it is of God not a wolf but a sheep not a false but a true Prophet speaking to edification exhortation and consolation they may with comfort hear and approve the speaking of such in the Church Your fourth Argument is If to appoint to the office of a Minister and the work of a Minister be all one then no man is appointed to the work of a Minister but he that is appointed to the office But to appoint to the office of a Minister and the work of a Minister be all one Ergo. Ans Your Minor is denied A man may be appointed to the work of a Minister yet never be appointed to the office For 1. Richard Sanders himself in his own practise shall confute this Logick for he saith That he Preached a long time before he was Ordained c. but he mends the matter It was in order to the Ministry But in case Richard Sanders had died before he had been ordained then Preaching and the Office of the Ministry had not been one there had been a great deal of Preaching without Office So that in this your practise you contradict your reason and you allowed your self in the thing which you condemn 2. Were these Act. 8. 4. appointed to the office they did the work but the office you read not of And those 1 Pet. 4. 10 11. they were commanded to the work but not to the office for then every one must have been officers c. 3. You have given your Argument but never a Scripture to confirm it but you endeavour to confirm one Reason by another without Scripture Take heed Richard of outing Scripture with your Reason be content to fall down under the power of truth let God be true and all fleshes wisdom so far as it opposeth God be a lye You now come to his 7. Error That Humane Learning is no way necessary to the Ministry of the Gospel and that I affirm p. 38. 39. 41. Pulpit-Guard Routed that the power of the Spirit of Christ in Saints is sufficiently able to make them to divide the word aright and to convince gain-sayers And dare you deny this Truth Is not the Spirit of Christ sufficient dare you derogate from the Holy Spirit and do you find any other Ministery or Teacher then the Spirit in the Scripture 1 Cor. 12. Joh. 14. 26. 16. 7 8. But you seem to help this again you deny not the ability of the Spirit but you question the will or if he please to do it I think that needs not be the Question 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 question pag. 126. Whether the main and principle Doctrine of the Scriptures be so plainly laid down as that a Christian may attain unto the knowledge of the same without humane Learning you grant that if he have a Translation he may and have not we a Translation in English and is it not true but false then the Translators have done wrong but is it not true in the substance is there any material fundamental mistake if not then an English man in the English Translation may understand the minde of God as much and more if he have a greater measure of the Spirit then an Hebritian and Grecian can understand in those Languages 2. I answer that I do not quarrell against Tongues but at the abuse of them to make an Idol 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 abuse of it that I quarrel at because you set it up in the room of the Spirit as if none could understand Scripture but those that have Tongues then the Faith of all others must be an implicite Faith built upon the credit of men which would prove very weak in the end 3. It s the use of Philosophy in the things of God as some of you affirm that there is a necessity of studying Arts Sciences Logick Rhetorick c. to make them Ministers as Tho. Halls Pulpit Guard make use of your tongues bring forth the truth of the Original to the people help those that want it and make not an Idol of it c. You proceed to produce some Scriptures A good account of which cannot be given without the help of humane Learning Answ In this you shew so much weakness that I would not say a word unto it were it not for one or two of them and I shall say but a word or two 1. Is there any thing material in any of these Scriptures Put case a man knew not the Emphasis of the Original as Rich. Sanders cals it Is any thing laid open by him material or 2. if so it s that which may be easily attained But to the Scriptures the first is Apostolos and what if a man never knew that it signifies Sent why might he not understand as much as your self in it for every man that knows any thing knows that the twelve Apostles and Paul were Apostles and you know no more you do not know that all that are sent of Jesus Christ are Apostles viz. Sent. The second Scripture of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Rock you seem to give a learned interpretation as if Christ intended to build his Church upon Peter so much is clearly hinted in what you say I trace you no farther in this I leave the weight of what you say concerning those Scriptures to the Reader because I am in haste As to that you say concerning Ghost I perceive you know well what the word is in the Greek and what if it were alwayes so translated in English and I think it is one of the greatest wrongs to our English translation the mispronouncing of words in pronouncing Hebrew and Greek instead of English Messias from Mesha instead of Anointed Emmanuel instead of God with us In Greek Christ from Christos instead of anointed Jesus instead of Saviour Apostle instead of Sent Baptize instead of Dip or Wash c. and Ghost instead of Spirit though that 's no Greek word Why do you not reform these things with your learning unless it be done on purpose to keep people in ignorance But you have something farther to say it seems and that very learnedly page 134. and you have much to say to this particular That there is not any Scripture understood by spiritual Christians the grammatical sense of which a man that hath not the Spirit of Christ may attain unto and page 135. That Scripture is sufficient to discover its own sense to all men diligently improving the outward helps afforded by God and that if it be the Spirits work to discover the sense and meaning of Scripture then the Spirits work is to make Notionists c. Answ And is this your spiritualness indeed That a natural man without the Spirit may understand the mind
