Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	word_n	world_n	worthy_a	126	4	6.1925	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86599	An antidote against Hen. Haggar's poysonous 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 &c. is detected, his contradictions demonstrated; his cavils agains M. Cook, M. Baxter, and M. Hall answered, his raylings rebuked, and his folly manifested. By Aylmar Houghton minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and teacher to the congregation of Prees, in the county of Salop.	Houghton, Aylmer.	1658 (1658)	Wing H2917; Thomason E961_1; ESTC R207689	240,876	351

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 c. 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 priviledges of the Family and School and bee 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 Christs 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. c. 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 our selves 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. Baxters plain Scripture proof I admire that a man professing so much seriousness c. p. 2. should resolve to make the Apostles words true of himself 2 Tim. 4.3 4. c. 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 thy self 2. You need not admire to bee 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 wickednesse folly blasphemy c. with which your book is stuff'd 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 wee are with the soonest 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 grosse mis-application of Scripture have wee 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 voyd 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 mens Disciples so those babes in Christ 1 Joh. 5.12 the first day they go to Christ's School to learn the Principles c. 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 passe it over as a cunning devised Fable c. Reply 1. If M. B. affirm such to be Christ's Scholars how can you for shame say he would have them sent to Christs 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 c. are Christians 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 c. And me thinks you should not make an Infant less teachable then some bruits But nurses will tell you more in this then 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 c. 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 your self and silly Proselytes 2. Your arguing is so ●idic●lous that I may justly cry out Oh excellent Divinity and plain Scripture-proof promised in your title page For Nurses can tell better then 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 doggs are Therefore Banks an Huntsman are better Divines then M. Haggar Or if those please you not a Black-Smith or a Butcher can tell you how teachable their Apprentices are Therefore a Black-Smith or a Butcher are better Divines then M. Haggar Again M. Baxter saith ye should not me thinks make a child less teachable then 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 then some bruit beasts then some bruits

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 back-blow which you cannot claw off SECT 3. H. H. p. 88. Nay to give him his Argument again Infant Baptism is utterly inconsistent with the obedience to Christ's rule First because there is neither precept nor practise for it as he grants Secondly because by their Rantizing or sprinkling of babes they make the command of Christ of none effect Mat. 7.7 8 9. and Mat. 15.8 9. Thus they bind two sins together and in the one they shall not go unpunished Reply 1. If giving be granting you do well to give it him 2. The first reason of your retortion is but the Cuckoes song M. Baxter hath been so far from granting it that he hath abundantly shewed you both precept and example but you are so wilfully blind that you cannot see wood for trees 3. Your Third is both a meer Calumniation and a miserable begging the Question Infant-Baptism is neither a Tradition in your sense nor a making of Christ's Command of none effect in our sense as hath been shewed But I may not nauseate the Reader with vain repetitions as you do 4. If we shall go unpunished in the one I believe in the other too SECT 4. H. H. Whereas M. Baxter would make us offendors for nothing i. e. for not baptizing children in their Non-age I Answer First he can never make it a sin till he shew us what Command we have broken c. Secondly There is both precept and practice for baptizing men and women when they believe Mar. 16.16 Act. 8.12 and 10.48 Reply 1. Then it seems a swarving from an example in Scripture is no sin What if women should never Break Bread or receiv the Lords Supper is it not a sin since there is no expresse command for it and no example but by consequence Your Scriptures shall be spoke to anon if not heretofore 2. It hath been proved that you utterly mistake those Commands and examples for baptizing men and women at years of discretion unless you will make the parties parallel i. e. meer Heathens newly converted c. But I must not fall into the same crime with you of idle and senselesse Repetitions onl● let the Reader observ That I have orderly digested this page of yours which you had confusedly set down for the building of your Tower of Babel SECT 5. H. H. p. 89. His Third Argument is because the practise of baptizing children of Christians at age goes upon meer uncertainties hath no Scripture rule to guide it Therefore it 's not according to the will of Christ Answer Though this is the same in substance with the two former yet First our practise is guided by Scripture rule from the Command of Christ and examples of the Apostles Mark 16.16 Acts 2.41 and 8.12 37. Na● say 〈◊〉 your practise of Baptizing little babes goes upon meer uncertainties having no Scripture-rule to guide it c. Reply 1. I had thought to have said nothing to your charge on M. Baxter's chopping one Argument into so many pieces to multiply words Therefore I did not transcribe them yet I shall say this It seems you had surfeited of the other two Arguments And now your stomack turnes at the naming of this If you had no mind to multiply words you might have spared this Cavilling Preface Crums of truth are too precious to be lost and therefore since you will not understand the Loaves which have satisfied some Thousands Mr. B. did well to put his fragments into the basket d) part i. c. ● p. 150. by sending the Reader back to what went before 2. Though the Texts alledged by you have been Replyed to yet here your answer is both wide and weak If you mean of a Church to be constituted that 's nothing to the purpose Mr. Baxter's assertion is still true though that be granted and so your answer is wide If of a Church constituted and if you understand christians children at age then your instances out of those Scriptures prove no such thing because they were not the children of Christian parents and so your answer is weak 3. As your answer is impertinent so your return of M. Baxter's Argument is insufficient To deal roundly I deny your Minor viz. There is Scripture rule for Baptizing babes notwithstanding your impudent denying it as may be easily discerned by any who seriously and impartially peruse Mr. Baxter's Book or this Reply neither do you bring any Scriptures to prove your Minor but only this I SAY What arrogancy is this in you to obtrude an opinion on the world upon your bare word Could you perswade me that Pythagoras was a Dipper and that his soul had transmigrated into your body I would allow the Haggarens as well as the Pythagoreans an IPSE DIXIT he hath said it and that 's enough Do you think to carry your cause against the evidence of Scripture practice of Antiquity consent of Fathers continued custom of the Churches strength of reason upon such a pitifull proof as this is I SAY How long is it since your confidence hath amounted to an Infallibility I therefore must make bold your premisses being thus routed to alter your conclusion Infant Baptisme is according to the mind of Christ notwithstanding Mr. Haggars I SAY 4. Because I would not have Mr. B. to be in your debt for the return of his Argument I return you an Argument from one of your Scriptures e) Mar. 16.16 cited and from your own principles For although you are not so rigid to damne Infants and exclude them from Heaven yet you excommunicate them out of the Church cast them out of the Covenant c. Here I argue They who may be saved without actuall Faith may be Baptized without actuall faith But Infants specially of believing parents may be saved without actuall faith therefore they may be Baptized without actuall faith The Minor you grant The Major I prove thus If faith be as necessary to salvation as it is to Baptisme then they that may be saved without faith may be Baptised without Faith But the former is true Therefore the latter The consequence of the Major is evident from the words of the text f) Mark 16.16 where the same stresse is laid upon faith to salvation as to Baptisme And the Minor cannot be denied unlesse you will have admission to Baptism on Earth more difficult then to blessedness in Heaven and make it an harder matter to be Baptized then to be Saved I leave you to unty not to cut this knot SECT 6. H. H p. 89. 90. His sourth Argument is Because the practice of Baptizing Christians Children at age necessarily fills the Church with perpetuall contentions as being about a matter that cannot be determined by any known rule Answer But the Baptizing of men and women when they believe is a matter that can be and is

