, this is one? To banish Learning out of the Commonwealth, and that at once, if it can conveniently be; if not, insensibly, and by degrees. And if you have not learned this subtlety of the Jesuit, I pity you, if you have borrowed it from Julian 
r) Speed's History, p. 168. Primum vetuit ne Ga●i●ae: (sic Christianos ●umcupabat) Poericam, Rhetoricam, aut Philosophiam discorent, Theatot. l. 3. c. 7.  the Apostate, who among other designs to root out Christianity, forbade Christians the public Schools, and study of the Arts and Tongues.  
Thirdly from Satan, who hath a principal hand in this, which (I think needs no proof) beside what hath been said but this: His great design is to hinder the glory of God, the Kingdom of Christ, and the salvation of men; he knows all this is done by keeping people from Christ, that is done by keeping them from Faith, that is done by keeping them from Scripture, and the right knowledge of it. This will be certainly done, if prople be deprived of right Translations and Interpretations of Scripture, which must needs be wanting, if there be no Learning, nor Learned men. For it is as possible for people to see the letters and words wherein Scripture was written without open eyes, or to hear the sound of them without open ears, as to understand the Scripture without some skill in the original, or without Translation by others. In the former we see with our own eyes, in the latter with others, but neither can be (ordinarily) without Learning. So that it's plain, Satan will set up his Kingdom of Darkness, where ever the light of humane learning is suppressed.  
9 To convince you, and the rest of your Gang: Suppose you meet with an Arrian, that denies the Godhead of Christ, you bring for your faith those words, The Word was God; he replies, this Text only proves, that Christ is God by office (as the Angels and Magistrates are) but not by nature, and gives this reason, because the Article is wanting in that Text 
* John 1.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. . How without Learning will you confute this Heretic, I marvel? These things I thought good to say to this unreasonable and unlearned opinion, which would explode humane learning, though much more might have been said, if the opinion, or opinionists deserved it) knowing, that if people be possessed with this persuasion, that humane learning is unlawful, whatsoever is done in way of endeavours to reduce simple seduced people from their errors, will be in vain; for they say, All this is but the fruit of humane learning; therefore to be slighted, yea abhorred.   

SECT. 2.  
H. H. p. 126. But you plead Humane Learning to be the glory of your Ministry; slighting all who have not served an Apprenticeship at Cambridge and Oxford, calling your selus Orthodox Divines, and the other illiterate Mechanic men.  
Reply 1. Reader, I thought good to take in this (which Mr. Haggar calls his second reason of dissenting from us) in this place, as properly belonging to this head under consideration, which he hath miserably confounded in the building of his Babel. Therefore 1. Where is it written, that it is a sin to plead Humane Learning, next to grace, to be the glory of our Ministry. To use your own words in the next pag. If there be such a place, let us see it; but if there be not, for shame leave this idle fantastical reasoning.  
2. That Humane learning (sanctified) is a glorious ornament to us, and our Ministry, none but inhuman and illiterate men can deny; since it's no small piece of Moses his honour, that he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (as was said before) i. e. in Mathematics and Physics, etc. Acts 6 22. as Doctor Hammond shows. Now though we glorify God for humane learning bestowed on his servants, yet I say with the Apostle, Gal. 6.14. God forbidden that we should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc.  
3. To say nothing of your scornful term, serving an Apprenticeship, etc. It is false, that we slight all that are not University men: for we do not only honour some godly and learned Ministers, who never were brought up at the feet of Gamaliel; but the Reverend Commissioners for Approbation, have upon examination approved some to be public Preachers, who never saw Cambridge or Oxford.  
4. It's as false, that we call all those Orthodox Divines, who have (as you scoffingly say) served an Apprenticeship at Cambridge or Oxford, we know some to be Heterodox (the more is the pity) as your brother Brown sometime 
u) See his Answer to Mr. Troughton Title page.  of Oriel College in Oxford; and it is as true, that we call some other illiterate, mechanic men, and why should not we call a Spade a Spade?   

SECT. 3.  
H. H. p. 27. When you are put to it you will confess, that Learning is but the Handmaid, and Grace the Mistress. But where is this written? It's one of your cunningly devised Fables, 2 Pet. 1.16. Grace in the heart can do her work without a Maid, 2 Cor. 12.9. Mark 16.15, 16. Mat. 24.13. John 10.27, 28. He doth not say, if they have Humane Learning, or been educated at Cambridge or Oxford Nay, God threatens to destroy the wisdom of the wise, 1 Cor. 1.19. and whom doth he choose, see 1 Cor. 1.26, 27, 28, 29. And the Lord is so far from setting up learned men above unlearned, that Christ saith, Luk. 10 21. & Jam. 2.5.  
Reply 1. You might have had the wit or honesty to have told us, who they are that confess Learning is Grace's Handmaid. I confess I have heard it acknowledged, that humane Learning is an Handmaid to Divinity. But be it as you say, yet we say withal, that the maid must not perk it over the mistress, as Hagar d●d over Sarah.  
2. When you show us in what Scripture it is written, that Christening of Children is a cozening of Children; and that when we have done, we make them seven times harder to be converted to the Faith, etc. pag. 121. we will show you where that Apophthegm is written; nay this is one of your cunningly devised Fables, 2 Pet. 1 16. The word is rendered by some, artificially composed, by others (as our Translation) subtly devised, that they seem to be true, which indeed are false. Store we have of such in your book, as is obvious to the judicious Reader.  
3. What if Grace can do her own work without a maid, yet a gracious Minister cannot do his work handsomely without humane Learning. A Minister must be able to convince gainsayers, Tit. 1.9. Now how an unlearned Minister should ordinarily convince a learned Heretic, I am yet to learn.  
4. I cannot but express some pangs of holy indignation at your gross (but usual) abuse of Scripture, cited by you in this pag. out of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the Epistle to the Corinthians. 

1. None of these places expressly speak of, or against humane Learning; what you speak from them is but by consequence only, and that very miserably.  
2ly, Most of these places speak nothing directly in reference to Ministers, as such, but to people under a Gospel-ministry.  
3ly, It's granted, that grace saves a man without learning, though learning cannot without grace; yet Ministers are to be considered in a double capacity: As Christians, and so it's confessed, grace can do his own work without the handmaid of humane Learning; or as Ministers, and so it must be acknowledged, that grace cannot do the work of a Minister without humane Learning, unless perhaps weakly and bunglingly. This is no blasphemy against the God of Grace, nor disparagement to the Grace of God.  
4. Because I hinted a little before in the general Mr. Haggar's miserable consequences, I shall present some of them to the view of the Reader, which indeed I had thought to have passed by in silence, as unworthy to be named, Mark 16.15, 16 e. gr. 

