Scribes saw the wonderful things that he did and the Children crying in the Temple and saying Hosanna to the son of David they were sore displeased The word that is here translated Children is not the same word as in Acts 2.39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if we may believe our Lexicographers they tell us that in this very Text Matt. 21.15 it signifies a Boy or young Maid sometimes a Son and sometimes a Servant And we have an Instance in Mark 5.39 40 41 42. of a young Maid of 12 years of Age where the same word is rendred Damsel And straight-way the Damsel arose and walked for she was of the Age of twelve years Now had not her Age been recorded no doubt but Mr. H. would have insisted upon it that she was a little sucking Child because it 's said in ver 23. my little daughter But to proceed they also tell us it 's taken for a Maid-servant a Bond-woman as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Gal 4.22 30. speaking of Hagar after the birth of Ishmael Cast out the Bond-woman and her son Now in this place it 's impossible to prove Hagar a little sucking have and therefore I suppose he will not attempt it I hope the Reader will observe how I came to bâ—â—â—â—d to the use of this word by Mr. H. But the Reason why he quoted it I know not unless he took it for granted because he found Children in the English Bible it must needs be the same word in Greek which he may now find to be a mistake But I shall proceed to consider his other Text 1 Cor. 7.14 In 1 Cor. 7.14 the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Children nor will this Text do him any Service to prove what he brings it for because it 's often used for persons of grown years John 1.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sons of God He cannot suppose these to be little sucking Babes for that they had actually received Christ and believed on his Name The learned Leigh in his Critiea Sacra saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liberi often And besides what he saith upon John 1.12 He cites the use of it in Eph. 6.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is used there in the plural Number such as are begotten and born of them and being of the Neuter Gender doth include both Sexes Males and Females Sons and Daughters which agrees with those words Asts. 2.17 Your Sons and your Daughters shall prophesie Colos 3.20 Extenditur ad Filios Filias imò ad Nepotes It is extended to their Sons and Daughters yea as One hath it Nepotes vocant omnes posteros They call all their posterity by that name But not intending to use polixity in the handling of it take the plain words of my fore-named Author It is a general word which in Scripture and other writers is used to set forth all sorts of Children of what sex of what age of what degree soever they be To this I shall only add this brief Observation That those Exhortations spoken of in Eph. 6.1 and Colos 3.20 where it is written Châ—â—â—ren obey your Parents in the Lord c. must be intended such Children of grown years that were Members of the visible Church of Christ by Repentance Faith and Baptism because 't is such the Apostle directs his Epistles unto Eph. 1.1 To the saints which are at Ephesus and to the faithful in Christ Jesus And in Col. 1.2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Coloss Now these words cannot possibly be applied to little sucking Babes unto whom Mr. H. would have the use of the Word restrained Nay further where the Apostle John uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Filioli little Children which is the Diminutive of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no less than eight times in his first Epistle as 1 John 2.1 12 28. and 3.4 7 18. and 4.4 and 5.21 yet in none of those places doth he intend little sucking Babes for there are such things required of them which such Infants are not able to perform for in Chap. 2.1 They are exhorted not to sin c. Ver. 18. They had heard that Antichrist should come Ver. 28. They are exhorted to abide in Christ Chap. 3.7 Little Children let no man deceive you Ver. 18. not to Love in word and tongue but in deed and in truth Ver. 4 and 5. he tells them they knew that Christ was manifested to take away their Sins Ye have overcome c. 5.21 little Children keep your selves from Idols Now it 's evident to the meanest Capacity that little sucking Children cannot do all these things here spoken of and therefore are not at all intended in any of those places Now had Mr. H found the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Asts 2.39 as he did the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how would he have swaggered with it But the Apostle Peter knew better how to express the Mind of God in that place than Mr. H. doth to understand it Prejudice having blinded his Eyes For his other Reason that he gives that it is a Repetition of the grand Promise Gen. 17.7 I have answered that already and therefore I had thought to have said no more to that but finding him to return again to it in page 26. I shall endeavour fully to clear the Point before I leave it His Words are these Now to return to Acts 2.39 The promise is to you and to your Children I will conclude saith he in the words of Holy Mr. Rutherford Break saith he the Text into an hundred pieces and blood it as men please this is the