persons you name in the next p. remained Anabaptists though they retained their errors in judgment 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 perswade the world that it is our principle and judgment 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 c. are apostatized 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 cryed down him and his ways For one of his Disciples was a Traytor 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 c. 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 filthinesse As in nature the form gives the esse to the creature so in humanity the principles give a morall 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 c. Principles are guilty every one of them of some of these wickednesses But the Anabaptists are of such principles y) Dr. Featly his Dippers dipt p. 28 29 30. Therefore 2. Here is a poor shift of yours M. Baxter names more then 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 sensless 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 hee doth not name them are there no Cut-purses in London because hee cannot particularize them or perhaps not one of them A man may write knowingly of the nature of a Spaniell though he cannot tell how he is called An Anabaptist is idle seditious c. though I do not particularize 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 wee would have cryed 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 c. we know tares may be among the wheat and grace mingled with corruption you would fain be creeping into sheeps cloathing but your paws still discover you I say your case is not Christ's nor his Disciples nor the Church of Corinths 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 blindnesse 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 shews they were of your Church the latter is a notorious untruth But M. Haggar comes from Vindicating his own pretended Innocency to sing the Cuckow 's song 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 then 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 ly Plain Scripture proof for c. 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 lyest But do not you lye when you say hee hath not brought one Scripture to prove Infants-Church-membership and Baptism I think I should bee justly accused of Lying If I should say M. Haggar hath not brought one Scripture to prove womans receiving the Lord's Supper Family-prayer giving thanks at meals c. 2. If here bee not a tacite confession that Anabaptists are Lyars I professe I cannot spell nor understand English only forsooth M. B. and M. Hall must be deeper in the bog then they 3. You do not make the least offer of proof that M. Hall is a Lyar and that charge against Mr. Baxter might have been spared if you had listned to that voyce Physician heal thy self Matth. 9. Do not you intitle 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 baptizing of men and women and prove to bee a standing Ordinance of Christ c. 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 Traitour and for Perjury it 's easie to prove most of the Priests of England perjured in renouncing the Bishops in their orders which once they took an Oath to bee 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 c. Reply 1. When you were on the Kings party I believ you would not have call'd M. Love a traitor I am sure those London Ministers who set forth som of L. books since his death have a better opinion of him then you have here If you were not partiall 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 Bishops calling and their Orders to be lawfull according to the Word wee will

