<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2011-06-06</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Taryn Hakala</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed text and corrected markup.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A94219">
<STC T="W">S755A</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">36282011</BIBNO>
<VID>150263</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>A BALM TO HEAL RELIGIONS WOUNDS, Applied in a &s;erious ad|vice to &s;ober-minded Chri&s;tians that love the Truth, and are well-wi&s;hers to Reformation.</P>
<P>IN ANSWER To the <HI>P&V;LPIT G&V;ARD RO&V;TED,</HI> lately &s;et forth by one <HI>Thomas Collier.</HI></P>
<P>In this &s;mall Treati&s;e you &s;hall finde divers corrupt Principles of this <HI>Collier</HI> plainly confuted. His Ignorance fully laid open. Many Scriptures cleard from his corrupt glo&s;&s;es. Severall Que&s;tions handled touching; <HI>The Mini&s;try. Infant-Bapti&s;m. Pardon of Sin. Extraordinary Revelations. Humane Learning. The Outward Call of the Mini&s;ters of England.</HI></P>
<P><HI>By</HI> RICHARD SAUNDERS, Mini&s;ter of the Go&s;pel for the Church of Chri&s;t in <HI>Kenti&s;hbeer.</HI></P>
<P><HI>London,</HI> Printed by <HI>M. Simmons,</HI> for <HI>William Adderton,</HI> and are to be &s;old at his Shop at the three Golden <HI>Falcons</HI> in <HI>Duck lane,</HI> 1652.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="dedication">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>To the VVor&s;hipfull JOHN TYRLING, E&s;quire, One of the Ju&s;tices of the Peace for the County of <HI>Devon,</HI> my Dear Uncle.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Grace and Peace, &amp;c.</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>_TIs not long &s;ince, I recei|ved from your hand that Pamphlet, intituled, <HI>The Pulpit Guard Routed,</HI> inti|mating mine intentions to write an Antidote again&s;t the poy&s;on of it: And &s;eeing you gave me &s;uch en|couragement to the worke, as you well remember, I could not thinke upon a fitter Patron to commend the &s;ame unto then your &s;elfe: which I the rather have done, that I might have an opportunity more publiquely to acknowledge how much I am bound to you, for tho&s;e reall expre&s;&s;ions of kindne&s;&s;e and
<PB REF="3">love which I have ever had from you; e&s;pecially &s;ince I have had &s;ome relation to you, which indeed have much tran&s;cended my de&s;er|vings. Tis the lea&s;t I could doe to mention this, though I know tis more plea&s;ing to you to be&s;tow fa|vour and re&s;pect, then to heare of the &s;ame againe to your prai&s;e.</P>
<P>But I mu&s;t take leave to be grate|full, which is the lea&s;t you can, and, I beleeve, the mo&s;t you doe, expect from any.</P>
<P>I need not excu&s;e my &s;elfe to you, for that I have trimd this Di&s;cour&s;e no better, that it might be more worthy of your acceptance; &s;eeing I know you judge not of things by their out&s;ide, but have re&s;pect more to their &s;ub&s;tance, then to their for|malities. When Satan is &s;o bu&s;ie (as now) there is no time to &s;tick at nicities.</P>
<P>The Lord continue to hold up your &s;pirit in his own work. I know you have appeared for the &s;ervice of your Country, in your place
<PB REF="3">(while others &s;hifted their necks off the yoke) even to the wa&s;ting of your naturall &s;trength: but God will make this up again to you &s;ome other way. The&s;e are times where|in much work lies upon the hands of &s;uch as are faithfull. There is no|thing lo&s;t by &s;ticking clo&s;e to the intere&s;t of Chri&s;t. Chri&s;tians have a good Ma&s;ter, and (which is a choice incouragement) the work of God is &s;uch a worke, as will improve, and crowne it &s;elfe.</P>
<P>I beleeve the in&s;olency of &s;ome that pretend gifts to ju&s;tle out the Mini&s;try of Chri&s;t, yea and his truth too, doth &s;omewhat damp your joy you take in the pro&s;perous &s;uc|ce&s;&s;e of the affairs of this Common|wealth: But, <HI>Dabit Deus huic quo&abque;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Jude 12.</NOTE> <HI>finem: The&s;e clouds without water</HI> will &s;oon be blowne over: They are as bubbles that will break with a light touch.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign"> In quietus, turbulentus, <HI>un&s;etled, wavering.</HI> Legh. Sac. Crit.</NOTE> <HI>For yet a little while</HI> (&s;ayes <HI>David,</HI> P&s;al. 37.10.) <HI>and the wicked</HI> [Heb: the turbulent, wavering, or un&s;teddy] <HI>&s;hall not be, yea thou &s;halt
<PB REF="4">diligently con&s;ider his place, and it &s;hall not be.</HI> In the interim let us fix our thoughts upon an immutable God. <HI>Let Patience have her perfect worke,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Jam.</HI> 1.4.</NOTE> and we &s;hall be <HI>perfect, entire, and wanting nothing.</HI> A taxie in a wi&s;e Co~mon-wealth can never be long|liv'd. But what mean I keeping you from the Di&s;cour&s;e en&s;uing? You will &s;ee there this tottering wall is falling; but two po&s;ts to keep it from the ground, Novel|ty, and Confidence, the one rots, the other breakes &s;uddenly of it &s;elfe. <HI>Praevalebit veritas, Truth will out-live its enemies,</HI> though &s;ome enemies of truth may out-live us here in the fle&s;h. Beeing eyed with a &s;pirituall under&s;tanding we may &s;ee through all the&s;e thick Clouds, which that we may be able to doe, is the con&s;tant, and hearty pray|er of</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Your greatly-obliged Nephew: devoted to your, and the Chur|ches &s;ervice in the Go&s;pel, <HI>RICHARD SAUNDERS.</HI></SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="4">
<HEAD>To the READER.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Courteous Reader;</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>_AN unpoli&s;hed Peice is here put in|to thine hand, that which (I con|fe&s;&s;e) co&s;t me more time to write it out faire for the Pre&s;&s;e, then to compo&s;e it. I was pained within me till I had &s;et it going, that it might come &s;peedily to thine hand, and lea&s;t any &s;oule &s;hould be en&s;nared fir&s;t by that dangerous Pamphlet which I an&s;wer. Some foure or five weeks I laboured hard in compo&s;ing the following Di&s;cour&s;e, and as many in writing it out a|gaine for publique view. If thou blame mee for not taking more time. I an&s;wer.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, I met not with much in mine adver|&s;aries Booke, that had any difficulty in it to hold me long.</P>
<P>Secondly, Twas my tender re&s;pect to thy good that &s;purred me on &s;o fa&s;t, and if I loo&s;e credit in any mea&s;ure, by &s;etting forth my con|ceptions in no better a dre&s;&s;e, thou maye&s;t well pardon me, <HI>for if I have plaid the fool it is for thy &s;ake.</HI></P>
<P><PB REF="5">
But thirdly, Such as it is, if thou be not too curious, I hope it will appeare &s;ufficient as to that which twas intended for, viz. a confutati|on of mine Antagoni&s;t.</P>
<P>If my Di&s;cour&s;e chance to come into the hand of a learned, and judicious Reader; though &s;uch a one it may be may finde in it, that, which may make him judge it not lo&s;t la|bour to reade it over; yet I mu&s;t &s;ay my re|&s;pect was not to &s;uch in writing this, there beeing nothing in the Book I an&s;wer, that is like to pa&s;&s;e for &s;ound rea&s;on with di&s;cerning &s;pirits. My re&s;pect was to weak Chri&s;tians, Babes in Chri&s;t, and &s;uch as are ready to &s;tag|ger at every &s;traw, upon whom the boldne&s;&s;e and confidence of the Collier may prevaile too farre, e&s;pecially while he covers over his de&s;igne with preten&s;ions to the honour of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>If thou finde&s;t any inclination in thy &s;elfe to cen&s;ure me for the tartne&s;&s;e of &s;ome of mine expre&s;&s;ions, con&s;ult &s;eriou&s;ly with thine owne heart, whether the confidence, and yet weak|ne&s;&s;e, and gro&s;&s;e ab&s;urdities, of mine adver&s;ary doth not give ju&s;t rea&s;on. I was never (if I may &s;peak &s;o of my &s;elfe) a man of a bitter, or rigid &s;pirit in my life, e&s;pecially again&s;t any that I could looke upon as Godly. And truely, if I could have &s;een any Characters of an hum|ble, and Chri&s;tian Spirit in the <HI>Pulpit Guard
<PB REF="5">Routed,</HI> I &s;hould not have u&s;ed altogether &s;uch language as now I am enforced to doe. But it may be if thou &s;eriou&s;ly commune with thine owne heart, in&s;teed of cen&s;uring me, thou wilt finde ground to judge thy &s;elfe, for not beeing &s;ufficiently &s;en&s;ible of Gods di&s;ho|nour, occa&s;ioned by the venting of &s;uch corrupt principles as I engage again&s;t.</P>
<P>If thou wonder (as it may be &s;ome will) to &s;ee me appearing in &s;uch Controver&s;ies as &s;ome of the&s;e are, who have lately appeared as publiquely in a Di&s;cour&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Viz.</HI> In a &s;hort Di&s;|cour&s;e pro|ving the lawfulne&s;&s;e of &s;ubmit|ting to the pre&s;ent Power.</NOTE> wherein I di&s;|covered my &s;elfe contrary minded to a great number of tho&s;e, I now plead for.</P>
<P>And &s;eeing I differ, in &s;ome matters of Church-Di&s;cipline, and order, from many of my Brethren. I mu&s;t tell thee,</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, I love to &s;peake truth (when nece&s;&s;i|ty calls for it) what ever they be I &s;peake a|gain&s;t.</P>
<P>Secondly, I cannot endure to be reputed a favourer of &s;uch corruptions as my &s;oule ever abhorred, which I &s;hould be, if I &s;hould hold my peace in the things hereafter di&s;cour&s;ed of.</P>
<P>I have freely encouraged Chri&s;tians to the u&s;e of their Liberty in edifying one another, in the u&s;e of their gifts: and how many have &s;u&s;pected that I countenanced the confu&s;ed Li|berty that is pleaded for by theh <HI>Pulpit Guard Routed?</HI></P>
<P><PB REF="6">
I have &s;crupled the bapti&s;ing all infants, not judging but that all Church-Members in|fants are to be bapti&s;ed, but &s;eeing tis evident, that all among us are not &s;uch as may be em|braced as Church-Members in this time of Re|formation endeavoured, all infants are not to be bapti&s;ed: and upon this account I have, for a &s;ea&s;on, &s;u&s;pended the di&s;pen&s;ing of that Ordi|nance to any, untill I can forme tho&s;e Chri&s;ti|ans that have hearts to &s;ubmit unto the Di&s;ci|pline of Chri&s;t into a body, according to Apo&s;to|licall rule. And how many upon this account have thought me a friend to <HI>Anabapti&s;ts,</HI> not|with&s;tanding my profe&s;&s;ion to the contrary? When as I profe&s;&s;e tis not, but that I have ever owned Bapti&s;me of infants to be an Ordinance of Chri&s;t. And my &s;u&s;pending the u&s;e of it, is,</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, Becau&s;e I judge it meet that tho&s;e, that enjoy Church-priviledges, either for them|&s;elves, or Children, &s;hould be accountable to the Church for their walking: which cannot well be, unle&s;&s;e there be a new-forming of Church-Societies, for pre&s;ent altogether without forme, order, or power.</P>
<P>Secondly, Becau&s;e I am afraid, if I &s;hould doe otherwi&s;e, what I build with one hand, I &s;hould pull downe with the other, in the bu&s;i|ne&s;&s;e of Church-Reformation.</P>
<P>Now though I have &s;ufficiently (though not &s;o publiquely as now) clear'd my &s;elfe of the&s;e
<PB REF="6">&s;u&s;pitions, yet they made me &s;omewhat the more willing to this undertaking.</P>
<P>Thirdly, I appeared al&s;o in this Di&s;cour&s;e the rather, becau&s;e it may be knowne that all that are for the pre&s;ent Power, are not (as &s;ome &s;u&s;pect) favourers of the&s;e corruptions. I thinke I have appeared before, in, and after the change of affairs in this Land, as far as mo&s;t of my Station, and I cannot be are the di&s;|honour is done to the Noble Patriots of our Country by the &s;ecret whi&s;perings of the&s;e va|grant Seducers, that &s;peak as if they were &s;ent by Authority, and Patronizd by it. Yea &s;ome of them (as I heard) had the boldne&s;&s;e to give out (when debate was touching a new Repre|&s;entative) that the <HI>Anabapti&s;ts</HI> &s;hould be the men that &s;hould choo&s;e it. Twere good the in&s;o|lency of &s;uch fellows were curb'd. Such things trouble many hone&s;t hearts, not that they can beleeve &s;uch toyes, but becau&s;e there is no check given to &s;uch per&s;ons. Among others this <HI>Collier</HI> I write again&s;t, de&s;erves to be mar|ked: who can not be contented to &s;et him&s;elfe again&s;t <HI>Ordinances</HI> of Chri&s;t, but al&s;o like a man of a &s;editious &s;pirit, mu&s;t jear at <HI>Ordi|nances of Parliament</HI> too.</P>
<P>Chri&s;tian Reader, I cannot be &s;o prudent as to let Truth &s;uffer by holding my peace, when my &s;peaking may di&s;plea&s;e men. Tis true there may be a time when &s;ome Truths may not be
<PB REF="7">fit to be publi&s;hed. But I promi&s;e thee; if God make knowne to me any thing further where|by I may doe the Church of Chri&s;t any &s;ervice, I &s;hall not impri&s;on the Truth in me: And though in this learned, and knowing age, where|in &s;o many things are written by tho&s;e, with whom I am not worthy to be named, there is little rea&s;on to expect me much in print, yet &s;hall I to my power, in my place, labour the promoting of the intere&s;t of truth, To which end I de&s;ire thee to improve what intere&s;t thou ha&s;t at the throne of Grace for me, and I &s;hall remain</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED><HI>To truth, and peace: Chri&s;tian liberty, and order; an hearty well-wi&s;her.</HI> R. S.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB N="1" REF="7">
<HEAD>A <HI>BALME</HI> To Heale Religions Wounds: In an&s;wer to the <HI>Pulpit-Guard Routed.</HI></HEAD>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>The Proeme &s;hewing the grounds of writing this Treati&s;e.</HEAD>
<P>_IT may be much wondred why I &s;hould &s;et pen to paper, to write an An&s;wer to that railing Pam|phlet which is come out into the World under the name of the <HI>Pulpit Guard Routed,</HI> e&s;pecially &s;eeing there is another (abler for the work) more properly and directly concerned in it. I mu&s;t tell you it is no plea&s;ure to me to be contending about que&s;tions and controver&s;ies, which engender &s;trife. I could wi&s;h (if the wi&s;e|dome of God thought it fit) that there were no occa&s;ion of &s;uch a thing given,
<PB N="2" REF="8">nor any nece&s;&s;ity lying upon tho&s;e, that de&s;ire rather to be imployed about more &s;weet and &s;avoury &s;tudies, to turn them|&s;elves to &s;uch unplea&s;ant work: But &s;ee|ing that according to the Preacher, <HI>Eccl.</HI> 3.3. <HI>There is a time to breake downe, as well as a time to build up;</HI> I find God calling us now forth (as we are able) to both. Not only to building up, and repairing Gods &s;pirituall fabrick in his Saints (which is our delightfull work) but to pull down tho&s;e dangerous &s;tructures of hay, and &s;tubble, which men of corrupt minds en|deavour to rai&s;e up.</P>
<P>But &s;econdly; The rea&s;ons why I (who am le&s;&s;e concerned in this bu&s;ine&s;&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> did yet interpo&s;e in it, are the&s;e.</P>
<P N="1">1. I am &s;omewhat doubtfull whether M^r <HI>Hall</HI> (who&s;e Book 'tis that this un|worthy Pamphlet pretends to an&s;wer) may have any purpo&s;e to make reply, in regard 1. It is &s;o &s;currilous, and the An|&s;wers &s;o ab&s;urd and impertinent. 2. The danger that may come of this Book, by corrupting the minds of weake and un|&s;teady people, may not be &s;o vi&s;ible t<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> him, as to me, who live in and near tho&s;e parts, where the Author of it ha's mo<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="2 letters"> influence: and therefore I may &s;ee mor<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> rea&s;on why his Book &s;hould not go without an An&s;wer.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="3" REF="8">
2. The Author of this <HI>Pulpit Guard Routed,</HI> hath endeavoured to &s;catter a|broad his Books in this Countrey, unto the great danger of en&s;naring many poor &s;ouls, whom the relation of neighbour-hood makes me more tender of then or|dinary.</P>
<P N="3">3. Seeing his de&s;igne is chiefly promo|ted in the&s;e parts, it may be, a word from me in the&s;e parts where I am known, may be more prevalent then an an&s;wer from a Stranger, though the bu&s;ines be better managed by him; yea, and what I &s;hall write may take much the better abroad too, among them who&s;e e&s;tabli&s;hment and information I chiefly aim at, while they &s;ee my judgement, wherein I goe &s;o far to meet all well-wi&s;hers to reforma|tion as the Truth will give me leave; as thou maye&s;t &s;ee in part in mine <HI>Epi&s;tle to the Reader:</HI> where thou haft al&s;o a further account of the ground of mine underta|king this work.</P>
<P>Upon the&s;e Rea&s;ons I have been enfor|ced to run the hazard of being cen&s;ured as medling in other mens matters: though it be plain enough, that every hone&s;t &s;oul is herein concerned, while the honour of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and of the Truth lies at &s;take.</P>
<P><PB N="4" REF="9">
If I deal very roundly with mine (and yet not mine &s;o much as the Truths) Ad|ver&s;ary, I may be excu&s;ed, for that I can|not otherwi&s;e po&s;&s;ibly come up to a full di&s;covery of the Ignorance of that <HI>Rout|er,</HI> it being wrapt up in &s;uch wonderfull impudence.</P>
<P>It is a true Proverb, <HI>Audax in&s;eitia, Ig|norance is bold:</HI> and truly I mu&s;t &s;ay I ne|ver &s;aw ignorance growne &s;o impudent and &s;hamele&s;&s;e in my life. 'Tis &s;trange that a man &s;hould write and print &s;uch ab&s;urd, weak, impertinent things, with &s;o much confidence and di&s;daine, trium|phing over Arguments as ignorant, and invalid, which he an&s;wers only with boldnes, and confident dictates of his owne braine, as you will &s;ee anon: you may perceive his plot is laid only to gain upon the humours of &s;uch, as are more taken with words then things: and are &s;wayed more by the confidence of an a&s;&s;er|tion, then the rea&s;on of it. Truly were it not that I find &s;ome that know not how to judge of the &s;trength of an Argument, or of the fallacious jugling of men of corrupt minds, and principles; but are apt to think there mu&s;t needs be &s;ome &s;trength in that, which is boldly a&s;&s;erted by &s;uch as have a vi&s;our of Religion on
<PB N="5" REF="9">their faces, and Scripture phra&s;es in their mouths; I &s;hould not have thought that any pa&s;&s;age in all his Book de&s;erved the credit of an An&s;wer. Ah! but mine heart is moved toward poor weak &s;ouls for whom this &s;nare is layd: 'tis not given to all to dive into the my&s;tery of iniqui|ty, that &s;ome di&s;orderly &s;pirits advance. Beloved Souls, you that love Je&s;us Chri&s;t, mine heart is troubled for you, e&s;pecial|ly you of the&s;e parts, whom the relati|on of neighbour-hood makes more pre|cious to me: I can gladly expo&s;e my &s;elfe to the cen&s;ures of men for your &s;ake, that your faith be not corrupted, nor your &s;ouls caught in a &s;nare. Where|fore let mine advice from the Lord have place with you. Let your hearts with mine debate a little, and that &s;eriou&s;ly, as in the pre&s;ence of the great &s;earcher of hearts, before whom both you and I mu&s;t one day an&s;wer, about the&s;e que|&s;tions following.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<PB N="6" REF="10">
<HEAD>Five &s;erious Questions to be debated by modest Christians, in order to the di&s;covery of the ge|nius, and &s;cope of the <HI>PULPIT GUARD ROUTED.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="1">1.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Que&s;t. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> WHether &s;uch an uncharitable, cen&s;orious, proud, di&s;dainful, inveterate, calumniating &s;pirit as vi&s;ibly works in this man, and others, <HI>eju&s;dem farinae,</HI> of the &s;ame lump, does ever u&s;e to &s;hew it &s;elfe among&s;t Chri&s;tians, even a|gain&s;t godly per&s;ons, much le&s;&s;e godly Mini&s;ters? Ah! favour mine expre&s;&s;ions, for I tell you.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. I cannot flatter &s;uch corruptions, and corrupters with faire plea&s;ing ti|tles, nor may I.</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. There are &s;uch as are to be <HI>rebuked &s;harply</HI> [or cuttingly] and all little e|nough,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>Tit.</HI> 1.13.</NOTE> <HI>to make them &s;ound in the faith.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>Is it po&s;&s;ible (if it were true what the&s;e men would make you beleeve, that they are the men whom God ha's mo&s;t e|minently appeared to, to open to them the my&s;teries of truth, and to call them &s;orth to be Stewards of his manifold grace above others) Is it po&s;&s;ible, I &s;ay,
<PB N="7" REF="10">if it were &s;o, that a &s;pirit &s;o contrary to the Go&s;pel, &s;hould work &s;o mightily in them? What, u&s;e all the expre&s;&s;ions, and &s;crape up all the advantages they are a|ble, that they may powre out contempt upon tho&s;e that are eminent Servants of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and yet pretend to be the crop of Gods family, as they would be thought to be? Surely I know not what entertainment that &s;currilous language that is in that pamphlet hath where it comes, no doubt many phan&s;ies are tick|led with it: but I profe&s;&s;e, my heart even trembled in reading &s;ome pa&s;&s;ages; yea, throughout the whole Book I can hard|ly finde any thing that &s;peaks much to a|waken my charity to beleeve, that there is ought of Chri&s;t in that heart, where &s;uch &s;tuffe was conceived.</P>
<P>To omit tho&s;e di&s;dainful and reproach|full &s;peeches, which he u&s;es again&s;t the man he pretends to an&s;wer; calling him, <HI>Ignorant, Fool, Knave, Enemy to truth, Of his father the Devil, Proud Phari&s;ee,</HI> &amp;c. To omit the&s;e, which might admit of excu&s;e in part, for that they are again&s;t the particu|lar adver&s;ary he ha's to deal withall, but that he al&s;o heaps up mo&s;t in&s;ufferable reproach again&s;t the Mini&s;try of <HI>England</HI> in generall, calling them, <HI>Antichri&s;tian, A
<PB N="8" REF="11">pack of cheaters and deluders, Carnall, Loo&s;e, Ba&s;e in Conver&s;ation, Theeves, Robbers, Wolves, Empty barrels making great &s;ounds, but having nothing but vanity and pride in them, Sen&s;uali&s;ts, Idlers often, &s;uch as never knew what it is to live in a lawfull Calling, Who&s;e God is their belly, Humani&s;ts.</HI> Several times, <HI>The ba&s;tard brood of Rome. No Levites but ba&s;tard ones. No Emba&s;&s;adours but ignorant ones. No Shepherds but kill them that are fed. Prie&s;tly Phari&s;ees, Ba&s;tard Tribe of Levites. Babyloni&s;h Diviners, Egyptian juglers, Limbs of the Devil,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Is not this brave language? Could you have wor&s;e if you did rake the filthi|e&s;t corners in Hell for it?</P>
<P>Neither will this excu&s;e him that he &s;ayes in his Epi&s;tle to the Reader, that he doth <HI>an&s;wer a Fool according to his folly.</HI> For,
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. I find no &s;uch language in M^r <HI>Halls</HI> Book, nor doth he rebuke him (in his An&s;wer) for any pa&s;&s;age of that kind, except in &s;peaking again&s;t the thing he di&s;putes again&s;t: he doth not revile the per&s;ons that are di&s;&s;enting from him: But,</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. If M^r <HI>Hall</HI> hath been faulty (for I will not undertake to defend every ex|pre&s;&s;ion of his) what ground is that for this man to be &s;o inveterate <GAP DESC="foreign">
<PB N="9" REF="11">again&s;t the whole kinde, the <HI>Mini&s;ters,</HI> without exception, or di&s;tinction? Is this the genius of a Chri&s;tian? Yea, is it not neer bla&s;phemy, to bring in <HI>Scrip|ture</HI> (as he does, <HI>Prov.</HI> 26.5.) to ex|cu&s;e his railing, and make Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles to be guilty with him in the &s;ame wickedne&s;&s;e?</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>Neither doth he mend the matter when his Con&s;cience forces him to &s;ay (in his Epi&s;tle) that &s;ome of them may be godly. For though he doe le&s;&s;e then halfe grant this, &s;aying <HI>[He is not de&s;pai|ring of the truth of it]</HI> which implies that he doth &s;carce beleeve that there are any godly, but hath onely &s;o much hope of it, as keeps him from de&s;pairing that it is &s;o; a mo&s;t unchri&s;tian, &s;atanicall cen|&s;ure: I beleeve every humble, gratious heart will judge it &s;o, yet, I &s;ay, this mends not the matter that he almo&s;t half grants, that 'tis po&s;&s;ible &s;ome of them may be godly, in that all along in his Di&s;cour&s;e, he reviles them with unwor|thy termes, without putting any diffe|rence. O yee Redeemed of the Lord, that are bid <HI>to try the &s;pirits, whether they be of God,</HI> or no; examine the &s;pirit of that Pamphleter: if it be the Spirit of Chri&s;t that moves in that puddle, I mu&s;t profe&s;&s;e <GAP DESC="missing" EXTENT="1 span">
<PB N="10" REF="12">ver knew yet what the Spirit of Chri&s;t meanes.</P>
<P>Upon what grounds (think you) &s;hould he,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Que&s;t. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> and men of the &s;ame temper and Spi|rit with him, u&s;e &s;uch bitterne&s;&s;e again&s;t the Mini&s;try, and vent &s;o much rancour with their pens &amp; tongues again&s;t them, when many hundreds of them are known to be very eminent and precious Chri&s;ti|ans, and &s;uch who&s;e lives and conver&s;a|tions, as al&s;o their doctrine, &s;peak them to be endeared to the Lord Je&s;us? what can be the rea&s;on of this (I &s;ay) unle&s;&s;e it be becau&s;e they give a check to tho&s;e un&s;ound principles (de&s;tructive to &s;ound doctrine and manners) that &s;ome of them endeavour to &s;owe among the peo|ple? Here is the gall, here is the wring, el&s;e they are knowne to be &s;ound in the faith, godly in conver&s;ation, let your owne experiences (that read this) be witne&s;&s;es.</P>
<P>'Tis true, diver&s;e of them have been un|&s;atisfied about the late wonderfull <HI>change</HI> in this <HI>Common-wealth;</HI> and have di&s;co|vered them&s;elves oppo&s;ite, &s;ome more, &s;ome le&s;&s;e, &s;ome nothing at all oppo&s;ite, but yet un&s;atisfied in part: I could wi&s;h it had been otherwi&s;e, and that (if the Lord had plea&s;ed) they had &s;een things <GAP DESC="missing" EXTENT="4 pages"></P>
<P><PB N="15" REF="12">
Hath it not been an old trick of &s;uch as have de&s;igned the &s;haking of the pillars of the Chri&s;tian Faith,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Que&s;t. <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> fir&s;t to begin with the faithfull Mini&s;ters, to powre out con|tempt upon them? Did not <HI>Paul</HI> meet with &s;uch in his time? What el&s;e made him write &s;o much in defence of him&s;elfe, and the re&s;t of the faithfull Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t; in 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. and <HI>Chap.</HI> 11. and <HI>Chap.</HI> 12. and &s;everall other places? I do not intend to plead for all tho&s;e that have gone under the name of Mini&s;ters among us (no hone&s;t heart I think does) many have been for their lewdne&s;&s;e and malignancy, ju&s;tly removed from their places; and many more do de&s;erve to be removed who are the reproach of the Go&s;pel. But to inveigh again&s;t Mini&s;ters in generall (as <HI>The P. G. Routed</HI> doth) was it ever known to be the work of any but enemies to the faith? The Devil hath his<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.14.</NOTE> <HI>method</HI> of deceiving: ob&s;erve it well, he fir&s;t will ca&s;t dirt in the face of the me&s;&s;engers of truth, and then of truth it &s;elfe.</P>
<P>All yee that love the Lord <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> my Chri&s;tian friends, neighbours, and country-men, let &s;erious deliberate try-all goe before re&s;olution, in matters be|longing to God. Can an humble &s;piri|ted
<PB N="16" REF="13">Chri&s;tian ea&s;ily be per&s;waded to &s;wim again&s;t the &s;tream of the mo&s;t eminent and precious Saints of all Ages, and pla|ces? I know the voice and word of <HI>Je|&s;us Chri&s;t</HI> &s;hould be infinitely more pre|vailing with Chri&s;tians, then the exam|ples even of the be&s;t men; But in things in controver&s;ie and doubtfull, I &s;hould make a great &s;tand at the examples of &s;uch; knowing that Chri&s;t &s;peaks to his people by pre&s;idents as well as precepts. &s;ee <HI>Phil.</HI> 3.19. <HI>Jude</HI> 7. &amp;c. wi&s;hing mode&s;t Chri&s;tians to weigh the&s;e things in their thoughts, I &s;hall now open a lit|tle of the vanity and childi&s;hne&s;&s;e of the an&s;wers and arguments of this &s;ame <HI>P. G. Routed,</HI> &s;o far as it may make for the &s;etling of their minds in the beliefe of the truths he endeavours to &s;hake.</P>
<P>His errours are many (though one mainly pleaded for) I &s;hall in order in|quire into the firmene&s;&s;e of their founda|tion.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<PB N="17" REF="13">
<HEAD>His Fir&s;t Error.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">That the life of Mini&s;ters and Schollars, educated in Schooles of learning is an idle life.</HEAD>
<P>THis you finde in the entrance of his di&s;cour&s;e: where pleading for the <HI>Nailer, Baker, &amp;c.</HI> as fit to make Preach|ers he layes downe with much confidence (which is mo&s;t of his &s;trength) this a&s;&s;er|tion. <HI>That the life of Mini&s;ters and Schol|lers brought up in learning is an idle life:</HI> cal|ling &s;uch <HI>Idlers</HI> and <HI>Drones, that never knew what it is to live lawfully in a cal|ling:</HI> with much more &s;uch reproachfull Language.</P>
<P>But how doth he make this good? Why, by a learned definition that he gives of a <HI>calling.</HI> &s;ayes he,</P>
<P><HI>A calling is that in and by which men may in the &s;weat of their face get their li|ving.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE></P>
<P>O brave Definition of a <HI>Calling!</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer.</NOTE> be|fitting a man that can call the mo&s;t learned in the land ignorant, and &s;imple. But let us examine it a little, if his defi|nition be good, then mu&s;t it <HI>reciprocari cum &s;uo definito,</HI> &s;o as that it agree neither
<PB N="18" REF="14">to more things, nor to le&s;&s;e, then the thing defined doth: this is the con&s;tant law of a good definition.</P>