genuine Thesis which cannot be neglected viz. That those to whom the promise of the Covenant belongs those should be baptised But the promise of the Covenant is to you and to your Children therefore you and your Children ought to be baptised Mr. H. doth not insist upon it however I shall give this Answer thereunto If Mr. Rutherford intended such of their Children that were the called of God by Repentance Faith and Baptism then the gift of the Holy Spirit belonged to them as well as to their Parents But if he doth not it is a heap of words without Reason or Truth or any proper Signification For here is by him neither Promise nor Covenant nor any thing plainly exprest For the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Berith is thus rendred a Covenant or mutual Paction so called from the Choice made of the Persons and Conditions in a Covenant Robertson's second Gate And as the learned Leigh in his Critica sacra saith Berith is Fadus pactum and quotes Ainsworth and Buxtorf for his Authority Quod â—â—â—us est ut Aben Ezra scribit mutuus consensus duorum super aliquare That a Covenant as Aben Ezra writes is a mutual Consent of two upon any matter And he further saith it signifieth both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Compact or
My God my God why hast thou forsaken me And what great torture some of the blessed Martyrs have endured is not unknown This therefore I take to be meaning of those words I will close this in the words of a Learned Protestant Writer J. G. I shall saith he say no more of this Baptism but only leave this Note That every suffering is not the Baptism of suffering but only great and deep sufferings unto blood and death Hence the Ancients call it the Baptism of Blood in opposition to a lesser degree or measure of suffering being dipped and plunged into afflictions So Wilson's Dictionary And still this carries the signification of the Word with it Some conceive this phrase to be borrowed from such places in the Old Testament as these Psal 42.7 Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy water spouts all thy waves and thy billows are gone over me Psal 69.1 2. Save me O God for the waters are come in unto my Soul I sink in deep mire where there is no standing I am come into deep waters where the floods overflow me Psal 88.7 Thy wrath lyeth hard upon me and thou hast afflicted me with all thy waves Selah Ezekiel 26.19 For thus saith the Lord God when I shall make thee a desolate City like the Cities that are not inhabited when I shall bring up the deep upon thee and great waters shall cover thee In the next place Mr. H. proceeds to speak of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and of Fire for which he cites Mat. 3.11 He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire Now I perceive Mr. H. is as much mistaken in the true Notion about this Baptism as he is in the other two and indeed 't is common for one Error to follow another at the heels What need therefore have Christians in general and more especially those that are Ministers who are Guides to others to be very cautious of admitting any thing for truth but what they have good Authority for from the Word of God The Lord pour out of his Spirit to give us more light and to make us all sincere I find by his citing these Texts in Isa 52.15 Ezek. 36.25 and Heb. 10.22 that it is his Opinon That Regeneration wrought in the Soul by the Spirit is the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and of Fire For saith he the giving of the Spirit is expressed by sprinkling Now for my part I am quite of another mind for as I do not believe that any were baptized with that Baptism from the beginning of the World to the coming of the Messiah so neither do I think that any have been baptized with it since the miraculous Gifts of the Spirit did cease after the Apostle's days And to make it appear that it 's more than only the sanctifying Graces of the Spirit I might recite the Opinions of divers learned Men I shall content my self with what is already prepared to my Hand by a Learned Pen whose Words are these That this Phrase hath a further meaning in it see Wilson's Dictionary Also the Learned Cameron and Dr. Hammond on this place viz. Mat. 3.11 who both refer and that rightly this for the further opening of it unto Acts 2.3 4. There appeared unto them cloven Tongues like as of fire and it sat upon each of them and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other Tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance So that this Baptism of Fire hath clearly reference unto and was fulfilled in this extraordinary appearance of the Spirit like as of fire That this was the Baptism of the Spirit promised Mat. 3. and Luke 3. appears further by Acts 1.4 5. The Apostles being assembled together Christ commanded them that they should not depart from Hierusalem but wait for the promise of the Father which saith he ye have heard of me For John truly baptized with water but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence Which was accordingly fulfilled Acts 2. See also Acts 11.15 16. the Case of Cornelius as reported by Peter As I began to speak the Holy Spirit fell on them as on us at the beginning viz. in Acts 2. before-mentioned Then remembred I the Word of the Lord how that he said John indeed baptized with water