1. He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved, John 10 27, 28. Therefore grace in the heart of man or woman can do her work without the maid of humane Learning.  
2ly, Christ's sheep hear his voice, and follow him— and none shall pluck them out of his hand. Therefore grace can do her own work without a maid. Beside, what a piece of nonsense do you bring in? But he doth not say, if they have humane Learning, or if they were educated at Cambridge or Oxford, or at some University?  
3ly, My grace is sufficient for thee, 2 Cor. 12.9. Therefore, etc. For what if by grace is meant the favour of God, (as Diodat and Dr. Hammond, etc. expound it) will it follow, that therefore grace In the heart is able to do the work of the Ministry without Learning? But if it be to be understood of habitual grace, the Argument is much-what like this: God's grace is sufficient for M. Haggar, therefore Mr. Haggar is able to do the work of a Shear-man, without skill in that Art or Trade.  
4. God will destroy the wisdom of the wise, 1 Cor. 1.19. etc. therefore no need of humane learning.  
5. The like may be said of 1 Cor. 1.19, 26, 27, 28, 29. Jam. 2.7. As if I should argue, God hath chosen the poor of this world, therefore not one rich man in this world; and yet Abraham and David, etc. were rich in this world, I trow in the number of God's chosen. Again, God hath not chosen many wise men after the Fl●sh; Therefore not any one— when yet Paul that wrote that Epistle, 
Crot. & Calv. in loc.  was a wise man after the flesh before his Conversion, and yet a chosen vessel, Acts 9 15.6. Christ doth thank his Father, that he hide these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them to babes, Luk. 10.21. Therefore he is far from setting up learned men above unlearned, and by consequence no use of learning. For what if by babes are meant those that are humble, (that think meanly of themselves) then by the wise and prudent must be understood (by the rules of opposition) those that are proud, and think too highly of themselves, will it now follow, that because the Father hides the mysteries of eternal salvation from the proud, and reveals them to the humble, he therefore prefers the unlearned above the learned? But suppose by wise and prudent, were meant learned ones, and by babes, unlearned ones; experience may convince us, that as all unlearned ones are not enlightened (how many live without grace, as well as without learning?) So all learned ones are not left in darkness, as we may see in Moses, Paul, etc. the Lord is a free Agent, and absolute Sovereign (and being not bound to any) may dispense or deny his grace to whom he pleaseth. 
*) Ad circumstantium Argumenti ne parum habet ponderis, quod patrem vocat coeli & tenae Dominum, quia hoc modo declarat non aliunde quam à D●i arbitrio pendere discrimen, quod sapientes caecutiant, rudes & indocti ca, junt Evang clii mysteria, Calv. Harm. in loc.  Therefore Christ in his Doxology bespeaks his Father with the title, Lord of heaven and earth. Now let the Reader judge, whether Mr. Haggars arguings do not hang together like ropes of sand, and so whether his reasonings are not (like himself) unreasonable, and whether he need not serve an Apprenticeship (as he calls it, p. 126.) at Cambridge or Oxford, before he can prove his consequences, and not then neither.       

SECT. 4.  
H. H. p. 128. It was always God's way (or for the most part) to choose his Prophets out of unlearned men, and honest labouring men, that knew what it was to get their living by the sweat of their brows, and not such who were brought up idly, so that they cannot dig, and are ashamed to beg, and therefore prove unjust Stewards. These are not fit to be Ministers of Christ, because they must preach for hire, or else they cannot live, etc. But the Lord chose— Moses a Shepherd, Exod. 3.1, 2. Elish● a Ploughman, 1 King. 19.19, 20. David a Shepherd, Psal. 78.70, 71. Amos an Herdsman, Am. 7.14, 15. and Fishermen, etc. Mat. 4.18, 19, 20, 21, 22.— Likewise he chose ignorant and unlearned men, Acts 4.13. Thus all men may see how contrary the Priests of this Nation do walk to Christ and his Disciples.  
Reply 1. The greatest part of this Section is not the language of Canaan, and of the holy Scriptures, but of Ashdod, and of the Quakers; who being once members of your Church, have since charged you to your face to preach for hire, etc. as you charge us. Is it therefore so indeed? I would have you know, that maintenance is neither the cause of our preaching, nor the end of our preaching. Nor that which guides, orders, and regulates our preaching, and so dear is our calling to us, and so precious are the souls of our people, that if maintenance should fail, we would preach the Gospel, though we beg our bread.  
2. It's strange to me that you say, we cannot dig, when you positively charge Mr. C. p. 121. (and there is the same reason of others) that he had taken great pains to dig for gold out of the mountains of Ancient Fathers.  
3. You answer yourself, in saying, for the most part God did choose his Prophets out of unlearned men, etc. Therefore not always, by your own grant. But Sir, though extraordinary Prophets and Preachers were for the most part so chosen, yet the Priests and Levites were not. The Lord by his prerogative royal may choose whom he pleaseth, who of Shepherds, Herdsmen, Fishermen, etc. made Prophets or Apostles— will you therefore presume (unless you be God's Ape) to ordain Tanners, and Tailors, Nailors, and Cheese-factors to the office of preaching? will you make an ordinary practice of extraordinary precedents? when you can show us such a warrant, we will believe; till then, we believe you are a Deceiver.  
4. Some (at least) of the persons chosen were learned men, as Moses , Acts 7.22. and Peter, and John, who had the gift of Tongues, Acts 2. It's a wonder to me, that Mr. Haggar should jump in his judgement with the Priests and Rulers. As if Peter and John were indeed unlearned and ignorant men; But their judgements differ. The first 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  imports they were illiterate; i. e. they were not skilled in the learning of the Jews, as those Lawyers, i. e. expounders of the Law were. (For they that are called Scribes and Pharisees, Mat. 23.13. are termed Lawyers, Luke 11.52.) The other 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  word properly signifies Idiotes, (and so translated by some) 
k) Beza, and Old Latin.  i. e. not Magistrates instructed in the Laws, but ordinary vulgar persons, whom the Jews called by that name— rendered thrice unlearned, 1 Cor. 14.16, 23, 24. So that the meaning is, when the learned Priests and Rulers (as Mr. Haggar calls them) observed the elocution and freeness of speech, 
m) Dr. Hammond and Grotius.  with which Peter and John taught; and considering withal, that their education had not thus elevated them above other men, being neither skilled in the learning of the Jews, nor placed in authority as Magistrates, they were amazed. Now Mr. Haggar would have them void of all humane learning. Truly when I see the boldness and confidence of Mr. Haggar, and perceiv that he is an unlearned and ignorant man. I cannot but marvel.  
5. Thus all men (to be sure judicious) may see, whether the Priests of this Nation (as M Hag. scornfully calls them) do walk contrary to Christ and his Discipes.   

SECT. 5.  
H. H. same p. Object. Christ was able to teach them all wisdom, and did give them extraordinary gifts for the perfecting of his work, but now there is none such; Therefore men must get abilities by humane learning. Answer, This is a gross mistake, for we have nothing else to do, but to believe and obey that Word, which was by them preached, when they were so endued with those gists' aforesaid. And now if any man preach, he must preach that Word, 2 Tim. 4.2.3, 4. For that is able to do all the work of conversion, and sanctification, and to make us wise to Salvation, etc. 2 Tim. 3.15, 16, 17. See whom the Apostle accurseth Gal. 1.8; 9 Therefore we are commanded, 2 Thes. 2.15. and Christ prayeth, Joh. 17.20. Therefore they are the preachers, by whom 〈◊〉 do believe, and the Word is already preached that I must believe and obey; Therefore no need of a little dirty humane learning, to make a man a preacher of that which is so plainly preached already, but every Englishman man declare it to his native Countrymen, and so may men in all Nations.  
Reply 1. Here we have again some ropes of sand; if that word must be preached which is able to convert, sanctify, and save— 

Then the preacher hath no need of Humane Learning.  
2. They are accursed that preach any other Gospel, etc. Therefore no need of Humane Learning.  
3. We must stand fast, and hold the traditions we have been taught.  
4. Christ prays for all those that shall believe in him, etc.   Therefore no need of Humane Learning. Are you not ashamed of such absurd Arguings? If you will not serve and Apprenticeship at either of our Universities, I will give you twice so many years to prove the consequence, you may delude your unlearned, ignorant Proselytes, but not us, who can distinguish between a Syllogism and a Paralogism.  
2. What? nothing else to do but to believe and obey that word which was by them preached? must not I read and meditate on that word: And must not you work at your calling in the week day, or ride up and down the Country to make a Proselyte? May not any man preach and declare the Word by your doctrine? Nay, why did you write, print, and publish this Book, if you had nothing else to do, but to believe and obey that Word, etc. If any of the particulars be expressed, or employed in that Word, I would fain know, how without Humane Learning, the Scriptures could have been translated out of their Originals into known tongues; Suppose English? or how you could have read and preached in English without Humane Learning? but enough of this before.  
3. Me thinks I see you in Hierams temper 
p) 1 K 9.13.  who called the Land (that Solomon gave him) Cabul, which word in the Phaenician Language, 
q) Jun. & Tremel. Bercho. of Humane learning saith, justi ●ecipiunt, docti respiciunt, stulti despiciunt.  signifies displeasing, and by some of the Jews, it signifies Dirty. So that Humane Learning which Christ (greater than Solomon) hath given to some of his Ministers, is displeasing to you, and therefore you call it DIRTY Learning, in scorn and indignation. No marvel it makes your folly manifest.  
4. Whereas you say, any English man may declare the Word to his Country men, and so may men in all Nations; either you lisp in the language of the Quakers, who call even the holy Scriptures but a Declaration; or if by declaring, you mean preaching, as in your page 64. (women may preach or declare the mind of God to others) then lest women should want tongues, by your doctrine, men in ALL Nations may preach by virtue of M. Haggar's Ordination or Approbation.    