<P>Now 1. Is every thing that a man may get his living by in the &s;weat of his face a calling, <HI>i. e.</HI> a lawfull calling? (for &s;uch he &s;peaks of) why then, he that &s;weats at his robbing and &s;tealing lives in a law|full calling. It &s;eemes he that would beat downe the calling of Mini&s;ters, knowes how to &s;et up another in&s;tead of it.</P>
<P N="2">2 Is there no <HI>lawfull calling,</HI> but that whereby a man gets his living in the <HI>&s;weat of his face?</HI> what will he &s;ay them of <HI>Magi&s;trates, Ju&s;tices</HI> of the <HI>Peace,</HI> men living by their e&s;tates, &amp; applying them|&s;elves to the wel ordering of their Coun|trey? what? becau&s;e they doe not <HI>worke with their hands,</HI> and &s;weat at it, are they Idlers? Will he call the Parliament men Idlers, becau&s;e they &s;pend their time in di&s;cour&s;ing together, and debating the affairs of State, and doe not <HI>worke with their hands for their living?</HI> See this mans ab&s;urdity. Yea, what will he &s;ay to Phy&s;icians? Doe not they live in a lawfull calling? yea, if his definition were good, 'twere time for him to go bid his <HI>Taylors, Button-makers, Sem&s;ters,</HI> and &s;uch like, that &s;eldome &s;weat at their
<PB N="19" REF="14">worke, e&s;pecially in winter &s;ea&s;on, to finde out another way of living: other|wi&s;e (although they were Preachers) yet are they not in a <HI>lawfull calling,</HI> by his rule. Ah! if the&s;e men that boa&s;t them&s;elves of abilities in a &s;ingular way from other men, to divide the word a|right, do &s;o &s;imply mi&s;take in giving definitions of things &s;o familiar to the under&s;tandings of all men; what (think you) will they doe when they come to give you definitions of &s;pirituall things? Mo&s;t certaine it is that mo&s;t of the dan|gerous errours that are now on foot a|mong us, have &s;prung out of the weak|ne&s;&s;e and ignorance of &s;uch men, who (though they can &s;peak plea&s;ing words that tickle the fancy, yet) are not able to give out any better accompt of the na|ture of things they &s;peak of, then the <HI>Pulpit Guard Routed,</HI> doth here of a <HI>cal|ling,</HI> the weakne&s;&s;e of which is very vi&s;i|ble.</P>
<P>But thirdly, Is it &s;o, That none lives in a lawfull Calling, but he that <HI>workes with his hands,</HI> and gets his living in the &s;weat of his face, what thinke you of <HI>Paul</HI> then? even of what he &s;ayes, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 9.6. <HI>Or I onely and Barnabas, have we not power to forbear working?</HI> Had <HI>Paul</HI> and
<PB N="20" REF="15"><HI>Barnabas</HI> power to live Idelers? to live out of a lawfull calling; or did the re&s;t of the Mini&s;ters of the Go&s;pel, who (as he intimates in this ver&s;e, and affirme<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> <HI>Ver&s;e,</HI> 12.) did u&s;e this liberty of not working, did they I &s;ay live out of a cal|ling? were they Idlers?</P>
<P>But by the way, let me from this plain Scripture frame this one Argu|ment to prove the Mini&s;try of the Go&s;|pel a di&s;tinct, lawfull calling.</P>
<P>If a man may lawfully lay by all other callings, and apply him&s;elfe wholly to it, and live by it; then is it a di&s;tinct lawfull calling. That is clear from his owne words (which are mo&s;t true) that <HI>No man may live out of a calling.</HI></P>
<P>But a man may lawfully lay by all o|ther Callings, and apply him&s;elfe to the <HI>Mini&s;try</HI> of the Go&s;pel, &amp; live by it; that i<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> evident from the Text, where <HI>Paul</HI> &s;ayes <HI>He and Barnabas might leave working,</HI> ver&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> 6. That the <HI>Mini&s;ters</HI> of the Go&s;pel then, generally did, <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 12. That they might, that twas fit they &s;hould, yea, that God had <HI>ordained they &s;hould live by it,</HI> ver. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.13, 14.</P>
<P>Therefore the <HI>Mini&s;try</HI> of the Go&s;pel, is a di&s;tinct lawfull <HI>calling.</HI></P>
<P>Can any thing be more plain and evi|dent then this?</P>
<P><PB N="21" REF="15">
But Fourthly, Is there no laboriou&s;|ne&s;&s;e and pains-taking (for that Ile &s;up|po&s;e he may intend by &s;weat) in the im|ployment of Mini&s;ters and Schollers? It &s;eems he never knew what it is to &s;tudy hard: It appears indeed by his Book. He is not acquainted with the labour of the minde, in getting downe to the bottom of things, and that's the rea&s;on he handles things &s;o &s;uperficially. But he addes,
<Q>Breeding to School is proper to children when they can not labour to fit them for &s;ome calling.<NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE></Q></P>
<P>Very good, then, it &s;eems,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w.</NOTE> hee'l graunt that breeding children at School is war|rantable. But it mu&s;t not be (if you will beleeve him) any longer then <HI>while they cannot worke:</HI> And how long is that (pray) I would fain know, whether chil|dren are not able to begin <HI>to work,</HI> as &s;oon, or almo&s;t as &s;oon, as they are able <HI>to goe to School:</HI> But it &s;eems he would have them learne their <HI>A. B. C.</HI> and no more; for when they can <HI>labor,</HI> then they mu&s;t away to that. Doe not you &s;ee how this mans ignorance opens it &s;elfe in every line.</P>
<P>But he grants they may goe to School, <HI>to fit them for &s;ome calling.</HI> Well then, then mu&s;t they keep to the Schools till they are made as fit for the calling they in|tend,
<PB N="22" REF="16">as the Schools can make them; at lea&s;t till fit in &s;ome degree: and if &s;o, then 1 His former a&s;&s;ertion is fal&s;e, that &s;ayes, <HI>They mu&s;t keep the School onely while they cannot worke.</HI> 2 Then he that intends the calling of a <HI>Mini&s;ter</HI> (which I proved before to be a di&s;tinct calling) mu&s;t &s;o long abide at the Schools, as is requi&s;ite to make him an able <HI>Mini&s;ter,</HI> &s;o far as <HI>Schoole-learning</HI> may helpe him: and if &s;o, then his maine po&s;ition, here di&s;puted, is fal&s;e too, that would make the life of a Scholer an idle, unju&s;tifiable life. See how weakly this man contra|dicts him&s;elfe and all in one page.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Object.</NOTE></P>
<P>If he have &s;o much ignorance <HI>(for lear|ning had never any enemy but ignorance)</HI> as to &s;ay <HI>humane learning</HI> is no way u&s;efull to a Mini&s;ter of the Go&s;pel; I &s;hall u&s;e no other argument here,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w.</NOTE> to refute him, but his own practice; why does he &s;ome|times make u&s;e of the <HI>originall languages,</HI> to clear &s;ome Scriptures in his writings? I beleeve he is little acquainted with tho&s;e languages, but this that he is driven to enquire into them, that he may give out the true and full &s;ence of Scripture, it &s;peaks out the u&s;efulne&s;&s;e of the &s;ame to a Mini&s;ter. More of this in its place: I &s;hall &s;tep forth unto his &s;econd Errour.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<PB N="23" REF="16">
<HEAD>His Second Errour.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">That Infant Bapti&s;me is a Childi&s;h thing.</HEAD>
<P>THis he will owne for truth, and how will he make it good? he &s;ayes, <HI>'Tis childi&s;h,</HI> 1. <HI>As relating to the Subject,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>the child who is to be baptized, not under|&s;tanding the u&s;e and end of it.</HI> 2 <HI>As relating to the Admini&s;trators, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>As to the fir&s;t, there lies a &s;hreud ob|jection in his way,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer.</NOTE> which he has &s;o much ingenuity as faithfuly to &s;et downe, but not &s;o much wit as to an&s;wer with any &s;ence, as you &s;hall &s;ee by and by. The Objection he layes downe thus.</P>
<P>The Infants of the children of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> were as uncapable,<NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> in (he would have written of) the under&s;tanding of the my|&s;tery of Circumci&s;ion, as Infants are now of Bapti&s;me, yet they were by the com|mand of God to be Circumci&s;ed.</P>
<P>'Tis a good objection indeed &s;tarted,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer.</NOTE> but how is it cleared? He gives a three|fold an&s;wer thus,</P>
<P N="1">1 <HI>Its truth that one part of Circumci&s;ions My&s;tery,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> viz. <HI>the Circumci&s;ion of the heart was as far from the capacity of Infants, as the my&s;tery of</HI> Bapti&s;me <HI>is now.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="24" REF="17">
Very good,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer.</NOTE> and what part of Circum|ci&s;ions my&s;tery, pray, were Infants of eight dayes capable of under&s;tanding, if they under&s;tood not that? <HI>ri&s;um teneamus &amp;c.</HI> who can but &s;mile at &s;uch an an&s;wer? as if Infants at eight dayes old did under|&s;tand any part of the my&s;tery of the Or|dinance of Circumci&s;ion. I wonder he had not inform'd his Reader, what my|&s;tery &s;uch were then capable of under|&s;tanding, but what have you next.</P>
<P N="2">2.<NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>As Circumci&s;ion was a type and &s;igne in the fle&s;h, of Chri&s;t who was to come of Abra|hams &s;eed, there was no &s;uch capacity re|quired.</HI> His Rea&s;on follows, <HI>Becau&s;e it was a Jewi&s;h legall type, as all the re&s;t of their externall wor&s;hip and Sacrifices were,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>O fine words to plea&s;e Children,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer.</NOTE> lit|tle to the purpo&s;e!</P>
<P N="1">1. Was there not required a &s;pirituall under&s;tanding of the legal Ordinances, and Sacrifices then, as well as now o<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> Go&s;pel Ordinances? Doth this man thin<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> to per&s;wade any <HI>Prote&s;tant,</HI> or <HI>Orthodox Chri&s;tian,</HI> that the I&s;raelites were not bound to &s;ee into the my&s;tery of their Ordinances, as we are into ours, without any rea&s;on? 'Tis true, they &s;aw not &s;o|far
<PB N="25" REF="17">into the my&s;tery as we may, but that they did not at all under&s;tand, nor were bound to it, will e&s;tabli&s;h the dangerous doctrine of the <HI>Pelagians,</HI> that &s;ay they were ju&s;tified by their legall Ordinances, without faith in Chri&s;t:<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>Acts</HI> 15.11</NOTE> and give the A|po&s;tle the lye, who &s;ays, that we are &s;aved [<GAP DESC="foreign">] even as they.</P>
<P N="2">2. The knowledge of the my&s;tery of Circumci&s;ion was not nece&s;&s;ary to all that were circumci&s;ed, to make them ca|pable of Circumci&s;ion, he grants: well, and why is the knowledge of the my&s;tery of Bapti&s;me nece&s;&s;ary to all that are to be Bapti&s;ed, to make them capable of Bapti&s;me? If he had given a good rea&s;on for this, he had &s;poken &s;omething to the purpo&s;e. He &s;ayes, <HI>Circumci&s;ion was a type,</HI> &s;o is Bapti&s;me al&s;o; whereas he &s;ayes 'twas <HI>Jewi&s;h and Legall,</HI> the &s;ence is, 'twas a type unto the Jews in times of the Law: and what is that to the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e? Bap|ti&s;me is a Type to Chri&s;tians under the Go&s;pel. They that have argued &s;o long again&s;t Infant-Bapti&s;me, from this rea|&s;on, that they are uncapable of under|&s;tanding its my&s;tery, could never yet give a rea&s;on, why the knowledge of the my&s;tery of Bapti&s;me is nece&s;&s;ary to make a &s;ubject capable of it, when the know|ledge
<PB N="26" REF="18">of the my&s;tery of Circumci&s;ion was not nece&s;&s;ary to make the &s;ubject ca|pable of it. Tell me what thing made In|fants then capable of circumci&s;ion, and then I'le tell thee (and thou maye&s;t &s;atis|fie thy &s;elfe) that the &s;ame thing makes Infants capable of Bapti&s;me now. Their being &s;uch as God had vouch&s;afed to take (together with their Parents) into Covenant with him&s;elfe, was that which made them capable of Circumci&s;i|on, as appears in <HI>Gen.</HI> 17.7, 8, 9, 10. where they are commanded <HI>Therefore</HI> to be Circumci&s;ed, becau&s;e God had made a Covenant with them. Now the &s;ame thing makes Children of Beleevers now capable of Bapti&s;me.</P>
<P>But his third An&s;wer is of all the fitte&s;t for &s;uch a man to give; it is this,</P>
<P N="3">3.<NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>There was a Command for that of Cir|cumci&s;ion,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>O egregiou&s;ly gifted Di&s;putant!<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer.</NOTE> The Objection was if Infant-Bapti&s;me be childi&s;h, becau&s;e the &s;ubjects are Children, then Circumci&s;ion was al&s;o Childi&s;h, which was commanded of God: to this he an&s;wers, <HI>Circumci&s;ion was commanded</HI> of <HI>God.</HI> Can you beleeve that the &s;pirituall gifts that the&s;e men pretend to, are reall,
<PB N="27" REF="18">when as in the utmo&s;t improvement of their gifts, they write &s;uch non-&s;ence. If they write thus how do you think will they &s;peake, when they come to handle difficult matters, if they preach too with|out meditation or &s;tudy, as they boa&s;t? But whereas he &s;ayes, <HI>The command is that which gives a capacity,</HI> &amp;c. I &s;hewed even now what it was that gave the Infants then a capacity of Circumci&s;ion, from <HI>Gen.</HI> 17. <HI>The Command</HI> (as M^r <HI>Mar&s;hall</HI> &s;ayes well) <HI>is the cau&s;e of the exi&s;tence of the duty, but the Covenant of grace is the mo|tive to it.</HI> They were <HI>therefore</HI> circumci&s;ed (as before) becau&s;e taken into Cove|nant, and &s;o Church-members. But e|nough of this, let me away to his &s;econd Rea&s;on, why Infant bapti&s;me is childi&s;h, which is as follows.</P>
<P N="2">2.<NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>It is Childi&s;h as relating to the Admini&s;tra|tors,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>in not under&s;tanding the com|mand of Chri&s;t,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>But how doth he make that good?<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer.</NOTE> why, you mu&s;t take his word for it. He will call thou&s;ands of able, judicious men ignorant, that by his confidence, you may think he is knowing and intelli|gent.</P>
<P>His next corrupt A&s;&s;ertion borders
<PB N="28" REF="19">upon the &s;ame controver&s;ie, touching In|fant-bapti&s;me: 'Tis this,</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>His third Error.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">That none mu&s;t be bapti&s;ed till they come to perfect Age.</HEAD>
<P>YOu have this defended by him, page 6. thus.</P>
<P><HI>And is this &s;uch a &s;trange thing with you who profe&s;&s;e your &s;elfe a Mini&s;ter of the Go&s;|pel?</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> &amp;c. <HI>Was not Chri&s;t him&s;elfe Bapti|&s;ed at thirty years of age, the Eunuch by Philip,</HI> Acts 8? <HI>And tho&s;e of John,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Yea,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer.</NOTE> and it may be &s;trange for all that, for what &s;hadow of rea&s;on is there in it, why none mu&s;t be bapti&s;ed till they come to perfect Age? Is this good arguing, <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> and the <HI>Eunuch,</HI> &amp;c. were of perfect age when bapti&s;ed, therefore none but men of perfect age mu&s;t be bapti&s;ed. Is not this as good an argument? When Chri&s;t gave the Supper, none were admit|ted but Apo&s;tles, therefore none but A|po&s;tles may receive the Supper. If he &s;ay there be other Scriptures that give (not Apo&s;tles onely, but) all believers ad|mittance unto the Supper; I an&s;wer, &s;o there are other Scriptures that do autho|rize us to admit Children to bapti&s;me.</P>
<P><PB N="29" REF="19">
Therefore he might have &s;aved the la|bour of an&s;wering the Objection, viz. <HI>That that was in the fir&s;t Plantation of the Church,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>For fir&s;t, we need not fly thither, be|cau&s;e what he urges concludes not at all the thing a&s;&s;erted by him.</P>
<P>He &s;ayes, <HI>None mu&s;t be bapti&s;ed but &s;uch as are of perfect age,</HI> &amp;c. To prove it he urges, that &s;ome that were of perfect age were then bapti&s;ed, which you know no way concludes that none but &s;uch mu&s;t.</P>
<P>When any <HI>Anabapti&s;t</HI> in <HI>England,</HI> can prove, that no Infants were bapti&s;ed in the Apo&s;tles times, then it may be we &s;hall make u&s;e of that which he brings in as an Objection, which if we doe, we mu&s;t in|treat him to take a little better know|ledge of the Objection, and not mi&s;take it &s;o ignorantly, as he &s;eems to do in his An&s;wer.</P>
<P>For the thing urged in the Objection, is not, <HI>That there was one rule for them in the infancy, and another for us now.</HI> If he did under&s;tand &s;en&s;e he would have &s;een it, but that the &s;ame Scripture rule that was then delivered to the Churches, di|rects us to a different cour&s;e in gathering Churches, and in Churches gathered, which is very clear. So that none need
<PB N="30" REF="20">wonder why they heare of bapti&s;ing growne per&s;ons then, and Infants for the mo&s;t part now. The rea&s;on is, becau&s;e though when our work is, as theirs was, to gather Churches, we bapti&s;e growne per&s;ons upon their Profe&s;&s;ion of the Chri|&s;tian Faith, as they did, and that mo&s;t frequently: yet when the Church is con|&s;tituted, we doe take in (according to Chri&s;ts appointment) the Children of Beleevers in their infancy, the which I &s;hall &s;peak more to by and by.</P>
<P>Pretious Souls! you that love the ap|pearing of the Lord Je&s;us, I from mine heart owne the lowe&s;t appearances of Chri&s;t in his people, I would not quench the &s;moaking flax for a world, nor dare I <HI>de&s;pi&s;e the day of &s;mall things,</HI> in any: but when Ignorance doth &s;o exalt it &s;elfe, yea, even pre&s;uming to call the Spirit of Chri&s;t its Father (as in the&s;e men) give me leave to be zealous for your &s;akes, that you may (with the Church of <HI>E|phe&s;us,</HI> Revel. 2.2.) <HI>Try them which &s;ay they are Apo&s;tles</HI> [or men &s;ent] <HI>and are not, and finde them lyars.</HI></P>
<P>But that I may follow my valiant An|tagoni&s;t (marching in the head of his victorious ab&s;urdities and impertinen|cies) yet a little further, in what he &s;ays
<PB N="31" REF="20">more to this controver&s;ie, page 8. I &s;hall &s;tep over one or two particulars, re&s;er|ving the handling of them til afterwards, and apply my &s;elfe to the fini&s;hing of what I intend about Paedo-bapti&s;me.</P>
<P>He undertakes in the eigth page to vin|dicate the <HI>Anabapti&s;ts</HI> in re&s;pect of ano|ther errour charged upon them, viz. that they deny all con&s;equences of Scripture, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> to which he &s;ayes.</P>
<P><HI>You are mi&s;taken man in this too;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>they deny unnece&s;&s;ary and untrue con&s;equences.</HI></P>
<P>I beleeve indeed this is the opinion on|ly of the weake&s;t and &s;imple&s;t of them;<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer.</NOTE> and though the <HI>Pulpit Guard Routed</HI> be ignorant enough, yet it &s;eems he is not &s;o ignorant as to deny nece&s;&s;ary con&s;e|quences drawne from Scripture. I &s;hould have &s;aid nothing to this, but for what followes. Sayes he,</P>
<P><HI>Your con&s;equences are &s;uch as the&s;e.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>Bapti&s;me is come in the roome of Circumci&s;ion, In|fants were circumci&s;ed, therefore Infants mu&s;t be bapti&s;ed. The Apo&s;tles bapti&s;ed hou&s;holds, there might be Children; there|fore Children may be bapti&s;ed. Children were brought to Chri&s;t, therefore they may be bapti&s;ed.</HI> Goodly con&s;equences.</P>
<P><PB N="32" REF="21">
Are the&s;e the con&s;equences that are drawne out of Scripture to prove In|fant-bapti&s;me?<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer.</NOTE> Ha's not the <HI>Pulpit Guard Routed</HI> got a forehead of braffe, that is a|ble to tell the World &s;uch a fal&s;hood in Print?</P>
<P>'Tis true, the fir&s;t con&s;equence hath been made u&s;e of by &s;ome in the proof of Infant-bapti&s;me, and it is &s;o plaine and unque&s;tionable a con&s;equence, that if he had the lea&s;t graine of &s;ound rea&s;on in him, he could not have denied it. Mark it, he finds no fault with the Propo&s;ition [Bapti&s;me comes in the roome of Cir|cumci&s;ion] but denies the con&s;equence that is drawne out of it. Now come hither Babes and Sucklings, and make good this again&s;t him; let all the world judge, whether if bapti&s;me come in the room of Circumci&s;ion, this be not a good con&s;e|quence, Infants were circumci&s;ed, there|fore Infants mu&s;t be baptized. You will ea&s;ily &s;ee his folly in this exception, if you note, he denies the con&s;equence, not the Propo&s;ition on which 'tis ground|ed.</P>
<P>As for the other two con&s;equences, did ever any of tho&s;e that have written for Infant-bapti&s;me argue after that man|ner? But I think this man never &s;hewed
<PB N="33" REF="21">&s;o much affection to truth, or de&s;ire of information, as to read the Arguments of tho&s;e that have writ &s;oundly for it; if he had, he would have found other con&s;equences then &s;uch as he mentions. Read the Arguments of <HI>Baxter, Mar&s;hall, Homes, Featly,</HI> and others, or the Argu|ments of any one of them, e&s;pecially <HI>M^r Baxter,</HI> and &s;ee (Beloved Chri&s;tians) whether he goes not about to cheat you with his forgeries. But to the particular con&s;equences.</P>
<P N="1">1. They argue (if he will have it &s;o) bapti&s;me comes in the roome of circum|ci&s;ion; Infants were circumci&s;ed, there|fore Infants mu&s;t be bapti&s;ed. What hath he to &s;ay to this? &s;ayes he,</P>
<P><HI>The Law and circumci&s;ion came by Mo&s;es,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>but grace and truth, and Go&s;pel Ordinan|ces, came by Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1.<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer.</NOTE> See the ignorance of the great Text-man.</P>
<P>Did circumci&s;ion come by <HI>Mo&s;es?</HI> Was it not in&s;tituted by God, in a command given to <HI>Abraham,</HI> long before <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> was borne? But 'tis like he remembred that he read the &s;tory of its in&s;titution in one of the five books of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> and therefore thought <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> to be the In&s;titutour of
<PB N="34" REF="22">the &s;ame. A pittifull mi&s;take.</P>
<P N="2">2 The Ordinances that were appoin|ted by <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> were they not Chri&s;ts Or|dinances, as well as tho&s;e appointed un|der the Go&s;pel?</P>
<P>But Thirdly, What is all this to the purpo&s;e? doth this at all weaken the con&s;equence? If <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> as Chri&s;ts &s;er|vant, did appoint Circumci&s;ion, and Chri&s;t hath taken downe that, and &s;et up another Ordinance of the &s;ame end, u&s;e, and &s;pirituall &s;ignification in the &s;teed of it, doth this hinder the con&s;e|quence afore&s;aid? yea, doth it not above mea&s;ure e&s;tabli&s;h it? &mdash; O mo&s;t &s;trong conquering an&s;wers?</P>
<P>But as to the Second con&s;equence: did ever any body (except &s;uch a Di&s;puter as the <HI>P. G. Routed</HI> is) argue as he &s;ugge&s;t|eth in the next place, <HI>viz.</HI> Apo&s;tles bapti|zed Hou&s;holds, there might be children, therefore children may be baptized.</P>
<P>Did ever any of our Patrons of <HI>Paedo-Bapti&s;me,</HI> rea&s;on &s;o?</P>
<P>'Tis true &s;ome argue thus, The A|po&s;tles baptized whole hou&s;holds, therefore 'tis probable there might be &s;ome children baptized then, &s;ee|ing there are few families in which are not &s;ome children. None argue from
<PB N="35" REF="22">hence but for the probability of the fact, that tis probable &s;ome were baptized, and is not &s;uch an inference tolerable?</P>
<P>Whereas he &s;ayes, <HI>We mu&s;t beleeve there were no children in tho&s;e families, or if any there, yet not Baptized, becau&s;e contrary to the knowne practi&s;e of the Apo&s;tles.</HI></P>
<P>This is the &s;imple&s;t begging of the que|&s;tion that ever I met withall; For that is the thing in controver&s;ie; to &s;ay there were no children baptized in tho&s;e fami|lies. becau&s;e twas contrary to the pra|cti&s;e of the Apo&s;tles to bapti&s;e Children, is <HI>idem per idem,</HI> a proving a thing by it &s;elfe. Good Logick for&mdash;</P>
<P>But if this will not pa&s;&s;e (with the ordinary allowance of boldne&s;&s;e and confidence) you &s;hall be accounted An|tichri&s;tian, and willfully blind for it, be &s;ure.</P>
<P N="3">3. Did ever any body argue, children were brought to Chri&s;t, therefore they may be bapti&s;ed? I beleeve he hopes &s;ome will adventure to credit him, how fal&s;e|ly &s;oever he &s;peak or write. Surely this man would make you beleeve there are but very &s;lender Arguments to prove Infant-bapti&s;me.</P>
<P>But I'le tell you &s;ome of the con&s;e|quents that we draw from Scripture:
<PB N="36" REF="23">they are &s;uch as the&s;e.</P>
<P>Tho&s;e that are Church-members an to be bapti&s;ed.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Arg. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE></P>
<P>Some Infants are Church-members therefore &s;ome infants are to be bapti&s;ed Againe.</P>
<P>Tho&s;e that belong to the Kingdom of God are to be bapti&s;ed.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Arg. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE></P>
<P>But &s;ome Infants belong to the King|dome of God.</P>
<P>Therefore &s;ome Infants are to be bap|ti&s;ed. Againe.</P>
<P>Such as are [<GAP DESC="foreign">] <HI>holy</HI> by &s;epara|tion to God,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Arg. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> are to be bapti&s;ed.</P>
<P>But &s;ome Infants are &s;o. Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>Here are &s;ome of our con&s;equences t<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> prove Infant-bapti&s;me, that will make the able&s;t <HI>Anabapti&s;ts</HI> heart in <HI>England,</HI> ak<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> to with &s;tand. You have the&s;e, and many &s;uch like Arguments enlarged upon, and cleared from all cavils, by &s;everall abl<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> men that have writ on this &s;ubject: but e&s;pecially by <HI>Mr. Baxter,</HI> in his book o<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> <HI>Infants Church-member &s;hip;</HI> who, to my judgement, ha's done be&s;t of any on this controver&s;ie.</P>
<P>I confe&s;&s;e there ha's been &s;o much &s;po|ken (and that &s;o clearly and convin|cingly) by others, that for me to &s;ay any thing more, will be but to light a
<PB N="37" REF="23">candle to the Sun. However I &s;hall rea|&s;on a little with you about the fir&s;t ar|gument, driving home that nail to the head, that he that can not read, or get larger Treati&s;es, may have a &s;ufficient hint in this &s;hort Tract, to enable him to &s;top the mouthes of &s;uch, as &s;hall with|&s;tand the truth here in di&s;pute. And here|in I &s;hall tread in the &s;teps of acute and judicious M^r <HI>Baxter</HI> for the mo&s;t part.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. That all Church-members are to be bapti&s;ed, that I pre&s;ume none will deny, and therefore I &s;hall take it for granted.</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. That &s;ome Infants are to be admit|ted Church-members, I prove by M^r <HI>Bax|ters</HI> Argument, thus.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>If by the mercifull gift, and appoint|ment of God, not yet repealed, &s;ome In|fants were once to be admitted members of the vi&s;ible Church, then &s;ome Infants are to be &s;o admitted &s;till.</P>
<P>But by the mercifull gift and appoint|ment of God, not yet repealed, &s;ome In|fants were once to be admitted members of the vi&s;ible Church.</P>
<P>Therefore, They are &s;o to be admitted &s;till.</P>
<P>Examine this well. 1. That &s;ome in|fants, by Gods gift and appointment, were
<PB N="38" REF="24">once admitted Church-members, I hope will be granted: they were members of the Church of the Jewes, that is beyond all di&s;pute. 2. God never repealed the grant of this priviledge to infants. If he ha's done it, let me know where. Can you think that a whole <HI>&s;pecies,</HI> or kind of per&s;ons &s;hould be ca&s;t out of the Church, and Scripture be &s;ilent about it? if the gift and grant of this priviledge be not repealed, then it remaines to infants &s;till.</P>
<P>But I &s;hall prove the Negative thus.</P>
<P>If God hath revoked this mercifull grant and gift of Infants Church mem|ber&s;hip, then it is either in mercy for their good, or in judgement for their hurt. But he hath neither revoked it in mercy for their good, nor in judgement for their hurt. This I &s;hall prove in both parts.</P>
<P N="1">1. He hath not revoked it in judgement for their hurt: Becau&s;e many of them never broke Covenant with him, either in their owne per&s;ons (being in their infancy uncapable of actuall &s;inning) or in their Parents (by vertue of relation to whom, they had a &s;tanding in the Church) many thou&s;ands of whom were
<PB N="39" REF="24">beleevers in the Apo&s;tles times: Now God doth not ca&s;t away them, that doe not ca&s;t away him, for if he &s;hould, then he him&s;elfe would be the Covenant-breaker, not man, which would be bla&s;|phemous to conceive. Therefore he ha's not revoked this gift of Church-member-&s;hip as to infants, in judgement for their hurt.</P>
<P N="2">2. He hath not done it in mercy for their good; for then he would have granted to them &s;ome other mercy in|&s;tead of it: for it can be no mercy to take away a mercy (as Church-member-&s;hip is) unle&s;&s;e to give a greater in the room. But there is no greater mercy gi|ven to infants in &s;tead of Church-member &s;hip. If there be, then pray &s;hew what it is.</P>