the least of which is able to help you to the infallible sense 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 Papist and Protestant yet both Learned between Episcopacie and Presbyterie yet both Learned Presbyterie and Independency yet both Learned Independency and the Baptists yet some of both Learned between them all and those that deny both Church and Ordinances yet some of them Learned too Oh be ashamed for ever of these Fopperies and let all who know the Lord look to him for the teachings of the Spirit that so we may come to know his minde and will that so we may worship him with one shoulder and let all that love the Lord Jesus say Amen This shall suffice at present as an answer to what you say of your humanity I deny not the use of means but the abuse of it I leave it to the Reader to judge You come to the 8. Error That the Ministry of England is Antichristian Answ This is a dangerous one with you it seems but because I have said so much to this in the Pulpit Guard Routed I shall wholly wave it in this place seaving both Tho. Halls assertions my answers to him and yours again to mine to the judgment of the Reader a word to the wise is enough it s a word that you cannot yet well bear therefore I shall at present forbear only give me leave to minde you with two words 1. You answer but one of my six Arguments to prove them Antichristian the rest you pass by as if the naming of them as Tho. Hall said in contempt were answer enough to them if it be I leave it to the Reader I am satisfied 2. In that which you pretend to answer what do you more or less then say the same that I have said You confess 1. It came from Rome but you think to mend it with this because the Scriptures came from Rome but if by the hand of Gods grace the Scripture was kept pure in Rome and not defiled then the case is altered but they were so kept Ergo that it is so I prove If the Scriptures preserved by the Romans have sufficient in them to overturn the very practise and Religion of the Romans then they had not a power to corrupt it for their own ends But the Scriptures preserved by the Romans have sufficient in them to overturn all the Religion of the Romans viz. Papists Ergo. The Minor I prove Those who use to corrupt Scripture do it for their own ends and interests but the Papists have not corrupted it for their own ends and interests Ergo. I mean in the Hebrew and Greek which I suppose must necessarily be that which you intend for you say the Scriptures as well as Ordination was very much corrupted by the Papists p. 169. but among us hath been restored by degrees now our Work hath not been to restore the Popish Translators but to Translate out of the Greek and Hebrew Copies which I do not believe were or are materially or substantially corrupted so that by this you teach the People to deny the Scripture and at best to take it upon the account of man reducing it from corruption I must tell you if the Collier had written as much as black as you make him he must have expected to have had all the black-Coats in the Nation about his ears and that justly too So that the Case is altered now the Scripture in its essence was kept pure but the very essence of Ordination was Antichristian and how you could bring a clean thing out of an unclean I leave to the Reader to judge As to the Argument you confess the truth of it that the Calling came from Rome but you restore it by degrees Now which is better to come to the Scripture for Ordination Ordinances c. or to retain that which is Antichristian I leave to the Reader to judge as for Austin the Monk you confess what I say only you think you mend the matter in saying that Monks were not so bad then as now and that Rome was a true Church then the truth of this I leave to the judgement of the wise these things considered 1. When Austin came into England here was some that owned Christ as History relates for as you say the Gospel had been preached in England before both by Joseph of Arimathea and afterward Lucius King of the Britains desiring it not Elutherius as you affirm but Fugatius and Damianus being sent by Elutherius Pope or Bishop of Rome they Preached and Baptized in England that King being the first King that History mentions that was Baptized in England but when Austin came those Bishops you mention with the People because they would not submit to the pride of Austin were by him persecuted and brought to ruine by this you may judge a little of the truth of Romes being a true Church and Austin a true Minister 2. Whereas you say You hope Rome was then a true Church I say you have but little ground for it for I do not believe that ever Rome was a true Church My Reason is because I do judge that never a Nation Province or City was a true gospel-Gospel-Church its true there was once a true Church in Rome but the Scripture never calls Rome a Church for a true Church of Christ are a People gathered out of the world by the power of the Gospel to believing in Christ and professed obedience to him but this was never any Nation Province or City therefore no true Church of Christ Rev. 5. 9 but such Churches were at first and so it hath hitherto continued gathered by the authority of the Civil Magistrate compelling all to come in or else they must not live under their Authority fulfilling in a measure Rev. 13. 17. by which means the true Church in Rome and all other true Churches in Relation to Form Order and Worship have been extinguished so that I say Rome was never a true Church since it became a Church nor any Nation in the World besides its inconsistent with the true Church of Christ who are a People gathered out of Nations as before c. But to draw to a conclusion The other five Arguments you pass over as having no weight in them c. I leave it to the Reader to judge if there be no weight in them I say no more only aword to your Postscript You say There is another dangerous pestilent blasphemous Book of this Colliers against Ordinances c. which you heard of but never saw it Answ I suppose you did but dream a second time and this proves false too give off dreaming or lying for shame for I suppose none dare lye so grosly as to tell you so though you dare dream a lye and publish 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 such it might be gotten assuredly let this satisfie I do declare that I never writ any such Book and if any have done or do gather from any passage that I deny Ordinances though I know no passage in any from whence any can draw such a positive conclusion I do affirm that I never writ any thing in which I denyed the Ordinances of Jesus Christ and it is my judgement and practise to walk in the use of them Thus at present have I done leaving the Premises to the publick view and censure of those to whom it comes desiring the Lord to give understanding c. FINIS