CHAP. XVIII Of Infant-Baptism.  
H. H. Secondly, your Rantizing or Cozening of poor babes in their Cradles take away that, and you have no Church. But others who have Faithfully preached the Gospel, and converted souls to the Faith, and baptised them too in the name of Jesus Christ, have a far greater,  
Reply 1. How many crude Allegations do you here assert, without any proof at all; as that we Rantize babes, nay cousin them, nay, in their Cradles, etc. all which are as truly denied by us, as they are confidently (yet barely) affirmed by you.  
2. If baptism (according to your Doctrines confuted) be essential to constitute a Church; then take away that, and we have no Church: but the Antecedent is false, and therefore the Consequent.  
3. If by others, you mean the Anabaptists, I deny that you or they have faithfully preached the Gospel. (witnessed the many errors vented by them, and discovered to be such in this book) or that you have converted souls to the faith, I never heard of an ignorant profane person, wrought upon by your Ministry, only you build on our foundation, and gather where you never scattered, subverting simple and unstable souls.  
4. How pitifully do you again contradict yourself? For if you have a far greater Church than we, how is it that we have no Church? If Goliath be a greater man than David, doth that hold out that David is no man?  
5. I suppose you mean, that Infant-Baptism is one of our pillars, on which our Church stands; The answer to the first may suffice here. But whether Infant. Baptism be according to the will of Christ, hath been the main subject of this debate. And therefore let the Reader compare your Answer, and this Reply together, and judge accordingly. Only I will close with this; This Pillar remains unshaken, or is more settled by being shaken.   

CHAP. XIX. Of Tithes.  

SECT. 1.  
H. H. p. 123. Thirdly, Your Tithes or forced maintenance, The wages of unrighteousness, 2 Pet 2.15. after which you all go astray; take away that, and we may preach who will for all you. By which it appeareth, you are all Hirelings, and will labour no longer than you are paid for it, neither do you care for the Flock, any longer than you are paid for it; by all which you make that old Papistical Proverb good upon yourselves, viz. No penny, no Pater Noster: So say you all in effect, no money, no preaching, etc.  
Reply 1. If our Tithes be the wages of unrighteousness (in the place cited) by your corrupt gloss, 
r) Numb. 23.23, and 24. with Josh. 13.22. a Soath-sayer— or Magician.  The Prayers of them must be Balak's: the receivers of them must be Balaam's, then preaching must be cursing of God's people, and what then must H. H. be, who speaking with man's voice 
s) 1 Pet. 2.16.  rebukes—? But  
2. Our Tithes are not wages of unrighteousness, (neither doth the Holy Ghost call them so). 1. From your own confession, you make them all one with a forced maintenance, but this wage● was not forced but free, being a voluntary gift, 
Numb. 22.5, 7.16, 17.  or tender sent from Balack and that by the Elders of Moab, 
v Abutensis.  and of Midian, who lived many hundred miles from Mesopotamia, where Balaam lived, who was killed 
* Diodat. & the English Annot. on Num. 24, 25.  in the way as he was returning homeward, Numb. 31.8. And I pray which of the people pay, or of the Ministers (that receive and gather Tithes) live at such a distance? Secondly, this wages is called a reward, nay rewards of Divination, Numbers 22.7. the Elders of Moab. & the Elders of Midian departed with the rewards of Divination in their hand— and though our Ministers are called by some Divines, yet they use no Divination, nor enchantment against Israel. Thirdly, this reward (whatsoever it was) is called the wages of unrighteousness, 
x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Critica Sacra, or Calvin.  which word unrighteousness signify all such injustice as is joined with injury to ourneighbour. Now what injury is it to take from the people that which was never theirs? when they buy or take leases of their Land, it's only the nine parts they pay for, & if the tenth were sold them, they should pay themselves a tenth part more; or if it be so cal●ed, because it was again, 
y) Lucrum ex scelere quaesitu Beza in Loc.  sought for by wickedness— being ready (if it could have been done without impurity) to curse the people of God, whom he knew to be blessed; or because 
z) Estius.  it was a reward loved, desired, and expected for an unjust and impious work. And are our Tithes for a flagitious and impious work? Fourthly, this unrighteousness (without doubt) is the same with iniquity 
a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insolentia legibus repugnans nequi jam, improbitas, iniquitas, contra leges, fas, & aequum commissa Scap. Lexicon.  mentioned in the 16 verse following. Now that word signifies a transgression (and so rendered by Beza) whereby one doth willingly violate the Law. Such was the sin of Balaam, who knowing the will of God, would fain have done the contrary. Now to use your own words (on some other account p. 60, and 58.) whosoever committeth sin, transgresseth the Law, for sin is the transgression of the Law, 1 Joh. 3.4. you can never make that a sin, till you show us what command we have broken in taking Tithes, for all sin is the transgression of some Law. Therefore the Apostle saith; where there is 
b) Rom. 4.15.  no Law, there is no transgression, beside Answer to your seventh Querie, p. 53. Whether there be any sin or corruption incident to man. That the Scriptures doth not reprove and make manifest in express terms.  
3. You have asserted, but not proved, that Tithes are wages of unrighteousness (For now all may easily discern your abuse of Scripture) but I assert and (by the assistance of the Lord) shall prove, that Tithes are wages of righteousness 
* Certum est ea quae Ministris ratione sui Minister two Deb●ntur five DECIMA RUM nomine veniunt five all, insis deberi ex JUSTITIA. Rivet. in c. 14. Gen. exercit 80. p. 326.  I will not wade into that controversy, whether Tithes (now) are due jure Divino, ye cannot deny. That Tithes were once devoted to God for his service, and whether they be of Divine institution still, I believe it's more than you can disprove. Sure I am, when Christ tells them of Tything Mint and Cummim, he saith these aught ye to have done, 
c) Mat. 23.23.  and not to leave the other undone. And I am as certain that the Apostle saith: Do ye not know, that they which Minister about holy things, 
d) 1 Cor. 9.13, 14.  live of the things of the Temple? And they which wait at the Altar, are partakers with the Altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel, i. e. The Levites that did 
e) M. Mede p. 325. & Grot. in L●c.  Minister about holy things (there was their office) did live of the things of ●he Temple, i. e. of Tithes belonging to the Temple (there was their maintenance) and the office of the Priests was to offer Sacrifice on the Altar, and were fellow-sharers with the Altar, i. e. with the Sacrifices offered thereon (there was their maintenance) well therefore, as in the Protasis of the similitude, the wages was compared with the work. So it must be in the Apodasis too, and consequently to live of the Gospel, must here express the wages, as to preach the Gospel doth the work. Indeed the word Gospel is not where else used in the New Testament, for the wages and reward of good tidings, but only in this place, yet the Septuagint, 
f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  doth so take the word in the Old Testament, 2 Sam. 4.10.— He thought I would have given him a reward for his tidings. Now as the Levites and Priests had their maintenance out of that which was offered to God in the Law. So God hath ordained (that is appointed or given order, that the Ministers of the Gospel, should be maintained of that, which is consecrated to him in the Gospel; or else (to use your own phrase, p. 61.) It is not EVEN SO. 
g) Ordinavit ergo Do●inus, non praecipiendo ut accipiant sed dando potest●tem accipie●di Estius in loc.  Not that Gospel's preachers are here commanded to receive, but are allowed a power and liberty to receive, as is manifest by the example of Paul, and Barnabas, ver. 6. with 12.15. But to leave this. Is not that Righteous which is equal? Now is it not equal, 
b) ● Cor. ●. 11.  that they who sow spiritual things, should receive carnal things? Augustine tells us, that it's equal and reasonalbe, that Tithes be paid, because all things are the Lords, by whom we live, etc. Again doth not the law of this Nation 
¶) A● civil government is an ordinance of God. Rom. 13.1.2. but this or that form or sort is an ordinance of mar. 1 Pet, 2.13. So is maintenance for the Ministry—  peremptorily enjoin the due payment of Tithes? It's so evident, I need not prove it, which makes H. H. etc. grin their teeth at it. But they need not. The same Law of the Land that makes the tenth part ours, doth make the ninth part theirs: If we have no title to the tenth, they have none to the Rest. And are not the wholesome laws of Magistrates to be 
i) Rom. 13.1.7. 1 Pet. 2.13.14.  obeyed? Indeed the Law of the Land permits 6l. in an 100l. but withal, cautions, that therefore usury is not to be concluded to be lawful, etc. But it cautions not such thing in point of Tithes, and till Mr. Hag. proves the sinfulness of Tithes— They are not to be counted and called ways of unrighteousness. Again is it not the Righteous practice and custom of the Church of God in this Commonwealth, for many hundred years? And doth not the Apostle enjoin— Rom. 13.7. To render to all their deuce— Custom to whom custom, & c? I remember Hierom saith somewhere, that he, whoever he be, that shall refuse to pay tithes to the Ministers of Christ, do condemn themselves for unjust men●▪ The receivers therefore must be just men, and Augustin saith, 
k)— res A●●enas invadune Aug. 119. Ser: De Tempore.  Tithes are due to be paid, and  refuseth, invadeth another man's right. But I forbear to cite the judgements of the Fathers, and the decrees of Councils, for H. H. will turn them off with a wet finger, saying, He weighs them not. It were well if he could weigh the learned piece of Bishop Carleton, and of Sir Henry Spelman Knight, & Doctor Selater etc. which lie unanswered to this very day, For aught I know.  
4. It is as false, which you as boldly assert, that we all go astray after this wages of unrighteousness. You cannot be ignocant (unless willingly) that many precious Ministers in this land have their maintenance not by tithes, but by a 
l) No man may more freely speak of Tithes than myself, who receive none, nor ever shall do: B: Hall Case of Conscience resolved: p. 229. 
And you say in the close of this Section— So nomony, no preaching. Some preachers than receive money, not tithes? By your own confession.   Salary. With what face then can you say, that we all go astray after the same; To say nothing of your wont custom, and excellent faculty in perverting Scriptures, for going astray must needs refer to the right way, and that is the true and sound doctrine of Christ bringing in Heathenism, after the example of Balaam 
m) Numb. 24.14, with 25, 1. Judas 11. Revel. 2, 14.  who to get a reward, taught Balak to curse the Israelites, by enticing them to filthiness, and idolatry together— Do our Ministers so? This dirt the Lord will wipe off to your shame.  
5. No marvel you are an enemy to Minister's maintenance, when you are a sworn enemy to the Ministry of the Church of England. You imagine both stand, and fall together. For you say, take away that, & we may preach who will, for all you. This is some of your left handed Logic, to make way for the taking of the Ministry, by taking away Tithes. This design you have learned either of Julian the Apostate, who thought by this means to root out the Christian ministry, or of the Jusuites whose plot in the same, as before.  
6. It's strange, that you therefore conclude we are all Hirelings, and will labour no longer than we are paid for it, etc. But Quakers language is not strange to you. If we are Hirelings, while we labour, is it not fit we should be paid? For the 
n) Luk. 10, 7, The ministry signifies a service— whereto the wages is no less due than meat to the payer. Bishop Hall Ibid.  Labourer is worthy of his HIRE. I will not trouble the Reader, or myself, with any Answer or Reply to your inconsiderable and unseemly flirts: only observe what a reverend 
* Mr. Ven. Milk & Hony.  Minister of the Gospel saith: Some men will be finding fault where no fault is to be found INVEIGHING men are most commonly ENVYING men. They who inveigh much, are men of envy much.   

