<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2013-11-25</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Colm MacCrossan</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed and reviewed.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="OX" ID="B20526">
<STC T="W">C5285</STC>
<STC T="C">R5188</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">[ocm]11184965</BIBNO>
<VID>199222</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1">
<PB REF="1">
<P>THE Font-Guard Routed: <HI>OR,</HI> A brief ANSWER to a Book written by <HI>Thomas Hall,</HI> &s;uper&s;cribed with this Title, <HI>The Font Guarded with</HI> 20. <HI>Arguments:</HI> Therein endeavouring to prove the lawfulne&s;s of <HI>Infant-Bapti&s;m. WHEREIN</HI> His Arguments are examined, and being weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuary, are found too light. The mo&s;t con&s;iderable of Mr. <HI>Baxters</HI> Arguments for <HI>Infant-Bapti&s;m,</HI> being produced by <HI>Tho. Hall,</HI> are here an&s;wered likewi&s;e. <HI>To which is added,</HI> A Word of Reply to <HI>Tho. Halls</HI> Word to <HI>Collier.</HI> And another to <HI>John Feriby's</HI> Appendix, called <HI>The Pulpit-Guard Relieved.</HI> With an <HI>An&s;wer</HI> to <HI>Richard Sanders's</HI> pretended <HI>Balm to heal Religious wounds;</HI> in an&s;wer to the <HI>Pulpit-Guard Routed.</HI> With an humble Repre&s;entation of &s;ome few <HI>Propo&s;als</HI> to the <HI>Honorable Committee</HI> appointed by the <HI>Parliament</HI> for <HI>Propagation of the Go&s;pel.</HI> Written by <HI>Tho. Collier.</HI></P>
<Q><HI>If ye love me, keep my commandments.</HI> <BIBL>Joh. 14. 15.</BIBL></Q>
<Q><HI>If ye continue in my word, then are ye my Di&s;ciples indeed.</HI> <BIBL>Joh. 8. 31.</BIBL></Q>
<P><HI>LONDON,</HI> Printed for the Author, and are to be &s;old by <HI>Giles Calvert,</HI> at the <HI>Black Spread Eagle</HI> neer the We&s;t-end of <HI>Pauls.</HI> 1652.</P>
<PB REF="2">
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="dedication">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>Some few Propo&s;als to the Honorable <HI>Committee</HI> for <HI>Propagation of the Go&s;pel.</HI></HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Honoured Sirs,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>GOD having been plea&s;ed to bring us forth in &s;uch an Age of the world, wherein we have &s;een, through mercy, not only his work of power in dethroning of unrighteous men; but likewi&s;e in a mea&s;ure the ari&s;ing of the Son of Righteou&s;ne&s;s with <HI>healing in his wings;</HI> and, I tru&s;t, <HI>to take to him&s;elf his great Kingdom, and to reign.</HI></P>
<P>The bu&s;ine&s;s committed to you (by and next to the Supreme Authority of the Nation) being of very great concernment, and indeed that which relates to him who is the mo&s;t Supreme, He who is <HI>Lord of Lords, and King of Kings:</HI> Notwith&s;tanding I find there have been many Propo&s;als unto your Honours, it might be altogether needle&s;s for &s;uch a one as I to propo&s;e any thing unto your Wi&s;doms; yet not doubting your willingne&s;s to hear what the weake&s;t may propound in this great bu&s;ine&s;s, <HI>though by it nothing be added to you;</HI> I providentially and occa&s;ionally coming to this City, could not with good con&s;cience depart from hence without pre&s;enting &s;ome|thing unto your Honours, as to the thing in hand. If in it, to you or any others, I do appear <HI>a fool,</HI> let me be excu&s;ed; I have performed in this my duty both to my Lord and you. My de&s;ire is, that the former pre&s;idents of mi&s;carri|ages in changing times, may be a warning unto us, <HI>viz.</HI> The plucking up of one Form, and planting of another by the Magi&s;terial power. <HI>Every plant that the Heavenly Father hath not planted, mu&s;t be plucked up.</HI> My de&s;ire is, not to be tedious: but in a word, out of tenderne&s;s to the honour of the Lord Je&s;us, and the Authority of the Nation, that there may be given to <HI>GOD</HI> tho&s;e things that are his, and to <HI>Cae&s;ar</HI> tho&s;e things that are his, have I humbly pre&s;ented the&s;e following Propo&s;als unto your Honours.</P>
<PB REF="3">
<P N="1"> 1. <HI>Whether or no</HI> Je&s;us Chri&s;t <HI>be not the alone Spi|ritual King in and over all Ca&s;es of Con&s;cience relating to Wor&s;hip?</HI> P&s;al. 2. Rev. 15. 3, 4. Act. 3. 22, 23. Mat. 28. 18.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>Whether he hath &s;urrendred up any part of this Authority to any Civil Magi&s;trate under the Go&s;pel?</HI> Jam. 4. 11, 12. Rom. 14. 4.</P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>Whether, becau&s;e the</HI> Jewi&s;h <HI>Magi&s;tracie, according to the command of God, took cogni&s;ance of &s;uch things, they with all the re&s;t of their Ordinances being typical in their anointing, power and rule, &amp;c. it being all &s;wallowed up into Chri&s;t the &s;ub&s;tance, he being the alone King of his people; be any ground for Magi&s;trates now to do the like?</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. <HI>Whether to do the like, be not to deny Chri&s;t to be come in the fle&s;h, and to deny his Kingly Authority?</HI></P>
<P N="5">5. <HI>Whether the work of the Magi&s;trate, as a Magi|strate, do not primely relate to the bodies of men, and things of this world; that &s;o they may be for the prai&s;e of them that do well, and for the puni&s;hment of evil doers?</HI> Rom. 13.</P>
<P N="6">6. <HI>Whether it be not the work whereunto God hath called them, to protect all that live peaceably and civilly, in obedience to the Civil Law of the Nation; and to encou|rage and protect the Servants of the Lord alike, in the Preaching and profe&s;sing the Go&s;pel, though differing in their apprehen&s;ions; leaving the judgment of Ca&s;es of Con&s;cience unto Chri&s;t, as before?</HI></P>
<P N="7">7. <HI>VVhether a State-maintenance for the Mini&s;tery of Chri&s;t, be agreeable to any Rule in the Go&s;pel?</HI></P>
<PB REF="3">
<P N="8"> 8. <HI>VVhether it hath not been, and is a way to make men rather State-Mini&s;ters, then Chri&s;ts Mini&s;ters?</HI></P>
<P N="9">9. <HI>VVhether this hath not proved di&s;honorable to Ie&s;us Chri&s;t and the Truth, having drawn &s;o many into the worldly Mini&s;tery for love of gain?</HI></P>
<P N="10">10. <HI>VVhether it be not the duty of the Magi&s;trate to permit the</HI> Jews, <HI>who&s;e Conver&s;ion is promi&s;ed, and we pretend to expect it, to live peaceably amongst us?</HI></P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
<PB REF="4">
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="4">
<HEAD>The Epi&s;tle to the Reader.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Reader,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P><HI>I</HI> Having &s;o &s;uddenly, and almo&s;t unexpectedly brought forth this Treati&s;e to publique view, Plainne&s;s and brevity thou may&s;t find in it, though but little of that excellencie which mans wi&s;dom teacheth; yet &s;omething of the truth of Je&s;us may&s;t thou find there, in the plain evidence of the Spirit and power of truth. And where|as thou &s;ee&s;t many differences in the world about the wor&s;hip of God, it behoves thee &s;o much the more to querie after it; for it is the duty of tho&s;e who have an intere&s;t in Chri&s;t, to do his will: <HI>If ye love me,</HI> &s;aith Chri&s;t, <HI>keep my commandments,</HI> Joh. 14. 15. and that is the way to attain an increa&s;e in the knowledge of the will of God, <HI>viz.</HI> a doing of what we know, <HI>Joh.</HI> 7 17.</P>
<P>I have here pre&s;ented to thy view &s;everal Replies unto &s;everal Men and Things. Fir&s;t to the <HI>Font-guarded;</HI> wherein you have, gathered up all the Arguments of former Writers, e&s;pecially Mr. <HI>Baxters,</HI> and drawn into 20 Arguments. To all which I have given a brief Reply; and although brief, yet I que&s;tion not but with &s;uch plainne&s;s and clearne&s;s, as that he that runs may read: and in it through mercy thou may&s;t come to &s;ee the clear difference between <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> and <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> the Covenant of the Law and the Covenant of the Go&s;pel: the ordinances, mini&s;try and wor|&s;hips of the one, and of the other: and becau&s;e God hath made me publike in the profe&s;&s;ion of his truth, I judge my &s;elf bound in con&s;cience, and duty to Je&s;us Chri&s;t, to vindicate that truth I profe&s;s: every command and truth of Je&s;us being, to a lover of the truth, more precious then that of gold; and although hither unto I have and may &s;till expect to pa&s;s through many re|proaches for the &s;ake of Chri&s;t, through good and bad report; yet I weigh it not; none of the&s;e things trouble me: it was the portion of Chri&s;t him|&s;elf; and <HI>if they called the ma&s;ter of the hou&s;e Beelzebub, what will they not do to the &s;ervant?</HI> I tru&s;t, that notwith&s;tanding the rudene&s;s and rage of tho&s;e men who &s;eek them&s;elves, yet God hath hitherto &s;o kept and carried me, that I may &s;ay truly, <HI>I have endeavoured to keep a Con&s;cience void of offence both before God and men.</HI> And as to tho&s;e Principles of Truth by me owned, although judged by men, yet my
<PB REF="5"> judgement is with the Lord, and he knows the way of his People, but the way of the wicked &s;hall peri&s;h. Though I pa&s;s under the cen&s;ure of <HI>Tho. Hall,</HI> whom nothing but Fire and Fagot can &s;atisfie, and under the ignominious reproaches of <HI>Feriby, Sanders,</HI> and a thou&s;and more, yet none of the&s;e things trouble me; and let none think that I am be&s;ides my &s;elf, becau&s;e I thus profe&s;s and write: for if I am it is to the Lord, and for your &s;akes, for whom my de&s;ire is, that you may be made partaker of the truth, and that as it is in <HI>Je&s;us; not after the will of men, but of God.</HI> I have pre&s;ented to thy con&s;ideration the&s;e two things. Fir&s;t, the in&s;ufficiency of all tho&s;e grounds produced for Infant-Bapti&s;m, where|in its weakne&s;s and incon&s;i&s;tency with the Go&s;pel will appear; and the continued practice of the baptizing of Believers cleared and vin|dicated.</P>
<P N="2">2. A brief Reply to <HI>John Feriby,</HI> and <HI>Richard Sanders:</HI> wherein you may finde a farther confirmation of the truth a&s;&s;erted in the <HI>Pulpit-Guard Routed,</HI> viz. the lawfulne&s;s of the Preaching of Gifted Brethren.</P>
<P>I have likewi&s;e three things to de&s;ire of the Reader.</P>
<P N="1">1. To read and judge: Read, and con&s;ider what thou reade&s;t; for I have endeavoured to compo&s;e much in few words, and that becau&s;e I judged it to be for thy profit, large Di&s;cour&s;es being &s;ometimes not &s;o u&s;efull: therefore, I &s;ay, be content to &s;pare a little time to con&s;ider, and con|template upon what thou reade&s;t, and happily thou maye&s;t come to &s;ee all tho&s;e &s;trong Guards broken and di&s;per&s;t, as the morning dew before the Sun.</P>
<P N="2">2. Read with patience; and be not troubled at that which may &s;eem to thee to be har&s;h language, or contrary to thy under&s;tanding: and this I a&s;&s;ure thee, con&s;idering the Spirits of tho&s;e men with whom I have had to deal, I have pa&s;&s;ed through with as much moderation as po&s;&s;ibly I could, without betraying the Cau&s;e; and giving but a word of reproof to an in&s;ulting adver&s;ary.</P>
<P N="3">3. Read and judge impartially; lean not to the right hand or to the left, for affection &s;ake, but de&s;ire the Lord, from an impartial unbya&s;t heart, to lead thee into the truth, re&s;olve not to follow the traditions of men or Churches, but the written word of Truth, which is able to give thee direction as a rule of life through the ble&s;&s;ing of the Spirit of Je&s;us, and to make the man of God perfect, throughly furni&s;hing him to every good work</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Tho. Collier.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="tract">
<PB N="1" REF="5">
<HEAD>THE Font-Guard Routed.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>SIR,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>_ITS faln to my lot once more to encounter with you; and why to me more then to others? be|cau&s;e not only the Truth of Je&s;us, his Honour, and his &s;ervants in the profe&s;&s;ion of it, lieth at &s;take; but my &s;elf likewi&s;e in a &s;pecial manner being not only concerned in the ca&s;e in hand, but likewi&s;e being deeply a&s;per&s;ed by your Li|bellous Tongue and Pen in your &s;ucceeding word to one <HI>Collier,</HI> to which I &s;hall reply in its time and place. But Sir, by the way, it &s;eems you are become an ab&s;olute Souldier, a grand Captain, Leader. But whats the work? To guard <HI>Pulpits</HI> and <HI>Fonts</HI> for&s;ooth. I &s;uppo&s;e you'l be cautious of &s;uffering much in defence of your Cau&s;e; if you had intended it, you would not have &s;et your guards about that which none intends to take from you that I know of: But is it truth in good earne&s;t that your <HI>Font</HI> is affronted?</P>
<P N="1">1. I wonder you had not had more wi&s;dom and foreca&s;t in you at fir&s;t, and have &s;et your Guard round about your Kirk; &s;o one might have &s;erved for the whole, and have &s;aved you much labour and ex|pence of time: but I &s;uppo&s;e your wi&s;dom lay in this; You guarded the <HI>Pulpit</HI> fir&s;t, that &s;o being routed there, you might have a fair re|treat to the holy <HI>Font;</HI> and when routed there, you might &s;ound ano|ther retreat, but whither I know not, unle&s;s to the high Altar, <HI>viz.</HI> the Communion Table (&s;o called) or into the Belfrey, to &s;ecure the
<PB N="2" REF="6"> holy baptized Bels; In Pope <HI>Johns</HI> time the 14. began the vile &s;uper|&s;tition of baptizing Bels; <HI>Simp&s;ons</HI> Hi&s;tory of the Church, <HI>Cent.</HI> 10. Or to take the Church doors, &amp;c. But whither am I wandring? I &s;ay no more of this, but leave my name &s;ake <HI>Tom</HI> to his own choice.</P>
<P N="2">2. I wonder that a wi&s;e man, as <HI>Tho. Hall,</HI> &s;hould have &s;o little wit, or &s;o much idle time, to &s;et up &s;uch a &s;trong guard in defence of that which none intends to take from him; we baptize in <HI>Rivers,</HI> not in <HI>Fonts;</HI> we do not intend to take them from you; no, we know not what to do with them, unle&s;s &amp;c.</P>
<P>But 3. Did you ever read in Scripture of the <HI>Font,</HI> or of baptizing in the <HI>Font?</HI> I know you have not. I remember I have read in the Popi&s;h Hi&s;tories of the holy <HI>Font,</HI> in the fir&s;t in&s;titution of Infants bapti&s;m; from thence you had both, as in its time and place I &s;hall let you &s;ee.</P>
<P>Now to your Arguments, for that is it I intend to fall upon letting pa&s;s all other things; for if I rout you there, as I doubt not in the &s;trength of <HI>Jehovah,</HI> whom I &s;erve in my &s;pirit, but that I &s;hall rout you in all your twenty Arguments; &s;o the Commands of Chri&s;t, and practi&s;e of the Apo&s;tles may &s;tand clear before the &s;ons of men; and the Churches practi&s;e in baptizing Believers vindicated, in oppo|&s;ition to all gain&s;ayers. Now to your fir&s;t Argument, <HI>Page</HI> 8.</P>
<P>From the Covenant of grace which God made with the Faithfull and their Seed; they are confederates &s;ay you, joyned together in the Covenant of God, &amp;c.</P>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>Your fir&s;t Argument is this, <HI>Page</HI> 9.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>To whom&s;oever the Covenant it &s;elf belongs, to them al&s;o belongs the &s;eal of the Covenant.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>But the Covenant belongs to Believers and their Children.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo, <HI>The &s;eal of the Covenant belongs to them al&s;o.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>I an&s;wer: Fir&s;t, your <HI>Minor</HI> is denyed, That Children of Believers are in the Covenant of grace; and here lies the ground of your mi&s;carriage, ignorance, and error in this particular. We will there|fore come fir&s;t to con&s;ider the Covenant it &s;elf, which is the foundati|on on which you &s;tand, <HI>Gen.</HI> 17 7, 10, 11. This Covenant it &s;elf is wholly outward, and it con&s;i&s;ts of two parts; the one on Gods part to be performed, the other on <HI>Abrahams</HI> and his childrens part.
<PB N="3" REF="6"> That on Gods is in <HI>ver.</HI> 7, 8. <HI>I will be a God to thee, and to thy &s;eed after thee; and I will give unto thee, and to thy &s;eed after thee the Land of thy &s;ojourning, all the Land of Canaan for an everla&s;ting po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, and will be their God,</HI> This Covenant is outward, and con&s;i&s;ts of an outward promi&s;e, <HI>The Land of Canaan, &amp;c.</HI> and is not in it &s;elf the everla&s;ting Covenant of grace: Its true, there is grace in this Covenant, yet it is not the Covenant of grace; there is grace in this, for it is grace for God declaratively to be a God to a People. And &s;econdly, there was the everla&s;ting grace included typically in this Covenant, for it relates in the my&s;terie unto Chri&s;t, as all outward Covenants, Services, and the Land of Canaan it &s;elf did, <HI>Gal.</HI> 3. 6 <HI>Col.</HI> 2. 17. <HI>Heb.</HI> 4. from <HI>ver.</HI> 3. to the 8. That it was an outward Covenant, will appear. 1. The thing promi&s;ed in the Covenant was outward <HI>i. e.</HI> The Land of Canaan.</P>
<P>Object. <HI>He promi&s;ed to be a God unto them in an everla&s;ting Co|venant.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. This was a promi&s;e in an outward Covenant, as will ap|pear <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 10. 22, 23. compared with <HI>Rom.</HI> 9. 29. <HI>Though the Children of I&s;rael be as the &s;and of the &s;ea, yet a remnant of them &s;hall be &s;aved:</HI> Now if God had been a God unto them in the Covenant of grace, they mu&s;t have been all &s;aved, and have continued in that Covenant unto this day; but it being but an outward and typical Covenant, re|lating to Chri&s;t the antitype and &s;ub&s;tance; when Chri&s;t was come, that Covenant was di&s;&s;olved into Chri&s;t, and is given forth upon the true &s;piritual account, to the &s;piritual &s;eed, <HI>Gal.</HI> 3. 16. with 29.</P>
<P N="2">2. Its &s;aid to be <HI>an everla&s;ting Covenant,</HI> either 1. becau&s;e it was to continue its appointed time, &s;o called Everla&s;ting, as u&s;ually the old Te&s;tament Ordinances were: &s;o God promi&s;ed in this Covenant to give the Land of Canaan for an everla&s;ting po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion: yet they are, and have been many hundreds of years turned out of it; and if they had not, yet that could but have been a poffe&s;&s;ion for them in their generations till the end of the world. But the Covenant of grace rea|ches to eternity, without end, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 103. 17. Hence the Prie&s;thood of the Law was called an everla&s;ting Prie&s;thood. <HI>Exod.</HI> 40. 15. <HI>Num.</HI> 25. 13. Or &s;econdly, its called Everla&s;ting, upon the account of Chri&s;t, who was the &s;ub&s;tance, and the Covenant it &s;elf when he came, ending all other Covenants and Services, <HI>I&s;a</HI> 42. 6. So <HI>Davids</HI> Kingdom was &s;aid to be Everla&s;ting, upon the account of Chri&s;t, who was, and is the true &s;piritual King, of whom <HI>David</HI> was a type. 2 <HI>Sam.</HI> 7. 16. <HI>P&s;.</HI> 89. 35, 36. compared with <HI>Ezek.</HI> 37. 24, 25. <HI>David</HI> was dead long be|fore;
<PB N="4" REF="7"> yet <HI>David,</HI> viz. <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> mu&s;t be their <HI>King for ever.</HI> Thus it ap|pears fir&s;t from the Covenant it &s;elf on Gods part, that it was not the Covenant of grace, though grace was darkly and typically included in it, only the enlightened renewed &s;oul &s;aw into it, and partaked of Chri&s;t the &s;ub&s;tance.</P>
<P>But &s;econdly, it will appear likewi&s;e if we con&s;ider the &s;econd part of the Covenant on <HI>Abraham</HI> and his childrens part: <HI>Every man|child &s;hall be circumci&s;ed at eight dayes old,</HI> v. 10. 11, 12. Here is an ex|ternal obedience &s;uitable to an external covenant: God promi&s;eth the land of <HI>Canaan;</HI> in lieu of this they mu&s;t be circumci&s;ed, which &s;hall be a &s;ign of their obedience, and to God of his Covenant, as the Rain-bow in another ca&s;e.</P>
<P N="2">2. The Covenant being thus con&s;idered, it followeth, that notwith|&s;tanding this Covenant was to <HI>Abraham</HI> and his &s;eed natural, yet it is not to Believers now and their &s;eed natural. This denies your <HI>Minor,</HI> and this Scripture produced by you doth not prove it. Your other Scripture <HI>Act.</HI> 2. 39. I &s;hall an&s;wer in its place, when I come to your Argument drawn from it. And whereas you &s;ay, <HI>That there are &s;ome Infants in the Covenant of grace,</HI> I deny it po&s;itively that there are Infants in the Covenant of grace upon your account, <HI>viz.</HI> the account of nature, becau&s;e born of believing parents; all fle&s;hly boa&s;ting be|ing taken away, <HI>Rom.</HI> 3. 27. As the Covenant to <HI>Abraham</HI> and his &s;eed was outward and typical; &s;o the Covenant of Chri&s;t, or Chri&s;t the Covenant is to the &s;piritual &s;eed, and that only; tho&s;e who are of the &s;aith of <HI>Abraham,</HI> who <HI>do the works of Abraham,</HI> they, and they only are the &s;eed of <HI>Abraham, Joh.</HI> 8. 39. <HI>He is not a Jew that is one outward|ly, but he is a Jew that is one inwardly, Rom.</HI> 2. 28, 29. where as the outward Covenant, &s;o the natural &s;eed are cut off, and only the &s;piri|tual &s;tands. And whereas you &s;ay, there is an outward being in this Covenant, &amp;c. <HI>I&s;hmael</HI> was circumcj&s;ed: I &s;ay &s;o too; for in it &s;elf it was wholly outward; this and all other Covenants and &s;ervices were outward and typical, except the fir&s;t promi&s;e <HI>Gen.</HI> 3. The Cove|nant of grace now in the dayes of Chri&s;t, is wholly &s;piritual. Tho&s;e then that were enlightened, which were but few, &s;aw and enjoyed the &s;ub&s;tance in the &s;hadow and form; We fir&s;t the &s;ub&s;tance, and with it the form: They were fir&s;t brought by works to Chri&s;t; we fir&s;t to Chri&s;t, and then to works as fruits of faith.</P>
<P>And whereas you conclude Bapti&s;m to be <HI>a Seal of the Covenant of Grace,</HI> you are as much be&s;ides the truth in this, as in the Covenant it
<PB N="5" REF="7"> &s;elf. Becau&s;e you have heard others &s;ay it, therefore you affirm it too, as children u&s;e to &s;peak by tradition: but where is your Scripture for it? Did you ever read of any New-Te&s;tament &s;eal, be&s;ides the Spirit of Chri&s;t? <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 1. 13. <HI>ch.</HI> 4. 30. But I &s;uppo&s;e becau&s;e that it's &s;aid <HI>Rom.</HI> 4. 11. that <HI>Abraham received the &s;ign of Circumci&s;ion, a &s;eal of the righteou&s;ne&s;s of his faith</HI> which he had before he was circumci&s;ed, that therefore <HI>Bapti&s;m is a &s;eal of the Covenant of grace:</HI> Oh gro&s;s mi&s;take! <HI>Abraham</HI> believed God when he fir&s;t promi&s;ed him the land of <HI>Canaan,</HI> and commanded him to for&s;ake all and go into it, and that he would keep him and ble&s;s him, <HI>Gen.</HI> 12. Here <HI>Abraham</HI> be|lieved God, and obeyed, and went out <HI>not knowing whither;</HI> and <HI>v.</HI> 17. God gave him Circumci&s;ion a &s;ign and &s;eal to confirm his faith, which he had before in this promi&s;e. And as Circumci&s;ion was given a &s;eal of <HI>Abrahams</HI> faith in Gods promi&s;ing him the land of <HI>Canaan;</HI> &s;o the Spirt of grace is the &s;eal of faith to every believer of his intere&s;t in the &s;piritual land, the &s;ub&s;tance of the outward, the Lord Je&s;us. So you are lo&s;t both in Covenant, in Seal, in the Subjects of the Covenant and all.</P>
<P>You mention <HI>Gal.</HI> 4. 28. I &s;ay, upon the Go&s;pel-account its truth, as <HI>I&s;aac</HI> was heir to that Covenant, &s;o all true believers are heirs of the true promi&s;e, and none el&s;e. Whereas you &s;ay <HI>pag.</HI> 11. in way of an&s;wer to an objection, <HI>That theirs is old, and ended &amp;c.</HI> you an&s;wer, <HI>That to make that old, none but carnal Anabapti&s;ts will do it.</HI> Your mouth is wide, but let it pa&s;s. I an&s;wer, To make that Covenant which was of an outward land, the &s;ame as ours which is of a &s;piritual land; to bring in the natural &s;eed upon that account, when it is only to the &s;piritual &s;eed, none but a carnal and blind generation of men dare to do. Chri&s;t &s;aith, <HI>Joh.</HI> 4. 24 <HI>God is a Spirit, and they that wor|&s;hip him mu&s;t wor&s;hip in &s;pirit and in truth, and &s;uch the Father &s;eeks to wor&s;hip him.</HI> Je&s;us Chri&s;t came forth from the Father for that end, that he might gain a &s;piritual people to wor&s;hip: but your great work is to get in a natural people, a carnal people, the fle&s;hly &s;eed; &s;o contradicting the end of God in giving Chri&s;t: upholding the Co|venant made with <HI>Abraham</HI> and <HI>Mo&s;es;</HI> &s;o denying Chri&s;t to be come in the fle&s;h: I will not &s;ay, at pre&s;ent, for your own ends and in|tere&s;ts.</P>
<P>The force of your fir&s;t Argument being thus untwi&s;ted, and its weakne&s;s and invalidity laid open, I need not trace you in your Pa|rallels: what I have already written, puts an end to your Parallels, as
<PB N="6" REF="8"> far as you imagine they tend to uphold the &s;trength of your Ar|guments. I &s;hall pre&s;ent another Parallel from what I have declared, leaving it to the judgment of the judicious Reader to con&s;ider.</P>
<P><TABLE>
<ROW>
<CELL>1. The Covenant made with <HI>A|braham</HI> was an outward cove|nant, and promi&s;e of the Land of <HI>Canaan. Gen.</HI> 17. 10, 11, 12.</CELL>
<CELL>1. <HI>Ours is a &s;piritual Covenant, and promi&s;e of &amp; in Je&s;us Chri&s;t the true spiritual Land of re&s;t,</HI> Heb. 4. 4. to 8.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>2. That was made with <HI>Abraham</HI> and his natural &s;eed, <HI>Gen.</HI> 17. 7, 8.</CELL>
<CELL>2. <HI>Ours is a Covenant made with Chri&s;t and all his &s;piritual &s;eed,</HI> I&s;a 59. 21. Gal. 3 29.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>3. Circumci&s;ion was the &s;eal of that Covenant, <HI>Rom.</HI> 4. 11.</CELL>
<CELL>3. <HI>But the Spirit of grace is the &s;eal of our covenant,</HI> Eph. 1 <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">3. 4 30.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>4. That was a Covenant that ma+ny, mo&s;t of tho&s;e in it, mi&s;&s;ed of eternal life, <HI>Rom.</HI> 2. 27.</CELL>
<CELL>4 <HI>Ours is a covenant &s;ure &amp; &s;ted|fa&s;t, eternal everla&s;ting to tho&s;e once truly in it,</HI> I&s;a. 55 3. Jer. 31. 31 32. Joh 10. 28, 29.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>5. That was a Covenant that might be broken, and had an end; as all types end when the &s;ub|&s;tance comes.</CELL>
<CELL>5. <HI>Ours is a Covenant that cannot be broken, nor &s;hall ever have an end, being the &s;ub&s;tance it &s;elf of the type.</HI></CELL>
</ROW>
</TABLE></P>
<P>Now to your &s;econd Argument from Circumci&s;ion.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD><HI>The &s;econd Argument,</HI> p. 13.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>Such as were circumci&s;ed under the Law, may be baptized under the Go&s;pel.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>But the Jews with their Infants were circumci&s;ed under the Law</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo, <HI>Chri&s;tians and their Infants may be baptized under the Go&s;pel.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>You confe&s;s that your <HI>Major</HI> is que&s;tioned, as well it may be &s;o: I could give you &s;everal Arguments which you would not like, as well grounded as this of yours; but I forbear. For proof of your <HI>Major,</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. You &s;ay, <HI>They are under the &s;ame Covenant.</HI> That is denied, and ra&s;ed in my An&s;wer to your former argument: It is neither the &s;ame Covenant, nor the &s;ame &s;eal; an outward &s;eal to an outward Cove|nant, an inward &s;eal to an inward Covenant.</P>
<PB N="7" REF="8">
<P N="2">2. You &s;ay, <HI>There is the &s;ame rea&s;on for the one as for the other: our chil|dren are born in original &s;in as well as theirs, &amp; have the &s;ame need of the &s;eal.</HI> Oh unimaginable blindne&s;s! was Circumci&s;ion or Bapti&s;m either ever given to &s;eal up the pardon of original &s;in? If it was, then it mu&s;t be pardoned, or not pardoned: if pardoned, then &s;ure; el&s;e it is but the putting a &s;eal to a blank. But the truth is, they were never given ei|ther of them upon that account, or for that end, to &s;eal up the pardon of original &s;in. And whereas you &s;ay there is the &s;ame rea&s;on for the one as for the other, it is denied; for the command of God is the rea|&s;on of the one and of the other; God commanded Infants to be cir|cumci&s;ed, he hath commanded Believers to be baptized; and 'tis rea&s;on that he &s;hould be obeyed as in the fir&s;t, &s;o in the &s;econd; it's an un|rea&s;onable and wicked thing to contradict by contrary actions the commands of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P N="3">3. You &s;ay, <HI>If Bapti&s;m &s;ucceed in the place of Circumci&s;ion, then Bapti&s;m belongs to tho&s;e to whom Circumci&s;ion did belong. But Bapti&s;m doth &s;ucceed in the place of Circumci&s;ion.</HI> Ergo, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> I an&s;wer, your <HI>Minor</HI> is denied. 1. There is no Scripture that &s;aith that Bapti&s;m was ordained in the place of <HI>Circumci&s;ion;</HI> it's your own invention, never mentioned by the Apo&s;tles of Chri&s;t. The Scriptures you men|tion, <HI>Act.</HI> 2. 38, 39. <HI>Col.</HI> 2. 11, 12. have not the lea&s;t hint in them to the thing in hand, and are abundantly abu&s;ed and wre&s;ted to that for which they were never intended, as will appear. 2. You confe&s;s that <HI>Bapti&s;m was in force before Circumci&s;ion was aboli&s;hed.</HI> Circumci&s;ion and Bapti&s;m &s;tood both in force by a Law for &s;ome years, at lea&s;t 3 or 4 years. Now if Bapti&s;m had come in the room of Circumci&s;ion, then Circumci&s;ion mu&s;t have cea&s;ed when Bapti&s;m came: But Circumci&s;ion did not cea&s;e when Bapti&s;m came; Therefore Bapti&s;m came not in the room of it. If it be objected, that <HI>Paul</HI> circumci&s;ed <HI>Timothy</HI> after the a&s;cen&s;ion of Chri&s;t; I an&s;wer, that was becau&s;e of the <HI>Jewes</HI> for their weakne&s;s: but it was in being by the Law of God untill the death of Chri&s;t. So then I rea&s;on thus: That which put an end to Circumci&s;ion, came in the room of Circumci&s;ion; but Chri&s;t put an end to Circumci&s;ion, therefore he is come in the room of Circumci|&s;ion. That it was Chri&s;t, and not Bapti&s;m that put an end to Circum|ci&s;ion, is cleer, <HI>Rom.</HI> 10. 4. <HI>Gal.</HI> 5. 2, 3. So that Bapti&s;m did not put an end to Circumci&s;ion, but Chri&s;t did; therefore Bapti&s;m came not in the room of Circumci&s;ion. 3. It could not come in the room of Cir|cumci&s;ion to them that never had Circumci&s;ion: but women were
<PB N="8" REF="9"> never circumci&s;ed, the Gentiles were never circumci&s;ed; and it could not come in the room of Circumci&s;ion to tho&s;e which never were cir|cumci&s;ed. But you will &s;ay that women were virtually circumci&s;ed in the men, &amp;c. And why are they not baptized virtually in the men too? if you will take your rule from Circumci&s;ion, let them be baptized in the men too. 4. There is no parity, but a di&s;parity between Bapti&s;m and Circumci&s;ion, as your &s;elf in &s;ome things have noted. 1. In the action, 2. in the time, 3. in the &s;ubject, 4. in the end. Fir&s;t, in the acti|on; that was the cutting of the foreskin of the fle&s;h, which occa&s;ioned blood; this of Bapti&s;m a dipping into or under water. Secondly, for the time; that was to be done at eight dayes old, this of Bapti&s;m when the party de&s;ireth it, profe&s;&s;ing faith and repentance to the &s;ati&s;|fying of the Church, be when it will. Thirdly, for the &s;ubject; that was the Male only, this of Bapti&s;m is to be admini&s;tred on both men and women, profe&s;&s;ing faith in our Lord Je&s;us, and repentance to|wards God. Fourthly, for the end, that is far wide, as will appear in this en&s;uing Parallel.</P>
<P><TABLE>
<ROW>
<CELL>1. Circumci&s;ion &s;et forth Chri&s;t to come.</CELL>
<CELL>1. <HI>Bapti&s;m declares Chri&s;t already come.</HI></CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>2. Circumci&s;ion repre&s;ented the circumci&s;ion of the heart, the cutting off of &s;in and &s;elf, &amp;c.</CELL>
<CELL>2. <HI>Bapti&s;m declares the wa&s;hing a|way of the guilt of &s;in and death, and burial with Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</HI></CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>3. That was a &s;eal of <HI>Abra|hams</HI> faith.</CELL>
<CELL>3. <HI>Bapti&s;m is no &s;eal, but the Spi|rit of Chri&s;t.</HI></CELL>
</ROW>
</TABLE></P>
<P>The&s;e things con&s;idered, there is neither probability, rea&s;on, or Scripture for the coming of Bapti&s;m in the room of Circumci&s;ion. Fir&s;t, there is no Scripture for it: when fal&s;e Apo&s;tles went about to bring in Circumci&s;ion, <HI>Act.</HI> 15. 10. <HI>Gal.</HI> 1. the Apo&s;tle never mentions Bapti&s;m at all; if it had come in the room of Circumci&s;ion, they might ea&s;ily have &s;topped their mouths with this; You have Bapti&s;m in the room of it, what need you trouble your &s;elves &s;o much? But they never made u&s;e of this as an an&s;wer; therefore its evident that it came not in the room of it. 2. It was in being together. 3. It could not be &s;o to them that were never circumci&s;ed. And 4. there being no parity between them, I adde 5. If you will have it in the room of &s;omething, why might it not come in the room of tho&s;e Legal wa&s;hings that were among&s;t the Jews, as well as in the room
<PB N="9" REF="9"> of Circumci&s;ion? there is a parity in the one, and likelier in the end too, but none in the other; their Religion <HI>viz.</HI> the <HI>Jews,</HI> con&s;i&s;ted in divers wa&s;hings, <HI>Heb.</HI> 9. 10. &s;o that if you mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity have it to come in the room of any thing, why not in the room of tho&s;e wa&s;h|ings? Yet I do not believe that it came in the room of this or any other legal Ordinance; but that God gave what Ordinances he plea&s;ed to that mini&s;tration, and Je&s;us Chri&s;t gave what Ordinances he plea&s;ed to this mini&s;tration: not one Ordinance putting out the other; but Chri&s;t being the end of all, gives out new upon his own account.</P>
<P>But &s;econdly, put ca&s;e what you &s;ay were truth, that it were come in the room of Circumci&s;ion, which can never be proved either from Scripture or rea&s;on; yet what will this help you? We are, or profe&s;s our &s;elves to be Chri&s;ts &s;ervants: then hearken to him, and obey his voice; receive the Law from his mouth, for he is the Me&s;&s;enger of the Lord of Ho&s;ts. Let Chri&s;t be King; give but &s;o much honour to him as to inform you who is to be baptized, and the time when it is to be done, &amp; the manner how, and the controver&s;ie will be &s;oon ended. The truth of the bu&s;ine&s;s being thus con&s;idered, your A&s;&s;ertion and yout Parallels I leave to the con&s;ideration of the under&s;tanding Read|er, and &s;o pur&s;ue you to your third Argument.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>The third Argument.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>Where there is a command for a thing never yet countermanded or for|bidden, there that thing is &s;till in force.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>But there is a command for &s;igning the Infants of believers, never yet countermanded or forbidden.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo, <HI>It is &s;till in force.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>This Argument is ea&s;ily an&s;wered, only it's &s;tated confu&s;edly; if you intend by the command for &s;igning Believers children, that of Cir|cumci&s;ion, as I &s;uppo&s;e you do, then I think that is repealed and for|bidden, for the Apo&s;tle &s;aith to the <HI>Galatians,</HI> that if they be <HI>circum|ci&s;ed, Chri&s;t &s;hall profit them nothing at all.</HI> And if you deny this truth, we may well take the Apo&s;tles advice, <HI>Phil.</HI> 3. <HI>Beware of the conci&s;ion; for we are the Circumci&s;ion, who wor&s;hip God in the Spirit, &amp;c.</HI> If you by the &s;ign intend Bapti&s;m, you had done well to &s;hew where it was commanded to Infants; and if nowhere commanded, then no need of
<PB N="10" REF="10"> <HI>repealing</HI> or <HI>forbidding.</HI> If you intend that Bapti&s;m was commanded in Circumci&s;ion, that hath been an&s;wered already; and it is but a whim&s;ie of your own head, there hath not been any Scripture yet pro|duced for the confirmation of it, nor ever is like to be: all you &s;ay in this, is but the &s;ub&s;tance of what you have &s;aid already; you dance a|bout in a line, and are gotten no further yet then in your former Ar|guments; it's ju&s;t the old Proverb, <HI>A great cry, and a little wooll.</HI> Truly, if you did know and love the Lord Je&s;us, you could not, you would not dare to go back to lay the foundation of Go&s;pel ordinan|ces in Legal in&s;titutions; but you would look to Chri&s;t, and hearken what he hath &s;aid; and believe it, every one that refu&s;eth to look to him, &s;hall be cut off from among his people, <HI>Act.</HI> 3. 22, 23.</P>