<P>If any &s;hould be &s;o weak as to &s;ay,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Object.</NOTE> That Chri&s;t comming in the fle&s;h is a greater mercy given in the roome of Church-member-&s;hip. I an&s;wer.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. What a fond thing is it to conceive,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w. <HI>1</HI></NOTE> that Chri&s;t &s;hould &s;ucceed Church-mem|ber &s;hip, as a thing that was to be ended in him to any?</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. I would faine know, how infants (while infants) have Chri&s;t now, more
<PB N="40" REF="25">then infants had him then, when they were admitted Church-members.</ITEM>
<ITEM>3. The Church is the body of Chri&s;t, and is it not ab&s;urd to &s;ay, that Chri&s;t &s;hould break off infants from his body, that he comming in the fle&s;h may be a greater mercy to them? what is that but to be a greater mercy then him&s;elfe?</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>There is then no greater mercy given to infants in &s;tead of Church-member-&s;hip: therefore it is not taken away in mercy neither, and &s;o by con&s;equence, not taken away at all.</P>
<P>Which way will you &s;hift from this Argument?<NOTE PLACE="marg">Object.</NOTE> If you &s;ay the Church-con|&s;titution (whereof infants were mem|bers) is taken downe, and di&s;&s;olved, and a new &s;et up, whereof infants are no members.</P>
<P>I an&s;wer.<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> 1. Many, yea mo&s;t of the Jewes were broken off from the Church of God for their unbeliefe. So that ('tis true) that individuall Church may be &s;aid to be di&s;&s;olved, even as al&s;o the Church of <HI>Smyrna, Thyatira, Laodicea,</HI> and the re&s;t of the Churches of <HI>A&s;ia</HI> (for the mo&s;t part) are al&s;o di&s;&s;olved, and taken downe: but that the e&s;&s;ence, and nature of the Church is altered, &s;o as that theirs was not the &s;ame Church of God, that
<PB N="41" REF="25">ours is now, is mo&s;t contrary to plaine Scripture. As <HI>Rom.</HI> 11.17. where wee read, that all the change that was made, was, the <HI>breaking</HI> off of &s;ome branches of the Jewes, and the <HI>grafting</HI> in of &s;ome of the Gentiles into the &s;ame Olive. <HI>i. e.</HI> the &s;ame vi&s;ible Church. Againe, the bring|ing in of the Gentiles is expre&s;t by a breaking downe of the partition wall, &s;o making them one Church, by letting in the Gentiles into the &s;ame Church that the Jewes were of before. And when, in a Vi&s;ion, <HI>Peter</HI> was taught the doctrine of the Gentiles reception into the Church <HI>Acts</HI> 10. we finde 'twas not to be, by ma|king the <HI>Jewes</HI> uncleane, but by clean&s;ing the <HI>Gentiles</HI> to become clean as the Jewes were: &s;o that it is plain, this is the &s;ame Church, &s;tanding upon the &s;ame foun|dation of the Covenant, that that did; and therefore &s;ome infants are &s;till inve|&s;ted with the priviledge of being members by the fir&s;t grant: and if Church-mem|bers, then to be baptized.</P>
<P N="2">2. That all infants were not ca&s;t out of the Church under the Go&s;pel, is clear from <HI>Rom.</HI> 11.20. where 'tis &s;aid, that &s;uch <HI>branches as were broken off, were broken off for their unbeliefe.</HI> But the unbeliefe of &s;ome that did not beleeve, could not ca&s;t
<PB N="42" REF="26">out of the Church the children of the be|leeving Jewes, therefore they remained &s;till in the Church. How plaine is this? I have driven this nail to the head, and let him &s;hake this truth that can: I dare venture to let loo&s;e this &s;ingle Argument to all the <HI>Anabapti&s;ts</HI> in the world, and they will have &s;omewhat to doe to an|&s;wer it. The other two Arguments (with many more that might be brought) prove infants Church members, and therefore to be baptized: for if infants be <HI>Holy</HI> (as in the 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 7.14.) if of the <HI>Kingdom of God</HI> (as in <HI>Mark</HI> 10.14.) then to be admitted Church-members, and &s;o to be baptized. There is not one cavil to be made again&s;t the&s;e, but what is fully an|&s;wered by M^r <HI>Baxter,</HI> in his book of <HI>Infants Church-member-&s;hip,</HI> and therefore I &s;hall &s;ay nothing to them here, having brought one Argument to an head, and one Ar|gument is enough to prove one truth, if there were no more.</P>
<P>But here you &s;ee how fal&s;e it is that he &s;ayes, that our con&s;equences to prove infant-bapti&s;me, are no better then &s;uch as he &s;ugge&s;teth. All things are not true that &s;uch men dare &s;peak, yea and print too. He that hath the impudence to print manife&s;t fal&s;ehoods, touching matters of
<PB N="43" REF="26">fact, upon hope of being beleeved by &s;ome that will not be at the pains to &s;eek out the truth, will (you may &s;u&s;pect) &s;peak and write many more fal&s;ehoods, in, and about, matters of faith. But I will away to his fourth Errour.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>His Fourth Error.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">That God now reveals his will not onely by the written word, but by Dreams and Vi&s;ions, more credited then the word.</HEAD>
<P>THis he dares not &s;o confidently to affirme, as he doth the former. I be|leeve the pri&s;on (where I have heard he lately was in <HI>London,</HI> for his Here&s;ies) hath done him a little good, in making him to &s;peak warily &s;ometimes in weighty matters, though he thinks he may raile again&s;t hone&s;t men <HI>impun&egrave;;</HI> yet no le&s;&s;e then this doth he a&s;&s;ert, page 7. in the&s;e words.<NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE></P>
<P><HI>If &s;ome doe hold this principle, Is it &s;trange and ridiculous unto you? Hath not God formerly revealed truth to his people by Dreames and Revelations? And dare you deny it now? Is God limited?</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer.</NOTE></P>
<P>Here you &s;ee he affirmes that it &s;hould
<PB N="44" REF="27">not be accounted a &s;trange thing to hold the above mentioned Principle, and he gives his rea&s;on for it: God did once &s;o reveale him&s;elfe, and he is not limited.</P>
<P>Now becau&s;e this is a Doctrine that &s;uch un&s;teady &s;pirits do labour to in&s;till into the minds of the &s;imple (though this man having to doe with an able Adver|&s;ary, dares not to &s;peak out here as he would) I &s;hall give you &s;ome account of the un&s;oundne&s;&s;e of the &s;ame, fir&s;t an&s;we|ring to what he urges, and then giving my rea&s;ons for the negative.</P>
<P><HI>Is God limited?</HI> (&s;ayes he) I an&s;wer, no, God is not limited, except by his owne will. But alas! the que&s;tion is not whe|ther God can doe it, but whether he will or no. If God hath declared his purpo&s;e to make u&s;e of &s;uch wayes of revealing truth now, then we may expect it; el&s;e not upon any mans telling you, God can doe it. God can make another Sun in the Firmament, to help enlighten the World, when there is one &s;ufficient al|ready: he can maintaine our lives to us without food: but no body (I think) ha's any rea&s;on to expect he will do &s;o, when food is to be had. So that this in|timation of his, &s;avours of as much ig|norance, and is as impertinent as his
<PB N="45" REF="27">former an&s;wers. But to the Que&s;tion.</P>
<P>Whether we may expect God &s;hould,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Que&s;t.</NOTE> or very much beleeve that he does, re|veale him&s;elfe now <HI>immediately</HI> to any by way of <HI>Dreames</HI> and <HI>Vi&s;ions,</HI> or the like?<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE></P>
<P>I an&s;wer. 1. We have no ground in the world, to look for any &s;uch thing; there being no promi&s;e or word to that pur|po&s;e. 2. Sound Scripture Arguments will demon&s;trate, that it is not to be lookt for by any, nor owned by us in a|ny, e&s;pecially where the Scriptures are extant. And mine Arguments to prove this &s;hall be drawne from the perfection of Scripture, and from tho&s;e Texts that witne&s;&s;e to the &s;ame.</P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 1.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Arg. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> If a &s;ufficiency of Divine light and truth be given out in the Scriptures, then there is no need of Dreams and Vi|&s;ions now, for the revealing of truth un|to the Saints; and by con&s;equence &s;uch things are not to be expected where the Scriptures are; for God doth not make u&s;e of things needle&s;&s;e and unnece&s;&s;ary.</P>
<P>But that a &s;ufficiency of Divine light and truth is given out in the Scriptures, is mo&s;t cleare to one that denies not, (as the Papi&s;ts doe) the perfection of Scripture.</P>
<P>Therefore it follows, that there is no
<PB N="46" REF="28">need of Dreames and Vi&s;ions, and the like, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>That there is a &s;ufficiency in the Scrip|ture, will appeare more plaine in the following Arguments.</P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 2.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Arg. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> That which hath enough in it to make Saints <HI>perfect,</HI> is fully com|pleat and &s;ufficient, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>But the Scripture hath &s;o. See 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.15, 16, 17. where 'tis affirmed in &s;o many words.</P>
<P>Therefore the Scripture is compleat and &s;ufficient, without any additionall &s;upply from <HI>Dreames</HI> and <HI>Extraordinary, immediate revelations.</HI></P>
<P>Except there be a &s;tep above perfecti|on, &s;ure the light of Scripture is &s;uffici|ent. But I know not where the&s;e men would carry you: They dream (and would make you dream too) of &s;trange attainments beyond the Moone: But I hope my Reader will judge it enough to be made perfect; and perfection you &s;ee may be attained by Scripture light.</P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 3.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Arg. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> If it be &s;infull and evill to be <HI>wi&s;e above what is written,</HI> then may not a|ny expect, or give heed to <HI>extraordinary Revelations</HI> by Vi&s;ions, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and be wi&s;e by them, be&s;ide the written word.</P>
<P>But it is &s;infull and evill <HI>to be wi&s;e a|bove
<PB N="47" REF="28">what is written.</HI> See it in expre&s;&s;e termes, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 4.6.</P>
<P>Therefore may not any expect, or give heed to extraordinary revelations, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>'Tis we are the fools, and 'tis we are the weak and low per&s;ons that confine our &s;elves to what is written, and dare not goe an hairs-breadth beyond it: but they are the wi&s;e, and &s;pirituall, and ele|vated Doctours, that conver&s;e with God immediately, and receive truth beyond the line of Scripture, as they phan&s;y: But this &s;atisfies my &s;pirit, that 'tis <HI>Pauls</HI> judgement (and not <HI>Pauls,</HI> but the Spi|rit of God by him) that &s;uch wi&s;dome is wickedne&s;&s;e.</P>
<P>You may perhaps object.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Object.</NOTE> Scripture-light is perfect, &s;o far, as it di&s;covers the mind of God; but that does not hinder but that God may reveale truth to &s;ome, even beyond what is held forth in Scrip|ture.</P>
<P>I an&s;wer. 1. Scripture,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> as hath been &s;hewed, is ab&s;olutely compleat in it &s;elfe, and as to Saints too; it having enough to make them compleat and perfect, and therefore there is no need of another way to reveale more truth then what is in the Scripture. 2. As <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> and the Prophets were faithfull in their places: So was
<PB N="48" REF="29">Chri&s;t, <HI>Heb.</HI> 3.2. <HI>faithfull to him that ap|pointed him, viz.</HI> to be the great Prophet and Teacher of his people. Now where|in lies his faithfullne&s;&s;e? why, even in laying downe a &s;ufficient rule and light for the Saints to be guided by; the which he did by his Apo&s;tles in the Scripture. The&s;e men doe not con&s;ider how much they take from the honour of Chri&s;t, while they dreame of additionall revela|tions, be&s;ide the light of Scripture. I am afraid they are too ambitious of &s;haring with Chri&s;t in the honour of giving laws unto men: And &s;o they may be honou|red with the opinion of being entru&s;ted with the di&s;covery of things not revealed in Scripture, they care not though Chri&s;t &s;uffer as unfaithfull, in not di&s;covering all that is needfull. Away with &s;uch a|bominable pride.</P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> 2.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Object. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> Though Chri&s;t were faith|full by him&s;elfe and Apo&s;tles to declare the whole mind of God: yet many of tho&s;e things that were done and &s;poken by them are not written.</P>
<P>I an&s;wer,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer.</NOTE> All that was done and &s;po|ken by Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles, for the &s;ub&s;tance is contained in the Scriptures, that are left by God unto his Church: which I prove.</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="49" REF="29">
1.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rea&s;. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> From tho&s;e Texts that &s;peak to that purpo&s;e. As <HI>Luke</HI> 1. begin. and <HI>Acts</HI> 1. begin. and al&s;o 1 <HI>John</HI> 1. begin. where <HI>John</HI> (who writ la&s;t of all the Apo&s;tles.) &s;ayes (&s;peaking in his owne name, and in the name of the re&s;t of the pen-men of Scripture) <HI>That which we have &s;een and heard, declare we unto you;</HI> that is, all that which we have &s;een and heard for &s;ub|&s;tance; for that indefinite Propo&s;ition is equivalent to an univer&s;all.</P>
<P N="2">2. Neither could Je&s;us Chri&s;t other|wi&s;e have been faithfull, for his faithfull|ne&s;&s;e lies not in affording &s;ufficient light unto that age of the Church in which he lived on earth, but in providing a perfect &s;tanding Rule for all the Saints unto the end of the world: he is called faithfull, not onely in re&s;pect of Saints living in the dayes of his fle&s;h, but in re&s;pect of all, in all ages of the world. So that up|on this account it is clear, that as he did in the dayes of his fle&s;h declare &s;ufficient|ly the will of the Father unto the world by him&s;elfe, and his extraordinary Mi|ni&s;ters; and confirmed his doctrine to be of God, by wonderfull works and mi|racles: &s;o he did leave the &s;ub&s;tance, <GAP DESC="foreign">, the &s;umme or briefe of this Doctrine (and &s;o much of the works as
<PB N="50" REF="30">is requi&s;ite to the confirmation of the &s;ame) upon record in Scripture for af|ter-ages.</P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> 3.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Object.</NOTE> You may &s;ay, although Scrip|ture be perfect, and we grant that all truth is wrapt up in it: yet many things lying darkly there, it may plea&s;e God to come in to &s;ome in an extraordinary way, by Vi&s;ions, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> to reveale the truth.</P>
<P>I an&s;wer.<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> 1. It may plea&s;e God, but what rea&s;on ha's any man to beleeve or expect that God &s;hould do &s;o now, when he hath &s;ufficiently revealed all truth in Scripture already?</P>
<P N="2">2. There is nothing in Scripture ne|ce&s;&s;ary to be knowne by Chri&s;tians, that lies &s;o dark there, but that it may be di&s;|covered by tho&s;e ordinary helps that God affords to his people, without any &s;uch extraordinary wayes. God ha's gi|ven out his &s;pirit unto his people, to heal the blindne&s;&s;e of their minds, and malig|nity of their hearts, which is the chiefe ground of the ob&s;curity of Scripture to us (for Scripture is not dark in it &s;elfe, but by the rea&s;on of the darkne&s;&s;e of mans heart, that receives not the truth thereof) And he ha's al&s;o given the ordinary help of Humane Learning (as knowledge of
<PB N="51" REF="30">the Tongues, Antiquity, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>) unto men in office, for the unfolding of the darker places of Scripture. Now by the&s;e ordi|nary helps, tho&s;e things that are not &s;o cleare in Scripture, may be brought to light, though there be no &s;uch extraor|dinary means as the&s;e men dream of.</P>
<P>But in the next place, there is this fur|ther to be &s;aid again&s;t any &s;uch extraor|dinary way of revealing truth now.</P>
<P>If God doth in &s;uch an extraordinary way reveale truth to any now, either the end thereof is private, and particu|lar, re&s;pecting tho&s;e onely to whom &s;uch a di&s;covery is made: Or el&s;e the end is more publick and generall, re&s;pecting others to whom &s;uch (as have this ex|traordinary di&s;covery of truth) are to deliver over the &s;ame from God.</P>
<P>But I &s;hall &s;hew you, God doth &s;o reveale him&s;elfe in neither of the&s;e re|&s;pects, and therefore not at all.</P>
<P N="1">1. God doth not (in &s;uch an extra|ordinary way) reveale truth to any, with re&s;pect to their private, and parti|cular edification. This appears, 1. In that he hath ordained the Scriptures for this end, 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.15, 16, 17. He hath ordai|ned preaching for this end, <HI>Col.</HI> 1.28. He hath appointed Mini&s;ters in office for
<PB N="52" REF="31">this end, <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 4.11.12. In all which Scriptures you find expre&s;t, the meanes which God hath appointed for the edi|fying and perfecting of the Saints: &s;o that we cannot &s;uppo&s;e (where any o<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> the&s;e means are, viz. <HI>Scriptures, Preaching faithfull Mini&s;ters</HI>) that God &s;hould edi|fie his people by giving in Truth to them by <HI>Vi&s;ions,</HI> or &s;uch like <HI>extraordinary wayes.</HI></P>
<P>And &s;econdly, I would faine know whether ever Scripture doth &s;ay, that God hath appointed <HI>extraordinary revela|tions</HI> by Vi&s;ion, or the like, for the pri|vate good and edification of any Belee|ver (as it &s;ayes of the meanes before men|tioned) and whether the end of &s;uch ex|traordinary manife&s;tations of truth hath not been ever chiefly the good and infor|mation of others, to whom, &s;uch as have had the revelation, were to Preach it.</P>
<P>Thirdly, I would know whether that in <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.14. <HI>[How &s;hall they beleeve i<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> him of whom they have not heard? And how &s;hall they heare without a Preacher?]</HI> Doth not confine the Production and increa&s;e of faith, unto the meanes before mentio|ned? And if it be &s;o, then que&s;tionle&s;&s;e God does not give <HI>extraordinary revelati|ons,</HI> with re&s;pect unto the edification o<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;uch particular per&s;ons as have the &s;aid
<PB N="53" REF="31"><HI>Revelations</HI> given in to them, for we find he hath appointed certaine ordinary means to work by; the which he hath a purpo&s;e (as far as we can find in his revealed will) to confine him&s;elfe unto.</P>
<P N="2">2. I prove al&s;o that God doth not, in &s;uch an extraordinary way, reveale him|&s;elfe to any now with re&s;pect to others whom &s;uch (as have truth thus revealed) may informe of the Truth: and that upon this rea&s;on; Becau&s;e my <HI>Revelati|on</HI> or <HI>Vi&s;ion,</HI> is not &s;ufficient to make out truth to another; unle&s;&s;e I have <HI>miracles</HI> to prove Gods &s;peaking in and by me: But none now work <HI>miracles,</HI> therefore <HI>extraordinary revelations</HI> now, would be in|&s;ufficient, and by con&s;equence are not or|dained of God: for God doth not or|daine or appoint &s;uch means as are in&s;uf|ficient as to their end.</P>
<P>That my <HI>Revelation</HI> or <HI>Vi&s;ion,</HI> is not &s;ufficient to make out truth unto ano|ther, without <HI>miracles</HI> going with the &s;ame, is evident, in that, without <HI>miracles</HI> I cannot give to any man a demon&s;trati|on that the Vi&s;ion or Revelation (that I pretend to have) is of God, and if it be doubtfull, whether my Revelation be of God, 'twill be doubtfull too whither that which is pretended to be revealed,
<PB N="54" REF="32">be Truth. So that you &s;ee I have &s;uffici|ently proved, that God does not now reveale him&s;elfe to any by vi&s;ions, or ex|traordinary revelations, either in the fir&s;t or &s;econd re&s;pect, and therefore not at all.</P>
<P>It remaines then, that you mu&s;t take this for one of <HI>Colliers</HI> Dreames, viz. <HI>That God does now reveale truth to his people, by Dreams or Vi&s;ions, and not by the Scriptures only, where they are enjoyed.</HI> Wherfore Chri|&s;tians, be very wary of &s;uch intimations, that God may &s;ometime in &s;uch a way reveale him&s;elfe unto his people, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> They are but the Devils baits to fetch off your hearts by little and little from that &s;ure foundation that is laid for you by Chri&s;t him&s;elfe, in the revealed word and will of God: which if you once for&s;ake, and give heed to the giddy Principles of the&s;e men, you will &s;oone make &s;hip|wrack of faith, and be wrapt up in con|fu&s;ion and darkne&s;&s;e.</P>
<P>Neither be you troubled, if they a&s;&s;ault you with tho&s;e Scriptures which &s;peak to this purpo&s;e. <HI>They &s;hall be all taught of God. The Annointing &s;hall teach you. The day-&s;tar &s;hall ari&s;e in your hearts. The Spirit &s;hall lead you into all Truth,</HI> &amp;c. For &s;uch expre&s;&s;ions doe onely &s;ignifie that &s;weet
<PB N="55" REF="32">and heavenly way in which the Lord do's enlighten the minds of his people, by (not without) the ordinary means be|fore expre&s;t.</P>
<P>It is &s;aid, that <HI>in God we live, move, and have our being,</HI> in re&s;pect of our naturall life; and yet we doe not &s;o much as once think of living without food, &s;leep, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> the outward &s;upports of life: even &s;o, though it be &s;aid, God teaches, and the &s;pirit teaches, yet let us not dream that this is <HI>immediately,</HI> and without the u&s;e of <HI>meanes.</HI> I would fain know of tho&s;e that wait &s;o much for immediate teaching, whether ever they got &s;o high, as to live without the u&s;e of the outward meanes of relieving and &s;upporting nature, upon a reliance on this truth, that God is the author and pre&s;erver of naturall life, and that they live in him: if not, I &s;hall give little credit to them, while they talk of living &s;piritually in the enjoyment, and further manife&s;tation of Truth, without the u&s;e of the <HI>outward meanes,</HI> appointed by God for that end. As God is the au|thour of &s;pirituall life, &s;o is he of natu|rall life al&s;o. If thou be one that can&s;t live naturally without food, I will not much blame thee if thou &s;ay, thou can&s;t live &s;piritually, and thrive in further
<PB N="56" REF="33">di&s;coveries of truth, without the help of any of the meanes before expre&s;t. But I &s;hall &s;ay no more to this Que&s;tion, having &s;aid enough (I think) to prove, that it is a gro&s;&s;e Errour, to &s;ay, that God now reveals his will, not onely by the written word, but by <HI>Dreams</HI> and <HI>Vi&s;ions,</HI> which are to be credited equally to, or more then the word. I de&s;cend unto his next Errour.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>His Fifth Errour.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">That the Saints need not aske the pardon of &s;inne, and that it is forme and cu&s;tome that carries them to this Petition, FORGIVE &V;S O&V;R SINS.</HEAD>
<P>THis horrible, heterodox, unchri&s;tian, un&s;anctified Principle, he vents in his plea for the fourth Errour charged upon the Anabapti&s;ts. In the&s;e words,</P>
<P><HI>While the &s;oule lives in the enjoyment of mer|cy,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P.G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>and love, it's then forme or cu&s;tome that carrieth him to that Petition: but when a &s;oul apprehends the want of pardon, let him aske it.</HI></P>
<P>See how he labours to deceive you,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer.</NOTE>
<PB N="57" REF="33">and to give you out his poy&s;on in &s;u|gar'd words. <HI>If any one apprehends the want of pardon, let him aske it,</HI> but immediately before he &s;ayes, a Chri&s;tian while he is in a good temper, <HI>while he lives in the enjoy|ment of mercy and love</HI> (as his words are) cannot put up that Petition, except for|mally and cu&s;tomarily. Is not this brave Divinity?</P>
<P>He layes down nothing to prove what he &s;ayes, he hopes the novelty of his Do|ctrine, and its compliance with the &s;pi|rituall pride of mans heart, will make it pa&s;&s;e upon his owne word onely; but let us weigh &s;omewhat of that which may be &s;aid again&s;t this licentious Prin|ciple.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. Did not Chri&s;t teach and command his Di&s;ciples to pray, <HI>Forgive us our &s;ins,</HI> Mat. 6.12?</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. Did not they <HI>live in the enjoyment of mercy and love,</HI> when this command was given them? Were they not &s;uch then as could call God Father? And I hope &s;uch may goe for men <HI>living in the enjoy|ment of mercy and love,</HI> as by the &s;pirit of Adoption can come unto God as a Fa|ther, and owne him in &s;o neer a relation. Now it is plaine, touching the Di&s;ciples, that then, when they had a di&s;covery of
<PB N="58" REF="34">the neare&s;t and &s;weete&s;t relation unto God, and could come to him, &s;aying, <HI>Our Father.</HI> I &s;ay, even then were they bid to pray, <HI>Forgive us our &s;ins.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>3. Though I &s;hould grant that the A|po&s;tles had not &s;uch a full enjoyment of mercy and love, as this man pretends to (for ob&s;erve it, nothing will &s;atisfie this kind of men, unle&s;&s;e they may be thought (in &s;ome thing or other) to be more excellent then Apo&s;tles them&s;elves, and &s;uch extraordinary in&s;truments as Chri&s;t entru&s;ted in laying the foundation of the Go&s;pel-Church.) I &s;ay, though I &s;hould be &s;o far indulgent to their pride and ar|rogance, as to grant this: yet would Chri&s;t teach any of his people to pray for &s;uch a thing, as no Chri&s;tian living in the enjoyment of mercy and love (which e|very true Chri&s;tian ought to doe) can pray for, but either out of forme or cu|&s;tome? that were &s;trange.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>If &s;uch as <HI>live in the enjoyment of mercy and love</HI> (<HI>i. e.</HI> &s;uch as have a di&s;covery o<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> Gods mercy and love to their &s;ouls) may not pray, <HI>For give us our &s;ins,</HI> then &s;ee how nece&s;&s;arily &s;ome, or all of the&s;e ab&s;urdi|ties will follow from <HI>Matth.</HI> 6.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. Either Chri&s;ts command there <GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 word"> not to be obeyed, which (as far <GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 span">
<PB N="59" REF="34">judge) is his opinion. Or,</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. The Di&s;ciples had not the di&s;co|very of Gods mercy, and love to their &s;ouls: and if &s;o, then,</ITEM>
<ITEM>3. A man may be able to owne, and come to God as a Father (as they did) and yet not know Gods mercy and love to his &s;oul; which is a contradiction.</ITEM>
<ITEM>4. 'Twill follow, that Chri&s;t teaches and commands his Saints to doe &s;uch things, as (if they be rightly informed) cannot be done, but formally and out of cu&s;tome: and are not the&s;e gro&s;&s;e ab&s;ur|dities, &s;uch as a pious Chri&s;tian cannot beare?</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>But Beleevers are ju&s;tified from &s;in,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Object.</NOTE> and &s;o may not pray for the pardoning of &s;in, becau&s;e it is already done in their Ju&s;tification.</P>
<P>If this be good arguing,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w. <HI>1</HI></NOTE> how can we ju&s;tifie Chri&s;ts command bidding his Di&s;|ciples to pray for forgivene&s;&s;e of &s;in? Were not they ju&s;tified per&s;ons? I hope none will deny it. But to clear this.</P>
<P N="2">2. We mu&s;t di&s;tingui&s;h of two acts of Grace in the ju&s;tifying of &s;inners, <HI>Viz.</HI> To ju&s;tifie a &s;inner from all his &s;ins that he &s;tands <HI>actually</HI> guilty of; and then a continuation of ju&s;tification from &s;in, as it is afterward daily committed. For it
<PB N="60" REF="35">is one thing to pardon, another thing to continue to pardon: now this latter, Chri&s;tians <HI>(living in the enjoyment of mer|cy and love)</HI> may, and mu&s;t pray for.</P>
<P N="1">1.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rea&s;. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> Becau&s;e all the &s;ure mercies of the Covenant, are to be received in a way of prayer. See <HI>Ezek.</HI> 36.37. where ob&s;erve, that notwith&s;tanding the Lord declares his purpo&s;e <HI>to take away their iniquities,</HI> ver&s;. 33. and to give out to them other mercies of the Covenant, yet he laies in this caution, <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 37. <HI>Notwith&s;tanding I will be &s;ought unto, or enquired of to doe this for them.</HI> He will have pardon &s;ued out by Prayer, in order to the particular ap|plication of it, in re&s;pect of particular fins daily committed.</P>
<P N="2">2.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rea&s;. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> Chri&s;t he continually intercedes and prayes for Beleevers in Heaven, and that for this particular favour, viz. <HI>Par|don of &s;in.</HI> See 1 <HI>John</HI> 2.1, 2. <HI>My little chil|dren, the&s;e things write I unto you, that ye &s;in not. And if any man &s;in, we have an Advocate with the Father, Je&s;us Chri&s;t the righteous,</HI> &amp;c. Mark it, if Saints <HI>&s;in,</HI> they have Chri&s;t for an <HI>Advocate,</HI> now wherefore &s;hould he Advocate or plead for them, upon their &s;inning, if not for pardon? Now doth Chri&s;t plead for the pardon of beleevers, and may not they for their own pardon?