SECT. 2.  
H. H. p. 124. This is one reason of our dissenting from you, because you take Tithes, or a sorced mantenance, from those whom you call hertics; whereas the Priests under the Law never demanded Tithes of the uncircumcised Gentiles, etc.  
Reply 1. Suppose Tithes to be a forced maintenance, yet it will not follow that they are unlawful; the Landlord may distreyn on his Tenant for nonpayment of his Rent; The Collectors on the people for nonpayment of their monthly Tax, and the day-labourer for his hire or wages.  
2. You should have described those whom we call Heretics, who are they? but you love to ●alk in the dark, and keep yourself within Generals. If you mean the man of your own personation, I am clearly o●●is mind, the saith, 
o) Qui● regant (●●●th thrist●e●) ●●●um wigi●ale, & Sim●●●●, sint Here●●●, Ames cas. do C●sc●ent. l. 4. c. 4. s. 9  As Anabaptists deny original sin, etc. They are Heretics, And why may we not call you Heretics, as well as you compare yourselves to the uncircumcised Gentiles?  
3. All of us do not take Tithes of such heretics, for some of us have no such cattles within our folds, not an Anabaptist in many of our Parishes.  
4. Your parallel is not right, for though the Priests under the Law did not demand Tithes of the uncircumcised Gentiles, yet they might of the Jews, supporting there were heretics among them. Heb. 7.5.— They have a commandment to take Tithes of the people, i. e. of your Brethren, whether sound or unsound in the Faith.   

