Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	scripture_n	word_n	write_v	7,633	5	6.1357	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

Mr. B. said 3. You would make Mr. Baxter odious by saying He takes the Divels part c. But Sir you know the proverb A man must give the Divel his due Surely those godly Ministers do not take the Divel's part when they tell sinne●s that many times they be-lye the Divel in fathering their sins on him rather then on themselvs Mat. 15.19 Out of the h●art proceeds evil thoughts c. Jam. 1.14 Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust 2 Pet. 1. ver 4. Corruption is in the world through lust 4. I fear that fault charged on Mr. Baxter will bee found within your own girdle before I leave you Though you say you will now make it appear It seems then you failed in making it to appear as you said in the foregoing page But just so you have learned the Divels deceit in adding to Scripture E. g Baptism is to be deferred til a man can believe which is not written in the Bible but in Mr. Haggars book p. 38. and you say p. 61. God hath one way to save men and women and another way to save little children which is no where written in the holy Scriptures Again in the same page you say Infants dying in their infancy are saved by virtue of Christ's death without actual F●ith which is no where written c. who now writes after the Divels copie Who takes the Divels part SECT 34. H. H. p. 43. The Divel said to Christ If you be the Son of God cast thy self down which is no where written as the Lord saith but the contrary viz. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord c. So do you say if you be the children of God Baptize your children which is no where written but the contrary Mat. 28.29 Mar. 15 16. Acts 2.38 41. 8.37.12.37 But you know there is no children in the Text neither can they do any thing of those things notwithstanding all this you do the works of Satan Reply 1. Though what is said in the foregoing Sect. is a sufficient reply as to this also yet I am sure Christ proves two things contrary to you 1. The lawfulness of arguing from Scripture by Consequences 2. That is Scripture which is contained though not expressed therein e. g. Christ must not cast himself down for it is written in Deut. 6. ver 16. Thus. If the Lord must not be tempted then I must not cast my self down But the Lord must not be tempted Therefore 2. You bewray your ignorance in saying contrary for the baptizing of Infidels converted to the Faith and Infants also of one or both Christian parents are not contrary but subordinate k) Subordinate non pugnant there is a consistency of both 3. The Scriptures you cite in Mat. and Mark and the Acts have been answered before you do but trouble your self and tire the Reader with vain Repetitions Yet to your last I say Children are expresly mentioned in Acts 2. ver 39. which you have cunningly left out as if to use your own expression you meant to take the Divels part and so to do his work Beside your allegations are as strong against Circumcision as against infant-baptism for you know they could not repent nor believe with all their hearts c. and yet were circumcised But let us see how Mr. B. or we do the works of Satan SECT 35. H. H. As he tempted Christ to cast himself down before God's time was come to send his Angels to take him down and to that end would have applied a promise falsly Psal 91.11 12 leaving out In all thy waies So do you tempt men and women to baptize their children before God's time is come to beget them by his Word Joh. 3.5 James 1.18 That they might be born again nor onely of water but of the Spirit And to that end you tell them It is written They are disciples and Church-members and they were circumcised under the Law therefore they must be baptized under the Gospel c. Reply 1. You drive on the Popish design handsomly for here you open a wide door for unwritten Traditions What Scripture have you that saith expresly of the coming of God's time to send his Angels to take down Christ 2. Here is a very spiteful parallel What likenesse between Casting thy self down and baptizing Children 3. We have another unwritten Tradition viz. We tempt men and women to baptize their Children before God's time is come 4. You cannot deny but God doth beget some Infants by his Spirit without the Word else they are none of his Rom. 8.9 5. Your Gloss on John 3.5 smells too strongly of the Popish Cask most Orthodox Divines understand by Water and Spirit one and the same thing the latter being exegetical to the former as Mat. 3.11 to be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with Fire is all one which you distinguish as different in saying not onely of Water but also of the Spirit 6. What a strange piece of Non-sense have we here God doth beget us by his Word that we might be born again when God's begetting of us and our being born again in Scripture are all one l) 1 Joh 4.18 He that is born of God sinneth not but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself c. See also verse 1. 