<P>You &s;ay, <HI>Let any man &s;hew if he can, when where, and how this privi|ledge was abrogated.</HI> I an&s;wer, it was abrogated and repealed in Chri&s;t: that as all the Services, Ceremonies, Covenants, <HI>Canaan,</HI> Natural &s;eed, and all was typical; &s;o Chri&s;t is the body and &s;ub&s;tance of all the&s;e &s;ervices, ceremonies &amp;c. and the &s;piritual people, believers, are the &s;ub|&s;tance typed out in the natural &s;eed. So that as the natural &s;eed were accounted for the &s;eed, that is repealed, <HI>Joh.</HI> 8. 39, 44. with <HI>Rom.</HI> 2. 28, 29. and only the &s;piritual are accounted for the &s;eed.</P>
<P>You talk much of priviledge, as if baptizing of Infants were &s;uch a priviledge to them. I an&s;wer, 1. Our priviledges do not con&s;i&s;t in externals; but as the Covenant was made with the &s;piritual &s;eed, &s;o the priviledges of the Covenant are &s;uitable to it; &s;ee <HI>Heb.</HI> 8. from the 6. ver&s;e to the end. And truly it bewrayes abundance of ignorance in tho&s;e that cry out &s;o much about priviledge, as if the priviledge of the Covenant of grace con&s;i&s;ted &s;o much in out&s;ide things. What privi|ledge it was to the <HI>Jews</HI> to be circumci&s;ed, I know not, I mean to tho&s;e who were never circumci&s;ed in their hearts; or what priviledge it is to Infants to be baptized, I wonder, unle&s;s you will make it a priviledge to be in the form without the power, and &s;o to make &s;ouls think them&s;elves Chri&s;tians when they are none, &s;o deceiving and de|luding them. Certainly this will be but a &s;ad priviledge one day, when both teachers and taught mu&s;t give an account together. I could &s;ome|times be freely willing to part even with tears of blood, in &s;ight and &s;en&s;e of tho&s;e many thou&s;ands, yea millions of &s;ouls deeply deluded with pretended priviledges, who think them&s;elves in a good conditi|on, and in a moment go down to hell. <HI>For the wicked mu&s;t be turned into hell, and all tho&s;e who forget God.</HI> And <HI>the Leaders of the people</HI>
<PB N="11" REF="10"> <HI>cau&s;e them to erre, and they that are led of them are de&s;troyed,</HI> I&s;a 9. 16. Is it not much better, more &s;afe, and an act of faithfulne&s;s for parents to deal faithfully with their children, and let them know that they are not in the Covenant of grace, but that by nature they are children of wrath as well as others, that &s;o they may through mercy come to the &s;ight of their natural condition, and their need of Chri&s;t; rather then to delude them with toyes and fancies, meer imaginations of the fle&s;hly mind vainly puffed up? Oh the Lord will make you know one day what it is thus to lift up your &s;elves in fle&s;hly boa&s;ting, and to make a no&s;e of wax of the Covenant of grace, turn it which way you plea&s;e, in one day, and out another. 1. Believers children in; 2. All profe&s;&s;ing Chri&s;t in, though never &s;o wicked; 3. Ba&s;tards in, all in, and all as &s;oon and as well as any. (See <HI>pag.</HI> 5.) I mu&s;t tell you, and that from the Lord, you will have a &s;ad account to give to the Lord one day, if mer|cy prevent not, for your abu&s;ing the Covenant of grace, and thru&s;ting a fle&s;hly generation upon the Lord, when he is &s;eeking a &s;piritual, a holy &s;eed to wor&s;hip him: and I would have you to know, that tho&s;e you &s;o often, and with &s;o much contempt and reproach term <HI>Ana|bapti&s;ts,</HI> are not &s;o <HI>&s;imple</HI> as you would per&s;wade the world to believe; they are able through mercy to &s;ee into your forgeries and delu&s;ions, and to di&s;cover them too in a mea&s;ure; and to di&s;tingui&s;h between Law and Go&s;pel, Covenant and Covenant, not confounding things together, <HI>&s;o denying Chri&s;t to be come in the fle&s;h.</HI></P>
<P>I &s;hall in a word give you the difference. The Covenant of the Law, either that with <HI>Abraham</HI> or with <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> was a Covenant without them, and the my&s;terie or &s;ub&s;tance was hid from all (though all was in it) unle&s;s tho&s;e few taught of God: The Covenant of the Go&s;pel is wholly &s;piritual, and none are in it but the &s;piritual &s;eed, <HI>viz.</HI> true believers; though hypocrites may come in to the outward profe&s;&s;ion, yet they have nothing to do to be there, for there is no out&s;ide in the Covenant of grace. That which you call the outward Covenant, is but the outward profe&s;&s;ion of the invi&s;ible grace, and that is proper only to tho&s;e who are in it: &amp; although the Di&s;ciples did, and we may admit tho&s;e that may prove hypocrites; yet neither did they, nor may we admit any by bapti&s;m into the vi&s;ible profe&s;&s;ion of the invi&s;ible grace, but tho&s;e we judge by the rule of truth in this particular to have true faith; and if any come in that have it not, to their own peril it will be. Therefore if this be truth, as I am &s;ure it is, what account will tho&s;e give to the Lord, who bring in the natural &s;eed to the profe&s;&s;ion
<PB N="12" REF="11"> of the &s;piritual Covenant, and &s;o make them hypocrites: A day will come, <HI>when the &s;inners in Sion &s;hall be afraid, and fearfulne&s;s &s;hall &s;ur|pri&s;e the hypocrite,</HI> I&s;a. 33. So I conclude, that Infants are not in the Covenant of grace, nor were ever commanded to be baptized, there|fore have no right unto it.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>The fourth Argument.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>Chri&s;tians ought to be baptized.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>But Infants of Chri&s;tians are Chri&s;tians.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo, <HI>They ought to be baptized.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. If this Argument were truth, it were a very ea&s;ie thing to be a Chri&s;tian. Born Chri&s;tians by nature! no need of Chri&s;t, the Go&s;pel, Spirit, Regeneration, any thing; it makes void all the whole Go&s;pel of grace and peace; a doctrine of Devils indeed: Do you not remember that <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aith, <HI>If any man preach any other Go&s;pel then what he had preached, he &s;hould be accur&s;ed,</HI> Gal. 1. But you have found out another Go&s;pel, Chri&s;tians by the natural generation and birth; Cur&s;ed be all &s;uch &s;oul deceiving, and &s;oul de&s;troying Doctrines. You pretend to prove your <HI>Minor</HI> with much clearne&s;s, <HI>As all the parings of Gold are Gold, &s;o all the children of Chri&s;tians are Chri&s;tians:</HI> The parings of gold are true gold; and the children of Chri&s;tians by this account are true Chri&s;tians, pared out from the &s;piritual man, being of the &s;ame nature: oh high priviledge! Chri&s;tians can beget Chri&s;ti|ans, Saints can beget Saints by natural generation. Certainly if one of the preaching brethren had laid down &s;uch an a&s;&s;ertion, you would have counted him an illiterate <HI>Ignoramus,</HI> one altogether unmeet to have medled with the Scriptures, or to have &s;poken of the things of God: You would have accounted him no le&s;s then a bla&s;phemer, and worthy to be burnt with his Books. Well, but you proceed, <HI>As all the Children of the Jews were Jews by birth,</HI> Gal. 2. 15. <HI>And all the Chil|dren of the Turks are Turks by birth, &s;o all the Children of Chri&s;tians are Chri&s;tians, and have a right to Bapti&s;m.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. The Jews were all in an outward Covenant, and &s;o they were born Jews, <HI>viz.</HI> in that Covenant; but believers are in the Co|venant of grace, as hath been already proved, and none are born in that Covenant by natural generation and birth: &s;o that although Jews were Jews by birth, yet Chri&s;tians are not &s;o by the natural birth, <HI>for that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit.</HI></P>
<PB N="13" REF="11">
<P>But &s;econdly, the Jews were &s;o by birth, as a di&s;tingui&s;hing title from other Nations; &s;o the Turks are Turks, and the Spaniards are Spaniards, and the French are French, and the Engli&s;h are Engli&s;h by birth, but they neither of them are Chri&s;tians by birth.</P>
<P>But you &s;eem to mend all in an&s;wering an Objection. <HI>Then we &s;hould be born Chri&s;tians, and not made Chri&s;tians; we &s;hould be born children of God, and not children of wrath.</HI></P>
<P>You an&s;wer: <HI>Parents cannot convey grace to their Children, but a right to Church priviledges, &amp;c.</HI> unheard of non&s;ence and confu&s;ion, mi&s;erable bald &s;hifts men make to patch up their own inventions: 1. <HI>Chri&s;tians, yet no grace; a right to Church-priviledges, yet no grace; Members of the Church, yet no grace:</HI> page 23. <HI>Nay members of the Church, Chri&s;tians, a right to Church priviledges, holy, &amp;c. and yet have no grace, are the children of wrath, page</HI> 23. the&s;e are like to be goodly Chri&s;tians, Church Members, &amp;c. Yet you di&s;like with the Anabapti&s;ts for not taking notice of this di&s;tinction, &amp;c. A &s;trange kind of di&s;tinction; to make them Chri&s;tians, yet no Chri&s;tians; Members of the Church, yet children of wrath. I &s;uppo&s;e you would learn to di&s;tingui&s;h a little better, were it not to plea&s;e the vulgar &s;ort of people, that &s;o they may plea&s;e you, in feeding you with the Tythes. A &s;ad thing, when you &s;hall lead along &s;ouls blind with the name of Chri&s;tian, yet children of wrath, and if mercy prevent not, are like to peri&s;h eternally, for all the name of Chri&s;tian: Thus are &s;ouls deluded by their Teachers, called Chri&s;tians, made Church-mem|bers, and yet <HI>Children of wrath, &amp;c. Alike children of wrath as Hea|thens,</HI> page 10.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="argument">
<PB N="14" REF="12">
<HEAD>The fifth Argument.</HEAD>
<P>From Chri&s;ts command and commi&s;&s;ion to his Di&s;ciples, <HI>Mat.</HI> 28. 19. and from the Apo&s;tles practi&s;e, an&s;werable to that command, thus your argue.</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>That which is both commanded and commended, that hath both precept, pre&s;ident, and promi&s;e for it, may lawfully be practi&s;ed by the Mi|ni&s;ters of Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>But Infant-Bapti&s;m is both commanded and commended; for it there is both precept, pre&s;ident, and promi&s;e.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>Well &s;aid name&s;ake <HI>Tom:</HI> Prove this, and thou ha&s;t done the deed that never yet was done: Prove this, and I will lay down my Argu|ments and practi&s;e too. Had you a good cau&s;e, you its like would be very bold, that you dare be &s;o bold in a&s;&s;erting &s;uch an Argument in &s;uch po&s;itive terms, when there is never a word in Scripture of either precept, pre&s;ident, or promi&s;e to the thing you are pleading for: &s;o that your <HI>Minor</HI> is denyed.</P>
<P>You pretend to prove it, <HI>Mat.</HI> 28. 19. you &s;ay, <HI>Chri&s;t Commandeth his Di&s;ciples, and in them all Mini&s;ters &s;ucce&s;&s;ively, to the end of the world, to go and baptize Nations;</HI> you &s;ay, <HI>Children are a part of the Nations, therefore they are commanded to be baptized:</HI> but there is, as you afterwards confe&s;s, a <HI>Di&s;cipling fir&s;t, Di&s;ciple Nations, baptizing them,</HI> and here is no command for Infant-bapti&s;m, but for the bap|ti&s;m of Di&s;ciples; you pretend to put off this <HI>with the dangerou&s;ne&s;s of building Arguments on the bare placing of words in Scripture;</HI> you produce <HI>Repentance and</HI> Judas's <HI>&s;op: Repentance &s;ometimes placed before Faith, yet we know it is a fruit of Faith.</HI></P>
<P>I an&s;wer, it is &s;uch a fruit of faith as is individual; and upon a right under&s;tanding, Repentance may as well be &s;aid to go before, as to follow after; for it is a change of the mind; and I querie whether any man did ever believe, or can believe before his mind is changed; its true, after believing the change is perfected more and more. But this is it which I affirm, That no man believes &s;avingly without or before a change of the mind, which produceth a change of the con|ver&s;ation: As for the Sop, neither <HI>Matthew</HI> nor <HI>Mark</HI> &s;aith that
<PB N="15" REF="12"> <HI>Judas</HI> received it before the Sacrament; <HI>Matthew</HI> &s;aith <HI>chap.</HI> 26. 23. <HI>He that dippeth with me in the di&s;h &s;hall betray me;</HI> but he doth not ex|pre&s;s when it was done, before or after; &s;o <HI>Mark</HI> expre&s;&s;eth <HI>chap.</HI> 14. 20. <HI>That he that dippeth with him in the di&s;h &s;hould betray him,</HI> but he doth not tell whether it was before or after; therefore what <HI>Luke</HI> &s;aith is no contradiction, but rather a clearer explanation. And where|as you &s;ay you will <HI>upon the account of placing words, ea&s;ily prove Bap|ti&s;m to be before Preaching,</HI> Mark 1. 4. <HI>John did baptize in the Wilder|ne&s;s, and preach, &amp;c. Here Bapti&s;m is &s;et before Preaching &s;ay you, &amp;c.</HI> but this is an&s;wered and explained by <HI>Matthew</HI> Chap. 3. 1, 2. <HI>John the Bapti&s;t preached in the Wilderne&s;s of Judea, &s;aying, Repent, for the King|dom of heaven is at hand,</HI> and ver. 5, 6. <HI>they were baptized of him in Jor|dan:</HI> And this is according to the Analogie of Scripture, Preaching, Di&s;cipling, believing, confe&s;&s;ing of &s;ins, repenting before baptizing; and produce if you can, that ever baptizing was &s;et before believing, &amp;c. and not explained by another Scripture, as that of <HI>Mark</HI> explain|ed by <HI>Matthew:</HI> and then take heed, fear and tremble to change Scripture phra&s;es at your plea&s;ure, for your own ends, taking that fir&s;t, which is and mu&s;t be la&s;t. You may upon this very account turn out, and contradict all the mo&s;t precious truth of God in Scripture; and this very thing &s;trikes at it; for the rea&s;on why Teaching, Di&s;ci|pling and Faith is to precede bapti&s;m, is evident, that it is becau&s;e its Chri&s;ts appointment, and there is a nece&s;&s;ity that faith go before works; for there is no work acceptable before, or without faith; but <HI>Thomas Hall</HI> will have works go before faith, bapti&s;m before faith; though Chri&s;t hath &s;aid the contrary, and &s;o make void the Law of Chri&s;t, and the Faith of Je&s;us, lay another foundation, works before faith, bapti&s;m before believing, and &s;o teach men to &s;in, <HI>For what-&s;oe|ver is not of faith is &s;in: And he that breaketh one of the lea&s;t Com|mands, and teacheth men &s;o to do, &s;hall be called the lea&s;t in the Kingdom of heaven,</HI> Mat. 5. 19. What then &s;hall become of tho&s;e who break the great commands of Faith and Bapti&s;m, that overturn the very foun|dation, &s;etting up works before and without Faith; and that you may do it, you chop and change the Scripture, that &s;o you may accom|pli&s;h your own de&s;igns upon the account of Chri&s;t. But all your Lo|gical Arguments, and humane di&s;tinctions will not, cannot &s;atisfie tho&s;e who&s;e eyes are enlightned, to &s;ee out of ob&s;curity, and out of darkne&s;s: So the truth &s;tands firm as Chri&s;t him&s;elf, that is, fir&s;t di&s;ci|ple, then baptize; and the practi&s;e of the Apo&s;tles an&s;wered this
<PB N="16" REF="13"> Command, they never baptized any in the Nations but Di&s;ciples; And this word <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">, <HI>Di&s;ciple all Nations,</HI> holds forth the breaking down of that middle wall of partition; and &s;o the going forth of the Go&s;pel to the Gentiles, for &s;o that word <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> &s;ig|nifieth, Gentiles as well as Nations; and it intends not all Nations, <HI>viz.</HI> every one in the Nations, but all that believed, and became Di&s;|ciples in the Nations, <HI>Act.</HI> 10. 35. <HI>In every Nation, he that feareth God, and worketh righteou&s;nes &s;hall be accepted.</HI> Now where is your command Sir for your practi&s;e &s;o much pleaded for? for you confe&s;s, pa. 28. <HI>That this place &s;peaks properly of the order pre&s;cribed for conver&s;ion of Hea|thens that were adult:</HI> Then you have no command in this Scripture for your practi&s;e; you are lo&s;t upon your own account.</P>
<P>You grant, page 29. <HI>That all baptized ones mu&s;t be taught, but not all at the &s;ame time; &s;uch as are capable of teaching, are to be taught be|fore baptizing; but Infants of believers are to be baptized fir&s;t, and taught afterward.</HI> But you have no Scripture for this, it &s;eems your word mu&s;t &s;tand for proof to tho&s;e who will believe it; you in&s;tance 2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 3. 10. <HI>He that will not labour, mu&s;t not eat; Infants cannot la|bour yet they mu&s;t eat.</HI> True, but what is that to the thing in hand? Do you think the Apo&s;tle intended that, to give advantage to you to overturn the Commands of Chri&s;t? there is a nece&s;&s;ity for Infants to eat, but none to be baptized, unle&s;s there be a nece&s;&s;ity to break the Law of Chri&s;t, and a nece&s;&s;ity to make them hypocrites, &amp;c.</P>
<P>You &s;ay, <HI>There is a teaching after baptizing,</HI> Mat. 28. 20. <HI>A teaching before and after; and that baptizing is &s;et in the middle, implying, that &s;ome mu&s;t be taught before</HI> (viz.) <HI>Heathens; &s;ome after</HI> (viz.) <HI>Infants of believers.</HI> But you are much mi&s;taken in the &s;econd; but it imply|eth that there is a teaching before for the working of faith, and a tea|ching after for the building them up in the &s;ame faith: for that end God hath appointed Prophets, Pa&s;tors, and Teachers in the Church; and tho&s;e Acts 2. 41. <HI>that were baptized,</HI> ver. 42. <HI>continued &s;tedfa&s;t in the Apo&s;tles doctrine, &amp;c.</HI> So that this is the teaching before and af|ter bapti&s;m there intended.</P>
<P>You confe&s;s <HI>page</HI> 31. notwith&s;tanding your bold a&s;&s;ertion in your Argument, <HI>That all your Command is but a con&s;equential command, and &s;omething equivalent to a command, an implicite command, a nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equence, &amp;c.</HI> I advi&s;e you to take heed, fir&s;t how you lay down Arguments for the future in &s;uch po&s;itive terms to delude the &s;imple, yet confe&s;s at la&s;t it is but a nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equence.</P>
<PB N="17" REF="13">
<P N="2"> 2. A little con&s;ider how nece&s;&s;ary the con&s;equence is; it is &s;uch a con&s;equence as fir&s;t makes void the command of Chri&s;t. 2. Makes null the Go&s;pel of grace, &s;etting up works before and without faith. 3. Makes all your wor&s;hip vain; <HI>In vain (&s;aith Chri&s;t) do ye wor&s;hip God, teaching for doctrines the traditions of men,</HI> Mat. 1. 5. 9. <HI>And thus you make the Commandments of God of none effect by your traditions,</HI> ver. 6. I &s;ay, if this be permitted, to draw con&s;equences from Scripture to o|verturn commands, it is the mo&s;t dangerous way that ever was invent|ed to u&s;her in Here&s;ie and Errour; and upon that account its ea&s;ie to turn out almo&s;t all the truth of God in Scripture, and &s;et it at variance again&s;t it &s;elf; we grant con&s;equences rightly grounded, but we deny con&s;equences to overturn Commands, and Go&s;pel, and all: As for all that you &s;ay from <HI>pag.</HI> 31. to 34. it is nothing but a reiteration of what hath been &s;aid before, either in this, or your former Arguments. And notwith&s;tanding you are plea&s;ed to &s;ay pag. 33. <HI>That Infant-Bap|ti&s;m is clear enough to tho&s;e who have eyes to &s;ee, or hearts to believe it.</HI> To &s;ee and believe what you &s;ay, and take your word for all; for there is neither Scripture nor Rea&s;on for it.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 34. You &s;ay, <HI>Since the Anabapti&s;ts call and cry &s;o much for a literal Command.</HI></P>
<P>By the way, Sir, Are you &s;uch an enemy to literal Commands? will you make void literal commands, to &s;et up your own inventions? or do you envy again&s;t them becau&s;e they overturn your practi&s;es?</P>
<P>You &s;ay, <HI>They may do well to give you Commands for many of their practi&s;es: As fir&s;t, what expre&s;s command they have to deny the Moral Law to be a rule of life.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> They deny not the Moral Law to be a rule of life to be|lievers in its e&s;&s;ence; but they deny it to be a rule of life as an admi|ni&s;tration in the hands of <HI>Mo&s;es:</HI> But Chri&s;t having taken it into his own hands, and fulfilled the righteou&s;ne&s;s of it, he gives it anew unto them, and it cea&s;eth to be any more the Law of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> but is the Law of Chri&s;t; this is cleared abundantly, 1 Joh. 2. 7, 8. Fir&s;t, <HI>It is no new Com|mandment, but the old.</HI></P>
<P>Yet &s;econdly, <HI>It is a new Commandment, which is true in him, and in us, becau&s;e the darkne&s;s is pa&s;t, and the true light now &s;hineth.</HI> So that notwith&s;tanding it is the &s;ub&s;tance of the old, yet it is new, becau&s;e in Chri&s;t, and from him to us, and in us: If this will not &s;atisfie, &s;ee 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3. 11. compared with 1 <HI>John</HI> 2. 7, 8.</P>
<P N="2">2. You Querie, <HI>What expre&s;s command again&s;t the coercive power of</HI>
<PB N="18" REF="14"> <HI>the Magi&s;trate?</HI> I &s;uppo&s;e you mean in the things of Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</P>
<P N="1">1. I &s;uppo&s;e if Magi&s;trates command any thing contrary to the mind of Chri&s;t, we are not to obey; they have nothing to do to make u&s;e of their coercive power there; if they do, they &s;in, and all men are com|manded not to &s;in. That it is a &s;in, is clear; That which contradicts the command of God is &s;in: <HI>Which &s;hall we obey, God or man? judge ye,</HI> Acts 4 19. There was the command of God, and the command of man in oppo&s;ition each to other, and there the command of man was &s;in|full.</P>
<P N="2">2. Je&s;us Chri&s;t is King of his Church, <HI>Rev.</HI> 15. 3. and its his work to make u&s;e of a coercive power, to bring in &s;ouls to his Kingdom, P&s;al. 110. 4 <HI>In the day of his power his people &s;hall be a willing people;</HI> and unle&s;s you can produce any Scripture, in which Chri&s;t hath re&s;ign|ed his power to the Magi&s;trate, I &s;uppo&s;e he is &s;till King of his Church; and tho&s;e who make u&s;e of a coercive power in his Kingdom, are at be&s;t but U&s;urpers.</P>
<P N="3">3. Chri&s;t hath entru&s;ted and impowered none but his Mini&s;ters with that work of gathering &s;ouls into his Kingdom; and this they are to do in his power, in his authority, and in his way: And tho&s;e who pretend them&s;elves to be the Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t, yet want the coercive power of the Magi&s;trate, declare them&s;elves to be none of his, not &s;erving the Lord Je&s;us, but their own bellies, &amp;c.</P>
<P N="4">4. There is the &s;ub&s;tance of an expre&s;s command, <HI>Rom</HI> 14. 4. <HI>Who art thou that judge&s;t another mans &s;ervant? to his own ma&s;ter he &s;tand|eth or falleth, &amp;c.</HI> And Jam. 4. 12. <HI>There is one Law giver, who is able to &s;ave and to de&s;troy; who art thou that judge&s;t another?</HI> Its clear, that none have power to judge and determine coercively, but he that hath a power to &s;ave and de&s;troy: And the Rea&s;on is drawn from <HI>ver.</HI> 11. that none hath power to judge of the Law, and give &s;entence, <HI>but he that is above the Law;</HI> and if any will go about to judge others by a coercive power, <HI>they are not doers of the Law, but Judges.</HI> This is meant only in Ca&s;es of Con&s;cience, relating to Je&s;us Chri&s;t; not but that Magi&s;trates may, and ought to take cognizance of Civil things, and &s;infull actions flowing from the corruptions of men; but matters Spiritual and Divine, tending to Wor&s;hip, there its the prerogative of God alone to judge.</P>
<P N="3">3. You querie, <HI>What command we have to &s;eparate from the Churches which hold the foundation pure?</HI> I an&s;wer, None at all that I know; neither do we &s;eparate from any &s;uch Churches, but from <HI>Babylon</HI>
<PB N="19" REF="14"> and <HI>Egypt,</HI> which hath been and is a <HI>cage of every unclean and hatefull birds;</HI> not true or pure either in its Con&s;titutions, Members, Mini&s;tery, or Ordinances: and we have a Command for what we do. See and well con&s;ider 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3. from the fir&s;t <HI>ver.</HI> to the fift, and <HI>Rev.</HI> 18 4.</P>
<P N="4">4. You querie, <HI>What command we have for Rebaptizing? An&s;.</HI> I know no &s;uch thing as rebaptizing: there is a command for bapti|zing believers; and that which you call baptizing, <HI>viz.</HI> &s;prinkling the faces of your Infants, we take no knowledge of it; you rantize them, and &s;ay you baptize them, &s;o &s;peak an untruth. So that the ju&s;t judg|ment of God is upon you, that having changed the Subject from a Be|liever to an Infant, you mu&s;t change the very Ordinance it &s;elf from baptizing to rantizing, from dipping to &s;prinkling. So that you are wholly be&s;ides, and have not the lea&s;t ground to &s;ay we rebaptize; for we baptize tho&s;e you have rantized before, it may be. Thus have I endeavoured to giue you a brief account of things you de&s;ired, and &s;o I pa&s;s to your</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD><HI>Sixth Argument,</HI> p. 35.</HEAD>
<P><HI>From</HI> Act. 2. 38, 39. your Argument is,</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>To whom&s;oever the promi&s;e of grace belongs, to them Bapti&s;m belongs.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>But the promi&s;e of grace belongs to believers and their children.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo, <HI>Bapti&s;m belongs to them both.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>This is but the &s;ame you have &s;aid before: your Arguments being &s;ix in number, are but two in &s;ub&s;tance. Yet I &s;hall &s;ee what you &s;ay to the bu&s;ine&s;s; for your <HI>Minor</HI> is denied: yet you are plea&s;ed to &s;ay, <HI>p.</HI> 36. in confirmation of your <HI>Minor,</HI> That the <HI>Minor</HI> flows from the Text; <HI>the Parents believing and repenting, he expre&s;ly commands them to be baptized, both believers and their children.</HI> Oh unheard of fal&s;|hood! is there ever &s;uch a word in the Text, as, <HI>and their Children?</HI> He &s;aith, <HI>Repent and be baptized every one of you;</HI> that is, every one of you <HI>that are pricked in your hearts.</HI> You adde, <HI>and their Children.</HI> It &s;eems you have either forgotten, or el&s;e you fear not that cur&s;e de|nounced again&s;t him that <HI>addeth to, or dimini&s;heth from the words of this Book.</HI></P>
<P>The rea&s;on you render, is, <HI>Becau&s;e the promi&s;e is to you and to your children Is, not was, and is now vani&s;hed.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> That Promi&s;e you &s;o much plead for, which is but one and the &s;ame you have &s;o often reiterated already, is vani&s;hed away, and
<PB N="20" REF="15"> the children of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> are out of the Land of <HI>Canaan,</HI> &amp;c. and we are under another, a better Covenant, a new Covenant, &amp;c. <HI>Jer.</HI> 3. 31. <HI>Heb</HI> 8. <HI>e&s;tabli&s;hed upon better promi&s;es.</HI> That promi&s;e was the Land of <HI>Canaan;</HI> ours is the true promi&s;e of the Spiritual Land: they had the Land of <HI>Canaan</HI> promi&s;ed, and it was made good while they kept Covenant with God; we have the Spiritual Land promi&s;ed, and that is made good to all the Spiritual &s;eed. And this is the promi&s;e here intended, and it is limited to all <HI>that the Lord our God &s;hall call.</HI> 1. The promi&s;e here related, is intended only to called ones; and it is a re&s;triction to all the &s;everal terms before. As many <HI>of you as the Lord &s;hall call. Of your children, as the Lord &s;hall call. Of them afar off,</HI> viz. <HI>Gentiles, as the Lord &s;hall call.</HI> For the truth is, that there is no pro|mi&s;e in the Go&s;pel but to called ones. See this cleer, <HI>Joel.</HI> 2. 32. the Scripture to which this in the <HI>Acts</HI> relates. <HI>In mount Sion and in Jeru|&s;alem &s;hall be deliverance, as the Lord hath &s;aid, and in the remnant whom the Lord &s;hell call.</HI> Its the very &s;ame with <HI>Act.</HI> 2. 39. and note, 1. The Call is not, as you plead, <HI>univer&s;al,</HI> but <HI>to a remnant;</HI> and tho&s;e who are thus called, &s;hall be <HI>delivered, &s;aved.</HI> This da&s;hes to peeces your a&s;&s;ertions throughout your Argument: they are the called ones, and they only to whom the promi&s;e belongs; for the promi&s;es are all centered in Chri&s;t, and given forth to the called ones; not tho&s;e who are outwardly called, but effectually and &s;avingly called. <HI>Heb.</HI> 9. 15. Chri&s;t is &s;aid to be <HI>a Mediator of a better Te&s;tament;</HI> but you will have the &s;ame; &s;o deny Chri&s;t to be come in the fle&s;h. <HI>That by means of death for the redemption of the tran&s;gre&s;&s;ions under the fir&s;t Te&s;tament,</HI> Chri&s;t died to deliver his people from the tran&s;gre&s;&s;ions under the fir&s;t <HI>Covenant,</HI> that &s;o <HI>they which are called might receive the promi&s;e of eter|nal inheritance.</HI> Here is the promi&s;e, the <HI>eternal inheritance;</HI> the per|&s;ons to whom, <HI>they that are called,</HI> not infants the natural &s;eed, but the &s;piritual: the &s;ame mentioned <HI>Rom</HI> 8. 30. <HI>Whom he prede&s;tinated, them he called,</HI> &amp;c. and to them, and them only the promi&s;e belongs.</P>
<P>This I doubt not but it will be enough to the judicious Reader to di&s;cover the vanity and emptine&s;s of all you &s;ay to this &s;ixth argument. For children are not taken literally any otherwi&s;e then as called of the Lord. For the <HI>Jews</HI> crucifying <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> and wi&s;hing his blood to be up|on them and their children; the <HI>Gentiles</HI> having a hand in it too, they <HI>mocked him,</HI> &amp;c. they being <HI>pricked in their hearts at</HI> Peters <HI>Sermon,</HI> the Apo&s;tle applieth a &s;uitable medicine to their wounded con&s;ciences: he doth not tell them of an outward promi&s;e, a Land of <HI>Canaan,</HI> an
<PB N="21" REF="15"> outward federal holine&s;s for them&s;elves &amp; children, which they might have, and yet be damned at la&s;t; No, no, but a &s;piritual promi&s;e that might reach their &s;ouls in &s;uch a condition: therefore in &s;ub&s;tance he &s;aith, Notwith&s;tanding you have had a hand in crucifying the Lord Je&s;us, the promi&s;e of the &s;pirit of grace and of remi&s;&s;ion <HI>is to you, as many of you as the Lord &s;hall call;</HI> and notwith&s;tanding you have by your deprecations drawn guilt upon your children, yet the <HI>promi&s;e is to them, as many of them as the Lord &s;hall call:</HI> and notwith&s;tanding the <HI>Gentiles</HI> have joyned with you in it, yet the <HI>promi&s;e is to them, to as many as the Lord our God &s;hall call.</HI> And this is the &s;en&s;e and truth of this Scripture: and I do affirm that there is no Go&s;pel-promi&s;e made to any but the <HI>called of God;</HI> and all others that get into the Go&s;pel-profe&s;&s;ion, not being of the true &s;piritual &s;eed, God will judge them in his time. And it is evident there were none baptized, but tho&s;e that gladly received his word, <HI>v.</HI> 41.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD><HI>The &s;eventh Argument,</HI> &agrave; probabili. <HI>pag.</HI> 40.</HEAD>
<P>From Apo&s;tolical practi&s;e, which is in the nature of a Go&s;pel-injun|ction to us. We read of divers families that they baptized, as <HI>Cornelius</HI> with his hou&s;hold, <HI>Act.</HI> 10. 47, 48. compared with 11. 14. <HI>Lydia</HI> with her hou&s;hold, <HI>Act.</HI> 16. 15. the Jailor and his, <HI>Act.</HI> 16 31, 32. <HI>Cri&s;pus</HI> and all his hou&s;e, <HI>Act.</HI> 18. 8, and the hou&s;hold of <HI>Stephanus,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1. 16. Your Argument is this.</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>If the Apo&s;tles baptized whole hou&s;holds, then Children which are an integral part of the hou&s;hold were baptized al&s;o.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>But the Apo&s;tles baptized whole hou&s;holds.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Minor,</HI> you &s;ay, none will deny; the <HI>Major</HI> you will prove. Generals, you &s;ay, include particulars: the word <HI>hou&s;hold</HI> is a large word, and includes all, old and young, men, women, and chil|dren, &amp;c.</P>
<P>But &s;tay a little; are there any Children mentioned? if not, you have but probability at be&s;t; and I querie whether probability be a &s;ufficient ground to warrant a practi&s;e contradicting a po&s;itive com|mand.</P>
<PB N="22" REF="16">
<P>You &s;ay, <HI>pag.</HI> 41. <HI>Many things were done that are not mentioned in Scripture;</HI> that <HI>Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles did many things that are not written,</HI> Joh. 20. <HI>ult.</HI></P>
<P>I an&s;wer, 1. If it had been done, yet not being written, &s;ilent au|thority proves nothing. All you can &s;ay, is but that it <HI>might be done,</HI> not that it was done; becau&s;e it is not written.</P>
<P N="2">2. To look after things not written, to contradict and make null things that are written, take heed of that <HI>Thomas:</HI> if your name &s;ake the <HI>Collier</HI> &s;hould have laid down &s;uch a Principle, you would have &s;aid &s;omewhat to it. But I pa&s;s it by; a word to the wi&s;e is enough. But I &s;hall rather come to di&s;cover the grounds of your Probabilities from tho&s;e families.</P>
<P>The fir&s;t is in <HI>Act.</HI> 10. 47, 48. <HI>Cornelius</HI> and his hou&s;hold, they were fir&s;t <HI>&s;uch as heard the word;</HI> therefore not Infants. <HI>v.</HI> 33. <HI>Now therefore are we all here pre&s;ent before God to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.</HI> Secondly, <HI>v.</HI> 44. <HI>The Holy Gho&s;t fell on all them that heard the word.</HI> Thirdly, they were tho&s;e, and only tho&s;e that were bapti|zed, which heard the word, and had received the holy Spirit. <HI>ver.</HI> 47. <HI>Can any forbid water, that the&s;e &s;hould not be baptized which have re|ceived the holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them,</HI> viz that had heard, and received the Spirit as well as they, <HI>to be baptized.</HI> Where are your <HI>Infants</HI> now? and where is your <HI>probability</HI> for your pra|cti&s;e? Blame me not if I undermine you; for I am a <HI>Collier,</HI> and mu&s;t dig up the blackne&s;s, that truth may appear.</P>
<P>The &s;econd family is <HI>Act.</HI> 16. 15. <HI>Lydia and her family;</HI> there might be <HI>Infants,</HI> &s;ay you. Querie 1. whether <HI>Lydia</HI> was a maid, widow or wife? <HI>An&s;.</HI> It is generally concluded on all hands, that &s;he had no husband; for if &s;he had, he had been mentioned; for alwayes the man bears the denomination, where there is any, and not the woman. If it be objected, he might not be baptized, therefore not mentioned: I an&s;wer, the hou&s;hold were baptized, therefore the husband, if any; and he mu&s;t have born the name, being the chief. So its cleer, there was no husband; then where is your probability for Children? Secondly, the hou&s;hold of <HI>Lydia</HI> were brethren capable of comfort, therefore not Infants, <HI>v.</HI> 39.</P>
<P>The third family mentioned is the Jailors, <HI>Act.</HI> 16. 31, 32, 33. You &s;ay, <HI>pag.</HI> 43. <HI>That he believed, and pre&s;ented his hou&s;hold upon his faith, and they were baptized.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Con&s;ider a little better of this Scripture. 1. The Jailors hou&s;|hold
<PB N="23" REF="16"> were &s;uch as were all capable of hearing the word. <HI>v.</HI> 32. <HI>And they &s;pake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his hou&s;e.</HI> 2. They were &s;uch as with him rejoyced, believing in God. <HI>v.</HI> 34. <HI>And when he had brought them into his hou&s;e, he &s;et meat before them, and re|joyced, believing in God with all his hou&s;e.</HI> So that they fir&s;t hear, &s;e|condly believe, thirdly are baptized. Where is your probability for Children now?</P>
<P>The fourth hou&s;hold is <HI>Crispus,</HI> Act. 18. 8. The text is clear, <HI>He believed in God with all his hou&s;e.</HI></P>
