Apostle which saith For the Priesthood being changed there is also a necessity of the change of the Law From whence we see that both Law and Priesthood is done away by Christ so those that do uphold it by paying or receiving of Tythes deny Christ crucified and misery will be their portion Secondly Arg. 2 if Tythes or a Tenth was a type of the first fruits of the Converts of the Seed of Abraham to Christ in the primitive time then those that pay Tythes and such as receive Tythes deny the vertue of Christs death and the work of the Spirit in the primitive time But Tythes or the Tenth was a type of the first fruits of the converts of the Seed of Abrahnm which was to be given to Christ by his death and by the work of the Spirit Ergo they that pay or receive Tithes deny Christ Crucisied and the work of his Spirit That which will be questioned is the minor how I can prove that Tithes or a Tenth were a type of a Tenth that was to be converted from amongst the Jews as a first fruits to God and the Lamb and that the converts of Israel are the Anti-type of Tithes Esa 6.8 9 10 11 12 13. and that they are called a Tenth see the Prophet Esaiah will prove it in these words Also I heard the voice of the Lord saying whom shall I send and who will go for us Then I said here am I send me And he said go and tell this people hear ye indeed and understand not and see ye indeed but perceive not Make the heart of this people fat and make their ears heavy least they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and convert and be healed Then said I Lord how long And he answered until the Cities be wasted without Inhabitant and the houses without man and the land be utterly desolate and the Lord have removed men far away and there be a great for saking in the midst of the land But yet in it mark that shall be a Tenth and it shall return and it shall be eaten as Teyl tree and an Oak whose substance is in it when they cast their leaves so the Holy seed shall be the substance thereof From these words we may see that although God did intend to harden Israel and cast them off for their sins yet there was to be a small number one amongst ten that was to be a Holy people and return to the Lord and be eaten that is to be received as a first fruit to Him and the Lamb I could say much to this but I pass minding this discourse was but a digression from the matter in hand And whereas you ask me What command women have to eat the Paschal Lamb or the Lords Supper under the Gospel Answer That the women were to eat the Passover is very evident being part of the Family and of the Congregation of Israel and not onely so but in most places where there is mention made of men as touching gifts to be bestowed on them the women are included as you have granted from the word Anthropos and that word is not only used in the Corinths but also to the Ephesians in the * A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or homo which is a woman as well as a man fourth chapter and in the eight vers and at several other places and that there is a plain precept for women to receive the Lords Supper is plain from the Text in the first of the Corinths 11 28. according to the true signification of the word and your own grant And so I am come to your last Argument as touching Infants Baptism Ephes 2 3. the which I draw from the Ephesians in these words and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others the Baptisers say you say the Text calleth them children of Wrath onely who walked in sinful and evil courses but I answer say you that that exposition giveth the Text the lye To which I answer and say you are much mistaken in what you say for nature is that which leadeth from sin not to sin those that are not lead by it and do not obey it it will plead guilty and lay them under wrath and that it leadeth from sin and not to sin see Rom. 1.26 2.14 1 Cor. 11.14 Gal 4.8 But because I have answered this Text once and again in my former Treatise I shall be brief at present and say that nature in its region as I may say is pure although it teacheth not the Mysteries of the Gospel yet it is able to teach men to live purely according to the Law as saith the Apostle The Gentiles that have not the Law do by nature the things contained in the Law these are a Law to themselves c. From whence you may see nature leadeth from sin to do things that are Holy Just and Good and not to do that which is evil but if persons that have no other Law to guide as the Ephesians had not before conversion and yet sin against it that will lay them under wrath and so it came to pass that the Apostle saith they by nature were the children of wrath as well as others and so briefly thus as a man is a Malefactor by the Law of a Nation when he hath broken the Law so were these Ephesians by nature having transgressed against it the children of wrath that is nature convicted them and lay them under wrath and this is the meaning of the Text as you may see also more at large in my Dagons Down-fal Again Where you say I father Infants Baptism upon Pope Innocent the third the which say you was an errour because it was long in practice before him To which I answer although it might possibly be practised before yet it was not enjoyned as practise but let it be Pope Innocent or Cyprius or who it will that brought that practice and established it to be sure it was not by Christ nor his Apostles but I might say as Paul saith in another case a point of your own hath confessed it And in the last place you tell me of the antiquity of this practice of Infants Baptism and withal you say He that is wise will drink near the fountain head Answer I have also read what men have said for and against the antiquity of that practise but I finde Christ and the Apostles to be the very best Authors And whereas you say It was practised near the primitive time the which is near the fountain head Answer It argueth the truth of the practise of it never the more for being near the Apostles time unless you could prove it to be practised by the Apostles for we are not ignorant of this one thing that there was false doctrines crope in to the true Church in the primitive time and therefore likely it was that false doctrine should be broached in the world and
without measure and so was his water Baptism To which I answer briefly the strength of your reason lyeth in these words There is a parallel say you between Johns Baptism and Christs and Johns Baptism was that of water and Christs that of the Spirit and say you Christs Baptism was by pouring of a few drops in the time of the Law and hence you conclude that because Christs Baptism with the Spirit was by springling as you say and yet is called Baptism equivolent with that of Johns which was with water therefore water Baptism may be by sprinkling and this is the sum whole strength of reason that you produce Answer And first to the first There might be a true parallel between Johns Baptism and Christs John did dip or thorowly wash the people of the Regons of Judea and Jerusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might prepare a people for the Lord and as John did prepare a people for the Lord by dipping or thorow washing so Christ would not many dayes after prepare a people for God his Father by dipping or thorow washing of them by his Holy Syirit the which I have proved already that the Baptism of the Spirit is not compared to a little water but to rivers of water and as touching that of sprinkling so often mentioned in the Law it may be granted that it might possibly be meant of the pouring forth of the Spirit in the last dayes because not onely Isaiah but Joel also Joel 2.28 with other Prophets speaketh of sprinkling many Nations Esay 52.15 and of pouring out of His Spirit upon all flesh Act. 2.16 but yet this is no whit for your purpose for what if it be so Ezek. 36.25 that God doth pourâ—forth of his Spirit and that by Rantizing that is to say by sprinkling or scattering here or there or dispersing in divers parts or places yet it doth not follow Spargo to sprinkle or scatter in divers parts although Gods Spirit be scattered or dispersed here and there in many Nations that is to say one of eighty or two of a family or if it be more yet such as do enjoy the Spirit and are cleansed thereby are not sprinkled but the Spirit to them is as a fountain or a river af water whereby they are washed and sanctified and justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God 1 Cor. 6.11 and moreover I might shew you how sprinkling represents that of Christs blood the which differeth somewhat from other water or Spirit in proper operation of it although it agree in one for there is three beareth witness on earth as well as three in Heaven but I shall be brief And secondly 1 John 5.7 8. whereas you say that Christ was Baptised with the Spirit or plounged receiving it without measure and so was his Baptism with water from whence you conclude that Christ was plounged in Jordan to manifest to the Sons of men that as he was plounged with the Spirit so he was also plounged in water to signifie his being plounged with or in the Spirit To which I answer and say that if it be true what you say that Christ was plounged in water to represent that he was plounged with the Spirit receiving it without measure and if that be the onely reason that Christ was dipped or plounged as you seem to affirm then none must be dipped or plounged but such as have received the Spirit without measure and it also doth imply that the Jews the Eunuch and some of your children the which you have formerly dipped have received the Spirit without measure so that your own words imply a contradiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence is mergo or immergo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence is the word subeo or ingregredios these differs not much in their signification neither of them signify to sprinkle and where as you in your Parragraph say that the word Bapto Dyno much differ yet so far as I am able to understand the word Dyno they differ very little the one signifying to dip or plounge or overwhelm in the water so the other signifieth to enter in or go under it But to pass on to your discourse you ask me what I think of that known place 1 Cor. 10.2 in these words all our fathers were Baptised in the Cloud and Sea and say you that was a water Baptism