Selected quad for the lemma: woman_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
woman_n	church_n	keep_v	silence_n	2,518	5	9.9816	5	true

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

not shall be damned Mark 16.16 which yet you understand onely of persons of understanding c. 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 sheweth who are the branches expresly verse 5. Yee are the Branches 7. It is too narrow for you to expound words by commandements for promises and threatnings were to abide in the Disciples I trow as well as commandements verse 7. 8. The absurdity you talk of follows unavoidably upon your own premisses 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 c. except the Apostles c. And they that were scattered went every where c. Reply This Argument as propounded by you is almost as mishapen as the former therefore for brevity sake I past by diverse things there spoken onely 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 havock 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 Aposties stay at Jerusa lem amongst Wolvs if all their flock were fled must they officiate and preach to the walls Their staying then at Jerusalem would have been perillous to themselvs and useless to others if all the Church simply had been scattered having none to preach to or over-see 4ly Because that phrase a Preaching the Word is in the original no wher 's used but of such as were in office 5ly Because of the instance given verse 5. Then Philip c. not Philip the Apostle he was excepted verse 1 but he that was numbred among the Deacons Acts 6 5. and expresly 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 daies would have neither women nor men preach but themselvs yet women did prophecie 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 meerly calumniate us for we would have none preach in publick ordinarily and constantly but such who are ordained c by the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie e) 1 Tim. 4.14 with 5.22 Tit. 1.5 in a regular way 3. By Prophecying in 1 Cor. 11.4 5. is meant singing in and with the publick Assembly as in 1 Sam. 10.5 and they shall prophecie their instruments argue what kind of prophecie this was viz. praising God with spiritual songs but specially thrice in 1 Chron. 25.1 2 3. where prophecying 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 Prophecying in Acts 21.9 is meant the fore-telling of things to come e) Numb 22.28 30. with 2 Pet. 2.16 Jude 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 Prophecying if you had lookt further you might have found Let your women keep silence in the Churches for it is not permitted to them to speak c. 1 Cor. 14.34 Again if they preach why not baptize too He that is half-blind may see how cunningly you would bring in Popery But it may be you have been so wonted 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. Infants cannot understand nor speak c. Therefore no Church members

p. You say Alas there are far better grounds which they are not aware of Answ That is it may be because you baptize them so soon if you would let them alone till they are men and women before you baptize them as you have example in Scripture they might receive Baptisme on better grounds Reply 1. Your interpretation with a may be is but a meer 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 justifie your practice for those who are said to be baptized in Scripture were not baptized 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-bapt●sm 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 lye in wait to deceive simple souls by speaking things you ought not for filthy Lucres 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 noth●ng 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 confesse you see them 3. The close of your answer if it be a sufficient answer then its an easie matter to answer any Argument though never so strong by mis-applying Scripture and scornfu●l terms And I must needs tell you of your rash and harsh judgment contrary to Mat. 7.1 Judge not c. and to Rom. 14.10 c. 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 c. which wil 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 hoast 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 c. 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 shew 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 Apologie but I supp●se 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 then one 2. I doubt you speak against your conscience How dare you say you cannot find one text for Infant-baptism in all M. Baxters Book when you seem to be more Eagle-eyed then others in seeing and finding as you think the Font in Jer. 2.12 13. p. 8. 3. M. Baxters Apology is not made out of any such jealousie as you pretend as if he was afraid that all should be put by save one but out of a desire and endeavour to rectifie 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 customes of the holy Saints and Churches should be of great weight with humble Christians Answ I grant it if they bee now according to the primitive pattern I am sure the custom of the Churches in the Apostles days was to baptize men and women when they believed c. Acts 2.41 8.12.36 37. 10.47 16.33.34 18.8 Therefore let this custom be of weight to your self and do not baptize little babes that cannot believe c. 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 practise 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 administred and received as is plain out of Scripture s) see Diodat 1 Cor. 11.20.21 Jude 8.12 and it was their custome to salute one another with an holy kiss Do you not think it a piec of your Christian

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 themselvs 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 acknowledg and which is all sin radically virtually eminently no less need Christ the Covenant of Grace and Church-membership being the onely 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 c. But Infants are not children of the light nor know c. 1. The same Answer might here serve sith the Fallacie is the same But 2. If a man should argue that John baptized 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 baptized of him you would not well resent it for it would spoil your cause and yet the conclusion follows more clearly then 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 least of all doth the Apostle say or imply here or elswhere That all Church-members know perfectly c. 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 then there were no Infants for they are not capable of exhortation consolation c. 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 hee 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. me-thinks 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 then 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 c. for themselvs 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. Wee desire every one of you to shew the same diligence c. Little children cannot Therefore no 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 chiefly the Author speaks ver 12 13 c. 3. By this Arguing it might be proved that none of their Infants were Hebrews thus Every one of the Hebrews is desired to shew the same diligence to c. 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 c. 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 summe 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 copie it is thus It is finished without any other addition But no