but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit This Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Fire is first called a pouring out of the Spirit in the Old as in Joel 2.28 29. and the Baptism thereof in the New Testament Acts 2. as borrowing its phrase from the Baptism of Water Mat. 3.11 still carrying the signification of the word with it both terms to wit a pouring forth of the Spirit and Baptism in opposition to a sprinkling or dropping of the Spirit in the ordinary measures thereof Moreover The account we have of it Acts 2.2 proves it And suddenly there came a sound from Heaven as of à rushing mighty wind and it filled all the house where they were sitting And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire and it sat upon each of them and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost c. From whence I observe the resemblance it had to the Baptism of Water For 1. They were filled with it 2. It sat upon each of them 3. The House was filled therewith So that it was not only about them but it covered or overwhelm'd them even as the water doth in Baptism 4. All that were baptized with this Baptism had the Gift of Tongues 5. It is to be observed that the Spirit was not thus given before For they were all amazed at it and said one to another what meaneth this Ver. 12. and this did agree with that promise of our Saviour John 7.37 c. This spake he of the Spirit which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified From hence I infer It could not be the ordinary Gifts of the Spirit with the sanctifying Graces thereof for this the Apostle had before his death but such an eminent pouring forth which is called the Baptism of the Spirit by which they received the Gift of Tongues and Prophesie by which they were endued with power from on high to execute their Masters Commission Mat. 28.19 20. Mark 16.15 To go into all the World and preach the Gospel to every Creature This they did not receive till that wonderful pouring of it out upon the day of Pentecost Acts 2. it was a Gift reserved till that time to put a Glory upon the Messiah in the presence of those who had been his Murderers By this time I hope Mr. H. is satisfied of his Ignorance about points of such Importance as these are I wish with all my Soul that he were a Man of that meekness of Spirit which he ought to be so as to be willing to learn the truth as it
from Gen. 1.1 when according to his own Assertion all true Believers are in the Covenant of Grace and so are the Elect of God in a true and proper sence and the fit subjects of Baptism And if he would himself who is yet an unbaptized person truly believe and be baptized and by a Gift from Christ did once become a Teacher in the true visible Church he might then baptise penitent Believers upon a foundation that himself acknowledges to be good and warrantable from the practice of the Apostles But for his baptizing Infants as he hath no authority for it from the Word of God so by his own Confession he hath no Foundation for it as they are in Covenant because he doth not know they are so But 2dly He saith page 7. That all Infants of such believing parents i. e. External and Visible Professors are in the Covenant of Grace and have as much a right to Baptism the Now Seal of the Covenant as the Infants of the Jews had to Circumcision the then Seal of the Covenant And saith This is the principal thing designed from this Text meaning Gen. 17.7 c. Well if it be so it shall be considered but I pray who told him these things he hath so boldly asserted For in the first place If all Infants are not within the Covenant of Grace how comes it about that all the Infants of such believing Parents qua talis are in that Covenant Hath he not forgot what he wrote in the very Page before That the Covenant of Grace is God's gracious Promise of delivering from a state of Sin and Death and bringing into a state of Salvation by Jesus Christ all that by faith fly to and lay hold on him and could it enter into his imagination that little Infants can by faith fly to and lay hold on Christ And if they cannot then it 's plain this Gentleman hath been guilty of a Self-contradiction from which he can no ways extricate himself Mr. Collins had given him sufficient notice of it by saying surely the Gentleman hath forgot himself in the Definition of the Covenant of Grace and hath sufficiently confuted this Assertion but I find it 's as yet a Work he cares not to undertake to recant his Errors when he is detected for them But 2ly How doth he know that Infants have as much a right to Baptism now as the Infants of the Jews had to Circumcision He gives us neither Reason Argument nor Scripture in this place to prove it and therefore we must consider it our selves All the Answer I think needful to give is this Infants were commanded by God to be circumcised Gen. 17.10 Every man-child among you shall be circumcised Ver. 12. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised And the particular Direction is given Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin Here you see is the Command of God both for the Work it self the Subject upon whom and the time when it was to be performed So that God's Command gave Infants then a right to Circumcision Now let but Mr. H. shew us any such Command in all the Scriptures for the baptizing of Infants and we will thank him for we never yet could find it in all the Book of God And till he doth we have no reason to believe what he so confidently asserts to be true But 3ly Mr. H. asserts That Baptism is the now Seal of the Covenant I know not how he will prove it for I am sure it 's an unscriptural Notion For the Holy Scripture doth no where tell us that Baptism is the seal of the Covenant but hath plainly told us that Christians were sealed with the holy Spirit Ephes 1.13 14. After that ye believed ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of Promise which is the earnest of our Inheritance And I will rather believe the Apostle Paul than Mr. H. And this leads me to consider what he hath asserted in his first Chapter Part 1. CHAP. III. HAving in the former Chapter confuted those Arguments he hath brought from Gen. 17. to prove Infants Baptism I come now to consider his five introductory Considerations which he saith are very needful for the right understanding the Controversy of Infant-baptism 1. He saith That a Doctrine or Practice may be proved to be of God two ways 1. By the express Words of Scripture 2. Or from evident Consequences drawn from Scripture As to the first It is a great Truth And thus we can prove our Practice of Believers Baptism with all the Perspicuity imaginable as I shall make appear when I come to treat of that Subject Therefore he must from his own Rule acknowledge that our Practice therein is of God But I am sure he is conscious to himself that the Practice of Infant-baptism cannot be proved by the express Words of Scripture because he finds fault with us for urging them to it in Page 10. where he brings us in saying bring us a plain Text and we will believe it and represents it as an unreasonable Demand But if his Passion hath not so far transported him as to make him forget what Subject-matter he is treating of he might have forborn those Reflections against us For I do affirm that Baptism is a part of Instituted Worship and therefore whilst he pretends to practice Infant-baptism he is obliged to shew us where it is expresly commanded in the Word of God or otherwise how does he know it is the Will of God that it should be practised at all For all Instituted Worship hath its Foundation only in the Will of the Law-giver as he hath revealed it unto us and unless he hath found out some other Rule of Faith and Practice besides the Word of God he is bound to submit himself to the Authority thereof in the Determination of this Controversy To the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this Word it is because there is no light in them Isa 8.20 2. He endeavours to perswade us That evident Consequences drawn from Scripture are sufficient I might deny this in the Point under Consideration because Baptism is a part of Instituted Worship For altho' this may be true about speculative Points in Divinity it is no necessary Consequence it must be so in positive Duties But I will not insist upon it but for Arguments sake allow it to be true And therefore let him proceed as soon as he pleases to prove the Baptism of Infants an Ordinance of God by evident Confequences drawn from Scripture and I will allow it As for his second Observation it is applicable to himself and not to us and therefore I shall leave it at his own door 3. He saith Those Doctrines which were clearly revealed and fully consirmed in the Old Testament tho' little or nothing be said of them in the Now Testament and were never repealed are yet to be owned received and believed as if much had been said of them in the
A VINDICATION OF THE Baptized Churches From the Calumnies of Mr. MICHAEL HARRISON Of Potters-Pury in Northampton-shire Being an Answer to his two Books Intituled Infant Baptism God's Ordinance By WILLIAM RVSSEL M.D. A Lover of Primitive Christianity None of old were wont to be Baptized but in a grown Age and such as desired it Ludovic Viv. de Civit. Dei lib. 1. Cap. 27. Baptizing of Children was not in use in Paul's time Erassmus on the Romans There 〈…〉 such thing as Sprinkling used in Baptism in the Apoâ—â—â—â—…s time nor many Ages after them Mr. Mede on Titus 3.5 The Baptism of Infants hath not been practised in England for about sixty Years Infant Rantism being introduced in the room thereof Why therefore should Mr. Harrison revive an Abdicated Controversie and force his Discourse upon us about a Non-entity For having laid aside the Commandment of God ye hold the Tradition of men making the Word of God of none effect Mark 7.8 13. LONDON Printed for the Author in the Year 1697. THE EPISTLE TO THE READER Christian Reader OUr real Purpose and Design in presenting this small Epistle to thy View and serious Consideration is to satisfie all who patiently wait for the glorious appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ and all who have perused that scandalous Pamphlet set forth by Mr. Michael Harrison of Potters Pury But especially to the satisfying of all poor Souls who may be dissatisfyed inhabiting in and about Stony Stratford Yardly Gubbin Potters Pury Pauls-Pury and elsewhere and also to clear our selves from all those uncharitable Reflections and scandalous Aspersions which Mr. Harrison hath ungratefully given forth against us who are falsly called Anabaptists Therefore seeing the Cause of God lye at stake and his Holy Truth defamed can do no