yet they went on dry ground Answer I know the Text saith that they were all Baptised viz. all the fathers but how you will prove it to be water Baptism I know not for the Apostle calleth it no such thing onely sayeth they were Baptised and we know there is a Baptism of sufferings and of the Spirit and if I should affirm that it was a Baptism of the Spirit and of fiery tryals to try who would murmur or who would stand still and trust in God to see his Salvation I know not how you could deny it upon good grounds but that it was a Baptism of the spirit I think no sober man will deny because both the Text in Exodus and that in the Corinths imply so much for we finde that the Angel of Gods presence or his Spirit was a light to Israel but the camp of the Egyptians he darkned and also it is said they eat of the Spiritual meat and so forth and we may very well see if we are not blinde that Gods Spiritual presence was very great to Israel in the Cloud being a light to lead them in their journey to Canaan and also his Spiritual presence great in the Sea in making it to be a wall to them on the right hand and on the left that they wet not so much as their shoe brims and therein God manifested his Spiritual presence to Israel and if any were Baptised in water it was not Israel but Pharaoh and his Host the which were plounged and overwhelmed in the great depth but the people of Israel were lead and directed and upholden with more than an ordinary work and manifestation of Gods Spirit and because I study brevity and also that you are hasting away for Ireland I shall leave this particular with this Request desiring you to show before you go where ever that Baptism was called water Baptism the which is spoken of in that first of Corinths but if you seriously weigh the occasion of the words they will easily show you that the Baptism there mentioned is a Baptism of the Spirit because the Apostle was there shewing what judgments fell upon Gods people of olds for their sins to afright at I may say the Corinths that were a carnal people as if the Apostle should have said take heed of sin for that will bring Gods wrath on you and to take off that objection that the Corinths might use in saying but surely the Lord will not destroy us for he hath given us
his Holy Spirit and he that hath done this for us will not now destroy us but the Apostle answering them on this wise as if he should have said it is true he hath Baptised you with his Spirit according to his promise and the visable gifts doth appear yet take heed of sin for otherwise God will destroy you for be not ignorant of this that our fathers were Baptised as well as you and with the same Spirit for the Rock that followed them was Christ yet God was displeased with them and destroyed them and these things was saith the Apostle for your example and admonition but now if this had been but a water baptisme that the Apostle saith our fathers were Baptized withal The Apostle sheweth the Corinths that the Fathers were Baptised with the Spirit as well as they and yet God destroyed them that so the Corinths might not boast of their gifts and take liberty to sin least they also were destroyed then the Corinths might have made this reply and said it is true all the Baptism or the washing with water in the Law was but appertaining unto the flesh and also we know Symon Magus was Baptized with water and yet cast away but we have been Baptised with the Spirit and therefore a beloved people and God will not cast us of and upon this account the Apostle endeavoureth to inform them that the Fathers were Baptised with the Spirit for Christ was with the Church in the wilderness and also lead them sometimes going before them sometimes followed them between the Egyptian and the Camp of Israel in the red Sea and thus Gods Spiritual presence was manifested unto them both in the Cloud and in the Sea in the Cloud by being a light to lead them and keeping the Egyptians from them and in the Sea by making the waters a wall to them so as that they were not wet thereby But if it should be objected out of the 77. Psal 16 17. The waters saw God and the depts were troubled the Clouds poured out water the skies sent forth a sound the voice of the thunders were in the Heavens I say This is nothing to that which is mentioned in the Epistle to the Corinths neither was that Cloud there spoken of the Clouds mentioned in the seventy seven Psalm And again whereas you ask me what I think of sprinkling of Bloud in the time of the Law so often mentioned was it not a type say you of the blood of sprinkling Heb. 12.24 To which I answer It may borrow that terme the blood of sprinkling from that of springling in the Law or it may be called the blood of sprinkling because the efficacy of it was to be dispersed abroad to many by speaking better things for them than the blood of Abel but this maketh nothing for your purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is aspersionis viz. sprinkling that Baptizo is to sprinkle as well as to dip for that word in the twelfth of Hebrews will not help you either in the word itself or the consequence of it And whereas you ask me why sprinkling on Infants may not signify Christs blood shed for them Answer because in the first place God never did appoint Infants to be sprinkled in the time of the Gospel or elsewhere to signify Christs blood shed for them Secondly Because Baptism is not barely a signification of Christs blood shed but also of his burial and Resurrection the which cannot be signified by sprinkling in sprinkling in the time of the Law there was a cleansing but in part viz. the flesh and but for a time namely one year for there was a remembrance of sin every year but now out cleansing is of another nature not in part but by one offering perfected for ever such as are sanctified and therefore that which signifieth that great work is not a little water but much water whereby persons must be thorowly washed and therefore the water in Baptism is compared to the waters of Noah 1 Pet. 3 20 21. the which I think no wise man will think was very little but that Baptism doth signifie burial as well as Christs death see the words of the Apostle Rom. 6.4 in these words Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism into his death That like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in nenness of life and as saith the Apostle to the Corinths If the dead rise not Why are we Baptised for dead that is as if he should say why are we then Baptized to signifie a Resurrection from the dead And again Whereas you say Peter was for a kinde of plounging John 13. till better Catichised by our Saviour To which I answer and say from thence it is evident that it was the onely practice in Baptism to wash or plounge the whole man in water Peters words spoken in John 13 maketh much for total washing in Baptism and no whit against it because Peter was ignorant of washing in part and cryeth out not onely my feet but my hands and my head but however that was not an ordinance of Baptism as aforesaid that Christ taught his disciples but it was an ordinanee which Christ instituted to wash the feet of those that were Baptised as aforesaid and therefore this maketh much against you and will plainlr teach you that it was a total washing or plounging that was Christs and his disciples practice in Baptism but Peter wanted instruction about that Ordinance of washing the Disciples feet and because I am occasioned to speak as to that Ordinance from the precedent discourse But the common scandal the which some wicked men lay upon us in that ordinance we call God to witness we abhor I shall briefly say I would advise every man as they would give an account with joy and not with grief in the dreadful day of judgement to take heed how they speak reproachfully or slâ—tely of any Ordinance that Christ hath instituted as some have done although it may seem strange to them because Christ will look upon them as his enemies and if so his fury will burn out against them like a devouring fire And that the washing of Disciples feet is an Ordinance of Christ read John 13 14 in the room of much more that might be said the Text readeth it thus If I then your Lord and Master have washed your feet ye ought also to wash one anothers feet for I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done unto you From whence we may see this is an Ordinance of Christ and therefore I shall not deny it before men for I am not ashamed of the meanest of the waies or Ordinances of the Gospel because I know it is the power and wisdom of God God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise and the weak things and the base and despised things hath
Church To which I answer and say that your word federately your matter intimated in it are far ferched consequences that the holiness spoken of in 1 Corinths 7. will not admit any to Baptisme the which if it would then the unbelieving Wife or Husband which is as holy as the Child ought to be Baptized and how far that is from truth I shall leave the Reader to judge but that the Text doth say that the unbeleever is Holy read it and you shall see to difference in the word Sanctification and Holiness in that place for Tindal readeth it thus Eâ—uxor infidelis sanctificata est inviso alioqui câ—rte liberi vestri improbri essent nunc autâ—m sanctisunt So that the word may be red the unbeleeving woman is Holy or hallowed to or by the man as well as sanctified but the holiness mentioned in 1 Cor. 7. is no other but a matrimonial holiness as I also have proved in my precedent treatise and so I pass and leave you to read your answer there Again you say God owned those children presented to him in Circumcision Ezek. 16.20 21. and called them his children To which I answer and say if you were demanded how you could prove that those children were Circumcised you would be much troubled to prove it for surely their Parents were not so careful to give heed to Gods Commands the which if they had they would not have offered their children to Molech which was fobidden and theresore Circumcised they were not doubtless and if they were prove it Exod. 22.39 Exod. 13.2 Nehem. 