SECT. 3.  
H. H. Ibid. Though the Jews paid Tithes under the Law to their Priests. Yet the converted Gentiles did not. Act. 15. ver. 24, 25, 28, 29. Wherein there is no one word or syllable spoken about the intolerable burden of, Tithes, which is Antichristran, and denyeth Christ to come, in the flesh; who changed the Priesthood, and therefore of necessity there is a change of the Law, Heb. 7.11, 12. Now seeing the Priesthood and Law are changed, where is the ground to take Tithes as Priests, or what Law compels the people to pay Tithes to you as unto Priests? Answer if you can.  
Reply 1. If by the Law, you mean the levitical Law, I d●re be bold to affirm, that Tithes were paid before that Abraham paid Tithes and that of all, to Melchizedeck, Gen. 14.20. with Heb. 7.2. as if he had followed the Commandment of the Apostle, Gal. 6.6. Let him that is taught (or Catechised) communicate to him that teacheth (or catechizeth), in all good things, or in all his goods, 
r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Jacob also vowed to give the tenth also, Gen. 28.22. So that the payment of Tithes is ancienter than the levitical Law. Indeed though Levi received Tithes afterward by a particular grant from God, yet he paid them generally with the Congreation, in the Loins of Abraham unto the Priesthood of Christ personated by Melchizedeck. Heb. 7.9, 10. Therefore they are not abolished by the Gospel, but may be continued as an Evangelicall revenue, for the maintenance of those, who give the Sacramental Bread and Wine (the materials of Melchizedeck's beneficence) to the people.  
2. Though the converted Gentiles were to abstain from those four things mentioned in the Acts: yet it will not follow, that therefore they were to abstain from paying Tithes, no more than this, that therefore they were to abstain from obedience to the Roman Magistrates, under whose Dominion they now were; or, that they were to abstain then, therefore now. For this was but a Temporary injunction, or prohibition, thus for to comply with the Jews for the present, for unity, and amity sake. For when the contention ceased, we know this Law was repealed; The Apostle saying, that there is nothing unclean of itself, Rom. 14.14. And again whatsoever is sold in the Shambles, that eat— 1 Cor. 10.25. and every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving, for by Fornication we are to understand, part (at least) of the Sacrifice, which the Harlots did offer to the gods for expiating their sin. Such a custom it seems there was among them. Deut. 23.18. Thou shalt not bring the hire of an whore— into the house of the Lord, and the Harlot said, I have peace Offerings with me this day, I have paid my vows. And of the four particulars, three of them are meats, why not then Fornication? for that (properly taken) must be perpetually abstained from, it would rather follow, that they were to abstain only from those four things mentioned. Therefore not from paying Tithes.  
3. They are called necessary things, 
x) Dr. Hammond.  * not to all Christians, but to the Proselytes of the Jews, or those converted Gentiles, which lived at Jerusalem and Antioch; This compliance therefore was then necessary, to the making up of a Church of Jews and Gentiles, which otherwise would not have associated.  
4. Whereas you call Tithes that intolerable burden, and Antichristian, you only again say it, but you do not prove it. They are only an intolerable burden to the enemies of Christ's Ministers: As the Carrier's pack to the galled back of his horse. To others they are not a burden at all, 
* See Phil. Trelcin. Gent. proving that never any Ministry in the Church of God hath been or is maintained with less charge to the subject, than the Ministers of the Church of England.  much less intolerable. For it is the fittest maintenance for Christ's Ministers, as appears by this, that after all the serious consultations, and deliberate debates concerning a change into some other settlement, it's concluded, as of his sword 
y) 1 Sam. 21.9.  none like it, and 
z) M. Jer. Stephen's preface 10 Sir H. spelman's Treatise of Tithes.  the State would be a loser of many thousand pounds which are paid in Tenths. First, Fruits and Taxes which in reason must fail, if Tithes fall. And whereas you are pleased to call them Antichristian, you who affirm, must prove. It's storied of one Lieutardus, 
a) Sir H. Spolm. de noa temerandis Eccles, p. 20, 21.  who taught the payment of Tithes to be superfluous, and idle, and then growing desperate, drowned himself— And so gave us a badge of his doctrine. The truth is, Tithes are no more Antichristian, now, than Tenths and first Fruits are to the State, and Churches are to us.  
5. Neither will you be ever able to prove, that taking of Tithes doth deny Christ to be come in the flesh. For Tithes (as received by the Law or the Nation upon the general account of a Gospel-Ministry) are no appurtenance of the levitical Priesthood, nor are they any necessary appurtenance at all, as being paid before there was any levitical Priesthood, as before: yet thus the Prelates argued of late, that the very name Sabbath (much more the strict observation of it) denies Christ to be come in the flesh, and I might as well argue, that your so frequently calling us Priests; denies Christ come in the flesh, but I spare you.  
6. To Heb. 7.12. I say, that change may import not an abrogation, but an Alteration, i. e. a Translation. 
b) So v. and Erasmus do render the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  So the sense would be, that the Priesthood being translated from the Tribe of Levi to the Tribe of Judah, of necessity, there is a Translation also of the Law for paying Tithes, but if you understand it of an abrogation or abolition, It's no advantage to you, nor disadvantage to us. For then the meaning is, If the levitical Priesthood be abrogated; then the levitical or Ceremonial Law is abolished, even that Commandment to take Tithes of the People (for those words according to the Law, refer to the people, which were under the Mosaical Law, not to taking Tithes, for that was sufficiently expressed in those words, Have a Commandment, and need not suddenly be repeated again). The Lord gave those Tithes for a time to Levi, so long as he served at the Tabernacle, when Levi ceased to serve at the Altar, Tithes ceased to be due to Levi, but they ceased not to be due to the Lord. For as they were before the Law, so they stand his for ever. The Assignation of Tithes to Levi (or that Lease) being expired, 
c) Heb. 7.8.  they return to the Lord again, and to speak properly, There is nothing Ceremonial in paying Tithes, and if any Ceremony was affixed to them, the Ceremony is abolished, but the thing stands still. As some Ceremonial signification was superadded to the fourth Commandment, 
d) Ez. k. ●0. 12.20,  yet that Ceremony being abolished by Christ, the fourth Commandment remains in full force and virtue, as you seem to grant, p. 13.  
7. To your Qu. I have said something before, 
e) Nostre ho●ie accip●unt Decimas, v●●ion quo jure? non sane Ceremoniali. Sed jure morali. Par siquidem est ut 〈◊〉 irister à populo Alatur, 1. Tim. 5.18. 1 Cor. 9.14 proinde stipendia Minist●is siuèpersolvatur ex Agris, siuè ex aedibus sive ex pecunia numerata, siuè in DECIMIS nihil resert, p. Mart. L●c. Com. Class. 4. c. 13. s● 1●.  the Law of the Land, is a sufficient ground (if we had no more) for us to take Tithes, which Law is not yet proved to be contrary to the Law of God. Nay, it's the will of Christ that Ministers should be maintained in the general; and suppose there be no special or particular way of maintenance prescribed, yet that will of Christ doth evince th● righteousness of any lawful way, such as that by Tithes is, which yet hath not been disproved. Though we do not receive them as Priests— Yet there is a Law to compel the people to pay Tithes to the Priests, using the language of the time that then was, as some of the Fathers, call the Lords Table an Altar, and both we and they call the Lord's day, Sunday; when properly we have neither Sunday, nor Altar, nor Priest.   

SECT. 4.  
H. H. p 125. 1. Ob. But Ministers of the Gospel must live of the Gospel. Ans. Then it seems you grant, they must not live of the Law but Tithes are by the Law, therefore they must not live by Tithes. 2ly, Why do you not then live of the Gospel, & be quiet, & take what people will give you, & c? Mat. 10 10 with Lu. 10.6, 7.  
Reply 1. You trifle egregiously; For if by the Law, you mean the Ceremonial Law of Moses, I told you even now out of P. Mattyr, we do not live of that Law. But if you mean the Law of this Nation, so we live of the Gospel and by the Law too. The Gospel requiring that Ministers be maintained, and the said Law prescribing the particular way, or manner how, as hath been said. Magistrates by the appointment of Christ are to be nursing-fathers' to the Church, who are to provide, that the Ministers of the Church may not want maintenance, that the children of the Church may not want Milk, Isa. 49.23.  
2. What a miserable consequence is this? Tithes are (suppose) by the levitical Law, Therefore Gospel-Ministers must not live by Tithes, just like this, the Levites formerly had Cities with their suburbs, etc. for themselves to dwell in, and ground for their Cattle; Therefore Gospel-Ministers may not have houses to dwell in, nor Glebeland for their Cattle.  
3. We do live of the Gospel, and are quiet— but you disturb us, by endeavouring (though in vain) to turn us out of possession; and to strip us of our right.  
4. It is your gross mistake, that these Commands are binding to Gospel-Ministers; 
g) Inscitè quidam puta●●at verbi Ministris vel Apostolis perpet●ā hic legem praescribi Calv. in Loc.  For though the ends of these Commands is perpetual, yet the Commands themselves are temporary, as Grotius notes on Mar. 6.8. and in part (at least) hath been showed before. And it's manifest from the places themselves. 

1. For the Apostles Commission extended at first, no further then to the Pale of Judea, Mat. 10.5, 6. Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any City of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Afterward it was enlarged, Go ye and teach (or Disciple) all Nations, Mat. 28.19. and go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature, Mar. 28.19.  
2. They were to heal the sick, cleanse the Lepers, raise the dead, cast out Devils, Mat. 10.8. with 1. 6.& had power to do these things which I think you do not, nor dare challenge no more than we.  
3. They were not to provide either Gold or Silver— in their purses, v. 9 which you have left out are as binding as those things mentioned by you.  
4. Nor scrip for their journey, nor two coats, nor shoes, nor yet staves— ver. 10. It seems they might have 
m) Mar. 6.8, 9  one pair of shoes, and one staff, but not two pair of shoes, nor two staves, i.e. a walking staff they might have, but not a fight 
n) i e. Defenso●ium Nam itinerarium seu Sustentatorium quem Latini Scipionem nominant apud Marcum permisit. Pisa. Scholar  staff. But do you go up and down without Gold and Silver in your purse? or without two coats? and if you ride without 's, yet not without boots; if without a staff in your hand, yet sometimes not without a sword by your side. It seems you are the man that is neither quiet, nor content.  
5. The same Commands were laid on the 70. For Calvin conceives, that after the Twelve Apostles were returned, he sent out 70. in like manner, only they are bidden salute no man by the way, Luk. 10.1, 4. If you do so, I know no difference between you and a Quaker.  
6. Nay, both the Apostles then, (and the Seventy afterwards) were sent out two by two, Mar. 6.7. with Luk. 10.1. If you never went to preach without another, I know no difference between you and th●e Romish Priests and Jesuits, who (in an Apish imitation) walk two by two. By all which it appears, those Commands are, and were but temporary.     