less than endeavour to clear our selves and Vindicate our Lord and Master's Cause owned by Us and held forth in Holy Writ That we are no Disturbers of the Publick Peace but endeavour to live in Love and to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace is very well known to some of you And that we are not either envious or troublesome in Matters of Religion wherein we are obliged to excel in Love and Virtue which may evidently appear in our Carriage towards Mr. Harrison when first he came into these parts who more ready to Vindicate him and to stop the Mouths of them that reproachfully defamed him than we have been But Mr. Harrison Ahab like 1 Kings 18.17 retorteth on us as though we were the Troublers of Israel when he at the same time is setting up his Posts by God's Posts and Contemning our Lord and Saviour's own Ordinance and Appointment and instead thereof sets up Will-worship and Humane Tradition as the Common-Prayer-Book declares they doubt not but that God favourably allows this Charitable Work of theirs in bringing Infants to Holy Baptism Do but Observe the Words and how plainly they are laid down then any Unprejudiced Man may see how Mr. Harrison Contradicts the Church of which he was a Minister so many Years But what is that and many more of his sayings but to darken Counsel by Words without Knowledge Job 38.2 But he hath Confidence enough when he thinks to prove Infants Baptism to be God's Ordinance in a Book of a Groat whenas his Predecessors with all their Study and Pains could not do it with all their great Volumes But Christian Reader that thou mayest be informed of those Ignorant or Wilful Abuses Mr. Harrison throws upon us and how he Contradicts himself like Mr. Baxter whose Arguments are his Proof and his Reflections his Arrows which he shoots furiously at his despised Neighbours beyond the Rule of Christianity yea of Civility But that thou mayest know whether Mr. Harrison's Heart and Tougue goes together consider these following Particulars First That he asserts from the Pulpit and the Press in his Printed Book that our Way of Baptizing over Head in Water is not lawful but a heinons sin and after this Book was printed and published Mr. Harrison confessed and declared in the presence of many he did believe and allow our way of Baptizing to be lawful and warrantable by the Word of God Secondly Mr. Harrison declared in his own House in Potters-Pury in the presence of us and many others That God's Decree was before his Foreknowledge Herein we hope his Fallacy will plainly appear to the World as it doth in many more of his Assertions which you may see viz. when he saith That God hath from all Eternity decreed a particular number of Mankind to be unavoidably damned and leaveth them without any Means of Mercy or Hopes of Recovery And further he adds That Christ never dyed for them But these things being so Erroneous in the Eyes of most Christian People he would fain cover his Opinion with applause viz. That Christ dyed not for all alike contrary to his former Assertions Thirdly Mr. Harrison hath greatly defamed the Works of Mr. Henry Danvers in his last Book and since that same Book was Published Mr. Harrison hath declared publickly that he had never seen any Book of Mr. Danvers's Writings which is admirable that he which pretends so much Honesty and Civility should abuse a Man of so much Wisdom Larning Honesty Sobriety and Holy Conversation though now deceased and yet to confess he knew him not nor his Writings all which shews his Prejudice against the Truth And many more things he hath unjustly charged against us but not being willing to burthen the Impartial Reader nor tire your Patience with Mr. Harrison's Book which is so full of Contradiction to his own Confession at other times and therefore we shall not particularize that which is so full of Errors but shall commit the following Treatise to your Perusal So Christian Readers Desiring your Christian Consideration and wishing God may be pleased to give you a Discerning Spirit to discern between Truth and Error and to weigh all things herein by the Word of Truth so wishing all good Success to your Holy Progress and that ye may go on in Holiness and be Happy here and Eternally hereafter is the Desire of us who are and desire to remain Servants to all in the Bond of the Gospel George Boulton John Brittain jun. William Wright THE AUTHOR TO THE READER Courteous Reader IT is my unhappy Lot at this time to be engaged with Mr. Michael Harrison in this Controversie Not spontaneously but by the Importunity of others The Cause I am engaged in is good not only as it is Causa Dei but also as it is in the just Defence of his people from those invidious Calumnies he hath thrown upon them All Men esteem a Defensive War lawful because it 's to preserve themselves in their own just Rights Mr. Harrison hath dealt by the Baptists as the French King hath by the Potentates and People of Europe entered into a War against them who did him no Injury but lived in Peace and