Mat. 28. 19. you say Christ Commandeth his Disciples and in them all Ministers successively to the end of the world to go and baptize Nations you say Children are a part of the Nations therefore they are commanded to be baptized but there is as you afterwards confess a Discipling first Disciple Nations baptizing them and here is no command for Infant-baptism but for the baptism of Disciples you pretend to put off this with the dangerousness of building Arguments on the bare placing of words in Scripture you produce Repentance and Judas's sop Repentance sometimes placed before Faith yet we know it is a fruit of Faith I answer it is such a fruit of faith as is individual and upon a right understanding Repentance may as well be said 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 savingly without or before a change of the mind which produceth a change of the conversation As for the Sop neither Matthew nor Mark saith that Judas received it before the Sacrament Matthew saith chap. 26. 23. He that dippeth with me in the dish shall betray me but he doth not express when it was done before or after so Mark expresseth chap. 14. 20. That he that dippeth with him in the dish should betray him but he doth not tell whether it was before or after therefore what Luke saith is no contradiction but rather a clearer explanation And whereas you say you will upon the account of placing words easily prove Baptism to be before Preaching Mark 1. 4. John did baptize in the Wilderness and preach c. Here Baptism is set before Preaching say you c. but this is answered and explained by Matthew Chap. 3. 1 2. John the Baptist preached in the Wilderness of Judea saying Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand and ver 5 6. they were baptized of him in Jordan And this is according to the Analogie of Scripture Preaching Discipling believing confessing of sins repenting before baptizing and produce if you can that ever baptizing was set before believing c. and not explained by another Scripture as that of Mark explained by Matthew and then take heed fear and tremble to change Scripture phrases at your pleasure for your own ends taking that first which is and must be last You may upon this very account turn out and contradict all the most precious truth of God in Scripture and this very thing strikes at it for the reason why Teaching Discipling and Faith is to precede baptism is evident that it is because its Christs appointment and there is a necessity that faith go before works for there is no work acceptable before or without faith but Thomas Hall will have works go before faith baptism before faith though Christ hath said the contrary and so make void the Law of Christ and the Faith of Jesus lay another foundation works before faith baptism before believing and so teach men to sin For what-soever is not of faith is sin And he that breaketh one of the least Commands and teacheth men so to do shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven Mat. 5. 19. What then shall become of those who break the great commands of Faith and Baptism that overturn the very foundation setting up works before and without Faith and that you may do it you chop and change the Scripture that so you may accomplish your own designs upon the account of Christ But all your Logical Arguments and humane distinctions will not cannot satisfie those whose eyes are enlightned to see out of obscurity and out of darkness So the truth stands firm as Christ himself that is first disciple then baptize and the practise of the Apostles answered this Command they never baptized any in the Nations but Disciples And this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciple all Nations holds forth the breaking down of that middle wall of partition and so the going forth of the Gospel to the Gentiles for so that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth Gentiles as well as Nations and it intends not all Nations viz. every one in the Nations but all that believed and became Disciples in the Nations Act. 10. 35. In every Nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousnes shall be accepted Now where is your command Sir for your practise so much pleaded for for you confess pa. 28. That this place speaks properly of the order prescribed for conversion of Heathens that were adult Then you have no command in this Scripture for your practise you are lost upon your own account You grant page 29. That all baptized ones must be taught but not all at the same time such as are capable of teaching are to be taught before baptizing but Infants of believers are to be baptized first and taught afterward But you have no Scripture for this it seems your word must stand for proof to those who will believe it you instance 2 Thess 3. 10. He that will not labour must not eat Infants cannot labour yet they must eat True but what is that to the thing in hand Do you think the Apostle intended that to give advantage to you to overturn the Commands of Christ there is a necessity for Infants to eat but none to be baptized unless there be a necessity to break the Law of Christ and a necessity to make them hypocrites c. You say There is a teaching after baptizing Mat. 28. 20. A teaching before and after and that baptizing is set in the middle implying that some must be taught before viz. Heathens some after viz. Infants of believers But you are much mistaken in the second but it implyeth that there is a teaching before for the working of faith and a teaching after for the building them up in the same faith for that end God hath appointed Prophets Pastors and Teachers in the Church and those Acts 2. 41. that were baptized ver 42. continued stedfast in the Apostles doctrine c. So that this is the teaching before and after baptism there intended You confess page 31. notwithstanding your bold assertion in your Argument That all your Command is but a consequential command and something equivalent to a command an implicite command a necessary consequence c. I advise you to take heed first how you lay down Arguments for the future in such positive terms to delude the simple yet confess at last it is but a necessary consequence 2. A little consider how necessary the consequence is it is such a consequence as first makes void the command of Christ 2. Makes null the Gospel of grace setting up works before and without faith 3. Makes all your worship vain In vain saith Christ do ye worship God teaching for doctrines the traditions of