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

according to the mind of Christ was and is onely by Ministeriall teaching Secondly That none but such so discipled were or are to be baptized But on the contrary are not examples obvious in Scripture As the thief on the Crosse who was a Disciple yet not Discipled by Ministeriall preaching the Gospel whom yet you acknowledge to be in a saving condition p. 25 26. and baptized 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 Gospell and was baptized too and I trow both according to the mind of Christ to say nothing of p) Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 6. c. 2. Origens and Austins q) Confess l. 8. 〈◊〉 12. Discipleship the one by his parents education the other by a Voice from Heaven 5. For your confession c. It had been more ingenuity to have confessed your own errours 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 then 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 presidents 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 Baptized in their None-age according to their practice doth turn the Baptisme of Christ which is to baptize men and women when they believe quite out of the Churches of the saints therefore c. This his Sword is turned with the edg against himself Reply 1. In generall you should have given no more then his own you have made so little use of the Argumen● 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 shew your selfe to be the Son of Hagar by your scoffing that Nick-name neither gaines you not loses us any thing Secondly we do not say all children but the children of believeing parents are to be baptized And those I trow are not All children s) Isa 28.15 Thus you make lies your refuge and under falsehood have you hid your self Thirdly you say that our Doctrine turns Christ's Baptism out of the Church because the baptizing of men and women when they believe is the baptisme of Christ This is b●t a pittifull begging of the Question and yet without Question both the Baptism of Infants of the other are consistent It 's well known that many Jewes Heathens converted to the Faith have been Baptized by us as well as the Infants of believeing Parents Thus indeed the edge of M. Baxter's Sword is so turned that for very bluntnesse it hath not so much as pierced the skin SECT 9. H. H. Same p. His Sixth Argument is against the mannes of Baptizing by Dipping as being a branch of the Sixth Commandement because it doth ordinarily tend to the overthrow of man's health and lives therefore no Ordinance of God but an hainous sinne c. Answer In order First Observe M. Baxter useth not one Scripture the ground of faith to prove it murder c. he hath used many vain words which prove nothing c. 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 bussle 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 mens writings with your corrupt breath M. Baxter doth not exhort the Magistrates p. 134. and 136. to destroy the Anabaptists as well as High-way 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 practises 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 morall 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 considently 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 Logick 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 commandement 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 tormenters were no murderers Though the tormented were indeed Martyrs Nay you your self allow the lighting of one candle by another v) Gospell 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 c. 5. The Reader may do well to observe your First without a Second only when you cannot answer then you fall to your old haunt to cavill c. SECT 10. H. H. p. 92. But he proceeds I dare not say that in Cities like London and

the dust you have raised and noise you have made can neither hide 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 Gospell to all and baptize 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 then 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 your self in singing the Cuckow 's song 2. All verily is not Gold that glisters your Gold you brag of proves but gilded brasse 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 sinfull estate to the obedience of the Faith Now if Infants before your Baptizing were seven times more easie 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 perswaded that Infants unbaptized are seven times easier to bee 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 c. 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 justifie you Sathan spake 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 Ar●inianism Socinianism c. with which your book is more then 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 sowen then gathered up and the ground rid of them poison is sooner prepared and devoured then the body cleansed of it An hundred houses are sooner burnt then one built yet I have transcribed you and replied to you SECT 4. H. H. p. 133. It is said wee are they that subvert whole housholds but I answer as Elijah did Ahab 1 King 18.18 We do not subvert whole Housholds for we baptize none but those that believe according to Mark 16.15 16. Acts 8.12 37. But it 's you Mr. C. that subverts whole housholds when you baptize children and all for lucres sake c. Reply Sir it 's not your Nay will serve when your practice proclaims the contrary neither can you shew any call from God to do what you do as Eliah could shew for what he did and therefore you still abuse Scripture What warrant have you for re-baptizing those that have been baptized Christ's command and his Apostles practice was to baptize Jews and Gentiles of ripe years that had until that time been Jews and Gentiles your pretending that warrant is confessing that whom you baptize are Jews or Gentiles and if you make them that were professed Christians to become Jews and Gentiles that you may baptize 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 shew 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 shal not prevail Mat. 16.18 and on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone 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 pretious 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 dissent 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 prophesie 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 shewed 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 Cuckow ●ung better then the Nightingale It was Jeroboams sin that hee made Priests of the lowest of the people and it is your sin and shame to make Preachers of Mechanick 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