And not as now perpetuating Controversies and of widening and imbittering them No Debates saith one have been managed with that bitterness no Questions debated with that virulence as the Theological When will Divlnes be ashamed of sacrificing of their Charity to their Passions that is to the sensual and brutal part of our Natures The Tartars manage their Wars with less Cruelty than the Clergy For saith he there is neither Measure nor End of our Reproaches and Infamations I beseech you Sir consider these things and if you are not satisfied about the Controversie depending if you please to acquaint me with any particular doubt about it so you do it in the spirit of Meekness I shall endeavour to give you all reasonable satisfaction For in short the best Expedient I can think of to promote Knowledge is that we argue all our Religious Controversies with that Spirit of Charity and Tenderness and of deference towards our Opposites which the Gospel we preach to others more especially obiiges us to Then may we expect a Blessing from the Lord in such Pious and Charltable Procedures I shall add no more but subscribe my self as in Duty bound A Sincere Lover of your Soul W. R. A VINDICATION OF THE Baptized Churches BEfore an Artificer can build a new House in the room of an old one that is fallen down he must first clear away all the Rubbish that he may lay a new Foundation That Rubbish of Railery and Abusive Language with which I perceive Mr. Michael Harrison hath lined his Mouth in his Pulpit and has stuffed his Book in print for he tells us in his Epistle to his first Book that he was first put upon preaching upon that Subject and afterwards consented to the printing of it I intend to remove before I speak any thing to his Book CHAP. I. IN the Epistle of his first Book he charges us with Erroneous Doctrines that we are like pricking Briars and wounding Thorns Those wild and Erroneous Doctrines broached by the Anabaptists have been a perpetual Vexation and Trouble The confident repeated Challenges the restless Insinuations of the Anabaptists Their various Attempts to ensnare and draw away my Hearers to their own way They are a sort of restless People with great Indignation spurning at Infant-Baptism They tempt you to be cruel to the Children of your own Bowels setting them among Pagans and Infidels They are the Enemy of Infants The Doctrine of the Anabaptists makes all Infants to be of the visible Kingdom of Satan and leaves us no well-grounded Hope of the Salvation of any dying in Infancy and is therefore to be justly abhorred as false Doctrine Then it seems by his Doctrine that Baptism doth it self regenerate Infants in his Understanding and translate them out of the Kingdom of the Devil into the Kingdom of Christ This is plain downright Popery and abhorred by the Protestants as false Doctrine But he goes on with his Railery for want of Argument What barbarous usage is this to poor Infants the Anabaptists perversely thrust them away from Christ and from his Church set them among Pagans and Infidels who are of the visible Kingdom of the Devil But in the same page he tells us That the Anabaptists do not assert the damnation of all Infants dying in Infancy but on the direct contrary they assert the certain Salvation of all Infants Why then doth he charge it upon them Poor Man I pity him for his Ignorance in Divinity We have many Inferionr Mechanicks in our City of Londou that blessed be God understand the mind and meaning of the Spirit of God in the Holy Scriptures better than he And there is another unhappiness attends the poor man he hath so lately changed his Religion from Episcopacy to Presbytery that he is not well instructed in the Presbyterian Doctrines but began to write too soon before he knew what they held or what himself was talking of I am ashamed to think that a man should print himself a Minister of the Gospel and should know so little of the Gospel Church-state if all his Knowledge be suitable to what he writes in his two Books But he proceeds Erroneous Doctrine Weak Anabaptists Their Children are ignorantly and bruitishly brought up live and dye Pagans It 's a false and dangerous Doctrine They wilfully shut their Eyes They do it with much scorn and contempt They are guilty of a plain breach of the sixth Commandment Thou shalt not kill Dipping Persons in water is a most heinous Sin is a plain breach of the sixth Commandment Thou shalt not kill Observe what Tautologies the poor man is guilty of Dipping in cold water tends to the taking away of Life many have contracted such Distempers that have hastened their Deaths thereby therefore the so doing is a great sin But the contrary to this is true that divers have recovered of their Diseases upon their being baptized Ergo. Mr. Michael Harrison's assertion is a great untruth great malice and a great sin And herein he imitates the Devil who was a Lyar from the beginning and is the false accuser of the Brethren If this Charge be true that we are guilty of Murder why hath not he or some of his horrid lying Authors accused us to the Magistrate that Justice might have been executed upon us as murderers But I am confident he doth not believe himself but writes directly against his Knowledge and Conscience I never had to do with such a scurrilous foul mouthed Author in Divinity in all my life and I am heartily sorry he hath so foolishly offered me this occasion for it 's very contrary to my Genius to render railing for railing All this Rubbish is in his first Book of a Groat price But in his 2d Book as he begins with a known untruth in the Frontispiece Infant-Baptism God's Ordinance when he knows it is not so much as mentioned in all the Holy