7. These Arguments to prove Infant-baptism drawn from Circumcision Church-membership Discipleship c. you cannot answer but by railing which shall have no other Reply from me but Silence and Patience SECT 36. H. H. p. 44. You tell us that if we have the meaning and reason we have enough for evidence for words are but to express sense Answ Then it seems the meanings and reasons you talk of without the Word are without sense by your own confession And thus you see or may see that God by weak instruments can take you wise ones in your own craftiness But again are not the words of the Scripture as good and better sens and reason then any you can speak or give Reply 1. It is not Mr. Baxter's confession but Mr. Haggar's profession to wrest M. Baxter's words as well as Scripture Let any 〈…〉 of judiciousness read M. Baxter's 10. Position and he will quickly 〈◊〉 Baxter's plainness and M. Haggar's craftiness 2. It 's granted that the words of the Scripture in Hebrew and Greek were given by the inspiration of the Spirit but our English words into which they are translated are not we may without blasphemy say If you deny this I must needs conclude you are so far from being high-flown that with the Serpent you creep on the ground and pave the way for making the Vulgar Translation Authentical as you would the English SECT 37. H. H. You say further Would it not make a man pity such sensless ignorant wretches that will call for express words of Scripture when they have evident Consequences Is Scripture-reason no reason Answ Sir me thinks you are very pitiful but you are a

say Here is fulfilled Clap your hands and leap for joy and say with the Philosopher in another case o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have found I have found viz. the Font in Jeremy though I cannot find it in all the holy Scriptures 3. Can you say without blushing Here the words of the Prophet are fulfilled Did the Spirit of God ever intend here Baptismal Fonts and if not intended how is this text now fulfilled In what words are Fonts implied in the word Fountain the Knight indeed saith Fonts or Fountains p) Pag. 8. out the term is appropriated by the Lord to himself They have forsaken me the Fountain c. No man that I know of holds our Fonts to be Fountains of living waters and your self declines at when you make the forsaking of baptizing men and women c. Parallel with the peoples forsaking God the fountain c. Or in the word C●stern in which it seems you have found Fonts but the text saith Those Cisterns are broken Cisterns that can hold no water which you have cunningly left out lest your disciples should espie your foul mistake but our Fonts could and did hold water Sir I must tell you had not your brain been cracked you had never imagined our Fonts to be broken Cisterns Therefore let the Reader observe how grosly you abuse this Scripture and consider seriously whether that Scripture be not fulfilled in you being one of those that are unlearned and unstable who q) 2 Pet. 3.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As torturers Put a man on the rack and make him speak that he never thought so these set the Scripture on a rack and draw ou● a sense which was never intended Leigh Crit. Sacr. wrest the Scriptures I pray God it be not to your own destruction 4. For the rest cited in your p. 9. and part of the 10. I say no more but this Is the Knights testimony so valid that it must be largely transcribed when it seems to make against us And must it be so sleighted when it seems to make against you as about the Terms Tythe and Church To the first answer shall be returned towards the end of the book And to the second Why may not the publick place of worship be called a Church because the Church meets there as well as it is called the Synagogue because the Congregation of the Jewes met there to perform publick worship CHAP. V. Of the Rise of Infant-Baptism SECT 1. H. H. p. 10. Wee must have the Rise of Infant-baptisme from those Rabbies that did practise it or else not at all because the Scripture is silent in it as they themselves confess So Mr. Hall r) Font gua●ded p. 30. literally syllabically terminis terminantibus in expresse terms Infant-baptism is not commanded nor a thousand things more A wretched lye for it 's an hard thing for Mr. Hall to prove that God requireth of the sons of men a thousand or half a thousand things no where commanded Reply 1. To passe by your scornful terms Rabbies c. you are guilty of falshood in saying We confesse the Scripture is silent in it I know not any one that makes such a Confession if you do you might have named him or them But this you passe by in silence in