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
ingrafted and bears them up and makes fruitful Whereas you say That by ingraffing in is meant admission into visible communion I say it is not only that but first faith and then admission into visible communion And one word by the way what visible communion are Infants capable of if they may some of them be capable of invisible union and communion with Jesus Christ yet where is their capacity of visible communion with the Church which consists in communicating of experiences in Ordinances fellowship in breaking bread and prayers where is your visible communion of Infants Sir You seem to answer an objection p. 63. Paul speaks of an invisible Church For my part I own no such objection for I know no invisible Church here upon earth for a Church of Christ is a company of believers walking in the visible profession of truth and there should be none in that profession but such as are believers indeed and if any come into the outward without the inward grace they must be plucked up Therefore I own not that distinction of visible and invisible The invisible Church are those out of sight that are departed the visible are those living in the visible profession of truth and these are they which are graffed in Rom. 11. Those that are graffed in truly shall stand and thrive the root Christ bears them They that are but in shew shall fall the root will not bear them because not graffed in by the heavenly Father In all this here is no room for the natural seed I leave it to the Reader to judge The fifteenth Argument From 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your children unclean but now are they holy From hence you argue They that are holy with a Covenant-holiness may be baptized But Infants born of one believing Parent are holy with a Covenant-holiness Ergo Such Infants may be baptized Your Major hath been often denied for it s but the substance of what you have often said before and therefore in substance I must answer what I have answered before there is no such thing mentioned in all the New-Testament as a federal holiness viz. an external Covenant-holiness without an internal this being the substance of what you say pag. 65. you confess children only by nature that there is no difference between the childe of a Christian and the childe of an Infidel Yet consider him as believing so he and his are holy he is holy spiritually but are his Infants so too no you confess pag. 62. This caution must be remembred that the holiness you speak of is not personal inherent holiness for this cannot be transmitted to posterity but t is a federal external Covenant-holiness Pray Sir the next time let me know where in the New Testament this same external holiness without the internal is so much spoken of or commended The Lord loveth truth in the inward parts and condemns hypocrisie and hypocrites he condemns the form without the power he owns no Jew but the spiritual no seed but the spiritual the axe is now laid to the root of the Tree every Tree that bringeth not forth good fruit must be cut down Mat. 3. and yet you are all for an outward holiness without the inward which is indeed and truth an abomination unto the Lord. But to come to the Scripture you pretend to ground your Argument from You say The Anabaptists have invented an evasion to avoid the force of the Text that say they it s a matrimonial holiness that they are legitimate and no bastards c. Which I affirm is the truth of the Scripture and shall 1. give some brief answers to what you assert And Secondly set down my reasons for what I affirm 1. You pretend the many absurdities that will follow if it be meant of a civil holiness 1. Then the children of Turks and Pagans born in Matrimony should be holy Answ and why not upon a Matrimonial account more holy that is more lawfull then those born of fornication And whereas you say they are dogs that are without c. It is true that is comparatively to the true Church and Spiritual Seed so are not only Turks and Pagans but most of your Church-members who do the same if not worse works then they only you have perswaded them into an outward Covenant as you and they imagine but that helps not the business 2. It s sin to wicked men what ever they do yet their civil actions are better to them as eating drinking plowing Marriage lawfull procreation of children then the contrary evil actions the Apostle saith that marriage is honourable among all Heb. 13. 4. If among all then among Turks and their children are civilly holy lawfully begotten according to a civil institution though nothing be truly and spiritually holy but to those in Christ it s a Law God hath written in the hearts both of Turks and Indians that they are more conscientious in defiling of the Marriage estate then many of those you call Christians 2. You say The Apostles reason would have no weight with it for their children were legitimate before conversion so he should allow them no more priviledge then meer Infidels have c. The Query is not what they were before conversion but one being converted and the other not the doubt ariseth whether or no the Believer must put away the unbeliever if he or she must do so then the children must be gone too both before and after conversion and this was a Priviledge to the Believer not to be compelled to part with his children though unbelievers had the same in being yet it was not to them such a priviledge for mercy is mercy to a Believer indeed he sees every thing sanctified to him which the unbeliever doth not 3. You say Then all bastards are unholy and must be damned Here is a simple one indeed coming forth from so wise and deep a head as Thomas Hall's 1. Must all be damned of necessity without the holiness you are pleading for 2. Do we or the Scriptures say that Bastards must be damned do you know from whence you have drawn that conclusion your self that Bastards must be damned if that be not a federall holiness but a marriage holiness that their children are legitimate then bastards must be damned Is this your Logick I leave it with you 4. You say The word holy is never used in all the Scripture for legitimation but generally for a thing separated from common use to Gods service c. 1. Thomas Hall shall confute Thomas Hall by and by see pag. 67. he saith That the sanctification of the unbelieving husband to the believing wife is not in respect of his personal condition but in respect of his conjugalrelation though he continue unclean towards God yet to his believing wife in a way of marriage he is sanctified that is he is holy for so the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth and in essence it s the