Scripture so he exceeds all bounds in his railing and abusive Language in this 2d part For in the Title Page you have these Words Anabaptists plea of Antiquity a meer untruth A Rebuke of their several Erroneous Opinions An Answer to several Scandalous and Erroneous Papers put out by the Anabaptists c. In his Epistle the Anabaptists have been exeeeding troublesome to all our Reformers Hardned the Churches Enemies hindred the Reformation Bitter Enemies to the Work of God Have most maliciously charged me with preaching Popish Doctrine Malicious Slander Betrayed their Weakness and Ignorance Are a People strangely alienated from the Spirit of the Gospel They have an Hatred and Opposuition to all Christian Churches and look on all others to be Pagans Then he falls upon abusing Mr. Collins who hath together with that faithful and eminently learned Minister of Christ Mr. Claridge sufficiently answered his first Book Which Answer he saith is so weak it scarcely deserves any reply And saith He is a weak unthinking man foul and unchristian Carriage and then he quotes one Mence for
New Testament And presently after he tells us This is the case of Infant-baptism Well Sir If you will prove that Infant baptism was clearly revealed and fully confirmed to be an Ordinance of God and our duty to practise it in Gospel-days by the Scriptures of the Old Testament I am contented But pray be pleased to shew us that revelation and confirmation that we may be satisfied it is so For I never read of Infants-baptism as yet in all the Old Testament and I believe there is as little mention made of it in the New But 4ly You say those Doctrines which were once throughly settled in the Old Testament and never called in question by any in the New there was no occasion given to speak of them again If this be ad rem there are then two things signified thereby 1. That there was no occasion given to speak of Infant baptism in the New Testament And I am certain if there were it was wholly omitted for there is no mention made of it in the least 2. That it was a Doctrine throughly settled in the Old Testament If this be true Why doth he not prove it by shewing us where it is so written If he cannot let him acknowledge his Mistake As for what he speaks in his fifth consideration That Doctrine may be very clear the Scriptures brought to prove and the Argument thence deduced clear and convincing and yet it may remain dark to one that is uncapable of discerning it This I allow to be true And if there were no other Instance to be given of it besides Mr. Harrison himself may be given in evidence For notwithstanding the express Evidence from Scripture that multitudes of Believers were baptised by dipping in the Apostles days as I shall prove in due place yet by reason of those Catarrachs of Ignorance that have blinded the Eyes of his Mind he is uncapable of discerning it for in Pag. 48. he saith It was never yet proved that persons were then dipped And on the contrary a thing that is never mentioned at all in Scripture viz. infant-Infant-baptism That he saith is as clear to him as the Doctrines of the Trinity the Divine Nature of Christ Justification by imputed Righteousness c. Now this gives occasion to fear that he is yet but a natural man because such a one perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned And therefore He that is not as yet of the number of the Illuminati would do well to put himself into the number of the Catechumeni that he might be instructed in the way of God more perfectly CHAP. IV. Being an Answer to what Mr. M. H. saith upon Acts 2.39 For the Promise is to you and to your Children c. I Shall endeavour to give you the true Scope of the place and then return an Answer to Mr. H's Allegations The Apostle Peter having convinced the Jews That the same Jesus whom they had crucified was both Lord and Christ they being pricked in their Hearts cryed out Men and Brethren what shall we do Peter's Answer is Repent and be Baptised every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ This is the duty for the remission of Sins that was the end proposed and the thing they wanted The promise follows in these words And ye shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost For the promise i. e. of the Gift of the Holy Ghost is to you and to your Children c. By Children here is meant their posterity who if they did also perform those conditions of Repentance Faith and Baptism they also should receive the gift of the Holy Ghost Moreover there being Gentiles also his present Auditors he adds The promise is to all that are afar off meaning the Gentiles And to let them know he intended no other mathod for their children than what he proposed unto them he restrains it to Believers only Even as many as the Lord our God shall call If any should fancy that Baptism is intended in the promise and so apply it to little children that cannot be because Baptism is not a Promise but a Command and so there can be no Pretence for Infant baptism from this Promise And Mr. H. being aware of that he hath found out a New Invention for he tells us 't is the promise of God to Abraham Gen. 17.7 which therefore contains a plain precept for the baptizing of Infants I was in hopes I might have finished what was needful to be said upon Gen. 17. before but I see Mr. H. builds his whole Superstructure upon it and therefore I must say something further to it Notwithstanding Mr. H. Collins hath sufficiently confuted what he saith but it seems he hath not yet attained to that discretion to know when he is fully answered 1. Therefore I shall shew that Canaan-Land with those External Blessings that accompanied them in the possession thereof is the great promise in that place by him cited Gen. 17. 