hope your falshood should not be discovered but in vain a general accusation is as good as silence 2. Admit the Scripture were silent herein it makes nothing against us For it is a common and true rule as before a Negative Argument from Authority proves nothing Nay I confesse the Scripture is silent in Mr. Hall's sense i. e. It speaketh nothing of Infant-baptism in expresse terms by way of command but it is not silent in another sense for it speaks implicitly of it E. gr Ministers maintenance is not expresly mentioned in those words ſ) Deut. 25.4 Thou shalt not muzzle the Oxe when he treadeth out the corn yet it is implied in those words if you will believe the Apostle s) 1 Tim. 5.17.18 for the Scripture saith Thou shalt not muzzle c. And again t) 1 Cor. 9.9 For it is written in the Law of Moses Thou shalt not muzzle c. Now Sir Riddle me riddle me what 's this The Scripture is silent and yet Saith It is Written in the Law of Moses And yet not one word concerning Ministers maintenance written expresly in Deut. quoted u) p 12. Yea to take your own instance A man may pray in his Family because he may pray every where according to 1 Tim. 2.8 Where Family-praier is implied and so the Scripture is not silent in it but not expressed and so it is silent Many more instances may be given but these may suffice without the imputation of a wretched lye 3. Suppose the Scriptures were altogether silent about Infant-baptism it rather proves that Infants were baptized to any unbyassed judgment because we read not of any Controversie about a complaint against Infant-baptism as we do concerning the Widows that were neglected v) Acts 6.1 a businesse of an inferiour alloy in comparison of this in hand 4. What a wretched man are you in saying a wretched lie on the account mentioned by Mr. Hall you shew your self as rude in Ethicks as unskilful in Rhetorick x) Hyperbole so much used in Scripture specially in this case e. gr Cities walled up to heaven y) Deut. 1.28 i. e. very high now because this was spoken by the Spies who might tell a lie therefore compare this text with another viz. Deut. 9.1 Cities great and fenced up to heaven which certainly were the words of Moses So Mat. 23.24 Yee blind guides who strain at a Gnat and swallow a Camel i. e. strain at things of small moment and swallow things of greater concernment So Joh. 21.25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did the which if they should be written every one I suppose that even the world it self could not contain the books that should be written Abundance of more instances which if you can read with Latine eies you may find in Alsted z) Praecognita Theologiae pag. 157 158. l. 2. But if you can look onely with English eies see Diodat on John forenamed I hope you will not give the Wretched Lie to Moses Christ John c. as you do to Mr. Hall who by those thousand things means according to your usual expression a certain number for uncertain i. e very many or a great number as 1 Cor. 4.15 Ten thousand Instructers in Christ. 5. It 's well you say It 's an Hard thing for Mr. Hall to prove that God requires a thousand things of us not commanded It seems you dare not say it 's impossible onely it's Hard. And what if he prove an hundred or half an hundred which is easie to do they are too many for you to answer SECT 2. H. H. There is no express command saith Mr. Hall in the

of the subject it s called an affirmative proposition and where the predicate is denyed of the subject it 's called a negative proposition but never an affirming of a Negative by them that know what they say Nay there is as you lay it down not so much as a proposition If you will not now confess your ignorance and error or go to the University to learn better Logick you may erect if you please a new College in the Country and teach your deluded Proselytes some new principles of a new-invented Logick SECT 3. H. H. Again Isa 45.5 I am the Lord and beside me there is no God Now Sir if you dare presume to be a teacher here it should have been thus I deny that any God is but my self and I pray shew us the word Negative in the Scripture if you can Reply 1. Here is less colour of affirming a Negative For whereas in the former you would make the Verb to be the Affirmative how absurdly I have shewed here is no Verb at all exprested in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you might have seen by the different Characters wherein the Verb's supplyed are set down It 's in the Hebrew thus i I the Lord and none else besides me no God In the first proposition there is a pure Affirmative viz. God is the Lord without denying the Affirmative In the latter a pure Negative without affirming a Negative 2. By this unwarrantable and uncouth way of yours Atheism and blasphemy may be quickly taught and learned in presuming to put a comma or full point at part of a