SECT. 5.  
H. H. 2. Object. This maintenance is not sufficient, and if it be left to the people, they will starve you. It may be you will say. Answ. 1. If it be not enough, than you may labour with your hands to supply your wants, as 
q) Act. 18.1, 2, 3. with 1 Cor. 5.11, 12, and 2 Thes 5, 〈◊〉, 8,  Paul and the other Apostles of Christ did, who were as good and better Ministers of Christ than you are. 2. If the people would starve the Ministers, than they are no Christians, for they durst not let your teachers starve, if he take but any honest course to live. But to conclude, if you can neither trust God for a livelihood, while you are about his work, nor be content with what the people will freely give you, nor yet labour with your hands to supply your wants, you are not yet fit for the work of the Ministry, and therefore you may leave it to those that are better able to go through the work, and to be content with the wages that Christ hath allowed them.  
Reply 1. It's readily acknowledged that Paul and the other Apostles were as good and better Ministers of Christ than we are. But it doth not follow that we must labour with our hands as they did; (as you suppose). 

For first this labour (for maintenance) was not the practice of all the Apostles, but a peculiar case of Paul and Barnabas▪ For Paul saith, or I only and Barnabas▪ have not we power to forbear working as the other Apostles and brethren of the Lord and Cephas? 1 Corinth. 9.6.  
Secondly, their refusal of maintenance was upon special occasion; as in case of extreme necessity, etc. Thus marriage might be forborn— Yet he is silly, that will conclude from hence, the unlawfulness of marriage, or unneedfulness of maintenance. 1 Cor. 7.26, 27.  
3. When Paul was necessitated to labour with his hands, he put it into the catalogue of his sorrows. 1 Cor. 4.11, 12. As a part of his sufferings, in the very place quoted by you. Even unto this hour we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffetied, and LABOUR, working with our own hands— Hunger and thirst, nakedness, and bufferting, etc. were pieces of his sufferings, so was such, his labour.  
4. Notwithstanding all this, viz. refusing maintenance, he tells the Corinthians, that he received much from others, I rob other Churches, taking wages of them to serve you, 
2 Cor. 11.8.  etc.    
2. Who those are, whom you heard say, that the people would starve their Ministers, if it were left to them, I know not, you never heard me say so, and when you bring in the names of those, I know what to say; but whereas you say, they are no Christians, that would starve your Teachers— its one of your absurd inconsequences, and unsavoury paradoxes, for if they be Christians in truth (as heis a Jew which is one inwardly) perhaps they are unable to maintain their Teachers, Rom. 2.29, as Mr. Robinson's Church was to maintain him: or if they be Christians in title only, 
v) Rom. 11.7, 8, 9, 10. Mede in Lee.  it is no wonder, they dare let their teachers starve, who can rejoice and make merry when their teachers are killed, i. e. suspended, and sil●eed.  
3. What you conclude is Illogicall, and Atheological; For (without boasting) we can trust our Master for a livelihood, whiles we are about his work.  
4. Whereas you would have us content, with what the people will freely give us, you have no precept for that. What is said in Mat. 10.8. Freely ye have received, freely give, is proved but a Temporary command, and that in reference to those miraculous works, mentioned in the beginning of that verse. Besides, you bewray whose Successors you are. viz. Even of those false Teachers who were crop● into the Church of Corinth, and boasted of themselves and their doctrine, and that they would preach the Gospel freely, and to cried down Paul & Ministry, 2 Cor. 11.12, 13. being themselves deceitful workers, and transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ.  
5. As you superciliously judge yourself, and illiterate mechanic men, better able to go through the work of the Ministry than we— So unwares you call your selus Hirelings as well as us, for you say, p. 123. And to be content with the wages Christ hath a lowed them, and who but Hirelings receive wages?   

SECT. 6.  
H. H. same page, Third Obj. 1 Cor. 9.7. Who goeth a warfare at his own charges? Answ. True, neither do any go awarfare at their enemy's charges, such you say are the An abaptists; Therefore you cannot in conscience expect any from them, because you war not for them, but against them. That Scripture only shows you should have charges of them you fight for; and good reason, if the cause be good; but it must be freely: if you force them, you fight not for them, but against them, and make them your enemies, and l●se your privileges  
Reply 1. If it be true, you grant as much as is desired, that Ministers as well as soldiers must be maintained, not at their own, but others charges.  
2. It's false, that none go a warfare at their enemies, charges The State wa●●s against Papists in 〈◊〉 ●●●ly at the charges of the Papists in England. Therefore 〈◊〉 one your frequent inconsequences: They or you a● 〈◊〉 enemy's, therefore we cannot in conscience expect an● from them.  
3. It's as false, that we war not for them (soil the Anabaptists) But against them; we fight not against their persons, for whom we pray; but against their practices, against which we pray and preach too. Therefore if this be all (as you say) we can have from that Scripture, that we should have charges of them we fight for, than they are to bear our charges, and furnish us with necessaries.  
4. The rest is but a piece of Seditious doctrine. 

1. No maintenance, unless the quarrel be good: Must the common soldier fit in judgement on the cause?  
2. This maintenance must be free, and not forced. May not soldiers or Constables distrain for non-paiment of the monthly Tax?  
3. Forcing is a losing of privilege— Is not the former instance an Argument rather of gaining and confirming your privilege?     

SECT. 7.  
H. H. p. 126. Fourth Objection: You say, who planteth a Vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof. Answ. True, But you never planted the Vineyard of the Separatists and Anabaptiss, therefore you may not eat of the fruit of their labours, except you buy it, or take it from them wickedly by force. Nay you say, we are not the Lord's Vineyard, but rather an accursed people, like the ground that brings forth thorns and thistles, therefore you cannot possibly expect any fruit of us, for men cannot gather grapes of Thorns, nor Figgs of Thistles.  
Reply 1. If it be true, you grant again as much as is desired.  
2. The Vineyard of the Separatists and Anabaptists (as they are now called and termed) were once planted by us, and had so continued, if you had not broken down the wall, and stolen away the plants. Nay, the Lord himself may complain of you, as he doth of Israel, I had planted thee a noble Vine, wholly a right seed, how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange Vine to me? Jer. 2.2.  
3. Your exception is a mere begging of the Question.  
4. We do say; You are a Vineyard, but bringing forth wild grapes, Isa. 5.2, 3, 4. your Vine being the Vine of Sodom, Deut. 32.32. and of the fields of Gomorrah, your grapes are grapes of gall, bitter clusters.  
5. As the Frenchman (they say) had rather lose his God, than his jest. So you are content to be thorns and thistles, rather than we should have the grapes, and figs of maintenance from you. I pity your lamentable abuse of Scripture.  
6. If we cannot possibly expect any fruit from you, much less force you; yet it seems, by you, we may from the Vineyard, which we tend and dress.   

SECT. 8.  
H. H. same pag. Again you will say. Who seedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk thereof. Answ. Truth. But you do not feed the flock of the Separates and Anabaptists, nay you say they are not of the flock of Christ, but Wolves and Tigers, therefore you have no right to their milk, nor can you expect any from them—  
Reply 1. The Separates and Anabaptists were once of our flock, till you ●tole them away, and therefore by your expression you grant, We might then eat of their milk.  
2. If they be degenerate into anchored of Wolves and Tigers, yet while they live within the Fold of our parishes, we may (by the law of the land, which is not repugnant to the law of God, as hath been showed) require lawfully milk from them. i e. subsistence— or maintenance.  
3. As we HAVE fed them, so we WOULD feed them, if you had not stolen them away, or they themselves leapt out of the pasture. And it is a great Question. Whether we may not claim them as part of our flock still. Absalon could not shake off the relation of David's son, though he did shake off natural affection to David, and by rebellion endeavoured to dethrone him. A Landlord may demand, and exact rend of his Tenant, though the doth treacherously attourn to another, a meerstranger compritively.   