<PB N="61" REF="35">is not Chri&s;ts interce&s;&s;ion in Heaven, a good rule for our Prayers on Earth? You have another place to this purpo&s;e, <HI>Heb.</HI> 7.25. From which Scripture I doe demand why Chri&s;t is &s;aid to be <HI>able to &s;ave to the utmo&s;t, in that he ever intercedes,</HI> unle&s;&s;e it be becau&s;e by his interce&s;&s;ion he obtaines a continuation of pardon, and an application of it in re&s;pect of particu|lar &s;ins dayly committed. And &s;hall any one think that there is need Chri&s;t &s;hould pray in Heaven for pardon of &s;in, and no need beleevers &s;hould on Earth? Ah! 'Tis a brave Religion you &s;hall learne of the&s;e Doctors, if you have a minde to credit them. But it matters not what it be &s;o it be new, and contrary to the teaching of the faithfull Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t, whom this Pamphleter labours to vilifie.</P>
<P>I could bring you forth the examples of many of the mo&s;t eminentand pretious Saints in Scripture, that have &s;ought pardon of &s;in, yea and that with bleeding, broken hearts, were it not that hee'l be ready to &s;ay, the&s;e men <HI>lived not in the enjoyment of mercy and love,</HI> as now we do. But I &s;hall rather think in very deed, that he lives yet in the bo&s;ome of Hell, and wrath, then que&s;tion their living in the
<PB N="62" REF="36">enjoyment of mercy and love, who in Scripture are brought in &s;uing for par|don of &s;in, &s;uch as were <HI>Mo&s;es, David,</HI> and the Prophets, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>Some other ab&s;urdities are &s;cattered throughout page 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. in his defence of the <HI>Anabapti&s;ts.</HI></P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>As 1. Where he affirmes, that <HI>the Apo|&s;tle condemnes-going to law as a &s;in,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 6.2. when as the words make it plaine, that he condemnes onely their going to Law, <HI>before the unju&s;t and infidels.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>2. Where he blames his Adver&s;ary as contradicting him&s;elfe, in &s;aying, <HI>Ana|bapti&s;ts hold that wars are u&s;ele&s;&s;e,</HI> and again afterward, that <HI>they are tumultuous,</HI> &amp;c. when as the contradiction is in their Principles, who can Preach downe the lawfulne&s;&s;e of going to war at one time, and yet move wars and tumuls to ad|vance their de&s;igne, at another time. I wi&s;h tho&s;e that are in Authority would look well to them, I hope they doe.</ITEM>
<ITEM>3. Where he urges a <HI>generall tolera|tion,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>Magi&s;trates by their Civill Power cannot Convert;</HI> as if there were no u&s;e of the Magi&s;trates Power in re|&s;training mens impiety, and compel|ling them to conformity in &s;ubmitting to converting Ordinances, unle&s;&s;e they
<PB N="63" REF="36" MS="y">could al&s;o change the heart.</ITEM>
<ITEM>4. Where he denies the di&s;tinction of three per&s;ons in the God-head, becau&s;e the word Per&s;on is not u&s;ed in Scrip|ture: Though <HI>John</HI> &s;ayes, <HI>There are Three, the Father, the Word, and the Spi|rit, and the&s;e three are one;</HI> Of which words there can be no &s;ence, unle&s;&s;e they be <HI>Three Per&s;ons</HI> (as the Church of Chri&s;t under&s;tands the word Per&s;on) for if they be <HI>Three,</HI> what three? if not <HI>Per|&s;ons.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The&s;e, and many &s;uch like ab&s;urdi|ties, with his railings intermixt, I &s;hall pa&s;&s;e over, not doubting but the Rea|der will rank them among the re&s;t of his Errours, which I have, and &s;hall &s;uffi|ciently confute.</P>
<P>The next Errour is the maine and principall &s;cope of his Booke: and 'tis as followes.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<PB N="64" REF="37">
<HEAD>His Sixth Error.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">That Gifted Brethren may exerci&s;e the Mini&s;teriall or Pa&s;torall act of Preach|ing in a con&s;tituted Church, without a Call to the Office of a Mini&s;ter.</HEAD>
<P>THis Po&s;ition comes neare&s;t to what I can po&s;&s;ibly gather (by reading o|ver his Di&s;cour&s;e) to be his meaning in what he writes in An&s;wer to a Treati&s;e Intituled, <HI>The Pulpit Guarded,</HI> &amp;c. Though I confe&s;&s;e, in laying downe this he &s;peaks mo&s;t notable contradictions, as I &s;hall &s;hew you by and by; &s;o that a man can hardly know what he would have in &s;o|ber &s;adne&s;&s;e.</P>
<P>And here (Reader) know.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. That my purpo&s;e is not to handle the twenty Arguments that he pretends to An&s;wer, and to make a particular re|ply; for &s;o I &s;hould weary thee out too much with the di&s;covery of his igno|rance and ab&s;urdne&s;&s;e, which I can &s;uffi|ciently rip open, going a &s;horter way to work.</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. This lies upon M^r <HI>Hall</HI> his Anta|goni&s;t, who is able I doubt not to de|fend
<PB N="65" REF="37">his owne Arguments if he lift.</ITEM>
<ITEM>3. It may be all M^r <HI>Halls</HI> Arguments in this controver&s;ie may not be my Ar|guments. But this I'le &s;ay, for my part I finde nothing &s;aid again&s;t any of M^r <HI>Hals</HI> Arguments, that can be taken for a con|futation by any that can &s;ee where the &s;trength of an Argument doth lye: &s;o that it is like he may never reply, appre|hending his Arguments untouched, though &s;uppo&s;ed by the <HI>Collier</HI> to be <HI>Routed.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>But though I will not (upon this ac|count) make a particular reply (which would be too tedious) yet I &s;hall give thee &s;ome few ob&s;ervations upon the whole in generall: which will help thee to &s;ee (if thou ha&s;t but halfe an eye) the invalidity and weakne&s;&s;e of every parti|cular: and then annex my additionall Rea&s;ons again&s;t him.</P>
<P>Verily, if the man had ever had the o|pinion of being judicious, able, and &s;olid, an under&s;tanding Reader would think him here to be out of his wits. That you may &s;ee this as well as I, I &s;hall lay down &s;ome Ob&s;ervations, which may &s;erve you in&s;tead of a key to let you in to every particular an&s;wer of his, to &s;ee the weak|ne&s;&s;e, ignorance, and impertinency of the &s;ame.</P>
<P><PB N="66" REF="38">
<HI>Ob&s;er.</HI> 1.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ob&s;er. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> You may take notice, that he does mo&s;t pittifully &s;ay, I Sir, No Sir (and that in divers particulars) in his Di&s;cour&s;e, upon the Que&s;tion now in debate. I &s;hall give you a ta&s;t in the in&s;tances following.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. One where he tells you, that Chri|&s;tians may Preach as gifted Brethren, without any other call but their gifts; yet they may not intrude into the office of a Mini&s;ter. <HI>To u&s;urp the Mini&s;teriall Of|fice,</HI> &s;ayes he, <HI>is &s;inne,</HI> page 17. and yet he &s;ayes, page 29. <HI>There is no one thing that belongs to a Pa&s;tour, or Mini&s;ter, but a gifted Brother may doe it.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>2. He &s;ayes (as before) <HI>'Tis &s;infull to u&s;urp the mini&s;teriall office:</HI> And yet he &s;aye, page 45. <HI>That the duty or work of a Mini&s;ter is not &s;o di&s;tinct, but that another may per|forme it.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>3. In page 45. He &s;ayes, <HI>A Pa&s;tour or Mini&s;ter in Office, is in a di&s;tinct manner to attend upon the duties of teaching,</HI> &amp;c. &s;o as gifted Brethren are not to doe; but how? Not altogether, for in the &s;ame page he &s;ayes, <HI>Yet not &s;o but that they may u&s;e another Calling;</HI> and if &s;o, 'tis but &s;ometimes onely that they can attend upon teach|ing, and other mini&s;teriall duties. And you &s;hall hear him &s;ay, page 29. <HI>That
<PB N="67" REF="38">gifted Brethren may, and mu&s;t doe the&s;e du|ties, as often as time, opportunity, and liberty calls for it:</HI> That is, as often as they are able, and have a mind to it: O brave Au|tomachie!</ITEM>
<ITEM>4. Sometimes he &s;ayes expre&s;ly, <HI>The Saints are all Prophets,</HI> as page 60. where he not onely &s;ayes it, but proves it, after his manner of proving, by this Argu|ment. <HI>Every &s;pirituall man is a Prophet, the Saints are all &s;pirituall men, therefore all Prophets.</HI> And yet againe (when he is driven to it by a plaine Scripture, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.29.) he &s;ayes, <HI>All are not Prophets,</HI> as in page 21.</ITEM>
<ITEM>5 He &s;ayes, <HI>All have not the gift to &s;peak to the edifying of the Church,</HI> &s;o page 21. and yet page 83. he &s;ayes, <HI>He &s;hould looke upon that member as u&s;ele&s;&s;e, that hath not &s;ome gift or other for good in the Church.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>6. He &s;ayes, Gifted Brethren ought to Preach, it is their <HI>Duty</HI> to Preach; and that in &s;uch a Publique and authorita|tive way, as Mini&s;ters are by their office, to doe (for he admits not of any di&s;tin|ction betweene private and publique Preaching) and yet he &s;ayes, page 84. <HI>By office &s;uch are not Preachers.</HI> A fine di|&s;tinction! a Preacher by <HI>duty,</HI> but not by <HI>office.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><PB N="68" REF="39">
7. He demands in great fury, page 87. where ever we read <HI>Prophets</HI> called <HI>Pa|&s;tours,</HI> or Pa&s;tours and Teachers called Prophets; and &s;ayes, 'tis Logick learnt from the Devil, to &s;peak &s;o: and yet e|ver and anon in his di&s;cour&s;e, he &s;ayes. <HI>Prophets are Teachers,</HI> and proves that gifted Brethren are Teachers, becau&s;e Prophets.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>Sure, the man is in good hope, that the mo&s;t of his Readers will be men of bad memories, or judgements, or both; that when they are reading one page, will for|get what he &s;ays in another: or he would not venture thus to contradict him&s;elfe. But he holds a Wolfe by the ears (as the Proverbe is) and pitifully puzled you may &s;ee he is. One part or other of the contradiction he knows is true, but which he cannot tell; and therefore he will be &s;ure to &s;peak both, that he may be &s;omtimes found in the truth. Surely either this man hath but a bad cau&s;e to plead, or el&s;e the cau&s;e hath falne upon a bad Ad|vocate in him to plead for it, notwith|&s;tanding he talks of gifts &s;o much. He need not have another to an&s;wer him, while he is &s;o good at confuting him&s;elf. Much of my de&s;igne is to help the weaker &s;ort to &s;ee this, that is very open to &s;uch as are intelligent.</P>
<P><PB N="69" REF="39">
<HI>Ob&s;er.</HI> 2. You may ob&s;erve further,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ob&s;er. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> that he never di&s;tingui&s;heth of <HI>Preaching,</HI> nor doth he define what <HI>Preaching</HI> is, that yee might under&s;tand what he meanes, when he pleads for the lawfulne&s;&s;e of gifted Brethrens Preaching. But his de|&s;igne is to cheat you if he can, with am|biguous termes, never adding any expla|nation to them.</P>
<P>All the di&s;tinction that he makes of <HI>Teachers,</HI> is onely this; <HI>Teachers</HI> by <HI>Of|fice,</HI> and Teachers by <HI>gift, without Office.</HI> As good as if he had &s;aid, <HI>Teachers</HI> that are &s;o indeed, and <HI>Teachers</HI> that are not &s;o, but onely e&s;teem them&s;elves &s;o; or at be&s;t might be &s;o, if the <HI>power</HI> of the Church did call them into the <HI>office.</HI> As if one &s;hould &s;ay, a <HI>Magi&s;trate</HI> by gift, and a <HI>Magi&s;trate</HI> by office. He confiders not, that, as the <HI>gift</HI> di&s;po&s;eth a man to the <HI>office,</HI> &s;o only the <HI>office</HI> di&s;po&s;eth him unto the execution of the <HI>gift.</HI> A man <HI>gifted</HI> for a Magi&s;trate, is no Magi&s;trate, nor may execute the work of a Magi&s;trate, till called to the <HI>office;</HI> even &s;o a man <HI>gifted</HI> to be a Teacher, is no Teacher, nor may execute the work of a Teacher, till he be called to that office: except in the ca&s;es &s;ignified in &s;tating the controver&s;ie.</P>
<P>All the definition he gives of <HI>Preach|ing</HI>
<PB N="70" REF="40">(that you may know what it is) is page 59. where he &s;ayes, <HI>Preaching is but a &s;peech, or &s;peaking of words:</HI> and if &s;o (for all his pretended gifts) a Parrat may preach as well as he. But 'tis well he &s;ayeth, <HI>Preaching is a &s;peaking of words;</HI> for many of tho&s;e that undertake publique Preaching without any mi&s;&s;ion, <HI>&s;peake words</HI> ('tis true) but many times no &s;ence: let their judicious hearers (if there be any) be judges.</P>
<P>But he meanes (I &s;uppo&s;e) &s;peaking words unto &s;pirituall edification, and if this be all the Preaching he pleads for, to be allowed to gifted Brethren, why doth he contend? when as brotherly admo|nition, exhortation, in&s;truction, reproof, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> are granted by his Adver&s;ary, not to gifted Brethren onely, but to all Chri|&s;tians in their proper &s;phere, and keeping within their line. I &s;ay this is granted to all Chri&s;tians (even to women al&s;o) who yet I hope may not be Preachers.</P>
<P>I think no hone&s;t heart (even among them that oppo&s;e his opinion) doth de|&s;ire to abridge Chri&s;tians liberty in &s;peak|ing to the edification one of another, in &s;uch a way, nay rather we &s;tir them up, and provoke them (to the u&s;e of their liberty, do I &s;ay, nay) to the practi&s;e of
<PB N="71" REF="40">their duty herein. But can any one be &s;o blind as not to &s;ee a va&s;t difference be|tween the <HI>publique, pa&s;torall duties</HI> of a Mi|ni&s;ter (which he is obliged to by his of|fice, called in the Scripture, <HI>feeding the flock of Chri&s;t,</HI> &amp;c.) And tho&s;e <HI>Chri&s;tian duties</HI> that lye upon all Beleevers, enjoy|ned in &s;uch language as this, <HI>Thou &s;halt not &s;uffer thy brother to &s;in, but &s;halt reprove him and tell him his fault,</HI> Lev. 19.17. <HI>Com|fort ane another with the&s;e words,</HI> 1 The&s;&s;. 4.18. And againe, <HI>They &s;hall &s;peake of thy Kingdome, and talke of thy power,</HI> P&s;al. 145.11. And 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.4. <HI>That we may be able to comfort them which are in trouble, by the comfort wherewith we our &s;elves are comfor|ted of God.</HI> (Places which among others he urges for publique Preaching of men not in office.) I &s;ay is any man &s;o blind as not to &s;ee a difference betweene the&s;e? Is it not plaine that though they may a|gree in <HI>matter,</HI> yet doe differ in <HI>forme,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Forma dat nomen, &amp; e&s;&s;e.</NOTE> which is that which gives name and be|ing to things.</P>
<P>But this he would not have you take notice of, if you doe, a great part of his Book is an&s;wered without much a doe. Wherefore he denies any difference be|tween <HI>publique</HI> and <HI>private</HI> Preaching. He &s;ayes, <HI>This di&s;tinction came from Rome,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P.G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>and
<PB N="72" REF="41">ha's no footing in Scripture, if in private, why not in publike? if we may preach to one or two in private, why not to a thou&s;and in publike?</HI> page 88. 91.<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer.</NOTE> Much of the controver&s;ie depends on the clearing of this, and If I can prove this di&s;tinction from Scripture, and &s;hew you that there is a &s;pecificall difference betweene <HI>publique</HI> and <HI>private preaching:</HI> Preaching taken in a <HI>large,</HI> and Preaching taken in a <HI>&s;trict</HI> &s;ence, then you'l &s;ay that the heart-&s;trings of many of his an&s;wers and arguments are cut, and that nothing is remaining, but con|fident expre&s;&s;ions, to give any life to them.</P>
<P>This I &s;hall doe (God willing) by two Arguments, grounded, not on Scrip|ture te&s;timony onely, but al&s;o on his owne conce&s;&s;ions: Thus,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Arg. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE></P>
<P>If we find in Scripture that all Chri|&s;tians may <HI>Preach,</HI> take Preaching in a <HI>large</HI> &s;ence, for the <HI>private duties</HI> that they owe one to another: and that they may not all <HI>Preach,</HI> take preaching in a <HI>&s;trict</HI> &s;ence, for <HI>publique pa&s;torall preaching,</HI> then there is a &s;pecificall difference between the&s;e: for otherwi&s;e the &s;ame thing would be to the &s;ame per&s;ons lawfull and unlawfull; which is a contradi|ction.</P>
<P><PB N="73" REF="41">
But I prove by Scripture. 1. That all Chri&s;tians may <HI>Preach,</HI> take Preaching in a <HI>large &s;ence,</HI> for brotherly exhortation, admonition, reproof, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> See 1 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 4.18. <HI>Heb.</HI> 3.13. <HI>Lev.</HI> 19.17. <HI>Mal.</HI> 3.16. 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.4. with many other places; concerning which Scriptures, you may ob&s;erve, that they &s;peak not to &s;ome <HI>Gif|ted Brethren</HI> onely, but to all the godly indefinitely. Be&s;ides, he him&s;elfe grants this ever and anon in his Di&s;cour&s;e. 2. I prove that all Chri&s;tians may not <HI>preach,</HI> take Preaching in a <HI>&s;trict &s;ence</HI> (as be|fore) by the plaine words of the Apo&s;tle in 1 Cor. 12.29. <HI>Are all Teachers?</HI> which Que&s;tion he him&s;elfe acknowledges, im|ports a deniall, and is as much as <HI>All chri&s;tians are not teachers;</HI> and &s;o may not take upon them to teach, that is in a &s;trict proper &s;ence.</P>
<P>So that the inference is mo&s;t undenia|ble, that there is a &s;pecificall difference betweene the one way of Teaching or Preaching, and the other. Unle&s;&s;e you will beleeve the Scripture &s;peaks contra|dictions (as he does) making, as I &s;aid before, the &s;ame thing lawfull and un|lawfull to the &s;ame per&s;ons.</P>
<P>But &s;econdly, I argue thus.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Arg. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE></P>
<P>If it be lawfull for <HI>Women</HI> to Preach
<PB N="74" REF="42"><HI>privately,</HI> take Preaching in a large &s;ence, and forbidden them to Preach <HI>publiquely</HI> and in the Church, then there is a &s;peci|ficall difference betweene the&s;e, and a good ground in Scripture for the di&s;tin|ction of <HI>publique</HI> and <HI>private</HI> Preaching.</P>
<P>But <HI>Women</HI> may Preach <HI>privately,</HI> take Preaching in the large &s;ence. See 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.5. compared with 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.15. <HI>Acts</HI> 18.26. <HI>Prov.</HI> 31.1. &amp;c. And 'tis forbid|den them to Preach <HI>publiquely,</HI> even in the Church. See 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.34, 35. &rindx; 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2.11, 12. Therefore this di&s;tinction is grounded on Scripture, and publique and private Preaching doe &s;pecifically differ one from the other. And yet hath not this fellow boldne&s;&s;e enough to puffe away &s;olid Arguments meerly with &s;ay|ing, <HI>there is no &s;uch di&s;tinction found in Scripture,</HI> and that <HI>'tis fetcht from Rome?</HI> Ah alas! if any thing galls them, it comes pre&s;ently from <HI>Rome,</HI> 'tis <HI>Antichri|&s;tian,</HI> you may be affrighted with &s;uch bug-bears, without rea&s;on if you li&s;t.</P>
<P>My chri&s;tian friends (you who&s;e e|&s;tabli&s;hment I aim at in this Di&s;cour&s;e, that your fellow&s;hip with the Father of Lights may be more con&s;tant and &s;weet) take this Le&s;&s;on away with you. The be&s;t Engine <HI>my&s;ticall Antichri&s;t</HI> ha's to ad|vance
<PB N="75" REF="42">his de&s;igne among Chri&s;tians, is to be all again&s;t <HI>Antichri&s;t,</HI> in appearance. He is &s;ure to have be&s;t &s;ucce&s;&s;e among well meaning people, when he is in the forme and appearance of an Angel of light.</P>
<P>But to returne to mine Adver&s;ary (re|turne doe I &s;ay? I think I never went from him in &s;peaking of <HI>my&s;ticall Anti|chri&s;t.</HI>)</P>
<P>Hee'l &s;ay, the Apo&s;tle &s;ayes, 1 Cor. 12.29.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Object.</NOTE> <HI>All are not Teachers,</HI> becau&s;e all are not gifted: but all that are gifted, are Teachers, and may Preach.</P>
<P>This an&s;wers to neither my fir&s;t,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w.</NOTE> nor &s;econd Argument to prove the di&s;tinction of Preaching above mentioned.</P>
<P>It an&s;wers not my fir&s;t; for, 1. All Chri&s;tians are gifted according to the mea&s;ure they have received: yea, and he him&s;elfe &s;ayes,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Gradus non variant &s;pe|ciem.</NOTE> that every member ha's his gift whereby to be u&s;efull to the Church, page 83. Though &s;ome in one degree, &s;ome in another. (which is no prejudice to the thing in hand) 2. If he &s;hould deny it, as indeed el&s;ewhere he does (for he can &s;peak contradictions) yet the Scriptures before mentioned in proof of the fir&s;t branch of the &s;econd Propo&s;ition of my fir&s;t Argument doe prove the &s;ame, <HI>viz.</HI> That all Chri&s;tians
<PB N="76" REF="43">may and ought to teach by brotherly admonition, advice, reproof, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and therefore are gifted (according to their mea&s;ure) thereunto. And if &s;o, then <HI>Paul</HI> does not &s;ay, <HI>All are not teachers,</HI> be|cau&s;e all are not gifted, for all are gifted according to their degree, and &s;o are Teachers and Preachers; take Preach|ing for private Preaching, and in the large &s;ence before mentioned. But his meaning mu&s;t needs be, <HI>All are not teach|ers,</HI> that is, <HI>Mini&s;teriall, Pa&s;torall, publique</HI> Teachers. And &s;o it affords us a ground for a di&s;tinction of two kinds of Preach|ing, or Teaching, &s;pecifically differenced, as we affirme.</P>
<P N="2">2. Much le&s;&s;e doth it weaken my &s;e|cond Argument. For are <HI>Women</HI> forbid|den to <HI>teach in publique,</HI> in the Church, becau&s;e they are not gifted? 'Tis known many Women are gifted to &s;peak to the edification of others, and may u&s;e &s;uch gifts as they have in a <HI>private</HI> way, law|fully (as was proved even now) but not <HI>publiquely,</HI> and in the Church: which layes a good foundation for the di&s;tin|ction, and &s;hewes (though he thinks it &s;o &s;trange, page 91.) That it may be lawfull <HI>to teach privately before a few,</HI> by brotherly exhortation, advice, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and
<PB N="77" REF="43"><HI>not to teach publiquely before a thou&s;and.</HI></P>
<P>Carry this al&s;o along with you as you read his an&s;wers (if you think you may wa&s;t &s;o much time as to read them) and tell me whether mo&s;t of them are not turned into meer Scelitons.</P>
<P><HI>Ob&s;er.</HI> 3.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ob&s;er. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> You &s;hall (moreover) find he &s;eldome takes any notice of the thing that is in Que&s;tion, or (as a &s;ound hand|ler of controver&s;ies) at all di&s;tingui&s;heth <HI>controver&s;a, a non controver&s;is,</HI> things con|troverted from things not in di&s;pute; but in many of his an&s;wers <HI>beats the air,</HI> and not his Adver&s;ary: and therefore no wonder he dreamt of <HI>Routing</HI> the <HI>Pulpit Guard.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. Whereas the Que&s;tion (as &s;tated by his Antagoni&s;t) is, whether any may Preach <HI>in a con&s;tituted Church,</HI> unle&s;&s;e they be called unto the office of a Mini&s;ter. Tho&s;e Scriptures, or the mo&s;t of them, that he grounds many of his an&s;wers on, &s;peak onely of Preaching to Infidells, and <HI>in a Church not con&s;tituted.</HI> As <HI>Acts</HI> 8.1.4. Touching the Preaching of the <HI>&s;cat|tered Brethren,</HI> Acts 9.20. concerning <HI>Sauls</HI> Preaching, as he pretends, before called to be a Mini&s;ter: with &s;ome other Scriptures, which he quotes over and o|ver againe: 'Tis evident they come not
<PB N="78" REF="44">up to the Que&s;tion in hand, which is, whether &s;uch as are not Mini&s;ters in of|fice, may Preach <HI>in a Church con&s;tituted.</HI> But more of this when I come to an&s;wer to the &s;everall Scriptures he grounds all his Di&s;cour&s;e upon.</P>
<P N="2">2. Whereas the Que&s;tion &s;tated is of <HI>Preaching</HI> taken in a <HI>&s;trinct &s;ence;</HI> for Pa|&s;torall, Mini&s;teriall, Publique Preaching, Preaching Authoritatively: he di&s;puted for Preaching in a <HI>large &s;ence,</HI> as it figni|fies any declaration of truth for the edi|fication of &s;ouls, which no body ever de|nied to belong to the duty of (not gif|ted Brethren onely as he &s;peaks, but) all Chri&s;tians indifferently in their &s;tations and capacities. Yea, and can you be|leeve it? This valiant <HI>Router</HI> doth &s;eve|rall times take up his heels and run a|way, and in a manner grant all in con|trover&s;ie, viz. <HI>That no gifted brother may preach as one in office;</HI> that 'tis <HI>&s;in to u&s;urp the Mini&s;teriall office:</HI> and yet thinks he is conquering all the while.</P>
<P N="3">3. Whereas the Que&s;tion is, whether men not in office may Preach in the &s;ence before expre&s;t, except in extraordinary ca&s;es: all that he proves, is, that &s;uch did Preach in <HI>extraordinary ca&s;es,</HI> which is not di&s;puted. And he would faine
<PB N="79" REF="44">make men beleeve, that that which may be done in <HI>Extraordinary</HI> ca&s;es, may be done in <HI>Ordinary,</HI> as page 72. As though rules of order, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> are not (by Gods ap|pointment) to give place &s;ometimes to more weighty and <HI>morally</HI> nece&s;&s;ary things. I would fain know of him (who I perceive is an <HI>Anabapti&s;t</HI>) whether he, having gained a Pro&s;elyte, if he &s;hould fall &s;ick before he were dipt, would not deferre the dipping of him untill he were well? Though the rule be to Baptize &s;treight way upon beleeving. I know the&s;e men u&s;e to be quick enough with Pro&s;e|lites made by them, and will be &s;ure to dip them (if they can) while they are in a good mood; and yet I think they would defer Bapti&s;me upon dangerous &s;ickne&s;&s;e, an extraordinary ca&s;e. Be&s;ides, pray read <HI>Mat.</HI> 12.3, 4. Does not Chri&s;t there defend <HI>David</HI> in doing that in an <HI>extraordinary ca&s;e,</HI> which the Text &s;ayes, <HI>was otherwi&s;e unlawfull for him to doe?</HI> Yea, you find ver&s;. 7. Chri&s;t layes down the generall &s;tanding rule by which we are to walk in &s;uch ca&s;es, &s;aying, <HI>I will have mercy and not &s;acrifice.</HI> And yet this man thinks it &s;trange that we &s;hould grant it lawfull, that &s;uch as are really gifted to teach, &s;hould teach publiquely, with|out
<PB N="80" REF="45">an externall Call, in times of per&s;e|cution, when there are none in office to be found, and Ordination cannot well be had: and yet &s;ay 'tis unlawfull when no &s;uch extraordinary rea&s;on is. Why, tell him (friendly Reader) when thou meete&s;t with him (for he u&s;es to wan|der abroad) that in &s;uch extraordinary ca&s;es, <HI>God will have mercy and not &s;acrifice.</HI> Tho&s;e tender bowels of mercy that we owe to poor &s;ouls, lying in darkne&s;&s;e, that cannot otherwi&s;e be in&s;tructed, may command this particular rule of <HI>Order</HI> to give place then; though when this nece&s;&s;ity is over, he mu&s;t know <HI>God will have mercy and &s;acrifice too.</HI> But you may &s;ee the depth of this mans judgement in the matters of God.</P>
<P>I mu&s;t tell you Chri&s;tians (and I think you'l find it to be a true Rule, and there|fore heed it) <HI>One Scripture witne&s;&s;ing that God hath appointed, and fixed &s;ome in office for the worke of the Mini&s;try, to attend upon it</HI> (a thing that <HI>Collier</HI> him&s;elfe grants) <HI>is of more &s;trength to condemne the unlimited liberty of Preaching that he pleads for, then twenty examples of gifted mens preaching</HI> (in tho&s;e extraordinary times of per&s;ecution and &s;cattering of Chri&s;tians, which the hi&s;toricall part of Scripture relates) <HI>are to defend the &s;ame.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="81" REF="45">
Wherefore tho&s;e Scriptures that &s;peak of gifted Brethrens Preaching, or tel|ling abroad the tidings of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, in tho&s;e extraordinary un&s;etled times, (un&s;etled through the &s;cattering of the Brethren) make nothing to the Que&s;ti|on. For the thing di&s;puted, is, whether in ordinary ca&s;es, when all things are in a calme, and quiet condition, no great &s;carcity of able hone&s;t men in office; and Ordination to the office may be had, whether then men not in the mini&s;teriall office, may practi&s;e publique Preaching without breach of the rule given to the Churches of Chri&s;t. This, which is the maine of the Que&s;tion, he &s;ayes little too, and what he does &s;ay, I will an&s;er anon.</P>
<P N="4">4. Whereas the Que&s;tion is, whether &s;uch may preach in the &s;ence before &s;et downe, without office, or relation and re&s;pect thereunto: He argues (&s;ome|times in his Di&s;cour&s;e) that they may preach, <HI>in order to the triall of their gifts;</HI> or el&s;e none can ever be duely ordained, and appointed unto the office, &s;eing pro|bation and tryall of gifts mu&s;t go before Ordination to the office; a thing never que&s;tioned, but knowne to be approved of by tho&s;e that oppo&s;e his corrupt opi|nion
<PB N="83" REF="46">notwith&s;tanding, provided it be by con&s;ent of Pa&s;tour and People, that &s;uch Preach as are not actually inve&s;ted with the office. We all grant, that one really gifted, may Preach, <HI>in ordine ad munus,</HI> in order to the office, or as M^r <HI>Hall</HI> &s;peaks, <HI>per modum probationis,</HI> as Probationers.</P>
<P>And here I &s;hall remove an Objection that po&s;&s;ibly might be made again&s;t mine owne practi&s;e.</P>
<P>I acknowledge I Preacht now and then, for the &s;pace of a yeare or two, be|fore I was formally ordained. But,
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. I did &s;o in order to the taking up of the Office of a Mini&s;ter.</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. I was never again&s;t Ordination, and this was knowne, though &s;u&s;pected by &s;ome, that were lea&s;t acquainted with my judgement.</ITEM>
<ITEM>3. 'Twas onely while I wanted op|portunity of Ordination, in times of the war, and when in Bani&s;hment from mine owne Countrey, and before &s;ettle|ment after my returne.</ITEM>
<ITEM>4. I did not this without the appro|bation of &s;everall able godly Mini&s;ters, which was virtually an Ordination; and therefore this makes nothing to the countenancing of their practi&s;e, that &s;et upon this work without re&s;pect to any of the&s;e particulars.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P><PB N="82" REF="46">
Now then, if you take along with you this third Ob&s;ervation upon his Di&s;|cour&s;e, you'l &s;ee that for the mo&s;t part he meddles little with the Que&s;tion, but &s;trikes at randome at a man of &s;traw, of his owne &s;etting up, meerly beating the air, and therefore nothing but air and vanity in his an&s;wers.</P>
<P><HI>Ob&s;er.</HI> 4. You may take notice al&s;o,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ob&s;er. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> that while he pleads for a generall liber|ty of Preaching, even in con&s;tituted Churches, he does not informe you how far he would extend this, whither he meane gifted Brethren may Preach in a con&s;tituted Church <HI>by the con&s;ent of the Pa&s;tour</HI> and people: or whether he mean they may Preach <HI>whether they be willing or no:</HI> not a word of this, for his de&s;igne is to advance a di&s;orderly confu&s;ed pra|cti&s;e, in generall termes, which he is a|&s;hamed to owne in plain termes, di&s;tinct|ly laid downe: if it were not &s;o, he could never have omitted the &s;atisfying of his Reader in this.</P>
<P>If &s;o be one that pretends gifts may Preach in a Church con&s;tituted, <HI>without the con&s;ent of the Pa&s;tour,</HI> and people; then what liberty or power is left unto the Churches of Chri&s;t? let any man judge. If a &s;tranger may come and &s;u&s;pend a
<PB N="84" REF="47"><HI>Church-officer</HI> from the execution of his Mini&s;teriall duties among his peopie, <HI>without his con&s;ent,</HI> and undertake to teach them, without his approbation; where is Church-liberty and Church-power then? How are Mini&s;ters <HI>Shephe<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter">rds,</HI> ap|pointed to keepe off Wolves from the Flock, if by the Rules of Chri&s;t, any Wolfe may come in under the name of a <HI>gifted Brother,</HI> and devour the flock, <HI>cum privilegio,</HI> without controule?</P>