10.35 36 37. But you will say how cometh it to pass that God calleth them his children The answer is those that were offered up in the fire was the first born and the Lord before had commanded for himself all the first born and they are said to be Holy to the Lord and hence he calleth them his children yet take notice that I do not deny but God did own such as was offered to him in Circumcision but it doth not follow therefore that he will own such offered up in Baptism for he had commanded children to be Circumcised at eight dayes old and therefore good reason that he should own them but he never commanded children of eight dayes old to be Baptised and therefore it is a vaine conceit to think that God will own that which he never appointed Again you say That the premise under the Gospel is to Beleevers and their children by vertue of the Parents Faith Act. 2.39 Answer The Text doth not say that the promise under the Gospel is to beleevers and their children upon their Parents Faith surely your eyes be very dim or your understanding very shallow in looking on that place see the Text Act. 2.39 Repent and be Baptised every one of you and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit for the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit is to you and your Children in their non-age are not heirs to the Holy Spirit and heaven by vertue of their Fathers Faith as you fondly conceit children and to all that are afar of even to so many as the Lord our God shall call Now I pray see doth this Text say that the Gospel promise belongeth to children of Beleevers upon their Parents Faith the text hath not such a consequence in it the meaning of the Text is briefly thus the Jews were pricked at the heart for Crucifying of Christ and desiring his blood to be on them their children the Apostle knowing that all sins should be forgiven unless that against the Holy Ghost saith to them not when they were beleevers but before they did beleeve Repent but as if they should say there is no hope of mercy if we should repent yet there is saith Peter for God hath promised to pour out af his Spirit in the last dayes upon all flesh and also on your children even on your sons and daughters and therefore your condition is not so bad as by you supposed nor your childrens but they shall receive the Spirit even so many of them as God shall call your wicked practice in Crucifying Christ hath not so far deprived you or them from mercy but if you or they obey the voice of Gods call he will give you or they after you the Holy Spirit therefore repent every one of you here is ground enough for you to repent and to be Baptised and gladly to walk in Christs wayes That promise Act 2.39 was the promise of the Holy Spirit and it was made to all upon condition of obedience and Faith and declared to those poor wounded Souls that they might have ground to repent and beleeve the Gospel and thus you see the Text saith the promise was to them before they did beleeve that they might have ground to beleeve and obey the Gospel and therefore this maketh not for beleeves seed being under a Gospel promise for these did not beleeve when the Apostle saith the promise is unto you but if the promise of the Spirit be made to all children upon their Parents Faith then every beleevers child most consequently have the Holy Spirit or otherwise God not so good as his promise but the promise in Acts the second is a general promise of the giving forth of the Holy Spirit to all flesh Jews and Gentilis Fathers and Children even so many as are the called ones of God but in my former Treatise I have shewed the reason why the Apostle maketh mention of their children in this Text and so refer you to that further to peruse and pass to the next thing the which is A chaâ—ge of evil on us in denying the children of Beleevers Church Priviledge To which I answer that in that particular your selves do lie under evill in denying children Church priviledges namely that priviledge of the Lords Supper the which of right belongeth to every member of Christs Church for they that were or are to be Baptised or to continue in the Doctrine of Christ in breaking of bread and prayer and Baptism is not properly a Church priviledge but that which is to be done without the Church and those priviledges that are properly accounted Church priviledges you do deprive children of and also when you write again resolve this question whether the Lords Supper of right do not belong to all that are Baptised unless they are cast out forsin and if so then clear your selves if you can of depriving children of Church priviledges but you may see this also is discoursed and answered in my former Treatise entituled Dagons Down-fall And so I come to the Examination of that cited place Mat. 28.29 Go disciple all Nations or make disciples all Nations and Baptize them to which you would have me read Iohn 4 1 2 3. the which is equivolent with the words in Mat. 28. the which is read thus When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had beard that Iesus made and
had a purpose about them before they were born was it to love him on hate him Answer Because I shall give forth the Exposition of this Chapter in its particular order I shall give a short answer to the question here and the answer is thus Israel stood much upon a fleshly account as I shall show you more at large in the discourse of the Chapter and pleaded their birth-priviledges very much and God did purpose both by Ishmael and Isaac and Esau and Jacob to take them off from that fond conceit and therefore as he purposed not to choose heirs to the heavenly Canaan by a fleshly discent or eldership according to the flesh so he purposed to discover it by these Esau and Ishmaels casting off sheweth the casting away of Israel and grafting the Gentiles in their place to type to wit Ishmael and Esau who were the eldest and so by consequence heirs to that inheritance which was but a type of Heaven the which the Lord shewed by dispriviledging of them of that earthly land and promises and giving it to the younger that also fore-seeing Israels unworthiness he would take away the Kingdom to wit the Gospel which of right did belong unto them and was first preached unto them and give it to the younger brethren to wit the Gentiles and yet notwithstanding did bestow great inheritances upon them and hated neither of them but for their sins committed personally and so I pass to the next thing which is a question also that you ask How Malachy comes to quote that place of Gen 25. and Paul to quoteÌ„ both Answer The very reason that Paul quoteth it is to prove the choice of the Gentiles as in Rom. 9.24 25 26 30 They being counted the younger people as Luke 15. And for the very same reason Malachy quoteth it and calleth it the burthen of the word of the Lord to Israel and sheweth them although Esau or Edom were the elder people yet for their sins the Lord cast them off and you Israel as if the Prophet should say who are accounted the eldest people to whom the service of God hath been committed yet you have broken it and done abomination before me and poluted my Ordinances and therefore as I was magnified upon Pharaoh and Edom by impoverishing them so will I be magnified by impoverishing you O house of Israel For I have no pleasure in you saith the Lord neither will accept an offering at your hands For from the rising of the Sun even to the going down of the same my Name shall be great among the Gentiles Mat. 1 11 12. and in every place Incense shall be offered unto my Name and a pure offering For my Name shall be great among the Heathens saith the Lord of Hosts but ye have prophaned it c. From whence take notice the Apostle Paul quotes his saying As it is written Esau hated for his sins which he committed in time and not for Adams Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated For the very same cause that the Lord hated Israel and cast them out and calleth them the people of his wrath for the same cause he hated Esau And that he hated Esau for his sin and not before he was born see Amos 1.11 Obad. 6.9 10 11 15. How are the things of Esau sought out thy mighty men O Teman shall be dismayed to the end that every one of the mount of Esau might be cut off by slaughter for the violence against thy brother Jacob Shame shall cover thee and thou shalt be cut off for ever Thou shouldest not have looked upon thy brother in the day that he became a stranger as thou hast done it shall be done unto thee thy reward shall return upon thy own head From whence we may see Esau was hated for his evil and not before he was born Again there is not one Text in the whole book of God that saith Esau was hated before he was born Rom. 9. saith no such thing As God respecteth not persons but looketh upon one man in misery as well as another with the eye of pity so he wanteth not ability to do them good Again If God did hate Esau before he was born then he must be a respector of persons for illustration take this comparison If two men were in misery and a third should redeem one out of his misery and leave the other in misery he must want ability or otherwise be a respector of persons the which neither of them is in God he is no respector of persons and to say he wanteth ability is Blasphemy but God hated not Esau before he was born but all that were lost by the first Adam was redeemed by the second otherwise the free gift was not so large as the transgression For as by the offence of one Judgement came upon all men to condemnation So by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification of life So that if Christ did redeem but a part then there was but a part lost for so many as were made sinners by the first Adam so many were made righteous by the second Adam or otherwise Christs redemption was not as large as Adams transgression and then an imperfect Saviour the which to say were Blasphemy but the Scripture saith He tasted death for every man and a Sacrifice for the whole World and gave himself a ransome for all men and the like but it no where saith that he did not die for all or that he dyed for part of the world But you will Object Object and say That his bloud is said to be shâ—d for many Answer All are not a few then they are many but no man can rationally conclude that Christ did not die for all from the Text that saith he dyed for many or this is the blood of the New Testament Sometimes the word many is to be understood all which is shed for many If they consider that all are not a few as aforesaid and if not a few then it must be many and you shall see that the word many in Scripture sometimes must be understood all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Daniel 12.1 2 3 4. Many of them that sleep in the dust shall arise some to Everlasting joy and some to Everlasting shame and contempt From 〈◊〉 if your sence be to be understood in the word many not to imply all in some places then at the general Resurrection when good and bad shall arise some to joy and some to shame all shall not rise onely some of both sorts and this is the manner of your reasoning from the word many but it cannot be proved that Esau was reprobated before he was born And although it be read in Romans the 9. That before the children wâ—re born or had done good or evil it was said uwo her the elder shall serve thâ— younger But in the 25. of Gen. it is not said children But two