<P>The fifth is <HI>Stephanus,</HI> 1 Cor. 1. 16. This hou&s;hold was &s;uch as were <HI>addicted to the mini&s;try of the Saints,</HI> 1 Cor. 16. 15. therefore not In|fants. But it &s;eems you do not like to have the&s;e two Scriptures joyn|ed together, becau&s;e the one &s;o cleerly explains the other. 2. You &s;ay, <HI>that tho&s;e that were of years might mini&s;ter, when Infants were only baptized.</HI> I wonder what you mind by <HI>only:</HI> were the Infants only baptized, and tho&s;e that did mini&s;ter to the Saints not baptized? That &s;eems to be the probability, and as like as the other. But the text &s;aith, <HI>Ye know the hou&s;hold of Stephanus,</HI> viz. the &s;ame hou&s;hold as was baptized. You will di&s;tingui&s;h for your own end; when he &s;aith, <HI>the hou&s;hold,</HI> that is, &s;ay you, <HI>tho&s;e that were of years.</HI> But you will permit no &s;uch di&s;tinction to us, were not the Scriptures through mercy made cleer; but it mu&s;t be all the hou&s;hold, not the major part for the whole. Yet here you can pre&s;ently divide or di&s;tingui&s;h for your own ends, when there is no place for a di&s;tinction. The&s;e things thus con|&s;idered, let the Reader judge impartially the weight of your proba|bility for precept, promi&s;e, or pre&s;ident, as you have &s;umm'd it up in the conclu&s;ion of this Argument.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD><HI>The eighth Argument,</HI> p. 44.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>Elect Infants may be Baptized;</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Some Infants are Elect.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo, <HI>Some Infants may be Baptized.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P N="1">1. I deny your <HI>Major,</HI> though you are plea&s;ed to &s;ay its granted by Mr. <HI>Tombs:</HI> you abu&s;e him; he &s;aith, if that it were made known to us by their &s;anctification; which is not; &s;o that Bapti&s;m was never ad|mini&s;tred upon this account, <HI>viz.</HI> of Election, but Believing: &s;o that though &s;ome Infants are Elect, yet none are to be baptized upon that
<PB N="24" REF="17"> account only, God having given us a vi&s;ible rule to walk by, and not to walk by &s;uch invi&s;ible rules, which is known to God alone.</P>
<P>You confe&s;s page 45. <HI>That Election is a &s;ecret thing, and that it be|longs to God;</HI> how dare you then to for&s;ake that rule Chri&s;t hath laid down in the Go&s;pel, and dig after Gods &s;ecrets: But were it truth what you &s;ay, That elect Infants might be baptized if we knew them; you do not know them, therefore you cannot baptize them; God hath given us a &s;urer way.</P>
<P N="2">2. Should it be granted by way of conce&s;&s;ion; if elect infants might be baptized, will you therefore baptize all? thats the way to be &s;ure indeed to catch the Elect: but take heed of inventing and maintain|ing a way which never came into the heart of Je&s;us Chri&s;t to com|mand; look rather at things revealed, and leave &s;ecret things to God.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="9" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>The ninth Argument.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>All Di&s;ciples ought to be baptized.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Infants are Di&s;ciples.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> you &s;ay none will deny; the <HI>Minor</HI> is denyed; you &s;ay its proved divers wayes.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>Tho&s;e which the Scripture cals Di&s;ciples, they are Di&s;ciples; but the Scripture cals Infants by the name of Di&s;ciples.</HI> Acts 15. 10. <HI>Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the Di&s;ciples? And Circum|ci&s;ion is the yoke whereof the Apo&s;tle is &s;peaking; and they on who&s;e necks this yoke lay, were ordinarily Infants.</HI> But were the&s;e Infants mentioned in this Chapter, or was it not the Church of <HI>Antioch</HI> that was troubled with legal Teachers? As a Child almo&s;t an Infant, one of tho&s;e you are pleading for, might under&s;tand; a &s;imple and weak Argument, to prove Infants Di&s;ciples; there was circumci&s;ing others be&s;ides Infants, when they came to be Pro&s;elytes; <HI>And the Jews calling them&s;elves Mo&s;es Di&s;ciples,</HI> John 9. 28. becau&s;e they owned <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> Doctrine, as they thought, in oppo&s;ition to Chri&s;t; therefore you &s;ay, <HI>Infants were</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>Di&s;ciples;</HI> a goodly conclu&s;ion. A Di&s;ciple is one that is doctri|nated, or taught the principles of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> or the principles of Chri&s;t; this are not Infants, therefore none of the Di&s;ciples of Chri&s;t.</P>
<PB N="25" REF="17">
<P N="2"> 2. You &s;ay you prove it thus.</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>To belong to Chri&s;t, is to be a Di&s;ciple of Chri&s;t.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Infants are &s;aid to belong to Chri&s;t.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is denyed: For though all true Di&s;ciples belong to Chri&s;t, yet all that belong truly to Chri&s;t, are not Di&s;ciples. All the Elect belong to Chri&s;t before they come into the world, nay before they are conceived, yet they are not Di&s;ciples. <HI>Saul</HI> belonged to Chri&s;t before his conver&s;ion, yet <HI>Saul</HI> was not a Di&s;ciple before, but an enemy, a per&s;ecutor of the Di&s;ciples: and the truth is, that no man is a Di&s;ciple before he receive the doctrine of Je&s;us Chri&s;t; you make up &s;trange Di&s;ciples for the Lord, &s;uch as we never read of in Scrip|ture; you catch them in their Cradles to make them Di&s;ciples; but they are never the rather for that the Di&s;ciples of Chri&s;t. The Church of <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> belonged to Chri&s;t before their conver&s;ion, yet &s;ee what Di&s;ciples they were before, <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 2. 1, 2, 3. And likewi&s;e the Church of <HI>Corinth,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 6. 9, 10. 11. And this I dare be bold to affirm, That there is never a man or woman that is a Di&s;ciple indeed, but knows a time when he was not a Di&s;ciple; and yet now can &s;ee and &s;ay that he belonged to God before he was a Di&s;ciple.</P>
<P>Your <HI>Minor</HI> I que&s;tion not, <HI>but that &s;ome Infants belong to Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. You &s;ay, <HI>They are capable of Gods own teaching, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>That is not que&s;tioned, what capacity, but what they are, and what it appears they are taught, when they are grown up to manife&s;t it: their capacity makes them no more Di&s;ciples, then <HI>Sauls</HI> capacity made him a Di&s;ciple before he was converted.</P>
<P N="4">4. You &s;ay, <HI>They are Church members, and &s;o by con&s;equence Di&s;ci|ples:</HI> Hence you argue.</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>All Church members are Di&s;ciples.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Infants of believing Parents are Church-members.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> is denyed: You &s;eem to refer to Mr. <HI>Baxter.</HI> This being Mr. <HI>Baxters</HI> grand Argument, I &s;hall &s;ay &s;omething to it in this place, though I have in brief an&s;wered it already. If I grant they were Church-members, yet they are not &s;o now, we being under ano|ther mini&s;tration, more &s;piritual, more immediate; and he owns none to be members of the Church, but tho&s;e who are truly &s;piritual; when but one comes in without a wedding garment, he takes notice of him,
<PB N="26" REF="18"> <HI>Friend, how came&s;t thou in hither without a wedding garment?</HI> Mat. 22. 11, 12. And you bring in none el&s;e but tho&s;e without a wedding gar|ment; what account you will give your Lord, I know not: but I &s;hal let you &s;ee the repeal of that Church-member&s;hip you &s;o much boa&s;t of: the Promi&s;es made to <HI>Abraham,</HI> run all into Chri&s;t, and are di&s;|&s;olved into him, <HI>Gal</HI> 3. 16. So that if you trace the Promi&s;es, you &s;hall &s;ee where they all center; <HI>The promi&s;e was made to Abraham, and to his &s;eed; he &s;aith, not to &s;eeds, as of many but to his &s;eed, which is Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. See to whom the Promi&s;es come forth, whether to the natural, or to the &s;piritual &s;eed. ver. 29. <HI>If you are Chri&s;ts, then are ye Abra|hams &s;eed, and heirs according to the promi&s;e.</HI> So that you mu&s;t now be Chri&s;ts, before you can be <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed; and then being Chri&s;ts, we are heirs according to the promi&s;e. So here is the promi&s;e, and the heir&s;hip; you need not go &s;o far back into the old Te&s;tament, if the Lord enlighten your darkne&s;s. And how come we to be Chri&s;ts? by believing, <HI>ver.</HI> 26. Rom. 2. 28 29. <HI>He is not a Jew that is one outward, but he is a Jew that is one inward, &amp;c.</HI> So that the outward Jew, the natural &s;eed, is cut off from the &s;piritual Covenant; for when the out|ward Covenant was ended, and the &s;piritual one was come, then the natural Church-member&s;hip was lo&s;t, and the &s;piritual one come in: if what you would have were truth, that it were the &s;ame Covenant, and the &s;ame members, then the Jews had not been broken off to this day; for they are the &s;eed of tho&s;e that were members in the fir&s;t Co|venant; but they are broken off for want of faith, which alone gives an intere&s;t in the Covenant, and we by faith &s;tand: So to wind up all, Infants of believers are not Di&s;ciples, no Church members, therefore not to be baptized.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="10" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>The tenth Argument.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>All that have faith, may be baptized.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>But &s;ome Infants have faith.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> you &s;ay none will deny.</P>
<P>Yet give me leave to que&s;tion it, and highly too; for fir&s;t, tho&s;e are to be baptized that manife&s;t faith; if Infants have faith, which I &s;hall que&s;tion; in the &s;econd place yet they have not that faith which is
<PB N="27" REF="18"> required of tho&s;e that are to be baptized, <HI>viz.</HI> In the manife&s;tation of it; &s;o then if Infants have faith; yet none knows that they have it; none knows who of them have it: Its apparant that none but the elect have it; further its apparent that but few of the elect have it neither in infancy; all that live and come to experience, they had it not in infancy, they can experience it, they know how they came by it: then it can be but tho&s;e elect Infants that die that are believers; &amp; then God can &s;ave without faith by vertue of his electing love in Chri&s;t; and if he doth work faith in them, that is able to &s;ave them without Bapti&s;m, it not being required of them: and its our duty to walk by Rule; then we walk &s;afe; and to admini&s;ter the Ordinances of Chri&s;t according to his minde, not our own: the minde of Chri&s;t is, that <HI>he that believeth &s;hall be baptized,</HI> Mark 16. 16. that is, upon the hearing of the Go&s;pel and confe&s;&s;ion of his Faith; not Infants, tho&s;e that we know not whether they believe or no; he hath not left us &s;o to walk in the dark: this I think is &s;ufficient to an&s;wer both your <HI>Major</HI> and <HI>Minor,</HI> although for all you &s;ay to prove your <HI>Minor,</HI> there is no weight in it: neither do I clearly a&s;&s;ent that Infants have faith. That Scripture you mention, <HI>Mat.</HI> 18. 6. is not &s;o expre&s;s as you pretend or imagine; but it relates to tho&s;e who are humble and meek, qualified as little children; &s;ee <HI>ver.</HI> 3, 4, 5. &s;o that it is &s;uch a little childe &s;o qualified, <HI>one of tho&s;e that did believe.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. Query. <HI>What children are they that u&s;ually are per&s;ecuted for the name of Chri&s;t, Infants in nature, or children on in Grace?</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Query. <HI>Whether Chri&s;t is now teaching his di&s;ciples and encoura|ging them again&s;t &s;uffering, or little Infants?</HI></P>
<P>By this you may with ea&s;e come to perceive what Believers are in|tended in this Text.</P>
<P N="1">1. You &s;ay, <HI>They receive the Kingdom of God,</HI> Mark 10. 15. It is not &s;aid that Infants receive the Kingdom of God; but <HI>who&s;oever doth not receive the Kingdom of God as a little childe, &amp;c.</HI> that is, to be humble and meek and teachable, &amp;c. and you had wi&s;dom enough to give this interpretation your &s;elves formerly; but that now the ca&s;e is altered you need to apply it another way.</P>
<P>And 2. Though &s;ome Infants do receive the Kingdom, &amp;c. Yet it is not many as you have heard already, not all.</P>
<P N="3">3. You &s;ay, they plea&s;e God becau&s;e he ble&s;&s;ed them. Doth God u&s;e to ble&s;s Infants or others becau&s;e they plea&s;e him? or doth he ble&s;s them with Grace becau&s;e he plea&s;eth him&s;elf in &s;o doing, when they are enemies to him?</P>
<PB N="28" REF="19">
<P N="4"> 4. <HI>Faith,</HI> you &s;ay, <HI>mu&s;t be allowed them, el&s;e not &s;alvation.</HI> And when the Scripture &s;peaks of faith, it intends it to &s;uch as are adult; and tho&s;e who are adult, not believing, &s;hall be damned; the Scri|pture determines nothing about Infants, but leaves it as a &s;ecret to God; for they cannot have that faith the Scripture &s;peaks of, which comes by hearing; and the Scripture &s;peaks of no other faith, that I know of; and therefore they cannot have that damnation the Scri|pture threatens to unbelievers; though the elect Infants dying may obtain through the Grace of Election the &s;ame Salvation without Faith, as believers do through faith, <HI>Rom.</HI> 11. 7.</P>
<P N="5">5. You &s;ay, <HI>Though Infants cannot make an actual profe&s;&s;ion of faith as adults can; yet being born in the bo&s;om of the Church they have &s;ome|what to bring, &amp;c. Yet are children of wrath as well as the children of the Gentiles are,</HI> as you confe&s;s before, 1. <HI>Reckoned in the number of Gods people with the Parents.</HI> No truth in that, as hath been often pro|ved; none are accounted for the &s;eed but Believers. 2. <HI>Some of them elect, &amp;c.</HI> 1. That <HI>&s;ome,</HI> you know not. 2. For that <HI>&s;ome,</HI> you will take in all: Finde out the Elect, and then we &s;hall be &s;ilent: you &s;ay, <HI>Hence we read that &s;ome children had the spirit in their infancy; John Bapti&s;t had faith in the womb;</HI> the Scripture &s;aith it not, its only <HI>Thomas Hall's</HI> words, <HI>Jeremiah &s;anctified from the womb,</HI> &amp;c. and what of all this? its not one &s;wallow makes a Summer: becau&s;e <HI>John</HI> and <HI>Jeremiah</HI> were &s;anctified, that is, &s;et apart from the womb to their par|ticular offices, therefore <HI>all Infants are &s;anctified:</HI> a goodly conclu|&s;ion, becau&s;e <HI>Balaams</HI> A&s;&s;e did &s;peak, therefore all A&s;&s;es may &s;peak; a likely matter.</P>
<P>You &s;ay, <HI>The Promi&s;e is, that in the Go&s;pel times the childe &s;hall die an hundred year old, &amp;c.</HI> I&s;a. 65 20. that is, &s;ay you, <HI>They &s;hall be ble&s;t with &s;piritual life and light from Chri&s;t, as if they had lived an hun|dred years in the Church of God;</HI> when that relates to a &s;piritual glo|ry in the Church of Chri&s;t, which is yet to come; not of the Natural, but of the Spiritual Seed, when they &s;hall be freed from the former weakne&s;s and temptation; this Scripture An&s;wers <HI>Rev.</HI> 21. 1, 2, 3. 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 3. 13. And whereas you &s;ay, <HI>though Infants cannot lay hold on Chri&s;t, yet he can lay hold on them.</HI> We que&s;tion not Chri&s;ts laying hold on them; but we are not to baptize them till they lay hold on Chri&s;t. <HI>Pag.</HI> 49. you &s;ay, <HI>Infants have faith, repentance, regeneration;</HI> and before you confe&s;s <HI>they are children of wrath, alike the children of wrath as heathens are:</HI> pag. 10. <HI>yet now faith, repentance, regenera|tion;</HI>
<PB N="29" REF="19"> unheard of contradictions! If your preaching brethren had writ|ten &s;uch palpable contradictions, you would have concluded that it had been either for want of learning, or through much forgetfulne&s;s; but you mend the bu&s;ine&s;s well you think, <HI>It is virtually and potenti|ally, by way of inclination, &amp;c. They have the spirit and &s;eed of faith, &amp;c.</HI> The truth of this appears apparently in Infants when they are grown; doth the &s;eed of faith appear, or the &s;eed of corruption? Come forth O all ye that have any experience of the grace of Ie&s;us, and work of faith with power, &s;peak you knowledge in this particular, whether there be in Infants an inclination, and the &s;eed of faith; or whether there be not rather an inclination to every thing that is evil, and the power of corruption remaining in them? Be a&s;hamed and blu&s;h, to utter &s;uch known untruths, and unheard of contradictions; <HI>Children of wrath, yet the &s;eed of faith, inclinations to believe;</HI> I &s;ay no more, but leave this Argument likewi&s;e to the wi&s;e con&s;ideration of the Reader.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="11" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>The eleventh Argument.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>That way which doth confound the two Sacraments, and take away the di&s;tinction which God hath put between them, cannot be the way of God.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>But the way of the Anabapti&s;ts doth confound the two Sacraments, and takes away that di&s;tinction which God hath put between them.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo, <HI>Tis not the way of God.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> There is no truth in your <HI>Minor;</HI> for fir&s;t, where is the Scripture that &s;aith bapti&s;m is only for <HI>Initiation,</HI> and not for <HI>Confir|mation;</HI> its a fancy of your own brain; may not bapti&s;m be be initi|ation and confirmation too?</P>
<P N="2">2. If it be truth what you &s;ay, that Bapti&s;m is only for initiation in|to the Church, what is become of your Mr. <HI>Baxters</HI> grand Argument, <HI>That they are members of the Church?</HI> then not initiated in by bapti&s;m; one of your Arguments mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity be fal&s;e. I &s;ay both of them as relating to Infants.</P>
<P N="3">3. It was the Apo&s;tles practice to baptize believers, and give them the Supper too; and did they <HI>confound the two Sacraments as you call them?</HI> bear with me, for I know no Scripture cals them &s;o. So that the way of the Anabapti&s;ts, as you fal&s;ely &amp; reproachfully call them, doth
<PB N="30" REF="20"> not confound the Ordinances, but pre&s;erve them in their place, to the right end, according to the right rule; and you it is confound Or|dinances, ob&s;erving neither rule, place, nor end.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="12" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>The twelfth Argument.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>Such as were typically baptized under the Law, may be really baptized under the Go&s;pel.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Infants were typically baptized under the Law.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>You rea&s;on from the type to the truth.</P>
<P>In this take a view likewi&s;e of your own ignorance, in not under|&s;tanding the difference between type and antitype, type and &s;ub&s;tance, type and truth; and &s;hew me if you can any one type in all the Scrip|ture that typed out another type; you may as well &s;ay that the Jew|i&s;h Sacrifices typed out the Go&s;pel Supper, &amp;c. But all types related to &s;ub&s;tances, and Chri&s;t was the &s;ub&s;tance of all legal types; this truth will be clear in the re&s;olving of the&s;e que&s;tions.</P>
<P N="1">1. If Chri&s;t be the &s;ub&s;tance of all types, whether or no the bapti|zing of the natural &s;eed in the type, do not repre&s;ent unto us the bap|tizing of the &s;pirituall &s;eed into the &s;ub&s;tance? 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. 13. <HI>Gal.</HI> 3. 27.</P>
<P N="2">2. Whether or no, as all the natural feed were baptized into <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> and into the &s;ea and cloud, &s;o all the &s;piritual &s;eed &s;hould be baptized into the profe&s;&s;ion of faith of Je&s;us? <HI>Mat.</HI> 28. 19. <HI>Act.</HI> 19.</P>
<P N="3">3. Whether to make the &s;ub&s;tance no other then the type, the Co|venant of the Go&s;pel no other then that of the Law, the &s;eed of the Go&s;pel-Covenant the &s;ame as the Legal, the admini&s;tration of Go&s;pel-ordinance on the &s;ame &s;ubjects as of the Legal, notwith&s;tand|ing Chri&s;t hath given cleer rules to the contrary, be not to make null the Go&s;pel, and to deny Chri&s;t to be come in the fle&s;h, and &s;o to be the <HI>Antichri&s;t? Gal.</HI> 5. 2. <HI>Mat.</HI> 28. 20. <HI>Act.</HI> 3. 22. 1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 4. 2. 3.</P>
<P>In a word, if you will make this type the ground of your baptizing Infants, fir&s;t then you do not hearken to Chri&s;t the &s;ub&s;tance, but ho|nour him in the type, deny him in his per&s;on and &s;pirit: &s;econdly, you are to baptize them as they were in the type, <HI>viz.</HI> in the cloud and in the &s;ea. What is that to your &s;prinkling of Infants? Thirdly, you may from hence, if that be your warrant from whence you ground your practi&s;e, baptize your Cattel too, for all pa&s;&s;ed through the &s;ea:
<PB N="31" REF="20"> and indeed not to be a pattern to you that you might hence take oc|ca&s;ion to &s;prinkle Infants, &s;o denying Chri&s;t; but a type of Chri&s;t the Saviour and Deliverer of his people; that as the natural &s;eed were &s;aved in the type, &s;o the &s;piritual were and are &s;aved in the &s;ub&s;tance, <HI>viz.</HI> in Chri&s;t. All you &s;ay to this Argument being thus untruly grounded, is but a <HI>non &s;equitur,</HI> and &s;o I leave it.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="13" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>The thirteenth Argument.</HEAD>
<P>From the priviledges that Chri&s;t purcha&s;ed for Infants.</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>Tho&s;e who are &s;ubjects of Chri&s;ts kingdom, have right to the pri|viledges of &s;ubjects.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>But &s;ome Infants are &s;ubjects of Chri&s;ts kingdom.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo, <HI>Some Infants have right to the priviledges of Subjects.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>You &s;ay, <HI>The &s;eal of the Covenant is a choi&s;e priviledge.</HI> I have often &s;aid, and &s;ay again, that Bapti&s;m is no &s;eal of the Covenant, but the Spirit.</P>
<P>To your &s;econd Argument I &s;ay, there is no truth in your <HI>Major;</HI> for there is not a word of Baptizing in the Text; and therefore no ground to receive them to Bapti&s;m, though Chri&s;t received them and <HI>ble&s;&s;ed them.</HI> I &s;hall an&s;wer the Scripture more at large by and by.</P>
<P>As to the third, <HI>Tho&s;e that Chri&s;t invites, the Church may not refu&s;e.</HI> Where doth Chri&s;t invite Infants? Tho&s;e Infants are gone long &s;ince. He &s;aith, <HI>Suffer the Infants,</HI> not all Infants. 2. The Church are to re|ceive tho&s;e Chri&s;t hath given rule and command to receive, <HI>viz. Believers.</HI> Chri&s;t may receive &s;ome Infants, becau&s;e he knows them: The Church doth not know them, therefore the Church may not re|ceive them.</P>
<P N="4">4. You &s;ay, <HI>They that are capable of the Kingdom and Ble&s;&s;ing, which is the greater, are much more capable of Bapti&s;m, which is the le&s;&s;er. But Infants are capable of the greater.</HI> Ergo.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Some Infants by vertue of Election may be capable of the greater, yet not capable of the le&s;&s;er. 1. Becau&s;e not capable to under|&s;tand the le&s;&s;er. 2. Becau&s;e we are not capable to under&s;tand and know them. 3. Becau&s;e there is no command for it; for that is it we are to walk by, and that capacity in which we are to judge.</P>
<P N="5">5. You &s;ay, <HI>If the Kingdom of heaven receive them, the Church may not exclude them.</HI></P>
<PB N="32" REF="21">
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The Kingdom of heaven, of glory, receives none but the elect of God: the Church doth not know them; therefore the Church cannot receive them, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Now to your Scripture, <HI>Mar.</HI> 10. 14. <HI>Suffer the little Children, and forbid them not.</HI> Note, he &s;aith not, &s;uffer little children, but &s;uffer the little children; not all little children, but <HI>the little ones,</HI> that is, tho&s;e that were then brought unto him. You draw a Conclu&s;ion from hence to have all, <HI>p.</HI> 3, 4, 5. It's evident in that, that he would have them to come to him, that &s;o he might take an occa&s;ion to di&s;cover a Go&s;pel-my&s;terie, viz. <HI>That of &s;uch is the Kingdom of Heaven;</HI> that is, &s;o qua|lified &s;piritually, as they were naturally, meek, humble, teachable, helple&s;s, &amp;c. This is cleer, compared with <HI>v.</HI> 15. <HI>Verily I &s;ay unto you, who&s;oever doth not receive the kingdom of heaven as a little child, he &s;hall not enter therein;</HI> that is, as I &s;aid before, &s;o qualified &s;piritually, as little children are naturally. Hence 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 2. 2. <HI>As new born babes de|&s;ire the &s;incere milk of the word, &amp;c.</HI> that is, not as new-born babes de|&s;ire the &s;incere milk of the word; but as new born babes de&s;ire the milk of the brea&s;t, &s;o do you de&s;ire the milk of the word. <HI>Mat.</HI> 18. 2, 3, 4. cleers the whole. <HI>Except a man be converted, and become as a little child, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.</HI> So that the &s;ub&s;tance of the whole in every Scripture mentioned by you to this purpo&s;e, directly pre&s;ents us with the &s;ame truth, <HI>viz.</HI> the humble child like qualifications of his &s;ervants; and not to fill up the Church with Infants contrary to Chri&s;ts command, and the practi&s;e of all his &s;ervants, which is to be our alone rule and pre&s;ident.</P>
<P>In a word, the Scriptures produced for proof of your Arguments, have not a word of bapti&s;m in them, nor the lea&s;t hint that way; and for you to draw con&s;equences from &s;uch grounds, e&s;pecially tho&s;e con|&s;equences overturning precepts and pre&s;idents, is very dangerous and un&s;afe, and that which we are bound in duty and con&s;cience to re|nounce.</P>
<P>Chri&s;t knew what he had to do, and hath left us a rule for what we &s;hould do; he that for&s;akes this rule, and will not hear Chri&s;t, <HI>is to be cut off from amongst his people,</HI> Acts 3. 22, 23. They that will draw conclu&s;ions into practi&s;e from what Chri&s;t did, contradicting what he hath commanded, will be found enemies not permitting Chri&s;t to reign over them; and what the danger will be of &s;uch conclu&s;ions, &s;ee <HI>Luke</HI> 19. 27.</P>
<P>The &s;umme of all is this, that although Chri&s;t knows the Elect In|fants,
<PB N="33" REF="21"> and receives them, yet we do not know them; it's Gods &s;ecret, and we are to walk by revealed rules, and are to receive none before the manife&s;tation of faith, <HI>Mar.</HI> 16. 16. <HI>Act.</HI> 8. 37. and it's evident the Church did receive none but &s;uch, <HI>Act.</HI> 2. 41, 42. The Apo&s;tle in his Epi&s;tles writing to the Churches, cals them Saints, not Infants, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1, 2. 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1. 1. &amp; 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. 23. <HI>If the whole Church be come together into &s;ome place, and all &s;peak with tongues, the unlearned will &s;ay ye are mad; but if all prophe&s;ie, &amp;c.</HI> Where note, the whole Church meets together, and they may, being thus a&s;&s;embled, all prophe&s;ie; and were here Infants, think you? They might <HI>all prophe&s;ie,</HI> none excepted that had the gift, but <HI>women.</HI> And 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. 27. <HI>The Church is the body of Chri&s;t, and members in particular:</HI> and this body <HI>is made up of many members v.</HI> 28, 29, 30. and Infants are none of them. <HI>Apo&s;tles, Pro|phets, Teachers, gifts of healing, helps in government, miracles, inter|preters, &amp;c.</HI> There is never a true member in the Church of Chri&s;t, but hath &s;ome one or other of the&s;e gifts, more or le&s;s: here are no Infants, &s;ee <HI>v.</HI> 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="14" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>The fourteenth Argument.</HEAD>
<Q>From <HI>Rom.</HI> 12. 26. you &s;ay, but I &s;ay 11. 16. <HI>If the fir&s;t-fruit be holy, the lump is al&s;o holy; and if the root be holy, &s;o are the branches.</HI> The &s;um of all you &s;ay is, <HI>That by the root and fir&s;t fruit is meant Abra|ham, I&s;aac, and Jacob.</HI> p. 62.</Q>
<P>If it appear that there is no truth in this a&s;&s;ertion, then your Argu|ment fals to the ground: But there is no truth in this a&s;&s;ertion. <HI>Ergo.</HI> I &s;hall make it appear, 1. In the Covenant made with <HI>Abraham:</HI> his po&s;terity &s;tood not by faith, but outward ob&s;ervation, Circumci&s;ion, keeping the Law. <HI>If thou be willing and obedient, thou &s;halt eat the good of the Land; if thou be di&s;obedient thou &s;halt be de&s;troyed with the &s;word, I&s;a.</HI> 1. 19, 20. But when Chri&s;t <HI>the true root,</HI> I&s;a. 11. 10. Rom. 15. 12. Rev. 5. 5. &amp; 22. 6. <HI>and fir&s;t-fruits,</HI> 1 Cor. 15. 20, 23. was come, they not believing were broken off, becau&s;e not by faith graffed upon the true root. For when Chri&s;t the true &s;piritual &s;eed was come, the natu|ral &s;eed and member&s;hip was broken off, and only that of &s;aith was graffed in: That as the natural &s;eed &s;tood members upon the account of the fir&s;t Covenant and promi&s;e made with <HI>Abraham;</HI> &s;o the &s;piritual &s;eed, <HI>viz.</HI> the &s;eed of faith, Chri&s;t being come, and is the
<PB N="34" REF="22"> &s;ub&s;tance of that Covenant, they are ingraffed into that root; he being holy, they are al&s;o holy, according to the words of Chri&s;t, <HI>Joh.</HI> 15. 1, 2.</P>
<P N="2">2. That this is the truth intended, will more cleerly appear, if you con&s;ider <HI>v.</HI> 18. <HI>Boa&s;t not again&s;t the branches (i e.</HI> again&s;t the branches broken off) <HI>for thou beare&s;t not the root, but the root thee.</HI> Now, <HI>Thomas Hall,</HI> what root is it that bears the believing branches? Na|tural parents, or Chri&s;t the true root? Is not he the foundation upon which they are built, and the true root and &s;tock into which they are ingrafted; and bears them up, and makes fruitful?</P>
<P>Whereas you &s;ay, <HI>That by ingraffing in, is meant admi&s;&s;ion into vi|&s;ible communion.</HI> I &s;ay, it is not only that; but fir&s;t faith, and then ad|mi&s;&s;ion into vi&s;ible communion. And one word by the way; what vi&s;ible communion are Infants capable of, if they may &s;ome of them be capable of invi&s;ible union and communion with Je&s;us Chri&s;t; yet where is their capacity of vi&s;ible communion with the Church, which con&s;i&s;ts in communicating of experiences; in Ordinances, <HI>fellow&s;hip in breaking bread, and prayers?</HI> where is your vi&s;ible communion of In|fants, Sir?</P>
<P>You &s;eem to an&s;wer an objection, <HI>p.</HI> 63. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;peaks of an invi&s;ible Church. For my part I own no &s;uch objection; for I know no invi&s;ible Church here upon earth: for a Church of Chri&s;t is a company of be|lievers walking in the vi&s;ible profe&s;&s;ion of truth; and there &s;hould be none in that profe&s;&s;ion, but &s;uch as are believers indeed; and if any come into the outward, without the inward grace, they mu&s;t be pluck|ed up. Therefore I own not that di&s;tinction of <HI>vi&s;ible</HI> and <HI>invi&s;ible.</HI> The invi&s;ible Church are tho&s;e out of &s;ight, that are departed; the vi|&s;ible are tho&s;e living in the vi&s;ible profe&s;&s;ion of truth: and the&s;e are they which are graffed in, <HI>Rom.</HI> 11. Tho&s;e that are graffed in truly, &s;hall &s;tand and thrive, the root Chri&s;t bears them; They that are but in &s;hew &s;hall fall, the root will not bear them, becau&s;e not graffed in by the heavenly Father. In all this here is no room for the natural &s;eed. I leave it to the Reader to judge.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="15" TYPE="argument">
<PB N="35" REF="22">
<HEAD>The fifteenth Argument.</HEAD>
<P>From 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 7. 14. <HI>El&s;e were your children unclean, but now are they holy.</HI></P>
<P>From hence you argue.</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>They that are holy with a Covenant-holine&s;s, may be baptized.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>But Infants born of one believing Parent, are holy with a Covenant-holine&s;s.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo, <HI>Such Infants may be baptized.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>Your <HI>Major</HI> hath been often denied, for its but the &s;ub&s;tance of what you have often &s;aid before; and therefore in &s;ub&s;tance I mu&s;t an&s;wer what I have an&s;wered before; there is no &s;uch thing mention|ed in all the New-Te&s;tament as a federal holine&s;s, <HI>viz.</HI> an external Co|venant-holine&s;s without an internal, this being the &s;ub&s;tance of what you &s;ay <HI>pag.</HI> 65. you confe&s;s children only by nature, <HI>that there is no difference between the childe of a Chri&s;tian and the childe of an Infidel:</HI> Yet con&s;ider him as believing, &s;o he and his are holy; he is holy &s;piri|tually, but are his Infants &s;o too? no; you confe&s;s pag. 62. <HI>This cau|tion mu&s;t be remembred, that the holine&s;s you &s;peak of is not per&s;onal inherent holine&s;s; for this cannot be tran&s;mitted to po&s;terity; but tis a fe|deral, external Covenant-holine&s;s.</HI> Pray Sir the next time let me know where in the New Te&s;tament this &s;ame external holine&s;s, without the internal, is &s;o much &s;poken of or commended: The Lord loveth truth in the inward parts, and condemns hypocri&s;ie and hypocrites; he condemns the form without the power; he owns no <HI>Jew but the spi|ritual, no &s;eed but the &s;piritual: the axe is now laid to the root of the Tree; every Tree that bringeth not forth good fruit mu&s;t be cut down,</HI> Mat. 3. and yet you are all for an outward holine&s;s without the in|ward, which is indeed and truth an abomination unto the Lord. But to come to the Scripture you pretend to ground your Argument from: You &s;ay, <HI>The Anabapti&s;ts have invented an eva&s;ion to avoid the force of the Text: that &s;ay they, its a matrimonial holine&s;s, that they are legi|timate and no ba&s;tards, &amp;c.</HI> Which I affirm, is the truth of the Scri|pture, and &s;hall 1. give &s;ome brief an&s;wers to what you a&s;&s;ert. And Secondly, &s;et down my rea&s;ons, for what I affirm. 1. <HI>You pretend the many ab&s;urdities that will follow if it be meant of a civil holine&s;s.</HI> 1. <HI>Then the children of Turks and Pagans born in Matrimony &s;hould be holy. An&s;w.</HI> and why not upon a Matrimonial account, more
<PB N="36" REF="23"> holy, that is, more lawfull then tho&s;e born of fornication? And whereas you &s;ay, <HI>they are dogs that are without,</HI> &amp;c. It is true, that is, comparatively to the true Church and Spiritual Seed; &s;o are not only Turks and Pagans, but mo&s;t of your Church-members, who do the &s;ame, if not wor&s;e works then they; only you have per&s;waded them into an outward Covenant as you and they imagine; but that helps not the bu&s;ine&s;s. 2. Its &s;in to wicked men what ever they do; yet their civil actions are better to them, as eating, drinking, plowing, Marri|age, lawfull procreation of children, then the contrary evil actions; the Apo&s;tle &s;aith that marriage is honourable among all. <HI>Heb.</HI> 13. 4. If among all, then among Turks, and their children are civilly holy, law|fully begotten according to a civil in&s;titution; though nothing be tru|ly and &s;piritually holy, but to tho&s;e in Chri&s;t, its a Law God hath writ|ten in the hearts both of Turks and Indians, that they are more con|&s;cientious in defiling of the Marriage e&s;tate, then many of tho&s;e you call Chri&s;tians.</P>
<P N="2">2. You &s;ay, <HI>The Apo&s;tles rea&s;on would have no weight with it; for their children were legitimate before conver&s;ion, &s;o he &s;hould allow them no more priviledge then meer Infidels have, &amp;c.</HI> The Query is not, what they were before conver&s;ion, but one being converted, and the other not; the doubt ari&s;eth, whether or no, the Believer mu&s;t put away the unbeliever: if he or &s;he mu&s;t do &s;o, then the children mu&s;t be gone too, both before and after conver&s;ion, and this was a Priviledge to the Believer, not to be compelled to part with his children: though unbelievers had the &s;ame in being, yet it was not to them &s;uch a privi|ledge, for mercy is mercy to a Believer indeed; he &s;ees every thing &s;anctified to him, which the unbeliever doth not.</P>