proposition as in the very place you cite There is no God Oh admirable yet you can pave the way thereto How ground lesly therefore and dangerously you apply this to your present case I leave others to judge considering how unreverently you deal with Scripture comparing your expressions with its as if it were as safe to teach the Spirit of God how to speak as it is to teach you how to speak properly when you acknowledge your self out of your element 3. For shewing the word Negative in Scripture I might say no more but this that we are not bound to Scripture expression in discourse or disputation yet you your self use many words that are not in Scripture e. g. imminent p. 2. Antichristian p. 3. Objection p. 4. History p. 6. Primitive p. 8. Consequence p. 10. Paper-conference p. 22. Absurd p. 24. And a president in the very p. 29. and an hundred more of this nature in your Book without a wretched lye Now when you have shewed when any of those words of yours are in Scripture I shall shew you where the word Negative is in Scripture In the mean time know that Affirmative and Negative are words of Latine Derivation in which language the holy Scriptures were not originally written but the things signified thereby are oft found in them both in the originalls and translations SECT 4. H. H. Lastly to conclude Joh. 1.20 He denyed not If John denyed not Then he affirmed and what did he affirm He said I am not the Christ Here Joh. affirmed a Negative c. Reply 1. Here in the original the Negative particle is set before the verb as in the foregoing instance But suppose the verb were an Affirmative which cannot be For there cannot be an Affirmative proposition but where the subject and predicate are knit together by a verb affirmatively as hath been shewed yet here is nothing like an affirming a Negative but rat her it 's like a denying an Affirmative as was said before 2. It follows not that he affirmed if he denyed not you never denyed It may be that you are a Turk or Pap●●● do you therefore affirm it A man when he is silent denies not an accusation k) Mar. 14.60 61. as Christ was l) Isa 36.3.21.22 Eliakin and Shebna held their peace at Rabshakeh's blasphemies If they were silent they did not deny if they denyed not by your goodly consequence hey affirmed and so owned his blasphemies but this could not be because of the rending their choa●hs c. Thus we confess our wants and omissions and yet we cannot be said in any propriety of speech to affirm Negatives So that hitherto you have not proved that John affirms a Negative For that in the 20 verse is a Negative proposition as that in the 23 is an Affirmative the one distinct from the other But we will not strive about words if you will be quiet and give glory to the Lord by confessing your error Nay but you will explain your self How I pray SECT 5. H. H. p. 30. To affirm is but to say a thing is so and to deny is to say a thing is not so e. g when the Sun shines I affirm it's day and when it 's set I affirm it's night If I wil prove a man is not a live and shew others that he is dead do not I prove he is not alive If I say and prove a man is not in his house do not I prove a Negative Reply 1. If to affirm is to say a thing is so c. It will unavoydably follow that to affirm a Negative is to say a thing is so which indeed is not so or which you said is not so and consequently your doctrine is yea and nay so was not the Apostles m) 2 Cor. 1.19 preaching 2. It 's worse and worse with you in your instances That of the Sun doth not prove the affirming of a Negative for both are Affirmative Propositions And to prove a man is not alive or not in the house is one thing to affirm a Negative is another For to affirm you say is but to say a thing is so and here you prove a thing is not so SECT 6. H. H. Seeing you make us offendors for a word may wee not justly say that you are one of those the Apostle speaks of n) 1 Tim. 6.3.4 for you do not dote about words viz. the Affirmative and Negative c. Do not you count gain godliness viz. 〈◊〉 100 or 200 per Annum for preaching and baptizing Infants and rather then you will part with it you dispute perversly like a man of a corrupt mind I beseech you in the fear of God consider it Reply 1. Who is guilty of doating Mr. Cook who wrote as was said a few lines about your offending against the laws of Disputing which if it were your greatest fault might be winked at or YOV that write almost two pages about them and challenge too any that will or can to answer your Ten Questions o) Foundar p. 53.54 I leave to the judgment of the impartial 2. I do not know one peny allowed or required for baptizing any Infant Is not this therefore one of those evil surmizings mentioned by the Apostle 3. As for your blind charge of an 100 l. c. per An. for preaching I leave you to him for an answer