<P>If he intends onely that a gifted bro|ther may teach in a con&s;tituted Church, by the free and unanimous con&s;ent, and de&s;ire of Pa&s;tour and people, why doth he contend? This would not be denied, but that if there be one of knowne gifts, &s;ound in the faith, that defires to &s;peak to the edification of the people, if he have the free con&s;ent of the Pa&s;tour, and Peo|ple, he may: But alas! this will no<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;erve his turne. I &s;uppo&s;e the practi&s;e h<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> pleads for, is the &s;ame with that which he, and his A&s;&s;ociates have taken up, o<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> comming tumultuou&s;ly and forceably in|to Congregations, without con&s;ent, ei|ther of Mini&s;ter or People, to the grea<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;candall of the Go&s;pel. Let the tumul<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> that have been made by this means in <HI>So|mer&s;et</HI> and <HI>Devon</HI> (what ever ha's been
<PB N="85" REF="47">done in other places) be witne&s;&s;es, that this is their practice, and therefore tis like tis that which hee here intends: and if &s;o, then pray judge whether this be ac|cording to the Go&s;pel, or con&s;i&s;tent with chri&s;tian liberty: and whether any one of all the Scripturs hee produces in his book, doe give the lea&s;t countenance to the &s;ame; if not, then all he &s;ayes is vain and impertinent.</P>
<P><HI>Ob&s;.</HI> 5.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ob&s;er. <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> In mo&s;t of his an&s;wers he doth not reply to the Scripture-rea&s;on alled|ged again&s;t him, but, declining that as a little too hard for him, hee an&s;wers by affirming the thing di&s;puted, and in con|trover&s;y, from &s;ome few Scriptures which he quotes at lea&s;t (I think) ten times over. So that hee an&s;wers by di&s;|puting, and takes not off his Adver&s;a|ries Arguments, but gives you in his owne. This I could &s;hew you in &s;everall particulars, but that I had rather make you &s;ee how bad his cau&s;e is, then how abfurdly he manages it. Now &s;ith he grounds all on a few Scriptures (a|bu&s;ed by him) if I can demon&s;trate the impertinency of them to his purpo&s;e, and clear them from &s;peaking any thing for his opinion, then you'l &s;ay, <HI>The Router is Routed.</HI> This I &s;hall do in the next place.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<PB N="86" REF="48">
<HEAD>Severall Scriptures opened and cleared from giving any countenance to that Babell and confu&s;ion pleaded for, by the <HI>P. G. Routed.</HI></HEAD>
<P>THe two fir&s;t Scriptures that I &s;hall &s;peak to, are, <HI>Acts</HI> 8.4. <HI>Acts</HI> 9.20. The fir&s;t &s;peaks of the <HI>&s;cattered Brethren,</HI> that Preached. The &s;econd of <HI>Sauls</HI> Preaching (as he &s;uppo&s;es) before cal|led to be a Mini&s;ter. The&s;e are brought in by him as a running ver&s;e in the end of &s;everall an&s;wers, as being of great weight to his cau&s;e, but how little they make for him, &s;hall, I hope, appear.</P>
<P>Before I &s;peak particularly to them, let me lay you downe the&s;e two profita|ble <HI>Rules</HI> as preparatory.</P>
<P><HI>Reg.</HI> 1.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rule <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> In weighty things of God, a Chri&s;tian mu&s;t have a certaine, evident rule to warrant his practi&s;e, and may not ground it upon likelihood and probabi|lity. Though Scriptures be produced that make the thing &s;omewhat likely, yet if they doe not nece&s;&s;arily conclude the matter in Que&s;tion, they are not &s;uf|ficient to lead any forth unto the practi&s;e of the &s;ame.</P>
<P><PB N="87" REF="48">
<HI>Reg.</HI> 2. Arguments drawne from Te|&s;timonies,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rule <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> or examples of men in Scrip|ture, are of credit, according to the cre|dit of the per&s;ons who&s;e te&s;timonies, or examples they are. So that if the per&s;ons from who&s;e te&s;timony or example the Argument is drawne, be fallible, in their te&s;timony, or example; the Argument drawne there-from, mu&s;t needs be in|firme, and fallible too.</P>
<P>The&s;e two things being premi&s;ed, I &s;hal to the clearing of the two Scriptures, which pre&s;ent us with the example of the <HI>&s;cattered brethren,</HI> and <HI>Saul,</HI> their Preach|ing.</P>
<P>If we &s;hould &s;uppo&s;e that the&s;e pre&s;i|dents did &s;uit the matter in Que&s;tion (as they do not) for their Preaching was not in a Church con&s;tituted, but to Infi|dels. Yet,</P>
<P N="1">1. They are the examples of men not infallibly guided in what they did. This is mo&s;t certaine as to the &s;cattered bre|thren: no man I think will &s;ay we have very much rea&s;on to judge that they were infallibly guided in what they did, and as to <HI>Saul,</HI> it is as evident too, &s;uppo&s;ing that which he affirmes, that <HI>Saul</HI> was a private Chri&s;tian, and not called forth to be a Mini&s;ter, if &s;o, then his example is
<PB N="88" REF="49">no more infallible then theirs. Now if there be not an infallibility in the&s;e ex|amples, they doe not nece&s;&s;arily conclude the <HI>Jus</HI> or right of the thing done, though they make it likely; which is not &s;uffi|cient for Chri&s;tians, that (in &s;uch weigh|ty matters e&s;pecially) mu&s;t walk by a certaine rule; &s;o that, if I &s;hould &s;ay no more, what is become of the&s;e two &s;trong holds that he flies to &s;o often? At mo&s;t they doe but conclude a likelihood of the lawfullne&s;&s;e of this practi&s;e which he pleads for. It concludes onely a <HI>may be,</HI> and may any go upon <HI>may bees</HI> in &s;uch weighty matters?</P>
<P>But 2. As for the <HI>&s;cattered brethren,</HI> it is a great Que&s;tion whether the Apo&s;tles (that were at <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> at the time of the &s;cattering of the Chri&s;tians there) did not give them Commi&s;&s;ion to Preach, as M^r <HI>Hall</HI> &s;ayes,<NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> And what ha's <HI>The P. G. Routed,</HI> to &s;ay to this? Why, &s;ayes he, <HI>The Scripture doth not &s;peake of any &s;uch thing.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer.</NOTE> Very good, neither doth Scrip|ture &s;peak the contrary, and what fol|lows then, but that it is doubtfull whe|ther they were &s;ent by the Apo&s;tles, or no: and if &s;o, then &s;till doubtfull (not|with&s;tanding that example) whether a|ny man el&s;e may preach without an ex|ternall call.</P>
<P><PB N="89" REF="49">
Be&s;ides 3. was their preaching in a con&s;tituted Church, and not among the unbelieving Jewes rather? as Acts 11.19.</P>
<P N="4">4. Was it not in an extraordinary &s;ea&s;on? which as ha's been proved before, quite alters the ca&s;e. This Scripture then you &s;ee proves nothing certaine and to the purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>As for the latter Scripture concerning <HI>Saul</HI> his Preaching (before he was called to be a Mini&s;ter, as he affirmes) 'Tis evi|dent he Preached, but that he Preached before he was called to be a Mini&s;ter, is mo&s;t fal&s;e. 'Tis true, he Preached before he was &s;olemnly &s;et a part to be an Apo|&s;tle to the Gentiles; as <HI>Acts</HI> 13.2, 3. compared with <HI>Acts</HI> 9.20. proves: but he was called to be a Mini&s;ter before. And I wonder this man was not afraid to bring in <HI>Acts</HI> 13.2, 3. lea&s;t any &s;hould have lookt into the ver&s;e immediatly preceding, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 1. where it is &s;aid ex|pre&s;ly, that before this he was one of the Prophets and Teachers that were at <HI>An|tioch.</HI></P>
<P>But it may be objected,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Object.</NOTE> that the per|&s;ons there mentioned were Teachers <HI>by gift,</HI> not <HI>by office,</HI> and &s;o <HI>Saul</HI> was not in office before this time.</P>
<P>I An&s;wer,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w.</NOTE> All the members of the
<PB N="90" REF="50">Church of <HI>Antioch</HI> were Teachers by gift, according to the mea&s;ure that they had received (for all Saints are Prophets and Teachers in that &s;ence, as he him&s;elfe &s;ayes) but the&s;e were Prophets and Teachers that were <HI>in the Church</HI> that was at <HI>Antioch:</HI> therefore the&s;e mu&s;t needs be Teachers in another &s;ence then the re&s;t of the members there; and if &s;o, then they were Teachers by office, and not by gift onely. Pardon me, if in u&s;ing this di&s;tinction of Teachers by gift, and Teach|ers by office, I hardly &s;peake &s;ence, for I mu&s;t conforme my &s;elfe to his lan|guage.</P>
<P N="2">2. Is there not (in that very Chapter which he brings in one Ver&s;e of to prove <HI>Sauls</HI> Preaching before called to the office of a Mini&s;ter, <HI>Acts</HI> 9.) an expre&s;&s;e hi&s;to|ry of his call? even by a voyce from Heaven. If there needed any proofe in this matter, I could &s;hew you how <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 6. when <HI>Saul</HI> cried out, what wilt thou have me to doe? the Lord &s;ayes, <HI>Ari&s;e, and goe into the City, and it &s;hall be told thee what thou mu&s;t do,</HI> &amp;c. He &s;ends him to <HI>Ana|nias,</HI> &amp; what <HI>Ananias</HI> by Vi&s;ion tels him, (though you have it not fully related in the &s;ame Chapter, yet) you have it from <HI>Sauls</HI> owne mouth in Chap. 22. ver&s;. 14,
<PB N="91" REF="50">15. viz. That he was to goe to be a wit|ne&s;&s;e unto the truth which was miracu|lou&s;ly given in to him. Was not this a &s;ufficient outward call? Yea more plain <HI>Acts</HI> 26.16, 17, 18, 19. where you finde that God him&s;elfe in that heavenly Vi&s;i|on told him, that he <HI>appeared to him to make him a Mini&s;ter,</HI> ver&s;. 16. and that he did then <HI>&s;end him,</HI> ver&s;. 17. And yet &s;ee, Ah! how often doth this fellow pre&s;ume to bring in <HI>Saul</HI> as Preaching before his call, to the office of a Mini&s;ter, to make his matter good, although Scripture te&s;ti|mony is &s;o expre&s;&s;e again&s;t him.</P>
<P>Be&s;ides, <HI>Sauls</HI> Preaching was not in a con&s;tituted Church neither, and there|fore the le&s;&s;e to his purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>Oh the confidence of men that can tri|umph in &s;uch heterogenious &s;tuffe!</P>
<P>But let us &s;ee whether the Scriptures thar are behind will prove any whit bet|ter for his turne.</P>
<P>He often urges 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 4.10, 11, <HI>Every man as he hath received the Gift, &s;o let him mini&s;ter the &s;ame,</HI> &amp;c. And <HI>Rom.</HI> 12.6, 7. they may be &s;poken to both under one.</P>
<P N="1">1. This is a very farre fetcht con&s;e|quence, Chri&s;tians mu&s;t <HI>admini&s;ter their gifts:</HI> therefore they mu&s;t be <HI>Publique Preachers.</HI> Is there no way in which a gif|ted
<PB N="92" REF="51">Chri&s;tian can make u&s;e of his Ta|lent, unle&s;&s;e he enter upon that work which God hath appointed men in office to doe? How many pretious &s;ouls (when this thing was never heard of) did in former times meet together, &amp; di&s;cour&s;e together of the things of God, making u&s;e of their gifts in comforting one ano|ther, in&s;tructing their children, families, friends, in &s;uch a way as was convenient, and yet never dreamt of turning <HI>Preach|ers:</HI> though they knew they mu&s;t <HI>admi|ni&s;ter their gifts.</HI> The <HI>P. G. Routed</HI> is un|willing to &s;ee the &s;oundne&s;&s;e of the di|&s;tinction between <HI>publique</HI> and <HI>private</HI> Preaching: Preaching taken in a large, and Preaching taken in a &s;trict &s;ence; which I proved before by two (I think) invincible Arguments. Take that di&s;tin|ction along with you, and you may ea|&s;ily an&s;wer what is pleaded from the&s;e Scriptures.</P>
<P>But 2. Doth not this exhortation in 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 4. &amp; <HI>Rom.</HI> 12. extend to women, think you, as well as men? 'Tis in the Originall <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Every one.</HI> Mu&s;t not women ad|mini&s;ter their gifts as they have received? I have proved they mu&s;t, from 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.5. compared with 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.15. <HI>Acts</HI> 18.26. <HI>Prov.</HI> 31.1. and yet you know they
<PB N="93" REF="51">may not Preach <HI>publiquely</HI> in the Church.</P>
<P>Wherefore the meaning of the two A|po&s;tles can be no more but this, <HI>Let eve|ry one,</HI> as he is enabled, labour to com|municate good unto others, every one in his proper place, and capacity; if he have the &s;tation of a private member, let him u&s;e his gifts, by brotherly advice, admonition, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> if he hath the extraor|dinary gift of Prophecy (for I &s;hall prove Prophecy &s;ignifies an extraordina|ry gift) <HI>let him Prophecy.</HI> If he be called to be a <HI>Pa&s;tour</HI> and <HI>Teacher,</HI> let him attend diligently on that: if a <HI>Deacon,</HI> let him follow that work faithfully: if a Ruling Elder, let him be diligent and upright in Ruling. Weigh the expre&s;&s;ions well, with what I have &s;aid, and tell me whether this be not the very direct &s;cope of the&s;e two Scriptures now under examination: and if &s;o, then alas what make they for his purpo&s;e? &s;ure nothing at all.</P>
<P>A &s;mall matter you &s;ee, will lead men that way which the &s;tream of their &s;piri|tual pride carries them, or el&s;e the&s;e Scri|ptures would not be taken for a &s;uffici|ent ground for private Chri&s;tians to un|dertake the publique work of a Mini&s;ter.</P>
<P>He &s;ometimes comes in with that in <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 145.10, 11. <HI>All thy works &s;hall prai&s;e
<PB N="94" REF="52">thee, O Lord, and thy Saints &s;hall ble&s;&s;e thee. They &s;hall &s;peake of the glory of thy Kingdome, and talk of thy power.</HI> As though this hath any relation to publique Preaching, and not rather to tho&s;e Chri&s;tian duties of Prayer, Prai&s;e, and Di&s;cour&s;e, in which the Saints &s;hall acknowledge God and the great things which he ha's done for them.</P>
<P>There is but one Scripture more, and that is the con&s;tant place of refuge which he makes u&s;e of, when mo&s;t put to it, and forced to &s;peak to his Que&s;tion, and that is, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.31. which, as he &s;ayes, proves gifted Brethrens liberty to Preach in a Church con&s;tituted: This I &s;hall clear in a Di&s;cour&s;e by it &s;elfe, concern|ing <HI>Prophecy,</HI> in the next place. In the meane while &s;ee how the&s;e men cry out for expre&s;&s;e Scripture, expre&s;&s;e Scrip|ture, when the Que&s;tion is about any thing that cro&s;&s;es their phan&s;ie; and yet cry downe all for Antichri&s;tian, and e|nemies to the Spirit in the Saints, who with&s;tand &s;uch things as they can bring no other Scripture for, then what indeed &s;peaks nothing at all to their purpo&s;e, being rightly under&s;tood: as you &s;ee.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<PB N="95" REF="52">
<HEAD>That the gift of Prophecy which we read of in fir&s;t times of the Go&s;pel Church, was extraordinary, and not as the <HI>P. G. Routed,</HI> &s;ayes, proper to all the Saints.</HEAD>
<P>I Re&s;olved to handle this by it &s;elfe, and that &s;omewhat largely, becau&s;e there is no one thing he doth &s;o much in|&s;i&s;t upon, as this, that Prophecying is an ordinary gift, and (as he &s;ayes) <HI>proper to all the Saints;</HI> and therefore, according to <HI>Paul,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.31. Chri&s;tians may <HI>all Prophe&s;ie, one by one.</HI> This then is ne|ce&s;&s;ary to be cleared, that the gift of Pro|phecy was extraordinary, and &s;o ending with the Apo&s;tolicall times, when the Scriptures were perfected: which if I can doe, there will remaine nothing unan|&s;wered of all he hath written for Preach|ing without Ordination, or an externall call to the Mini&s;teriall office.</P>
<P>You may read, page 79. how that he brings in his Adver&s;ary objecting, that the Prophets &s;poken of in 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. were extraordinary, and you may ob&s;erve it, he takes no notice of his Rea&s;ons, but an&s;wers, <HI>I &s;ay they were not extraordinary,
<PB N="96" REF="53">but ordinary.</HI> A good an&s;wer, <HI>Ip&s;e dixit, Collier</HI> &s;ayes it. This puts me in mind of a &s;tory I have heard of a Polemicall Do|ctour that u&s;ed in his Sermons to beat much upon Controver&s;ies, &amp; once hand|ling a difference between us and the Pa|pi&s;ts, he cites <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> and &s;ayes, <HI>Bel|larmine</HI> &s;ays &s;o, but I &s;ay, <HI>Bellarmine</HI> thou lieft, and where is he now? So this man, M^r <HI>Hall</HI> &s;ayes they were extraordinary, but I &s;ay, no, where is he now? If his te&s;timony be infallible, then you may take it for a truth, which he &s;o confident|ly affirmes, but if we may beleeve Scrip|ture before him, I &s;hall di&s;cover it to be fal&s;e: and that, fir&s;t an&s;wering his Ar|guments, and then laying downe mine owne.</P>
<P>I will doe him &s;o much right as to give you a view of all his &s;trength, not in one place onely, but in every place where he &s;peaks any thing argumentatively to this Que&s;tion, that nothing may goe un|an&s;wered. I find five rea&s;ons urged not all together, but &s;ome in one place, &s;ome in another; in page 60.81.83.87. I &s;hall make reply to them in their order.</P>
<P>His fir&s;t Rea&s;on is in page 60. where he &s;ayes.</P>
<P><PB N="97" REF="53">
<HI>Prophecying was an extraordinary gift in the time of the Law,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>but in the Go&s;pel dayes it is not &s;o: becau&s;e it is to &s;peake edifica|tion, exhortation, and comfort.</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.3. <HI>which is ordinary, and proper to all the Saints.</HI></P>
<P>You &s;hall have &s;ome &s;ophi&s;try from him, though but little good Logick.<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer.</NOTE></P>
<P>Prophets &s;peake to edification, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Therefore tho&s;e that &s;peak to edification are Prophets: This is his rea&s;oning. But I an&s;wer.</P>
<P>This is a Fallacy which we call <HI>Falla|cia con&s;equentis,</HI> which is when one thinks con&s;equencies or propo&s;itions are con|vertible, and reciprocall when they are not. 'Tis true, &s;uch as were <HI>Prophets</HI> did <HI>&s;peake to edification,</HI> &amp;c. But it followes not that if men <HI>&s;peake to edification,</HI> they are therefore <HI>Prophets.</HI> This is as if one &s;hould argue thus, If it rained but now, the ground is wet; therfore if the ground be wet, it rained but now: a meer <HI>non &s;equitur,</HI> for the ground may be wet &s;ome other way then by raine. Even &s;o he be|cau&s;e the Prophets did &s;peak to edifica|tion, he thinks he may conclude that if men &s;peak to edification they are Pro|phets, and &s;o <HI>prophecy</HI> is ordinary, be|cau&s;e
<PB N="98" REF="54"><HI>&s;peaking to edification</HI> is &s;o. It follow not, for though Prophets &s;peak to edifi|cation, yet 'tis not that, but the extra|ordinary &s;pirit by which they &s;peak that denominates them Prophets.</P>
<P N="2">2. Whereas he &s;ayes <HI>[The Prophets under the Law were extraordinary, but the&s;e not, becau&s;e they did &s;peake to edification.]</HI> 'Tis very &s;trange, for is it not evident that the Prophets in the old Te&s;tament &s;pake to edification al&s;o? To this he an&s;wers two things, page 83. for I will not pa&s;&s;e over any thing of weight that he &s;peaks.</P>
<P N="1">1.<NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>This is more then the Scripture affirmes.</HI></P>
<P>Is it not &s;trange that this man &s;hould have &s;o much boldne&s;&s;e as to &s;peak thus?<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w.</NOTE> He that will que&s;tion whether <HI>Amos, Ho|&s;ea, I&s;aiah,</HI> and the re&s;t of the Prophets did &s;peak to edification in their Prophe|cying, had need que&s;tion too whither tho&s;e Books that go under their names, and containe the &s;um of their Prophecies, be indeed theirs or no; for is not the matter contained in tho&s;e Books for e|dification? El&s;e what do we make with them in our Bibles? Ah filthy bla&s;phe|my! See what a bad cau&s;e will drive men to. But he adds,</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="99" REF="54">
2. <HI>If they did,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>they took not their denomina|tion of Prophets from this kinde of Pro|phecying.</HI></P>
<P>Well fare a good confidence!<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w.</NOTE> you may take his word for it if you will. If they were not denominated Prophets from this kinde of prophecying, from what kind of Prophecying then? Did they ever Prophecy except for edificati|on? Sure the man hath much forgot him&s;elfe. But for his learning: They were called Prophets, not from the mat|ter of their Prophecies (which was di|ver&s;e) but from the manner of receiving the &s;ame from God by <HI>In&s;pirations, Dreams</HI> and <HI>Vi&s;ions.</HI> See <HI>Numb.</HI> 12.6. <HI>If there be a Prophet among you, I the Lord will make my &s;elfe knowne unto him in a Vi&s;ion, and will &s;peake unto him in a Dreame.</HI> Hence 'tis that Prophets were called <HI>Seers,</HI> 1 Sam. 9.9. <HI>For he that is now called a Prophet, was beforetime called a Seer.</HI> That is, &s;uch a one as God reveales him&s;elfe unto by Vi&s;ion.</P>
<P>This name is al&s;o given unto the lat|ter Prophets, in many places; as <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 30.10. <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 29.10. <HI>Amos</HI> 7.12. to &s;hew us, that they were called <HI>Prophets</HI> as <HI>Seers, i. e.</HI> men to whom God appeared by <HI>Vi&s;ions,</HI>
<PB N="100" REF="55">and <HI>extraordinary, in&s;piration,</HI> not becau&s;e they <HI>foretold things to come,</HI> as he doth in|timate. And this I prove al&s;o by the fol|lowing Argument.</P>
<P>That which did denominate their &s;ay|ings <HI>Prophecies,</HI> did denominate them <HI>Pro|phets,</HI> that I hope will not be denied.</P>
<P>But the <HI>extraordinary way of revelation</HI> did denominate their &s;ayings <HI>Prophecies.</HI> Therefore that did denominate them <HI>Prophets.</HI></P>
<P>That the <HI>extraordinary way of revelation</HI> did denominate their &s;ayings <HI>Prophecies,</HI> not this, that they did foretell things to come (as he intimates) is very evident, in that in Prophecying they &s;pake not onely of things to come, but &s;ometimes of things pa&s;t, &s;ometimes of things pre|&s;ent. 'Tis true, the Prophets often &s;pake of things to come, but not alwayes, and therefore they were not from thence cal|led Prophets. I &s;hall make this yet more plaine to you by giving you forth a defi|nition of <HI>Prophecy,</HI> that you may know what it is, and whence 'tis that men are called <HI>Prophets.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Prophecy is a manife&s;ting by divine in&s;pira|tion,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">What Pro|phe&s;ie is.</NOTE> <HI>of hidden or &s;ecret things, whether pa&s;t, pre&s;ent, or to come.</HI></P>
<P>I &s;ay, a manife&s;tation of <HI>hidden things,</HI>
<PB N="101" REF="55">that is, of things that are not, or cannot be knowne or manife&s;ted any other way. 2. <HI>By Divine in&s;piration,</HI> which is the one|ly way in which things &s;ecret and not revealed can be manife&s;ted. 3. I add, <HI>Whether the things be pa&s;t, pre&s;ent, or to come,</HI> becau&s;e Prophecying is not onely of things future, but<NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Nec futura tantum praedicere e&s;t prophetare, &s;ed praeterita, &amp; prae&s;en|tia humanae &s;cientiae, &amp; indu&s;triaeimpo&s;&s;ibilia c<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter">g|nitu. <HI>Fl. Illyr. Cl. Ser. par. 1. p. 973.</HI></NOTE> pre&s;ent, and pa&s;t al&s;o. <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> he Pro|phecyed of the Creation of things unknowne to others. <HI>Eli&s;ha</HI> by a Propheticall &s;pirit di&s;covered <HI>Gehazi's</HI> theft, 2 <HI>K.</HI> 5.25, 26. He di&s;clo&s;ed the King of <HI>Syria's</HI> Coun&s;ell, and the pre&s;ent po|&s;ture of his Army, 2 <HI>Kings</HI> 6.8, 9. The Prophets often Prophe&s;ied of the pre&s;ent wickedne&s;&s;e of the people, as in <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 1.1, 2. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Here you &s;ee is Prophecying of things pa&s;t, and pre&s;ent, as well as things to come. So that the <HI>P. G. Routed</HI> is much mi&s;taken in the rea&s;on he gives why the Prophets in the time of the Law were de|nominated, or called Prophets: 'Twas not becau&s;e they foretold things to come, as is proved, but becau&s;e they manife&s;ted to others (by Divine in&s;piration) things that were &s;ecret and not knowne; whe|ther pa&s;t, pre&s;ent, or to come, it makes no difference. And ob&s;erve too, in this
<PB N="102" REF="56">they &s;pake to edification? as was pro|ved before) even as the Prophets &s;poken of 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. are &s;aid to do. And there|fore this rea&s;on alledged to prove the Prophets in the Go&s;pel dayes ordinary, is very frivolous and weak.</P>
<P>If there were any difference betweene the Prophets before Chri&s;t, and tho&s;e in the Apo&s;tles time, it lay either in the clearne&s;&s;e of their Prophecies, one above the other, or el&s;e in this, that the in&s;pi|ration of the one was<NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Afflatus Apo&s;tolo|rum non erat &s;imilis af|flatui Prophetarum non enim erat ec&s;taticus &s;ed compo&s;itus &amp; &s;edatus, <HI>&amp;c. Cam. Tom. 3. p. 319.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Ex|taticall,</HI> and violent; and the other (ordinarily) more <HI>qui|et</HI> and <HI>&s;edate,</HI> viz. the in&s;pirati|on of the Prophets &s;poken of in 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. concerning whom 'tis &s;aid, ver&s;. 32. <HI>The &s;pirits of the Prophets are &s;ubject to the Pro|phets.</HI> That is<NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg">So <HI>Fl. Illyr.</HI> in his <HI>Cl. Script. Part</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 194. And <HI>Cam. Tom.</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> 76. &amp; <HI>p.</HI> 461. Expound this place.</NOTE> the Spirit of Prophecy was not &s;o violent on them, but that they had power to containe them&s;elves, and to &s;tay one for another, and &s;o to &s;peak in order: Whereas u&s;u|ally 'twas otherwi&s;e with the Prophets in the Old Te&s;tament, in whom the in|&s;piration was many times &s;o violent, that they could not take their owne time for Prophecying, as the&s;e in the New
<PB N="103" REF="56">Te&s;tament ordinarily could. But both had an extraordinary in&s;piration of things &s;ecret, and not revealed and ma|nife&s;ted: from the which, both the one and the other, were denominated Pro|phets.</P>
<P>Now if the <HI>P. G. Routed</HI> can bring me any in our dayes that are extraordinari|ly or immediatly in&s;pired by God unto the manife&s;tation of things not revealed already, I will own them to be Prophets, and grant that they may Preach without any other call but their gift: but if there be none &s;uch, then there are no Prophets, and &s;o his allegation from 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. is vain and impertinent.</P>
<P>But I'le pa&s;&s;e to his &s;econd rea&s;on, to prove the gift of Prophe&s;ie ordinary, which is in the &s;ame place with the fir&s;t.</P>
<P><HI>The Te&s;timony of Je&s;us is the &s;pirit of Prophe|&s;ie,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> Revel. 19.10. <HI>But this is given to the brethren. Therefore,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Here is another Fallacy (I am afraid the Devil ha's plaid the Sophi&s;ter with him,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> and taught him to play the Sophi|&s;ter with others) 'Tis that which is cal|led, <HI>A dicto &s;ecundum quid, ad dictum &s;impli|citer,</HI> when a thing is &s;aid to be <HI>&s;imply</HI> &s;o, or &s;o; becau&s;e it is &s;o onely <HI>in &s;ome re|&s;pect.</HI>
<PB N="104" REF="57">The <HI>Te&s;timony of Je&s;us is the &s;pirit of Prophecy,</HI> not <HI>&s;imply,</HI> but as it is extra|ordinarily in&s;pired into &s;uch as do Pro|phe&s;ie of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and of his King|dome: &s;o con&s;idered, the te&s;timony of Je&s;us is the &s;pirit of Prophe&s;ie. But now will it follow, the Blackmore is white in his teeth, therefore he is all white, or white, <HI>&s;impliciter,</HI> &s;imply? No more will it follow, <HI>The Te&s;timony of Je&s;us</HI> (as im|mediatly and extraordinarily in&s;pired, and given in to &s;uch as are <HI>Prophets</HI>) <HI>is the &s;pirit of Prophecy;</HI> therefore the Te&s;ti|mony of Je&s;us, &s;imply con&s;idered as it is in all the Saints, is the &s;pirit of Prophe|&s;ie. This followes not.</P>
<P>And lea&s;t any &s;hould think I di&s;tingui&s;h thus without any ground; you &s;hall find in Chap. 1. ver&s;. 2. <HI>John</HI> him&s;elfe di&s;tin|gui&s;hes between the <HI>word of God,</HI> and the <HI>Te&s;timony of Je&s;us,</HI> here called, <HI>The &s;pirit of Prophecy.</HI> And ver&s;. 9. he &s;ayes, <HI>He was in the I&s;le of Patmos for the word of God, and for the Te&s;timony of Je&s;us.</HI> That is (as &s;ome<NOTE N="(d)" PLACE="marg">Nempe relegarus fueratin in|&s;ulam Patmon a Domitiano imperatore (uti fert hi&s;toria Eccle&s;ra&s;ti|ca) quod &s;ingularis, e&s;&s;et Evangelij dei praeco, quod&abque; &s;piritu prophe|tico actus Chri&s;to &s;ingulare redderet Te&s;timonium. <HI>Lud. Cappel. Spic. p. 139.</HI></NOTE> judicious men interpret) he was bani&s;hed there, for that he was a &s;ingular
<PB N="105" REF="57">Preacher of the Go&s;pel, and not only &s;o, but becau&s;e, being acted by a prophetical &s;pirit, he gave a more &s;ingular te&s;timony to Je&s;us Chri&s;t, then other ordinary Preachers did. For this extraordinary te&s;timony of Je&s;us, which he had, together with other Prophets, was he bani&s;hed, and this is called the &s;pirit of Prophe&s;ie.</P>
<P>Therefore &s;econdly I an&s;wer,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> that &s;uch a te&s;timony of Je&s;us as is there &s;poken of, is the &s;pirit of Prophe&s;ie, and no other: but in that place, not any Te&s;timony of Je&s;us is meant, but a &s;peciall kind of te|&s;timony: that is evident, becau&s;e this clau&s;e <HI>[The Te&s;timony of Je&s;us is the &s;pirit of Prophe&s;ie]</HI> is added to explaine what went before, that every one might under&s;tand what te&s;timony of Je&s;us the Angels meant. Sayes he, I meane by the Te&s;timony of Je&s;us, the &s;pirit of Pro|phe&s;ie, not every kind of Te&s;timony, but that which is the &s;pirit of Prophe&s;ie. If this be not the &s;ence, this clau&s;e were needle&s;&s;e. Therefore it follows, that 'tis a &s;peciall kind of Te&s;timony that is here intended, not &s;uch as is in all the Saints. You will find if you examine the Text well, that indeed the intent of this clau&s;e which <HI>The</HI> P. <HI>G. Routed,</HI> urges, is not to &s;ignifie to us what the Te&s;timony of Je|&s;us
<PB N="106" REF="58">is con&s;idered &s;imply in it &s;elfe, but to &s;ignifie in what &s;ence it is u&s;ed in the for|mer part of the Ver&s;e: So that it makes nothing at all to his purpo&s;e.</P>
<P N="3">3. Compare this <HI>Rev.</HI> 19.10. with <HI>Rev.</HI> 22.9. where the &s;ame &s;peech of the Angel, is &s;et downe, though in other words, and 'twill help to make the &s;ence more clear.</P>
<P>I have done with his &s;econd Rea&s;on, let us try the third, and &s;ee whether 'twil prove any better: 'tis laid forth in this forme.</P>
<P><HI>Every &s;pirituall man is a Prophet. But the Saints are all &s;pirituall,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>therefore all Pro|phets.</HI> 1 Cor. 14.37. <HI>And by con&s;equence Prophecying is an ordinary gift.</HI></P>
<P>'Tis well concluded,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> if his fir&s;t Propo|&s;ition were true. But he had need have a better Scripture for his purpo&s;e, to prove it, then that which he brings (1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.37.) or el&s;e he mu&s;t give me leave not to take it for true. The words are, <HI>If any man think him&s;elfe a Prophet, or &s;pirituall, let him acknowledge, &amp;c.</HI> Becau&s;e 'tis &s;aid, <HI>a Prophet or &s;pirituall,</HI> therefore he con|cludes, <HI>Every &s;pirituall man is a Prophet:</HI> How does this follow? May a man con|clude becau&s;e <HI>Paul</HI> &s;ayes in the &s;ame Epi|&s;tle,
