Selected quad for the lemma: woman_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
woman_n	father_n	husband_n	sister_n	1,576	5	10.1054	5	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

that gift which is common to elect and reprobate doth in title to Baptism much more that gift of Union Adoption Regeneration proper to the elect puts the party into a capacity of receiving Baptism If you say such received the Holy Ghost as well as the Apostles and therefore the text to be understood of the same kind and degree Then by this text you have no more ground to baptize grown men for which of them I pray you spake with tongues y) Ver. 46. in the Apostles sense then you say we have for baptizing Infants that cannot speak at all But the Apostle explains himself in the following Chapter z For as much then Acts. 1● 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as God gave them the like gift as he did to us Like for quality though not for quantity Yea it 's said a) Heb 4.2 unto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them I think no man dare say that the Gospel was as fully and as clearly preached to the Israelites in the wildernesse for to them the Apostle speaks as to us since the coming of Christ in the flesh SECT 11. H. H. same page The next is Lidia and her houshold 5. Instance Act. 16.14 15. Reply 1. I do Mr Hagger no wrong his fifth Instance as I set it down to help him is thus nakedly proposed I wonder we had not a taste of his Logick here as in the preceding instances It may be the man was not in a good mood and therefore could not set it in a good Figure having so often failed before 2. But I suppose you meant this Enthymem Lidia and her houshould were baptized Therefore no Infants Or thus If Lidia and her houshold were baptized then no Infant was baptized But Lidia and her houshold were baptized Therefore To this I answer I deny your consequence and will give you time till Dooms-day to prove it In the mean season this place is more for the baptizing of Infants then any thing that can be at least hitherto is said against SECT 12. H. H. Some may say thus Who knows but she might have little children To which I answer If none knows then all ought to be silent and not to believe and affirm things they know not for that is wickednesse and folly But thus much we know 1. That Christ commanded them to baptize them which believed 2. Hitherto we have found them baptizing of none else 3. The Scripture speaks of no children she had nor yet of any husband and therefore silence gives no commands to obey nor no promises to believe nor no example to follow Reply 1. Here you set up a man of straw and then fight with him you frame an objection out of your own head and then answer it bravely done 2. Is it not wickednesse and folly in you to believe and affirm things you know not The necessity of dipping in the Administration of Baptisme the salvation of Infan●s without actual faith by virtue of Christs death when no such things are exprest in so many words and syllables in Scripture and many other bold assertions in your book which shall be examined as they are met with 3. For the two first particulars which you professe you know they have been already spoken to and for the third the Scripture you say speaks of no children shee i. e. Lidia I suppose you mean had nor yet of any husband neither doth the Scripture speak I say of any servants she had I pray you then who were they that were of her houshold which were baptized for it 's said distinctly b) Acts 15.16 she was baptized and her houshold 4. As for the silence you speak of it is as good as silence or the speaking of nothing Instances are obvious and frequent E. gr There is no expresse mention made in the N. T. of any command for Womens receiving the Lord's Supper nor of any promise of comfort in or upon receiving nor any example of any one woman that did receive Nor is there any expresse mention made in the Old or New Testament of any command for mens or womens relying on the merits and satisfaction of Christ nor of any promise of peace and pardon on such relying nor of any example of any one man or woman that did rely on the merits and satisfaction of Christ yet there is sufficient warrant in Scripture by clear consequence for both these c. which is satisfactory to us but what is this to you who must have expressness of Scripture By this taste you may perceive what an unsound and erroneous maxime you have vented viz. That silence gives no commands to obey nor no promise to believe nor no examples to follow SECT 13. H. H. pag. 6. Again if she had an husband he was baptized for she and her houshould were baptized Now if he had been baptized he would surely have born the name in the history rather then she being the bead of the house Reply 1. Now fair fall your heart if she had an husband he was baptized for she and her houshold were baptized you say well might you not as well say as we do If she had children they were also baptized for she and her houshold were baptized and so if she had servants they were baptized for it 's said She and her houshold were baptized If you include husband and servants in her houshold how can you for shame exclude Infants or if you conclude the baptizing of her husband and servants on this account because she and her houshold were baptized why may you not as well conclude that her Infants or children were baptized on the same account were you not wilful and partial in your self 2. To say nothing that you should have said but not now if he had been baptized he would surely have born the name c. Your confidence is as high as your ignorance is great Surely Zerviah was a woman for she is expresly called c) 2 Sam. 17.25 Joabs mother and d) 1 Chr. 2.15 16. Davids sister Now you might have said as well It Joab had a father and Zerviah an husband he would ●urely have born the name in the history rather then shee being the head of the house whereas the name of Zerviah is onely mentioned in the history to my best observation and remembrance in those and other e) 1 Sam. 26.6 2 2.13 18. 3.39 8.16 14.1 16.9 10. 18 2. 19.21 22 21.17 23 18 1 King 1.7 2.5 22. 1 Chron. 11.6.34 18.12.15 26.13 27.24 places SECT 14. H. H. Lastly we read verse 40. That when Paul and Sil●s came out of prison they entered into the house of Lidia and comforted the brethren but little babes are not capable of such comforts Therfore no such such brethren in Lydea's house nor any ground at all to believe it from Scripture or reason Reply 1. The word HOUSE is not in