and may for the future also for you leave the substance of his book unanswered CHAP. IX Of Mr BAXTER'S Ten Positions SECT 1. H. H. pag. 31. You say pag. 3. It hath pleased the Holy Ghost to speak of some things in the Scripture more fully and of others more sparingly and where God spake more sparingly the thing must needs be more difficult and yet truth still Answ But he never speaks of Infant baptism in all the Scripture neither fully nor sparingly Then none of his truth nor ever was Reply 1. If you could or would speak properly you would or should have said Either fully or sparingly but as you express your self you grant that Infant-Baptism is spoken of in Scripture one way or other For two Negatives in our language make an Affirmative but I will not insist on this 2. Whether the Scripture speaks of Infant-baptism I hope it appears already in part to the impartial Reader and afterwards will be further cleared 3. The Scripture speaks neither fully nor sparingly of baptismal boots baptismal breeches and other shifting garments used by your party therefore by your arguing your Mode of Baptizing is none of God's truth nor ever was SECT 2. H. H. You instance in 4 particulars but that which is pertinent to the matter in hand is your fourth viz. The New Testament speaks more sparingly of that which is more fully discovered in the Old What need the same thing be done twice except men should question the authority of the Old How silent is the New Testament concerning a Christian Magistracy which made the Anabaptists of old deny it where find you in the New Testament a Christian that exercised the place of a King or Parlament man or Justice of the Peace or the like And so of an oath before a Magistrate of War and of the Sabbath how sparing is the New Testament and why because enough is said of them in the Old To all which I answer you have spoken many words to no purpose c. Reply 1. How pittifully you contradict your self the meanest may see by comparing together the beginning and close of this Section For you said Mr. Bazters fourth Instance is pertinent to the matter in hand and here in the end you say he hath spoken to no purpose How can it be pertinent and yet to no PURPOSE 2. Why are not the other pertinent and to purpose because you could not answer pertinently and to purpose For in Mr. Baxters 1 Case he saith p) Plain Scripture proof for Infant-Baptism p. 3. the word is not spoken to Infants therefore it speaks more sparingly of them yet for the comfort of godly Parents God hath much more fully revealed his mind concerning their children then of wicked and open enemies In the first that Infant-baptism is not so great a point as many make it except by the dangerous consequences ensuing therefore more sparingly mentioned In the second Infant-baptism was not controverted then as some other points yet Scripture is sufficient to direct us for the determination of this too if we have wisedom to apply generall rules to particular cases and have senses exercised to discern the Scope of the Spirit Your silence to all which wee will take for consent SECT 3. H. H. Where as you say That which is spoken on in the Old Testament need not to be spoken of again I Ans●er Infant-baptism is no where spoken of neither in the Old nor New Testament therefore you ought not for shame to speak of it Reply 1. This Answer of yours might have been spared if you had read Mr. Baxter a little further q) Pag. 4. The main question is At what age members are to be admitted into the Church Now this is as fully determined in the Old Testament as most things in the Bible and therefore what need any more 2. It 's horrible audaciousnesse for you to say Infant-baptism is no where spoken of in the Old or New Testament If you mean in so many syllables it 's granted already If you mean not so much as by good consequence we say so it 's spoken of as womens receiving the Lord's Supper giving thanks at meals praier in and with our Family c. and therefore you ought not for shame speak against i● SECT 4. H. H. p. Ibid. As for your saying Where find we a Christian Magistrate in the New Testament I Answer Surely you have forgotten the Deputy Acts 13.12 and the Eunuch Acts 8.27 37 38. and what say you to Erastus the Chamberlain of the City Rom. 16.2 3. and likewise those Saints of Cesar's houshold Phil. 4.22 Reply 1. Answer hath been made to your two former instances r) see chap. 5. sect 9. which may satisfie any judicious Reader I wonder at this vain repetition of yours unlesse it should be to make up the number of your sheets I know not the caus 2. In your p. 13. You think you have found a Lord Deputy and a Lord Treasurer and you would fain find here a Lord Chamberlain too Would you set up these Officers again if you were to model and mould the State a new But to give you your due you do not dare not affirm Erastus to be a Lord Chamberlain or a Christian