<PB N="107" REF="58">Chap. 5. ver. 11. <HI>If any brother be a fornicatour, or covetous;</HI> therefore every covetous man is a fornicatour? I hope not; but grant that [Spirituall] be an epithite given to <HI>Prophet,</HI> as I beleeve it is, yet all that can be concluded, is, that every Prophet is a &s;pirituall man: And then, though every Prophet be a &s;piritu|all man, yet it will not follow, that e|very &s;pirituall man is a Prophet, as he concludes, no more then it will follow, Every Goo&s;e is a living creature, there|fore every living creature is a Goo&s;e. If this con&s;equence were good, then the <HI>P. G. Routed</HI> is a Goo&s;e too; and indeed he &s;hewes him&s;elfe little better in this Ar|gument.</P>
<P N="2">2. He him&s;elfe &s;ayes, page 21. <HI>The Saints are not all Prophets,</HI> but the Saints are all <HI>&s;pirituall.</HI> Therefore his Argument here, page 60. proves him a lier, page 21.</P>
<P N="2">2. I an&s;wer; 'tis true, every one that is <HI>&s;pirituall, i. e.</HI> having the extraordinary gifts of the <HI>Spirit</HI> mentioned before in that Chapter, is a Prophet, but if he takes <HI>[Spirituall]</HI> in that &s;ence, then the &s;econd Propo&s;ition of his Argument is fal&s;e, for all the Saints are not &s;pirituall in that &s;ence.</P>
<P><PB N="108" REF="59">
You &s;ee what is become of his three fir&s;t Rea&s;ons, laid downe, page 60. There be two more yet behind, one in page 83. to this purpo&s;e.</P>
<P><HI>The&s;e Prophets were &s;uch as needed direction from the Apo&s;tle,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>as to the manner and order of Prophecying, which if extraordi|nary they could rather have directed the Apo&s;tles.</HI></P>
<P>I am per&s;waded this man hath lookt this 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. many times over,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> and yet can you think he &s;hould never take no|tice that the Apo&s;tle doth not onely give directions to the <HI>Prophets</HI> there, but pre|&s;cribes rules al&s;o to tho&s;e that <HI>&s;pake in unknowne tongues?</HI> ver. 27, 28. And were not they extraordinarily in&s;pired unto that exerci&s;e, think you? He him&s;elfe doth in one place acknowledge it. There|fore 'tis not &s;trange that <HI>Paul</HI> &s;hould give direction to the Prophets, concerning the order and manner of Prophecying, though they were extraordinarily in&s;pi|red, for you &s;ee he does give directions in the &s;ame place to &s;ome extraordina|rily in&s;pired with the gift of tongues: but he is unwilling to take notice of any thing that makes again&s;t him. Ah how
<PB N="109" REF="59">are the&s;e men blinded with love to no|velty? They<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">They are drunk with errour, and &s;o &s;eldome walk &s;ted|dily.</NOTE> <HI>&s;tagger</HI> and <HI>reel</HI> near the truth many times, but cannot, or rather will not &s;ee it.</P>
<P>But 2. I an&s;wer; the&s;e Prophets might be in&s;pired what to &s;peak,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> but not in what manner and order. You know Pro|phets infallibly guided in what they &s;pake, were not alway infallibly guided in their actings, but therein might erre. Againe, all things are not revealed to one, God rai&s;ed up many Prophets then, and what was not revealed to one was revealed to another. So that it might plea&s;e the Lord that <HI>Paul</HI> (who had the &s;pirit of Prophecy more then they all) &s;hould have this among other things left to him, <HI>viz.</HI> to give directions to the o|ther Prophets, as to the manner and or|der of Prophecying.</P>
<P N="3">3.<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> This direction might be given by <HI>Paul</HI> (perhaps) not &s;o much for their &s;akes who were true Prophets ('tis like they would have kept to this order though <HI>Paul</HI> had never pre&s;cribed it) but rather becau&s;e of &s;ome that might pretend a &s;pirit of Prophecy, when not in&s;pired by God; and &s;o bring in di&s;or|der and confu&s;ion into the Church: this &s;eems to be intimated, <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 37.</P>
<P><PB N="110" REF="60">
But he hath yet one rea&s;on more, which lies in page 87. in the&s;e words.</P>
<P><HI>Praying, and Prophecying are put together,</HI> 1 Cor. 11.5. <HI>was it extraordinary Pray|ing too,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>I wonder that is left out.</HI></P>
<P>I an&s;wer;<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer.</NOTE> I will put in that too <GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 word"> his Learning, and prove there was an extraordinary gift of <HI>praying</HI> then, as well as an extraordinary gift of <HI>Prophecying.</HI> And indeed 'tis &s;trange, a man that pre|tends to &s;o much acquaintance with Scripture as he does, &s;hould never read of an extraordinary gift of <HI>praying,</HI> yea and <HI>&s;inging</HI> too among the <HI>Corinthians:</HI> Pray read 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.14, 15. <HI>For if I pray in an unknowne tongue, my &s;pirit prayeth, but mine under&s;tanding is unfruitfull,</HI> &amp;c. What think you of this? is not here extraordinary <HI>praying?</HI> You may conjecture how the&s;e men read Scripture, if they did not rather &s;trive to bring Scripture to their opini|ons, then their opinions to Scripture, the&s;e plain things could not be hid from them.</P>
<P>You have had an account of the five Rea&s;ons he gives to prove the gift of Pro|phe&s;ie to be ordinary, and as he &s;ayes proper to all the Saints: you &s;hall have as many of mine to prove the contrary.</P>
<P><PB N="111" REF="60">
My fir&s;t Rea&s;on is,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rea&s;. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> becau&s;e it is joyned in 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. with gifts onely extraordi|nary. Ob&s;erve, that in this whole Chap|ter there are no gifts &s;poken of, but &s;uch as are extraordinary, as &s;peaking in &s;trange languages, and interpretation of tongues, both which all acknowledge to be extraordinary: as for the fir&s;t [&s;trange languages] they were u&s;ed three wayes; in preaching, praying, and &s;inging; all the&s;e extraordinary, and the Apo&s;tle puts in Prophecying among the&s;e, and di&s;|cour&s;es of all promi&s;cuou&s;ly, as gifts of the &s;ame kind, only differing in degrees of excellency, and yet &s;hall we conceive that Prophecying is ordinary, when all the re&s;t that are intermixed in di&s;cour&s;e with it, are extraordinary? &s;ure 'tis very unlikely.</P>
<P>Another paralel place is <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 4.11. where we find <HI>Prophets</HI> are &s;et betweene two extraordinary officers, <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> and <HI>Evangeli&s;ts. He gave &s;ome Apo&s;tles, &s;ome Prophets, &s;ome Evangeli&s;ts,</HI> &amp;c. Are <HI>Apo|&s;tles</HI> and <HI>Evangeli&s;ts</HI> extraordinary? and yet <HI>Prophets</HI> (placed in order betweene them) ordinary? he mu&s;t be a very ea&s;ie and tractible &s;oul that can beleeve it. But to this he an&s;wers &s;omewhat, page 81. and 84. And what is it? Why, lea&s;t
<PB N="112" REF="61">you &s;hould think that Prophets were ex|traordinary, becau&s;e joyned with Apo|&s;tles that were &s;o; he &s;ayes, that Apo&s;tles were not extraordinary neither (As for <HI>Evangeli&s;ts,</HI> he ha's nothing to &s;ay to them.) Ah alas! what is it that this man will not &s;ay to help a bad cau&s;e. Apo&s;tles were no Extraordinary officers he thinks if he put a good face upon it, 'twill pa&s;&s;e.</P>
<P>But what is his Rea&s;on? you have it page 84. <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> (&s;ayes he) <HI>&s;ignifies <GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 span"> &s;ent.</HI> O profound rea&s;oning! Therefore all that are &s;ent are Apo&s;tles. And wh<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> may not I &s;ay as well <GAP DESC="foreign">. Angels fig|nifies Me&s;&s;engers. There all Me&s;&s;enger are Angels. The Prophets of old were called <GAP DESC="foreign"> which &s;ignifies <HI>Seers,</HI> or men &s;eeing. Therefore all that &s;ee are Pro|phets. I confe&s;&s;e this way they may be all Prophets, if they have not lo&s;t their eyer. But if any man &s;hould argue thus, would you not laugh at him? Would you not an&s;wer him? true, all that <HI>See</HI> as the Pro|phets did, Divine and extraordinary Vi|&s;ions, are indeed Prophets. Why &s;o? pra<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> an&s;wer this man, that all that are <HI>Sent <GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 span"></HI> the Apo&s;tles were, by extraordinary re|velations, and by an immediate call from God, and are guided to &s;peak infallibly
<PB N="113" REF="61">as they were, are <HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> and none el&s;e: <GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter">nd &s;uch I hope will be acknowledged to be extraordinary per&s;ons, by all that are not extraordinary &s;tupid.</P>
<P>But he &s;ayes, <HI>Apo&s;tles are men &s;ent to ga|ther Churches,</HI> or to gather Saints, as his words are: why then, all that are &s;ent to gather Churches, are Apo&s;tles. What will he &s;ay of the <HI>&s;eventy Di&s;ciples,</HI> the <HI>&s;eattered Brethren,</HI> were not they &s;ent to gather Saints? Or were they therefore all Apo&s;tles? I am &s;ure he argues very &s;tifly, page 70. That they were not Apo|&s;tles. An what confu&s;ion is here? they were Apo&s;tles, and they were not Apo|&s;tles: any thing for a &s;hift.</P>
<P>I would not &s;o particularly di&s;cover his weakne&s;&s;e, and ab&s;urdity, but that he deceives many with the opinion of much knowledge, when alas you may &s;ee he appears as very an Ignoramus, as ever, I think, was read in print.</P>
<P>My &s;econd Rea&s;on is,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rea&s;. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> becau&s;e this word <HI>Prophet</HI> ha's been alwayes u&s;ed to &s;ignifie a per&s;on extraordinarily in&s;pired by God, when taken in a good &s;ence: and to &s;ignifie a <HI>Diviner,</HI> or a man of a familiar &s;pirit, when taken in a bad &s;ence. I might bring at lea&s;t an hundred Texts to prove this, if 'twere needfull: but, be|cau&s;e
<PB N="114" REF="62">he &s;ayes Prophets under the Go&s;pel were not &s;uch as they were that were un|der the Law. I &s;hall onely bring &s;ome Scriptures out of the New Te&s;tament, to prove that the Prophets were &s;uch them too. As for <HI>Agabus,</HI> Act. 11.27. he acknow|ledges he was extraordinary, becau&s;e as foretold things to come. But what with he &s;ay to <HI>Zecharias,</HI> Luke 1.22.67, &amp;c. <HI>Ananias,</HI> Act. 9.10. <HI>Cornelius,</HI> Act. 10.3. <HI>Peter,</HI> Act. 10.10.19. <HI>Paul,</HI> 2 Cor. 12.1. &amp;c. Act. 9. The Di&s;ciples mentioned, <HI>Acts</HI> 19.6. Were not all the&s;e Prophet by extraordinary Vi&s;ion and In&s;pirati|on? Doe not the Texts before mentio|ned make it plaine? I could give more in&s;tances, as in the Prophets that were at <HI>Antioch,</HI> to whom al&s;o God did &s;peak immediately, <HI>Acts</HI> 13.1, 2.</P>
<P>Now if all the&s;e Prophets (which an more then we read of in all the New Te|&s;tament be&s;ide) were extraordinarily in|&s;pired, and there be no rea&s;on in Scrip|ture why we &s;hould que&s;tion the like of the re&s;t; I hope we may conclude that Prophets even in the Go&s;pel dayes, were extraordinary al&s;o; and by con&s;equence that tho&s;e in 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 4.11. were not ordinary, but &s;uch as the re&s;t before mentioned.</P>
<P><PB N="115" REF="62">
Will any man (unle&s;&s;e one that hath pro&s;tituted his &s;oul to Novelty) pre&s;ume to interpret a Scripture expre&s;&s;ion in one or two places diver&s;ly, from the con&s;tant acception of the &s;ame in all other places of Scripture where it is u&s;ed, without a|ny forcible rea&s;on? I beleive this con&s;e|quence will hold, and appeare nece&s;&s;ary. <HI>Prophet</HI> is con&s;tantly u&s;ed in Scripture, to &s;ignifie one extraordinarily in&s;pired and gifted to teach; and there is no good rea&s;on why it may not &s;ignifie the &s;ame in 1 Cor. 14. Ephe&s;. 4.11. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Therefore it &s;ignifies one extraordinarily in&s;pired in tho&s;e places al&s;o.</P>
<P>That the word <HI>Prophet</HI> is con&s;tantly u&s;ed in Scripture to &s;ignifie one extra|ordinarily in&s;pired, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> I proved even now.</P>
<P>Whether any good rea&s;on be given why it &s;hould not &s;ignifie &s;o in 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. &amp;c. as well as in other places, you may judge by my an&s;wer to his rea&s;ons before; if not, then you ea&s;ily find the con&s;equence that will follow, <HI>viz.</HI> That the word Prophet as u&s;ed in 1 Cor. 14. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> doth &s;ignifie one extraordinarily in|&s;pired to teach, not an ordinarily gifted brother, as the P. G. Routed would have it.</P>
<P><PB N="116" REF="63">
My third Argument followes.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rea&s;. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE></P>
<P>If the gift or &s;pirit of Prophecy given out to the New Te&s;tament Prophets, be a fulfilling of that promi&s;e, <HI>Joel</HI> 2.28. then it is extraordinary, for that pro|mi&s;e &s;peaks of extraordinary gifts, as appears by the plaine words thereof.</P>
<P>But the gift or &s;pirit of Prophecy gi|ven out to the New Te&s;tament Prophets, is a fulfilling of that promi&s;e.</P>
<P>Therefore it is extraordinary.</P>
<P>All that I have to prove is the &s;econd Propo&s;ition, That the gift of Prophe&s;ie given out to the Prophets mentioned in the New Te&s;tament, is a fulfilling of that promi&s;e, <HI>Joel</HI> 2. And if any man doubt of this, let him look into <HI>Acts</HI> 2.16, 17. where the extraordinary gifts poured out on the Apo&s;tle there, are &s;aid in ex|pre&s;&s;e termes to be a fulfilling of that promi&s;e. Now that could be a fulfilling of it onely in part; for the promi&s;e &s;ayes, <HI>Your &s;ons and your daughters &s;hall Prophecy and &s;ee Vi&s;ions,</HI> &amp;c. Which can have relation to no other but the Pro|phets, both Men and Women, that were in the Church of <HI>Antioch,</HI> Act. 13.1. And the Church of <HI>Corinth,</HI> &amp; other Churches in tho&s;e dayes. Therefore they were ex|traordinary Prophets.</P>
<P><PB N="117" REF="63">
In the fourth place I argue thus.</P>
<P>If Prophecying be &s;et downe by the Apo&s;tle as di&s;tinct from ordinary teach|ing,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rea&s;. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> then it is not the &s;ame with it, and &s;o ordinary as that is.</P>
<P>But Prophecying is &s;et downe by the Apo&s;tle, as di&s;tinct from ordinary teach|ing, in <HI>Rom.</HI> 12.6, 7, 8.</P>
<P>Therefore prophecying is not ordina|ry, and the &s;ame with ordinary teaching.</P>
<P>There is nothing in this Argument that I can &s;ee needs any further proof.</P>
<P>Fifthly,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rea&s;. <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> It appears that this gift of prophecy was not ordinary, and (as he &s;ayes) <HI>proper to all the Saints,</HI> upon this rea&s;on, becau&s;e the gift of prophecy was given to others be&s;ide the Saints, there|fore not proper to them. Some had the gift of prophecy that had no &s;aving grace in them, as you may gather from 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 13.1, 2. <HI>Mat.</HI> 7.22. <HI>John</HI> 11.50, 51. Now that which is given to others be&s;ide Saints, is not proper to Saints. Neither can the &s;pirit or gift of prophe&s;ie be the <HI>experimentall knowledge of Chri&s;t</HI> (as he &s;ayes) &s;o as that every one that ha's ex|perience of Chri&s;t, and can &s;peak of it, is a Prophet: becau&s;e &s;ome you &s;ee, had indeed the gift of Prophe&s;ie, that never had any &s;pirituall experience of Chri&s;t in their lives.</P>
<P><PB N="118" REF="64">
The&s;e are mine Arguments to prove that the gift of prophecy is extraordina|ry; I could add more but that there is no need, the thing is &s;o plaine.</P>
<P>Now you may &s;ee what is become of his &s;trong <HI>Bulwarke,</HI> which he &s;ayes, <HI>all our wi&s;edome cannot undermine,</HI> page 79. 'Tis onely a Ca&s;tle in the air, and &s;o I leave it. Onely take notice, that I having &s;ufficiently proved that the gift of Pro|phecy, and the Prophets &s;poken of in the New Te&s;tament, were extraordinary, and &s;pake by Vi&s;ion, and in&s;piration; it fol|lowes, that all he brings to defend the preaching of gifted brethren, from the liberty of prophecying, is nothing to the purpo&s;e; unle&s;&s;e his gifted Brethren have extraordinary Vi&s;ions, or In&s;pira|tions, as the Prophets then had.</P>
<P>I thinke I have now level'd all his &s;trong holds with the ground, and thou wilt not meet with any thing &s;poken to by him Argumentatively, but hath a &s;uf|ficient an&s;wer in what I have writ. Some imputations, reproaches, &s;landers, rail|ings, going along almo&s;t in every leaf, I &s;hall leave to thy charity to confute, defiring in quietne&s;&s;e to pa&s;&s;e them over.</P>
<P>And although there be enough Argu|ments unan&s;werably to prove the un|lawfulne&s;&s;e
<PB N="119" REF="64">of private-gifted-chri&s;tians preaching, among tho&s;e 20 laid downe by M^r <HI>Hall</HI> in his <HI>Pulpit Guard:</HI> Yet &s;hall I ca&s;t in my mite after, con&s;i&s;ting onely of four Arguments, and tho&s;e but very briefly touched upon.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>Same additionall Arguments, proving that all Gifted Brethren may not Preach, <HI>viz.</HI> as Gifted Brethren, not being appointed unto the Office, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>The Fir&s;t Argument.</HEAD>
<P>IF God hath not appointed and ordai|ned that all gifted brethren &s;hould live of the Go&s;pel,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Arg. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> then all gifted brethren may not Preach the Go&s;pel.</P>
<P>But God hath not ordained that all gifted brethren &s;hould live of the Go&s;pel.</P>
<P>Therefore all gifted brethren may not Preach the Go&s;pel.</P>
<P>The con&s;equence of my fir&s;t propo&s;i|tion (which is that that I &s;uppo&s;e will be denied) I prove by a plaine Scripture, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 9.14. where 'tis &s;aid, <HI>Even &s;o hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Go&s;pel, &s;hould live of the Go&s;pel.</HI> The words need no Paraphra&s;e. God hath ordained
<PB N="120" REF="65">that all tho&s;e that Preach the Go&s;pel, &s;hould be maintained that way: if you may be publique Preachers, you may challenge a maintenance too: God ha's ordained you &s;hould have it for Preach|ing, 'tis evident in the Text.</P>
<P>But now as to the &s;econd propo&s;ition, that God ha's not ordained that all gif|ted Brethren &s;hould live of the Go&s;pel, that is, by a maintenance given them for Preaching of the Go&s;pel; I think it will not be denied. For if &s;o be that a main|tenance is to be given to all &s;uch, then it mu&s;t be provided by &s;ome body or other: now I would faine know by whom. All Chri&s;tians by his confe&s;&s;ion are gifted more or le&s;&s;e to teach, now from whom &s;hould their maintenance ri&s;e, if but the greate&s;t part of them &s;hould turn Preach|ers? Oh &s;ee this <HI>Babel</HI> and abhor it for &s;hame: God does not ordaine things impo&s;&s;ible.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>The Second Argument.</HEAD>
<P>If to Preach publiquely be to exerci&s;e authority over others,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Arg. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> then none may Preach publiquely but &s;uch as have Mini|&s;teriall authority: which is not without the office.</P>
<P>But to Preach publiquely is to exer|ci&s;e
<PB N="121" REF="65">Authority. Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>The fir&s;t propo&s;ition is undeniable.</P>
<P>The &s;econd I prove by another plaine Scripture, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2.12. where Women are forbidden to teach publiquely, be|cau&s;e they may not <HI>u&s;urp authority over the Man:</HI> Intimating, that to teach is to ex|erci&s;e Authority over tho&s;e that are taught.</P>
<P>If any &s;hould reply again&s;t the la&s;t clau&s;e of the fir&s;t propo&s;ition, that the gift be&s;towed by God gives authority to the per&s;on, though the office be wanting. I an&s;wer, if the gift without the Office could give authority, then womens gifts would give them Authority too over the man; but that's not &s;o: therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> And here by the way you may take no|tice of another ground for the di&s;tincti|on between publique and private Teach|ing. Private teaching is no exerci&s;ing of Authority, for women might doe that (as was proved formerly) who yet might not exerci&s;e Authority: Yea, and for a Chri&s;tian to give private admonition, advice, or reproof, to his brother, is no u&s;urping of Authority over him. But publique Preaching (as you &s;ee) is to exerci&s;e Authority.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<PB N="122" REF="66">
<HEAD>The Third Argument.</HEAD>
<P>If there be power in the Church to keep of Wolves,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Arg. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> <HI>i. e.</HI> fal&s;e Teachers from the Sheep, then all that conceive they are gif|ted, may not Preach till they are appro|ved by &s;uch as have power in the Church.</P>
<P>But the antecedent is undeniable.</P>
<P>Therefore the con&s;equent is &s;o too.</P>
<P>The connexion of the antecedent and con&s;equent is unque&s;tionable, for if men may Preach without being approved fir&s;t by &s;uch as have power in the Church, then (though they &s;hould be Wolves) the Church have no power to keep them off. But they have power to keep &s;uch off; read <HI>Revel.</HI> 2.20.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>The Fourth Argument.</HEAD>
<P>If to appoint unto the office of a Mini|&s;ter,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Arg. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> and to the work of a Mini&s;ter, be all one, then no man is appointed unto the work of a Mini&s;ter (viz. Preaching) but he that is appointed to the office.</P>
<P>But to appoint to the office of a Mini|&s;ter, and to the worke of a Mini&s;ter, is all one.</P>
<P>Therefore no man is appointed unto the work of a Mini&s;ter (viz. Preaching) but he that is appointed to the office.</P>
<P><PB N="123" REF="66">
The fir&s;t propo&s;ition he that ha's <HI>Col|liers</HI> impudence twice over cannot well que&s;tion.</P>
<P>The &s;econd I &s;hall prove by &s;hewing you what it is to be appointed or ordai|ned to the office of a Mini&s;ter. And me thinks this &s;hould be no very hard thing to under&s;tand, except unto &s;uch as are not willing to &s;ee. He, you know, is &s;aid to be appointed to &s;uch or &s;uch an office, who is (by &s;uch as have power) entru|&s;ted with, or commanded to the worke thereto belonging. So to be put into the Office of a Con&s;table, is onely to be ap|pointed (by &s;uch as have power) to do the work of a Con&s;table. And &s;o it is in other offices. Now even &s;o to be appoint|ed to the Office of a Mini&s;ter, is to be en|tru&s;ted with, and &s;ent forth to the work of a Mini&s;ter, by &s;uch as have power to doe the &s;ame. So that you &s;ee to be ap|pointed to the work, and to the office of a Mini&s;ter, is the &s;ame: And therefore his di&s;tinction of <HI>Preachers by office,</HI> and Preachers by gift, without the office, (made u&s;e of &s;o often by him) is meer non-&s;ence.</P>
<P>Now the power of &s;ending forth men to the work of the Mini&s;try, is in God a|lone, by Je&s;us Chri&s;t. And he does the
<PB N="124" REF="67">&s;ame, either <HI>immediately,</HI> by him&s;elfe, <HI>viz.</HI> by Vi&s;ions and extraordinary in&s;pirati|ons, and revelations: or <HI>mediately,</HI> by tho&s;e that have power in the Church. If therefore his gifted brethren be appoint|ed to the work of the Mini&s;try, neither <HI>immediately</HI> by God him&s;elfe, as before by extraordinary <HI>Vi&s;ion,</HI> &amp;c. as were the <HI>Pro|phets</HI> and <HI>Apo&s;tles:</HI> nor <HI>mediately,</HI> by &s;uch as have power in the Church, then they have nothing to doe with the &s;aid work: but if they put them&s;elves upon the &s;ame, that is verified in them that is &s;poken by the Prophet, <HI>They run, but I &s;ent them not,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>If this be not plaine enough, 'tis be|cau&s;e there is no light in thee; or if any, yet covered over with &s;uch a thick vail (I am afraid) of pride, or prejudice, as a divine power onely can remove. If thou &s;ee not this truth, all that I can doe more, is but to mourne in &s;ecret for thy blindne&s;&s;e.</P>
<P>I have done with this Que&s;tion.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<PB N="125" REF="67">
<HEAD>His Seventh Error.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">That Humane Learning is no way ne|ce&s;&s;ary unto a Minister of the Go&s;pel, but that a man may Expound, and open the difficulties of Scripture, &s;top the mouths of Gain-&s;ayers, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> as well without it as with it.</HEAD>
<P>THis he contends &s;tifly for in page 38, 39, 41. Saying,</P>
<P><HI>The Power of the Spirit of Chri&s;t in Saints,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>is &s;ufficient to make men able to divide the word aright, to convince Gain-&s;ayers, to finde out the fullne&s;&s;e and empha&s;is of the Originall,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Now that you may not be deceived by his ambiguous termes,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;wer.</NOTE> nor mi&s;take me in what I &s;hall &s;ay, take a little direction a|long with you; for I love not to walk in the clouds of doubtfull expre&s;&s;ions, as he does, who&s;e de&s;igne is to cheat you.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. I doe not que&s;tion but the &s;pirit of Chri&s;t is &s;ufficient to doe as he &s;ayes, if he plea&s;ed, for be&s;ides that he is Omnipo|tent, we have examples in Scripture &s;hew|ing
<PB N="126" REF="68">that he hath immediately &s;upplied the want of humane Learning, by extra|ordinary gifts of Tongues, and interpre|tation of tongues. But the que&s;tion is not, whether the &s;pirit be &s;ufficient, but, whe|ther a Chri&s;tian (by the &s;pirit, as now it works in the Saints) may be &s;ufficient unto the&s;e things, being not furni&s;hed in &s;ome mea&s;ure with skill in the lan|guages, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>2. The Que&s;tion is not, whether or no the maine and principall Doctrine of the Scriptures be &s;o plainly laid downe as that a Chri&s;tian may attaine unto the knowledge of the &s;ame without <HI>Humane learning,</HI> that is granted if he have a <HI>Tran|&s;lation</HI> (which cannot be but by the help of &s;ome that are learned) he may.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>But the Que&s;tion is, whether the em|pha&s;is and fullne&s;&s;e of particular Scrip|tures can be found out, and the difficul|ties of dark places opened, without the&s;e outward helps; or rather, whether a &s;pi|rituall Chri&s;tian, furni&s;hed with the ad|ditionall help of <HI>Learning,</HI> cannot bring forth more of the &s;ence and meaning of Scripture, and give a better accompt of the &s;ame, then another that ha's not <HI>Learning;</HI> if he can (which is that which we affirme) then <HI>Humane Learning</HI> is re|qui&s;ite
<PB N="127" REF="68">unto one that will be a publique Preacher, and Expounder of Scripture: Though not ab&s;olutely nece&s;&s;ary, &s;o as that where no learned men are, none may be Preachers: yet by a nece&s;&s;ity of expediency, &s;o as that &s;uch as are learned onely are to be cho&s;en to that work, if there be enough to be had. <HI>Learning</HI> is not nece&s;&s;ary to make a Mini&s;ter, but to make a Mini&s;ter compleat.</P>
<P>If you object (as he does) that the <HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>were not learned, yet compleat Mini&s;ters.</HI></P>
<P>I an&s;wer; The Lord &s;upplied in them the want of <HI>Humane acquired Learning,</HI> with the extraordinary gift of Tongues, and Interpretation of Tongues: 'Tis true, he found them unlearned, but he would not leave them &s;o, when they were to be his Mini&s;ters. If you con&s;ider this well, it will make mo&s;t again&s;t him of a|ny thing el&s;e. For, Ob&s;erve it, God would not have tho&s;e that are imploied by him in &s;uch a great work as the Mini&s;try of the Go&s;pel is, to be de&s;titute of <HI>Learning,</HI> no not <HI>Humane:</HI> for &s;o was that which they had in a &s;ence, differing nothing from the gift of Tongues, and Interpre|tation of Tongues, that now is among us, but in this, that the one was <HI>immedi|ately
<PB N="128" REF="69">in&s;pired,</HI> the other <HI>acquired</HI> by indu|&s;try, and &s;tudy: both humane in this re|&s;pect, becau&s;e conver&s;ant about that which is humane, <HI>viz.</HI> The Languages of &s;everall Nations. God &s;aw it fit <HI>then</HI> that they &s;hould not be without this part of Humane Learning, he &s;aw it to be requi|&s;ite to compleat them for their worke, therefore much more is it requi&s;ite <HI>now.</HI></P>
<P>You have the &s;tate of the Que&s;tion, and me thinks the very &s;tating of it makes the matter &s;o plaine and out of doubt, that little needs to be &s;poken more to clear the &s;ame; for I think there is no man (that hath any ingenuity in him) but will acknowledge, that a &s;pirituall Chri|&s;tian that hath the help of humane Learn|ing, is able to unfold more of Scripture, and do better to the clearing of the &s;ame, then another that hath not learning. But lea&s;t any man &s;hould be &s;o ab&s;urd as to think otherwi&s;e (as <HI>The P. G. Routed</HI> does) I &s;hall give a few in&s;tances for the proofe of the &s;ame among many more that might be brought.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<PB N="129" REF="69">
<HEAD>Some <HI>SCRIPTURES</HI> and Scripture-Expre&s;&s;ions, a good account of which cannot be given, without the help of Humane Learning.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. THe <HI>P. G. Routed</HI> could not tell you that <GAP DESC="foreign">, an Apo&s;tle, &s;ignifies one &s;ent (to clear a Scripture he &s;peaks to from mi&s;take, as he conceives) with|out looking into the <HI>Originall,</HI> either with his owne eyes or &s;ome other mans. For I take it for granted that he will not &s;ay he knew <HI>Apo&s;tolos</HI> did &s;ignifie one &s;ent, by in&s;piration. <HI>Ex ore &s;uo,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Out of his owne mouth &s;hall he be condemned.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>2. You cannot give any rea&s;on why Chri&s;t &s;hould &s;ay to <HI>Peter, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church:</HI> unle&s;&s;e you be acquainted with the Ori|ginall, and &s;o &s;ee the affinity (in &s;ound) of tho&s;e two words, <HI>Petros, Peter,</HI> and <HI>Petra,</HI> a Rock, which Chri&s;t had re&s;pect to in that &s;peech.</ITEM>
<ITEM>3. You can give no rea&s;on why, nor di&s;cover the my&s;tery that lies in this, that Our Mediatour is called <HI>Chri&s;t Je&s;us, Me&s;|&s;ias,</HI> &amp;c. becau&s;e without the Originall
<PB N="130" REF="70">Languages, you know not what the&s;e names doe &s;ignifie.</ITEM>
<ITEM>4. In the 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.5. mention is made of &s;ome having a FORM of godline&s;&s;e, but denying the power of it. And in <HI>Phil.</HI> 2.6. 'tis &s;aid of Chri&s;t, that he was in the FORM of God, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Why may not one that denies the Divinity of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> &s;ay, the meaning of the latter Text is onely, that Chri&s;t was in the outward appearance of God, &s;eing that in the for|mer place the word FORM &s;ignifies only the outward &s;hew and appearance? How can you with&s;tand this Interpreta|tion, unle&s;&s;e you know that (though our Engli&s;h word be the &s;ame in both places, yet) the word u&s;ed in the Ori|ginall in the former Scripture &s;ignifies onely the<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign"></NOTE> <HI>outward &s;hew or appearance;</HI> that u&s;ed in the latter &s;ignifies the<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>e&s;&s;en|tiall forme</HI> of a thing.</ITEM>
<ITEM>5. How can any man give a rationall account of the meaning of that which we read, <HI>Rom.</HI> 5.7, 8. unle&s;&s;e he be in &s;ome mea&s;ure acquainted with the <HI>Jewi&s;h An|tiquities?</HI> where we are given to under|&s;tand, that the Body of the Jewi&s;h people were di&s;tingui&s;hed into three &s;orts. The<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign"></NOTE> <HI>Cha&s;idim, i. e.</HI> Good men. The<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign"></NOTE> <HI>T&s;adikim, i.e.</HI> ju&s;t or righteous men. And
<PB N="131" REF="70">the<NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign"></NOTE> <HI>Re&s;changnim, i. e.</HI> wicked or un|godly men, to which the Apo&s;tle ha's re&s;pect.</ITEM>
