Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	accept_v	common_a	great_a	20	3	2.0729	3	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

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 your self 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 envie mentioned by the Apostle 4. For charging Mr. Cook with perverse Disputing c. 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 confider 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 c. 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 c. so was James t) Jam. 2.8 9 10 11.14 Now you cannot vilifie us for teaching the Law absolutely but you must vilifie these and if we be desirous to be teachers of the Law we have a good copie 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 acknowledgment 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 onely 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 Idolatrie Covetousness Profaneness c. 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 Neighbor worship God rightly sanctifie his Sabbath c. 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 Commandement is part of the Moral Law And pag. 52. you urge the fear of God and the keeping his Commandements 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 witnesse 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 mis-understood 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 ag●●eable to the doctrine of the Gospel as appears clearly by many Scriptures v) Matis 17 18 19 20 c. 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 Commandements 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 Commandements and wole 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 your self doth who run to Moses to prove a Sabbath pag. 13. fore-named SECT 8. H. H. pag. 31. And thus Mr. Cook I shall at present take leave of you c. Reply Indeed you do for the present take leave of Mr. Cook

much against Circumcision in Abrahams time and after as it is now against the baptizing of Infants i. e. nothing at all Thus whatsoever is not of faith is sin and without faith it 's impossible to please God but the Infants among the Jews had no faith though faith is the condition of the Covenant of Grace ever since it was set on foot For alas they are your own words b they can professe no Faith c. Therefore the Circumcision of Infants among the Jews was sin If this Conclusion be absurd and blasphemous confesse the other not a jot the better For to use your own words again doth not the word Whatsoever include all matters c Then Circumcision sure as much as Baptism SECT 11. H. H. This your president of the Thief on the Cross will not at all help you except in the like condition Then I confess a multitude of such penitent ones might be reckoned to be in a saving condition though not baptized But neither you nor I are in that streight as yet Therefore it will be no plea for us but if either of us be unbaptized we have time and liberty enough to consider and turn Psal 119.59 60. Reply 1. Here you again yield the cause viz. Baptism doth not constitute a Church-member c. for out of the Church there is no salvation r) 1 Pet. 3.20 with Eph. ● 23 26. Otherwise to use your own expression pag. 29. Secret things belong to God I hope now you will not flinch 2. Your supposal that neither you nor Mr. Cook are in the streight the poor Thief was in is nothing to the purpose Though you intimate that Mr. Cook and his brethren may be and I believe it if you had your will as those Joh. 16.2 for you that unchurch us would make no bones to kill us 3. You say If either of us be unbaptized A needless If. For you granted p. 24. That we were once baptized and you make no question but you have been baptized twice for failing at least you do not think your self unbaptized 4. It 's a miserable begging of the question that baptizing after your mode is the testimony and commandment of the Lord unlesse as hath been said in the like case 5. There is not one word of Baptism in Psal 119. ver 59 60. How pitifully do you pervert and misapply this Scripture also And I may say They who have made haste to be Re-baptized have made more haste then good speed SECT 12. H. H. pag. 26. You tell us that the Church of England was constituted in or anon after the Apostles daies and by the Ministry of the Word were converted from Heathenism to Christianity and then persons of years were baptized upon profession of Faith and Repentance I Answer What then what is your Church now the better for that which was done 1600 years ago if you walk not in the same footsteps which they did then I can prove as well the Church of Rome d) Rom. 1.7 was then a constituted Church according to the order of the Gospel But doth that make the Pope and his Crew now to be a true Church If they be why do you separate from them but they are not neither are you c. Reply 1. I accept of your grant That the Church of England was constituted in or near the Apostles dates and acknowledge we are not now the better for it if we had razed the Foundation relapsed to Heathenism and had been called e) Hos 1.6 7. Loruhamah and Lo ammi But seeing God since the plantation of the Gospel in this Nation hath raised up som faithful witnesses reserved some sincere Professors of his truth and still the Fundamentals of Christian Religion have been owned and Antichrists yoke cast off It cannot without great injury but be acknowledged that the first constitution of the Church in this Land is much to us who desire and indeavour to be built and to build on that Foundation Eph. 2.20 The Church of the Jewes was the better for God's constituting their Church in Abrahams family if we may believe their f) 2 Chron. 20 7. Neh. 9. vers 7 8. plea and though they did degenerate yet the Foundation was never razed nor the first constitution abolished 2. On the former account we are better without question for outward priviledges and possibility of salvation as the Jews were Rom. 3.1.2 with Chap. 9 4.5 or as the poor cripple g) John 5.5 that did lye at the Pool 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 wee do not first repent and then bee Baptized You might as wel charge the Jews who circumcised their children on the eighth day for not walking in Abraham's steps and therefore not a jot the better that their Church was first constituted in him for he was circumcised at h) Gen. 17.26 99 years old Nay it seems you charge us for not taking care that all the children in this Nation may live in ignorance and Idolatry that so being by the Gospel converted they may be baptized after their example For they cannot be converted from Heathenism as they were and so be baptized after their example exactly unlesse they live in Heathenisme as they did If this be your meaning and charge I pray Lord lay not this sin to your charge 4. That Scripture doth not prove what you assert unlesse by a far-fetcht and strained consequence And as the word Constituted is not there so neither those words ACCORDING to the ORDER of the GOSPEL there or elsewhere in any one place of Scripture You are wise above what is written though I deny not but the Church of Rome was once a rightly constituted Church 5. Seeing you declare your self so great a friend to the Church of Rome as equalling us with them and also pronounce us no Church and so excommunicate us with your brute Thunderbolt as if you were another Pope and dis-regard the counsell and admonition of the Church so censured and nullified by you I leave you to the judgement of him who is Lord and King Husband and Patron of his Church wishing you if you bee not past hope of profiting by Scripture to weigh what is written Jude 8. to the 17 verse SECT 13. H. H. You say that they and their children were then admitted into the Covenant and Church as Abraham and his family were by circumcision I answer that it still remains for you to prove that they and their children were admitted into Church-fellowship I deny it prove it if you can or else you have done nothing c. Reply 1. As you say of the Sacrament pag. 14. So wee do not read in your sense of the word Church-fellowship in all the holy Scriptures Therefore how should we prove that children were admitted into Church-fellowship But 2 That all the Faithfull are the children or