Magistrate onely you speak very gingerly What say you to Erastus c. Therefore I say 3. I find mention made of Erastus in Rom. 16 23. not 2.3 where in the Greek ſ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is called a Steward Now that a Steward of any Town or City is or hath been called usually and properly a Magistrate is more then I know or perhaps you can tell Onely this I must tell you you might as well call Gaius a Christian Magistrate of whom in the same verse honorable mention is made viz. that he was Paul's Hoste and of the Church and then he that lately or heretofore in these parts have entertained Mr. Haggar and his Church must be a Christian Magistrate too 4. I dare not say that the Christians in Rome specially they that belong to the Emperors family call'd Saints of Cesars houshold Phil. 4.22 were Christian Magistrates If so speak out and prove it if you can 5. You wrong Mr. Baxter in charging him to say Where find we a Christian Magistrate in the N●w Testament Indeed he saith How silent is the New Testament concerning a Christian Magistracy but presently after within three lines explains himself How sparing is the New Test c. And you that take upon you to find so many Christian Magistrates in the New Testament cannot find one Christian there that exercised the place of a King or Parlament man or Justice of the Peace c. and so his Quest for all your fair flourish is quite left unanswered by you SECT 5. H. H. p. 32. For an Oath did you never read in the New Testam Heb 6.16 And for War did you never read Luk. 3.15 Act. 10.1 For subjection to Magistrates 1 Pet.

himself in the exposition of Isa 7.15 16. and interpreting the same of Christ For though ver 14. is doubtlesse meant of Chris● yet the two latter v●rses mean Shear-Jashub the Prophets little son ver 3. by whom as by a sign the Prophet assures Ah●z c. That Judah should be in such peace that that child should be brought up without fear of war in peace and plenty and that before he was grown up Those two smoaking Fire-brands ver 4. should be quenched What s●ay could it be to a trembling King and a troubled People of God a● Jerusalem to hear that those two Fire-brands which threa●ned the ruine of all should be overthrown before Christ should come to mature years which was many hundred yea●s after But this promise concerning the Prophets Son being believed might be a suitable support to their trembling hearts in that juncture 5. To your proof concerning Christ p) Lu. 2.40.52 I say truly you do still like yourself For before you can make any consequence from the Scripture you must approve some grosse absurdity or blasphemy viz. They that grow and wax strong in spirit and wisdom had none before that time they are said to grow Whereas the growth of a thing presupposeth the being of it e. gr we are commanded to q) 2 Pet. 3.18 grow in grace and knowledg will it follow that we are void of grace and knowledg 2. By your Reason Christ while he was an Infant had no spirit no grace of God upon him no stature no favour with God or man For in these Christ is said to increase as well as in wisedom What Christian ear tingles not at such blasphemies which yet your unreasonable reasonings with a witness pre-suppose or imply if not express for the making up of your conclusion Now what think you had not Christ the law written in his heart in his infancy deny it if you dare or can all Orthordox Divines hold r) Ames medu l. 1. c. 21. Jo 1.14 with Luk. 2.40.52 that Christ in the first instant of his conception received in the humane nature fulness of grace in respect of the first act yet so as there was room for growth in respect of the second acts and of extension to new objects So that n●w must again proclaim you a blasphemer The charge is now more clearly confirmed by this your BLASPHEMY against Christ himself SECT 11. H. H. But some will object for want of wisedom that upon this account Christ will be excluded the Covenant in his innocency I Answer such people know not what they say For he was given for a Covenant Isa 42.6 and 49.8 And he is the Mediator of the Covenant Heb. 12.2 5. and his blood is the blood of the Covenant chap 13 10. with Luk. 22.40 And he is the seed to whom the promises were made Gal. 3.13 and in him they are yea and Amen with 1 Cor. 1.20 c. And therefore vain and foolish it would be for any man to make such an objection Reply 1. To say nothing of some of the Scriptures which should be Heb. 12.24 Luk. 22.20 2 Cor. 1.20 you your self do not know what to say in answer to the Objection you seem therefore to be a vain and foolish man to conjure up such a spirit which you could not lay for want of wisdom 2. All you have said doth not untye the knot but tyes it faster unlesse you grant that Christ in his Infancy was in the Covenant which yet you do not deny And thus you seem to confess one Infant at