subtilty should have caused all the Workmanship of God the which he was about six dayes to have sunk and have been buried in the Grave of Oblivion Secondly If God who is no respecter of persons should have seen all men fallen alike by one and the same guilt of transgression and have saved some and left others in misery how had his mercy been above all his works it would have been a very great dishonour to almost if not all the Attributes of God to have redeemed but part first it would have argued weakness or diâ—ability in God in leaving part of the Creation at the will of the Devill or otherwise it would have destroyed the Attribute of his Mercy so that his Mercy had not been over all his Works Thirdly It would have destroyed his unsadomable and universal goodness to the Sons of men and made him a respecter of persons the which he hath declared against for consider if when God saw all men in misery and all created and fashioned alike by him and all fell equal in one and the same guilt of transgression if God should save some out of it and leave others in it when all were made alike and all had sinned alike would not God be a respecter of persons the which the Scripture plainly declareth against Finally it would preach such a Doctrine as this that although God did command the Gospel of Grace to be offered unto all ministerially yet it never was intended to the greatest part of men but to be a Gospel of misery for if it be only preached to leave men without excuse and that to take advantage of the most part of men and to communicate no good at all then the Angels did not preach truth to the Shepheards when they said It was glad tidings of great joy to all men but if your opinion be true the Gospel was so far from being glad tidings of great joy to all men that it was the worst tidings that ever came or was declared to the greatest part of men the truth hereof no rational man can deny for if God never did intend in the tenderness of the Gospel any good to those that reject it only intended it to leave them without excuse then these absurdities must follow First that God did not deal faithfully with the greatest part of men in offering that unto them that he never intended to give but I say God forbid we should be of so base an opinion yea let God be true and every man a lyar and let every Christian man say with Abraham shall the God of the whole earth do unrighteously surely such things cannot be found in him and in saying so of the Lord you make him like to hypocrites and dissemblers the which abomination is abâ—orred of the Lord I could speak much to it but I pass to the second which is If God never intended salvation to all men in the derness of the Gospel then it is impossible for men in the slighting of the Gospel to neglect their own Salvation for if God never intended Salvation thorow the Gospel to such as reject it as well as to those that receive it then those that reject it reject nothing for there was nothing intended them in it if your opinion be true and therefore could reject nothing neither could they neglect their own Salvation for if Salvation was not intended in the Gospel to such as sleep away their time in security then they could not neglect it by their security because if they had been never so much industrious yet it had added nothing unto them because Salvation was never intended them and thus you excuse men in their disobedience and resisting the Gospel and neglecting means of Grace and Salvation although in charity I judge you do it ignorantly I could say much more but I am necessitated to hasten and come to the next thing which is about Sodoms fire The which say you it will suffer much upon examination because I say it is not meant that lake of Fire and Brimstone the which is called the Second death but it is called eternal in opposition to such fire as is called temporal or may be so called because as it is kindled by man so it is put out by man the which that fire that destroyed Sodom was of another nature it was not kindled by man neither could it be extinguished by man and yet was no more hell fire than that which fell on the Captains and their Fifties for their sins I could speak much to it but it s not worth my time only this question resolve when you Write again I pray you where you learned such a Doctrine and what Reason you can give to prove it that is that after persons are sent to Hell they must be brought back again to judgement to be judged and tryed whether they deserve it yea or nay Is it legal for the Magistrates of a free Corporation to take a man and hang him and then afterward to set down and determine the case whether he have deserved it yea or nay Is this and such like dealing Gods merhod O ye blind guides did God cast Adam out of Paradice into the curse and afterwards brought him to Judgement to convince him that he deserved it It is not the way of God to cast men into Hell and afterwards â—o bring them to judgement to see whether they deserve it yea or nay or did the Lord first bring him to judgement and afterwards when the sentence was past cast him forth of the Garden but I pass you tell me I almost deny or give the Scripture the lye by saying that the Inhabitants are not now suffering in Hell-fire But before I come further to examine what you say touching Sodoms fire I take leave to inform the curteous Reader the occasion of this Discourse concerning Sodoms fire the which is My former Antagonist Mr. Rutton was pleased to say in a private conference although I made it publick at the last that there was some reprobated before they were born and that for Adams sin instanced in those of Sodom saying that there were many Children in Sodom which cannot be denyed and that they were now in Hell and yet never committed actual sin therefore were damned for Original sin and although my Antagonist hath no more charity of poor innocent Babes as in respect of their eternal Transgression to say they were all damned and are in Hell I did endeavour to prove that Sodoms suffering of eternal fire was not that lake of fire and brimstone which is called the second death and also that none are in that lake untill after Judgement The Devills time of torments are not yet come but are reserved for him till the day of judgement and then shall be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone which is the second death Rev. 20.12 13. that the Devill is not yet in it but faith to Christ why art thou come to torment us
the Devil was a lyer from the beginning and this Death say you was the second death and also you confess tâ—at Adam and all his Lines did not dye the second Death so that if your opinion be true the Devil spake true and not God see your self I tremble to write so of the worthy name of God as your ignorant blasphemous opinion leads me to write in reference to discover your absurdities but you say That although God threatned it yet he did not peremptorily resolve it but sent Christ To which I answer as beforesaid that is but to make the Devils words true for God had said and decreed they should dye but the Devil perswaded them to believe a lye that they should not dye that the Devil might be a true Prophet say you God sent Christ that they might not dye and as to the case of Nineveh and Hezekiah I have already answered And again whereas you would have me say Either Christ brought not justification of life by his obedience or else conclude Adam brought evernal condemnation by disobedience or say there is no sence in the Apostles arguing Rom. 5.18 To which I answer there is good reason in the Apostles reasoning and yet his words imply not that which you would infer from them for I have already proved that the condemnation there mentioned is but to the dust viz. the first death Adams sin caused God to judge and condemn him and his posterity to the dust but in a short word take this as the Apostles reasoning from Rom. 5 18. that as by the offence of the first Adam judged or condemned all to the dust and so brought them all under the power of the Grave to have lain there eternally had not mercy been provided so by the righteousness of the Second Adam the free gift came upon all men to deliver or justifie them from that power of Death viz. the sting thereof so that it might be said in the promise as in the person of Christ O Death I will be thy death and thus the free gift came upon all men to justification of life that as in or by Adam all dyed even so in or by Christ all are made alive viz. raised from the dead it being done in Gods account from the foundation of the world so then the first Adam by his sin made all men liable to the power of the first death so that the sting of death did as we may say attach them but mercy through the Righteousness of Christ stepped in and jus tified man from that attachment and destroyed the power of it and brought life and immortality to light for although God did peremptorily Decree that Adam should go to the dust for that sin Dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return yet he did not decree either in his threatning or in his sentence that he should lye there eternally yet the sting of Death viz. the power of the Grave would have seized on or surprized him had not mercy in the Promise justified man from it and thus the free gift came upon all men to justification of life I might say much more to it but I pass to that of Jude where you say They were of old ordained to Condemnation To which I answer and say that it is true that God of old did in his Decree ordain and appoint some to condemnation It is not denied