SECT. 9  
H. H. same p. Lastly you say, we must not muzzle the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the corn. Answ. True. But what is that to the other beasts, that tread out no corn, but rather destroy it, and will not suffer it to grow till the Harvest, but will palls up wheat and tares together, contrary to Matth. 13.28, 29, 30.  
Reply 1. If by beasts you mean the Ministers of the Gospel, you include yourself, by saying, OTHER BEASTS; and who they are, that tread out no ●orn, I cannot imagine, we have now no dumb Sir John's nor bare Readers, but such as are apt to teach, 
b) 1 Tim. 3.2. with  and 
c) ch. 5.17.  labour in the word and doctrine.  
2. Though Christ doth not tell us in the explication of the parable, 
d) I●ta ad parabolae sinifieatione●n, no pe●tnebant. M●ulta eni●n in parabolas. non ad significa●dam, sed ad in len dam, narra●i●nem adh●bentur. Maldon. in loc.  who the men were that sle●t, and who the servants were, that would have plucked up the tares (as not pertinent to the signification of the parable) yet he tells us who the tares are, etc. ver. 38.— The children of the wicked one, yet ver. 29, 30. do not forbid either excommunication of heretics (for you say, you cast such our, p. 109) or execution of malefactors (as murderers, thieus &c.) by the civil power, (as you insinuate) but rather foretell that such shall be in the Church till the end of time, as our Saviour expounds it, vers. 39, 40. The Ark 
e) Aug Ep. 146.  contains the Raven as well as the Dove, till the deluge pass away. Neither doth the householder absolutely forbid the pulling up of the tares, but least the wheat be rooted up with them, but wh●n there is no such danger, it's clearly imply●d, the tares may be pulled up, but if they cannot be be●d stinguished, or safely separated from the wheat, both are to grow till the harvest. But I profess I cannot see to what purpose you bring in this place, unless you and your pa●ty be the beasts that tread down the Tyth-corn, unless you be of that mind, to let it continue, till the day of judgement.  
3. Let the Reader observe, that H. H. cannot deny Gospell-maintenance to Gospel Minister's, the Apostles Arguments are so clear, 
f) Cornel. à Lipid, in 1 Cor 9  1. From the example of other Apostles ver. 5.2 From the similitudes of soldiers. shepherds, and husbandmen, v. 7.3. From the Law of Moses v. 8.4. From the example of Priests, and Levites in the Old Testament. v. 13.5. From the Ordinance of God and Christ v. 14.6. From the nature of the thing itself. v. 11— As a labourer is worthy of his wages, yet he concludes this Section with railing (which he cannot do with reasoning) which shall have no other reply, THAN WHAT IS MADE, except it be, The Lord Rebuke thee.    

CHAP. XX. Of the Magistrate's Power.  

SECT. I.  
H. H. p. 124. The fourth Reason of our separation is the Magistrates sword, by which you have been upholden these many years, etc.  
Reply 1. In your 52. p. (falsely printed 24.) you truly cite divers Scriptures to prove, we ought to be subject to Magistrates. 1 Pet. 13, 14, 15 Tit. 3.1. & 1 Tim. 2.1, 2. Rom. 13. Now whether you do not contradict yourself in denying here their power— and drawing us from it, I leave it to any rational man to judge.  
2. Whether you do not, or would not wind in another piece of Popery, concerning the exemption of the Clergy (as it's called) from the secular power, let the wise consider. But.  
3. The Ministers of Christ have as clear an interest in the magistratical power of this Nation, for the preservation of their persons, and prevention of their wrongs, and provision for their rights, as any of the good people of the Commonwealth of England, For, 1. It's our birth-priviledge, 
g) Act. 22.28.  we have not bought it, but were born to it, and therefore if unjust persons do injustice to us, we are free to complain, and to make use of the M●gitrates power for justice against them, for he beareth 
h) Rom. 13. ●.  no the sword in vain. But you would have the Ministers of the Gospel mo●e miserable, than the meanest Englishman in this land, who by birth-priviledge may implead any that detain their Rights from them. 2. As it is our birth privilege as men, so it is our prerogative as we are Christians, nay as we are the Ministers of Christ. The Law and Authority of the Magistrate reacheth to us, and to our right, as well as to any other. For this end (among others) are they set up, and ordained of God, that we as well as others (as occasion serves) may seek to them for justice. It hath been said by an ancient Father, 
i) Decimae ex debito requiruntu●, etc. Agustin.—  Tithe is required as due debt. And they that will not give the tithe to whom it is due, invade upon the right of others, which is not theirs, 3ly. As Ministers faithfully and freely submit to all their lawful commands, so are they tied by the law of God and this nation to protect us in all lawful and just complaints, and therefore they are called Gods, 
k Psal. 82.6, with Joh. 10.34.  now God regardeth not persons. Deut. 10.17. but without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work— 1 Pet. 1.17.4. The Low-Dutch confession ●uns thus: We believe, that Magistrates are not only to believe the civil state, but also the Ministers of the Word, that THEY be maintained etc. Indeed when there was no Christian Magistrate to relieve his wronged Ministers; God then, as Lord chief Justice, did punish the sin of Sacriledgeas, on Ananias and Saphira etc.   

SECT. 2.  
H. H. Ibid. Unto the Magistrate's sword you have applied yourselves, when poor souls out of conscience have denied you to eat of the milk of that flock, which you never fed, and to taste the fruit of that vine-yard, which you never planted, etc.  
Reply 1. This hath been answered before in Chapter foregoing, s. 8. concerning the flock, and milk, Vineyard and fruit.  
2. If fruit and milk be denied by your poor souls, I fear it is not out of conscience but covetousness. That may swim in the top, but this lies at the bottom, and yet too v●sibly discovers itself. Though I grant they may deny— out of conscience too, but erroneous.  
3. Our Application to the Magistrate is no sin, I trow, when people out of malice or avarice, not out of want or weakness, refuse to pay us our deuce, for what law have we broken thereby? since sin is a transgression of the Law. Indeed the Apostle saith, It is a fault, 
m 1 Cor. 3.7. Camero. ●nd Dr. Hammond 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but the word there signifies, a defect or failing, or low pitch of a Christian but not such as can be absolutely and universally counted a sin, as not being against any precept. All you can have from that Scripture is (to use your own words. p. 125.) is, that it is a diminution, a less degree of Christian perfection. But if it were a sin, than it lies in this, in that one Christian did implead his Fellow-christian, before Heathen Tribunals, or as the Apostle saith v. 6. before unbelievers or infidels, not using that method prescribed by Christ to Christians, Mat. 18.15. etc. If our Magistrates were Heathens we would swallow our complaints (though perhaps you (count all heathens, that are not baptised after your new mode) and (according to the Apostle) suffer wrongs, and be defrauded, but ours (blessed be God) are not such.   

SECT. 3.  
H. H. You plead you have right to it (Tithes I suppose you mean) from Scripture, and that you can prove the right from Scripture— Thus have you made the Kings, and Rulers of the Nations drunk with the wine of the wrath of the fornication, etc. Revel. 17.13.14.  
Reply 1. Hath M. Haggar no right to his house or horse etc. unless he can produce an express place of Scripture? where he hath fair evidences for the one, and tolled in the Fair for the other?  
2. You have been told that we have as good a right in the tenth part, as the people have in their nine parts, and if our people have liberty to seek redress, in case any shall wrong them in the nine parts, or any part thereof, then have we the same— in case of the tenth.  
2. I discern your cunning craftiness, whereby you lie in wait to deceive; what Scriptures we have brought justly against Antichrist, you bring unjustly against us, that your holy Father of Rome, may not be so called. This is your design. Gallant service. Sure his Holiness will reward you with an hallowed sword, or a Phoenix-feather, as he hath done some other of his Champions. As you cry against our carnal weapons. p. 132. When your predecessors at. Munster used those carnal weapons, 
n) Sleid. come. ●●●o A. D. 153●.  you falsely father on us.  
What is set down in H. H. two last leavs, is but an idle repetition of the samethings, or else Quakers, and Billingsgate language; and therefore I will not trouble myself, or the Reader with any farther reply. Only let him take notice, tha● if all his four Reasons were granted, they are no grounds for Separation from us. For the strength (if there be any) of his Argument may be thus discerned: That Church which is built on humane learning, Infant-baptism, Tithes, and the Magistrates sword, may be lawfully separated from, but such is the Church of England, etc. Therefore— I say the Major and Minor are both false, and H. H. can never make them true, while the world standeth. I will give his Argument again: (if he will be beholding to me) whosoever doth causelessly, and unjustly separate from a Church, is a Schismatic. But Mr. Hag. etc. do causelessly, and unjustly Separate— Therefore— The Major is true by the unanimous consent of ancient, modern Divines (to say nothing of Scripture) who describe Schism by an unjust separation, etc. The Minor is proved, because there is no Scripture to warrant a separation on all or any of those  grounds, which H. H. calls four Pillars, etc.— But enough of this, which hath learnedly, largely, and Religiously been spoken to by others and left to the Candid Reader to consult and consider, with Prayers to the Throne of grace, that it may find favour in the hearts of God's people, and be crowned with his blessing.    
FINIS.  
Solides, Honos, & Gloria,   