least the holy Child Jesus to be within the Covenant otherwise your answer to the Objection propounded by you is weak enough and strange for a man of common sense to give The Objection stands firm SECT 12. H. H. p. 59. They that are in Covenant shall know the Lord from the greatest to the least Heb. 8.11 But Infants cannot For they know no● their own parents nor their right hand from their left Jon. 4.11 Therefore the Lord saith plainl● That children are innocent ſ) Ps 106.37 38. even of those which do sacrifice to the devill Therefore though Innocent are not nor cannot be in Covenant For that which is born of flesh is flesh but the New Covenant is spirituall and they which enter into it must be born again for those that worship must worship him in Spirit c. Jo 4.24 Reply 1. What hath been said to the former might serve here As many know earthly and naturall things which know not the Lord So God can conveigh the knowledge of himself to those s) Mat. 11.25 that know little or nothing of naturall things and though naturall knowledge cannot be but by naturall means yet super-naturall knoweldge may be and is oft conveighed without naturall means Notwithstanding they who have use of reason and senses are bound to make use of them to get the knowledge of God where God's Ordicances are vouchsafed though God himself is not tyed to these means 2. That phrase from the greatest to the least is a proverbiall kind of speech frequently used in Scripture to express the generality of a thing good or bad among persons of all sorts and ranks you may aswell conclude Infants went up into the house of the Lord because it is said t) 2 Chron. 3● 30 All the people great and small went up and that little babes were feasted by Ahasuerus because it 's said u) Esth 1.5 He made a feast both unto great and small and that Infants were given to covetousness for it 's said v) Jer. 6 15. Every one from the least to the greatest is given to covetousness 3. Your Sophist●y is discernable The text ●aith shal know the Lord You say CANNOT know Now if you rightly assume Infants shall not know you contradict the Lords promise which hee will perform in his time Beside the conclusion is not to purpose viz. They shall not be in Covenant or else there are four terms in your Argument 4. What miserable consequences and conclusions are here made as your Book abounds with many more whereby you abuse your self and others First The Children of Ninivee knew not the right hand from the left Therefore the Lord saith plainly that children are innocent Secondly The children of those that sacrifice to Devills are innocent Therfore little babes though innocent cannot be in Covenant I shall speak to babes innocency in your next page But how wil you make good your consequence The absurdity whereof I leave to the Reader to consider Yet if children because innocent cannot be in Covenant as you say Then it followes clearly that David Daniel and other holy men * Ps 73.13 Dan. 6.22 Job 17.8 whom the Scriptures commend to be innocent were not in Covenant and if innocency keep children out of Covenant why not the aged also Nay Infants innocency is so far from making them uncapable of being in Covenant that even the children of Idolaters

Scriptures What horrible confusion and contradiction is this in you If the name of the Font be not once mentioned in all the Scriptures how is that Scripture fulfilled But of that a little more ano● 3. How dare you call the Font an abominable Idoll Where doth the Scripture so brand it if the nam● be not once mentioned in Scripture 4. What a loud and lewd slander is this to say our children are sac●ificed to the Font as Israels babes were to Moloch Assur●dly Sir wee no more sacrifice our babes to the Font or Bason then you do your Proselites to a Marle-pit or Horse-pool wherein some of them have been dipt 5. I cannot imagine what should be the ground of such an absurd comparison unlesse it be to render us odious which I hope will never be to any sober judicious and unprejudiced Christian or to pave the way he being a Factor for Rome for some bloody or at least unbloody sacrifice SECT 2. H. H. Now seeing there is no Foundation for the Font in all the word of God we must if we will discover it seek for it somewhere else the which I confesse is not worth the doing were it not to discover and make manifest the folly of them that uncover it and guard it for Infants baptism and to that end I shall do it Reply 1. What no Foundation for the Font in all the word of God then you are much mistaken in saying i) Page 8 9. Here is the words of the Prophet Jeremy fulfilled 2. Since you confesse the discovering of the Foundation of it or seeking for it else where is not worth the doing your allegation I believe will not be worth the answering why then will you spend your time and labour about that which is like Jeremiahs