<P N="3">3. You &s;ay, <HI>Then all ba&s;tards are unholy and mu&s;t be damned,</HI> Here is a &s;imple one indeed, coming forth from &s;o wi&s;e and deep a head as <HI>Thomas Hall's.</HI> 1. Mu&s;t all be damned of nece&s;&s;ity without the holine&s;s you are pleading for? 2. Do we or the Scriptures &s;ay, that Ba&s;tards mu&s;t be damned? do you know from whence you have drawn that conclu&s;ion your &s;elf, that Ba&s;tards mu&s;t be damned? if that be not a federall holine&s;s, but a marriage holine&s;s; that their children are legiti|mate, then ba&s;tards mu&s;t be damned; Is this your Logick? I leave it with you.</P>
<P N="4">4. You &s;ay, <HI>The word holy is never u&s;ed in all the Scripture for legi|timation, but generally for a thing &s;eparated from common u&s;e to Gods &s;ervice, &amp;c.</HI> 1. <HI>Thomas Hall</HI> &s;hall confute <HI>Thomas Hall</HI> by and by;
<PB N="37" REF="23"> &s;ee <HI>pag.</HI> 67. he &s;aith, <HI>That the &s;anctification of the unbelieving husband to the believing wife, is not in re&s;pect of his per&s;onal condition, but in re&s;pect of his conjugalrelation; though he continue unclean towards God, yet to his believing wife in a way of marriage he is &s;anctified, that is, he is holy;</HI> for &s;o the Greek word <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> from <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> &s;ignifieth, and in e&s;&s;ence its the &s;ame as is &s;aid of the child, <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> but <HI>now are they holy:</HI> &s;o that fir&s;t you &s;ay, <HI>holine&s;s is never u&s;ed in all the Scri|pture for legitimation, but generally for things &s;eparated to Gods &s;er|vice; yet here you confe&s;s, holine&s;s is attributed to the unbeliever upon the Marriage account; in way of Marriage he is &s;anctified, &amp;c.</HI> And the Infants, or children are &s;anctified with the &s;ame &s;anctification in the &s;ame way, and this I take to be the <HI>jenuine</HI> &s;ignification of this Scripture. I &s;hall now give my rea&s;ons for it.</P>
<P N="1">1. There is no &s;uch thing in the Go&s;pel as an external federal holi|ne&s;s; its a meer invention of man, as I have often cleared.</P>
<P N="2">2. This interpretation, <HI>viz.</HI> That they were lawfully begotten; 1. reacheth the thing in hand mo&s;t &s;utable: for, as Mr. <HI>Hall</HI> confe&s;|&s;eth, <HI>the Apo&s;tle is giving &s;atisfaction to them concerning a &s;cruple or doubt about mixed Marriages,</HI> from <HI>Ezra</HI> 10. 2, 3. Nehem. 13 23. And he &s;atisfieth them, that the Believer need not put away the unbeliever, as the <HI>Jew</HI> did the Heathen; <HI>for God had &s;anctified the unbeliever to the believer; el&s;e were your children unclean,</HI> that is, your children mu&s;t depart, as tho&s;e did <HI>Ezra</HI> 10. and <HI>Neh.</HI> 13. <HI>But now are they holy,</HI> that is, holy as the unbeliever is holy; &s;anctified as the unbelie|ving husband is &s;anctified: This is &s;utable to the thing in hand, they are &s;anctified <HI>as every creature of God is &s;anctified to the believer,</HI> 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4. 5. <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">, <HI>it is &s;anctified by the word and prayer;</HI> &s;o is the unbeliever and children &s;anctified to the believer, that he may comfor|tably injoy them.</P>
<P N="3">3. It can be no other &s;anctification then that of the unbeliever, and that is granted by <HI>Tho: Hall,</HI> to be but a Marriage-Sanctification, and the childes holine&s;s can be no other, for it flows from it; <HI>the un|believer is &s;anctified, el&s;e were your children unclean, but now are they holy.</HI> He doth not &s;ay, the Believer is &s;anctified, el&s;e they were un|clean, and that mu&s;t have been the words to have made any thing for your federal holine&s;s; <HI>but the unbeliever is &s;anctified, &amp;c.</HI> It being thus cleared, that the holine&s;s of the childe flows from the Sanctifica|tion of the unbeliever, then its the &s;ame with the unbeliever; but it flows from it, therefore one with it; and this is concluded, that a
<PB N="38" REF="24"> cau&s;e cannot produce a more excellent effect then it &s;elf: the unbelie|ver he is &s;anctified, &s;aith <HI>Tho. Hall</HI> in way of marriage: then I &s;uppo&s;e its clear that the childs &s;anctification flowing from hence can be but of the &s;ame nature: the&s;e things thus con&s;idered, I leave it to the judgment of the Reader.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="16" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>The &s;ixteenth Argument.</HEAD>
<P>From the many dangerous errours and ab&s;urdities that will follow this tenet.</P>
<Q>1. <HI>Then Chri&s;tians Infants &s;hall be lo&s;ers by the coming of Chri&s;t. &amp;c.</HI></Q>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> No lo&s;ers at all; for what advantage is it to be in an outward Co|venant, and to have that which you call a Seal, and not to be in the grace of the Covenant, but to be <HI>children of wrath as much as hea|thens,</HI> as you confe&s;s <HI>pag.</HI> 10. a mear cheat, a &s;eal to a blank: and the truth is, you cannot devi&s;e a greater cheat for Infants, then to tell them they are in the Covenant of Grace, yet children of wrath as well as heathens; in it, yet out of it; and by this are the nations cheated in|to a Form of Godline&s;s, thinking them&s;elves in a Covenant of Grace, and in a moment go down to Hell.</P>
<Q>2. You &s;ay, <HI>Then grace &s;hould be larger then, then it is now, &amp;c.</HI></Q>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> No &s;uch thing, the Covenants con&s;idered; that was a Covenant of the land of <HI>Canaan</HI> which belonged to all the Seed, therefore they were all circumci&s;ed as a &s;ign of their obedience; and all partaked of the Promi&s;e which was but a Type of the Go&s;pel. Co|venant: ours is a Spiritual Covenant of the Spiritual Land, the Lord <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> and belongs to none but the Spiritual Seed; and to them its more excellent, and more large, and as &s;ure, if not more &s;ure then that was to the natural, <HI>Rom</HI> 4. 16. That was large and &s;ure to the na|tural, this large and &s;ure to the Spiritual &s;eed.</P>
<Q>3. You &s;ay, <HI>Then there would be no difference between the childe of a Chri&s;tian, and the childe of a Pagan, &amp;c. Then Dogs and Swine, &s;hut out of the new Jeru&s;alem,</HI> Rev. 22. 15.</Q>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> And is there any difference by nature think you, unle&s;s grace make a difference? doth your federal holine&s;s and bapti&s;m make &s;uch a difference? doth it receive them into the new <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> when you confe&s;s them <HI>children of wrath, as well as the children of heathens are,</HI> notwith&s;tanding your federal holine&s;s? Do not you by your pretend|ed out&s;ide holine&s;s rather &s;hut them out of the <HI>new</HI> and <HI>true Jeru&s;a|lem?</HI>
<PB N="39" REF="24"> and dare you &s;ay, <HI>Turks, Tartars, and Heathens are all &s;hut out from thence?</HI> May there not be a time when grace may reach them too? And may not Infants, when grown in years, have the means of working faith; and that in a more hopeful way, when dealt faith|fully withall, and not deluded with a &s;hadow without the &s;ub&s;tance; by which means they may through grace come to attain an intere&s;t in the new and true Covenant?</P>
<Q>4. You &s;ay, <HI>Then they are without Chri&s;t, without hope, without God,</HI> &amp;c.</Q>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> And are they any better in your fained Covenant, unle&s;s they have an intere&s;t in truth in Chri&s;t and in God? Which is be&s;t; to be without Chri&s;t, and thinke they have him; or to be without Chri&s;t, and know it? And who are likelie&s;t to abide longe&s;t without Chri&s;t, tho&s;e who are deluded and cheated with &s;omething like Chri&s;t, yet not him; or tho&s;e who are left as they are in their natural condition, that &s;o they may have nothing to delude them&s;elves withall, but &s;eek after the true God in the u&s;e of means, God making them &s;en&s;ible of the want of it?</P>
<Q>5. You &s;ay, <HI>Then they are the Devils children.</HI></Q>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> So they are, notwith&s;tanding your federal holine&s;s, if they do his work, <HI>Joh.</HI> 8. 44. All you plead for, changes not the nature, but the name; a &s;ad delu&s;ion!</P>
<Q>6. You &s;ay, <HI>This robs Chri&s;t of his glory; then the fir&s;t</HI> Adam <HI>was more powerfull to de&s;troy, then Chri&s;t to &s;ave,</HI> &amp;c.</Q>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> It is that makes for the glory of Chri&s;t; it's the fulfilling of his will and mind. But you di&s;honour him, in calling his name upon a company of people that do not know him, nor honour him in their conver&s;ation. It &s;eems you are an <HI>&V;niver&s;alian,</HI> you will have Chri&s;t to &s;ave all that fell in <HI>Adam;</HI> if all that partake of <HI>Adams</HI> &s;in, mu&s;t partake of Chri&s;t. Truly &s;ir, none are like to partake of Chri&s;ts grace but believers, that I know of; and this faith is the gift of God, <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 2. 8. Therefore take heed how you &s;tretch the grace of Chri&s;t beyond what it was intended, le&s;t you delude &s;ouls with the name of grace, without the truth.</P>
<Q>7. You &s;ay, <HI>Then Infants have no original &s;in,</HI> &amp;c.</Q>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> If they have, will your outward, out&s;ide, pretended Cove|nant and Seal wa&s;h it away? how then doth it leave them <HI>children of wrath</HI> &s;till, as the heathens? Oh &s;ad unheard of contradictions! They are not excluded from the preaching of the Go&s;pel, the ordinary means.</P>
<PB N="40" REF="25">
<Q>8. You &s;ay, <HI>This robs Infants of their right, Parents of their comfort, the Church of her members, Chri&s;t of his merits, and God of his glory.</HI></Q>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> I tell you, there is a great cry, and but little wooll, when looked after. 1. <HI>Children of their rights.</HI> When Chri&s;t in the Go&s;pel hath nowhere given them that right. Secondly, when they have it given them, it is &s;uch a right as deludes them, there is nothing in it, but words and wind. 2. <HI>Parents of their comfort.</HI> What comfort is it to parents who under&s;tand, and are not as ignorant as their babes, to have their children cheated, &s;ealed with a blank or a counterfeit that can do them no good? 3. <HI>The Church of its members.</HI> Alas, of what u&s;e are &s;uch members in the Church of Chri&s;t? Did you ever find &s;uch members there? There are, or &s;hould be none but u&s;eful members. 4. <HI>Chri&s;t of his merits.</HI> Did Chri&s;t merit bapti&s;m for Infants? if &s;o, you &s;hould have proved it. Or purcha&s;e his Church? <HI>Act.</HI> 20. 28. <HI>Eph.</HI> 5. 25. 5. <HI>And God of his glory.</HI> What glory would Infants bring to God in the Church of Chri&s;t? Can they wor&s;hip &s;piritually? Such <HI>he &s;eeks to wor&s;hip him,</HI> Joh. 4. 24. can they <HI>offer up &s;piritual &s;acrifice, acceptable, &amp;c?</HI> This is the work of the Church of Chri&s;t, 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 2 5. and they that cannot do this, di&s;honour God in his Church, and have nothing to do to be there. The&s;e things thus con&s;idered, I leave the Reader to judge who di&s;honor God mo&s;t, tho&s;e who contrary to his revealed will thru&s;t upon him of their own heads a company of ignorant dead members, that do not know him, and cannot wor&s;hip; or tho&s;e who according to his revealed will endeavour to keep the Church pure, and admit none but tho&s;e they judge living members, knowing that none el&s;e can offer to him living &s;acrifice, acceptable, &amp;c.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="17" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>The &s;eventeenth Argument.</HEAD>
<P>From the benefit that redounds both to parents and their chil|dren.</P>
<Q>1. <HI>Much comfort comes hereby to Parents, when they con&s;ider Gods free grace to them and theirs</HI> &amp;c.</Q>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. There is no &s;uch thing in the Go&s;pel covenant, as hath been already proved; neither have you, nor can you produce any &s;uch word in the Go&s;pel-covenant: but that he is a God, a Father to the true &s;eed, <HI>viz.</HI> the &s;eed of Chri&s;t; and none el&s;e are accounted for the &s;eed; they, and they onely who believe, have received <HI>this privi|ledge,</HI>
<PB N="41" REF="25"> <HI>this right, to be called the children of God,</HI> Joh. 1. 12. And then,</P>
<P N="2">2. What comfort can it be to Parents to have their Children called and accounted that which indeed at pre&s;ent they are not, nor have no right &s;o to be called or accounted? For the Covenant of grace is this, <HI>I will write my Law in their heart,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>&s;o will I be a God unto you,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>And ye &s;hall no more teach one another, &s;aying, Know the Lord; for ye &s;hall all know me from the greate&s;t to the lea&s;t.</HI> They that are accounted to be in this Covenant, are &s;uch as <HI>know the Lord</HI> by vertue of their being <HI>taught of him.</HI> And this is &s;et in oppo&s;ition to the Covenant of the Law, which was made with the natural &s;eed, which were a people for the mo&s;t part not knowing God. But it is not &s;o in the Go&s;pel-Covenant; there are none but tho&s;e who <HI>know the Lord,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Jer.</HI> 3 31. <HI>Heb</HI> 8. 10, 11. Therefore I &s;ay again, that it is but little comfort to tho&s;e Parents who are not more ignorant then their Infants, to have their Children called and accounted that which they are not: to have their Children (as you &s;ay) <HI>admitted into Chri&s;ts &s;chool, members of his Church, &s;heep of his fold, di&s;tingui&s;hed from heathens, &amp;c.</HI> What true comfort can it be to Parents, or benefit to Infants to have all the&s;e outward things you pretend they gain by it, and yet may be without the truth of all; and are, as you confe&s;s, <HI>Children of wrath, as well as the children of heathens?</HI> Is not this the way to lead them on in a fools paradi&s;e; make them have good conceits of them&s;elves, that they are in the Covenant and &s;o delude and undo them for ever? And the truth is, and Chri&s;t hath &s;aid it, <HI>Joh.</HI> 10. 9. that <HI>He is the door into the &s;heepfold,</HI> viz. the Church, <HI>and none can enter in but by him:</HI> and tho&s;e who enter by him <HI>&s;hall be &s;aved, and &s;hall go in and out and find pa&s;ture.</HI> They &s;hal not be mocked &amp; cheated with an out&s;ide <HI>Covenant-holines, Church member&s;hip,</HI> &amp;c. as you &s;erve the Children of the Nation: but they &s;hall be &s;aved &amp;c.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="18" TYPE="argument">
<PB N="42" REF="26">
<HEAD>The eighteenth Argument.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>All will-wor&s;hip mu&s;t be avoided.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>But the refu&s;ing to baptize Infants of Chri&s;tian parents till they come to years of di&s;cretion, is will-wor&s;hip.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo, <HI>It mu&s;t be avoided.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>Your <HI>Minor</HI> is denied. You pretend to prove it with another Argument, wherein your weakne&s;s appears: the Argument is,</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>That which hath neither precept nor pre&s;ident for it in the word of God, is will-wor&s;hip.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>But the deferring the baptizing the Infants of Chri&s;tian parents, hath neither precept nor pre&s;ident for it in the word of God.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo, <HI>It is will-wor&s;hip.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. That the weight of your Argument may the better ap|pear unto the Reader, I &s;hall give another Argument as well grounded as yours:</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM>That which hath neither precept nor pre&s;ident for it in the word of God, is will-wor&s;hip.</ITEM>
<ITEM>But the deferring the baptizing of the Infants of Heathen parents, hath neither precept nor pre&s;ident for it in the word of God.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Ergo,</HI> It is will-wor&s;hip.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>Secondly, I an&s;wer,</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM>That which hath neither precept nor pre&s;ident for it in the word of God, is will-wor&s;hip.</ITEM>
<ITEM>But the baptizing of Infants of believing parents hath neither pre|cept nor pre&s;ident in the word of God.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Ergo,</HI> it is will-wor&s;hip.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>You confe&s;s 'tis true, <HI>Men of years profe&s;&s;ing faith are fit &s;ubjects of Bapti&s;m:</HI> So then, upon your own confe&s;&s;ion, we take the fit &s;ubjects. <HI>But not the onely &s;ubjects, excluding Infants,</HI> &amp;c. Although the Scri|pture excludes all except men of years profe&s;&s;ing faith. <HI>I</HI> prove it thus:</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM>If there but one water-bapti&s;m mentioned in the Go&s;pel as an Or|dinance of Chri&s;t by way of precept and pre&s;ident, and that is to per&s;ons of years profe&s;&s;ing faith; then all others are excluded.</ITEM>
<PB N="43" REF="26">
<ITEM>But there is but one water-bapti&s;m mentioned in the Go&s;pel as an Ordinance of Chri&s;t, by way of precept and pre&s;ident; and that is to per&s;ons of years profe&s;&s;ing faith.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Ergo,</HI> All others are excluded. <HI>Mat.</HI> 28. 19. <HI>Mar.</HI> 16. 16. <HI>Act.</HI> 2. 38, 39, 41. <HI>Act.</HI> 8. 12.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>You require a pre&s;ident for it. <HI>Let any man &s;hew but one example of any Child of God, that ever kept his Child unbaptized till he could make profe&s;&s;ion of his faith,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. VVhen you have produced any Scripture that requires Infants of Believers to be baptized, then &s;hall I &s;hew you a Scripture where they kept them back till they profe&s;&s;ed faith.</P>
<P N="2">2. There being no command for the practi&s;e of baptizing Infants, there needs no record for the keeping them from it; its enough that there is neither precept nor pre&s;ident for the doing of it: that was enough to them, and &s;hould be to us.</P>
<P N="3">3. The not doing of a thing is no part of wor&s;hip: all wor&s;hip con&s;i&s;ts in doing or &s;uffering the will of God; and &s;uffering is a doing the will of God too: in both of which the renewed mind is active, as well as the body is in the one active in the other pa&s;&s;ive, <HI>Heb.</HI> 10. 36. But the refu&s;ing to baptize Infants is no part of wor&s;hip, therefore cannot po&s;&s;ibly be will-wor&s;hip. If bapti&s;m of Infants were a com|mand of Chri&s;t, as you &s;ay, though never proved; yet to neglect it is no more will-wor&s;hip, then to neglect prayer, prai&s;ing, or the like is will-wor&s;hip; its no wor&s;hip, not will-wor&s;hip.</P>
<P>Thus have I briefly minded you of the &s;implicity and non&s;en&s;e of your Argument in every particular; and proceed to your</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="19" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>Nineteenth Argument,</HEAD>
<Q><P>From the ble&s;&s;ing of God upon the Churches that have practi&s;ed Infant-Bapti&s;m.</P></Q>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. If you mind by the ble&s;&s;ing <HI>outward pro&s;perity,</HI> I &s;uppo&s;e the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> whom you condemn for heretical in your &s;epa|rating from her, hath had as great a &s;hare, and the longe&s;t &s;tanding of any Church or State in the world. And that is no trial of the truth of a Church, outward pro&s;perity, and long continuance; for the Churches of Chri&s;t in the Primitive times were, and yet are under per|&s;ecution, reproach and contempt, but little pro&s;perity in the world, <HI>Joh.</HI> 16. <HI>ult.</HI></P>
<PB N="44" REF="27">
<P N="2">2. If you mind, as you &s;eem to intimate, <HI>Becau&s;e &s;o many ble&s;s God for their Infant-Bapti&s;m.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. So did many ble&s;s God for Epi&s;copal Government, yet at la&s;t the very &s;ame ble&s;&s;ed God for the fall of it.</P>
<P N="2">2. I &s;uppo&s;e, as many upright &s;ouls now are ble&s;&s;ing God for his di&s;covery of the vanity of it.</P>
<P N="3">3. Its not mens ble&s;&s;ing God for things, that proves the truth of the&s;e things, but the approbation of him who is Truth it &s;elf.</P>
<P N="4">4. If you mind, <HI>becau&s;e tho&s;e you fal&s;ly call Anabapti&s;ts have been condemned per&s;ecuted, and afflicted, as you intimate, and the others ju&s;ti|fied, upheld, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Its the likelier to be truth; for that hath alwayes pa&s;&s;ed under reproach and contempt: as for affliction, <HI>Job</HI> &s;uffered much, the lo&s;s of all; will you judge <HI>Job</HI> for his afflictions, and ju&s;tifie his wick|ed enemies, yea and the Devil too that afflicted him? for &s;hame learn more civility then to rea&s;on thus: did you never hear of <HI>Iobs</HI> lo&s;&s;es? was it becau&s;e he was an Anabapti&s;t think you? or was it becau&s;e God gave Satan liberty to try him, for his good? and may not God give Satan the &s;ame liberty to try his own &s;ervants, and it may be to prove the Devil a lyar, as he did in the trial of <HI>Iob?</HI> have you never heard of great part of Cities, Towns, and Hou&s;es burnt? and was it becau&s;e they were Anabapti&s;ts think you? As for your vile and rayling expre&s;&s;i|ons, I pa&s;s it by, and leave it to the righteous Judge, who will do right both to his &s;ervants and his enemies.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="20" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>The twentieth Argument.</HEAD>
<P>From the principles and practi&s;e of all reformed Churches.</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>That which is condemned by all the Churches of God, and is contrary both to their principles and practi&s;e, is unlawful.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>But Anabapti&s;m is condemned by all the Churches of God, and is con|trary both to their principles and practi&s;e.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Your <HI>Major</HI> is granted, <HI>viz.</HI> That that which is condemned by the principles and practi&s;es of the Churches in Scripture, and all tho&s;e reformed, or rather gathered upon the &s;ame principles and pra|cti&s;es, is unlawfull.</P>
<PB N="45" REF="27">
<P>Your <HI>Minor</HI> is denyed; for baptizing of believers hath been, and is the principle and practi&s;e of the Churches of Chri&s;t: whereas you produce 1 Cor. 11. 16. <HI>We have no &s;uch cu&s;tome, nor the Churches of Chri&s;t;</HI> I &s;ay there was no &s;uch cu&s;tome as the baptizing of Infants in the Churches of Chri&s;t; and for tho&s;e you call reformed Churches, the mo&s;t of them, if not all, brought their bapti&s;m of Infants from their mother Church of <HI>Rome.</HI> So then, it is not the practi&s;e of the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> or of her members that are rent from her that we look unto, but the Scripture, the word of truth, which &s;hould be both their and our rule; and when Churches or per&s;ons contradict that, let them be <HI>Anathema Maranatha.</HI></P>
<P>And whereas you are plea&s;ed, as you pretend, in confirmation of what you have a&s;&s;erted in this Argument, to arraign the pri&s;oner at the Bar, &s;o producing your reformed Churches and Divines, &s;o judging the &s;ervants of the Lord for their following of him, and obedience to him; Be a&s;&s;ured, you will one day know what you have done, <HI>When the Lord Ie&s;us &s;hall appear to render vengeance to tho&s;e who know him not, neither obey his Go&s;pel, but to be admired in all tho&s;e who believe and follow him,</HI> 2 The&s;. 1. 8. When he will judge his enemies <HI>for all their hard words &s;poken again&s;t him.</HI> Jude 5. and notwith&s;tanding you can make &s;o bold now to arraign the pri&s;oner at the bar, <HI>viz</HI> the &s;ervants of the Lord, for their profe&s;&s;ing and practi&s;e of the truth; yet the Lord will deliver them in his time, and they &s;hall judge their Judges, <HI>And bind their Kings in Chains, and their Nobles in fetters of Iron; this honour &s;hall all the Saints have; prai&s;e ye Iehovah,</HI> P&s;al. 149. Al|though I could, yet I &s;hall in this trace you no farther, but leave you to the Judgement of him who will judge righteous Judgement be|tween us in the end: referring tho&s;e who de&s;ire to &s;ee more, as to this particular, to my book entituled <HI>The Pulpit Guard Routed.</HI></P>
<P>So much briefly in way of an&s;wer to your <HI>Font Guarded with twenty Arguments.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="objections">
<PB N="46" REF="28">
<P><HI>Now I &s;hould proceed to the di&s;covery of the weakne&s;s of your An&s;wers to the Scruples, Scripture-Objections, and An&s;wers mentioned by you in your Book, in defence (as you call it) of Anabapti&s;m.</HI></P>
<P>But that fir&s;t there are &s;ome Arguments not made u&s;e of that I know, but are rather your own inventions.</P>
<P>And &s;econdly, becau&s;e the &s;umme of all you &s;ay, hath been an&s;wer|ed and confuted in what is written in an&s;wer to your Arguments: and it would be indeed but a tautologie, as you have very many in your Book, and upon that account I have been nece&s;&s;itated to make u&s;e of many, that &s;o I might give &s;ome an&s;wer to you: I &s;hall there|fore refer the Reader for &s;atisfaction to what you &s;ay in this which follows, to what I have written in an&s;wer to that which precedes; that which &s;ucceeds being but the &s;ub&s;tance of that which is gone be|fore: only the &s;econd and la&s;t I &s;hall &s;ay &s;omething unto.</P>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="objection">
<HEAD><HI>The &s;econd Objection,</HI> pag. 88. of your Book.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Baptizing of Infants is a new invention, found out by the Pope and the Devil, tis the mark of the Bea&s;t, invented by Antichri&s;t; either by Pope</HI> Higinus, <HI>who lived in the &s;econd Century, about</HI> 150 <HI>years after Chri&s;t: or el&s;e by Pope</HI> Innocent <HI>the third, who lived at lea&s;t</HI> 1000 <HI>years after Chri&s;t,</HI> 1215.</P>
<P>You an&s;wer 1. <HI>If</HI> Higinus <HI>Bi&s;hop of</HI> Rome, <HI>were the fir&s;t inventor of it, then it was more ancient then many will grant.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. You &s;ay, <HI>That he was not the inventor of it, but you find by</HI> Plati|na, <HI>that he was the fir&s;t that enjoined Sureties.</HI></P>
<P>And why not the fir&s;t that enjoyned Infant bapti&s;m? you produce nothing to the contrary but your word; and that the &s;ame authority that ordained the one, ordained the other, is very apparent.</P>
<P N="1">1. Becau&s;e neither of them have any footing in the Scripture.</P>
<P>And 2. Becau&s;e Hi&s;tory relates, that both Infant-bapti&s;m, and Sure|ties, or Godfathers, came in together, as is related in the Hi&s;tory of the names and cu&s;tomes of all Nations, written by <HI>Iohannes Boemus Aubamus,</HI> a Dutchman, tran&s;lated out of Latine into Engli&s;h by <HI>Ed|ward A&s;ton,</HI> 1611. page 159. he &s;aith, <HI>That Bapti&s;m heretofore, as it was e&s;tabli&s;hed by a Canonical &s;anction, was not mini&s;tred unto any (un|le&s;s</HI>
<PB N="47" REF="28"> <HI>upon very urgent nece&s;&s;ity, but unto &s;uch as were beforehand well in&s;tructed in the Faith, and &s;ufficiently catechized and examined thereof &s;even &s;everal times, to wit, upon certain days in Lent, &amp;c. But this Sacrament being above all the re&s;t mo&s;t nece&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation, and le&s;t any one &s;hould depart out of this life without the benefit thereof, it was or|dained, that a&s;&s;oon as an Infant was born he &s;hould have God-fathers pro|cured for him to be his Witne&s;&s;es or Sureties; and that then the childe being brought by his Godfathers before the Church-door, the Prie&s;t &s;tan|ding there for the purpo&s;e, &s;hould demand of the childe, before he dip him in the holy Font. Whether he will for&s;ake the Devil and all his pomps? and whether he believe all the Articles of the Chri&s;tian Faith; and the Godfathers affirming on his behalf &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>The rea&s;on why I record this in this place, is fir&s;t to pre&s;ent to view the probability of <HI>Higinus</HI> bringing in of Infants Bapti&s;m; for you &s;ay, that you finde by <HI>Platina,</HI> that he brought in Godfathers fir&s;t; and I finde by <HI>Joannes Boemus,</HI> that he that brought Godfathers fir&s;t, brought in Infants-Bapti&s;m with it</P>
<P N="2">2. I finde that there was a time when there was a Canonical Sanction or Statute again&s;t it.</P>
<P N="3">3. The coming in of Infant-Bapti&s;m, with the rea&s;on of it, <HI>viz.</HI> le&s;t any &s;hould die without it, and the manner of it with God-fathers; and dipping not &s;prinkling in the holy Font.</P>
<P>And this Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> confe&s;&s;eth him&s;elf, in his third Edition of the <HI>Saints Everla&s;ting Re&s;t,</HI> part. 1. ch. 8. Sect 5 p, 179. in the Margin he &s;aith, And in the Primitive times none were Baptized without an ex|pre&s;s Covenanting, wherein they renounced the world, fle&s;h, and De|vil, and engaged them&s;elves to Chri&s;t, and promi&s;ed to obey him, as you may &s;ee in <HI>Tertul. Origen, Cyprian,</HI> and others at large, &amp;c. This being a Truth, where is ground for Infant-Bapti&s;m, upon Mr. <HI>Bax|ters</HI> own confe&s;&s;ion? So that the&s;e things thus con&s;idered, takes off all your probabilities, that <HI>the Apo&s;tles did baptize Infants, and that it hath been a practi&s;e in the Church ever &s;ince; yet you confe&s;s immedi|atly, that &s;ome of the ancients,</HI> pag. 89. <HI>did per&s;wade men from bapti|zing Infants; yet &s;ay you, their di&s;&s;wa&s;ions &s;hew that their u&s;ual pra|ctice was to baptize them.</HI> I &s;ay, that it rather did &s;hew that tho&s;e An|cients knew that it was but an invention of man, and that there was no ground for it in Scripture; el&s;e what need they to di&s;&s;wade them from it?</P>
<P N="1">1. You &s;ay, S. <HI>John died</HI> 104. &s;aith <HI>Al&s;teed;</HI> a likely or unlikely
<PB N="48" REF="29"> matter; the <HI>P&s;almi&s;t</HI> &s;aith long before, a mans days were three&s;core and ten, &amp;c. <HI>John</HI> died a 104 years after Chri&s;t; if this be likely, I leave all to judge. <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr, you &s;ay, who lived in all probability;</HI> It is but probability then, and very unlikely; for you &s;ay <HI>he flouri&s;hed about</HI> 130. is this like to be in <HI>Johns</HI> days? all <HI>John</HI> days might be, nay mu&s;t be, well near 200 years then; and all this you &s;train to draw down, if you could, Bapti&s;m of Infants from the Apo&s;tles; the &s;um of all is this, <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr di&s;putes the difference between Infants who die baptized, and tho&s;e who die unbaptized; he lived probably in S.</HI> Johns <HI>days, and knew the practi&s;e of the Apo&s;tle; but he lived</HI> 130 <HI>years af|ter Chri&s;t; John mu&s;t live &s;o long too, or</HI> 104 <HI>at lea&s;t, that &s;o</HI> Ju&s;tin Martyr <HI>might know Apo&s;tolick practi&s;e from</HI> John: You mention others, as <HI>Tertullian, Origen Cyprian, &amp;c.</HI> who mention baptizing of Infants; it may be they mention it as an Innovation: for Mr. <HI>Bax|ter</HI> &s;aith expre&s;ly, as before, that they &s;ay there were none baptized in the Primitive times without an expre&s;s Covenanting, &amp;c. So you conclude that <HI>Infants Bapti&s;m is no new invention, either of Pope or Devil; no man can &s;hew what Pope or man invented it.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Chri&s;t never commanded it, the Apo&s;tles never practi|&s;ed it; that is evident, not only from the Scriptures &s;ilence, but Ma&s;ter <HI>Baxters</HI> confe&s;&s;ion; and then &s;ome <HI>Pope, man or Devil</HI> mu&s;t invent it; and we are come very near the mark; you produce a Hi&s;tory that &s;aith <HI>Pope</HI> Higinus <HI>brought in Godfathers:</HI> I have mentioned another that &s;aith Godfathers and Infant-Bapti&s;m came in together: and why not by the &s;ame Pope? you conclude, that you will <HI>retort this upon the Anabapti&s;ts, that their practi&s;e is but a new invention, not above an hun|dred years old, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> There is no truth in that: Baptizing of Believers is 1652 years <HI>old, and that is many &s;cores of yeers before your Infant-Bapti&s;m was invented:</HI> and this Practi&s;e of the baptizing, and non baptizing of Infants, is that which hath been mentioned with much envy, al|mo&s;t in all Ages &s;ince the Primitive times; which notes, that there hath been &s;ome Witne&s;&s;es to the truth in all Ages. A|bout the year 1525. <HI>Zuinglius</HI> being bu&s;ied about Reformation, there crept in the Here&s;ie of the <HI>Catabapti&s;ts,</HI> who forbade the bap|tizing of Infants, and did rebaptize them&s;elves. With the&s;e <HI>Zuin|glius</HI> dealt friendly, at fir&s;t di&s;puting with them, and convincing them of their errours; but they being ob&s;tinate in their opinions, he cau&s;ed the Senate &s;everely to puni&s;h them, &s;ome with impri&s;onment &s;ome
<PB N="49" REF="29"> with death: this is recorded in a Book, intituled <HI>Abel redivivus,</HI> or <HI>The dead yet &s;peaking,</HI> pag. 92. And your own confe&s;&s;ion, <HI>That &s;ome Ancients di&s;&s;waded from the baptizing of Infants, &amp;c.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="20" TYPE="objection">
<HEAD><HI>The</HI> 20. <HI>Objection</HI> you mention, is,</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>That Baptizing is dipping.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>But your Infants are not dipped.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo, <HI>They are not Baptized.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>You an&s;wer 1. <HI>That dipping is a thing indifferent, and not ab&s;olutely nece&s;&s;ary or e&s;&s;ential to Bapti&s;m: there may be true Bapti&s;m, where there is no dipping, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> <HI>to Baptize is one thing, and</HI> <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> <HI>to plunge over head and ears, is another, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Its one and the &s;ame; for the word <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> &s;ignifieth to dip as your &s;elf confe&s;s, <HI>pag.</HI> 113. though not only to dip: you &s;ay the Primitive word <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> <HI>hath four &s;everall &s;ignifications:</HI> 1. <HI>To drownd, plunge or overwhelm,</HI> 2. <HI>To dye or dip.</HI> 3. <HI>To moy&s;ten or make wet.</HI> 4. <HI>To wa&s;h or clean&s;e.</HI> Note 1. It doth not by your own confe&s;&s;ion &s;ignifie to &s;prinkle: you have &s;aid enough to &s;atisfie any that de&s;ireth &s;atisfaction in this particular, that your Practi&s;e of &s;prinkling, is not according to the Scripture; and in truth, &s;prinkling is another word, and another thing then Baptizing; <HI>Rantizo</HI> is the Greek word for &s;prinkling, and <HI>Baptizo</HI> from <HI>Bapto</HI> is the Greek word for Baptizing: take it in which of the&s;e four you plea&s;e; neither of them is to &s;prinkle; but in dipping, either of all the four is fulfilled; if dipped, then wet, then wa&s;hed, then drowned or plunged; &s;o that dipping is nothing &s;hort of Baptizing, for the word &s;ignifieth it; its nothing beyond Bapti&s;m; for it is but a plunging, a wetting, or wa&s;hing of the whole man: &s;o that take in all the &s;ignifications of that word <HI>Baptizo,</HI> dip|ping an&s;wers them all; but &s;prinkling an&s;wers neither; and in deed and truth, is not baptizing, but another thing, and that which <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> never commanded. Sprinkling a little water in the face is not a dip|ping or plunging, it is not a wetting or wa&s;hing the whole man, and in no ca&s;e an&s;wers the command of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>But for the clearing of this particular, I &s;hall give the&s;e
<PB N="50" REF="30"> four grounds, to confirm dipping to be the true baptizing, and not &s;prinkling.</P>