men Mat. 1. 5. 9. And thus you make the Commandments of God of none effect by your traditions ver 6. I say if this be permitted to draw consequences from Scripture to overturn commands it is the most dangerous way that ever was invented to usher in Heresie and Errour and upon that account its easie to turn out almost all the truth of God in Scripture and set it at variance against it self we grant consequences rightly grounded but we deny consequences to overturn Commands and Gospel and all As for all that you say from pag. 31. to 34. it is nothing but a reiteration of what hath been said before either in this or your former Arguments And notwithstanding you are pleased to say pag. 33. That Infant-Baptism is clear enough to those who have eyes to see or hearts to believe it To see and believe what you say and take your word for all for there is neither Scripture nor Reason for it Page 34. You say Since the Anabaptists call and cry so much for a literal Command By the way Sir Are you such an enemy to literal Commands will you make void literal commands to set up your own inventions or do you envy against them because they overturn your practises You say They may do well to give you Commands for many of their practises As first what express command they have to deny the Moral Law to be a rule of life Answ They deny not the Moral Law to be a rule of life to believers in its essence but they deny it to be a rule of life as an administration in the hands of Moses But Christ having taken it into his own hands and fulfilled the righteousness of it he gives it anew unto them and it ceaseth to be any more the Law of Moses but is the Law of Christ this is cleared abundantly 1 Joh. 2. 7 8. First It is no new Commandment but the old Yet secondly It is a new Commandment which is true in him and in us because the darkness is past and the true light now shineth So that notwithstanding it is the substance of the old yet it is new because in Christ and from him to us and in us If this will not satisfie see 1 Cor. 3. 11. compared with 1 John 2. 7 8. 2. You Querie What express command against the coercive power of the Magistrate I suppose you mean in the things of Jesus Christ 1. I suppose if Magistrates command any thing contrary to the mind of Christ we are not to obey they have nothing to do to make use of their coercive power there if they do they sin and all men are commanded not to sin That it is a sin is clear That which contradicts the command of God is sin Which shall we obey God or man judge ye Acts 4 19. There was the command of God and the command of man in opposition each to other and there the command of man was sinfull 2. Jesus Christ is King of his Church Rev. 15. 3. and it s his work to make use of a coercive power to bring in souls to his Kingdom Psal 110. 4 In the day of his power his people shall be a willing people and unless you can produce any Scripture in which Christ hath resigned his power to the Magistrate I suppose he is still King of his Church and those who make use of a coercive power in his Kingdom are at best but Usurpers 3. Christ hath entrusted and impowered none but his Ministers with that work of gathering souls into his Kingdom and this they are to do in his power in his authority and in his way And those who pretend themselves to be the Ministers of Christ yet want the coercive power of the Magistrate declare themselves to be none of his not serving the Lord Jesus but their own bellies c. 4. There is the substance of an express command Rom 14. 4. Who art thou that judgest another mans servant to his own master he standeth or falleth c. And Jam. 4. 12. There is one Law giver who is able to save and to destroy who art thou that judgest another It s clear that none have power to judge and determine coercively but he that hath a power to save and destroy And the Reason is drawn from ver 11. that none hath power to judge of the Law and give sentence but he that is above the Law and if any will go about to judge others by a coercive power they are not doers of the Law but Judges This is meant only in Cases of Conscience relating to Jesus Christ not but that Magistrates may and ought to take cognizance of Civil things and sinfull actions flowing from the corruptions of men but matters Spiritual and Divine tending to Worship there it s the prerogative of God alone to judge 3. You querie What command we have to separate from the Churches which hold the foundation pure I answer None at all that I know neither do we separate from any such Churches but from Babylon and Egypt which hath been and is a cage of every unclean and hatefull birds not true or pure either in its Constitutions Members Ministery or Ordinances and we have a Command for what we do See and well consider 2 Tim. 3. from the first ver to the fift and Rev. 18 4. 4. You querie What command we have for Rebaptizing Ans I know no such thing as rebaptizing there is a command for baptizing believers and that which you call baptizing viz. sprinkling the faces of your Infants we take no knowledge of it you rantize them and say you baptize them so speak an untruth So that the just judgment of God is upon you that having changed the Subject from a Believer to an Infant you must change the very Ordinance it self from baptizing to rantizing from dipping to sprinkling So that you are wholly besides and have not the least ground to say we rebaptize for we baptize those you have rantized before it may be Thus have I endeavoured to giue you a brief account of things you desired and so I pass to your Sixth Argument p. 35. From Act. 2. 38 39. your Argument is To whomsoever the promise of grace belongs to them Baptism belongs But the promise of grace belongs to believers and their children Ergo Baptism belongs to them both This is but the same you have said before your Arguments being six in number are but two in substance Yet I shall see what you say to the business for your Minor is denied yet you are pleased to say p. 36. in confirmation of your Minor That the Minor flows from the Text the Parents believing and repenting he expresly commands them to be baptized both believers and their children Oh unheard of falshood is there ever such a word in the Text as and their Children He saith Repent and be baptized every one of you that is every one of you that are pricked in your hearts You