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
to consider whether it be from above or from beneath c. You say Page 5. There is in my Book Page 19. enough granted for your Purpose T is because you do in this as in other things take but Part of what I say For though I say that none can preach according to the intention of that Scripture Rom. 10. 15. for the working of Faith and Converting of souls yet it doth not follow that every Gifted Brother may not Preach But you leave out that which follows viz. for every Gifted Brother is sent to preach according to the measure of the Gift recieved And the Mistake lieth in the word sent thinking that none but men in Office are sent of God to convert souls when Gifted Brethren are sometimes sent though not in Office Acts 8. 4. with 11. 19 21. All you say in Answer to that that gifting is sending c reacheth not the business in hand For 1. It doth not appear in those Scriptures you mention Isa 6 8 9. Mat. 10 1 5. that they were first gifted then sent Go tell them saith the Lord to Isaiah Gods putting the word in his mouth was the gifting Yet 2. I deny not in the ordinary way of prophesying and preaching gifting to precede sending first to those who are authoritatively sent by the Church or secondly to those who preach only by gift according to the measure of the gift received It is sending and they may and ought according to the measure of the gift both in the Church and out of the Church viz. in the world as occasion is offered God in those occasions calling them to it accordingly to administer Secondly you say that he is very unhappy in confounding ordinary and extraordinary Cases I answer first that extraordinary Cases make not that lawfull which in it self is unlawfull unless in cases of necessity for preservation of life then I will have mercy and not sacrifice unless it be in the bearing up of the name and truth of Christ then he that will save his life shall lose it Witness Vzzah 1 Chro. 13. 9. 10. for putting his hand to stay the Ark was smote with death So that your so often mentioning extraordinary cases helps you nothing for it s not the extraordinariness of the case that justifies the thing if it be in it self unlawfull so that you do indeed condemn the practice of the Saints recorded in Scripture for our example in Acts Chap. 8. and 11. with divers others and all for the keeping up your own Ends and Interests I am sure if you stood in the counsel and truth of Jesus the preaching of the Brethren could not would not trouble you As for what is said from pag. 8 to 10. I refer the Reader to the clearness of the assertions in my Book Pag. 9. You say The Gentleman Pretended Servants for so the word Minister signifies yet Gentle men-Masters Servants ruling over their Masters having said that the Holy-Ghost commends Learning he Replyes pag. 41. Holy Ghost is there any such word in the Scripture as Ghost You say How now which way went the Spirit of God from him what immediately inspired yet ignorant of this hath he forgotten Mat. 28. 20. c Ans Nay Sir he hath not quite forgotten it but have you indeed forgotten or else did you never learn it that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifiyeth spirit not ghost and so it is translated and read in all other languages except the English and sometimes it s truly translated in English too and the word ghost is an old English Popish ugly word which indeed if rightly considered is not so fit to be given to the Holy Spirit As for the interpretation of I. Cor. 14. 31. 32. Let the spirits of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets though I deny not what is mentioned v. 29. that the Prophets speak two or three and the others judge for the Church is to judge of the doctrine taught in it yet it s evident to any whose eyes are not shut against the truth that the interpretation of v 31 32. is in v 33 for God is not the author of confusion but of peace See his Brother Richard Sanders confuting this in his Balm to heal religious wounds pag. 202. he saith The spirit of the Prophets was subject to the Prophets that is the Spirit of Prophesie was not so violent on them but that they had power to contain themselves and to stay one for another and so to speak in order c. Here Richard Sanders confutes John Ferriby let the Reader judge As to what you say in the rest in way of Reply there being no weight at all in it I pass by it referring the Reader to the examination of that Book you pretend to Answer Where I make no question but that the clearness of the truth asserted will appear to the satisfaction of any unbyassed and impartial Reader As for your reproachfull terms which is indeed the sum of all your Answer I pass it by as unworthy taking notice leaving the controversie 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 those who serve the Lord Jesus and those who serve their own bellies To him and with him I leave the controversie who undoubtedly will plead his own Cause and Truth in his own Time AN ANSWER To a Book written by one Richard Sanders of Kentishbeer entituled A Balm to heal Religious wounds Called An Answer to the Pulpit-Guard Routed written by Thomas Collier SIR MEeting with your Book the Title bespeaks what I find not in it 1. You call it A Balm to heal Religious wounds 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 stuffed with as much rancor almost in every page as any I have read except Tho. Halls who writ the Pulpit and Font Guards So that if what you say of mine were a truth you have ballanced it on the other hand down to the ground viz. with reproachfull terms and as for that you call harsh language in mine it is no other then what hath been given by the servants of the Lord in Scripture upon the like occasion 2. You call it An Answer to the Pulpit-Guard Routed Two open and cleer untruths in the Title First A Balm to heal Religious wounds when it is far from it Secondly An Answer to the Pulpit-Guard Routed when you scarce come so neer as to meddle with it unless with railing and reproachful terms and if that be a sufficient answer you have done it to the purpose Or secondly in passing by the material and substantial things you have culled out some few particular things calling them Colliers Errors when they are undoubted truths unless those which are abused by you changing the terms in which by me
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