<P N="1">1. From the &s;ignification of the word, as hath been already minded, it is the conclu&s;ion of all the Ma&s;ters of the Greek Tongue, in the Greek Lexicons, that the fir&s;t, and mo&s;t native, and proper &s;ignificati|on of <HI>Baptizo</HI> is to dip or plunge into, or under water: and this your &s;elf confe&s;&s;e, that 1. It &s;ignifieth to drown, plunge, overwhelm, die or dip; this Mr. <HI>Lee</HI> in his <HI>Critica Sacra</HI> on the word, and <HI>Pa&s;&s;or,</HI> with divers others affirms, whom I &s;uppo&s;e you conclude were Ma&s;ters of the Greek Tongue; and this likewi&s;e Doctor <HI>Featly</HI> in his <HI>Dipper Dipt</HI> confe&s;&s;eth; and this I finde, that the word <HI>Baptizo</HI> is ne|ver rendred in the New-Te&s;tament to &s;prinkle, nor <HI>Rantizo</HI> to Bap|tize; therefore do no longer wre&s;t the truth contrary to your own knowledge, but be &s;till, and know that God is God.</P>
<P N="2">2. From the Practi&s;e of the Servants of the Lord in the Primitive times, who be&s;t knew the minde of Chri&s;t: 1. <HI>John</HI> who was the <HI>Me&s;&s;enger of Chri&s;t,</HI> Mal. 3. 1. <HI>Baptized; and he baptized in</HI> Jordan, Mat. 3 6. <HI>And he baptized Chri&s;t him&s;elf in</HI> Jordan, ver. 16. with Mark 1. 9. <HI>and he came up out of the water.</HI> What need <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> and <HI>John</HI> go down into the water, if &s;prinkling would do the deed? And the Text &s;aith, <HI>Mat.</HI> 3. 13. <HI>That Je&s;us cometh to John to be baptized,</HI> that is, upon Mr. <HI>Hales</HI> one account, to be plunged, dipped, wet, or wa&s;hed, not &s;prinkled, and being dip'd he was both wet and wa&s;hed. And <HI>Joh.</HI> 3. 23. its &s;aid, <HI>That John was baptizing</HI> (not &s;prinkling) <HI>in Enon neer Salim, becau&s;e there was much water there;</HI> If &s;prinkling had been the thing required, no need of much water. To this, you &s;ay, 1. <HI>Water was &s;carce in tho&s;e hot Countries; that infers not a &s;trip|ping naked, and plunging of all that were Baptized, but only the conveni|ency of baptizing a multitude, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Do you know, or have you heard of any &s;uch hot Coun|try, where there could not be water had enough to &s;prinkle many thou&s;ands, if need require? 2. Was <HI>Canaan</HI> &s;uch a Country as that water was &s;carce in it, being the promi&s;ed fruitfull Land in the whole world, a type of the <HI>Heavenly Canaan?</HI> where were <HI>Wells digged, Deut.</HI> 6. 11. <HI>Neh.</HI> 9. 25. and <HI>Rivers in abundance,</HI> or el&s;e the Type holds not corre&s;pondence to the Antitype, <HI>Ezek.</HI> 34. 13 <HI>I&s;.</HI> 12. 3. Therefore for &s;hame talk no more of a dry and hot Country; it being a Land of Rivers and Wells digged, &amp;c. So that if a little water would have done it, as a little would have &s;prinkled thou&s;ands, they needed not
<PB N="51" REF="30"> to have been baptized in <HI>Enon;</HI> &s;o the word is not <HI>at,</HI> but in <HI>Enon;</HI> and &s;o the&s;e &s;everal places tran&s;lated <HI>with water, Mat.</HI> 3. 11. <HI>Mark</HI> 1. 8. <HI>Luk.</HI> 3. 6. <HI>Iohn</HI> 1. 26. <HI>Act.</HI> 1. 5. in the Greek it is rendred in every one of them <HI>in water;</HI> although you &s;eem to hold forth that <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> &s;ome|times &s;ignifieth <HI>with;</HI> yet the proper &s;ignification of <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> is <HI>in,</HI> and is &s;o under&s;tood and rendred twenty times in the New Te&s;tament again&s;t once <HI>with;</HI> that being the proper &s;ignification of the word, and mo&s;t &s;utable to the Practi&s;e of the Apo&s;tles and &s;ervants of the Lord. Compare the former Scriptures with <HI>Act</HI> 8. 38. and its clear they bap|tized in the water, not becau&s;e of the &s;carcity of water as you pretend, but becau&s;e there was much water, without which that Ordinance of dipping could not be admini&s;tred. As for your Font-&s;prinkling there is not the lea&s;t &s;hadow of any ground for it in the Scripture; and whereas you &s;ay, <HI>not a &s;tripping naked, &amp;c.</HI> the Scripture mentions no &s;uch thing, neither is it our Practi&s;e, nor yours neither. Do you u&s;e to &s;trip naked when you &s;prinkle? neither do we when we baptize, &amp;c.</P>
<P N="2">2. You &s;ay, <HI>Suppo&s;e the Apo&s;tles did dip tho&s;e whom they baptized, yet 'twill not follow therefore that we mu&s;t do &s;o too, becau&s;e tis only an example without a precept, and &s;o doth not binde us, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. There was the precept both to them and us. 2. they knew the will of him who gave the precept, and walked according to it, and we by their pre&s;ident know what the precept was, and &s;o its a precept to us as well as them.</P>
<P><HI>They lived in Judea in hot climates where was no danger of dipping &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. And was there one way for them in <HI>Judea,</HI> and another for us in <HI>England?</HI> prove that by Scripture when you write next.</P>
<P N="2">2. Was their Country &s;o much hotter then ours? had they not Winter and Summer, heat and cold, fro&s;t and &s;now, as we have? <HI>Ioh.</HI> 10. 22. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 74. 17. <HI>Ier.</HI> 36. 22. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 148. 8. Therefore give off this for &s;hame likewi&s;e. Say no more their Country was hot, and ours cold. You &s;ay, <HI>The danger of dipping in our cold Country, is, that many in our dayes have dyed.</HI> If you intend the dipping of Believers, you &s;peak a horrid untruth: I am confident that never one peri&s;hed in that way. But &s;econdly, if you minde dipping of Infants, I know none are dipped. 2. If any be, no wonder if they peri&s;h, being done out of Gods way having no warrant from him.</P>
<P>You confe&s;s Mr. <HI>Perkins approves of dipping in hot Countries, and in men of years, but denies the u&s;e of it to Infants, becau&s;e of their health.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Fir&s;t, is not this Country hot enough to Dip? they had winter
<PB N="52" REF="31"> who dipped, as well as we; but no wonder if it be dangerous to the health of Infants; let it be admini&s;tred to the right Subjects, <HI>viz.</HI> Be|lievers, and you need not doubt of dipping. Whereas you que&s;tion it <HI>for &s;ick and old folks,</HI> pag. 115. I &s;ay there is no &s;uch nece&s;&s;ity to Baptize &s;uch in Winter, <HI>God will have mercy and not &s;acrifice:</HI> let them &s;tay till Summer; but take heed, change not the Ordinance from Dipping to Sprinkling; that is a dangerous thing. But you confe&s;s <HI>pag.</HI> 114. <HI>That dipping is a lawfull manner of Baptizing;</HI> in this you have confuted all you have &s;aid to this particular either before or after: For if dipping be a lawfull manner of Baptizing, then fir&s;t &s;prinkling is unlawfull, for there is but one lawfull way of baptizing; the Scri|pture I am &s;ure mentions no more, there is but one Bapti&s;m. 2. Then our dipping is lawfull. 3. You have done ill &s;ervice in all you have &s;aid to render a practi&s;e &s;o contemptible, which is as you confe&s;s in it &s;elf lawfull.</P>
<P N="1">1. You &s;ay, <HI>The Scripture cals &s;prinkling baptizing.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> No &s;uch thing: Let any examine the Scriptures you produce; &s;ee if you &s;peak true or fal&s;e. <HI>Heb.</HI> 9. 10, 13, 19, 21. You &s;ay, the word &s;ignifieth <HI>wa&s;hing</HI> as well as <HI>dipping. An&s;.</HI> Granted; but <HI>&s;prinkling</HI> is neither wa&s;hing nor dipping.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>In Circumci&s;ion a little skin in one part only was cut off.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An.</HI> That was done according to the command; &s;o &s;hould Bapti&s;m, which is a dipping (as you confe&s;s) and we may not make our &s;elves wi&s;er then Chri&s;t, in inventing new wayes that he never required: therein we do indeed &s;hew our pride, and are but fools.</P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>Wa&s;hing, sprinkling, is a &s;afer way, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Sprinkling is not wa&s;hing, but dipping is. 2. As to &s;afety <HI>in doubtfull ca&s;es,</HI> I have an&s;wered already.</P>
<P N="4">4. <HI>Sprinkling is &s;ufficient, becau&s;e the thing &s;ignified is &s;et forth by &s;prinkling, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> There is no &s;uch thing: for though the blood of Chri&s;t be one thing &s;ignified in Bapti&s;m, yet there are other things &s;ignified in it; and yet &s;prinkling doth not reach this of the applying the blood of Chri&s;t &s;o fully as dipping, which is a wa&s;hing of the whole man; repre&s;enting, that as truly as the whole body is wa&s;hed by dipping in water, &s;o tho&s;e who are baptized upon the true account &s;hal be wholly wa&s;hed from not only the guilt of &s;in but from the filth and pre&s;ence of it. Which &s;hall be my 3. ground, that dipping, and not &s;prinkling is the true Bapti&s;m.</P>
<PB N="53" REF="31">
<P N="3">3. Becau&s;e the things &s;ignified are not &s;o &s;ignificantly re&s;embled in &s;prinkling as they are in baptizing, <HI>viz.</HI> in dipping. 1. As I have al|ready &s;aid, the whole wa&s;hing away of &s;in. 2. An outward conformity to Chri&s;t in his death, burial, and re&s;urrection; wherein is repre&s;ented our &s;piritual death to &s;in, and re&s;urrection to newne&s;s of life, <HI>Rom.</HI> 6. 3, 4, 5. and this is not, cannot be re&s;embled by &s;prinkling. And not|with&s;tanding you are plea&s;ed in way of reproach to &s;ay, <HI>Then they mu&s;t drown them&s;elves under water, as Chri&s;t lay buried three dayes</HI> &amp;c. Note here, you &s;ay, <HI>they mu&s;t lie three dayes under water;</HI> yet before, you confe&s;s, <HI>dipping</HI> is a lawful way of baptizing.</P>
<P>You &s;ay, <HI>Should you grant a nece&s;&s;ity of this re&s;emblance and repre|&s;entation; yet why may not &s;prinkling repre&s;ent it as well,</HI> &amp;c?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. I leave it to all rational men to judge, whether &s;prinkling a little water in the face doth repre&s;ent a death and burial with Chri&s;t, as well as a dipping into and under water. 2. I &s;hall give you the Judgment of one approved and learned, Mr. <HI>Tho. Goodwin,</HI> in his <HI>Support of faith from Chri&s;ts re&s;urrection,</HI> ch. 7. p. 54. He &s;aith, <HI>Rom.</HI> 6. 3, 4. <HI>We are &s;aid to be</HI> buried with him in bapti&s;m, <HI>&amp; Col.</HI> 2. 12. Buried with him in bapti&s;m. <HI>It is not &s;imply &s;aid, Like as he was buri|ed, &amp;c. but, Buried with him. So our communion and onene&s;s with him in his re&s;urrection is repre&s;ented to us therein, and not only our conformity or likene&s;s unto him therein. And &s;o Bapti&s;m repre&s;enteth this to us; that Chri&s;t having once in him&s;elf &s;u&s;tained the per&s;ons of all the elect in his burial and re&s;urrection; that now upon the party him&s;elf is per&s;onally, particularly, and apparently reacted the &s;ame part again in his bapti&s;m; thereby &s;hewing what his communion with Chri&s;t before was, in what was done to Chri&s;t; that he then was buried with Chri&s;t, and ro&s;e with him, and upon that ground is now in this outward &s;ign of Bapti&s;m, as in a &s;hew or repre&s;entation, both buried, and al&s;o ri&s;eth again.</HI> Thus far <HI>Tho. Goodwin.</HI></P>
<P>You &s;ay, <HI>If dipping be true baptizing,</HI> (which you have already granted, that dipping is lawfull baptizing; yet here you put an <HI>if</HI> to it, as if you had forgotten what you had &s;aid before: but it's no won|der, for it is u&s;ual with you) <HI>then &s;ome that have been dipt by Popi&s;h Prie&s;ts, have been rightly baptized.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> We deny it: for though you have lo&s;t the right way of do|ing it, as well as the &s;ubject, yet we do not &s;ay that tho&s;e Infants that are dipt are rightly baptized; becau&s;e you fail in the right &s;ubject, <HI>viz.</HI> Believers. Only we cannot but take notice of the ju&s;t hand of
<PB N="54" REF="32"> God in it again&s;t you; that having tran&s;gre&s;&s;ed in taking Infants in &s;tead of Believers, you &s;hould change the very thing, and do another thing in &s;tead of bapti&s;m, <HI>viz,</HI> &s;prinkle; that &s;o you might have the le&s;s to &s;ay in your own cau&s;e. Thus have you fulfilled that word, <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 24. 5. <HI>Tran&s;gre&s;&s;ed the Law, changed the Ordinances, broken the ever|la&s;ting Covenant,</HI> applying it to the natural &s;eed, when it belongs to none but the &s;piritual. How you will avoid that cur&s;e, I know not.</P>
<P>You &s;ay, <HI>It is the cu&s;tome and practi&s;e of all Reformed Churches to baptize by &s;prinkling,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> What of that, if it contradict Scripture, which is the rule of Saints? You have confe&s;&s;ed that dipping is a lawful baptizing; and there is but one lawful baptizing; therefore we mu&s;t do that which is lawfull, though all people in the world do contrary.</P>
<P>The 4. ground why &s;prinkling is not baptizing, is from the cu&s;tom retained from the Primitive times, as it is probable. And give me leave in this to conclude thus much; that I may much &s;afer conclude this, it being &s;o agreeable with the analogie of Scripture, then you can take up the whole practi&s;e upon that account. I &s;ay, Dipping in all Ages hath been the practi&s;e, (whether Believers or Infants.) The Hi&s;tory I mentioned before of <HI>Joannes Boemus,</HI> in the Manners and Cu&s;toms of all Nations, <HI>p.</HI> 159. <HI>Infants were dipped in the holy Font.</HI> In <HI>Simp&s;ons</HI> Hi&s;tory of the Church, in the fourth Councel of <HI>Toledo,</HI> it was ordered that there &s;hould be but one dipping in bapti&s;m, <HI>p.</HI> 527. <HI>An</HI> 639. And the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> from whence you came, retains by tradition Dipping: and Sprinkling is an innovation not of many years &s;tanding in this Nation, as is well known; <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> when he came fir&s;t into <HI>England,</HI> baptized in Rivers; in particular (as Hi&s;tory relates) he baptized &s;ome thou&s;ands in a River neer <HI>York.</HI></P>
<P>Thus have I given you a brief An&s;wer to the material things in your <HI>Guard;</HI> I leave it to the con&s;ideration of the Reader, and &s;hall proceed to give you a brief Reply to your inveterate <HI>Word</HI> to <HI>Collier.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="tract">
<PB N="55" REF="32">
<HEAD>A Reply to <HI>Thomas Hall.</HI></HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Sir,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>YOu are plea&s;ed to write a <HI>Word</HI> to <HI>Thomas Collier,</HI> &amp;c. A Love-letter; he that runs may read it. And indeed we did conclude before what we might expect from you, if the Lord gave you power according to your will. And I make no que&s;tion but what you have here written, will make the Magi&s;trate the more &s;en&s;i|ble of what &s;pirit you are, and will keep from you what you &s;o much expect, <HI>viz.</HI> a Coercive power to compell or per&s;ecute all that are contrary to you. And in what you have done, I believe you have more wounded your &s;elf and your own intere&s;t, then either the truth or me; the Truth &s;tanding pure in it &s;elf, getting advantage by its enemies, though no thanks to them. And as for my &s;elf, a poor weak and con|temptible Creature, held forth in the hand of the Lord, and being up|held by Divine a&s;&s;i&s;tance, &s;hall, I doubt not, but with joy pa&s;s through good report and bad reportt, till I have fini&s;hed my cour&s;e, and done the work whereunto I am appointed; accounting the reproach of Chri&s;t greater riches then the trea&s;ures of <HI>Egypt,</HI> viz. Tythes.</P>
<P>You &s;ay, <HI>I Colly every thing; Trinity, Scripture, Law, Go|&s;pel,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Sir, you are mi&s;taken in it all, and &s;o indeed have written forged fal&s;hood, and &s;ent it abroad into the world. But I own and honour all the&s;e you mention, in their proper place, and according to the ap|pointment of the Lord: and your &s;elf it is who have been in the Black &s;o long, that you Colly all, as will appear anon; and you will be the Hall, it &s;eems, the &s;torehou&s;e which retains all blackne&s;s, dark|ne&s;s, &amp;c. and from thence it cometh forth unto the re&s;t.</P>
<P>You &s;ay, I &s;et my &s;elf again&s;t the Anabapti&s;ts them&s;elves, whom I canonize for Saints in the highe&s;t form; yet blame them for adhering to Ordinances. Its very fal&s;e, there is no &s;uch word written; but it is for making too much of them, not for making u&s;e of them: And if &s;ome fail, is it not lawful to reprove? but <HI>Thomas Hall</HI> mu&s;t rai&s;e an untruth and reproach upon it, change my words for his own ends.</P>
<PB N="56" REF="33">
<P>I pa&s;s your foul and filthy language, more fit for <HI>Billin&s;gate</HI> then the Pre&s;s; and come to your particular Charges.</P>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="accusation">
<HEAD>1. <HI>An Heretick, and a Bla&s;phemer.</HI></HEAD>
<P>To this purpo&s;e you mention the <HI>Di&s;cour&s;e at Axbridge,</HI> where Par&s;on <HI>Smith</HI> and Par&s;on <HI>Carlile,</HI> both Cavaliers, fal&s;ly &s;wear,</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. That he denied Je&s;us Chri&s;t to be the eternal Son of God.</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. He denied a local Heaven.</ITEM>
<ITEM>3. He denied the equality of the Son with the Father.</ITEM>
<ITEM>4. He denied that Je&s;us Chri&s;t by his death upon the Cro&s;s, did &s;atisfie Divine Ju&s;tice.</ITEM>
<ITEM>5. He denied the Trinity.</ITEM>
<ITEM>6. He affirmed that the Saints are the &s;ons of God in the &s;ame manner as Chri&s;t.</ITEM>
<ITEM>7. He affirmed that the Divine E&s;&s;ence was communicated to the Saints.</ITEM>
<ITEM>8. That the bodies of the Saints &s;hould be turned into &s;pirits.</ITEM>
<ITEM>9. That the Moral Law was aboli&s;hed.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Were you not of the &s;ame blind and malicious &s;pirit as tho&s;e two lying Par&s;ons were, you dur&s;t not call &s;uch things Bla&s;phemies as were in truth by me maintained, and is apparent in the &s;ame Book or Di&s;cour&s;e.</P>
<P N="1">1. I denied not the Eternity of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, but the eternal gene|ration in the Godhead, for which there is not one Scripture that &s;peaks the lea&s;t hint.</P>
<P N="2">2. As to the locality of Heaven; that I &s;aid, was, that God was not locally limited, &amp;c.</P>
<P N="3">3. The <HI>Equality of the Son.</HI> Quality and equality is proper only to man; there is no quality or equality in the Godhead; whatever is in God, is in him e&s;&s;entially, not as a quality. Its true, Chri&s;t as the <HI>Me&s;&s;iah</HI> is equal with God; but in the union of the Divine e&s;&s;ence there is no quality nor equality, but union in e&s;&s;ence, and e&s;&s;ence in union.</P>
<P N="4">4. For <HI>Satisfaction to the Divine Ju&s;tice,</HI> I own it and have proved it (had you not been blind) upon the true account; it was the great end why Chri&s;t was inabled to the work, and &s;ent forth, that &s;o he
<PB N="57" REF="33"> might &s;atisfie the righteou&s;ne&s;s and truth of the Father, which man could never do unto ju&s;tification.</P>
<P N="5">5. As to the Trinity, that is fal&s;e likewi&s;e; it was the Trinity of Per&s;ons, not the Trinity; that I own; but no Per&s;on in the Godhead, no Scripture &s;aith it.</P>
<P N="6">6. That the Saints are the &s;ons of God in the &s;ame manner as Chri&s;t, that is, in being made partakers of the &s;ame Spirit. <HI>Rom.</HI> 8. 9.</P>
<P N="7">7. That the Divine E&s;&s;ence is communicated to the Saints; If the Spirit of Chri&s;t be in them, then the Divine E&s;&s;ence is in them: But the Spirit of Chri&s;t is in them; Therefore the Divine E&s;&s;ence is in them: I do not mean the whole E&s;&s;ence, but a &s;park or influence of the Divine E&s;&s;ence.</P>
<P N="8">8. That the bodies of the Saints &s;hould be turned into Spirits; that I &s;aid, was no other then what the Apo&s;tle &s;aith; <HI>they &s;hall be rai&s;ed with spiritual bodies.</HI></P>
<P N="9">9. That the Moral Law was aboli&s;hed to Believers as a di&s;pen&s;ati|on in the hands of <HI>Mo&s;es;</HI> all this more at large might you &s;ee in the di&s;covery of that Di&s;cour&s;e; but you were blinde it &s;eems, and could not &s;ee afar off: But you manife&s;t your minde; <HI>Collier</HI> it &s;eems is in your way, you would fain have him burnt with his Books: What another <HI>Bonner!</HI> Will you ju&s;tifie your Fathers in their wickedne&s;s, and &s;o bring upon your &s;elf all the righteous blood, &s;hed from <HI>Abel</HI> to this day? but if the Lord hath &s;o determined, I tru&s;t in the &s;trength of the Grace of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> my life and blood will be as ready to witne&s;s to the truth as my tongue and pen. I &s;ay no more about your Charge of Bla&s;phemy, but this, <HI>After the way you call Bla&s;phemy and Here&s;ie, wor&s;hip I the God of my Fathers.</HI> And that &s;eed you fal&s;ly and wickedly call <HI>the Devils &s;eed,</HI> am I &s;till &s;owing, and doubt not, but there will grow up &s;uch a happy and ble&s;&s;ed Harve&s;t, as will be to the honour of Truth, and joy of Saints, though to the grief and amaze|ment of enemies and gain-&s;ayers. Mean while, go you on bla&s;pheming God, and them that dwell in Heaven; gnaw your tongue for pain, yet not repent of your deeds.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="accusation">
<PB N="58" REF="34">
<HEAD>2. <HI>You &s;ay he is a Lyar dyed in grain.</HI></HEAD>
<P>You &s;ay, <HI>You can prove him guilty of above a thou&s;and lyes and er|rours, &amp;c.</HI> Was there ever the like lyar heard of in the world? What above a thou&s;and lyes? yet mentions but 15. when he hath done all that he can; and the&s;e fifteen are mo&s;t of them truth, by him fal&s;ely called lyes and errours; the re&s;t of them Inventions fal&s;lely charged by him.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>That Infant-Bapti&s;m came from the Pope and the Devil:</HI> The truth of this a&s;&s;ertion, I refer the Reader to what I have &s;aid before, and there you will &s;ee the Pope very probably that brought it in <HI>(Hi|ginus)</HI> in the &s;econd Century, 150 years after Chri&s;t.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>That Chri&s;t hath aboli&s;hed the Law;</HI> that is, as to Believers as a di&s;pen&s;ation in the hands of <HI>Mo&s;es;</HI> &s;ee 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3. 11. 13. <HI>And the pure Go&s;pel is the only Rule:</HI> What &s;on of <HI>Belial</HI> dare to deny this? for the Law is brought forth in Go&s;pel; and as given forth by Chri&s;t, is the pure Go&s;pel Rule, therefore though the &s;ub&s;tance of the old Command, yet is called new, becau&s;e given forth upon the new and true account, 1 <HI>Ioh.</HI> 2. 7. 8.</P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>A Socinian; his Tenet is that all gifted per&s;ons may preach with|out Ordination.</HI> This is according to the truth of Scripture, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 4. 31. 34. Where all that have gifts may prophe&s;ie, none exempted, ex|cept women.</P>
<P N="4">4. <HI>He is a Famili&s;t, approving of dreams, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> That is fal&s;e, I do not approve them; yet neither do I alto|gether deny but God may manife&s;t him&s;elf in that way if he plea&s;e; not that it is my experience; neither would I limit God. <HI>Again&s;t &V;niver&s;ities, Arts, Sciences;</HI> not in them&s;elves, upon the humane ac|count; but as they are &s;et up in the room of the Spirit of Chri&s;t, &s;o <HI>the wi&s;dom of the world is fooli&s;hne&s;s with God.</HI></P>
<P N="5">5. <HI>He is an Anti&s;cripturi&s;t, denying the truth of Scripture, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Another mo&s;t abominable fal&s;hood; who will be the lyar anon <HI>Thomas Hall?</HI> but you prove it learnedly. 1. Becau&s;e I approve of &s;uch, who will not permit you to draw any con&s;equences from Scripture becau&s;e you have &s;o much abu&s;ed them with your con&s;e|quences. 2. Becau&s;e minding &s;ome of your con&s;equences, I conclude that they are as true as Scripture, if the people would but believe it.
<PB N="59" REF="34"> <HI>You infer then that the&s;e con&s;equences mu&s;t be true, or the Scripture is fal&s;e;</HI> I &s;ay, and I &s;uppo&s;ed that you had had wit enough to under|&s;tand that I &s;pake in your language, or in your &s;ence, that you ac|count the&s;e con&s;equences as true as Scripture, if the people would be|lieve you.</P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>He &s;aith that in his general Epi&s;tle to the Saints,</HI> chap. 10. p. 28. <HI>the Scripure is not &s;ufficient to teach the knowledge of God.</HI></P>
<P>I Query of any one who knows the Lord, whether the Scripture, without the Spirit of Chri&s;t, doth, or can teach any one true and &s;a|ving knowledge; <HI>and that &s;ome make too much of it,</HI> that is, &s;uch as <HI>Thomas Hall,</HI> who think it able without the Spirit of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> to teach the &s;aving knowledge of <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t;</HI> and if you could have told all, you might have &s;een and &s;aid, that I &s;ay there likewi&s;e, that many make too little of it; and that the &s;ub&s;tance of my Di&s;cour&s;e there, is to hold forth the truth and authority of the Scripture in the light of the Spirit; that &s;o &s;ouls by the teaching of the Spirit of Chri&s;t may come to a right under&s;tanding of them: and that indeed its your &s;elves that truly teach people to deny Scripture. I own the truth of it, and &s;ay that whoever denieth it, mu&s;t deny God, Chri&s;t and all Religion, and the truth is, that your &s;elf it is that di&s;owns it, and reproacheth it too, further then it &s;tands with your own will.</P>
<P N="6">6. You &s;ay, <HI>He is an</HI> Arian <HI>and</HI> Anti-Trinitarian; <HI>denyes the Father, Son, and Holy Gho&s;t are three di&s;tinct per&s;ons,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I deny not the Trinity, Father, Son, and Spirit; but I de|ny any per&s;on in the Godhead at all; that is a word or title given on|ly to man; and the Scripture you mention, <HI>Heb.</HI> 1. 3. I am not alto|gether &s;o ignorant of it as you would have me; it is &s;ub&s;tance and not Per&s;on; and this you know, and abu&s;e it not ignorantly but wilfully. The &s;ame word, <HI>Heb.</HI> 11. 1. is rendred &s;ub&s;tance <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">; faith is the &s;ub&s;tance of things hoped for, not the Per&s;on; that would be non&s;en&s;e; you mu&s;t produce &s;ome Scripture where that <HI>Pro&s;opon</HI> which &s;ignifi|eth Per&s;on, is attributed to <HI>God,</HI> or that <HI>Hypo&s;ta&s;is</HI> is attributed to man, before you can have any colour to call God three Per&s;ons, or one either; for he is a Spirit, <HI>and will be wor&s;hipped in Spirit and Truth.</HI></P>
<P N="7">7. <HI>He is an Anti-Sabbatarian, he is all for a Spiritual Sabbath.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Becau&s;e I write of a &s;piritual Sabbath, doth it therefore fol|low that I am an <HI>Anti-Sabbatarian?</HI> have you ever &s;een any thing written by me again&s;t the Sabbath? have you not cau&s;e to blu&s;h at your weakne&s;s or wickedne&s;s? becau&s;e I di&s;cover the &s;piritual Sab|bath,
<PB N="60" REF="35"> therfore you &s;ay I am again&s;t the Sabbath.</P>
<P N="8">8. <HI>An Independent as to man and creatures (in the things of God) but only on Je&s;us Chri&s;t;</HI> and is this &s;uch a dangerous thing, to be off from every thing &s;ave <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t?</HI></P>
<P N="9">9. <HI>Arigid Separati&s;t.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Never too rigid in &s;eparating from <HI>Babylons</HI> fal&s;e ways and wor&s;hips, which is no other then the Synagogue of <HI>Satan,</HI> a Cage of every unclean and hatefull Bird; I &s;ay it again, for all your anger, I mu&s;t be faithfull, I may not pittie or &s;pare you, for that will ruine you.</P>
<P N="10">10. <HI>A</HI> Perfecti&s;t; <HI>&s;ee his Generall Epi&s;t. to the Saints,</HI> ch. 15. p. 52.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> No other then is the duty of every Saint to be, that is, pre&s;|&s;ing after perfection; I there declare that perfection is not attainable in this life, till the body of fle&s;h is di&s;&s;olved, nor till the Re&s;urrection neither. I &s;ay no more of this, but refer the Reader to the Epi&s;tle it &s;elf, where you may &s;ee how the <HI>Hall</HI> hath &s;tored up lyes to reproach the innocent.</P>
<P N="11">11. <HI>He is an enemy to all Learning, he oft calls it the language of the bea&s;t, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Keep it in its place, and do as much good as you can with it; but let it once get in the room of the Spirit, then it puffs up with pride, then its but the language of the Bea&s;t, of the fle&s;hly man; the &s;moak of the bottomle&s;s pit of mans wi&s;dom, and that which mu&s;t be de|&s;troyed. <HI>That the Spirit and Scriptures are &s;ufficient for the Mini|&s;ters calling,</HI> &amp;c. At this you &s;eem to rage extreamly, as if this were &s;uch a dangerous Here&s;ie that de&s;erves no le&s;s then a &s;take, a faggot, and a fire, could <HI>Tho: Hall</HI> have his will; let the Under&s;tanding judge. I am &s;ure, I have heard one of your brethren, more famous then ever your &s;elf in the eyes of the people, a&s;&s;ert this, that the Scripture was &s;ufficient for the Mini&s;ters calling, &amp;c. who left out the Spirit of Chri&s;t; but it &s;eems your abilities depend upon your good old books, Popi&s;h Fathers, &amp;c.</P>
<P N="12">12. <HI>He is again&s;t Magi&s;trates.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> No &s;uch thing; only my de&s;ire is, that Magi&s;trates &s;hould not rule, where its alone <HI>Chri&s;ts</HI> Prerogative: I de&s;ire to <HI>give to Cae&s;ar that which is his, and to God that which is his.</HI></P>
<P N="13">13. <HI>Again&s;t Mini&s;try.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Not again&s;t the Mini&s;try of Chri&s;t; but of the World and of <HI>Antichri&s;t.</HI></P>
<PB N="61" REF="35">
<P N="14"> 14. <HI>He reproacheth the Army, making them all Independents and A|nabapti&s;ts.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Its a great untruth to &s;ay I make them all &s;o: that I &s;ay, is, that tho&s;e whom you fal&s;ely call <HI>Anabapti&s;ts</HI> and <HI>Independents</HI> are the In|&s;truments by which God hath given a being to you and the Nation: I deny not what was done by any at fir&s;t; but I know not how it would have been at la&s;t, if God had not rai&s;ed up the Spirits of &s;ome to &s;tand in the gap; and your &s;elves had like to have been the great In|&s;truments for &s;elf-ends to have drawn on ruine, had not the Lord prevenced.</P>
<P N="15">15. <HI>He di&s;honoureth and abu&s;eth the pre&s;ent Power, by Dedication of an ab&s;urd, Heretical, Bla&s;phemous, non-Licen&s;ed Pamphlet, called a Di&s;cour&s;e at</HI> Axbridge.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I do affirm that none dare give &s;uch vile titles to &s;uch ap|parent truths, but tho&s;e who&s;e eyes are blinded, and who&s;e hearts are hardned, filled with all enmity again&s;t the truth of <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t:</HI> I re|fer tho&s;e who de&s;ire further &s;atisfaction, to the di&s;cour&s;e it &s;elf.</P>
<P>And truly we had need appeal to the Authority of the Nation for a civill pre&s;ervation, it being our Birthright; there being &s;o many of your generation, men of blood, that will &s;ay, nay &s;wear bla&s;phemy, Here&s;ie, any thing, that &s;o you might be rid of us.</P>
<P>Finally, I &s;ay no more to all your perver&s;e and raging accu&s;ations, but the Lord rebuke thee.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="queries">
<HEAD><HI>Some few</HI> Queries <HI>pre&s;ented.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="1">1. <HI>Query.</HI> Whether or no in all that <HI>Tho. Hall</HI> hath &s;aid, he hath in any ca&s;e an&s;wered the Pulpit-Guard-Routed, or relieved his own Guard?</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>Qu.</HI> Whether or no all that <HI>Tho. Hall</HI> hath &s;aid in his <HI>Font-Guard</HI> doth amount to &s;o much as either a Precept or Pre&s;ident for his Practi&s;e?</P>
<P N="3">3. Whether or no (if not) his Practi&s;e in &s;prinkling Infants be not Will-Wor&s;hip?</P>
<P N="4">4. Whether the upholding of an outward Covenant, and a natural Seed in that Covenant, be not to deny Chri&s;t to be come in the fle&s;h?</P>
<P N="5">5. Whether or no there be any Seed in the days of the Go&s;pel accoun|ted for the Seed but the Spiritual; all the Promi&s;es made to <HI>Abraham</HI> being di&s;&s;olved into Chri&s;t, coming forth from him to the Spiritual Seed; none being accounted the children of Abraham, but tho&s;e that do the works of Abraham?</P>
<P N="6">6. Whether or no <HI>Tho. Hall,</HI> tells true or fal&s;e, when he &s;aith, he will
<PB N="62" REF="36"> prove <HI>Tho. Collier</HI> of above a thou&s;and lyes, and can name but fifteen upon his own account.</P>
<P N="7">7. Whether or no, in tho&s;e fifteen he mentions being rightly con&s;idered as before, <HI>Tho. Hall</HI> be the lyar, or <HI>Tho. Collier?</HI></P>
<P N="8">8. Whether <HI>Tho. Hall</HI> have &s;poken true or fal&s;e in the&s;e things fol|lowing? 1. In a&s;&s;erting, that none ought to preach the Go&s;pel but men in Office. 2. In &s;aying, there is both precept and pre&s;ident for Bapti|zing Infants, when he can produce neither. 3. In &s;aying that the Cove|nant of the Law is the &s;ame as the Covenant in the Go&s;pel, when the Scri|pture &s;aith the contrary, <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 31. 31. Heb. 8. 4. In &s;aying, that bap|tizing Infants is a tradition from the Apo&s;tles, when he cannot prove the Apo&s;tles baptized any. 5. In &s;aying that &s;prinkling is bapti|zing, when they are two things. 6. Whether the bringing in of all the People into an outward Covenant and form of Godline&s;s, without the power, be not the way of delu&s;ion and confu&s;ion? 7. Then whether the Leaders of the People do not cau&s;e them to erre?</P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="tract">
<PB N="63" REF="36">
<HEAD>A Word of REPLY to <HI>Iohn Ferriby,</HI> in an Appendix to <HI>The Lawfull Preacher:</HI> called <HI>The Pulpit-Guard-Relieved.</HI></HEAD>
<P>_SIR, You call your Appendix <HI>The Pulpit-Guard Re|lieved;</HI> But whether it be A Relief in good earne&s;t, I leave to the Reader to judge. If chiding, railing and reproaching be A Relief, then you have Relieved it; el&s;e not. And notwith&s;tanding your great &s;wel|ling words, you'l find there is &s;o much in that <HI>Pulpit-Rout,</HI> that nei|ther you nor all your Gang will ever be able to extingui&s;h it. Rage you may, but ruin it you cannot.</P>
<P>You &s;ay <HI>Page</HI> 2. That <HI>he is &s;o bitter in his Expre&s;&s;ions again&s;t the Gentleman, &s;o loud in railing again&s;t the Coat, that he de&s;erves no An|&s;wer.</HI> But you are mi&s;taken, Sir; they are not railings, but true di&s;co|veries of Wolves in Sheeps cloathing.</P>
<P>But you &s;ay, <HI>You forbear, le&s;t in this the Proverb &s;hould be verified, Like to like, quoth the Devil to the Collier.</HI> And who is wor&s;t think you, the Devil or the Collier? By your own confe&s;&s;ion you are the De|vil, I the Collier. The Devil it is, it &s;eems, &s;peaks to the Collier; and &s;urely if the Collier did the Devils work, he would never reprove him for it. But if the Collier do the work of Chri&s;t, the Devil will fall upon him.</P>
<P>You &s;ay, <HI>You will not meddle with the Looking-gla&s;s: nor will you examine the Tryal and Verdict, nor take notice of the &s;trength of his Ar|guments.</HI></P>
<P>I wonder what then you will do; here's like to be a goodly Re|lief anon; <HI>A Pulpit Relief,</HI> yet take no notice of the force of the Truth that lieth again&s;t it. It's ju&s;t like to a company of men that will pretend they relieve a be&s;ieged Gari&s;on, yet take no notice of the Be|&s;iegers, or will &s;tand at a di&s;tance, and give great words, and &s;o go a|way boa&s;ting that the Work is done; and the mean time the Be&s;ieged peri&s;h. Thus have you dealt with your <HI>Pulpit-Guard;</HI> And truly, had not I had other occa&s;ions to write, I had never troubled my head or pen to have given you a word of An&s;wer; And in this I &s;hall give you but a word or two.</P>
<P>Thus having &s;hifted your &s;elf from the &s;ub&s;tance of what is &s;aid in
<PB N="64" REF="37"> <HI>The Pulpit Guard-Rout</HI> you pretend to give a Glymp&s;e of his <HI>skill in the interpretation of Scripture.</HI></P>
<P>The Fir&s;t is that of the Prie&s;ts of the Law and the Mini&s;ters of the Go&s;pel.</P>
<P>The Prie&s;thood under the Law typed out Chri&s;t, and he is the alone Prie&s;t by office. I deny not Mini&s;ters by office under the Go|&s;pel; but that Mini&s;try that is of Chri&s;t, never forbiddeth the preach|ing of the Brethren (who have received the Gift, though they never meddle with the office) but rather encourageth to it. 1. <HI>Pet</HI> 4. 10, 11.</P>