that God did of old ordain ungodly men to condemnation although it be denied that God of old did ordain men to be ungodly that thereby they might come to condemnation namely such as did refuse the grace of Salvation in the tenderness of it and put away eternal life and glory and turn the grace of God into wantonness and such were they that Jude speaks of there are certain men crept in saith he who of old were ordained to this condemnation and then tels us what disposed men they are and that is saith he ungodly men turning the grace of God mark that to wantonness I could shew you what is meant by the word this Condemnation but I pass And whereas you say That Children might be made liable in Adam to eternal Death Answer If you mean eternal Death as before promised that is to lye eternally in the Grave under the sting oâ— Death as beforesaid then we differ not but if by Eternal Death you mean â—he second Death they could not be liable to that by the sin in Paradice because the punishment of the second Death must pre-suppos a second Life that is a person must be said to be twice alive before he can be said to be twice dead or in danger to be twice dead and therefore the Lord sheweth that as there was a first Death that all mâ—n must taste of for that sin in Paradice so there is a lake of fire and brimstone the which God calls the second Death and where ever the word second is used it presupposeth a first otherwise there cannot be a second but the Death spoken in Genesis could not be the second unless there had been a Death proposed before it the which was not for by one man sin entred into the world and death mark that by sin so then sin brought death into the world and secondly in Christ is hid our second life the which we loose by loosing of him and Christ and that life in him which is opposed to the second death was never ours before the Fall and I could give many sound Reasons to prove both these but I pass it may be needless because no man upon due consideration can deny it and so pass But before I shall examine or try your lawful Ministry I shall through Gods assistance unfold unto you the mystery contained in the Ninth Chapter to the Romans partly because many poor Souls stand as it were amazed to know what God means in his Word for say they God sometimes saith He would have all men come to Repentance and swears he desires not the death of him that dyes but rather that they would return and live and therefore exhorted men to strive to enter in at the strait gate and to be diligent to make their calling and election sure and to beware lest any fail of the grace of God but so to run that they may obtain and the like and yet saith It is not in him that willeth or runneth but hated Esau before he was born as some say and makes persons vessels of dishonour from a Decree before they were born or had done good or evil in a word elect some and reprobate others before born and yet saith he would not their death but would have them turn and yet appoints them to run on in evill these and many more of this nature do persons conclude is in God and stâ—â—â— when they are brought in question as touching this their conceit they fly to the Ninth of the Romans as a refuge the which thorow Gods help I shall shew will
intercede with great importunity as if he should have said Lord if it will not be that thy anger turn away from this people have mercy on them although thou blot me out of thy Book the Lords answer is God will noe do injustice to punish the innocent and let the guâ—lty go free Moses may not appoint God whom he shall have mercy on for God knew better han Moses who were fit subjects for mercy and therefore he would have mercy on whom he pleased and not whom Moses pleased as if he should have said Moses what hast thou to do to appoint me whom I shall have mercy on and whom I shall blot out of my Book I tell thee that I am a God of Justice Righteousness and Faithfulness so that I cannot punâ—sh the innocent and let the guilty go free and therefore provoke me not to pardon Israel and blot thee out of my Book for I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and such as sin will I blot out of my book and as for this people I have found them a rebellious and a stâ—ff-necked people but as for thee I have known by name viz. obedient meek lowly and humble before me and I will make all my goodness passe before THEE and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before THEE and I will be gratious unto whom I will be gratious with out thy appointment and I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy so then from hence we may see that the Lord tells Moses that he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy to take off Moses from moving him to spare Israel that was a Rebellious people and to blot out Moses that walked humbly before him so that God will not as aforesaid punish the innocent and let the guilty go free and so I am come to the second thing considerable the which is Whom it is that God will have mercy on and whom he will not because the Text saith That he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy that is briefly thus Gods wil and pleasure is to have mercy and compassion on such as fear him Isal 1.19 Deut. 13.17 ch 30.2 3 4. Exod. 3.4 6 7. Num 14.18 much more might be added and keep his Commandements and to destroy such as are disobedient and harden themselves in their sins against him and this the Scripture will largely prove who so doubts of it let him peruse the Scriptures in the margent and thus God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and so I pass to the next Verse but by the way take notice that the house of Israel are the people of whom and to whom the Apostle speaks and saith he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy that is although Moses did intercede for Israel and desire the Lord to remember that they were the Seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob yet for all this the Lord would not bear with them in their sins but saith as it were on this wise what although they are the seed of Abraham yet that enjoyns me not to bear with them in their sins for I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and therefore let not Israel trust to their birth-priviledges because they are the seed of Abraham c. Vers 16. So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy Annot. In this Verse the Apostle takes off the Jews from willing and running in the way of the Righteousness of the Law to obtain Evangelical blessings or otherwise destroyeth what he did visibly build for he did press men to run and tells them that in so doing they might attain as you may see in these words 1 Cor. 9.24 They that run in a race run all but one receives the prize sorun that ye may obtain these two places seem to oppose one another the one saith it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth the other saith run that ye may obtain implying that it is to be obtained through running so run that ye may obtain but that you may see these two places reconciled consider first that when the Apostle saith it is not of him that willeth or of him that runneth he means of such as run in a wrong way and when he saith so run that ye may obtain he means such as run in the right way for illustration admit of this comparison suppose two men had a great journey to go in a day that they intend to accomplish by night they both set forth in the morning intheir journey the one keeps his strait Road that leads to his journyes end in the which way he hasteneth and cometh to the end at even the other peradventure goeth as fast as he but he goeth the contrary way that the further he goeth the further he hath to his journyes end now the one thorow willing and running in the right way attains his journyes end the other although he will and run yet it being the clear contrary way is the further from his journyes end so that it is not in his running to obtain his journyes end because he is in a wrong way this was the very case in this Verse it was not of him that did will or run by the works of the Law to attain Heaven but to run in the way of Faith and Evangelical obedience the end whereof is everlasting life and now I shall give you the summe of it in short that is whereas it saith It is not of him that willeth or of him that runneth the meaning is that all the striving and running of Israel according to the Law would not help them in point of justification it being only Faith thorow the grace of God in the Gospel that justifieth and that this is the meaning of the Text the Apostle fully clears in these words vers 31. But Israel which followed after the law of righteousness hath not attained to the law of righteousness wherefore because they sought it not by faith but as it were by the works of the Law so then it is plain why it was not of or in him that willed or runned because they did not run in a right way they sought it not by Faith but by the works of the Law and so I pass to the next which is Vers 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up that I may show my power in thee that my Name may be declared thorowout all the earth Annot. From this Verse we may take notice that the Lord brings Pharaoh as a President of his Power and Justice his Power in that he could top the tallest Cedar that is he could bring down the haughty and lay them low Secondly his Justice that all the world might take notice that there should none exalt themselves against him and prosper But now to the Exposition of the Verse in its