and been at the baptizing of many hundreds if not a thousand and never saw any baptized naked c. Reply 1. Whither will not malice hu-cry a man rather then Mr. B. and his party shall go without a spot you will bespatter Christianity it self If Christians intelligence is not to be credited whom shal we admit into our Creed May not the wicked say Christians have little grace they tell lyes c. and thus you bring an Odium on n) Act. 11.26 that antient and honourable Name Such an one Polycarp confessed himself to bee o) Liberò audi Christianus si● Euseb Eccl. Hyst l. 4. c. 15. such an one you would be taken to be It is is an ill bird that defiles his own nest 2. Here is a bitter censure past it is for want of grace that they tell these if they be lyes An ingenious charity would have imputed it rather to ignorance or information which may occasion a lye to fall sometimes from the best not to want of grace c. 3. Mr. B. must have his share as well as the Christians they lye and he is willing to believe them Thus he taxes his circumspection as if he entertained reports without consideration when all who know that precious servant of God know he is not credulous But Mr. Haggar if your will had no● committed a rape upon your understanding you had never believed that you had found a Font in Jerem. 2.13 or adeferring of baptism till believing in Mark 16. verse 16. Or the Eunuch over head and ears in the water Act. 8.37 But you was willing to have it so p) Quod v● lumus facile-credimus Therefore you believed it was so 4. You produce your self as a witness to prove the other lyars This is worse then ask my fellow If I bee a thief you are a party and therefore not fit to be a witness you may flye to the Lawers maxime None is bound to accuse himself 5. What arrogancy is here you must be believed against M. Baxters Christians why may you not have as lit-grace and fear of God and tell a lye as well as they sanctity and truth are not annexed to your Jordan Your single testimony against all theirs shall then be valid when you are infallible In the Interim this speaks you a Pharisee in that you count them Publicans 6. But waving these things I enter a caveat against your evidence It is neither full nor pertinent to the interrogatory you speak to the naked Dipping but not to NEXT TO NAKED So that M. Baxter's Argument stands still in force as hee proves p. 137. And if the beholding men and women in their shirts c. be not a coasting upon incivility I have lost my understanding Surely Christ never plac'd his Ordinance so near iniquity who bids us abstain from all appearance of evill 1 Thes 5. ver 22. 7. If they who are baptized are Dipp'd in their cloaths as there is no Scripture for so doing so it 's against your principle For to Dip in your sense is to plunge a person over head and ears in water so as immediately to be wet but he that is Dipp'd in his cloaths is not immediately wet all over For his cloaths are Dipp'd primarily and immediately hee secondarily and mediately his cloaths by the water he by his cloaths Thus you who ordained a Cheese-factor to be a publick preacher may make a cheese-clout a Dipper and thus you have met with a Scylla and Charibdis in the meer of Ellesmer whether you Dip naked or next to naked SECT 29. H. H. same p. But suppose some men have been baptized naked among men that is no more offensive then bathing in the water Nay Peter was naked Joh. 21.7 Reply 1. Never stand mincing the matter with a SUPPOSE but say men and women may be baptized naked speak out and tell us that your naked dipping succeeds the Roman Lupercatia the Indian Gymnosophists would blush at this 2. You tell us of naked Peter but do not tell us the naked truth Peter was not naked in your sense the word somtimes signifies to be without any bodily covering Gen. 2.25 Secondly poor and mean clothing Job 22.6 Mat. 25 36. The poor members of Christ are said to bee naked as well as Peter and I do not think whatsoever you do that they were Adamites Thirdly them who have layd aside their upper garment as Saul and the Prophets 1 Sam. 19.24 Isa 20.2 Thus Peter was naked for neither his calling as a Fisher doth necessarily imply that he was simply without covering neither doth the modesty of a man much less the gravity of an Apostle permit it nor doth it suit with the custom of the Jews who was wont to wear a loose upper garment which being put off it was usuall to say they were naked Thus your answer is pure Quakerism 3. No truly pious or morally honest man but will judg it an immodest act for men to go stark naked in your sense There are Pudenda naturae which God and nature would have covered and to discover them is immodesty unless upon inevitable necessity why else did the sons of Noah go backward with a mantle to cover their Fathers nakedness Gen. 9.22 23. 4. If you will have your own saying viz. It is not an immodest thing for men to be naked together yet sure it is for men and women such mix'd Dipping is no more commendable then mix'd dancing Nay worse of the two 5. Whether M. Baxter will allow that men may go into the water to bath them yet not sin let those who have read the former answer judge If men may why may not women consider that sad story of David and Bathsheba 2 Sam. 11.2.4 6. You bewray the subtilty of the Serpent you mention bathing but intend baptizing That is at the top like the corn spread over the well but this like the scouts lyes at the bottom 1 Sam. 17.19 This water-man looks one way and rowes another But if it were granted it is not immodest for men to bath together yet it 's indecent for them to be baptized naked For is there no difference between bathing and baptizing Where is the honour of the Ordinance Is that comly and lawful in Sacramentals which is usuall in morals e. g. At our Tables we laugh c. may we therefore do so at the Lord's Table Eccl. 10.16 Secondly doth it not trench upon the purity of the Lord Jesus that he should institute a standing Ordinance in his Church that is very disputable whether it be a wickedness or not What only a pair of shears between a Gospel-Sacrament and a grievous sin and for all your Sophistry you cannot tell which is the finer end I am sure you do not plainly determine it Thirdly doth not this tax Christ of inconsideration that Christ should institute an Ordinance at the administration of which all believers may not be present men not see women nor women see men Dipped