Books Printed for Tho. Pa●khurst at the three Crowns, etc.  
A Learned Commentary, or Exposition upon th● I Chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians, by D. ●●ch. Sibbs, published for the public good by Tho. Manton, Fol.  
The dead Saint speaking, to Saints and Sinners living, in several Treatises; viz. The fullness, and greatest evil that is in sin, on 2 Sam. 24.10. The love of Christ to his spouse, on Cant. 4.9. Nature and Royalties of Faith, on Joh. 1.15. The slowness of heart to believe, on John 1.50, The cause figns, and cure of hypocrisy, with motives and helps to sincerity, on Isa 58 2. The wonderful workings of God for his Church ●nd his people, on Exod. 15.11. Never before published: by Samuel Bolton, D. D. late Mr. of Christ College in Cambr. Folio  
Four profitable Creatises very useful for Christian practice, viz. The Killing power of the Law: The Spiritual Watch; The New Birth: Of the Sabbath. By the Reverend William Fenner, late Minister of Rochfort in Essex.  
Mr. John Cotton, his practical Exposition on the First Epistle of John, the second Edition corrected, and enlarged.  
A theater of flying Infects, wherein especially the manner of right ordering the Bee is excellently described, with discourses Historical and Physical concerning them, with a Second part of meditations and observations Theological and Moral in 3 Centuries upon the same subject, by Samuel Purchas M. A. in 40.  
Catechising God's Ordinance, in sundry Sermons by Mr. Zachary Crofton. Minister at Buttolph's Aldgate London, the second Edition corrected and augmented.  
The godly man's Ark. in the day of his distress, discovered in Divers Sermons, the first of which was preached at the Funeral of Mrs. Elisabeth Moor. Whereunto is annexed Mrs. Elisabeth Moor's Evidences for Heaven, composed and collected by her in the time of her health, for her comfort in the time of sickness. By Ed. Calamy, B. D. Pastor of the the Church at Aldermanburic.  
People's Need of a living Pastor, at the funeral of Mr. John Frost, M. A. by Mr. Zach. Crofton.  
The Gale of opportunity and the Beloved Disciple by Thomas Froysell. in 80,  
The Wedding Ring sit for the Finger: in a Sermon at a Wedding in Edmonton, by William Se●ker.  
Enchiridion Judicum, or Jehosaphats Charge to his Judges.  
Together with Catastrophe Magnatum, or King David's Lamentation, at Prince Abners Incineration. By John Livesey Minister of the Gospel at Atherton.  
The Journal or Diary of a thankful Christian: a Day-book of National and public, personal and private passages of God's providence, to help Christians to thankfulness, and experience. By John Beudle, Minister of the Gospel at Barnstone in Essex, large 8.  
Mr. robinson's Christian Armour in large 8.  
Book of Emblems, with Latin and English verses made upon (Lights) by Robert Farly, small 8.  
A most Excellent Treatise concerning the way to seek Heaven's Glory, to fly Earth's vanity, to fear Hell's horror, with godly prayers, and the Bell-mans' summons, 12.  
Jonson's Essays expressed in sundry Exquisite Fancies.  
Zion in the house of mourning, because of Sin & Suffering, being an Exposition on the fifth Chapter of the Lamentations, by D. S. Pastor of Vpingham, in the County of Rutland.  
Groans of the Spirit, or a Trial of the truth of Prayer.  
A Handkerchief for Parent's Wet-eyes, upon the death of their Children or Friends.  
The one thing necessary; by M. Thomas Watson, Minister of Stephens Walbrook 8.  
A Plea for Alms; delivered in a sermon at the ' Spital, before a solemn Assembly of the City, on Tuesday in Easter week, April 13, 1658. by M. Thomas Watson Minister of Stephens Walbrook, 8.  
Moses unvailed, or those figures which served unto the pattern and shadow of heavenly things, pointing out the Messiah Christ Jesus, briefly explained; whereunto is added the Harmony of the Prophets, breathing with one mouth, the mystery of his coming, and of that redemption which by his death he was to accomplish. To confirm the Christian, and convince the Jew, very profitable and full of comfort. By William Guild, Minister of God's Word at King-Edward in Scotland.  
ΤΑ ΔΙΑΦΕΡΟΝΤΑ; or Divine characters in two parts, acutely distinguishing the more secret and undiscerned differences between 1. The hypocrite in his best dress of seeming virtue, and farmal duties: And the true Christian in his real graces, and sincere obedience. As also between the blackest weeds of daily infirmities of the truly godly, eclipsing saving grace; and the reigning sins of the unregenerate, that pretend unto that godliness they never had. By that late burning and shining Lamp, M. Samuel Crook, B. D. late Pastor of Wrington in Somerset. Folio.  
There are going to the Press some new pieces of Mr. William Fenners, late of Rochfort in Essex, never yet Printed, preserved by a special Providence, one of which is a Second part of his wilful impenitency; being five Sermons more that he preached upon the 18. of Ezekiel, and the 32. ver.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Saints Worthiness and the world's worthlesness, both opened and declarad in a Sermon preached at the funeral of that Eminently Religious and highly honoured Knight Sir Nathanael Barnardiston, August. 26. 1653. By Samuel Faireclough, Pastor of the Congregation at Ketton 40.  
The Agreement and resolution of several Associated Ministers in the County of Cork, for the Ornaining of Ministers.  
The Sacred Ordinance of Ordination: by Imposition of the hands of the Presbytery. As it was lately held forth in a Sermon preached at the solemn Ordination of Ministers in the City of Norwich, June 11, Anno 1656. By John Brinsley, Minister of the Gospel at great Yarmouth. 80.  
The Life and Death of M. Ignatius Jurdain, one of the Aldermen of the City of Exeter; who departed this life, July 15, 1640. The second Edition published & enlarged, by Ferdinan. nicols Minister of the Gospel at Mary Arces, Exon.  
The dangerous rule: or a Sermon preached at Clonmel in the Province of Munster in Ireland, upon Aug. 3. 1657. before the Reverend Judges for that Circuit. By S. L. Master in Arts, and lately fellow of C. C. C. in Oxon.  
The woman's glory: a Treatise, first asserting the due honour of that Sex. By manifesting that Women are capable of the highest improvements: The second Edition enlarged, By Samuel torshel.  
Holy things for holy men: or the Lawyer's Plea nonsuited, etc. In some Christian reproof and pity expressed towards M. Prynn's book, Entitled The Lord's Supper briefly Vindicated, by S. S. Minister of the Gospel.  
Divine Principles, or a Scripture Catechism, etc.  
Good Company; being a collection of various, serious, pious Meditations; useful for instruction, consolation, & confirmation. By J. Melvin, Minister of the Gospel at Vdimer in Sussex.  
A Religious Treatise upon Simeon's song; or instructions how to live holily, and die happily: by T. Woodroffe, B. D. Pastor at Kingsland in Hereforshire.  
An Antidote against H. Hagger's poisonous Pamphlet, Entitled, The Foundation of the Font discovered▪ or a reply, wherein his audaciousness and sophistry in arguing against infant baptism, Discipleship, Church-membership is detected, his cavils against M. C. M. B. and M. Hall are answered, etc. By A. Houghton, Minister of the Gospel at Prees in Salop. 4.  
Five Sermons, in 5 several ways of preaching; the 1. in B A. way, the 2. in B. H. way, the 3. in Dr. M. & M. C. way, the 4. in the Presbyterian way, & the 5. in the Independent way of preaching: by A. W. Minister of the Gospel.  
The Reformation, in which is reconciliation with God & his people: or a Catechism unveiling the Apostles Creed, with Annotations; in which Faith, Ordinances, and Government are professed as in the Primitive times, in oppositon to all Errors and Heresies. by W. K. Minister ●f the Gospel.  
FINIS.