The second family is Act. 16. 15. Lydia and her family there might be Infants say you Querie 1. whether Lydia was a maid widow or wife Ans It is generally concluded on all hands that she had no husband for if she 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 answer the houshold were baptized therefore the husband if any and he must have born the name being the chief So its cleer there was no husband then where is your probability for Children Secondly the houshold of Lydia were brethren capable of comfort therefore not Infants v. 39. The third family mentioned is the Jailors Act. 16. 31 32 33. You say pag. 43. That he believed and presented his houshold upon his faith and they were baptized Ans Consider a little better of this Scripture 1. The Jailors houshold were such as were all capable of hearing the word v. 32. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord and to all that were in his house 2. They were such as with him rejoyced believing in God v. 34. And when he had brought them into his house he set meat before them and rejoyced believing in God with all his house So that they first hear secondly believe thirdly are baptized Where is your probability for Children now The fourth houshold is Crispus Act. 18. 8. The text is clear He believed in God with all his house The fifth is Stephanus 1 Cor. 1. 16. This houshold was such as were addicted to the ministry of the Saints 1 Cor. 16. 15. therefore not Infants But it seems you do not like to have these two Scriptures joyned together because the one so cleerly explains the other 2. You say that those that were of years might minister when Infants were only baptized I wonder what you mind by only were the Infants only baptized and those that did minister to the Saints not baptized That seems to be the probability and as like as the other But the text saith Ye know the houshold of Stephanus viz. the same houshold as was baptized You will distinguish for your own end when he saith the houshold that is say you those that were of years But you will permit no such distinction to us were not the Scriptures through mercy made cleer but it must be all the houshold not the major part for the whole Yet here you can presently divide or distinguish for your own ends when there is no place for a distinction These things thus considered let the Reader judge impartially the weight of your probability for precept promise or president as you have summ'd it up in the conclusion of this Argument The eighth Argument p. 44. Elect Infants may be Baptized Some Infants are Elect. Ergo Some Infants may be Baptized 1. I deny your Major though you are pleased to say it s granted by Mr. Tombs you abuse him he saith if that it were made known to us by their sanctification which is not so that Baptism was never administred upon this account viz. of Election but Believing so that though some Infants are Elect yet none are to be baptized upon that account only God having given us a visible rule to walk by and not to walk by such invisible rules which is known to God alone You confess page 45. That Election is a secret thing and that it belongs to God how dare you then to forsake that rule Christ hath laid down in the Gospel and dig after Gods secrets But were it truth what you say 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 surer way 2. Should it be granted by way of concession if elect infants might be baptized will you therefore baptize all that 's the way to be sure indeed to catch the Elect but take heed of inventing and maintaining a way which never came into the heart of Jesus Christ to command look rather at things revealed and leave secret things to God The ninth Argument All Disciples ought to be baptized Infants are Disciples Ergo. The Major you say none will deny the Minor is denyed you say it s proved divers wayes 1. Those which the Scripture cals Disciples they are Disciples but the Scripture cals Infants by the name of Disciples Acts 15. 10. Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples And Circumcision is the yoke whereof the Apostle is speaking and they on whose necks this yoke lay were ordinarily Infants But were these Infants mentioned in this Chapter or was it not the Church of Antioch that was troubled with legal Teachers As a Child almost an Infant one of those you are pleading for might understand a simple and weak Argument to prove Infants Disciples there was circumcising others besides Infants when they came to be Proselytes And the Jews calling themselves Moses Disciples John 9. 28. because they owned Moses Doctrine as they thought in opposition to Christ therefore you say Infants were Moses Disciples a goodly conclusion A Disciple is one that is doctrinated or taught the principles of Moses or the principles of Christ this are not Infants therefore none of the Disciples of Christ 2. You say you prove it thus To belong to Christ is to be a Disciple of Christ Infants are said to belong to Christ Ergo. The Major is denyed For though all true Disciples belong to Christ yet all that belong truly to Christ are not Disciples All the Elect belong to Christ before they come into the world nay before they are conceived yet they are not Disciples Saul belonged to Christ before his conversion yet Saul was not a Disciple before but an enemy a persecutor of the Disciples and the truth is that no man is a Disciple before he receive the doctrine of Jesus Christ you make up strange Disciples for the Lord such as we never read of in Scripture you catch them in their Cradles to make them Disciples but they are never the rather for that the Disciples of Christ The Church of Ephesus belonged to Christ before their conversion yet see what Disciples they were before Ephes 2. 1 2 3. And likewise the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. 11. And this I dare be bold to affirm That there is never a man or woman that is a Disciple indeed but knows a time when he was not a Disciple and yet now can see and say that he belonged to God before he was a Disciple Your Minor I question not but that some Infants belong to Christ 3. You say They are capable of Gods own teaching c. That is not questioned what capacity but what they are and what it appears they are taught when they are grown up to manifest it their capacity makes them no more Disciples then Sauls capacity made him a Disciple before he