<P>And it is a truth, that <HI>Corah's</HI> guilt was in doing that which was forbidden; but the Saints are Commanded to, and Commended for preaching. Commanded to it <HI>Rom.</HI> 12. 3, 6. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14 31. 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 4. 10. Commended for it 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 2. One Ordinance or Tradition, and that not the lea&s;t too, was that they might, nay that they ought to bring their gifts to the Church for the good of the whole. There are diver&s;ities of gifts in the Church, and all for the good of the whole. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. And this Monopolizing &s;pirit that hath &s;o long reigned in tho&s;e who call them&s;elves Mini&s;ters, hath been the cau&s;e of &s;o much blindne&s;s in the World as hath been almo&s;t to this day. And as for the Calling of the Worldly Mini&s;try, I leave the Reader to what is wrtten in <HI>The Pulpit-Guard Routed,</HI> to con&s;ider whether it be from above or from beneath, &amp;c.</P>
<P>You &s;ay <HI>Page</HI> 5. <HI>There is in my Book,</HI> Page 19. <HI>enough granted for your Purpo&s;e.</HI></P>
<P>Tis becau&s;e you do in this as in other things take but Part of what I &s;ay. For though I &s;ay that none can preach according to the intenti|on of that Scripture <HI>Rom.</HI> 10. 15. for the working of Faith and Con|verting of &s;ouls; yet it doth not follow that every Gifted Brother may not Preach.</P>
<P>But you leave out that which follows. <HI>viz. for every Gifted Bro|ther is &s;ent to preach according to the mea&s;ure of the Gift recieved.</HI> And the Mi&s;take lieth in the word <HI>&s;ent,</HI> thinking that none but men in Office are &s;ent of God to convert &s;ouls; when Gifted Brethren are &s;ometimes &s;ent though not in Office. Acts 8. 4. with 11. 19, 21.</P>
<P>All you &s;ay in An&s;wer to that <HI>that gifting is &s;ending &amp;c</HI> reacheth not the bu&s;ine&s;s in hand. For</P>
<P N="1">1. It doth not appear in tho&s;e Scriptures you mention, <HI>I&s;a</HI> 6 8, 9. <HI>Mat.</HI> 10 1, 5. that they were fir&s;t gifted, then &s;ent; Go tell them
<PB N="65" REF="37"> &s;aith the Lord to <HI>I&s;aiah.</HI> Gods putting the word in his mouth, was the gifting. Yet</P>
<P N="2">2. I deny not in the ordinary way of prophe&s;ying and preaching gifting to precede &s;ending, fir&s;t to tho&s;e who are authoritatively &s;ent by the Church; or &s;econdly to tho&s;e who preach only by gift accord|ing to the mea&s;ure of the gift received. It is &s;ending; and they may and ought according to the mea&s;ure of the gift, both in the Church and out of the Church, <HI>viz.</HI> in the world as occa&s;ion is offered, God in tho&s;e occa&s;ions calling them to it, accordingly to admini&s;ter.</P>
<P>Secondly you &s;ay, that <HI>he is very unhappy in confounding ordinary and extraordinary Ca&s;es.</HI></P>
<P>I an&s;wer fir&s;t, that extraordinary Ca&s;es make not that lawfull which in it &s;elf is unlawfull, unle&s;s in ca&s;es of nece&s;&s;ity for pre&s;ervati|on of life: then <HI>I will have mercy, and not &s;acrifice:</HI> unle&s;s it be in the bearing up of the name and truth of Chri&s;t; then <HI>he that will &s;ave his life, &s;hall lo&s;e it.</HI> Witne&s;s <HI>&V;zzah</HI> 1 <HI>Chro.</HI> 13. 9. 10. for putting his hand to &s;tay the Ark, was &s;mote with death. So that your &s;o often mention|ing extraordinary ca&s;es helps you nothing; for its not the extraordi|narine&s;s of the ca&s;e that ju&s;tifies the thing, if it be in it &s;elf unlawfull; &s;o that you do indeed condemn the practice of the Saints recorded in Scripture for our example, in <HI>Acts Chap.</HI> 8. and 11. with divers others; and all for the keeping up your own Ends and Intere&s;ts. I am &s;ure if you &s;tood in the coun&s;el and truth of Je&s;us, the preaching of the Bre|thren could not, would not trouble you.</P>
<P>As for what is &s;aid from <HI>pag.</HI> 8 to 10. I refer the Reader to the clear|ne&s;s of the a&s;&s;ertions in my Book.</P>
<P><HI>Pag.</HI> 9. You &s;ay, <HI>The Gentleman</HI> (Pretended Servants; for &s;o the word <HI>Mini&s;ter</HI> &s;ignifies; yet Gentle men-Ma&s;ters, Servants ruling o|ver their Ma&s;ters) <HI>having &s;aid that the Holy-Gho&s;t commends Learning, he Replyes,</HI> pag. 41. <HI>Holy Gho&s;t! is there any &s;uch word in the Scripture</HI> as Gho&s;t? You &s;ay <HI>How now! which way went the Spirit of God from him? what, immediately in&s;pired, yet ignorant of this? hath he forgotten Mat.</HI> 28. 20. <HI>&amp;c?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Nay Sir, he hath not quite forgotten it; but have you indeed forgotten? or el&s;e did you never learn it that <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> &s;ignifiyeth <HI>&s;pi|rit,</HI> not <HI>gho&s;t?</HI> and &s;o it is tran&s;lated and read in all other languages except the Engli&s;h; and &s;ometimes its truly tran&s;lated in Engli&s;h too: and the word <HI>gho&s;t</HI> is an old Engli&s;h Popi&s;h ugly word, which indeed if rightly con&s;idered, is not &s;o fit to be given to the Holy Spirit.</P>
<PB N="66" REF="38">
<P>As for the interpretation of I. <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. 31. 32. <HI>Let the &s;pirits of the Prophets be &s;ubject to the Prophets;</HI> though I deny not what is menti|oned <HI>v.</HI> 29. that the Prophets &s;peak two or three, and the others judge; for the Church is to judge of the doctrine taught in it; yet its evident to any who&s;e eyes are not &s;hut again&s;t the truth that the interpretati|on of <HI>v</HI> 31 &amp;; 32. is in <HI>v</HI> 33 <HI>for God is not the author of confu&s;ion, but of peace.</HI> See his Brother <HI>Richard Sanders</HI> confuting this, in his <HI>Balm to heal religious wounds,</HI> pag. 202. he &s;aith, <HI>The &s;pirit of the Prophets was &s;ubject to the Prophets,</HI> that is, the Spirit of Prophe&s;ie was not &s;o vio|lent on them, but that they had power to contain them&s;elves, and to &s;tay one for another, and &s;o to &s;peak in order, &amp;c. Here <HI>Richard San|ders</HI> confutes <HI>John Ferriby;</HI> let the Reader judge.</P>
<P>As to what you &s;ay in the re&s;t, in way of Reply, there being no weight at all in it, I pa&s;s by it, referring the Reader to the examinati|on of that Book you pretend to An&s;wer. Where I make no que&s;tion, but that the clearne&s;s of the truth a&s;&s;erted, will appear to the &s;atis|faction of any unbya&s;&s;ed and impartial Reader.</P>
<P>As for your reproachfull terms, which is indeed the &s;um of all your An&s;wer, I pa&s;s it by as unworthy taking notice; leaving the contro|ver&s;ie betwixt both you and us unto the righteous Judge, who will in his own time bring it forth to the light, and put a difference between tho&s;e who &s;erve the Lord <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> and tho&s;e who &s;erve their own bellies. To him and with him I leave the controver&s;ie, who undoubtedly will plead his own Cau&s;e and Truth in his own Time.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="tract">
<PB N="1" REF="38">
<HEAD><HI>AN ANSWER</HI> To a Book written by one <HI>Richard San|ders</HI> of <HI>Kenti&s;hbeer;</HI> entituled, <HI>A Balm to heal Religious wounds.</HI> Called, An An&s;wer to the <HI>Pulpit-Guard Routed;</HI> written by <HI>Thomas Collier.</HI></HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>SIR,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>_MEeting with your Book, the Title be&s;peaks what I find not in it. 1. You call it <HI>A Balm to heal Religious wounds,</HI> &amp;c. But when I came to take a view of it, I found it far from the nature of its name; but it rather tends to make the wounds deeper, and the breach wider: your book being &s;tuffed with as much rancor almo&s;t in every page as any I have read, except <HI>Tho. Halls</HI> who writ the <HI>Pulpit</HI> and <HI>Font Guards.</HI> So that if what you &s;ay of mine were a truth, you have ballanced it on the other hand down to the ground, <HI>viz.</HI> with reproachfull terms: and as for that you call har&s;h language in mine, it is no other then what hath been given by the &s;ervants of the Lord in Scripture upon the like occa&s;ion.</P>
<P N="2">2. You call it, <HI>An An&s;wer to the Pulpit-Guard Routed.</HI> Two open and cleer untruths in the Title. Fir&s;t, <HI>A Balm to heal Religious wounds;</HI> when it is far from it. Secondly, <HI>An An&s;wer to the Pulpit-Guard</HI>
<PB N="2" REF="39"> <HI>Routed;</HI> when you &s;carce come &s;o neer as to meddle with it, unle&s;s with railing and reproachful terms; and if that be a &s;ufficient an&s;wer, you have done it to the purpo&s;e: Or &s;econdly, in pa&s;&s;ing by the material and &s;ub&s;tantial things, you have culled out &s;ome few particular things, calling them <HI>Colliers</HI> Errors, when they are undoubt|ed truths, unle&s;s tho&s;e which are abu&s;ed by you, changing the terms in which by me they were a&s;&s;erted; as will appear in its place.</P>
<P>I pa&s;s your Epi&s;tle, and come fir&s;t to your five &s;erious Que|&s;tions.</P>
<Q>1. <HI>Qu.</HI> Whether &s;uch an uncharitable, cen&s;orious, proud, di&s;dainfull, inveterate, calumniating spirit as works in this man (and others of the &s;ame lump) doth ever &s;hew it &s;elf in Scripture?</Q>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. If not, then you have declared your &s;elf to be as far from the &s;pirit of a Chri&s;tian upon the &s;ame account, as the <HI>Collier</HI> whom you &s;o much reproach: witne&s;s this very que&s;tion propounded and almo&s;t every page in your book witne&s;&s;eth it; but I de&s;ire not to &s;crape them up together.</P>
<P>And &s;econdly, The truth of tho&s;e titles mentioned by you <HI>pag.</HI> 6. I leave to the Reader to judge; and if I am become your enemy for telling you the truth, I am contented through mercy to pa&s;s under your cen&s;ure.</P>
<Q><HI>Your</HI> 2. <HI>que&s;t.</HI> &V;pon what ground (think you) &s;hould he and men of the &s;ame temper and spirit with him, u&s;e &s;uch bitterne&s;s again&s;t the Mini&s;tery, &amp;c.?</Q>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. We never u&s;ed &s;uch bitterne&s;s again&s;t the Mini&s;tery of the Nation as they have again&s;t us. We never de&s;ired to get an Ordinance from both Hou&s;es of Parliament, to have them burnt in the forehead with the letter <HI>B.</HI> to have them impri&s;oned without Bail or Main-pri&s;e, &amp;c. Though this is no ground to retort bitterne&s;s again in way of revenge, but rather to pitty them.</P>
<P N="2">2. It is not their per&s;ons, but their de&s;tructive Principles again&s;t which I write: the Lord who knoweth all things, knoweth that I lye not. I &s;hould rejoyce in their conver&s;ion; and do not que&s;tion but that there are many that are hone&s;t and godly of them yet in <HI>Baby|lon;</HI> and their duty is to come forth: and till then, blame us not for our dealing faithfully, though &s;ometimes ruggedly with them. And I would have you to know, that it is not a power to per&s;ecute them we look for; no, I had a thou&s;and times rather <HI>Thomas Halls</HI>
<PB N="3" REF="39"> de&s;ire were granted to him, that I with my books were burnt together, then to have a hand in the per&s;onal per&s;ecution of <HI>Tho. Hall,</HI> your &s;elf, or any other, for any principle or practi&s;e you hold in Con&s;cience, though it be known to me that it is contrary to truth.</P>
<Q><HI>Your</HI> 3. <HI>Que&s;t.</HI> Whether this open enmity again&s;t the Mini&s;tery of <HI>England,</HI> which the&s;e men proclaim to all the world, inveighing again&s;t them as Antichri&s;tian, be not a thing abhorred of all gracious hearts? <HI>For proof of this you produce Mr.</HI> Tho. Goodwyn, <HI>Mr.</HI> Philip Nye, <HI>Mr.</HI> Sidrach Simp&s;on, <HI>Mr.</HI> Jeremiah Burroughs, <HI>Mr.</HI> William Bridge. Apol. Nar. <HI>p</HI> 6.</Q>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The hone&s;ty of the&s;e men I que&s;tion not: Yet fir&s;t, what they &s;ay proves not the truth of what you de&s;ire; for it is not the te&s;timony of men, but of God in the Scripture, that will ju&s;tifie both Mini&s;try and Church. And if that would do it, I could produce others of the &s;ame way, (I &s;uppo&s;e none will deny but that they were equal with them for godline&s;s and learning) who &s;ay the contrary. <HI>Ain&s;worth, Smith, Robin&s;on.</HI></P>
<P>You &s;eem to propound a &s;trange Querie, <HI>pag.</HI> 14. <HI>Whither would the&s;e men tran&s;port and carry you? Not only off from Presbytery, but Independents, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> In the light and power of truth, we would carry them to the Lord Je&s;us; that &s;o they might know and obey him, and wor&s;hip the Father in him in &s;pirit and in truth: and this is the utmo&s;t that we de&s;ire.</P>
<P>And truly, this is that which is my principle and practi&s;e, 1. That we are ju&s;tified freely by grace; And 2. that this Ju&s;tification where it is in truth enjoyed, works over &s;ouls to a holy and humble walking with the Lord, and obedience to him in all things. That it is the duty of Believers, according to the command of Chri&s;t, and practi&s;e of his &s;ervants in the Primitive times, to be baptized, and &s;o come into Church fellow&s;hip, walking as with the Lord, &s;o one with another in love, performing all duties of brotherly love, as becometh &s;ouls made one in &s;o high and heavenly a calling. And hither it is we would tran&s;port and carry every &s;oul that knows the Lord; and this is a journey, that you who call your &s;elves <HI>Mini&s;ters,</HI> cannot endure to undertake, nor &s;uffer tho&s;e that would.</P>
<Q><HI>Your</HI> 4. <HI>Que&s;tion is,</HI> Were &s;uch things heard of in former times a|mong the old Puritans? &amp;c.</Q>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> They were not &s;en&s;ible of tho&s;e delu&s;ions in that way which
<PB N="4" REF="40"> now appear; and many of them are made &s;en&s;ible of it, and are de|parted from it; Gods people cannot but depart out of <HI>Babylon,</HI> when once they &s;ee them&s;elves there, and hear the Lords voice &s;aying, <HI>Come out of her my people; partake not of her &s;ins, le&s;t you partake of her plagues.</HI> Tho&s;e that have &s;een them&s;elves in <HI>Babels</HI> confu&s;ion, in re|&s;pect of wor&s;hip; being delivered, cannot but di&s;cover and lay open to others the my&s;terie of that iniquity, though all the men and Mini|&s;ters of the world di&s;like it, &amp;c.</P>
<Q><HI>Your</HI> 5. <HI>Que&s;tion.</HI> Hath it not been an old trick of &s;uch as have de|&s;igned the &s;haking of the Chri&s;tian faith, fir&s;t to begin with the faithfull Mini&s;ters, <HI>&amp;c?</HI></Q>
<P><HI>A.</HI> Though it hath been the de&s;ign of the enemies of truth &s;o to do; yet, 1. That ju&s;tifies not you to be the godly Mini&s;ters. And 2. The &s;ervants of the Lord may not neglect their duty in reproving &s;in where they find it, becau&s;e enemies to truth oppo&s;e the Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t. And 3. We give grounds from Scripture for what we &s;ay and do. Ju&s;tifie your &s;elves to be the Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t by your works accord|ing to Scripture, and we have done: till then, forbear giving &s;uch lan|guage as you do to the &s;ervants of the Lord for their impartial pub|li&s;hing and profe&s;&s;ing of truth. You'll one day be a&s;hamed of it.</P>
<P>So you &s;ay you come to his Errors, which are many.</P>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="error">
<HEAD>His fir&s;t Error.</HEAD>
<P><HI>That the life of Mini&s;ters and Schollers educated in Schools of Learn|ing, is an idle life.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. There are no &s;uch words in my book; neither is there any truth in what you &s;ay: but that which I &s;ay, is, that God hath always in all ages made u&s;e of men of Callings to be the Mini&s;ters of his mind unto the people; and I de&s;ired you to produce any example in the Scripture, that God made choice of any to be the Mini&s;ters of his mind unto the people, who were bred up idly all dayes of their life without a Calling.</P>
<P>I do not &s;ay that the life of the Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t is an idle life; no, I know the contrary: but that which I &s;ay, is, that you can pro|duce no example of any that were bred up idly without a Calling, called to be Mini&s;ters: yet you will have Idlers, and none but them by your wils; and God mu&s;t have them, or el&s;e he mu&s;t have none at all. You &s;ay, o confirm this, he &s;ayes, <HI>A Calling is that in and by which men in the &s;weat of their face get their living.</HI></P>
<PB N="5" REF="40">
<P>You an&s;wer, <HI>O brave definition of a Calling, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> I wonder you had not fallen foul with the Scripture, and have blamed him that commanded it; but you are &s;o wi&s;e and hone&s;t as to leave out the Scriptures that I grounded my definition upon. <HI>Gen</HI> 3. 19. <HI>In the &s;weat of thy face &s;halt thou eat bread till thou return to the du&s;t.</HI></P>
<Q><HI>Query.</HI> Doth the Lord here intend, that &s;ome men mu&s;t eat bread in the &s;weat of their faces, and others mu&s;t live idle?</Q>
<P>The other Scripture, is Eph. 4. 28. But you An&s;wer. 1. <HI>Is every thing a man doth get a living by, a lawfull calling; then he that &s;weats by robbing and &s;tealing, lives by a lawfull calling, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> It &s;eems you have a minde to quarrell again&s;t the Truth; be|cau&s;e the word <HI>(lawfull)</HI> is not put in, you will conclude Robbery is lawful do not you di&s;cover ignorance or wilfulne&s;s, quarrelling again&s;t the very plain words of the Scripture, which &s;aith, <HI>In the &s;weat of thy face, thou &s;halt eat thy bread, &amp;c.</HI> he doth not &s;ay, in the lawfull &s;weat of thy face; but that is implyed in the words; &s;o when I &s;ay in the &s;weat of mens face they &s;hould get their bread, its intended lawfully; not by robbing and &s;tealing; and truly you manife&s;t your &s;elf to be no friend to Truth in drawing &s;uch a conclu&s;ion from &s;uch clear and undeniable premi&s;es: I am confident never a Robber in this Nation dur&s;t to have drawn &s;uch a conclu&s;ion from &s;uch undoubted truth and Scripture.</P>
<P N="2">2. You &s;ay, <HI>Is there no lawfull Calling but that whereby a man gets his living in the &s;weat of his face? what will you &s;ay then of Magi|&s;trates, Ju&s;tices of the Peace &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> They are not bred up Ju&s;tices of the Peace, but are, or &s;hould be bred up in &s;ome Calling: I am &s;ure the Scripture allows of idlene&s;s in none, though there may be a difference in labour; yet I &s;uppo&s;e that le&s;s then this &s;hould not be in the breeding of the great|e&s;t mens children in the Nation, to be able to do things of Husbandry, that &s;o they may be able to manage their e&s;tates the better, and know them&s;elves when their bu&s;ine&s;s is well done.</P>
<P>And &s;o they may be the better fitted for their Calling, as Magi&s;trates, Ju&s;tices of the Peace, &amp;c.</P>
<P>You &s;ay, <HI>Will he call the Parliament Idlers, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>Alas man! he knows the Parliament is a particular Calling while it continues, the Members of it being called and &s;ent up by the Coun|try, and they being faithfull in it &s;erve the Country.</P>
<PB N="6" REF="41">
<P>As for <HI>Phy&s;itians,</HI> I que&s;tion not their Calling; that relates unto the body; but there is a difference between a Phy&s;itian of the body and of the Soul; the one is natural, therefore needs time of &s;tudy to finde out the natural Cau&s;es and Remedies: and I que&s;tion not the lawfulne&s;s of breeding to School till men are fit for tho&s;e Callings to which they are appointed; but the Calling of the Mini&s;ter is not a na|tural Calling, but a Spiritual; and only God fits and enables to it; therefore for men to live out of a Calling to fit them&s;elves for the Mini&s;try, is a very corrupt and dangerous thing; for in conclu&s;ion they mu&s;t be Mini&s;ters right or wrong; they were bred up unto it; they expect a maintenance from it, &amp;c. Whereas the Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t have ever been cho&s;en upon another account; <HI>viz.</HI> God gives gifts, and the Church choo&s;es, and they are called from one Calling to ano|ther, yet may lawfully live in the u&s;e of both.</P>
<P>Then you &s;ay, <HI>Taylors, Button-makers, Seam&s;ters, &amp;c. becau&s;e they do not &s;weat at it, e&s;pecially in the Winter, are not lawfull Cal|lings.</HI></P>
<P>Alas man! blindne&s;s with a witne&s;s; if you quarrell &s;o much with the word, <HI>&s;weat,</HI> why do you not quarrell again&s;t him who fir&s;t com|manded it? But do you not know, fir&s;t, that there is no Calling, but that &s;ometimes tho&s;e implyed in it may, nay, do <HI>&s;weat.</HI> 2. That the word, <HI>&s;weat,</HI> primarily relates to a mans diligence in his Calling, be|ing imployed about &s;omething that may admini&s;ter to his nece&s;&s;ity, ac|cording to the Scripture, &s;o not living idly;</P>
<P N="3">3. You &s;ay, <HI>Is it &s;o, that none live in a lawfull Calling, but he that works with his hands? what think you of</HI> Paul, 1 Cor. 9. 6. <HI>have not we power to forbear working, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. I did not, nor do not affirm that tho&s;e who are the Mi|ni&s;ters of Chri&s;t, lawfully called, &amp;c. may not forbear working; but that they ought not to be bred up idle, till they are called; and that God always maketh choice of men of particular Callings. 2. That <HI>Paul</HI> might forbear work, not that he mu&s;t do it; for he did work, <HI>His hands mini&s;tred to his nece&s;&s;ities, for the Go&s;pels &s;ake.</HI> I wonder when we &s;hall finde any of you Mini&s;ters of the Nation in that temper?</P>
<P N="4">4. You &s;ay, <HI>Is there no laboriou&s;ne&s;s and pains taking in the imploy|ment of the Mini&s;try, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I know there is; and notwith&s;tanding you &s;ay, <HI>that it appears by his book, he is not acquainted with the labour of the minde in getting</HI>
<PB N="7" REF="41"> <HI>down to the bottom of things.</HI> Sir, I have through grace gone &s;o to the bottom of things, as hath and will root up all your Religion, root and branch, Mini&s;try, Church, Ordinances and all; therefore for|bear complaining of the want of going to the bottom of things; and I doubt not but that I &s;hall go to the bottom of your Book too, be|fore I have ended.</P>
<P>But you &s;ay he adds, <HI>Breeding to School is proper to children when they cannot labour, to fit them for &s;ome Calling.</HI></P>
<P>You pretend, <HI>That Infants are able to labour almo&s;t a&s;&s;oon as they are able to go to School, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. If you were not ignorant at be&s;t, or envious, you might under&s;tand that Infants are not able to labour in their Callings a&s;&s;oon as able to go to School; and I dare affirm, that there is time enough for children to get Learning to fit them for any Calling in this Nation, before they have ability of body to perform it. I do not judge children &s;ufficiently capable in body for a Calling untill 14. years of Age, and here is time enough for children to get Learning; as for Univer&s;ities, we read of none in Scripture; and <HI>Sim&s;on</HI> in his <HI>Hi&s;tory of the Church</HI> &s;aith that <HI>Clemens Alexandrinus,</HI> and <HI>Pantenus</HI> were the Authors of Univer&s;ities and Colledges, p. 259.</P>
<P N="2">2. I &s;ay, That children may be fit for &s;ome Callings before they be for others; and according as the Calling is unto which they are inten|ded, may their Parents give the time of breeding them, &s;ome more, and &s;ome le&s;s, untill fit and able to manage that Calling unto which they are appointed; yet all this makes nothing at all for the breeding up of Mini&s;ters, unle&s;s you will make a Trade of it; which I perceive is the great Work you are about. When men are thus bred up and fit|ted for, and imployed in &s;ome lawfull Calling, if God now mani|fe&s;t his Son to and in &s;uch a one, inabling him to the Work of the Lord in his own heart, and in the judgement of the Church, he may lawfully, nay he ought to &s;ubmit unto the Call of God, be he high or low; from the Speaker of the Hou&s;e, or Pre&s;ident of the Coun&s;ell of State, unto the Hewer of wood and Drawer of water; and this is a true Call, when thus called of God: therefore all you &s;ay to this, is but an idle fancy; you have no ground for it.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="error">
<HEAD>His &s;econd Error.</HEAD>
<P><HI>That Infant-Bapti&s;m is a childi&s;h thing.</HI></P>
<P>And this you &s;ay, <HI>He will own for a Truth:</HI> And this I do &s;ay, I
<PB N="8" REF="42"> &s;till own for a Truth, and that fir&s;t in <HI>the Subject.</HI> 2. <HI>In the Admini&s;tra|tors.</HI></P>
<P>You &s;ay, <HI>There is an Objection lies in the way, which he &s;ets down,</HI> viz. <HI>That the Infants of the children of I&s;rael were as uncapable of the under&s;tanding of the my&s;terie of Circumci&s;ion, as Infants are now of Bapti&s;m.</HI></P>
<P>My An&s;wers (though reproached by you, I &s;uppo&s;e its not for want of ignorance) (I &s;hall relate them again, and leave them to the judgement of the Reader; only, adding one more) will &s;tand, and their truth be manife&s;t, when what you practi&s;e will fall in the &s;treets.</P>
<P>Its truth, that one part of Circumci&s;ions My&s;tery, <HI>viz.</HI> the Circum|ci&s;ion of the heart, was as far from the capacity of Infants, as the my&s;terie of Bapti&s;m is now.</P>
<P N="2">2. As Circumci&s;ion was a Type and Figure in the fle&s;h of Chri&s;t, who was to come of <HI>Abrahams</HI> Seed; and there was no &s;uch capa|city required, becau&s;e it was a <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Legal Type, as all the re&s;t of their external Wor&s;hips and Sacrifices were, leading to, and repre&s;enting the coming of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> in the fle&s;h. <HI>That the&s;e are not words to plea&s;e children as you pretend, unle&s;s you mean the children of God;</HI> but words of truth, it will appear, if the hone&s;t Reader do but con&s;ider, that as all the Ordinances of the <HI>Jews</HI> were Carnal and Typical, <HI>Heb.</HI> 9. 10. <HI>Col.</HI> 2. 16, 17. So tho&s;e Ordinances were given to the Natu|ral or Carnal Seed, <HI>viz.</HI> the Seed of the Fle&s;h, which was Typical like|wi&s;e as their Ordinances were; therefore was not the like capacity re|quired in them, as in tho&s;e in the Go&s;pel days, who are directly led into the My&s;terie unto <HI>Je&s;us</HI> who is come, being the &s;ub&s;tance of all tho&s;e Types and &s;hadows.</P>
<P N="3">3. There was a Command for that of Circumci&s;ion; none for that of Bapti&s;m: you cry out, <HI>O egregiou&s;ly gifted Di&s;putant!</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> O egregiou&s;ly ignorant! Is it not the Command that gives a capacity to the one and to the other? If the Lord Command the one, and not the other, is not that enough to &s;ilence man for ever? <HI>Zac.</HI> 2. 13. I &s;ay its the Command of God that gives a capacity to the creature of obeying; and there are none capable of a Duty but tho&s;e that are called to the Duty; and this you confe&s;s your &s;elf, p. 86. that in weighty things of God, a Chri&s;tian mu&s;t have a certain evident Rule to warrant his practi&s;e. Whereas you &s;ay, <HI>They were therefore circumci&s;ed, becau&s;e taken into the Covenant, and &s;o Church Members;</HI> I &s;hall An&s;wer it in its place, and &s;ay &s;omething to it in my fourth An|&s;wer.</P>
<PB N="9" REF="42">
<P>I &s;hall adde a fourth, and that is, They were capable of tho&s;e things promi&s;ed to them in that Covenant, viz. <HI>The Land of Canaan;</HI> and only the &s;piritual &s;eed are capable of tho&s;e things promi&s;ed in the Go&s;pel-Covenant, viz. The &s;piritual Land, Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and all the good things of the Go&s;pel.</P>
<P N="2">2. I &s;ay its childi&s;h, as relating to the Admini&s;trators, &amp;c. and you give a clear an&s;wer to it of ju&s;t nothing. I refer the Reader to it.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="error">
<HEAD>His third Error.</HEAD>
<P><HI>That none mu&s;t be baptized until they come to perfect age.</HI></P>
<P>To this you &s;eem to give a learned An&s;wer, crying out of <HI>Ignorance;</HI> and where it is, let the Reader judge by the Scriptures I produce: Was not Chri&s;t him&s;elf baptized at thirty years of age? The Eunuch by <HI>Philip?</HI> Acts 8. 37. And tho&s;e that came to <HI>Iohn?</HI> Mat. 3. and tho&s;e Acts 2. 40, 41?</P>
<P>You &s;ay, <HI>When any Anabapti&s;t in England can prove that there was no Infants baptized in the Apo&s;tles time, then it may be you will make u&s;e of that which I bring.</HI></P>
<P>I &s;hall make u&s;e of your own words before: <HI>O egregiou&s;ly gifted Disputant!</HI> What, are you &s;o well ver&s;t, that we mu&s;t prove Nega|tives? I thought that you had known &s;o much in di&s;putation, of Rea|&s;on and Scripture, that if you will practi&s;e a thing, then you mu&s;t prove it, or el&s;e it is Will wor&s;hip; if you can produce no precept nor pre&s;ident in Scripture for your practi&s;e, then you have no ground for your practi&s;e; but you can produce neither precept nor pre&s;ident for your practi&s;e. <HI>Ergo.</HI></P>
<P>I &s;ay, <HI>Is there one rule for them, and another for us now? if there be, produce it.</HI></P>
<P>To this you learnedly an&s;wer: <HI>If he did under&s;tand &s;en&s;e, he would &s;ee that the &s;ame Scripture-rule that was then given to the Churches, di|rects us to a different cour&s;e in gathering of Churches.</HI></P>
<P>And truly I mu&s;t be mighty wi&s;e then to under&s;tand that which is not for mine own ends; &s;uch &s;en&s;e will prove &s;en&s;ual in the end, <HI>Jam.</HI> 3. 13, 14, 15, 16. and this is the &s;umme of what you &s;ay; only you would flatter the people with your love to them; and its manife&s;t it is in darkening the Truth. You have produced no Scripture for ano|ther rule to us, then that to them, although I called for it, but only Rev. 2. 2. <HI>Try them that &s;ay they are Apo&s;tles, and are not, but lyars.</HI> I &s;ay &s;o too, and earne&s;tly de&s;ire, nay charge tho&s;e who have any know|ledge
<PB N="10" REF="43"> of Je&s;us, to do it. See who &s;ticks fa&s;te&s;t to the Scriptures, we or you, that &s;o they may find out the lyars, and detect and avoid them; for they &s;erve not the Lord Je&s;us, but their own bellies, and by their works they &s;hall know them.</P>
<P>As for tho&s;e con&s;equences mentioned; as that of Circumci&s;ion, the Hou&s;holds, and tho&s;e brought to Chri&s;t, &amp;c. I wonder that you blu&s;h not to write &s;o audaciou&s;ly as you do, knowing that almo&s;t all people know the truth of what I write; that the&s;e are the con&s;equences, wit|ne&s;s <HI>The Font-Guarded.</HI></P>
<P>Immediatly you confe&s;s, that its true, <HI>The fir&s;t con&s;equence is made u&s;e of;</HI> but come hither all you that fear the Lord, &s;ee what a &s;hift this man makes to help him&s;elf; he takes it for granted, that I ac|knowledge that bapti&s;m is come in the room of Circumci&s;ion: when I do but declare your fal&s;e and non&s;en&s;ical con&s;equences, not mine own conclu&s;ion. I deny Bapti&s;m to be come in the room of Circumci&s;ion; my grounds you may &s;ee in the <HI>Font-Guard Routed,</HI> in my an&s;wer to Doctor <HI>Hall;</HI> yet if it were true, that Bapti&s;m were come in the room of Circumci&s;ion, as <HI>Richard Sanders</HI> would have it, let the babes and &s;ucklings come and &s;ee what ground here will be for Infant bap|ti&s;m: let Je&s;us Chri&s;t be King, let him have but &s;o much honour, as to tell you who &s;hall be baptized, and how it &s;hall be done, the con|trover&s;ie will be ended: <HI>If you think Chri&s;t as a Son to be faithful in his hou&s;e, as Mo&s;es a Servant was faithful in his hou&s;e,</HI> Heb. 3. 2, 3, 4, 5. then he hath left &s;ufficient rules for his people to walk by; they need not leave the &s;on, and go back to the &s;ervant, <HI>Act</HI> 2. 22. but you ask <HI>What he hath to &s;ay to this con&s;equence? Why the Law came by Mo&s;es; Grace and Truth, and Gospel-Ordinances came by Ie&s;us Chri&s;t:</HI> to this your great an&s;wer, as to mo&s;t of all the re&s;t, is, <HI>to cry out ignorance, &s;ee the ignorance of the great Text-man, &amp;c. that Circumci&s;ion came by Abraham, and not by Mo&s;es.</HI> I might retort back again, See the igno|rance of this learned Di&s;putant, that doth not yet know that Circum|ci&s;ion was reckoned upon <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> account, though given to <HI>Abraham;</HI> &amp; is not reckoned in the new Te&s;tament &s;o much upon <HI>Abrahams</HI> ac|count, as upon <HI>Mo&s;es, Lev.</HI> 12. 3. <HI>Iohn</HI> 7. 22. The rea&s;on is, becau&s;e that Circumci&s;ion was that in which the children of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> were engaged to obedience, and the whole Law was included in it, when fir&s;t given, or el&s;e by it they could not be bound over to the whole Law; &s;o that the uniting of Law and Circumci&s;ion together &s;o in&s;eparably, being indeed both typicall, mu&s;t &s;tand and fall together; <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> being
<PB N="11" REF="43"> the &s;ervant in that hou&s;e, all the Ordinances being typicall, and the &s;ervant too. Circumci&s;ion is reckoned with the re&s;t of the Law, and al|together upon <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> account; therefore, next quarrel with Chri&s;t, and lay the blame (if there be &s;o much) where it is. As to the &s;ub|&s;tance of the con&s;equences mentioned, I have an&s;wered already, they are commonly made u&s;e of by you. Your three Arguments I &s;hall pa&s;s by, mentioned <HI>pag.</HI> 36 referring the Reader to my An&s;wer to <HI>The Font-Guarded,</HI> in the beginning of this book. Only the grand Argu|ment taken out of Ma&s;ter <HI>Baxters</HI> book, I &s;hall untwi&s;t before I pa&s;s, I doubt not, though I have an&s;wered it likewi&s;e in the preceding Trea|ti&s;e: The Argument is this.</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM>Tho&s;e that are Church-members are to be baptized.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Some Infants are Church-members.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Therefore &s;ome Infants are to be baptized.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>You &s;ay, you pre&s;ume none will deny your <HI>Major;</HI> yet give me leave to que&s;tion it a little. There is no &s;uch Scripture that I know of; for there are none that are Church-members upon the vi&s;ible account, but tho&s;e that are baptized, <HI>Act.</HI> 2. 41. They were baptized and added to the Church, not becau&s;e members, but to make them vi&s;ible mem|bers, &amp;c.</P>
<P>As for your <HI>Minor,</HI> you &s;ay you will prove it by Mr. <HI>Baxters</HI> Ar|gument, thus,</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>If by the merciful gift and appointment of God, not yet re|pealed, &s;ome Infants were once to be admitted members into the vi&s;ible Church, then &s;ome Infants are to be admitted &s;o &s;till.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>But by the merciful gift and appointment of God, not yet repealed, &s;ome Infants were admitted members into the vi&s;ible Church.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Therefore they are &s;o to be admitted &s;till.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Your Argument both for <HI>Major</HI> and <HI>Minor</HI> &s;erves not at all for the end for which you produce it, <HI>viz.</HI> the confirmation of the <HI>Minor</HI> of your former Argument; for it contradicts it &s;elf.</P>
<P>If <HI>Collier</HI> had &s;o contradicted one Argument with another, you would have branded him for an <HI>Ignoramus.</HI> In the former Argument you &s;ay, <HI>Some Infants are Church-members, therefore ought to be bap|tized.</HI> In this you &s;ay, as in confirmation of the former, <HI>Some Infants were once to be admitted members,</HI> &s;o that it &s;uppo&s;eth a time when they were not members; and you &s;eem to contradict your &s;elf, and to con|firm what I have &s;aid, <HI>viz. That Church-members are not admitted to Bapti&s;m, but they are admitted to member&s;hip by Bapti&s;m, or becau&s;e baptized:</HI> but your &s;elf-contradiction I pa&s;s, only minde it by the way.</P>
<PB N="12" REF="44">
<P>And 2. I come to your invincible Argument, <HI>viz.</HI> upon your own account: and the &s;trength of your Argument I perceive lies in this, <HI>Not yet repealed.</HI> Let all the re&s;t pa&s;s for truth, yet let this be denied, and it comes all to nothing. You &s;ay <HI>p.</HI> 38. <HI>God never repealed this grant to Infants, &amp;c.</HI> I &s;hall (as I have done in the former Treati&s;e) prove the Repeal, and then your Argument is fallen. I prove it thus:</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM>If the Covenant made with <HI>Abraham,</HI> in which Infants had tho&s;e priviledges you &s;peak of, and Church member&s;hip, &amp;c. be re|pealed, then the priviledges of the Covenant are repealed.</ITEM>