<ITEM>6. How will a gifted Brother with|out Learning clear the difficulty that lies in that which is written in <HI>Matth.</HI> 1.23. compared with <HI>Luke</HI> 2.21? In the for|mer place it is &s;aid (according to the Prophecy of the Prophet, <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 7.14.) That <HI>Chri&s;ts Name &s;hould be called Emma|nuel:</HI> And in the latter place 'tis clear, that at his Circumci&s;ion, when he came to be named, he was <HI>Named Je&s;us.</HI> There is no &s;alving of this &s;eeming oppo&s;ition, but by being acquainted with the Hebra|i&s;me in the former place: for according to the Hebrews manner of &s;peaking, to be <HI>called</HI> &s;ignifies to <HI>be:</HI> and &s;o it will con&s;i&s;t well enough with what is written in the latter Text. For he was to be <HI>na|med</HI> by the name <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> and he was to <HI>be Emmanuel,</HI> i. e. <HI>God with us.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>An hundred more &s;uch in&s;tances might I give you both in the Old and New Te|&s;tament, of &s;uch Scriptures as you can|not give a clear account of, but by the help of <HI>Learning,</HI> or by the help of &s;uch as are <HI>Learned.</HI> But I think this is enough to demon&s;trate his ignorance in &s;aying, (without any rea&s;on, or any an&s;wer to
<PB N="132" REF="71">what is urged again&s;t him) that there is no u&s;e of Learning to the unfolding and clearing of Scripture, though I &s;hould &s;ay no more.</P>
<P>But there is yet one thing be&s;ides, which I cannot pa&s;&s;e over, page 41. &s;peaking a|gain&s;t the needfullne&s;&s;e of humane Learn|ing, he quarrels with his Adver&s;ary for u&s;ing the word <HI>Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> asking deri|dingly of him,<NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>whether there be any &s;uch word in all the Scripture.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1.<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w.</NOTE> I know not what Scripture this man hath got, but in that which we ac|count Scripture, the word is u&s;ed neer an hundred times, even in the New Te&s;ta|ment.</P>
<P>But 2. It may be that he hath heard that the words in the Originall [<GAP DESC="foreign">] &s;ignifie <HI>Holy Spirit.</HI> And how came he to know that, but by the help of Hu|mane Learning? Though he hath little rea&s;on to except again&s;t the Engli&s;h tran|&s;lation of tho&s;e words. (Gho&s;t and Spi|rit being all one, onely it may be the one a word more ob&s;olete and out of u&s;e then the other) yet if it be true what his ex|ception implies, that the Engli&s;h Tran|&s;lation is not exact in all points, then &s;ure there is need of Humane Learning to perfect it. For we had not the Engli&s;h
<PB N="133" REF="71">Tran&s;lation at fir&s;t without the help of the Learning of the Tran&s;latours, nor can we have it mended but by the labour and help of &s;uch as are Learned, that can look into the Original. And if &s;o, is not <HI>Humane Learning</HI> nece&s;&s;ary to an Expo&s;i|tor of Scripture?</P>
<P>There needs a wi&s;er man by far then I am to reconcile this man to him&s;elfe. He quarrels with Tran&s;lations as imperfect, and yet holds there is no need of Learn|ing to rectifie them.</P>
<P>But I have yet &s;omewhat more to &s;ay before I leave this Que&s;tion. Seing the de&s;igne of &s;uch men (as the <HI>P. G. Routed</HI>) is to deceive the &s;imple with fair preten|ces to the honour of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> and the <HI>Spi|rit,</HI> and to make them beleeve that others (that oppo&s;e their corruptions) doe &s;trive to dimini&s;h and darken the glory of the operation of the Spirit of Chri&s;t in his Saints, that they may &s;et up &s;omwhat that is humane in the room of the &s;ame. I &s;hall lay downe three or four Conclu|&s;ions or Notes, to give you &s;ome light in this thing, that you may know <HI>What is the work of the Spirit in revealing Truth to, or in the Saints.</HI> And <HI>How outward Humane helps to finde out the &s;ence of Scripture are con&s;i&s;tent with, and &s;ub&s;ervient to the &s;ame.</HI></P>
<PB N="134" REF="72">
<P N="1">1. I grant it to be an unque&s;tionable truth, that no man is able without the &s;weet and gracious operation of the &s;pi|rit of truth, <HI>&s;avingly</HI> to under&s;tand and imbrace the my&s;teries of truth that are revealed in the Scriptures. <HI>The naturall man</HI> (&s;ayes the Apo&s;tle, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2.14.) <HI>recei|veth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are fooli&s;hne&s;&s;e unto him; neither can he know them becau&s;e they are &s;piritually di&s;cer|ned.</HI> That is, he cannot know them <HI>effe|ctually, &s;avingly,</HI> he cannot know them as the &s;pirituall man does, who&s;e mind and heart is renewed through grace. How|ever,</P>
<P N="2">2. There is not any Scripture under|&s;tood by &s;pirituall Chri&s;tians, the true Grammaticall &s;ence of which, a man that hath not the Spirit of Chri&s;t may not at|taine unto, by tho&s;e outward helps that are afforded to him. A <HI>notional</HI> knowledge of the &s;ence of Scripture, is common to naturall, as well as &s;pirituall men. El&s;e knowledge were an infallible Character of grace; which no body, I &s;uppo&s;e, will affirme. So that,</P>
<P N="3">3. (Ob&s;erve it) That mo&s;t ble&s;&s;ed and heavenly work that the Lord Je&s;us ha's to doe by his <HI>Spirit,</HI> in his Saints, is not &s;o much to di&s;cover the <HI>Grammatical</HI> &s;ence
<PB N="135" REF="72">of Scripture (which may be found out by &s;uch as live much below Chri&s;t) as to bring home the &s;ence of Scripture clo&s;e to the heart, and to enlighten the mind to &s;ee the beauty and goodne&s;&s;e of that truth, that &s;wims only in the brains of Naturall men. The work of the Spirit is to engrave truth upon the heart, to make our knowledge <HI>effectuall, practicall,</HI> and <HI>experimentall.</HI> Ah alas! many (I am afraid) are carried very high in the air of &s;ublime Angelicall Notions, upon the wings of &s;uch a <HI>knowledge</HI> as the Apo&s;tle &s;ayes, <HI>puffeth up,</HI> who are all the while &s;trangers to this worke of the Spirit, which is not to fill mens heads, but their hearts, with the truth.</P>
<P>'Tis much to be &s;u&s;pected, that &s;uch as would make you beleeve that the work of the Spirit of grace, is to di&s;cover the &s;ence of Scripture, have never yet felt this &s;aving work on their hearts. The Spirits work is not &s;o low, and ordinary. If it were as the&s;e men would have it, why, then the work of the Spirit were only to make <HI>Notioni&s;ts.</HI> Ah! let not Chri&s;tians be deceived; <HI>knowledge puffeth up, 'tis love edifies.</HI></P>
<P>Scripture is &s;ufficient to di&s;cover its owne &s;ence to all men diligently impro|ving
<PB N="136" REF="73">the outward helps afforded by God (though a &s;anctified and &s;aving know|ledge of the &s;ame, be communicated to none but through the Spirit) otherwi&s;e Scripture were no perfect rule, yea in|deed no rule at all: For what is a Book or Waiting, without its meaning? 'Tis not the words or expre&s;&s;ions, but the &s;ence of Scripture that is mans rule: if that be not vi&s;ible, we have no vi&s;ible rule, yea and if the Scriptures be given out in &s;uch termes and expre&s;&s;ions, as do not di&s;cover their owne meaning, what are they? or of what u&s;e? Be&s;ides, if they doe not declare their owne meaning, but every one mu&s;t fetch it from an immedi|ate work of the &s;pirit, what were this but to make the Scripture a No&s;e of Wax (as the Papi&s;ts &s;peake) pliable to any &s;ence that the darkne&s;&s;e and vanity of mens minds will put upon it?</P>
<P>Surely, he that denies a &s;ufficiency in Scripture to clear its owne meaning to one that u&s;es the outward means to that end afforded, denies Scripture to be any rule at all.</P>
<P>But to make this plaine, &s;uppo&s;e a Que&s;tion ari&s;e about the &s;ence or mean|ing of a particular Text; one &s;ayes this is the meaning, another that: which way
<PB N="137" REF="73">will you go to decide the controver&s;ie? Will you goe to the revelation of the Spi|rit in you? Or to the letter of Scripture, arguing from the proper &s;ignification and u&s;e of &s;uch words and expre&s;&s;ions, as are in the Text di&s;puted of? If you have recour&s;e to the &s;uppo&s;ed revelation of the Spirit of Chri&s;t in you, why then the Scripture is not your rule: and how will you follow the Apo&s;tles advice, which is <HI>To try the &s;pirits,</HI> &amp;c? If you have recour&s;e to the letter of Scripture, and argue from it, then Scripture ha's &s;ufficient in it to make out its owne &s;ence.</P>
<P>Scripture, 'tis true, conteins in it an heavenly my&s;tery, <HI>that is hid from the wi&s;e and prudent.</HI> But what is the rea&s;on 'tis hid? <HI>Paul</HI> will tell you in 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 4.3, 4. <HI>If our Go&s;pel be hid, 'tis hid to them that are lo&s;t. In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which beleeve not,</HI> &amp;c. Mark the ground of this, that the <HI>Go&s;pel is hid,</HI> is becau&s;e they are <HI>blinded through unbeliefe.</HI> The Devil ruling in na|turall men by fin and corruption, doth hinder them from giving hearty welcome unto the Truth. Que&s;tionle&s;&s;e the mo&s;t of tho&s;e that heard <HI>Pauls</HI> Preaching, knew what he meant in his Sermons: and yet the Go&s;pel was hid to many of them:
<PB N="138" REF="74">how &s;o? why, they beleeved not: Their under&s;tandings and affections did not clo&s;e in with tho&s;e heavenly my&s;teries of Gods love which he did di&s;cover, &s;o as to a&s;&s;ent unto the reality of what was Taught, and to love, and delight in the &s;ame. The Go&s;pel is as a &s;ealed Book to naturall men, becau&s;e of the corruption that is in the heart, and in the mind, from whence it comes to pa&s;&s;e that they cannot &s;ee the reality, beauty, and good|ne&s;&s;e of Scripture di&s;coveries; 'tis not becau&s;e there is not plainne&s;&s;e enough in Scripture expre&s;&s;ions, or becau&s;e the Mi|ni&s;ters of the Go&s;pel do not &s;peak plaine enough when they Preach Chri&s;t to them, but becau&s;e through corruption their minds are aver&s;e from a&s;&s;enting to, and clo&s;ing with the Truth.</P>
<P>Now you mu&s;t know that the work of the Spirit is to heale the under&s;tanding, and to &s;anctifie and change the heart, and to make it pliable to the Truth; yea, and to &s;tir up the whole man withall, unto a more diligent u&s;e of meanes of know|ledge: Thus the Spirit of Chri&s;t brings in truth unto the &s;oul, and that &s;o as it dwells and becomes fruitful in the heart, and in the conver&s;ation. This is a &s;tep higher then the quainte&s;t Notioni&s;ts of
<PB N="139" REF="74">our times de&s;ire to be brought. If Truth were thus revealed in them, they would be more humble, more peaceable, more meek, then now they &s;hew them&s;elves.</P>
<P>In &s;hort, I know not any truth in Scripture which a true Chri&s;tian hath an effectuall and practicall knowledge of by the Spirit, but a naturall man may know the &s;ame, onely his heart is not &s;anctified through the Truth. Truth is not in him in power. The work of the &s;pirit is to bring that into the heart, which by out|ward means and helps, may be brought into the head.</P>
<P>Now then 4^l^y. I honour I admire, I prize this ble&s;&s;ed work of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, by his Spirit in his Saints, revealing Truth in them. But this no way oppo&s;es the expediency and needfullne&s;&s;e of out|ward helps, to bring men to the know|ledge of truth, which is that I plead for. The Spirit is plea&s;ed to make u&s;e of them, not that it elfe needs them, but becau&s;e we need them.</P>
<P>The Spirit can communicate truth to &s;ouls without reading, hearing, medita|tion, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and yet &s;eing the Lord hath de|clared that he hath appointed the&s;e as the meanes that he will onely (in an ordi|nary way) make effectuall to the en|lightning
<PB N="140" REF="75">of the &s;oul; I hope 'tis no di&s;|honour to the Spirit of truth to &s;ay, that without the&s;e men cannot come to the knowledge of the Truth. Even &s;o, the Spirit can by <HI>Extaticall Revelations,</HI> or an <HI>immediate in&s;piration,</HI> give in truth unto the Preachers of the Go&s;pel now, as he did to the Prophets, and Pen-men of Scripture of old; but becau&s;e (as ha's been proved in confutation of the fourth Errour) God does not now reveal him|&s;elfe to any after that manner, the Scrip|ture rule being perfected; I hope it takes nothing from the honour of the Spirit to &s;ay, that the outward help of Learn|ing, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> is expedient, and needfull for a Mini&s;ter of the Go&s;pel; and that Scrip|ture cannot be well opened and cleared without it.</P>
<P>Alas! the&s;e men are mi&s;taken of the work of the Spirit, one part of which is (as I hinted before) to &s;tir up &s;ouls un|to a faithfull, diligent u&s;e of the outward means afforded for to lead them unto the knowledge of his mind in the word. The work of the Spirit is to &s;tir up private Chri&s;tians to make u&s;e of the means they have, as Reading, Hearing, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> And to &s;tir up Mini&s;ters to make u&s;e of their helps, and to bring in to the &s;ervice of
<PB N="141" REF="75">Je&s;us Chri&s;t in this great work of the Mi|ni&s;try, all that knowledge both divine and humane, which they can attain unto. Not, as the&s;e men would have it, to ca&s;t away as u&s;ele&s;&s;e all outward helps, and fit &s;till, waiting when knowledge will drop into their mouths, without any u&s;e of meanes.</P>
<P>But you may &s;mell what the&s;e men drive at.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. They are loath that any &s;ort of men &s;hould be thought to have any thing more then them&s;elves.</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. They would faine have their owne &s;pirits or phan&s;ies to be the judge of the &s;ence of Scripture, that &s;o their glo&s;&s;es on the &s;ame may goe for currant, though they have no affinity at all with the true Grammaticall &s;ence, and then his Expo|&s;ition &s;hall be be&s;t, that ha's mo&s;t bold|ne&s;&s;e and confidence in a&s;&s;erting it.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>Oh the wantonne&s;&s;e and vanity of a proud heart! Let Chri&s;tians take heed.</P>
<P>I have &s;poken I &s;uppo&s;e &s;ufficiently to this matter.</P>
<P>Whereas he &s;ayes,<NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>The Spirit of Chri&s;t is enough to make men able Di&s;putants, &s;uch as can convince gain-&s;ayers.</HI></P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. You may &s;ee how true it is by him|&s;elfe,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w.</NOTE> who pretends to more gifts of the
<PB N="142" REF="76">Spirit then ordinary: If he can di&s;pute no better then he writes, I undertake that the meane&s;t of the Romi&s;h Emi&s;&s;aries will ea&s;ily argue him out of all his Religion.</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. How evident is it to every mans experience, that there are thou&s;ands of precious &s;oules that have the truth &s;o deeply engraven upon their hearts, that all the powers of darkne&s;&s;e cannot take it from them; and yet are not able to maintaine it in di&s;pute again&s;t cunning oppo&s;ers. Of which number was that Martyr that &s;aid, <HI>I can die for Chri&s;t, though I cannot di&s;pute for him.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>But let this &s;uffice you in &s;hort as a defence of Humane Learning &s;o much &s;lighted.</P>
<P>I confe&s;&s;e 'tis but a very &s;mall portion of it (in compari&s;on of many of my Brethren) that I ever attained to, being &s;oon taken off from the Univer&s;ity, by the breaking forth of our Civil Wars. But as for that little which I have, I may &s;ay of it as <HI>Luther</HI> did of his skill in the Hebrew Language, <HI>I would not change it for all the riches in the World.</HI> Neither in|deed &s;hould I know what to doe in the Mini&s;try without it. Though withall I mu&s;t profe&s;&s;e too that God ha's been ve|ry gracious to me (I mu&s;t &s;peak it to his
<PB N="143" REF="76">prai&s;e) in ble&s;&s;ing mine endeavours ve|ry much upon the little &s;tock I have. Unto which ble&s;&s;ing e&s;pecially, I mu&s;t attribute that &s;ufficiency I have unto my Mini&s;teriall duties.</P>
<P>'Tis &s;aid, <HI>Learning</HI> ha's never any adver|&s;ary to with&s;tand it, but <HI>Ignorance:</HI> I have &s;o much learning as makes me &s;ee the worth and u&s;efullne&s;&s;e of Learning. And truly my experience of the &s;ame enforces me to &s;peak upon this &s;ubject (among o|ther things) which I know the &s;quea|mi&s;h &s;tomacks of many will not reli&s;h very well: However I &s;hall take comfort in this, that I have done my duty.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>His Eighth Error.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">That the Ministry of <HI>ENGLAND</HI> is Antichristian.</HEAD>
<P>THis lies in the end of his Book, and I beleeve to per&s;wade men of this, is his end: Fir&s;t in his intention, though la&s;t in execution. His de&s;igne is not &s;o much to make more Preachers, as to vilifie tho&s;e that are already as <HI>Antichri|&s;tian,</HI> and no Mini&s;ters.</P>
<P>'Tis an heavy charge this that he brings
<PB N="144" REF="77">in, not again&s;t &s;ome, but all Mini&s;ters: I &s;hall examine the &s;trength of what he urgeth to make it good.</P>
<P>That which he &s;peaks is either in an|&s;wer to what is pleaded on their behalfe by his Adver&s;ary: or el&s;e &s;omething that he urgeth again&s;t them. I &s;hall give you mine an&s;wer to every thing in its order; &s;o as that you &s;hall ea&s;ily perceive that what he writes is grounded either on pittifull ignorance, or el&s;e on certaine &s;landerous, reproachfull, uncharitable calumnies, &s;pringing out of his un&s;an|ctified, malicious &s;pirit, in which he can|not expect to be beleeved by any, but &s;uch as have made &s;hip-wrack of love and godline&s;&s;e, as he him&s;elfe (I am much afraid) ha's.</P>
<P>M^r <HI>Hal</HI> in his Book ha's &s;ix Arguments to prove that the Mini&s;ters of <HI>England</HI> are not Antichri&s;tian: before I take off his an&s;wers to the&s;e Arguments, I &s;hall reply to &s;omewhat that he ha's to &s;ay again&s;t &s;omething that M^r <HI>Hall</HI> &s;peaks in An&s;wer to an Objection, to this purpo&s;e.</P>
<P><Q>The Authority of a Mini&s;ter doth not depend on the per&s;ons Ordaining, but principally on Chri&s;ts inward call, di&s;cerned by gifts, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> We have our Ordination from Chri&s;t, by Bi&s;hops, and Presbyters, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P><PB N="145" REF="77">
To this he gives an&s;wer in the&s;e words.</P>
<P><HI>You your &s;elves have concluded the Bi&s;hops Antichri&s;tian in their calling,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>and is yours Chri&s;tian? A Riddle.</HI></P>
<P>Did ever any of tho&s;e that have plead|ed again&s;t the u&s;urped power of <HI>Bi&s;hops,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Reply.</NOTE> &s;ay that Bi&s;hops are Antichri&s;tian &s;imply con&s;idered? We all &s;ay their <HI>Lordly power</HI> which they a&s;&s;umed to them&s;elves over other Mini&s;ters, was <HI>Antichri&s;tian,</HI> not the Calling of Bi&s;hops con&s;ider it &s;imply, as it &s;ignifies no other then the calling of a<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Which is the true &amp; ancient &s;ence of the word <HI>Bi&s;hop.</HI></NOTE> Pa&s;tour or Elder. He might know if he were not willfully blind, that tho&s;e that have pleaded again&s;t the Lordly power of Bi&s;hops, have con&s;tantly affir|med, that the calling and office of a Bi|&s;hop, and a Pa&s;tour, or Elder, are one and the &s;ame, and &s;o that Power which they u&s;urped over their Brethren, was Anti|chri&s;tian, and nothing el&s;e.</P>
<P>But &s;econdly, he adds,</P>
<P><HI>The outward calling you have from them,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>and can they give you that they have not them|&s;elves? A Paradox.</HI></P>
<P>He &s;hould have proved that the Bi&s;hops had not the outward calling of Mini&s;ters.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Reply.</NOTE> Though Chri&s;t never called them to that
<PB N="146" REF="78">&s;uperintendency over their fellow-Mini|&s;ters, which they took to them&s;elves, yet he called many of them to the office of Mini&s;ters, and in that re&s;pect they might ordaine and approve others to that of|fice. This he ha's nothing to &s;ay to, un|le&s;&s;e a confident dictate in the next page, in an&s;wer to this. That Bi&s;hops were Mini&s;ters, and Ordained, not as <HI>Lord Bi|&s;hops,</HI> but as <HI>Presbyters:</HI> To this he &s;ayes,</P>
<P><HI>You juggle with the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> &amp;c. <HI>Who knows not that not long &s;ince the name of Presbyter was a &s;tranger among us, and to your &s;elves too?</HI></P>
<P>Who knowes not?<NOTE PLACE="marg">Reply.</NOTE> There is no man that is not as blind and ignorant as <HI>The P. G. Routed</HI> is, but knows that the name of <HI>Presbyter</HI> was ever as frequent among men of knowledge, as that of <HI>Bi&s;hop,</HI> and knowne to be the name of Mini&s;ters of the Go&s;pel, and &s;o u&s;ed, though his ig|norance makes him &s;o bold as to &s;ay, we were &s;trangers to it. Hardly any that have written of the Mini&s;try, but have u&s;ed this name or title more or le&s;&s;e, to &s;igni|fie Mini&s;ters in office.</P>
<P>So that we doe not new name <HI>Bi&s;hops</HI> in calling them <HI>Presbyters</HI> (as he affirms) we give them their old name which they
<PB N="147" REF="78">had before ever <HI>Lord Bi&s;hops</HI> were known.</P>
<P>'Tis knowne that in former ages of the Church, a Bi&s;hop was onely as the Chair|man of the Elder&s;hip, not having any power over the re&s;t. Now as &s;uch (not in re&s;pect of the additionall power, which by favour of Princes they got into) did they ordaine our Mini&s;ters. This is no juggling (I hope) but plaine enough for any to under&s;tand.</P>
<P>Whereas he &s;ayes,<NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>Why is not Epi&s;copos as good Scripture, as ancient, as honourable, as Presbyteros, an Elder?</HI></P>
<P>I an&s;wer, who &s;ayes but it is?<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w.</NOTE> There|fore we allow both the name and office of a <HI>Bi&s;hop,</HI> as he is the &s;ame with a <HI>Preach|ing Elder.</HI> But this he &s;ugge&s;teth to per|&s;wade his unwary Reader, that our Mi|ni&s;ters do deny that they were Ordained by Bi&s;hops as Bi&s;hops; when as 'tis only denied that they were ordained by them as <HI>Lord Bi&s;hops.</HI> If this be not a cheating trick to deceive the weak, let any man judge. But he adds.</P>
<P><HI>If they were Mini&s;ters and &s;o ordained you,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>you have done ill to Preach them downe as Antichri&s;tian. And &s;o to lay them a&s;ide as no Mini&s;ters.</HI></P>
<P>Who ever did &s;o,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w.</NOTE> unle&s;&s;e &s;uch ra&s;h &s;pi|rits
<PB N="148" REF="79">as him&s;elfe? Is it not knowne that tho&s;e that were faithfull and godly a|mong them, have been, and &s;till are lookt upon as Mini&s;ters? And do Preach Chri&s;t (and that too by appointment of Autho|rity) in this Nation. I am &s;ure they did not long &s;ince<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Dr. Hall, Dr. &V;&s;her, <HI>&amp; others.</HI></NOTE> and if not dead do yet; and yet &s;ee how impudently he vaunts upon this account <HI>[Where is your call from them now?]</HI> Notwith&s;tanding his confi|dence, tho&s;e Bi&s;hops that were godly were never denied to be true Mini&s;ters, though they were ju&s;tly &s;poken again&s;t in re&s;pect of their u&s;urped power. They &s;inned in taking that power to them&s;elves that Chri&s;t never gave them, but that did not make void that mini&s;teriall power which they had from Chri&s;t, by vertue of which, they ordained and appointed other Mi|ni&s;ters.</P>
<P>Whereas 'tis moreover urged again&s;t him, <Q>That the Power of the <HI>Presbytery</HI> is onely <HI>Mini&s;teriall,</HI> whereby it te&s;tifies, declares, and approves of tho&s;e whom God approves and calls.</Q> This, I per|ceive by his an&s;wer he doth not under|&s;tand, and therefore I &s;hall help him a lit|tle according to my apprehen&s;ion of it, becau&s;e indeed it makes very much to the clearing of this Que&s;tion. Wherefore take
<PB N="149" REF="79">notice, that the Presbytery doe not give the Mini&s;ters authority to him: That is from God, who appoints officer in his Church for the edification, and comfort thereof. The Presbytery do only te&s;tifie and declare (after they have proved and examined) that &s;uch and &s;uch are ap|proved and called of God: that &s;o they may be Mini&s;ters and in authority unto the <HI>Church,</HI> and may give them&s;elves to the work of the Mini&s;try with more free|dome, having &s;uch a Seal to their Mi&s;&s;ion. Now it being &s;o, that the <HI>authority and office</HI> de&s;cends to our Mini&s;ters from Chri&s;t, and their Ordination by the Pre&s;|bytery, is but <HI>their</HI> Mini&s;teriall te&s;tifying to the &s;ame; if that which is te&s;tified of our Mini&s;ters be reall, and true (that is, if they be men that have an inward call from Chri&s;t) the corruption of tho&s;e that did approve and te&s;tifie, cannot at all make void their office. So that tho&s;e that are really gifted, and are faithfull a|mong our Mini&s;ters (for I plead only for &s;uch) are true Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t, not|with&s;tanding &s;ome &s;pots of Antichri&s;ti|ani&s;me (if you will call it &s;o) not then di&s;covered to them, did &s;tick upon tho&s;e that did te&s;tifie, declare, and appoint them to be Mini&s;ters. For that blemi&s;h
<PB N="150" REF="80">which &s;tuck on the Ordainers, could no way redound to them that were Or|dained any further then they did ap|prove the &s;ame in them; and therefore now can redound nothing at all to &s;uch as have condemned, and publiquely de|clared again&s;t the &s;ame, as our faithfull Mini&s;ters have done.</P>
<P>This is a thing of &s;peciall note as to the clearing of the controver&s;ie in hand; and though M^r <HI>Hall</HI> gives a &s;ufficient hint of it, yet <HI>The P. G. Routed</HI> pa&s;&s;es it over as though he under&s;tood it not, when indeed I rather think 'tis becau&s;e he could not tell what to &s;ay to it.</P>
<P>Onely you may find &s;ome of the froth of his un&s;anctified &s;pirit &s;wimming on the top of the 98^t^h page, which you mu&s;t take as his an&s;wer in the&s;e words.</P>
<P><HI>If in &s;ome,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>pride, covetou&s;ne&s;&s;e, ignorance, ma|lice, treachery, bloodthir&s;tine&s;&s;e,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>in others, loo&s;ne&s;&s;e of life, prophanene&s;&s;e, drun|kenne&s;&s;e, whoring,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>may delare men to be called of God: You</HI> (&s;peaking of the Mini&s;ters of England) <HI>have &s;o much to &s;ay for your &s;elves as any people in the World.</HI></P>
<P>This is to per&s;wade,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w.</NOTE> and make the world beleeve that our Mini&s;ters have no
<PB N="151" REF="80">inward call from God. But how notori|ou&s;ly fal&s;e, and unchri&s;tian hell-borne a &s;candall this is (as applied by him) I leave to any mode&s;t Chri&s;tian to judge. I profe&s;&s;e it even makes mine heart trem|ble to read him. He hopes if he can raile and revile roundly, &s;ome thing will &s;ticke, though all bee not beleeved. Is this chri&s;tianity?</P>
<P>But let us &s;ee what he has to &s;hew for an an&s;wer to the &s;ix Arguments urged to prove the validity of the Ordination of the mini&s;ters of <HI>England.</HI></P>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>The Fir&s;t Argument.</HEAD>
<P>Tho&s;e who&s;e Ordination was right for &s;ub&s;tance (though it fail in &s;ome cir|cum&s;tance,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Arg. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> yet) is valid.</P>
<P>But the Mini&s;ters of <HI>England,</HI> their Or|dination was right for &s;ub&s;tance, in that they had the inward call, and the out|ward too, being examined for life, and learning; approved of, and &s;et a party by prayer, exhortation, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>Therefore their Ordination is valid, notwith&s;tanding &s;ome failing in circum|&s;tantialls.</P>
<P>He denies not the fir&s;t propo&s;ition, it being indeed unque&s;tionable: and again&s;t the &s;econd he &s;ayes &s;everall things. <HI>As
<PB N="152" REF="81">for the inward Call</HI> (&s;ayes he) <HI>That upon your owne account is no part of Ordination,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>and the ou<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="3 letters">rd call came by &s;ucce&s;&s;ion from Rome.</HI></P>
<P>To the latter clau&s;e [<HI>The outward call came from Rome,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Reply.</NOTE> &amp;c.] I will reply, when I come to an&s;wer his Rea&s;ons to prove the Mini&s;try of <HI>England</HI> Antichri&s;tian.</P>
<P>But as to the fir&s;t <HI>[The inward call is no part of Ordination upon your owne account.]</HI> I an&s;wer; Do we &s;ay any &s;uch thing? <HI>viz.</HI> That the inward call is no part of Ordination. Nay, do we not &s;ay on the contrary, that the inward call is the very life and &s;oul of Ordination? What is this mans forehead made of, think you? 'Tis true, the inward call is no part of the outward Ordination, as the &s;oul is no part of the body, but yet is in the bo|dy, and is an e&s;&s;entiall part of the man; even &s;o this <HI>inward call</HI> is part of that compleat Ordination that makes a Mini|&s;ter; yea it makes that ordination which in re&s;pect of its externall part may be defective, and lame, to be for the maine, valid where it is: as the pre&s;ence of the &s;oule in the body that is maimed, or di|&s;ea&s;ed, makes a true living man. Ah! this he would not have you &s;ee, if you do, then farewell to his whole cau&s;e.</P>
<P>But he hath &s;om what more to &s;ay again&s;t this Argument, which is to this purpo&s;e.</P>
<P><PB N="153" REF="81">
<HI>The inward call? &s;ay little of that.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> [intima|ting that our mini&s;ters have not the inward call] <HI>And the impo&s;ition of hands, examination of life, and learning, prayer &amp;c. you &s;o much boa&s;t of is nothing but an Antichri&s;tian forme without power; for neither they, nor you know what the gift, calling, or worke of the mini&s;try of Chri&s;t is. &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>This is his an&s;wer.<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w.</NOTE> Now if any man can put &s;o much confidence in him, as to take his word for this (when there is no proof of it yea when tis contrary to eve|ry unbia&s;&s;ed mans knowledge, and ex|perience) he may. But if you can but be|leeve (as I thinke no mode&s;t chri&s;tian can choo&s;e but doe) 1 that tho&s;e many hun|dreds of godly mini&s;ters that are in Eng|land have an inward call from God. 2. That impo&s;ition of hands, examination and approbation, with prayer and ex|hortation are &s;ome thing be&s;ides an anti|chri&s;tian forme: being commended in Scripture both by precept, and pre&s;ident. 3. That tho&s;e that did ordaine, and tho&s;e that were ordained, did any of them know what the gift, calling, or worke of a mini&s;ter is, if you can (I &s;ay) beleeve any of the&s;e particulars, then (for ought is in his an&s;wer) hee gives you leave to
<PB N="154" REF="82">conclude that our mini&s;ters ordination is valid, and of force. And I de&s;ire to leave the controver&s;y to the reader upon the&s;e termes too; for I thinke him not worthy to bee di&s;puted with, that hath &s;o far made &s;hipwrack of ingenuity and charity as to deny any of the particulars before mentioned. The 1. and 3. being &s;o fully te&s;tified by experience, the 2. by Scrip|ture.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>The Second Argument.</HEAD>
<P>The next Argument to prove the vali|dity of the Mini&s;try (notwith&s;tanding it hath run downe to us through chan|nels &s;omewhat impure) is the validity of <HI>Bapti&s;me,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Arg. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> which hath come the &s;ame way to us.</P>
<P>Thus, if our Bapti&s;me be true Bap|ti&s;me, then our Mini&s;try is a true Mi|ni&s;try.</P>
<P>But our bapti&s;me is true bapti&s;me, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Ergo.</P>
<P>Here he is glad he hath the advan|tage to &s;peake as bad of our Bapti&s;me as of our Mini&s;try: for he denies both as Antichri&s;tian. Grant one ab&s;urdity, and a thou&s;and will follow.</P>
<P>He &s;ayes;</P>
<P><PB N="155" REF="82">