sinners to hardnesse of heart although they be the children of a father beloved of God and also if Daniel Noah and Job should intreat for them as Moses did saying have mercy on these people and remember their fathers viz. Abraham Isaac and Jacob yet they should deliver but their own souls for he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy that is on the penitent as afore said for he will by no means clear the guilty but such as sin will be blot out of his book and so I passe to the next verse which saith Vers 19. Thou wilt say then unto me why doth he yet finde fault for who hath resisted his will Annot. In this verse we may clearly see the Apostle raiseth an octjection the which he answereth in the following verses the objection lyes in these words why doth he yet finde fault for who hath resisted his will As if the Apostle should have said peradventure you house of Israel may say to the Lord for what cause dost thou finde fault with us who of us have resisted thy will why wilt thou or for what cause wilt thou reject us But the Apostles answer to them in order to clear God in his justice saith Vers 20. Nay but O man who art thou that replyest against God shall the thing formed say unto him that formed it why hast thou made me thus Annot. In this verse the Apostle doth as it were preface to the answer of the objection but his full answer lyeth in the following verse but in this verse he reasons on this wise as if he should have said dost thou ask why God finds fault with thee and punishes thee who it is that hath resisted his will as though thou was clear and innocent and knew not why God had made thee a dishonourable vessel and therefore saith the Apostle who art thou or how canst reply against God and say why hast thou made me thus a dishonourable vessel for saith he God did before appoint that although he did intend to make you an honourable people that if you did harden your selves against your Maker and sin against him that then he would make you another vessel as pleas'd him best which without doubt would be a dishonourable one of this the Lord hath before preached to you by the Prophet Jeremy when he made him go down to the Potters house see the work upon the wheel and the clay marred in the Potters hands Jer. 18 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. and him making of it another vessel as seemed good to the Potter at which time the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah saying As the Clay is in the Potters hands so are ye O house of Israel in my hands therefore in what instant I speak of a Nation or Kingdom to build and to plant if they do evill in my sight I will repent of the good that I said I would benefit them withall and therefore saith the Apostle do you ask why he doth finde fault with you and make you thus a dishonourable vessell hath he not power so to do and that according to true justice you being made in the hands of his mercy by your disobedâ—ence as the clay was in the Potters hand and he made it another vessel as seemed him good and cannot God do so with yon and yet be just and thus the Apostle answereth the objection in the next verse saying Vers 21. Hath not the Potter power over the Clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour Annot. In this verse the Apostle answereth the objection as if he should have said O house of Israel take notice of this as the Potter had power over his clay that is when it was marred in his hand otherwise to dispose of it although at the first he did intend to make it an honourable vessell yet afterwards he had power and wisdome otherwise to dispose of it that is to say to convert that which was stubborn and brittle to a dishonourable vessel and that which was flexible and yielding to an honourable vessell and this is Gods power and priviledge over you even you O ye house of Israel you being marred in Gods hand he may disappoint you of that glory which he did intend to bestow upon you as you were a Nation whom once the Lord loved and called his peculiar people and yet might have mercy upon a small remnant of that lump or Nation who did believe and were humble yielding and penitent before the Lord. And thus the Apostle clears up Gods Justice and thus I passe to the next verse because those things that might be offered as objections to some particulars in this verse I have already answered in my precedent discourse in this Treatise and also the necessity of my present occasion causeth me to study brevity Vers 22. What if God willing to shew his wrath and to make his power known indured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction Annot. In this verse we may understand the Apostle sheweth that God had been just if he had destroyed the Nation of the Jews long before for their rebellion but for these two causes God did suffer long The first is because he would make his power and wrath appear the more severe toward that rebellious people for our admonition and forewarning unto us And secondly that he might make known his mercy in a more larger manner and measure on that part of the house of Israel who did believe and fear before the Lord that they might say it was of his mercy that we were not consumed Obj. But if it be objected and said that the Text saith The vessels of wrath are fitted to destrustion Answ To which I answer and say That as the receiving and cherishing of the gracious motions of Gods Spirit it sits us or prepares us for glory even so the receiving of the motions of sin and cherishing of it fits us for destruction and thus one part of Israel was fitted for destruction by their receiving sin and Satan so as to be guided thereby and secondly so was the other part or remnant fitted or prepared for glory thorough the receiving the motions of the Spirit of Christ and being guided thereby the which as it sits for glory so at last it brings us to glory and so I passe to the next verse which is as followeth Vers 23. And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he had before prepared unto glory Annot. I having opened this verse before I shall passe it briefly saying that there is no soul that ever shall enjoy glory but such as are fitted for it in this life and that by the Lord. And secondly I say that such as perish have been strived with by the Spirit of God that thereby they might have been fit for glory but they would have none of his counsell for they desired not
tell the truth and what am I become your enemy because I tell you the truth receive fools gladly for as much as you are wise and remember there was a time in which you were a fool if you are yet grown wise And thirdly I am hot troubled because you call me Asse because an Asse is an innocent usefull creature and doth his master better service than a lasie slumbring Dogg that loveth to sleep and yet is greedy to seek gain at his quarters moreover I have once read that an Asse could see better than his Rider by which he reproved the folly of his Master but no more of this a word to the wise is sufficient but I shall try the next thing which is a question you ask say you Is not our Ordination good we had imposition of hands by the Ministers Answ It is not the imposition of hands in Ordination that I question but the lawfull subject who is to have hands laid on him and the lawful Presbyter and the like that is the thing which will be questioned in its time and place Page 27. And again whereas you say that It is in the Presbyters power and not in the Churches to appoint their Ministery for say you Paul left Titus in Creet to ordain Elders there and it is the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is used in Act. 7.10 where it is said the King of Aegypt did appoint Joseph Governour over Aegypt the which power say you was conceived to be in the King and not in the people To which I answer and say and first I know that a proud generation of men would willingly reign as Lords and would be masters to such as they ought to be servants to and exclude the Church in their Election or Ordination although they will not excuse the Church in donation so that one month in a year viz. harvest the Priest will make the people believe that he is their servant but eleven months he will be their master but this by digression and so to the matter which is you say It is in the Presbyters power and not the Church to appoint who shall be their Minister the reason is because say you Pharaoh did appoint Joseph to be Governour over Aegypt as supposed without the peoples consent and it is the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is used by Paul to Titus To which I answer what although the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Ordination or appointment will it therefore follow because it is supposed that Pharaoh an heathen King did appropriate such power and authority to himself as to appoint a Governour without the peoples consent that therefore Paul dâ—d license Titus so to do or did Paul appoint Titus to be a second Elius over the Church a very pretty comparison as you think or strong reason to prove that Titus did Lord it over the Church to appoint what Governours he pleased because Pharaoh the heathen King did so as it is supposed and know ye not what our blâ—sled Saviour saith That the Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them and they that be great exerciseth authority over them but it shall not be so amongst you but who so would be great amongst you Mar. 20.26 let him be your minister viz servant or under servant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Mat. 20 26 27. as from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he that will be chief amongst you let him be your servant From whence we may learn that Christ doth not appoint unlesse in Churches such authority to sit as Lords amongst them but to walk humlby and self-denyingly as to be an example to the flock and moreover we finde the Church of Antioch did ordain Paul and Barnabas by imposition of hands and yet no Presbyter there that I find neither was Paul and Barnabas called Apostles before they were ordained and indeed the power lyeth originally in the Church as faith our Saviour If thy brother sin against thee tell him of his fault between thee and him and if he refuse to hear thee then take another with thee and if he refuse to hear you tell the Church and if he neglect to hear the Church let him be as an heathen or a publicane for whatsoever ye binde on earth in the plurall number mark that shall be bound in heaven From whence we may see that the power lyeth originally in the Church Finally God hath appointed the Church as in reference to have officers for choice and approbation and the Presbyters to appoint by prayer and laying on of hands as for charge and designation and thus they are to go hand in hand in that work as may further appear from the Apostles words to the Church at Jerusalem saying Chuse out amongst your selves men of honest report whom we may appoint or give charge over that matter Act. 6.3 So then if he that is but to take care of the body must not be imposed on the Church without their choice much lesse may there be a man imposed on them which is to take care and watch over their souls without