was converted 4. You say They are Church members and so by consequence Disciples Hence you argue All Church members are Disciples Infants of believing Parents are Church-members Ergo. The Minor is denyed You seem to refer to Mr. Baxter This being Mr. Baxters grand Argument I shall say something to it in this place though I have in brief answered it already If I grant they were Church-members yet they are not so now we being under another ministration more spiritual more immediate and he owns none to be members of the Church but those who are truly spiritual when but one comes in without a wedding garment he takes notice of him Friend how camest thou in hither without a wedding garment Mat. 22. 11 12. And you bring in none else but those without a wedding garment what account you will give your Lord I know not but I shal let you see the repeal of that Church-membership you so much boast of the Promises made to Abraham run all into Christ and are dissolved into him Gal 3. 16. So that if you trace the Promises you shall see where they all center The promise was made to Abraham and to his seed he saith not to seeds as of many but to his seed which is Christ 2. See to whom the Promises come forth whether to the natural or to the spiritual seed ver 29. If you are Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise So that you must now be Christs before you can be Abrahams seed and then being Christs we are heirs according to the promise So here is the promise and the heirship you need not go so far back into the old Testament if the Lord enlighten your darkness And how come we to be Christs by believing ver 26. Rom. 2. 28 29. He is not a Jew that is one outward but he is a Jew that is one inward c. So that the outward Jew the natural seed is cut off from the spiritual Covenant for when the outward Covenant was ended and the spiritual one was come then the natural Church-membership was lost and the spiritual one come in if what you would have were truth that it were the same Covenant and the same members then the Jews had not been broken off to this day for they are the seed of those that were members in the first Covenant but they are broken off for want of faith which alone gives an interest in the Covenant and we by faith stand So to wind up all Infants of believers are not Disciples no Church members therefore not to be baptized The tenth Argument All that have faith may be baptized But some Infants have faith Ergo. The Major you say none will deny Yet give me leave to question it and highly too for first those are to be baptized that manifest faith if Infants have faith which I shall question in the second place yet they have not that faith which is required of those that are to be baptized viz. In the manifestation of it so then if Infants have faith yet none knows that they have it none knows who of them have it It s 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 those elect Infants that die that are believers then God can save without faith by vertue of his electing love in Christ and if he doth work faith in them that is able to save them without Baptism it not being required of them and it s our duty to walk by Rule then we walk safe and to administer the Ordinances of Christ according to his minde not our own the minde of Christ is that he that believeth shall be baptized Mark 16. 16. that is upon the hearing of the Gospel and confession of his Faith not Infants those that we know not whether they believe or no he hath not left us so to walk in the dark this I think is sufficient to answer both your Major and Minor although for all you say to prove your Minor there is no weight in it neither do I clearly assent that Infants have faith That Scripture you mention Mat. 18. 6. is not so express as you pretend or imagine but it relates to those who are humble and meek qualified as little children see ver 3 4 5. so that it is such a little childe so qualified one of those that did believe 1. Query What children are they that usually are persecuted for the name of Christ Infants in nature or children on in Grace 2. Query Whether Christ is now teaching his disciples and encouraging them against suffering or little Infants By this you may with ease come to perceive what Believers are intended in this Text. 1. You say They receive the Kingdom of God Mark 10. 15. It is not said that Infants receive the Kingdom of God but whosoever doth not receive the Kingdom of God as a little childe c. that is to be humble and meek and teachable c. and you had wisdom enough to give this interpretation your selves formerly but that now the case is altered you need to apply it another way And 2. Though some Infants do receive the Kingdom c. Yet it is not many as you have heard already not all 3. You say they please God because he blessed them Doth God use to bless Infants or others because they please him or doth he bless them with Grace because he pleaseth himself in so doing when they are enemies to him 4. Faith you say must be allowed them else not salvation And when the Scripture speaks of faith it intends it to such as are adult and those who are adult not believing shall be damned the Scripture determines nothing about Infants but leaves it as a secret to God for they cannot have that faith the Scripture speaks of which comes by hearing and the Scripture speaks of no other faith that I know of and therefore they cannot have that damnation the Scripture threatens to unbelievers though the elect Infants dying may obtain through the Grace of Election the same Salvation without Faith as believers do through faith Rom. 11. 7. 5. You say Though Infants cannot make an actual profession of faith as adults can yet being born in the bosom of the Church they have somewhat to bring c. Yet are children of wrath as well as the children of the Gentiles are as you confess before 1. Reckoned in the number of Gods people with the Parents No truth in that as hath been often proved none are accounted for the seed but Believers 2. Some of them elect c. 1. That some you know not 2. For that some you will take in all Finde out the Elect and then we shall be silent you say Hence we read that some