<HI>You have now hit the nail upon the head,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> &amp;c. <HI>I deny either their or your Bapti&s;me to be any Bapti&s;me at all,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>I an&s;wer 1.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Reply.</NOTE> You mu&s;t know this Ar|gument was never framed to convince an <HI>Anabapti&s;t.</HI> There are others be&s;ide Anabapti&s;ts that que&s;tion the validity of the Ordination of the Mini&s;ters of <HI>Eng|land,</HI> and to them this Argument will prove unan&s;werable. For if the Mini&s;try (becau&s;e it came downe to us running a while through a dirty channell) be therefore null, then Bapti&s;me (which de&s;cended to us by the &s;ame way) mu&s;t be null too. He that can deny that there is any Bapti&s;me or Baptized per&s;ons in a|ny of the Churches (whether Indepen|dent or Presbyterian) of <HI>England, New-England, Scotland, France,</HI> &amp;c. will make light of this Argument: but it will make others, of more mode&s;t Principles, to be at a &s;tand.</P>
<P>And here let me advi&s;e &s;uch as (being no Anabapti&s;ts) doe yet conclude the Mini&s;try of <HI>England</HI> no Mini&s;try, and the Churches thereof no Churches, to exa|mine their Arguments well, and &s;ee whe|ther by the &s;ame Arguments may not be al&s;o proved as well that their owne Bap|ti&s;me
<PB N="156" REF="83">is no Bapti&s;me. I am afraid they will find it &s;o; and a hard task to an&s;wer the Anabapti&s;ts plea again&s;t them.</P>
<P>But to returne to my <HI>Router.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. He denies our Bapti&s;me as well as our Mini&s;try, becau&s;e of its de&s;cending to us through the Church of <HI>Rome.</HI> But what will become of his Bapti&s;me then? If that be true which he confe&s;&s;es, page 97. <HI>That none can give that which he hath not him&s;elfe.</HI> None can ordaine a Mini|&s;ter but he that is a Mini&s;ter, and &s;o none baptize but he that is baptized. How then is he or any of the Anabapti&s;ts in <HI>England,</HI> baptized? When 'tis knowne, that when they did &s;et up their Dipping within the&s;e few years, two of them went down into the water, and one dipt the other, and &s;o they the re&s;t. Could either of them be a baptized per&s;on by his owne rule? Sure 'tis time for him (by that time he hath well thought upon this) to deny his owne new Bapti&s;me, or to own ours. And if he owne our Bapti&s;me, then he mu&s;t our Mini&s;try too.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>The Third Argument.</HEAD>
<P>If the Papi&s;ts di&s;claime our Mini&s;ters as having no call from them,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Arg. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> then their calling cannot be Antichri&s;tian.</P>
<P><PB N="157" REF="83">
But they di&s;claime our Mini&s;ters, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>To this he an&s;wers three things.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>'Tis knowne, and your &s;elves know, your Ordination came from thence.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE></P>
<P>This is a bold fal&s;hood, as I &s;hall evi|dence more fully anon: never did any <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> goe to <HI>Rome</HI> for Ordination. 'Tis true, in time of the fir&s;t reformation begun by <HI>Luther,</HI> tho&s;e worthies that were ordained mini&s;ters in the Church of Rome, according to the corrupt way of ordaning then in u&s;e, after they were made &s;encible of the corruption, and witne&s;&s;ed again&s;t it, and became in&s;tru|ments of gathering out the pretious from the vile, were not againe ordained; but by vertue of what call they had, did ordaine others after a more pure and re|gular way; and have we our call from <HI>Rome</HI> and Antichri&s;t therefore? that is very &s;trange. But he adds,</P>
<P><HI>They</HI> (viz the Papi&s;ts) <HI>doe not &s;ay that your ordination in its ri&s;e came not from them,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>but in the pre&s;ent its not approved of by them.</HI></P>
<P>This is al&s;o a fal&s;e hood,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Reply.</NOTE> as full of ig|norance as the other is of boldne&s;&s;e. I
<PB N="158" REF="84">beleeve he never read what any of them &s;ay as to this thing. 'Tis mo&s;t evident that they doe flatly deny any &s;ucce&s;&s;ion of our Mini&s;try from theirs. And therefore call our Mini&s;ters in Queen <HI>Elizabeths</HI> time, and &s;o downward<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Scultingi|us, Bri&s;tous, Sanderus, Bellarmu|nus.</NOTE> <HI>Mini&s;tros Parliamen|tarios,</HI> and <HI>Mini&s;tros Reginales; Queen Mi|ni&s;ters,</HI> and <HI>Parliament Mini&s;ters.</HI> And they give the rea&s;on, <HI>Non a legitima con&s;ecratio|ne aut inauguratione Catholica, &s;ed a Regina &amp; Parliamentis &s;uam authoritatem ementitam derivant. i. e.</HI> They derive their fained authority not from lawfull con&s;ecrati|on, or catholick inauguration, but from the <HI>Queen,</HI> and two hou&s;es of <HI>Parliament.</HI> To this purpo&s;e &s;peak the Popi&s;h Writers mentioned in the margent with others; and yet doth not his ignorance make him &s;o bold as to &s;ay, that the Papi&s;ts doe not deny our mini&s;tery in its ri&s;e to com from them? &s;ure the&s;e men thinke there is nothing true but what they know; when alas (poore &s;oules) the Lord knowes they have but little to help them to know very much. But he adds in the third place.</P>
<P N="3">3.<NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>Grant by way of conce&s;&s;ion that what you &s;ay were truth, yet is there but one Anti|chri&s;t in the World?</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><PB N="159" REF="84">
This he &s;ayes to &s;hew you,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Reply.</NOTE> how our Mini&s;ters may be Antichri&s;tian, though their Ordination came not from <HI>Rome:</HI> &s;ayes he, there are more Antichri&s;ts then one.</P>
<P>To this I an&s;wer; 1. See here he be|gins to feare lea&s;t he &s;hould not be able to make it good, that our Mini&s;ters Ordina|tion came from <HI>Rome,</HI> and therefore &s;eeks a new &s;tarting hole. <HI>There are more Anti|chri&s;ts then one:</HI> therefore they may be An|tichri&s;tian, though their Ordination came not from the Pope.</P>
<P N="2">2. I confe&s;&s;e there are other. Antichri&s;ts be&s;ide the Pope; <HI>The P. G. Routed,</HI> and the men of his principles are Antichri&s;ts, being again&s;t Chri&s;ts Bapti&s;me, Mini&s;try, Churches, if no more. But I hope our Mini&s;ters had never Ordination from them, and therefore are not Antichri&s;ti|an. Be&s;ide the <HI>Pope</HI> on the one hand who is <HI>Litterall Antichri&s;t,</HI> and the <HI>Famili&s;ticall Enthu&s;ia&s;ts</HI> of our times on the other hand, who are <HI>my&s;ticall Antichri&s;ts,</HI> I, for my part, know no notable Antichri&s;ts in the World. If he had told what Antichri&s;t our Mini&s;ters had their Ordination from, if not from the Pope, I &s;hould have known what further reply to make; but now I mu&s;t follow him in his an&s;wer to the 4^t^h Argument.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<PB N="160" REF="85">
<HEAD>The Fourth Argument.</HEAD>
<P>If <HI>their</HI> Ordination be Antichri&s;tian, then cannot they with mode&s;ty accu&s;e our Mini&s;ters as Antichri&s;tian.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Arg. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE></P>
<P>But <HI>their</HI> Ordination is Antichri&s;tian, which is by the people, whereas Chri&s;ts rule is, that Pa&s;tors &s;hould ordain Pa&s;tors, <HI>Acts</HI> 14.23. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.14. <HI>Tit.</HI> 1.5.</P>
<P>Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>To this he an&s;wers.</P>
<P><HI>A goodly Argument &s;ir!</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>as if becau&s;e ours is Antichri&s;tian, therefore yours may be &s;o by a Law; Learned Logick!</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Oh the &s;tupid ignorance of this fellow!<NOTE PLACE="marg">Reply.</NOTE> was that the conclu&s;ion? The Argument concludes not that our Mini&s;ters are not Antichri&s;tian, but that the <HI>Anabapti&s;ts</HI> cannot with mode&s;ty call them &s;o, be|cau&s;e their owne Mini&s;try is Antichri&s;ti|an, being contrary to Chri&s;ts rule. And that I hope is undeniable.</P>
<P>Whereas he goes on &s;aying, that <HI>as to the Ordination mentioned (by the people) he knowes none &s;uch:</HI> Truly I beleeve him, becau&s;e for the mo&s;t part the&s;e men own no Ordination at all; but that Ordina|tion that they have (where they have a|ny) is by the people; as he confe&s;&s;es
<PB N="161" REF="85">(if there be any &s;ence in the words that follow (but as yet I take them to be pure non-&s;ence, in a dre&s;&s;e of new words to deceive affectours of Novelty) if there be any &s;ence, I &s;ay, in what he goes on to &s;peak in this an&s;wer, it affirmes that their Ordination is by the people, and if &s;uch an Ordination be good, how is it that page 97. he &s;ayes, 'tis a paradox to affirm that any one can give Ordination to a|nother, that hath it not him&s;elfe? Sure the man &s;eems to have a bad memory, or we &s;hould not read &s;uch gro&s;&s;e contradi|ctions. Their Ordination is good though it be only by the people, and yet our Mi|ni&s;ters Ordination not good or valid, be|cau&s;e tho&s;e that Ordained them were no Mini&s;ters. If there be any reconciling of the&s;e two, then may we reconcile fire and water, light and darkne&s;&s;e.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>The Fifth Argument.</HEAD>
<P>Tho&s;e Mini&s;ters which are elected,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Arg. <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> proved, ordained, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> according to the mind of Chri&s;t, cannot be Antichri&s;tian.</P>
<P>But the Mini&s;ters of <HI>England</HI> now are &s;o.</P>
<P>Therefore they cannot be Antichri|&s;tian.</P>
<P>To this he gives a three-fold an&s;wer,
<PB N="162" REF="86">to which I &s;hall make reply in order.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>Tour Minor I deny, you have no &s;uch electi|on,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>becau&s;e you have no Church of Chri&s;t,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>but profe&s;&s;ing hypocrites.</HI></P>
<P>This being an unchri&s;tian &s;lander,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Reply.</NOTE> need &s;peak nothing to it. If any man can think that all Churches, except Anabap|ti&s;ts, are but profe&s;&s;ing hypocrites, I count him not worthy of an an&s;wer. He adds,</P>
<P N="2">2.<NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>Tho&s;e Churches, &s;uch as they are, never elected you,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>This is a downeright fal&s;hood,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Reply.</NOTE> like much of the re&s;t of his Book; &s;eeing (as 'tis well knowne) none are admitted to places, without a call from the people, or the better part of them.</P>
<P N="3">3.<NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>You were</HI> (&s;ayes he) <HI>never proved,</HI> viz. <HI>of the knowledge of the Lord and his wayes, but of your Learning,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>This likewi&s;e is mo&s;t untrue,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Reply.</NOTE> and known to be &s;o by all that are acquainted with the examination that &s;uch as are ordai|ned pa&s;&s;e under; for when any one pre|&s;ents him&s;elfe to be Ordained, fir&s;t of all Te&s;timonialls under the hand of men of undoubted credit are required, to witnes
<PB N="163" REF="86">to his blamele&s;&s;e conver&s;ation: when &s;uch Te&s;timonialls are produced, then is the per&s;on examined fir&s;t concerning the <HI>work of grace on his heart,</HI> of which if he can give an account, he is then examined con|cerning his skill in the Originall Lan|guages, his knowledge in the doctrine of the Go&s;pel, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> which is proved by a di&s;|putation on &s;ome controver&s;ie in Divi|nity, that it may be knowne whether he can maintaine the truth again&s;t Gain|ayers. Then is he to Preach publiquely for the tryall of his gifts. And is here <HI>no proving of our knowledge of the Lord and his wayes?</HI> 'Tis &s;trange a man &s;hould venture to publi&s;h to the world things &s;o appa|rently untrue.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>The Sixth Argument.</HEAD>
<P>Tho&s;e Mini&s;ters that are diametrically oppo&s;ite to the Prie&s;ts and &s;havelings of Antichri&s;t,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Arg. <HI>6.</HI></NOTE> cannot be Antichri&s;tian.</P>
<P>But the Mini&s;ters of <HI>England</HI> are &s;o. Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>To this he an&s;wers.</P>
<P><HI>You are &s;o in &s;ome circum&s;tantialls, not in the &s;ub&s;tance, for you owne their Mini&s;try true,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>their Ordinances true,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P N="1">1. What, doe we differ from them,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Reply.</NOTE> on|ly
<PB N="164" REF="87">in circum&s;tantialls? Ah poor man! that can &s;hift no better to helpe his bad cau&s;e. Are Ju&s;tification by works, wor&s;hip|ping of Images, praying to Saints, the Ma&s;&s;e, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> but circum&s;tantialls? Sure hee'l prove him&s;elfe the be&s;t Advocate for <HI>Rome,</HI> if he can make this good, that the things we differ from them in, be onely circum&s;tantialls.</P>
<P>But 2. Is it not notoriou&s;ly fal&s;e, that we acknowledge their Church, Mini&s;try, Ordinances, as true? What if <HI>M</HI>^r <HI>Hall</HI> in his &s;econd Argument doe acknowledge that they <HI>were</HI> &s;o? &s;o does that famous worthy, <HI>M</HI>^r <HI>Burton,</HI> who lo&s;t his ears un|der the <HI>Arch-Epi&s;copall</HI> Tyranny, for the truth of Chri&s;t, in his an&s;wer to <HI>M</HI>^r <HI>Chom|ley's</HI> defence of the Church of <HI>Rome.</HI> He grants they had the e&s;&s;ence of a Church untill the Councell of <HI>Trent,</HI> but not af|terward, when they were compleatly a|po&s;tatized, and the faithfull had with|drawne from them. So doe we acknow|ledge al&s;o; not that their Church and Mini&s;try is true now.</P>
<P>There is yet one rub more which he labours to take out of his way. 'Tis ur|ged that our mini&s;ters doe convert &s;ouls, and therefore appear to be &s;ent of God, in that their Emba&s;&s;age is made &s;ucce&s;|full by God.</P>
<P><PB N="165" REF="87">
To this he an&s;wers.</P>
<P><HI>If conver&s;ion be a proof of a Mini&s;ter in office,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>then women may be Mini&s;ters in office, or any man by whom God converts,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Who but one of a <HI>womani&s;h</HI> &s;pirit and brain, would have given &s;uch an an&s;wer?<NOTE PLACE="marg">Reply.</NOTE> No man &s;ayes that converting &s;oules, proves all mini&s;ters in office that do con|vert, but 'tis a proofe of the mini&s;try of tho&s;e that doe officiate as mini&s;ters, and in &s;o doing convert. This is mo&s;t evident by what <HI>Paul</HI> &s;peaks, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 9.2. If a pri|vate Chri&s;tian, making u&s;e of his Talents in his place, and within his &s;phere, doe convert &s;ouls; this is a &s;eal of Gods ap|proving &s;uch pious means as he u&s;es in order to the &s;ame. Even &s;o if a man offi|ciate as a mini&s;ter in office, and God ble&s;&s;e his endeavours with the conver&s;ion of &s;ouls, 'tis a &s;eal of his mi&s;&s;ion. And the rea&s;on is, becau&s;e God will not ordina|rily concur with &s;uch as he &s;ends not. Such as pretend unto an office from God, when he never gave them any, u&s;e not to have &s;ucce&s;&s;e given them by God in di&s;|pen&s;ing the &s;ame. God will not &s;eal to a fal&s;e and pretended mini&s;try, by his ble&s;|&s;ing the &s;ame, as is plaine <HI>Jer.</HI> 23.21, 22. wherefore it is evident, that (&s;eing the
<PB N="166" REF="88">Lord hath continually ble&s;&s;ed the la|bours of our Mini&s;ters, with the conver&s;i|on of many &s;ouls) our mini&s;ters are the true mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>But he &s;ayes, page 71.</P>
<P><HI>In this likewi&s;e hath the Lord manife&s;ted his approving and calling the Preaching Bre|thren,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>the great number of converts from Antichri&s;tian, and Babiloni&s;h ignorance and confu&s;ion,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>Converts?</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w.</NOTE> he means <HI>Anabapti&s;ticall Pro|&s;elytes,</HI> whom they have drawne away from holding any communion with the people of God in this Nation, or in any of the Churches of Chri&s;t in the world. A fine piece of Conver&s;ion indeed! Let him &s;hew me any that have been brought off from a carnall, &s;en&s;uall living, unto a reall and &s;erious profe&s;&s;ion of the pow|er of godline&s;&s;e, by &s;uch Preachers, mini|&s;tring as they do without being appoint|ed unto the office according to the rules of Chri&s;t; and he will &s;hew more then ever I could find in all mine experience. I do not doubt but men really gifted, mini|&s;tring their gifts in a peaceable and or|derly manner, as becomes men in a pri|vate capacity, may have their endeavours ble&s;t with the Conver&s;ion of &s;ouls: but
<PB N="167" REF="88">as for &s;uch as goe beyond their line, and contentiou&s;ly u&s;urp the mini&s;teriall fun|ction (as the <HI>P. G. Routed,</HI> and &s;uch like travelling Preachers doe) well may they <HI>pervert</HI> many: I never found they <HI>conver|ted</HI> any.</P>
<P>That which he adds [That the con|ver&s;ion our Mini&s;ters boa&s;t of, is <HI>not a con|ver&s;ion from &s;in to God, but onely from &s;in to re&s;ting in duty.</HI>] It is &s;uch a palpable un|truth, and &s;o big of envy, and pride, that I &s;hall &s;ay nothing to it: Let Saints experiences &s;peak.</P>
<P>You have &s;een the invalidity and weak|ne&s;&s;e of his an&s;wers to tho&s;e &s;ix Argu|ments that prove our Mini&s;ters free from Antichri&s;tiani&s;me: notwith&s;tanding what he alledges they firmely prove that which they are brought for, therefore I &s;hall not add any more.</P>
<P>Onely in a word or two I &s;hall exa|mine the &s;trength of his Arguments to prove the affirmative, that they are Anti|mri&s;tian.</P>
<P>His Arguments as &s;ix in number, but onely one in weight, and that the fir&s;t which is as followes.</P>
<P><PB N="168" REF="89">
<HI>Tho&s;e Mini&s;ters who&s;e Ordination by &s;ucce&s;&s;i|on came from the authority of the Pope,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>are Antichri&s;tian.</HI></P>
<P><HI>But your Ordination by &s;ucce&s;&s;ion came from the authority of the Pope, Ergo,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>This is his <HI>&V;num magnum,</HI> which if I can an&s;wer,<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w.</NOTE> the controver&s;ie will be at an end.</P>
<P>I &s;hall fir&s;t di&s;tingui&s;h as to his fir&s;t Propo&s;ition, and &s;o an&s;wer.</P>
<P>I would faine know what he means by <HI>[An Ordination comming by &s;ucce&s;&s;ion from the Authority of the Pope.]</HI> the expre&s;&s;ion is equivocall. Whether doth he meane, &s;uch an Ordination as came by &s;ucce&s;&s;ion from the Popes authority <HI>as the fir&s;t Ori|ginall of it?</HI> or el&s;e &s;uch an Ordination as came from the Pope, onely by being conveyed downe to us through his hands?</P>
<P>If he meane the former, then I deny his &s;econd Propo&s;ition. The mini&s;ters of <HI>England</HI> have not &s;uch an Ordination as came by &s;ucce&s;&s;ion from the Popes au|thority, <HI>as the fir&s;t Originall of it.</HI> For that Ordination which they have, as to its &s;ub&s;tance, was appointed by Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and grounded on the Scriptures. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.10.4.14. <HI>Tit.</HI> 1.5. <HI>Acts</HI> 14.23. <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="169" REF="89">
If he meane the latter, then I deny his fir&s;t Propo&s;ition. For all mini&s;ters are not Antichri&s;tian, that have &s;uch an Or|dination as (de&s;cending from Chri&s;t) ha's &s;ometime pa&s;t through the Popes hand: for if &s;o, then all that ha's pa&s;t through his hands mu&s;t be Antichri&s;tian: which if we grant, then not onely our mini&s;try and bapti&s;me, but the <HI>Scriptures</HI> al&s;o mu&s;t be Antichri&s;tian too. How will he help it? If he &s;ay the Scriptures came forth from Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and &s;o are recei|ved; &s;o &s;ay I, our Ordination came from Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and &s;o, under that con&s;ide|ration, our mini&s;ters receive it. If he &s;ay, the Scriptures are received in their perfe|ction, but the Ordination was vitiated and corrupted. I an&s;wer, the Scriptures al&s;o were very much corrupted by the Papi&s;ts, as the Ordination was; but a|mong us hath been re&s;tored, by degrees, the beauty of both. Let him looke to him&s;elfe, the &s;ame door he goes out at, the &s;ame will I. If he can free the Scrip|tures from Antichri&s;tiani&s;me de&s;cending to us through the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> the &s;ame way will I free the mini&s;try and Ordination from Antichri&s;tiani&s;me, not|with&s;tanding it de&s;cended to us through the Pope; hands.</P>
<P><PB N="170" REF="90">
But 2. Seing he is &s;o particular in tel|ling us when we had our Ordination from <HI>Rome,</HI> in the 99^t^h page. I &s;hall &s;peak &s;omewhat to the clearing of this al&s;o: he &s;ayes,</P>
<P><HI>Your Saint Au&s;tin the Monk being &s;ent from Rome to e&s;tabli&s;h the Romi&s;h faith in this Nation,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>he accordingly accompli&s;hing the worke, you have your Ordination by &s;ucce&s;|&s;ion from thence.</HI></P>
<P>Very good: I am not very unwilling to grant him this.<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w.</NOTE> Onely all the danger lies in the&s;e odious termes which hee makes u&s;e of, as <HI>Rome, Romi&s;h faith,</HI> and <HI>Au&s;tin the Monk;</HI> I &s;hall di&s;cover his un|derhand deceitfull dealing in u&s;ing the&s;e expre&s;&s;ions, and the matter will appeare as cleare as the Sun.</P>
<P N="1">1. Whereas he &s;ayes, <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> came hi|ther from <HI>[Rome]</HI> to e&s;tabli&s;h the <HI>[Ro|mi&s;h faith]</HI> he &s;peaks deceitfully, or igno|rantly; for the <HI>Romi&s;h faith,</HI> was then the true, christian faith, and there was no Christian Church vi&s;ible on Earth but held communion with the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> (as then it was) in the &s;ame faith, for the maine.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> was not the<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Ma&s;on de Min Angl. l. 2. cap. 4. Heyl. Geo. p. 469.</NOTE> fir&s;t that e&s;ta|bli&s;hed the Chri&s;tian faith in <HI>England.</HI>
<PB N="171" REF="90">This he is mi&s;taken in too. The Go&s;pel was received in <HI>England,</HI> long before <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> was. This Nation, that is now one Common-wealth; was anciently divided into &s;everall Kingdomes, &s;ome of them had received the faith long before <HI>Au&s;tins</HI> comming, if not by the means of the A|po&s;tles them&s;elves (as &s;ome write) yet in the Apo&s;tolicall times by<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Baronius, Capgravius</NOTE> <HI>Jo&s;eph of Arimathaea,</HI> and then afterward was the doctrine of Chri&s;t revived by<NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">Ma&s;on. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>3.</HI> Heyl. p. <HI>469.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Eleutherius, Anno Dom.</HI> 180. which is 1471. yeares fince. At which time, I hope, the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome</HI> were true mini&s;ters, and the Church of Rome a true Church: more|over when <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> (that he &s;peakes of) came hither, which as<NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg">Beda. Epit. Hi&s;t. Angl Heyl. Geogr. p. 490.</NOTE> hi&s;tory witne&s;&s;es, was about 1058. years &s;ince, there were &s;everal<NOTE N="e" PLACE="marg">Florebant apud illos eo ip&s;o tempore &s;eptem E|pi&s;copi, &amp;c. <HI>Ma&s;on. &s;e|cundum. Bed. L. 2. c. 2.</HI></NOTE> Bi&s;hops in <HI>England,</HI> profe&s;&s;ing and preach|ing the Chri&s;tian faith. So that if we go this way to work, our Mini&s;ters Ordination will have an higher beginning then the <HI>Collier</HI> conceives. But if we doe grant that <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> (as he would have it) did fir&s;t begin to ordaine Mini|&s;ters here (being &s;ent from <HI>Rome</HI>) and our Mini&s;ters Ordination be from him: Yet that being (as you heard before) 1058. years agoe, the Church of <HI>Rome</HI>
<PB N="172" REF="91">was then al&s;o undoubtedly a true <HI>Church</HI> of Chri&s;t. And<NOTE N="f" PLACE="marg">Vide ob&s;ecro an uni|ver&s;alem Epi&s;copum &s;e vocaret Gregorius, quod hodie Romae fit: An im|peratorem Dominum &s;uum jam vocaret Pon|tifex qued fecit Grego rius. <HI>Ma&s;on. de Min. Angl. L. 2. c. 4.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Gregory</HI> the Great, then Bi&s;h: of <HI>Rome,</HI> whom he (to affright and &s;tartle ig|norant people, calls <HI>Pope</HI>) was as farre from taking upon him that Antichri&s;tian power, that now the Popes of <HI>Rome</HI> take to them&s;elves, as ea&s;t is from we&s;t. So that <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and his compani|ons (that were appointed and &s;ent by this <HI>Gregory</HI> to e&s;tabli&s;h the Church of Chri&s;t in <HI>England,</HI> Baptizing &s;uch as were added to the Church, and &s;etting Pa|&s;tours over them) had a lawfull and va|lid mi&s;&s;ion (at lea&s;t for the maine) and therefore their Acts both of Baptizing, and Ordaining Mini&s;ters, were valid al&s;o.</P>
<P N="3">3. Whereas he &s;tiles <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> our <HI>[Saint Au&s;tin the Monk]</HI> 'tis either ignorantly, or deceitfully as before; for tho&s;e that were called <HI>Monachi,</HI> which we render <HI>Monks,</HI> in &s;ome of tho&s;e fir&s;t hundred years after Chri&s;t, were as much diffe|rent from tho&s;e idle gluttons, now in the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> called <HI>Monks,</HI> as the Bi|&s;hops of <HI>Rome</HI> then, are from the Popes now.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Divinis re|bus vacan|tes. <HI>Ma&s;on.</HI></NOTE> The name &s;ignified, &s;ome wholly devoted to divine things; &s;ome wholly <HI>&s;eparating them&s;elves unto the &s;tudy of the
<PB N="173" REF="91">heavenly my&s;teries of truth.</HI> And &s;o it was u&s;ed then. 'Tis true, &s;ince the Apo&s;ta&s;ie, this name is become odious by rea&s;on of tho&s;e &s;warms of luxurious idle belly-Gods, that are of that <HI>Order,</HI> in the <HI>Church</HI> of <HI>Rome.</HI> However, it was not &s;o at fir&s;t, nor at that time when <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> was &s;ent in this Nation. The<NOTE N="g" PLACE="marg"><HI>Al&s;ted. Parat. Theol. de Mon.</HI> Incredibile e&s;t quantum a majoribus &s;uis degeneraverunt. <HI>Sayes an Ital. Papi&s;t.</HI></NOTE> word then had a better acceptation and &s;ignification; and was taken up no doubt by pious men. Where|fore the <HI>P. G. Routed</HI> doth not deal plainly with his Reader (if he knew this, as I confe&s;&s;e I think he did not) in calling <HI>Au&s;tin a Monk</HI> in contempt; when as it was the wickedne&s;&s;e of after times that made this name contemptible and odious, that had before a better u&s;e.</P>
<P N="4">4. Though <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> was a <HI>Monk</HI> before his mi&s;&s;ion into this Land, yet at his comming over he was Ordained a Bi&s;hop<NOTE N="h" PLACE="marg"><HI>Se</HI> Ma&s;on. de Min. A<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter">gl. <GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 word"> c. 5.</NOTE> either by the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Germany</HI> (as <HI>Gregory</HI>) or el&s;e by the Bi&s;hops of <HI>France</HI> (as <HI>Beda</HI>) writes: and &s;o he ordained (with the help of others) tho&s;e Mini&s;ters that were ordained here.</P>
<P>So that now &s;ee what is become of his great leading Argument, <HI>The Mini&s;ters of England are Antichri&s;tian, becau&s;e their Or|dination came from the Pope, by the meanes of
<PB N="174" REF="92">Au&s;tin the Monk, who was &s;ent hither to e|&s;tabli&s;h the Romi&s;h faith.</HI> The Hi&s;tory being fully cleared up, it appears to be a meer bug-bear, and &s;o far from making again&s;t our Mini&s;ters, that it abundantly vindi|cates them, and their Ordination. As for the truth of the relation, I have point|ed at &s;ome in the margent for the confir|mation of the &s;ame: And whoever is ver&s;t in Hi&s;tory, knows it to be as certain as Hi&s;tory can make a thing; and that is as certaine as any thing is that we doe not &s;ee.</P>
<P>No man knowes that there was &s;uch a one as <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> or a Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> that &s;ent him hither, but by humane Hi&s;tory: and by the &s;ame know you that my rela|tion of this matter is true. I &s;peak to the weak.</P>
<P>As for his five other Arguments, they being nothing el&s;e but an heap of mo&s;t malicious and wicked &s;landers: I &s;hall &s;ay nothing to them.</P>
<P>He &s;ayes our Mini&s;ters are Antichri&s;ti|an; becau&s;e,
<LIST>
<ITEM>1.<NOTE PLACE="marg">The P. G. Routed.</NOTE> <HI>They doe not Chri&s;ts worke.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>2. <HI>They de&s;ire to &s;it in Chri&s;ts &s;eat.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>3. <HI>They are belly-gods.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>4. <HI>They are enemies to the fellow&s;hip of the Saints.</HI></ITEM>
<PB N="175" REF="92">
<ITEM>5. <HI>They &s;et up &s;omething like truth, in the roome of truth, in oppo&s;ition to truth.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>The&s;e are his five other Arguments to prove them Antichri&s;tian.<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w.</NOTE></P>
<P>This poy&s;onous froth thou maye&s;t ea|&s;ily &s;cum off, if thou ha&s;t but a little of the Spirit of the Go&s;pel in thee. I intend my Di&s;cour&s;e principally for hone&s;t hearts: wherefore, &s;aying no more, I &s;hall take my leave of <HI>The Pulpit Guard Routed,</HI> having I think, &s;ufficiently &s;cat|tered his worthy, hoa&s;t of an&s;wers, and Arguments which he hath gathered up again&s;t Chri&s;t and the truth. I &s;hall onely advi&s;e thee, <HI>Never credit boldnes more for this mans &s;ake.</HI> But &s;eriou&s;ly weigh all things in the ballance of the Sanctuary. <HI>Try all things, hold fa&s;t that which is good.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="postscript">
<PB REF="93">
<HEAD>A POSTSCRIPT-<HI>Adverti&s;ement</HI> To the READER.</HEAD>
<P>_THere is another dangerous, pe|stilent, bla&s;phemous Booke of this <HI>Colliers</HI> (again&s;t Or|dinances, yea and again&s;t the Per&s;on and Offices of Christ) which I did endeavour to get while I was an|&s;wering this but could not. I know not whether he will make reply to this that I have written: Po&s;&s;ible he may. 'Tis ea&s;ie for a man to multiply An&s;wers, if he take no care to &s;peake pertinently. If he &s;hould Print another &s;uch an&s;wer to me, as <HI>The Pulpit Guard Routed</HI> is to Mr <HI>Hall;</HI> I &s;hall promi&s;e him never to take the pains to reply. Thou maye&s;t well think he &s;pake his be&s;t in an&s;wer
<PB REF="93">to <HI>Mr Hall.</HI> and if that (notwith|&s;tanding all his boldnes, and confidence in writing) be &s;o weak, ab&s;urd, and im|pertinent, as thou maye&s;t perceive by reading my reply: &s;ure if he &s;hould put on double the confidence in writing another an&s;wer, I &s;u&s;pect (and &s;o maye&s;t thou) 'twill be for &s;trength of Argument like the former; which if it be, I &s;hall be coutent to &s;uffer him to have the la&s;t word: suppo&s;ing that none of tho&s;e (who&s;e good I aim at) will count his cau&s;e be&s;t, that &s;peaks la&s;t.</P>
<P>This, that is now &s;wollen into a Treati&s;e, was intended, at fir&s;t, onely as a <HI>Monitorie Epi&s;tle,</HI> in two or three &s;heets to &s;top the gangrene of his Er|rours from &s;preading among Chri&s;ti|ans. I ut I met with &s;uch variety of ab|&s;urdities, &s;o boldly and dangerou&s;ly laid downe in his Di&s;cour&s;e to entrap the weake, that I could not well be &s;horter then I am.</P>
<P>The Lord give thee under&s;tanding in all things.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="imprimatur">
<PB N="162" REF="94">
<P><HI>February</HI> 14. 1651.</P>
<P>IMPRIMATUR, Edmund Calamy.</P>
<PB REF="94">
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