You falsly quote M. Baxter who saith it is AT THAT TIME a sin not at any time sinfull There is a vaste 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 sinfull unless some restriction bee allowed to come to the Congregation may occasionally be inconsistent with my health and preservation yet it is not sinfull at any time And it is as true that when it is inconsistent with a greater it is at that time a sinn For it 's a known Rule i) Semper ad-semper that Negative precepts bind alwaies k) Josh 5.5 6 7. and at all times so do not Affirmative as is cleare in the case of Circumcision Josh 5.5 6 7. 2. You fraudulently curtall M. Baxter in leaving out these words viz. Especially the manner and quantity of Water in Baptism c. You shew your selfe 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 onely say thus much to your impertinent Scriptures John 14.15 c. 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 commandements and yet love our selves too we may and must love Christ with a Superlative love and our selves also with a subordinate love 5. You might have spared this handfull of dirt which you have flung at M. Baxter till you had proved Dipping to be the Ordinance of Christ by one expresse 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 som 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 becaus M.B. will not go with you into the water therefore not into the fire no more then this Because you have gon 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 c. 6. You follow your old trade in abusing Scripture e. g. Mat. 3.15 Those words do not hold forth the externall Formality of the Administration but the person that did Administer and the old ordinance of Baptism with the person to whom it was administred for Christ comes to bee baptized 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 becommeth us to fulfill c. In what Not in Dipping of him there 's no express mention made thereof but in baptizing him SECT 26. H. H. p. 101. Lastly I desire the Reader to consider how like M. Baxters counsell to us is to Peters counsell Mat. 16.21 22. so doth M. Baxter say to us and specially to Gentlewomen old and weak people c. This shall not be to you for in the course of nature it will kill hundreds c. 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 wonted haunt to claw the people and calumniate your adversary There is no likenesse between Peters and M. Baxters Counsell 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 baptized must be dipped Therefore when Mr. B. disswades any from doing and suffering for Christ according as it is written in your sense I shall say His Counsell is like Peters In the mean time as you do in the close of this Section I leave what I have written to the judgment 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 Commandement Therefore an intollerable wickedness and not Gods Ordinance Answ 1. I am sure it is intollerable wickedness in M. Baxter and a breach of the ninth Commandement to say wee baptize people naked athing which he never saw as hee confesseth when he saith he hears so Reply 1. Here is more foul play and the truth held in unrighteousnesse 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 Commandement then 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 Devill c. p. 93. You should not have thrown this stone unlesse you had been without fault 3. Why is it a breach of the ninth commandement 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 bee believed but what wee see with our eyes we must believe nothing For that Assent the understanding yields to a thing seen is knowledg 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. c. 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 baptizing 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 diverse 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 lyes and he is willing to believe them although for my part I have baptized