<ITEM>But the Covenant it &s;elf is repealed. </ITEM>
<ITEM>Therefore the priviledges of that Covenant are repealed.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is cleer: The <HI>Minor I</HI> prove.</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM>That Covenant who&s;e promi&s;es and priviledges were typical, when the &s;ub&s;tance was come, was repealed.</ITEM>
<ITEM>But the Covenant made with <HI>Abraham,</HI> and all its promi&s;es and priviledges were typical.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Ergo,</HI> When the &s;ub&s;tance was come, it was all repealed.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>That the Covenant was typical, <HI>I</HI> &s;hall prove; and it typed out Chri&s;t and the &s;piritual &s;eed.</P>
<P N="1">1. The Covenant typed out Chri&s;t: for the Covenant on Gods part was, That he would give unto them the <HI>Land of Canaan for an everla&s;ting po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion.</HI> This Land of <HI>Canaan</HI> was typical, of which Chri&s;t was the &s;ub&s;tance, <HI>Heb.</HI> 4. from <HI>v.</HI> 7. to 11. Therefore when Chri&s;t the &s;ub&s;tance was come, the type was repealed; and our Covenant now is not of the outward Land of <HI>Canaan,</HI> but of the true Spiritual Land of re&s;t. And if the Covenant it &s;elf be repealed, as none who have their eyes in their heads but may &s;ee it, then the Church-member&s;hip of that Covenant is repealed; and the Church-member&s;hip of the Go&s;pel is a Church-member&s;hip of <HI>another Covenant, a better Cove|nant, e&s;tabli&s;hed upon better promi&s;es,</HI> Heb. 8. therefore another Church-member&s;hip. Such as are capable of that Covenant and promi&s;e, to wit the Spiritual &s;eed, are members of the Spiritual promi&s;e.</P>
<P>And le&s;t any &s;hould think there was a difference between the Co|venant made with <HI>Abraham,</HI> and that made with <HI>Mo&s;es, I</HI> cannot pa&s;s it thus: for it was all one. When <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> was rai&s;ed up, it was gathered into one Covenant, and related all to one thing. Circum|ci&s;ion is given by <HI>Mo&s;es;</HI> the promi&s;e made to <HI>Abraham</HI> was the &s;ame as made to <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> to wit, the Land of <HI>Canaan:</HI> therefore the Cove|nant
<PB N="13" REF="44"> mentioned <HI>Heb.</HI> 8. is &s;aid to be <HI>e&s;tabli&s;hed upon better promi&s;es,</HI> becau&s;e it was a better Covenant; that is, better promi&s;es then the <HI>Land of Canaan,</HI> viz. the <HI>Heavenly Land.</HI></P>
<P>If any man dare to &s;ay, that it is the &s;ame Covenant as that with <HI>Abraham;</HI> let him take heed, fear and tremble to give God the lye: God one day will appear to be a <HI>God of truth,</HI> and all &s;elf-&s;eeking and gain&s;aying men will be &s;ound lyars. If any de&s;ire to &s;ee further into this truth, let them have recour&s;e unto my former Treati&s;e <HI>(Font-Guard Routed)</HI> in an&s;wer unto the &s;ame Argument.</P>
<P>And as to your Arguments to prove the Negative, <HI>That this mer|cifull grant is not revoked; if it be, it mu&s;t be in mercy or judgment, &amp;c. I</HI> trace you not in it; <HI>I</HI> &s;uppo&s;e to any rea&s;onable man it will be need|le&s;s: For if it be cleer as the Sun, that it is repealed; whether in mercy or judgment, to us is not material. Yet this <HI>I</HI> &s;hall &s;ay, that it is in mer|cy, and much wi&s;dom; <HI>For all the works of God are wrought in mercy and truth.</HI> It was the will and wi&s;dom of God, that the <HI>Natural &s;eed &s;hould have an intere&s;t in the outward Covenant,</HI> and that the <HI>Spiritual &s;eed &s;hould have a true intere&s;t in the &s;piritual Covenant and priviledges.</HI> Therefore cea&s;e rea&s;oning thus: <HI>let God be true;</HI> let God have his will, though he take away all cau&s;e of fle&s;hly boa&s;ting from us: For now we have no intere&s;t in any thing in this Covenant, unle&s;s Chri&s;t be ours; and if Chri&s;t be ours, then <HI>all is ours;</HI> but lo&s;e him, and lo&s;e all, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3. 21, 22.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="error">
<HEAD>You come (you &s;ay) to his fourth Error.</HEAD>
<P><HI>That God now reveals his will not only by the written word, but by dreams and vi&s;ions, more credited then the Scriptures.</HI></P>
<P>This you a&s;&s;ert; it's none of mine; as the Reader may &s;ee, if he plea&s;e to peru&s;e the place. It is your own invention, and a lying one too. And to this you adde another as great immediately following, <HI>viz.</HI> That you believe the Pri&s;on at <HI>London</HI> had done me good, where you heard I lately was for my Here&s;ies.</P>
<P>Strange man I you are &s;peaking again&s;t Dreams, and yet are in the very <HI>interim</HI> dreaming: you did but dream that I was in pri&s;on, and I &s;uppo&s;e it was becau&s;e you would have it &s;o; you had &s;tudied deep upon the point the day before, and &s;o it &s;eems you dream'd the thing was done. What, <HI>Richard Sanders</HI> dream a lye? if he can dream no better then that, he were as good give off dreaming, or at lea&s;t for|bear to publi&s;h it in writing, le&s;t all men count him but as he is. And
<PB N="14" REF="45"> what I &s;ay of Dreaming, is no more but this; that I dare not condemn the thing, becau&s;e God hath not limited him&s;elf; he may reveal him|&s;elf which way he plea&s;eth, though not contrary, but agreeable to the Scripture. And further, that it is not my experience, nor any of that <HI>I</HI> know; therefore may be a whim&s;ie of <HI>Tho Halls</HI> own head.</P>
<P>This is the &s;ub&s;tance of what <HI>I</HI> &s;ay; yet you dare to a&s;&s;ert, that <HI>I</HI> af|firm that God reveals his will that way, &amp; that its more to be credited then the written word; when all <HI>I</HI> &s;ay, is, that for all that <HI>I</HI> know, &s;ome may have &s;omething revealed thar way, although <HI>I</HI> know it not. See Mr. <HI>Fox</HI> in the Book of Martyrs, <HI>vol.</HI> 3. <HI>pag.</HI> 607. he relates of that good Martyr Mr. <HI>Philpot,</HI> in a dream or vi&s;ion he &s;aw as it were a glo|rious City full of excellencies, &amp;c. and it brought much joy to his &s;oul; it was cleered to him that it was a repre&s;entation of the glorious Church of Chri&s;t: and dare you &s;ay this was fal&s;e? And may not God do the like, if he plea&s;e? though it's not u&s;ual, yet limit not God.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="error">
<HEAD>His fifth Error.</HEAD>
<P><HI>That the Saints need not ask the pardon of &s;in; that it is form and cu&s;tome that carries them to this petition, Forgive us our &s;ins, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>It &s;eems you re&s;olved to lye when you began, and &s;o you will do it to the purpo&s;e: but you are driven to confe&s;s the truth immediately, that every one that runs may read you. While any lives in the cleer enjoyment of mercy, it is form and cu&s;tom that carries them to that petition; but if a &s;oul apprehends want of pardon, let him ask it. And is this &s;o &s;trange unto you? truly <HI>I</HI> do not wonder; <HI>I</HI> believe it is in good earne&s;t as &s;trange as you make it. It &s;eems you know not that <HI>there is a time for all things, and every thing in its &s;ea&s;on is &s;weet and comely.</HI> There is a time to ask pardon, and a time to rejoyce in the en|joyment of pardon; there is a time to be merry &amp; a time to be &s;orry: <HI>If any be merry,</HI> &s;aith <HI>James, let him &s;ing; if afflicted, let him pray.</HI> And for that word, <HI>If any &s;oul, or when a &s;oul apprehends the want of pardon, let him ask it;</HI> its no otherwi&s;e then what <HI>James</HI> &s;aith, <HI>If any want wi&s;dom, let him ask of God,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Jam</HI> 1. 5. All you &s;ay about this, is either a &s;purning again&s;t the truth, and a manife&s;ting of your igno|rance in this truth of God; or &s;econdly a declaration of what is in|cluded in my a&s;&s;ertion, That as they commit new &s;ins, &s;o being &s;en&s;ible of it, and of the want of pardon, let them ask it.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="error">
<PB N="15" REF="45">
<HEAD>His &s;ixth Error.</HEAD>
<P><HI>That gifted Brethren may exerci&s;e the Mini&s;terial or Pa&s;toral act of Preaching in a con&s;tituted Church, without any Call to the Office of a Mini&s;ter.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. I &s;uppo&s;e it's impo&s;&s;ible for you to &s;tate any thing truly as it was laid down by me. But that you pretend, that what I have writ|ten <HI>is &s;o full of contradictions, that in &s;ober &s;adne&s;s you know not what I would have.</HI> Truly in &s;ober-&s;adne&s;s I am much of the mind, that your mind in writing was rather to make the Truth, and my &s;elf its &s;er|vant contemptible to the people, then to an&s;wer the truth written in my book: for el&s;e you dur&s;t not change my language into your own &s;o oft as you do; and then rail, and pretend you an&s;wer me; nay, pre|tend you know not what I would have, when it is &s;o cleerly a&s;&s;erted from Scripture grounds, not only in the generall, but in particular, <HI>pag.</HI> 95. 96. in &s;even or eight particulars: and I &s;hall at pre&s;ent mind but one, which is the fir&s;t; That all the brethren in the Church that have the gift, may prophe&s;ie. You a&s;&s;ert it thus; <HI>That they may exer|ci&s;e the Mini&s;terial or Pa&s;toral act,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Well, but you pretend you will not an&s;wer the Arguments; that you will leave to your brother <HI>Hall.</HI> But you pittifully cry out of <HI>igno|rance in the Collier:</HI> but I &s;uppo&s;e, and its not my &s;uppo&s;ition only, that it is your own pittifull ignorance makes you &s;o to cry out again&s;t me: for the Arguments you pa&s;s; nor do you &s;ay any thing of &s;ub&s;tance unto tho&s;e things you pretend to be Errors. You &s;ay, you will lay down &s;ome Ob&s;ervations, <HI>which may &s;erve as a key to &s;ee the weakne&s;s, ignorance, and impertinency of the &s;ame.</HI></P>
<P>You ob&s;erve, <HI>p.</HI> 66. <HI>That I do pittifully &s;ay, I Sir, and No Sir.</HI> And is this &s;uch a pittiful thing? Let the Reader judge.</P>
<P>As to your 7 particulars in&s;tanced, there is no contradiction in them. For fir&s;t, that gifted brethren may preach according to their gift both in and out of a con&s;tituted Church, is cleer; and there is not any thing you have &s;aid that bears the lea&s;t &s;hew of a &s;olid an&s;wer un|to it. For both of the&s;e, &s;ee 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. 31. <HI>Rom.</HI> 12. 3. 6. 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 4. 10, 11. <HI>Act.</HI> 8. 4. with <HI>chap.</HI> 11. 19, 20, 21. &amp; <HI>Act.</HI> 9. 20. &amp; <HI>chap.</HI> 18. 25, 26. in all which it appears, the lawfulne&s;s of the Preaching of gifted Bre|thren, both in and out of the Church; and truly I cannot think that you are &s;o ignorant of this Truth as you pretend; only you are wil|ling to make a Trade of Preaching; that &s;o you may uphold your ho|nour
<PB N="16" REF="46"> and profit; and that di&s;tinction between Gift and Office is as clear as the Sun; and you &s;ay nothing in an&s;wer unto it from the Scri|pture, but in way of compari&s;on with the Magi&s;trate, which will not hold: for men have preached, and it was their duty, without the Of|fice, only by Gift, as in the former Scriptures; but men may not be Magi&s;trates, unle&s;s called to office; and the di&s;proportion between things Spiritual and things natural, is that in which natural men are lo&s;t, and the wi&s;dom of man cannot reach it.</P>
<P>But you &s;eem with <HI>Tho. Hall,</HI> to make much ado about private Preaching; and to confirm it you produce two Arguments. 1. <HI>If we finde in Scripture that all Chri&s;tians may preach, taking preaching in a large &s;ence for private duties we owe one to another, &amp;c.</HI> But you prove by Scripture that all Chri&s;tians may Preach, take Preaching in a large &s;ence, &amp;c. How now <HI>Richard Sanders;</HI> why you are proving more then ever I a&s;&s;erted: Where will you be anon? they may Preach, and they may not; for that which I a&s;&s;erted, was, that gifted brethren might Preach; you &s;ay all.</P>
<P>Query 1. <HI>Whether the&s;e Scriptures produced by you, do at all speak of Preaching?</HI> 1 The&s;. 4. 18. <HI>comfort one another with the&s;e words,</HI> Heb. 3. 13. <HI>But exhort one another daily, while it is called to day.</HI></P>
<P>Qu. 2. <HI>If it do infer Preaching, why not publick in the Church? If they were to exhort one another, why not in the Church? What word is there that hinders that it was not in the Church, and &s;o publick?</HI></P>
<P>So likewi&s;e in the re&s;t of the Scriptures; &s;o that by all that is &s;aid, here is no room for private Preaching, unle&s;s particular exhortation; &s;o men in office may preach as well as men out of office; So that be|cau&s;e there is a private watching in the Church of Chri&s;t, and a pri|vate admonition, exhortation, &amp;c. you will therefore call it private Preaching; and if you make that Preaching, then you think to limit all the gifts in the Church there, &s;o contradicting all the Scriptures before mentioned: and its true all are not teachers in way of Office: yet all that have gifts, may, nay ought to make u&s;e of them for the good of the body and the glory of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>The &s;econd Argument is taken from women. <HI>If it be lawfull for women to preach privately, &amp;c. But women may preach private|ly, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Here you lie pittifully in the du&s;t; let the Reader peru&s;e the Scripture produced by you for proof of your a&s;&s;ertion, that women may Preach, 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1. 5. and 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3. 15. See if there be ever a word
<PB N="17" REF="46"> of Preaching in that place, or any thing that hath a tendency to it. Surely you think people are &s;o ignorant that the very mentioning of Scripture will &s;atisfie them, although it be nothing to the purpo&s;e; the other Scripture <HI>Act.</HI> 18. 26. The text &s;aith, it was <HI>Aquila</HI> and <HI>Pri&s;cilla</HI> his wife. The word is, <HI>expounded the way of the Lord, &amp;c.</HI> But how will you prove that it was <HI>Pri&s;cilla</HI> that expounded? Why not <HI>Aquila,</HI> if it mu&s;t be preaching, as well as <HI>Pri&s;cilla?</HI></P>
<P>But what &s;hould I rake after &s;uch non&s;ence and confu&s;ion? I do not in the lea&s;t que&s;tion the womens Duty in their &s;tation, as well as all the brethrens, which is to watch, to reprove, to re&s;tore, to exhort, &amp;c. yet this prevents not the brethrens Duty, who have received Gifts from the Lord to make u&s;e of them publickly for the good of the whole: and they ju&s;tly forfeit them if they neglect, and they may be taken from them, and given to tho&s;e who will better improve them; and I am confident that the gifts of Chri&s;t in the Saints, will confound and bring to nothing the Worldly Mini&s;try, and that &s;o much the rather too, becau&s;e they &s;o much envy and oppo&s;e the Truth, and way of God in this particular.</P>
<P>You ob&s;erve 3ly. <HI>That I take no notice of the thing in hand, when the que&s;tion is &s;tated, Whether any may Preach in a con&s;tituted Church, not called to Office? the Scriptures my an&s;wers are grounded upon, &s;peak only of Preaching to Infidels, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> If you were not wilfull or blinde, you might &s;ee, that I prove Preaching both in, and out of a con&s;tituted Church too; the Scri|ptures I produced for Preaching in a con&s;tituted Church, are <HI>Rom.</HI> 12. 3. 6. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. 31. and that it intends the Brethren without excep|tion, &s;ee <HI>ver.</HI> 1. where he &s;peaks to the Church, <HI>De&s;ire &s;piritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophe&s;ie,</HI> and none are excepted but wo|men, <HI>ver.</HI> 34. 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1. 10, 11. and as for that you make &s;o much ado about, the <HI>extraordinarine&s;s of the ca&s;e of the Preaching of the &s;cat|tered brethren to Infidels:</HI> I have an&s;wered it in the former Treati&s;e; yet &s;omething &s;hall I &s;ay here; 1. An unlawfull thing is not made lawful by the extraordinarine&s;s of the ca&s;e, unle&s;s in ca&s;e of &s;aving life; &s;o the Lord <HI>will have mercy and not &s;acrifice,</HI> as in the Scripture men|tioned by you; provided it be not in the profe&s;&s;ion of Chri&s;t; then <HI>he that to &s;ave his life will deny Chri&s;t before men, he will deny him be|fore his Father which is in heaven;</HI> &s;o that nece&s;&s;ity makes not an un|lawfull thing lawfull: If <HI>&V;zzah</HI> touch the Ark, he mu&s;t die, 2 <HI>Sam.</HI>
<PB N="18" REF="47"> 6. 6, 7. But 2. What nece&s;&s;ity was there in it, that <HI>Paul,</HI> or the &s;cat|tered Brethren or <HI>Apollo</HI> &s;hould preach? if it were unlawfull, there was no nece&s;&s;ity, unle&s;s &s;uch as <HI>Paul</HI> minds, <HI>A nece&s;&s;ity is upon me, and wo is me if I preach not the Go&s;pel,</HI> 1 Cor. 9. 16. And if this ne|ce&s;&s;ity was upon them I think it was lawfull, and upon the &s;ame ac|count is it lawfull for any of the Saints that have received the Gift to Preach; therefore for &s;hame forbear to tell of the extraordinarine&s;s of the Ca&s;e any more, if the thing in it &s;elf was lawfull: and do not abu&s;e the Scripture for the upholding of your own ends and intere&s;ts, and do no more charge folly upon the Servants of the Lord for their fulfilling of the will of Chri&s;t. And whereas you pretend, <HI>That one Scripture witne&s;&s;ing that God hath appointed and fixed &s;ome in office for the work of the Mini&s;try, is of more &s;trength to condemn the liberty of preaching pleaded for, then twenty Examples of gifted mens prea|ching.</HI> Let the Reader judge of the truth of this, or whether both the&s;e held forth in Scripture do not clearly &s;peak thus much to it, that both are to have being together, not one to put out the other; and that Office that thinks to &s;ilence Gift, is no Office of <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> but that which &s;eeks it &s;elf, and its reward will be ac|cordingly.</P>
<P>But I might conclude more &s;ure then you, that there being a fixed Scripture that Commands Baptizing of Believers, is of &s;trength e|nough to condemn a thou&s;and con&s;equences for &s;prinkling of Infants, having not &s;o much as any pre&s;ident for it: you would feign pre&s;i|dents for &s;prinkling of Infants if you could; but you endeavour to overturn Pre&s;idents of preaching Brethren that they &s;hould not be u&s;e|full to us; let the people judge of what Spirit you are of: And the rea&s;on I judge is this, your own &s;tanding depends &s;o po&s;itively upon it, that unle&s;s you can uphold the one and &s;uppre&s;s the other, you are like to fall together.</P>
<P>Ob&s;erv. 4. <HI>That in my pleading for a general liberty of Preaching in a con&s;tituted Church, I do not inform how far I extend it, Whe|ther it be with the con&s;ent of the Pa&s;tor and people, or whether he may Preach whether they will or no?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I leave the truth of this likewi&s;e to the Reader to judge; whether it be not often a&s;&s;erted in my Book, pag 29. <HI>The Churches freedom or de&s;ire is Call enough, if the party be gifted to it; all law|full Calls to Preach either within or without are &s;utable to the Gift,</HI> pag. 30. <HI>The Church hath power to Call forth a gifted Brother to do</HI>
<PB N="19" REF="47"> <HI>&s;ervice for the Church;</HI> and in the <HI>Po&s;t&s;cript,</HI> at the end, it is thus writ|ten; <HI>In what I have written, I intend that only Brethren that have Gifts may exerci&s;e them in an orderly way,</HI> that is, with the de&s;ire or con|&s;ent of the Church, as any man might ea&s;ily under&s;tand; &s;o there is no truth in your ob&s;ervation.</P>
<P>Ob&s;er. 5. <HI>That in mo&s;t of his An&s;wers he doth not reply to the Scri|pture rea&s;on alledged again&s;t him, but declining that, as a little too hard for him.</HI></P>
<P>That I leave to the Reader to judge, whether I have declined a po&s;i|tive An&s;wer to all, both the Arguments and Scriptures; and who hath declined the Argument and Scriptures mo&s;t; I in my An&s;wers to <HI>Tho. Hall,</HI> or <HI>Rich. Sanders</HI> in his an&s;wer to mine.</P>
<P>So you come, <HI>you &s;ay, to open &s;everal Scriptures, from giving any countenance to that</HI> Babel; <HI>and the two fir&s;t that you will &s;peak to is</HI> Act 8. 4. and <HI>Act</HI> 9. 20 <HI>but in this you will oh&s;erve two Rules.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>That in weighty things of God, a Chri&s;tian mu&s;t have a certain Rule, or warrant for his practi&s;e, &amp;c.</HI> I like it well; and if you held firm to this truth, you mu&s;t deny all your own practi&s;e.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>That Arguments drawn from examples in Scripture are of cre|dit, according to the credit of the per&s;ons who&s;e examples they are, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>This I own for truth likewi&s;e: But you &s;ay, <HI>Tho&s;e examples are of men not infallible &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>How prove you that? dare you que&s;tion it? and doth not the Scri|pture &s;ay, the hand of the Lord was with them? yet dare you que|&s;tion the &s;pirit by which they were guided? <HI>Acts</HI> 11. 21. All the re&s;t you &s;ay to this is nothing at all; therefore I &s;ay no more but refer the Reader to what is at large an&s;wered in the <HI>Pulpit-Guard Routed:</HI> as for the &s;econd Scripture, <HI>Act.</HI> 9. 20. you confe&s;s, <HI>That he Preached before he was &s;olemnly &s;et apart to be an Apo&s;tle to the Gentiles.</HI> 2. <HI>You &s;ay he was &s;ent by an immediate voice to</HI> Ananias, <HI>that he &s;hould tell him what he &s;hould do;</HI> but <HI>Ananias</HI> did not bid him preach, <HI>but ari&s;e and be baptized,</HI> &amp;c. You minde <HI>what you have from</HI> Sauls <HI>own mouth,</HI> ch. 22. 14. <HI>Ananias</HI> &s;aith to him, <HI>Thou &s;halt be a witne&s;s to all men of what thou ha&s;t &s;een and heard,</HI> ver. 15. This was no &s;etting of him apart to the Office; he told him <HI>that he &s;hould be a witne&s;s, &amp;c.</HI> but did not Ordain him unto it: and upon your account <HI>Saul</HI> &s;hould have been &s;ilent till he had been ordained; but he was not as before, and <HI>Act.</HI> 26. 16, 17, 18. <HI>Gods immediate &s;ending him,</HI> was nor the outward Office, as you pretend.</P>
<PB N="20" REF="48">
<P>You &s;ay, <HI>the other Scripture he often urges;</HI> and why not, having often occa&s;ion? 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 4. 10, 11. <HI>Rom.</HI> 12. 6. 7. The&s;e, you &s;ay, are far fetcht con&s;equences.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> They are no con&s;equences man, but plain Scripture Pre|cepts; <HI>Chri&s;tians mu&s;t admini&s;ter their gifts, therefore they mu&s;t be pub|lick Preachers, &amp;c.</HI> Why not publick? do the Scriptures make a dif|ference? And what you &s;ay further to the&s;e Scriptures, hath been an|&s;wered already; therefore I &s;ay no more.</P>
<P>The ntxt Scripture is <HI>P&s;al</HI> 145. 10, 11. All you &s;ay to this is very learnedly; <HI>As though this hath any relation to publick preaching,</HI> when he &s;aith, <HI>they &s;hall make known to the &s;ons of men his mighty Acts and the glorious Maje&s;ty of his Kingdom;</HI> but this you have left out; you dur&s;t not put it in your Book, le&s;t the Reader &s;hould &s;ee your folly. The next Scripture is 1 <HI>Cor</HI> 14. 31. This you pretend to prove was ex|traordinary Prophe&s;ie, and not ordinary, as the Pulpit-Guard Rout|ed &s;ayes.</P>
<P>And you &s;ay, <HI>That your great work &s;hall be to prove that prophe|cy</HI> 1 Cor. 14. 31. <HI>was extraordinary, and not ordinary,</HI> as the <HI>Pulpit-Guard-Routed</HI> &s;ayes.</P>
<P N="1">1. You &s;ay, <HI>You read,</HI> p. 60. <HI>that the rea&s;on why prophe&s;ie was ex|traordinary in the Law, and this ordinary</HI> 1 Cor. 14. 3. <HI>is becau&s;e its a &s;peaking to edification, exhortation and comfort, &amp;c.</HI> The &s;ub&s;tance of what you &s;eem to an&s;wer to this is, 1. Becau&s;e <HI>&s;uch as were prophets did &s;peak to edification; therefore tho&s;e who &s;peak to edification are prophets. In this you &s;ay is &s;ome Sophi&s;try, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>But give me leave to &s;hew your Sophi&s;try; and that fir&s;t in pre|tending an An&s;wer, when tis nothing to the purpo&s;e; the end of my u&s;ing the&s;e words, was to pre&s;ent the Reader with the difference be|tween the Prophe&s;ie of the Old Te&s;tament, which was to foretell things to come, and this of the New; this 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. is an ordinary way of prophe&s;ie for the building up of the Church, that &s;o all <HI>may be in&s;tructed, and all may be comforted.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. I an&s;wer, that tho&s;e Saints that can &s;peak to edification, &amp;c. are prophets; nay all the Lords People are prophets; therefore your So|phi&s;try, nor yet your Logick will not hold; for though <HI>the ground may be wet without rain;</HI> yet it is not often wet without water: and if a Saint, a Member of the Church can &s;peak to edification, ex|hortation and con&s;olation, he is a Prophet: if he have the Te&s;timony of <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> he hath the Spirit of Prophe&s;ie.</P>
<PB N="21" REF="48">
<P>2. You &s;ay, <HI>The Prophets under the Law &s;pake to edification.</HI></P>
<P>I an&s;wer. There is none que&s;tions that, but that their prophe&s;yings had that end in it: and its &s;o to us at this day, when we come to un|der&s;tand them; but the prophe&s;ying mentioned 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. was a com|mon and ordinary prophe&s;ying in the Church, for the edification of the Body: That in the Law was a foretelling of things to come, and therefore written, to be kept on Record to po&s;terity; this not written, becau&s;e ordinary, and as <HI>Thomas Hall</HI> confe&s;&s;eth, it was &s;uch a prophe|&s;ie, as in it they <HI>might err, &amp;c.</HI> So that I &s;ay again, they under the Law took not their denomination from this kind of prophe&s;ying, <HI>viz.</HI> an ordinary &s;peaking to build up &s;ouls in the pre&s;ent knowledge of God; but from their receiving their prophe&s;ie immediatly from God, di&s;co|vering things to come.</P>
<P>Whereas you &s;ay, <HI>They were not called Prophets in the old Te&s;tament from the matter of their prophe&s;ie, but for the manner of receiving it.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. I an&s;wer, it was from both matter and manner too.</P>
<P N="2">2. If what you &s;ay be truth, &s;ee a clear difference; tho&s;e 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. are called Prophets, not &s;o much from the manner, as the matter: <HI>He that prophe&s;ieth, &s;peaketh to edification, exhortation, and con&s;olation:</HI> as if he &s;hould &s;ay, if you would know a Prophet, it is &s;uch a one as &s;peaks <HI>to edification, &amp;c.</HI> and who&s;oever &s;peaks not <HI>to edification, &amp;c.</HI> is no <HI>Prophet;</HI> for the Apo&s;tle doth not only direct them in the manner of prophe&s;ie, but in the matter too; its a word to edification; and truly you either mi&s;erably contradict your &s;elves, or el&s;e do of purpo&s;e to keep &s;ouls in the dark; for <HI>Thomas Hall,</HI> whom you pretend to vin|dicate, applyeth that Scripture 1 Cor. 14. 32. <HI>The &s;pirits of the Pro|phets are &s;ubject to the Prophets: viz. to the probation and examination of the Presbyterie;</HI> and he hath no other Scripture to prove the <HI>Pre&s;|byterian examination and probation,</HI> but that; yet afterwards both with him and you, that prophe&s;ie is extraordinary; and yet you con|fe&s;s that <HI>Presbyterie</HI> was an ordinary office; what contradictions are the&s;e, and what will you not &s;ay for your own ends?</P>
<P>You &s;eem much to harp upon one thing, and that of little con&s;e|quence to the thing in hand: <HI>That the extraordinary way of Revela|tion did denominate their &s;ayings to be prophe&s;ies, and not their foretelling things to come.</HI></P>
<P>I &s;ay, that not only that, but the matter of the prophe&s;ie, as well as the manner; as a blind man might &s;ee or under&s;tand: for if any pro|phe&s;ie, and the matter of the prophe&s;ie proved not true, he was no
<PB N="22" REF="49"> true Prophet: therefore, that the people might know a true Prophet under the Law, they were to look at the matter of the prophe&s;ie, not the manner of receiving it. I&s;a. 23. 26. <HI>How long &s;hall this be in the heart of the Prophets, to prophe&s;ie lies?</HI> ver. 28. <HI>The Prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him &s;peak my word faithfully, &amp;c.</HI> So that it was the faithful and true &s;peaking of the word, from whence they had the denomination of Prophet; and this in &s;ub&s;tance you confe&s;s, <HI>page</HI> 101. contradicting what you &s;ay, <HI>p.</HI> 100. <HI>It was the extraordinary way of Revelation; here its the manife&s;tation of their prophe&s;ie, becau&s;e they manife&s;ted to others (by divine in&s;pirati|on) things pa&s;t, pre&s;ent, and to come.</HI> So that now you confe&s;s its the ma|nife&s;tation, by revelation of truth, that made them Prophets, not the ordinary way of &s;peaking to edification, &amp;c. mentioned 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. 3.</P>
<P>As to all you &s;ay to <HI>Rev.</HI> 19 10. <HI>page</HI> 103. I may truly retort your own words, <HI>I am afraid the devil hath taught you to play the Sophi&s;ter;</HI> for when the Text &s;aith, <HI>The te&s;timony of Je&s;us is the spirit of prophe&s;ie,</HI> you &s;ay immediatly, <HI>and extraordinarily in&s;pired:</HI> Doth the Text &s;ay &s;o, or is it your own invention? I leave to the Reader to judge: And as for your di&s;tinction from <HI>Chap.</HI> 1. <HI>ver.</HI> 2. <HI>The word of God, and the Te&s;timony of Je&s;us,</HI> its one and the &s;ame in &s;ub&s;tance; or at mo&s;t, the Te&s;timony of Je&s;us is but an explanation of the word of God: He was bani&s;hed <HI>for the word of God, even for the Te&s;timony of Je&s;us,</HI> &s;o the Greek word <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity &s;ometimes be under&s;tood: As <HI>Col.</HI> 2. 2. the Apo&s;tle manife&s;ting his earne&s;t de&s;ire for the Saints, that they might come to the <HI>Knowledge of God, and of the Father, &amp;c.</HI> which mu&s;t be rendred, <HI>even of the Father;</HI> a word rather to explain the former, then di&s;tingui&s;h, &amp;c. So that <HI>John</HI> doth not &s;o di&s;tingui&s;h, as if he had been more <HI>excellent then the re&s;t of the Apo&s;tles in the te&s;ti|mony of Je&s;us, &amp;c.</HI> but for that it was he was bani&s;hed: and the truth is, that the Te&s;timony of Je&s;us, though not &s;o eminent as the Apo&s;tles, yet if by the &s;ame &s;pirit, according to the rule of truth, and according to the mea&s;ure received, it is <HI>the spirit of prophe&s;ie.</HI></P>
<P>As for what you &s;ay to that Scripture 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. 37.</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>Every &s;piritual man is a Prophet.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>All the Saints are &s;piritual.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Therefore all Prophets.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>What you with &s;o much contempt &s;ay to this, doth but di&s;cover of what &s;pirit you are; and you might know, that when I &s;ay <HI>the Saints are not all Prophets,</HI> page 21. I intended that they had not all the &s;ame
<PB N="23" REF="49"> gift of prophe&s;ie, <HI>to &s;peak to the edifying of the Church,</HI> and upon that account they are not all Prophets.</P>
<P>Yet &s;econdly, they are all Prophets upon a common account, and are able to &s;peak &s;omething of God and Chri&s;t, as occa&s;ion is offered; this God promi&s;ed, and hath made good, that he would <HI>pour out of his Spirit upon all fle&s;h, &amp;c.</HI> So that the truth holds clear, That every &s;piritual man is a Prophet, and that according to the mea&s;ure of the gift, &s;o he may, and ought to &s;peak: though all are not Prophets, <HI>viz.</HI> able to &s;peak in the Church to edification, exhortation, and con&s;ola|tion; yet all are Prophets, and may &s;peak occa&s;ionally to edification, though not in the Church.</P>
<P>Some of the grounds you pretend to an&s;wer, <HI>As that the&s;e Prophets were &s;uch as needed direction from the Apo&s;tles, &amp;c.</HI> therefore not ex|traordinary.</P>
<P>You pretend to an&s;wer this, fir&s;t, <HI>Becau&s;e there were extraordinary tongues, and the Apo&s;tle directs them: and why not direct extraordinary Prophets too?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. If by ordinary and extraordinary, you mean the one com|mon to all; the other more then ordinary, &s;o not common to all; that I alwayes have granted, and &s;hall, as in the ca&s;e of prophe&s;ying. So of tongues, All have the Spirit of Chri&s;t; that is ordinary to all: <HI>If any man have not the Spirit of Chri&s;t, he is none of his,</HI> Rom. 8. 9. yet all have not the gift of prophe&s;ie, to &s;peak in the Church, as before. So in tho&s;e tongues there was that &s;peech of the things of God that was ordinary to all, and that of tongues which was proper to but &s;ome, as Prophe&s;ie: yet not &s;o extraordinary, as to be either 1. infallible, therefore needed direction: or 2. pa&s;&s;ing; for the Apo&s;tle <HI>&s;pake with tongues more then they all.</HI></P>
<P>And &s;econdly, that this of tongues was not &s;uch an extraordinary bu&s;ine&s;s as you pretend, is clear; and that fir&s;t from the Apo&s;tles di&s;|&s;wading them from it, as you may &s;ee at large in the Chapter, and that from the unprofitablene&s;s of it, both to the Church, and to the world too. <HI>ver.</HI> 2, 3. and 23, 24.</P>
<P N="2">2. He &s;aith, ver. 5. <HI>Greater is he that prophe&s;ieth then he that &s;peaketh with tongues;</HI> and the rea&s;on is rendred, becau&s;e he that prophe&s;ieth, <HI>edifieth the Church, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>You &s;ay there is yet one rea&s;on more, <HI>page</HI> 87.</P>
<P><HI>Praying and Prophe&s;ying are put together</HI> 1 Cor. 11. 5. <HI>Was it extra|ordinary praying too?</HI></P>
<PB N="24" REF="50">
<P>You an&s;wer, <HI>You will put in that too for his Learning.</HI> 1 Cor. 14. 14, 15. <HI>If I pray in an unknown Tongue, &amp;c.</HI> Is not here extraordina|ry praying?</P>
<P>Doth the Scripture call it extraordinary anywhere: and may we not &s;ay truly, as the Apo&s;tle &s;aith of Prophe&s;ie, <HI>greater is he that pro|phecieth, then he that &s;peaketh with tongues?</HI> and the rea&s;on is, be|cau&s;e <HI>he &s;peaketh to edification:</HI> &s;o &s;ay I, greater was, and is he that prayeth in a known tongue, then he that prayeth in an unknown tongue; and the Apo&s;tle upon the &s;ame account di&s;&s;wades them as well from praying or prai&s;ing in an unknown tongue, as from &s;peak|ing in an unknown tongue; and if that prayer had been extraordi|nary, &s;urely he would not have per&s;waded them from it; for I think, that prayer is mo&s;t extraordinary that is mo&s;t prevailing with God, and that is the prayer of Faith; not of an unknown tongue.</P>
<P>You now come to give your Rea&s;ons, why this Prophe&s;ie is extra|ordinary: 1. Becau&s;e it is joyned with extraordinary gifts, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. <HI>viz. The gift of Tongues.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Tho&s;e gifts as hath been already &s;hewed, were not &s;o ex|traordinary as you pretend. For <HI>greater was be that prophe&s;ied then he that &s;pake with tongues.</HI></P>
<P>But 2. Were what you &s;ay truth, that <HI>that Prophe&s;y in this Chapter were intermixed with extraordinary gifts as that of tongues;</HI> for which you &s;ay <HI>its unlikely that Prophe&s;y &s;hould be ordinary;</HI> I &s;ay, were what you &s;ay in the fir&s;t place truth; yet the &s;econd doth not follow. For in Scripture its ordinary to place or intermix tho&s;e gifts or offices which you call ordinary and extraordinary together; And I wonder you had not &s;o much in you as to &s;ee it; That might have &s;aved you the labour of &s;etting down this Rea&s;on. See 1. <HI>Cor</HI> 12 29. <HI>Are all A|po&s;tles? are all Prophets? are all Teachers? are all Workers of Mi|racles? &amp;c</HI></P>
<P>You affirm <HI>Apo&s;tles, Prophets, Miracles are extraordinary:</HI> and <HI>Tea|chers</HI> placed in the mid&s;t to be ordinary, or by way of ordinary office. So <HI>Rom,</HI> 12. <HI>v.</HI> 6, 7, 8. <HI>v.</HI> 6. he &s;peaks of Prophe&s;y. You &s;ay that it is ex|traordinary; yet its joyned in with that you call ordinary <HI>Teaching and exhortation. v.</HI> 7, 8. you parallel with it for your proof <HI>Ephe&s;,</HI> 4. 11. which Scripture makes as much again&s;t you as any I know when rightly under&s;tood. For 1. the&s;e are not extraordinary offices, as is di&s;|cour&s;ed at large in the <HI>Pulpit-Guard Routed;</HI> But the ordinary &s;tand|ing gifts and offices in the Church of Chri&s;t. And Secondly, if other|wi&s;e,