Girdle nothing worth k) Jer. 13.7 3. Your secret gird at M. Cook and M. Hall is born with patience but this I must tell you your discovering of that Foundation will be but a discovering of your own folly 4. What need all this stir to what purpose is this waste Though my Reverend and Godly brethrens books have Font in the Title ye the main drift is not for the continuance of Fonts but of infant-baptism SECT 3. H. H. Look into a book intituled A view of the Civill and Ecclesi●sticall law written by Sr. Thomas Ridley Knight and Doctor of the civill law c. Who though an enemy to us yet confesseth p. 176. The Rites of baptism in the primitive times were performed in rivers and fountains Reply Here I earnestly desire the Reader to peruse M. Haggars quotation p. 8 9 10. or the Authour from whence he brings his quotation for either of them are too long to transcribe yet I shall not passe this tedious testimony without some brief Animadversions 1. Whether the Knight was an enemy to you it s more then I know or whether he was a friend to us is more then I am assured of only it 's well known men of that profession have been friends more to the Prelates then to the Presbyterians 2. You say where the persons baptized received that Sacrament but the Knight saith where the persons to be baptized stood up and received that Sacrament and prov'd it out of the Syriack Arabick and Hebrew languages which you very cunningly left out because your manner of Baptizing is apparently different from thei●e 3. You say and that truly Christ was baptized of John in the river of Jordan but the Knight saith our Sabaptized John in Jordan A foul mistake I conceived it was the Printers fault and I lookt into the Errata's but it 's not to be found there Now if the Knight did so grosly mistake here why not in the rest or most 4. You say nascentes ibi ecclesiae but the Knight saith Nascentis I lookt among your Errata's but find none printed it may be because all or most of your books is a bundle of Errata's 5. You say this custome of baptizing in Rivers c. being discontinued or left off Fonts were erected in private houses But the Knight saith discontinued those words or left off are of your own foisting in Therefore a man may say of H. H. l) Psal 36.3 he hath left off to be wise to be sure to be honest in setting down those words in the same character with the Authors as if they were the Knights And notwithstanding there is no great difference between discontinued and left off though circumcision was discontinued forty years in the wilderness yet not properly left off and an University man may discontinue there yet not leave it off and a mans ministry may be discontinued through sicknesse c. and yet not properly left off yet had you meant honestly you might have faithfully transcribed the Knights words without chopping and changing But perhaps you intended to set a fair glosse on your following observations SECT 4. H. H. pag. 8. Hence let the Reader observe 1. He saith the primitive practice was to baptize in rivers and fountains which the Antient Churches received from the example of our Saviour Mat. 3.13 14 15 16.2 He saith that was left off observe they left off the example of Christ 3. They erected Fonts in their own private houses Reply 1. The Knight doth not say the antient Churches but Church let the Reader observe your own transcript a little before in the same page 2. How Christ is said to be baptized in Jordan shall be scann'd hereafter 3. The Knight I tell you doth not say That was left off So that in stead of your observation the Reader may observe that you have not left off to mis-recite and pervert the writings not onely of men but of God himself as followeth SECT 5. H. H. Observe Here is the words of the Prophet Jeremiah fulfilled Jer. 2.12 13. Be astonished O heavens at this c. for my people have committed two evils They have forsaken me the fountain of living waters and they have hewen them out Cisterns broken Cisterns that can hold no water Even so these people did forsake baptizing men and women that did believe in rivers and fountains according to the example of Christ and Christians in the primitive times and builded them Cisterns which they call Fonts in their private houses to baptize babes c. Reply 1. You have professed your self to be ignorant of Greek and all that have any schollarship may discern your little skill in Latine m) Nascentes p. 8. and we look for exactness in the English but observe here Is not are the words of the Prophet Learn to write and speak better English 2. How miserably do you contradict your self you said but a little before n) Pag. 7. not a word found in all the holy Scriptures about baptizing in a Font nay not so much as the name of a Font once mentioned in all the holy Scriptures but it seems the name and thing is found and mentioned here how else can you