same as is said of the child 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but now are they holy so that first you say holiness is never used in all the Scripture for legitimation but generally for things separated to Gods service yet here you confess holiness is attributed to the unbeliever upon the Marriage account in way of Marriage he is sanctified c. And the Infants or children are sanctified with the same sanctification in the same way and this I take to be the jenuine signification of this Scripture I shall now give my reasons for it 1. There is no such thing in the Gospel as an external federal holiness it s a meer invention of man as I have often cleared 2. This interpretation viz. That they were lawfully begotten 1. reacheth the thing in hand most sutable for as Mr. Hall confesseth the Apostle is giving satisfaction to them concerning a scruple or doubt about mixed Marriages from Ezra 10. 2 3. Nehem. 13 23. And he satisfieth them that the Believer need not put away the unbeliever as the Jew did the Heathen for God had sanctified the unbeliever to the believer else were your children unclean that is your children must depart as those did Ezra 10. and Neh. 13. But now are they holy that is holy as the unbeliever is holy sanctified as the unbelieving husband is sanctified This is sutable to the thing in hand they are sanctified as every creature of God is sanctified to the believer 1 Tim. 4. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is sanctified by the word and prayer so is the unbeliever and children sanctified to the believer that he may comfortably injoy them 3. It can be no other sanctification then that of the unbeliever and that is granted by Tho Hall to be but a Marriage-Sanctification and the childes holiness can be no other for it flows from it the unbeliever is sanctified else were your children unclean but now are they holy He doth not say the Believer is sanctified else they were unclean and that must have been the words to have made any thing for your federal holiness but the unbeliever is sanctified c. It being thus cleared that the holiness of the childe flows from the Sanctification of the unbeliever then its the same with the unbeliever but it flows from it therefore one with it and this is concluded that a cause cannot produce a more excellent effect then it self the unbeliever he is sanctified saith Tho. Hall in way of marriage then I suppose its clear that the childs sanctification flowing from hence can be but of the same nature these things thus considered I leave it to the judgment of the Reader The sixteenth Argument From the many dangerous errours and absurdities that will follow this tenet 1. Then Christians Infants shall be losers by the coming of Christ c. Ans No losers at all for what advantage is it to be in an outward Covenant and to have that which you call a Seal and not to be in the grace of the Covenant but to be children of wrath as much as heathens as you confess pag. 10. a mear cheat a seal to a blank and the truth is you cannot devise 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 into a Form of Godliness thinking themselves in a Covenant of Grace and in a moment go down to Hell 2. You say Then grace should be larger then then it is now c. Answ No such thing the Covenants considered that was a Covenant of the land of Canaan which belonged to all the Seed therefore they were all circumcised as a sign of their obedience and all partaked of the Promise which was but a Type of the Gospel Covenant ours is a Spiritual Covenant of the Spiritual Land the Lord Jesus and belongs to none but the Spiritual Seed and to them its more excellent and more large and as sure if not more sure then that was to the natural Rom 4. 16. That was large and sure to the natural this large and sure to the Spiritual seed 3. You say Then there would be no difference between the childe of a Christian and the childe of a Pagan c. Then Dogs and Swine shut out of the new Jerusalem Rev. 22. 15. Answ And is there any difference by nature think you unless grace make a difference doth your federal holiness and baptism make such a difference doth it receive them into the new Jerusalem when you confess them children of wrath as well as the children of heathens are notwithstanding your federal holiness Do not you by your pretended outside holiness rather shut them out of the new and true Jerusalem and dare you say Turks Tartars and Heathens are all shut out from thence 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 faithfully withall and not deluded with a shadow without the substance by which means they may through grace come to attain an interest in the new and true Covenant 4. You say Then they are without Christ without hope without God c. Ans And are they any better in your fained Covenant unless they have an interest in truth in Christ and in God Which is best to be without Christ and thinke they have him or to be without Christ and know it And who are likeliest to abide longest without Christ those who are deluded and cheated with something like Christ yet not him or those who are left as they are in their natural condition that so they may have nothing to delude themselves withall but seek after the true God in the use of means God making them sensible of the want of it 5. You say Then they are the Devils children Ans So they are notwithstanding your federal holiness if they do his work Joh. 8. 44. All you plead for changes not the nature but the name a sad delusion 6. You say This robs Christ of his glory then the first Adam was more powerfull to destroy then Christ to save c. Ans It is that makes for the glory of Christ it 's the fulfilling of his will and mind But you dishonour him in calling his name upon a company of people that do not know him nor honour him in their conversation It seems you are an Vniversalian you will have Christ to save all that fell in Adam if all that partake of Adams sin must partake of Christ Truly sir none are like to partake of Christs grace but believers that I know of and this faith is the gift of God Ephes 2. 8. Therefore take heed how you stretch the grace of Christ beyond what it was intended lest you delude souls with the name of grace without the truth 7. You say Then Infants