their choice and approbation I might say very much to this but I passe briefly to the next thing which is say you Although we were in Rome and came through it yet we are now separated from their Ceremonies Page 27. and walk according to the rule of Gods word and pray did not our Saviour come from Adam through sinful lines Answ To which I answer and say That whereas you say that although you came through Rome or were in Rome yet you are now separated from the ceremonies thereof to which I say I do believe that you are separated from some of Romes Ceremonieis as may be compared to Anise and Cummin and the like but the fundamentals you stil practice and uphold that is your Ordination is from them and you in your Ordination are made a petty Pope by them witnesse your absolution of sins Although you suppose that you are separated from Rome yet you stand in her authority and own her doctrine that is they in your Ordination appoint you to forgive men their sins they that doubt of the truth of this may read the Book of Ordination of the National Ministery the which will shew them the truth of what I have said and secondly you practice and uphold that Ceremony of Baby-Baptism which was confirmed by Pope Innocent the third as was granted by one that was better read in the Fathers as I verily judge than your self but this by the way for it is both in the Articles of your faith and your I evident that Infant-Baptism that you are not separated from Romes Ceremony for first you do declare in the Articles of your faith that Christ did descend into hell and some of you have cited the Text in Peter 1 Pet. 3 19. which saith he went and preached to the
what had he to do to meddle with Gods word or ordinances 〈◊〉 16. seeâ—he hated to be reformed and Siâ—s this was your Reverend Father in God and hence the Pope and you come to be so near kin that he hath given each of you a Livery that you might remember him this was your Lord Bishop and Reverend Father in God and your head Presbyter from whom you received your Ministerial Function and therefore no doubt as you think but your Ministery is likely to be very good But I remember that 〈◊〉 of yâ—u have changed your vizzard and are gotten into another shape of Ordination and instead of being made Ministers under or by authority of the Pope you now becove Ministers by authority of Parliament they O 〈◊〉 you or by authorizing some to do the work for them but know the Lord will try you ere long and sweep away your refuge and hiding place for he knoweth full wel that you are a time-serving people and seek honour of men and that his love is not in you But I passe this and come to the second thing which is your Office or work that you are given in change to do namely your forgiving men their sins the which you know is a great work enjoyned on you to do as in your charge and also I have heard your tribe contending for it and I do assure you it giveth such a sound or eccho as if it came frome the bottome of the Popes belly 〈…〉 person and therefore hath raught you in the Articles of the Creed to believe in the Church not in the Pope for the Romane Chatholick himself is scarce so had because although he doth say that the Pope may forgive sins and that his words are of great authority yet it is not impossibe for hâ—m to erre say they as he is a single person but he and his Council or Church considered together cannot erre So that infalibility is not concluded by them at all times to be in the Pope considered as a single person but considered as with the Church And therefore the Article of your Creed doth not teach you to believe in the Pope as a single person but doth teach you to believe in the Catholick Church that is the Church and Pope as considered together Therefore he that appropriates all to the Ministery is worse than a Papist except he believe none be of the Church but the Ministery And now to shew you that the power of Remission or retaining of sins lies in the Church and not in the Ministery singly considered as such And first I shall begin with your own cited text as by some of you which is read thus Joh. 20.19 20 21 22 23. Whosesoever sin ye remit they are remitted and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained In this Text we are to consider who the void YE respects whether the Church or Ministery the which is pain that the word YE respect the Church and not the Ministery unlesse we consider the among ther as the Church the first reason why I believe it 〈◊〉 the Church and not the Ministery is because there is no mention of the Ministery or Ministers but it is given to Disciples as such and therefore you have not the wâ—rd Ministery or Ministers read in the Original The power of binding and loosing is in the Church considered as such and not in the Ministery singly considered as such as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is Disciples as such and not Elders or Paltors or Apostles as such not that say that it is spoke to the Church exclusively so as to exclude the Ministery when they are considered together as a part of the Church neither do I say that there was not Ministers an ongst the Disciples at that time for I do believe that there was some of the eleaven but this is that which I say it was not given to them considered as Ministers or Apostles but that power of remitting or retaining of sins was given to them as considered a Congregation or Church of Disciples met or gathered together as such mark that and as it will appear in this Text considering the presidence so it will appear fully in my second Reason Mat. 18.1 18 19. which is gathered from the words of Christ in the Gospel of St. Matthew which saith Tell it to the Church and if they neglect to bear the Church let him be to thee as an heathen or publicane for whosoever YE viz. the Church binde on earth shall be bound in heaven Therefore faith the Apostle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. When YE viz the Church come together with my spirit and the power of the Lord Jesus deliver such an one to Satan shewing that the Church ought and had power to bind together with the Minister as considered a Church in order and as they had power to binde so they had power also to loose for saith Paul 2 Cot. 2.7 Sufficient is his sorrow Wherefore YE viz. the Church ought rather to forgive him and comfort him lest peradventure such an one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow From whence we may see that the power of binding and loosing lyeth originally in the Church as such and not in the Ministery singly as such bâ—â— being considered together they are an intire Church or a Church in intire order and so the power is committed to them and therefore God will not have any to be Lords over his heritage for he hath overthrown sâ—me of them already and ere long will trise and mightily shâ—ke the earth and then the Lord â—ill overturn overturn overturn the râ—sidue of them and make them as the chaff of the summer thrâ—shing floor and the whirl-wind of his wrath small scatter them so as their place shall not be found Obj. But if it should be objected and said That Christ gave the keyes of the kingdome to Peter Mat. 16.18 to binde and loose whom he pleased and therefore the power is committed to Ministers as such and not to the Church Ans To which I answer and say that where it is said Thou art Peter and upon this rock viz. the Son of God will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it viz the Son of God which was IT the rock and I will give unto thee viz the Church that is built on ME the rock the keyes of the Kingdom and whosoever thou viz the Church that is so bâ—â—t bind on earth shall he bound in heaven So then where the word is rendred thee and thou as if it were to Peter as a single person may respect the Church which is built upon that rock which indeed is considered but as one single Woman or Spouse they being but one body of whom Chist is the head And therefore in the metaphorical discourse of Christ and his Church in the Canticles he speaks to her as a single
is the power of God to salvation to Iews and Gentiles Rom. 1.16 To which I answer and say and first I hope no man will deny what the Gospel saith to be true I ever did affirm that the Gospel was the power of God to salvation to all that did believe it both of Iew and Gentile is it therefore of necessity that the whole house of Israel must believe and be converted by it I am sure the first chapter of the Romanes cited by you proves it not But secondly we konw that for Israels rebellion God gave them up to unbelief 1 Pet. 2.7 8 9 Mat 23 37 38. so that Christ and the Gospell was a stone of stumbling unto them and they not to see Christ viz believe in him untill the time mark that that they shall say blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord Mich. 5.1 2 3 4. and till she that travelleth bringeth forth then shall the remnant of his brethren return to the children of Israel and not the children of Israel to them but they shall remain in their unbelief untill they shall see him come in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory at that time saith the Lord I will pour out upon the house of David Zach. 12.8 9 10 11 12 13. and upon the inhabitants of Hierusalem the spirit of grace and supplication and they shall look upon him whom they have peirced and they shall mourn every family apart and the Apostle Paul is more plain Rom. 11.25 26 27 28 29. saying As touching the Gospel they are enemies implying that they would never believe in Christ through the means afforded them in the Gospel The house of Israel not converted by a Gospel-preaching but by the glorious appearance of the Lord Christ but their gifts and calling was to be as aforesaid without repentance and therefore Paul reasons on this wise as if he should have said you Gentiles be not ignorant of this that the Iews shall again be a glorious people and then sheweth them which way this great work should be brought to passe that is saith he although they be enemies and also will be as touching the Gospel yet saith he when Christ shall come in his glory to Hierusalem to plead for the disperced of Judah he will pour on them of his Spirit when they shall see him in his glory and they shall then say This is our God Isa 25.8 9. we have waited for him and then will he cleanse Iudah and Hierusalem from all their transgressions