love not bitterly to retort 3. The rest who are Orthodox say no more then what you say that that your Adversaries generally confesse 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 then there is for womens receiving the Lords Supper Family prayer c. before spoken to 4. You have dealt with some of their writings as Sathan 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 baptized by the hand of the Apostles answers c) Calv. Inst. l 4. c. 16. sect 8. That though the Evangelists do not expresly mention it yet infants are not excluded where mention is made of baptizing whole Families Acts 16.15.32 33. Ergo. Who but a mad man would conclude that they were not baptized 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 bee baptized Eo itaque privari nequeant quin Dei Authoris voluntati fraus manifesta fiat i. e. They therefore cannot bee deprived of it but MANIFEST FRAVD or affront is made to the will of God the Authour Now M. Haggar do you and your party make a wise use of this Testimony you cannot but know that Calvin in the chap. fore-cited 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 least any should think there is some force in thi● particle as they do who are perswaded children are not rightly baptized except they be altogether dipt in the w●ter Where the Reader may observe that though John did baptize such as did confesse their sins c. 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 ads 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 baptized the word is not severed from the sign in the Church of God The Reader by this taste may guesse how M. Haggar hath dealt with the rest whom for brevity sake I passe 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. unlesse 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 childrens baptism from whence the Reader may take notice of the unsoundnesse of your principles and what little ground 1. There is for it in the word of God as they thems●lvs confesse 2. Therefore what great cause have we to search the Scriptures for better information let the sober minded judg 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 c. 3. The Judicious Reader cannot infer from thence the unsoundnesse 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 Councills Popes and Emperours Reply 1. Calvin in the place alleaged 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 practiced till very many years after Christs Resurrection in that i) Foedissimè● mentiuntur they lye most filthily for there is not one antient writer that doth not for CERTAIN refer the originall 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 empanell 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 weaknesse to doubt and that it seems hee 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 c. Our own Poets as p. 20 If this be not Poetical licentiousness I know not what is Nay from that Pope c. to conclude it is a Tradition of the Fathers 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 unhappinesse 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 c. 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 bee Cyrills as some were of opinion and dares not affirm them to be Origens but leavs it with a Nescio cujus m who every where destroyes the letter and frames out of his head mysticall senses and so concludes wherefore those Homilies are of no great

Nations and in compassing the Camp of the Saints will not bee 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 easie 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. alledged 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 c. when Mr. C. according to the text Rev. 21.24 expresly mentions them that are saved 2. Paul doth not say expresly neither do you undertake to prove that this New Jerusalem in the Revelation is the Mother of all the Saints That 's your glosse 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 expresly 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 ones on earth which are hid in the visible Church as the Wheat in the chaffe 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 reall 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 then 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 c. 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 shew 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 curtell 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 then non-sense which I refer to the judgment 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 housholds which could not actually believe and some adult too who did not professedly much lesse sincerely believe the like must be granted concerning National Churches viz. Though every particular person therein doth not actually believe or professe Faith yet the major or better part may give the Denomination e. g. The Infancy of some the wickedness of others hindred 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 c. 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 c. 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 confesse 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 c. Reply 1. There is no cause of making this din of being pursued to purpose c. 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 grosse 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 confesse the terms of Art which are needfull 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 leggs SECT 2. H. H. Seeing we erred in saying we affirm a Negative we will either confess our errour or shew you a president which may justifie 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 c. 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 materiall 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 intollerable impudency is this instead or confessing your error and resolving to keep within your own element to go about to justifie your self of fathering your folly on the Scripture 2. In that proposition of the Apostle the negative particle is in the h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 originall 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

not so believe 3. You distinguish foolishly between Faith and Obedidience for Faith it self 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 obeieth 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 your self 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 c. That they dying in their Infancie are saved by Christ's death without actuall faith pag. 61. And have you not rightly proved praying in a man's family giving thanks at meals Women's receiving the Lord's Supper c. to be duties yet none of the foresaid particulars are expresly 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 then 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 c. or on Acts 8. instanced in by your self 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 your self for you take upon you all along to expound the Expositions of Christ and his Apostles Do not you make their sayings plainer then they have left them But I crie 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 c. 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 baptized when they believe I must bring a Scripture that saies so as Acts 8.12 37. And now if any man will prove that little babes should be baptized let them bring one Scripture to prove it and then they will do honestly otherwise c. 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 c. 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 baptize c. nor do we read that Christ gave a command to you two to preach the Gospel c. Answ This is but a cunning devised Fable a subtil 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 baptize Children that cannot speak nor understand what you preach c. Reply 1. Bravely done Mr. Haggar when you cannot shape an handsom answer to Mr. C. then according to your custome you crie A cunning devised fable subtil sophistry c. which charge how unjustly as well as absurdly after a long digression it comes in here I leave to the judgment of the intelligent must passe 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 tacite granting that H. Hag. and J. Brown are by consequence from Matth. 28.19 commanded to teach and baptize c. For you say We do not desire c. 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 unlesse a lapp 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. c. that 's nothing We have no more reason to be satisfied in your practice without express and immediate Scripture then 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 baptized in Infancy to renounce their Infant-baptism and to be dipped in such a pit or Pool c. before such a company whether naked or covered with such a form of English words