and errours the rest of them Inventions falslely charged by him 1. That Infant-Baptism came from the Pope and the Devil The truth of this assertion I refer the Reader to what I have said before and there you will see the Pope very probably that brought it in Higinus in the second Century 150 years after Christ 2. That Christ hath abolished the Law that is as to Believers as a dispensation in the hands of Moses see 2 Cor. 3. 11. 13. And the pure Gospel is the only Rule What son of Belial dare to deny this for the Law is brought forth in Gospel and as given forth by Christ is the pure Gospel Rule therefore though the substance of the old Command yet is called new because given forth upon the new and true account 1 Ioh. 2. 7. 8. 3. A Socinian his Tenet is that all gifted persons may preach without Ordination This is according to the truth of Scripture 1 Cor. 4. 31. 34. Where all that have gifts may prophesie none exempted except women 4. He is a Familist approving of dreams c. Answ That is false I do not approve them yet neither do I altogether deny but God may manifest himself in that way if he please not that it is my experience neither would I limit God Against Vniversities Arts Sciences not in themselves upon the humane account but as they are set up in the room of the Spirit of Christ so the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God 5. He is an Antiscripturist denying the truth of Scripture c. Answ Another most abominable falshood who will be the lyar anon Thomas Hall but you prove it learnedly 1. Because I approve of such who will not permit you to draw any consequences from Scripture because you have so much abused them with your consequences 2. Because minding some of your consequences I conclude that they are as true as Scripture if the people would but believe it You infer then that these consequences must be true or the Scripture is false I say and I supposed that you had had wit enough to understand that I spake in your language or in your sence that you account these consequences as true as Scripture if the people would believe you 3. He saith that in his general Epistle to the Saints chap. 10. p. 28. the Scripure is not sufficient to teach the knowledge of God I Query of any one who knows the Lord whether the Scripture without the Spirit of Christ doth or can teach any one true and saving knowledge and that some make too much of it that is such as Thomas Hall who think it able without the Spirit of Christ to teach the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and if you could have told all you might have seen and said that I say there likewise that many make too little of it and that the substance of my Discourse there is to hold forth the truth and authority of the Scripture in the light of the Spirit that so souls by the teaching of the Spirit of Christ may come to a right understanding of them and that indeed its your selves that truly teach people to deny Scripture I own the truth of it and say that whoever denieth it must deny God Christ and all Religion and the truth is that your self it is that disowns it and reproacheth it too further then it stands with your own will 6. You say He is an Arian and Anti-Trinitarian denyes the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons c. Answ I deny not the Trinity Father Son and Spirit but I deny any person in the Godhead at all that is a word or title given only to man and the Scripture you mention Heb. 1. 3. I am not altogether so ignorant of it as you would have me it is substance and not Person and this you know and abuse it not ignorantly but wilfully The same word Heb. 11. 1. is rendred substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faith is the substance of things hoped for not the Person that would be nonsense you must produce some Scripture where that Prosopon which signifieth Person is attributed to God or that Hypostasis is attributed to man before you can have any colour to call God three Persons or one either for he is a Spirit and will be worshipped in Spirit and Truth 7. He is an Anti-Sabbatarian he is all for a Spiritual Sabbath Answ Because I write of a spiritual Sabbath doth it therefore follow that I am an Anti-Sabbatarian have you ever seen any thing written by me against the Sabbath have you not cause to blush at your weakness or wickedness because I discover the spiritual Sabbath therfore you say I am against the Sabbath 8. An Independent as to man and creatures in the things of God but only on Jesus Christ and is this such a dangerous thing to be off from every thing save Jesus Christ 9. Arigid Separatist Answ Never too rigid in separating from Babylons false ways and worships which is no other then the Synagogue of Satan a Cage of every unclean and hatefull Bird I say it again for all your anger I must be faithfull I may not pittie or spare you for that will ruine you 10. A Perfectist see his Generall Epist to the Saints ch 15. p. 52. Answ No other then is the duty of every Saint to be that is pressing after perfection I there declare that perfection is not attainable in this life till the body of flesh is dissolved nor till the Resurrection neither I say no more of this but refer the Reader to the Epistle it self where you may see how the Hall hath stored up lyes to reproach the innocent 11. He is an enemy to all Learning he oft calls it the language of the beast c. Answ 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 it s but the language of the Beast of the fleshly man the smoak of the bottomless pit of mans wisdom and that which must be destroyed That the Spirit and Scriptures are sufficient for the Ministers calling c. At this you seem to rage extreamly as if this were such a dangerous Heresie that deserves no less then a stake a faggot and a fire could Tho Hall have his will let the Understanding judge I am sure I have heard one of your brethren more famous then ever your self in the eyes of the people assert this that the Scripture was sufficient for the Ministers calling c. who left out the Spirit of Christ but it seems your abilities depend upon your good old books Popish Fathers c. 12. He is against Magistrates Answ No such thing only my desire is that Magistrates should not rule where its alone Christs Prerogative I desire to give to Caesar that which is his and to God that which is his 13. Against Ministry Ans