and this is the manner of the Iews conversion as is fully implyed by Pauls words to the Romanes which saith The Redeemer shall come to Zion and turn transgressions from Iacob for this is my Covenant when I take away their sinnes as for the Gospel they are enemies for your sake but touching election they are beloved for the fathers sake for the gifts and calling of God is without repentance From whence we may see that the house of Israel shall not be converted by a Gospel-preaching but by the glorious appearance of Christ the redeemer of Israel not that I deny that any of the Iews shall be converted by a Gospel preaching for there was some converted in the primitive time and possibly there may by some means some few be converted that way but that conversion that the Scripture makes mention of which is universal to the whole house of Israel shall not be a Goâ—â—el-preaching and so I passe to your second reason that you gave why the Iews shall be converted by a Gospel-preaching which is say you There is no other name given by which men may be saved but Iesus now the name Christ is conveyed to men in a Gospel Way To which I answer and say that it is true that there is no OTHER name given by which men may be saved but are â—one saved but such as know him through preaching and what if it be so that the wrath of God doth lye heavy upon the stubborn Iews I could say much to these things but I suppose any man may see that hath his eyes open that there is no strength of reason in this to prove that of necessity the Iews must be converted by a Gospel-preaching whom God hath appointed to be converted another way as I have proved namely by the Redeemers coming to Zion and restoring the kindome of Israel and raigning over the house of David upon his Throne in Hierusalem but I passe to your thâ—d and last reason to prove that they shall be converted by a Gospel-preaching for say you The Iews shall through our mercy obtain mercy Rom. 11.25 26 27 28. 29. This Scrpture calls the manner of the Jews conversion a mystery and saith that his Covenant is to take away their sins by Christs coming to Zion and turning transgression from Jacob and therefore not by Gospel preaching Rom. 11 31. To which I answer and say that to say the Iews shall obtain mercy is the truth but to say that that mercy is conversion by a Gospel preaching cannot be proved because God hath not promised to convert them that way but this is his way that he hath covenanted to take away their sins the Redeemer shall come to Zion as aforesaid and turn transgression from Iacob But a word or two to the Text it self which saith Thorough your mercy Isa 59.15 16 17 18 19 20 21. they shall obtain mercy This Text is expounded more plainer in the prophecy of Isaiah which sheweth that in the last daies godly men viz. believing Gentiles will become a prey to their enemies and that justice shall not be executed but the wicked mens will shall be their law and that violence and wickedness shall be committed by them towards the godly and also the Lord saw that the godly had no interceder or none to plead their cause at which he wondered for which cause he put on the garment of vengeance for cloathing and was clad with zeal as with a cloak and saith according to their deeds will I repay them and thus in our mercy they shal obtain mercy for when the Lord cometh thus forth of his holy habitation Every eye shall see him and they that peirced him shall admire and mourn at which time the spirit of prayer and supplication shall be poured upon them and they made a very glorious people and this is the way by which they shall come to believe and so through our mercy obtain mercy Read Rom. 11. Esa 59. 60. chap. and compare them And I passe to the next thing and by the way whereas you go about by way of argument to convince me Page 32. that it is lawful for the Jews to be tollerated to live in England I say in answer to it The Jews may be tolerated to live in England for ought I have against it but your tribe likes it not and I also think it will not conduce to
an Assyrian and also King of Babylon but that there is more meant in the Text than the destruction of any of the Babylonious Kings in foretime as you may see in the discours of the chapter considered with the 5. of Micha Again you say Page 31. That Antichrist is set out in a double form a Tyrant and a false Prophet and yet but one beast Answ Where you learned that lesson that the Beast and falce prophet was one and the same or one Beast I know not to before your cited place Rev 13.4 11.18 will not prove it but you may see they are not one and the same Beasts Read Syons Redemption you my see 〈…〉 why the Antichrist may not be understood to be the Romish Babylon for the answer is not valued to it But another beast rose out of the earth saith John v. 11 and in chap 10. v. 20. they are clearly distinguished into viz. a Beast and false Prophet which was subordinate to the Beast both these mark that Were taken alive and cast into the lake of fire and brimstone Hence your answer to my first reason why the Romish Babylon is not the Antichrist falls to the ground Curteous Reader peruse my Syons Redemption and you shall see the answer given to it not vallued with it Secondly you say That Antichrist shall confesse God and Christ in words Answ I pray when you write again inform me of whom you learned that the Antâ—christ would confesse God or Christ in words For as yet I never learned it from the Scriptures But I shall shew that Antichrist will never own Christ in words or works and it is a main property in Antichrist to deny Christ in words as well as in works as saith the Apostle John Who is a lyar but he that denieth Jesus to be the Christ The Antichrist will not confess Christ in words nor works as is clearly proved he is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God and this is the spirit of Antichrist for many deceivers are entred into the world who confesse not that Jesus Christ is come into the flesh this is a deceiver and an Antichrist From whence we may see the main property of the spirit of Antichrist to deny both in words and actions any other God or Christ save himself and this spirit was working in the Apostles time to bring forth that great design viz. the man of sin or the Antichrist as saith the Apostle Paul The mystery of iniquity doth already work 2 Thes 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 only he that letteth viz. the sixth Head will let till he be taken away then shall the wicked be revealed and oppose HIMSELF above all that is called God or worshipped so that he as God shall sit in the Temple of God shewing himself that he is God And Daniel saith that HE shall stand up against the Prince of PRINCES Dan. 8.23 24 25. Dan. 11.36 37 38. and do according to his will and shall exalt himsel fand magnifie himself above every God and shall speak mark that MARVELOVS THINGS AGAINST THE GOD of GODS From whence although more might be said we may see that the great ANTICHRIST will not deny God onely in works but also in words From whence your answer to my second Reason also falleth to the ground without remedy and so I passe to the next which is say you It is plain that the Pope shall not be destroyed untill the last day to the proof of which you cite 2 Thes 2.8 and Rev 19 20. knowing not what you say nor whereof you do affirm Answ I have already proved that HE viz. the Man of sin spoken of in the Tessalonians is the Antichrist and not the Woman which sate upon the scarlet coloured Beast Mystery Babylon and also that power or ten horns that shall support Antichrist shall totally destroy the Pope viz. Rome which is called by the name Whore and after that time Christ and his Army shall destroy the Man of sin and his Army Now that this is a clear truth I shall shew from two plain Texts of Scripture and first to the first that is that the Popes Kingdome shall be unterly destroyed by those that shâ—l uphold and give their power to the Antichrist read Rev. 17.16 17 18. And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the Beast these shall hate the Whore and shall make her desolate and naked and shall cat her flesh and burn her with fire for God hath put it into their hearts to fulfil his Will and to agree and give their kingdom to the Beast untill the word of God shall be fulfilled and the woman that thou sawest is the great City which reigneth over the Kings of the earth Hence we see that those Kings that shall give their power and Kingdoms to the Beist viz. the Antichrist shall utterly destroy Rome and burn her with fire The Pope and his Kingdome is to be destroyed by the Antichrist as is plainly proved insomuch as there shall not remain neither root nor branch Thus you have seen the Pope and his kingdome destroyed by the Beast or the ten horns which were upon the Beast and now in the second place I shall shew that the Beast and those Kings after this victory over Rome shall adventure another engagement and that is with the Son of man and his Army but then he come to hisend and none can help him with an universal destruction read Rev. 19.19 in these words And I saw the Beast and the Kings of the earth and their Armies gathered together to make war against him that sate on the Horse and against his Army and the Beast was taken and with him the false Prophet that wrought miracles before him with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the Beast and them that worshipped his Image not Jupiter these both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone and the remnant was stain with the sword of him that sate upon the Horse which sword proceeded out of his mouth and all the fowls were filled with their flesh This was the great sacrifice that the Lord had to sacrifice in Bozra and also the reaping of the earth spoken in Joel and also the Wine presse spoken of in the Apochalips Joel 3.11 12 13 14. Isa 59.16 17 18. ch 63.1 2 3 4 5 6. Ezek. 39.1 2 4 5. 17 18. Rev. 14.19 20. and he that wants further satisfaction as to this read my Syons Redemption although I might adde unto it if time in reference to other occasions would give me leave but I study brevity and thus having vindicated my reasons which proves that the Romish Babylon is not the Antichrist by shewing that Rome shall be destroyed by Antichrist namely by the ten Horns as his servants by his appointment and he to remain till