<PB N="25" REF="50"> upon your own account, Apo&s;tles, Prophets, Evangeli&s;ts which you &s;ay are extraordinary, are reckoned up with Pa&s;tors and Teach|ers which you &s;ay are ordinary and continuing offices in the Church of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>And 3. I wonder how you dare to divide, and with <HI>Tho. Hall</HI> to pick out what you plea&s;e; and to call one ordinary, and another extraordinary: when the Scripture pre&s;ents them all as &s;tanding in the Church upon the &s;ame account, gifts given forth by the Spirit from Chri&s;t to the Church. And you would take &s;ome, and leave o|thers; &s;o rob the Church of Chri&s;t of tho&s;e gifts, orders, Priviledges and Officers that Chri&s;t hath given to it; but no wonder; for you own neither Church, Ordinances, Gifts or Officers according to the mind of Chri&s;t, but what you have received by Tradition, from An|tichri&s;t.</P>
<P>You &s;ay that he &s;ayth, <HI>Apo&s;tles are not extraordinary; and as for Evangeli&s;ts, he hath nothing to &s;ay of them &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>Truly, had you not been blind or forgetfull, there is enough &s;aid of them. It &s;eems I mu&s;t &s;ay it again.</P>
<P><HI>Pag.</HI> 70. <HI>An Evangeli&s;t is not an extraordinary, but an ordinary work; a cryer or publi&s;her of glad tydings;</HI> which is proper to all the &s;ervants of the Lord, that preach glad tydings to men; and as for A|po&s;tles, they are not extraordinary, but ordinary; I &s;ay it again, and I wonder you dur&s;t to oppo&s;e &s;o clear a truth; tho&s;e who are &s;ent of God to preach the Go&s;pel for converting &s;ouls, and gathering Church|es, are Apo&s;tles, <HI>viz.</HI> &s;ent ones; and the Twelve Apo&s;tles did not take their denomination from their extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, but from their mi&s;&s;ion from Chri&s;t to do his work; &s;o that notwith|&s;tanding none are &s;o &s;ent as tho&s;e Apo&s;tles were; 1. immediately or by an immediate mi&s;&s;ion from his own mouth. 2. So immediately in|&s;pired and abilitated from above; nor 3. to do the &s;ame work in every particular, though the &s;ame in &s;ub&s;tance; <HI>viz.</HI> to be the fir&s;t Planters of the Go&s;pel, to e&s;tabli&s;h it by &s;igns and miracles, &amp;c. Yet there is the &s;ame in truth; and men &s;ent for the gathering of Churches are as truly Apo&s;tles as they were: as the &s;ons of God are as truly the &s;ons of God as Chri&s;t him&s;elf, though not filled with the &s;ame full|ne&s;s. And that you may &s;ee there were more Apo&s;tles then tho&s;e, Chri&s;t was the great Apo&s;tle, <HI>Heb.</HI> 3. 1. and he &s;ent the Twelve; and other Apo&s;tles its more then probable there were. <HI>Rom.</HI> 16. 7. the Scripture &s;aith that <HI>Andronicus and Junias were of note among the Apo&s;tles.</HI></P>
<PB N="26" REF="51">
<P N="1">1. Its probable that they were Apo&s;tles &amp;c. el&s;e how &s;hould they be of note or reckoned among them?</P>
<P N="2">2. That there were Apo&s;tles there; and it could not be of the Twelve. For <HI>Paul</HI> was the only Apo&s;tle to the Gentiles, and the others of the Circumci&s;ion; they were of note among the Apo&s;tles of or belonging to the Church in <HI>Rome.</HI> But Secondly, Its apparent that there are or &s;hall be both Apo&s;tles and Prophets at the Fall of <HI>Babylon:</HI> which work I believe is now begun: and the Lord hath his <HI>&s;ent ones</HI> abroad in the World, in and by whom he will effect his work; who &s;hall rejoyce in the fall of <HI>Babylon,</HI> Rev. 18. 20. <HI>Rejoyce over her ye holy Apo&s;tles and Prophets, for God hath avenged you on her.</HI> So that notwith&s;tanding all your &s;cuffling &s;hifts you make to help your &s;elf, and to keep up your honour with the people; yet know that God is truth, and every man that oppo&s;eth him &s;hall be found a lyar; and that he hath left the&s;e ordinary &s;tanding gifts and offices in his Church, <HI>Apo&s;tles, Prophets, Evangeli&s;ts, Pa&s;tors, Teachers, &amp;c.</HI> And whereas you &s;ay that I argue again&s;t it, <HI>p.</HI> 70. that tho&s;e <HI>&s;cattered brethren,</HI> Act. 8. <HI>were not Apo&s;tles, though &s;ent to gather Saints, &amp;c.</HI> That I &s;ay is (as a blind man may under&s;tand) that they were none of the twelve Apo&s;tles; for they tarried at <HI>Jeru&s;alem:</HI> in an&s;wer to <HI>Tho. Halls</HI> a&s;&s;ertion, that they might be Apo&s;tles; whereas it is &s;aid that the Apo&s;tles <HI>tarried at Jeru&s;alem:</HI> but that they were Apo&s;tles, <HI>viz.</HI> &s;ent forth by the Lord, not in a common way, though not of the twelve Apo&s;tles.</P>
<P>The &s;econd Rea&s;on, <HI>Becau&s;e this word</HI> Prophet <HI>hath been alwayes u&s;ed to &s;ignifie a per&s;on extraordinarily in&s;pired of God, when taken in a good &s;en&s;e, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Becau&s;e Prophets were ordinarily taken in this &s;en&s;e in the Old Te&s;tament, and &s;ometimes &s;o taken in the New Te&s;tament; there|fore to conclude they were alwayes &s;o taken, is a <HI>Non &s;equitur,</HI> and there is no ground for it; no more then becau&s;e in the Old Te&s;tament all were circumci&s;ed, in the New Te&s;tament &s;ome were circumci&s;ed, therefore all mu&s;t be circumci&s;ed.</P>
<P N="2">2. U&s;ually the&s;e extraordinary Prophets, as you call them, had their Prophe&s;ies written, and they were kept upon record for after-times: but among&s;t &s;o many Prophets in every Church, none of their Pro|phe&s;ies are recorded, therefore no extraordinary Prophets. And fur|ther, that they were not extraordinary, is cleer, in that their Doctrine was to be tryed by the Church, or at lea&s;t by the re&s;t of the Prophets;
<PB N="27" REF="51"> and this you never find done by any of the extraordinary Prophets. And la&s;tly, if they had been extraordinary, they could rather have directed the Apo&s;tle, then the Apo&s;tle &s;hould have directed them, as <HI>Act.</HI> 21. 11. Which arguments were urged in the <HI>Pulpit-Guard Routed;</HI> but you were &s;o wi&s;e, it &s;eems, as to take no notice of them.</P>
<P>I might add to all the re&s;t, that the extraordinary Prophe&s;ie was &s;uch an immediate revelation and in&s;piration, as that when it came, they could not but prophe&s;ie. This was &s;uch a prophe&s;ie, as they had fir&s;t need to be exhorted to it, and &s;econdly are bid to de&s;ire it, and thirdly had need to be informed of their liberty, and fourthly to be directed unto the right manner of the performing of it, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14 1, 2. &amp; 31. &amp; 29. 30. therefore no extraordinary, but ordinary Prophets. The&s;e things thus con&s;idered, I que&s;tion not but that it &s;ufficiently makes null your &s;econd Rea&s;on.</P>
<P>Your third Argument is, <HI>That the gift or &s;pirit of Prophe&s;ie given out to the New Te&s;tament Prophets, is the fulfilling of the promi&s;e,</HI> Joel 2. 28. <HI>therefore extraordinary.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Granted that it is the &s;ame &s;pirit, and fulfilling of the &s;ame promi&s;e, yet not the &s;ame extraordinary gift. If no Prophets but tho&s;e who have extraordinary gifts, then no Pa&s;tors and Teachers; for then they had extraordinary gifts; and upon the &s;ame account tho&s;e who have not the like gifts are not Pa&s;tors and Teachers; upon the &s;ame account no believers. <HI>Mar.</HI> 16. 17. <HI>The&s;e &s;igns &s;hall follow them that believe,</HI> &amp;c. So that upon this account you will rea&s;on out all Religion and Chri&s;tianity out of the world.</P>
<P>Therefore &s;econdly, they having the Spirit, or the gifts and ope|rations of the Spirit, might in their Prophe&s;ies be above us: yet ac|cording to the mea&s;ure received, we may, nay ought, <HI>viz.</HI> the Prophets, to &s;peak in the Church, &amp;c. Or el&s;e that prophe&s;ie <HI>Joel</HI> 2. 28. hath nothing to do with us, nor we with it, we are not under that promi&s;e; &s;o all the promi&s;es are not in Chri&s;t <HI>yea and amen</HI> to us. And how dare you to make null the great Go&s;pel prophe&s;ie and promi&s;e, nay the great and ble&s;&s;ed promi&s;e of Chri&s;t at his departure from his Di&s;ciples <HI>Joh.</HI> 14. 16. <HI>viz.</HI> of the Spirit?</P>
<P>Your fourth Argument is, <HI>Becau&s;e Prophe&s;ie is &s;et down di&s;tinct from ordinary Teaching,</HI> Rom. 12. 6.</P>
<P>A little to di&s;cover the &s;trength of this Argument, I rea&s;on thus: Exhortation in the &s;ame place is &s;et down di&s;tinct from Teaching, therefore it is extraordinary Exhortation. Therefore I have in the
<PB N="28" REF="52"> <HI>Pulpit Guard Routed,</HI> cleerly di&s;tingui&s;hed between Gift and Office; and if the Lord enlighten us in the&s;e, that we could but di&s;tingui&s;h, we &s;hould not thus confound one thing with another, and turn out &s;ome truths to retain others; but every truth would &s;tand in its place, and &s;o there would be a &s;weet harmony, as in Scripture, &s;o in the Church of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>Your fifth Argument is, <HI>Becau&s;e the gift of Prophe&s;ie was given to others be&s;ides Saints.</HI></P>
<P>This is learned Logick indeed: Becau&s;e wicked men have the u&s;e of the things of the world, therefore it is not proper to all the Saints to have the u&s;e of the things of the world: becau&s;e wicked men may have the &s;pirit of Prophe&s;ie, therefore it is not proper to the Saints to have it. Let the Reader judge of this Logick. Or el&s;e becau&s;e wicked men may have a form of godline&s;s, denying the power; therefore it is not proper to all the Saints to have the form of godline&s;s. This Argument I leave to the Reader; and follow you to your other ad|ditional Arguments.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>Becau&s;e God hath not appointed all gifted brethren to live of the Gospel, therefore they are not to preach the Gospel.</HI> The Scripture you produce is 1 <HI>Cor</HI> 9. 14.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> This Scripture is to be under&s;tood in way of di&s;tinction; and that,</P>
<P N="1">1. That they that preach the Go&s;pel, may, not that they mu&s;t, live of the Go&s;pel: then <HI>Paul</HI> lived unlawfully, when he wrought with his hands, <HI>Act</HI> 18. 3. and his hands mini&s;tred to his nece&s;&s;ities; and <HI>it is a more ble&s;&s;ed thing to give then to receive.</HI> So that it is only a di&s;|covery of the mind of God, what he that preaches the Go&s;pel may do, if he need it. Hence <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aith, he had a power not to work, but to live of the Go&s;pel; and he had a power to work, and not to live of the Go&s;pel. But it &s;eems you are very loth to heare on that eare.</P>
<P N="2">2. It intends that only tho&s;e who are called to the office, and &s;et apart wholly to that work, that they &s;hould, if they need, live of the Go&s;pel, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5. 17, 18 You never read that Prophets were to live of the Go&s;pel. So that this di&s;tinction keeps the truth cleer, and di&s;|&s;olves your Argument to nothing.</P>
<P>Your &s;econd Argument, is <HI>Becau&s;e to preach publiquely, is to exerci&s;e authority: But none may exerci&s;e authority, but &s;uch as have Mini&s;terial authority, &amp;c.</HI> The Scripture for confirmation of this, is 1 <HI>Tim</HI> 2. 12.
<PB N="29" REF="52"> where <HI>Women are forbidden to teach publikely, becau&s;e they may not u|&s;urp authority over the man.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> This Argument and Scripture will do you no good to that end for which you have produced it; but cleerly contradicts that you drive at: for the Apo&s;tle both in 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 4. 34. &amp; 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2. 12. holds forth the difference in generall between men and women in the Church, not between women and men in office; that is non-&s;en&s;e; for he &s;aith, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. 35. <HI>If the woman will know any thing, let her ask her husband at home.</HI> There is no &s;uch word &s;poken of the men. So that men have authority to &s;peak in the Church to edification, having the gift; but women have not that authority allowed them, although they have the gift, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Your third Argument. <HI>If there be a power in the Church to keep off wolves and fal&s;e teachers from the &s;heep; then all that conceive they have gifts, may not preach, till they are approved, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> It is granted that there is &s;uch a power in the Church of Chri&s;t; and they are able to judge of gifts, when they hear, whether it be of God or of man; and they mu&s;t hear, before they can judge: And when they hear and judge that it is of God; not a wolf, but a &s;heep; not a fal&s;e, but a true Prophet, &s;peaking to <HI>edification, exhortation, and con&s;olation,</HI> they may with comfort hear and approve the &s;peaking of &s;uch in the Church.</P>
<P>Your fourth Argument, is; <HI>If to appoint to the office of a Mini&s;ter, and the work of a Mini&s;ter be all one, then no man is appointed to the work of a Mini&s;ter, but he that is appointed to the office. But to appoint to the office of a Mini&s;ter, and the work of a Mini&s;ter, be all one.</HI> Ergo.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Your <HI>Minor</HI> is denied. A man may be appointed to the work of a Mini&s;ter, yet never be appointed to the office. For,</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>Richard Sanders</HI> him&s;elf in his own practi&s;e &s;hall confute this Logick; for he &s;aith, <HI>That he Preached a long time before he was Or|dained,</HI> &amp;c. but he mends the matter, <HI>It was in order to the Mini&s;try.</HI> But in ca&s;e <HI>Richard Sanders</HI> had died before he had been ordained, then Preaching and the Office of the Mini&s;try had not been one, there had been a great deal of Preaching without Office. So that in this your practi&s;e you contradict your rea&s;on, and you allowed your &s;elf in the thing which you condemn.</P>
<P N="2">2. Were the&s;e <HI>Act.</HI> 8. 4. appointed to the office? they did the work: but the office you read not of. And tho&s;e 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 4. 10, 11.
<PB N="30" REF="53"> they were commanded to the work, but not to the office; for then every one mu&s;t have been officers, &amp;c.</P>
<P N="3">3. You have given your Argument, but never a Scripture to confirm it; but you endeavour to confirm one Rea&s;on by another, without Scripture. Take heed, <HI>Richard,</HI> of outing Scripture with your Rea&s;on; be content to fall down under the power of truth; let God be true, and all fle&s;hes wi&s;dom, &s;o far as it oppo&s;eth God, be a lye.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="error">
<HEAD>You now come to his 7. Error.</HEAD>
<P><HI>That Humane Learning is no way nece&s;&s;ary to the Mini&s;try of the Go&s;pel; and that I affirm,</HI> p. 38. 39. 41. <HI>Pulpit-Guard Routed, that the power of the Spirit of Chri&s;t in Saints, is &s;ufficiently able to make them to divide the word aright, and to convince gain-&s;ayers.</HI></P>
<P>And dare you deny this Truth? Is not the Spirit of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> &s;uffici|ent? dare you derogate from the Holy Spirit? and do you find any other Mini&s;tery or Teacher then the Spirit in the Scripture? 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. <HI>Joh.</HI> 14. 26. <HI>&amp;</HI> 16. 7, 8. But you &s;eem to help this again; you deny not the ability of the Spirit; but you que&s;tion <HI>the will, or if he plea&s;e to do it.</HI> I think that needs not be the Que&s;tion, but rather whether you are in the Scripture directed to any other way for the attaining of the minde of God then the Spirit and the Scripture; but you que&s;tion, pag. 126. <HI>Whether the main and principle Doctrine of the Scriptures be &s;o plainly laid down, as that a Chri&s;tian may attain un|to the knowledge of the &s;ame without humane Learning;</HI> you grant, that if he <HI>have a Tran&s;lation he may:</HI> and have not we a Tran&s;lation in <HI>Engli&s;h;</HI> and is it not true, but fal&s;e? then the Tran&s;lators have done wrong: but is it not true in the &s;ub&s;tance? is there any material, fundamental mi&s;take? if not, then an <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> man in the <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> Tran&s;lation may under&s;tand the minde of God as much and more, if he have a greater mea&s;ure of the Spirit, then an <HI>Hebritian</HI> and <HI>Grecian</HI> can under&s;tand in tho&s;e Languages. 2. I an&s;wer, that I do not quarrell again&s;t Tongues, but at the abu&s;e of them, to make an I|dol of them: I know you may come to the knowledge of the Letter of Scripture in an ordinary way more fully with it then without it; but it is the abu&s;e of it that I quarrel at, becau&s;e you &s;et it up in the room of the Spirit, as if none could under&s;tand Scripture but tho&s;e that have Tongues; then the Faith of all others mu&s;t be an implicite Faith, built upon the credit of men, which would prove very weak in the end.</P>
<PB N="31" REF="53">
<P N="3"> 3. Its the u&s;e of Philo&s;ophy in the things of God, as &s;ome of you affirm, that there is a nece&s;&s;ity of <HI>&s;tudying Arts, Sciences, Logick, Rhe|torick, &amp;c.</HI> to make them Mini&s;ters, as <HI>Tho. Halls Pulpit Guard;</HI> make u&s;e of your tongues; bring forth the truth of the Original to the people, help tho&s;e that want it, and make not an Idol of it, &amp;c.</P>
<P>You proceed to produce &s;ome Scriptures, <HI>A good account of which cannot be given without the help of humane Learning.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> In this you &s;hew &s;o much weakne&s;s, that I would not &s;ay a word unto it, were it not for one or two of them, and I &s;hall &s;ay but a word or two.</P>
<P N="1">1. Is there any thing material in any of the&s;e Scriptures? Put ca&s;e a man knew not the Empha&s;is of the Original, as <HI>Rich. Sanders</HI> cals it; Is any thing laid open by him material? or 2. if &s;o, its that which may be ea&s;ily attained. But to the Scriptures; the fir&s;t is <HI>Apo|&s;tolos;</HI> and what if a man never knew that it &s;ignifies <HI>Sent?</HI> why might he not under&s;tand as much as your &s;elf in it? for every man that knows any thing, knows that the twelve Apo&s;tles, and <HI>Paul,</HI> were Apo&s;tles; and you know no more; you do not know that all that are &s;ent of Je|&s;us Chri&s;t, are Apo&s;tles, <HI>viz. Sent.</HI></P>
<P>The &s;econd Scripture, of <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> <HI>a Rock,</HI> you &s;eem to give a learned interpretation, as if Chri&s;t intended to build his Church upon <HI>Peter;</HI> &s;o much is clearly hinted in what you &s;ay. I trace you no farther in this; I leave the weight of what you &s;ay concerning tho&s;e Scriptures, to the Reader, becau&s;e I am in ha&s;te. As to that you &s;ay concerning Gho&s;t, I perceive you know well what the word is in the Greek; and what if it were alwayes &s;o tran&s;lated in Engli&s;h? and I think it is one of the greate&s;t wrongs to our Engli&s;h tran&s;lation, the mi&s;pronouncing of words, in pronouncing Hebrew and Greek in&s;tead of Engli&s;h; <HI>Me&s;&s;ias</HI> from <HI>Me&s;ha,</HI> in&s;tead of Anointed: Emmanuel in&s;tead of God with us: In Greek Chri&s;t from <HI>Chri&s;tos,</HI> in&s;tead of anointed; <HI>Je&s;us</HI> in&s;tead of Saviour; <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> in&s;tead of Sent; <HI>Baptize</HI> in&s;tead of Dip or Wa&s;h, &amp;c. and Gho&s;t in&s;tead of Spirit, though thats no Greek word. Why do you not reform the&s;e things with your learning, un|le&s;s it be done on purpo&s;e to keep people in ignorance?</P>
<P>But you have &s;omething farther to &s;ay it &s;eems, and that very learn|edly, <HI>page</HI> 134. and you have much to &s;ay to this particular; <HI>That there is not any Scripture under&s;tood by &s;piritual Chri&s;tians, the gram|matical &s;en&s;e of which, a man that hath not the Spirit of Chri&s;t may at|tain unto; and</HI> page 135. <HI>That Scripture is &s;ufficient to di&s;cover its own</HI>
<PB N="32" REF="54"> <HI>&s;en&s;e to all men, diligently improving the outward helps afforded by God; and that if it be the Spirits work to di&s;cover the &s;en&s;e and meaning of Scripture, then the Spirits work is to make Notioni&s;ts, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> And is this your &s;piritualne&s;s indeed? That a natural man without the Spirit may under&s;tand the mind of God? for if he under|&s;tand the &s;en&s;e and meaning of the Scripture, then he under&s;tands the mind of God; and this is contrary to the Scripture, <HI>For the natural man doth not under&s;tand the things that are of God, neither can he under|&s;tand them,</HI> 1 Cor. 2. 14, <HI>But we have the mind of Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. If this be truth that you affirm, then what is the rea&s;on that you, with all your humane Learning, do not yet under&s;tand the &s;en&s;e and meaning of the Scripture? and that fir&s;t in common and ordinary things, as that the Covenant made with <HI>Abraham</HI> and <HI>Mo&s;es, &amp;c.</HI> is not the &s;ame as the Go&s;pel-Covenant; when the Scripture &s;aith plainly that it is not the &s;ame, <HI>but another Covenant, not &s;uch a Cove|nant as the fir&s;t was, but e&s;tabli&s;hed upon better promi&s;es, &amp;c.</HI> What is the rea&s;on that you do not under&s;tand that Command of Chri&s;t, that it is Believers that are to be baptized, and not Infants? and that you under&s;tand not, that when Chri&s;t &s;aith, <HI>That upon this Rock will I build my Church,</HI> he means not <HI>Peter,</HI> but the Rock of <HI>Peters</HI> confe&s;&s;ion; <HI>viz.</HI> Chri&s;t Je&s;us, who is &s;o often in Scripture called <HI>The Rock or foun|dation &s;tone of Sion:</HI> but Pope-like, think its meant of <HI>Peter.</HI> And are there not many Prophe&s;ies, and much of the Revelation which is yet a &s;ealed my&s;terie to you? and <HI>John</HI> &s;aith expre&s;ly, <HI>Rev.</HI> 5. that the Scri|pture, <HI>viz</HI> Chri&s;t the my&s;terie of God in Scripture, <HI>is a &s;ealed book, that none could open it but the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.</HI> Yet you &s;ay, that a natural man can do it. I leave it to the Reader to judge of the truth of this.</P>
<P>And 3. Whereas you &s;ay, if the Spirits work be to teach men the &s;en&s;e of Scripture, it is to make them Notioni&s;ts.</P>
<P>I an&s;wer fir&s;t, then upon your own account, your humane Learning doth but make you Notioni&s;ts; for you &s;ay, that helps you to the knowledge of the &s;en&s;e of Scripture: Its no wonder then that you are &s;o far from the power of truth; for you confe&s;s, that with all your learning you are but Notioni&s;ts at the be&s;t; and truly you are but bad Notioni&s;ts neither; for there is much of the &s;en&s;e of Scripture that you are not acquainted withall.</P>
<P>You &s;ay, <HI>Knowledge puffeth up.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> True; fle&s;hly knowledge, &s;uch as you are pleading for, but
<PB N="33" REF="54"> not the true &s;aving knowledge of the Spirit of Chri&s;t; for the Scrip|ture &s;aith expre&s;ly, <HI>That without knowledge the heart cannot be good; and for want of knowledge the people peri&s;h: And that its life eternal to know God, and Je&s;us Chri&s;t whom he hath &s;ent:</HI> and the more a &s;oul knows of God and Chri&s;t, of God in Chri&s;t, the more he comes to abbor him&s;elf, <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 6. <HI>Act.</HI> 9.</P>
<P>And whereas you are &s;o much upon this, <HI>That the Scripture expre&s;|&s;ions are plain, and expre&s;s their own meaning,</HI> page 137. <HI>El&s;e they can|not be a perfect rule; and if men mu&s;t under&s;tand them by or in the light or teaching of the Spirit, what were this but to make the Scripture a no&s;e of Wax, as the Papi&s;ts do, plyable to any &s;en&s;e, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Its true, the Scripture expre&s;&s;ions are plain, and expre&s;s their own meaning: yet not &s;o plain as you pretend, that every one may attain the &s;en&s;e of them; for you confe&s;s, that there is need of means and help to under&s;tand them. Then I querie which is the like|lie&s;t means to help us to under&s;tand the meaning of the Scripture, in comparing Scripture with Scripture; the Spirit of Chri&s;t, or humane Learning? Who be&s;t knows the meaning of the Scripture? that Spirit by which it was given, or that humane &s;pirit &s;o much pleaded for, that never did, nor never &s;hall know the Lord?</P>
<P N="2">2. The Scriptures are no perfect rule to ignorant and carnal men, or hypocrites: its a perfect rule only to &s;uch who by them know the Lord and his mind by the teachings of the Spirit, and &s;o walk accord|ing to it; for if it be a perfect rule, then its &s;o to tho&s;e who know it.</P>
<P>You &s;ay a naturall man may know it; then a naturall man may have a perfect rule; and if he walk according to it, he mu&s;t be &s;aved; for who &s;o walks by a perfect rule, and an&s;wers it in his walking, mu&s;t be ju&s;tified by that rule: Now the Scripture is no perfect rule of ju&s;tifi|cation of life to any but the Saints; not that there is imperfection in the Scripture; but none comes truly to know it, but tho&s;e who are taught from above.</P>
<P N="3">3. To &s;ay, that the knowledge of the mind of God in Scripture, by the teachings of the Spirit, <HI>is to make it a no&s;e of Wax, &amp;c.</HI> is a fond imagination. For fir&s;t, though its true, upon this account men that have not the Spirit of God may abu&s;e it, thinking they have the Spirit of Chri&s;t, when they have it not.</P>
<P>Yet 2. The Spirit is truth, and is at unity in and with it &s;elf, and &s;peaks but one thing: I mean he doth not contradict him&s;elf: though there are contradictions among&s;t the Saints: yet it is not from the
<PB N="34" REF="55"> Spirit, who dwels in unity, but from the worldly &s;pirit not yet &s;ubdu|ed in them; and I thought you had known at lea&s;t the Scripture Zeph. 3. 9. that &s;aith, <HI>God will turn to his people a pure language, that they may &s;erve him with one con&s;ent;</HI> its not the work of fle&s;hes wi&s;|dom; but <HI>I will do it,</HI> &s;aith the Lord; and how think you, if not in helping them to know his mind, &amp;c.</P>
<P>And 2. Doth not your humane wi&s;dom indeed <HI>make a no&s;e of wax of the Scripture?</HI> do you not wre&s;t i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> and turn it which way you plea&s;e? and is it not for want of the clear teachings of the Spirit, there are &s;uch rentings and divi&s;ions among&s;t us at this day? Is it not about the &s;en&s;e of the Scriptures all the differences in the world are at this day? And do you &s;eek to God to guide you into a onene&s;s in the under|&s;tanding of the meaning of it, or to your humane Learning?</P>
<P>Oh be a&s;hamed for ever, &s;o much to undervalue Scripture, and overvalue mans wi&s;dom, as that its &s;ufficient to find out the meaning of the Scriptures. When you have joyned up all together, yet not|with&s;tanding all your Learning, yea, and the Spirits teaching too, you have not yet attained to all the &s;en&s;e of the Scriptures; if you had, there would not be divi&s;ion, but unity; not that I que&s;tion the &s;uffi|ciency of the Spirits teaching in its own time; but certainly you are very much to blame, having gotten that which is able to teach you the &s;en&s;e and meaning of the Scripture, with your own endeavour, yet to know &s;o little of it as you do; you mu&s;t needs be very &s;luggards, or el&s;e able to re&s;olve (infallibly) any place of Scripture, you having that which is able, as you &s;ay, to help you to under&s;tand it, and you think you have the Spirit of Chri&s;t be&s;ides; the&s;e two being by you joyned up together in you, the lea&s;t of which is able to help you to the infallible &s;en&s;e, &amp;c. What then hinders that you are not infallible? and yet that you are not infallible, is clear; for what need a difference then between <HI>Papi&s;t</HI> and <HI>Prote&s;tant,</HI> yet both Learned? between <HI>Epi&s;|copacie</HI> and <HI>Presbyterie,</HI> yet both Learned? <HI>Presbyterie</HI> and <HI>Independen|cy,</HI> yet both Learned? <HI>Independency</HI> and the <HI>Bapti&s;ts,</HI> yet &s;ome of both Learned? between them all, and tho&s;e that deny both Church and Ordinances, yet &s;ome of them Learned too?</P>
<P>Oh be a&s;hamed for ever of the&s;e Fopperies, and let all who know the Lord, look to him for the teachings of the Spirit, that &s;o we may come to know his minde and will, that &s;o we may wor&s;hip him with one &s;houlder; and let all that love the Lord <HI>Je&s;us</HI> &s;ay <HI>Amen.</HI> This &s;hall &s;uffice at pre&s;ent as an an&s;wer to what you &s;ay of your hu|manity.
<PB N="35" REF="55"> I deny not the u&s;e of means, but the abu&s;e of it. I leave it to the Reader to judge.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="error">
<HEAD>You come to the 8. Error.</HEAD>
<P><HI>That the Mini&s;try of</HI> England <HI>is Antichri&s;tian.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> This is a dangerous one with you it &s;eems; but becau&s;e I have &s;aid &s;o much to this in the <HI>Pulpit Guard Routed,</HI> I &s;hall wholly wave it in this place, &s;eaving both <HI>Tho. Halls</HI> a&s;&s;ertions, my an&s;wers to him and yours again to mine, to the judgment of the Reader; a word to the wi&s;e is enough; its a word that you cannot yet well bear, there|fore I &s;hall at pre&s;ent forbear; only give me leave to minde you with two words, 1. You an&s;wer but one of my &s;ix Arguments to prove them <HI>Antichri&s;tian;</HI> the re&s;t you pa&s;s by, as if the naming of them (as <HI>Tho. Hall</HI> &s;aid) in contempt, were an&s;wer enough to them; if it be, I leave it to the Reader, I am &s;atisfied. 2. In that which you pre|tend to an&s;wer, what do you more or le&s;s, then &s;ay the &s;ame that I have &s;aid? You confe&s;s, 1. It came from <HI>Rome;</HI> but you think to mend it with this, becau&s;e the Scriptures came from <HI>Rome;</HI> but if by the hand of Gods grace the Scripture was kept pure in <HI>Rome</HI> and not defiled, then the ca&s;e is altered; but they were &s;o kept. <HI>Ergo:</HI> that it is &s;o, I prove;</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>If the Scriptures pre&s;erved by the</HI> Romans, <HI>have &s;ufficient in them to overturn the very practi&s;e and Religion of the</HI> Romans: <HI>then they had not a power to corrupt it for their own ends.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>But the Scriptures pre&s;erved by the</HI> Romans, <HI>have &s;ufficient in them to overturn all the Religion of the</HI> Romans, viz. <HI>Papi&s;ts.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Ergo.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> I prove. Tho&s;e who u&s;e to corrupt Scripture, do it for their own ends and intere&s;ts; but the Papi&s;ts have not corrupted it for their own ends and intere&s;ts: <HI>Ergo.</HI> I mean in the <HI>Hebrew,</HI> and <HI>Greek,</HI> which I &s;uppo&s;e mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily be that which you intend; for you &s;ay the Scriptures as well as Ordination, was very much corrupted by the Papi&s;ts, <HI>p.</HI> 169. but among us hath been re&s;tored by degrees; now our Work hath not been to re&s;tore the Popi&s;h Tran&s;lators, but to Tran&s;late out of the <HI>Greek</HI> and <HI>Hebrew</HI> Copies, which I do not be|lieve were, or are materially or &s;ub&s;tantially corrupted; &s;o that by this you teach the People to deny the Scripture; and at be&s;t to take it upon the account of man reducing it from corruption. I mu&s;t
<PB N="36" REF="56"> tell you if the <HI>Collier</HI> had written as much, as black as you make him, he mu&s;t have expected to have had all the black-Coats in the Nation about his ears, and that ju&s;tly too.</P>
<P>So that the Ca&s;e is altered now; the Scripture in its e&s;&s;ence was kept pure; but the very e&s;&s;ence of Ordination was <HI>Antichri&s;tian;</HI> and how you could bring a clean thing out of an unclean, I leave to the Reader to judge. As to the Argument, you confe&s;s the truth of it, that the Calling came from <HI>Rome,</HI> but you re&s;tore it by degrees: Now which is better, to come to the Scripture for Ordination, Ordinances, &amp;c. or to retain that which is <HI>Antichri&s;tian:</HI> I leave to the Reader to judge; as for <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> the Monk, you confe&s;s what I &s;ay; only you think you mend the matter, in &s;aying that Monks were not &s;o bad then as now, and that <HI>Rome</HI> was a true Church then; the truth of this I leave to the judgement of the wi&s;e; the&s;e things con&s;idered;</P>
<P N="1">1. When <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> came into <HI>England,</HI> here was &s;ome that owned <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> as Hi&s;tory relates; for as you &s;ay the Go&s;pel had been preach|ed in <HI>England</HI> before both by <HI>Jo&s;eph</HI> of <HI>Arimathea,</HI> and afterward <HI>Lucius</HI> King of the <HI>Britains</HI> de&s;iring it, not <HI>Elutherius</HI> as you affirm, but <HI>Fugatius</HI> and <HI>Damianus</HI> being &s;ent by <HI>Elutherius</HI> Pope or Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> they Preached and Baptized in <HI>England,</HI> that King being the fir&s;t King that Hi&s;tory mentions that was Baptized in <HI>England;</HI> but when <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> came, tho&s;e Bi&s;hops you mention with the People, becau&s;e they would not &s;ubmit to the pride of <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> were by him per&s;ecuted, and brought to ruine: by this you may judge a little of the truth of <HI>Romes</HI> being a true Church, and <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> a true Mi|ni&s;ter.</P>
<P N="2">2. Whereas you &s;ay, <HI>You hope Rome was then a true Church.</HI> I &s;ay, you have but little ground for it; for I do not believe that ever <HI>Rome</HI> was a true Church. My Rea&s;on is, becau&s;e I do judge, that never a Na|tion, Province or City, was a true Go&s;pel-Church; its true there was once a true Church in <HI>Rome,</HI> but the Scripture never calls <HI>Rome</HI> a Church; for a true Church of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> are a People gathered out of the world by the power of the Go&s;pel, to believing in <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> and profe&s;&s;ed obedience to him; but this was never any Nation, Province, or City; therefore no true Church of Chri&s;t, <HI>Rev.</HI> 5. 9 but &s;uch Churches were at fir&s;t, and &s;o it hath hitherto continued, gathered by the authority of the Civil Magi&s;trate, compelling all to come in, or el&s;e they mu&s;t not live under their Authority, fulfilling in a mea&s;ure <HI>Rev.</HI> 13. 17. by which means the true Church in <HI>Rome,</HI> and all other
<PB N="37" REF="56"> true Churches, in Relation to Form, Order and Wor&s;hip, have been extingui&s;hed; &s;o that I &s;ay, <HI>Rome</HI> was never a true Church &s;ince it became a Church, nor any Nation in the World be&s;ides; its incon|&s;i&s;tent with the true Church of Chri&s;t, who are a People gathered out of Nations, as before, &amp;c.</P>
<P>But to draw to a conclu&s;ion; The other five Arguments you pa&s;s over, as having no weight in them, &amp;c. I leave it to the Reader to judge, if there be no weight in them. I &s;ay no more, only aword to your Po&s;t&s;cript.</P>
<P>You &s;ay, <HI>There is another dangerous pe&s;tilent bla&s;phemous Book of this Colliers again&s;t Ordinances, &amp;c. which you heard of, but never &s;aw it.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I &s;uppo&s;e you did but dream a &s;econd time, and this proves fal&s;e too; give off dreaming or lying for &s;hame; for I &s;uppo&s;e none dare lye &s;o gro&s;ly as to tell you &s;o, though you dare dream a lye and publi&s;h it; but there is a hand of God in it, that the world may know what you are. My Books are not in private; if there were any &s;uch, it might be gotten a&s;&s;uredly; let this &s;atisfie, I do declare that I never writ any &s;uch Book; and if any have done or do gather from any pa&s;&s;age that I deny Ordinances; though I know no pa&s;&s;age in any, from whence any can draw &s;uch a po&s;itive conclu&s;ion: I do affirm, that I never writ any thing in which I denyed the Ordinances of <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t;</HI> and it is my judgement and practi&s;e to walk in the u&s;e of them. Thus at pre&s;ent have I done, leaving the Premi&s;es to the publick view and cen|&s;ure of tho&s;e to whom it comes, de&s;iring the Lord to give under|&s;tanding, &amp;c.</P>
</DIV2>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