2. I do affirm and I think the proof I have given for it already may be sufficient satisfaction to any reasonable man that the Covenant in Gen. 17. is that of Circumcision and not the Covenant of Grace and then his Interpretation of this promise Acts 2.39 is wholly groundless As touching the first whoever will please to read Gen. 17. will find beside the Promise of a numerous Off-spring that of Canaan particularly exprest ver 8. And I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a stranger all the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession and I will be their God I will give you the Words of a late Learned Protestant upon the place he tells us That this Covenant is said to be an everlasting Covenant in the same sence as Canaan is said to to be an everlasting possession there is therefore no more reason to conclude from this term that the Covenant of Circumcision was directly and properly a covenant of spiritual and eternal blessings than there is to affirm that the Land of Canaan and the good things thereof were a spiritual and eternal Inheritance And God's promising to be their God denotes only his engaging himself to make good the promises contained in that Covenant As for his pretended Reasons they vanish of themselves because they are built upon a false Notion that the covenant of circumcision is the Covenant of Grace which I have already disproved And he may as well affirm that all Believers and their Children have a promise in Acts 2.39 to possess the Land of Canaan whether they be Jews or Gentiles as to tell us That promise the Apostle here speaks of must be that promise to which he saith Circumcision was the Seal under the former dispensation I am troubled to think that Mr. Harrison should trifle thus about sacred things and endeavour to deceive his Reader by perswading him that the covenant of circumcision is yet
it for he hath written two Books already and not one Argument in either of them that concludes the thing in Question And to tell you my Thoughts upon it I am of Opinion if he should write a hundred Books it will be still the same for he hath run over nine Arguments twice to no purpose For there is nothing of the Point in question inferr'd in any of them And I know the Reason It is not simply for want of Parts and Learning but for want of Matter for that which is not cannot be proved to be but Infant-baptism is not an Ordinance of God and therefore it cannot be proved so to be And whereas he doth allow he cannot shew us a Command for it by abusing us for but demanding it of him I am sure his Attempt to prove that to be an Ordinance of God by Consequence only when he hath granted there is no express Command is too great a Task for him ever to perform And if he would take my Advice I would not have him so much as attempt it any more because it 's imâ—ossible to be done But why doth Mr. H. tell us Baptism is a Seal of the New Covenant If it be his Arguments are all out of doors for a Seal is not to be set to a Blank as it must be if applied to Infants Besides he is mistaken in the whole of his Position for Circumcision is only said to be a seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham and not to the rest of his Posterity Rom. 4.9 Faith is reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness And in the 10th Verse he tells us it was before he was circumcised But in Ver. 11. he received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe tho' they be not circumcised that Righteousness might be imputed unto them also This is the only Text that I find the Word is used in as applied to Circumcision and here it is restrained to Abraham only and not applied to any other Person whatsoever I do think therefore it was an unwary Expression of Mr. H. to make Circumcision a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under the Law to all circumcised Infants when it 's applied by Paul to Abraham only and not to any one of his Posterity Nor could it be because it was to him as a Seal of that Promise that he should be the Father of all Believers which could not be true of Individuals nor of any other but himself it being commanded to them for other Ends. As for his calling Baptism a Seal of the New Covenant I must say the same of it as of the other For 1. It is no where called so in all the Holy Scripture and therefore no metaphorical Use to be made of it 2. The Holy Scriptures do tell us 〈◊〉 other thing that is the Seal of the New and everlasting Covenant wherewith Believers are sealed under the Gospel and that is the Holy Spirit 2 Cor. 1.21 22. Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ and hath anointed us is God who hath also sealed us and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts Ephes 1.13 After ye believed ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of Promise Ephes 4.30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God whereby ye are sealed unto the day of Redemption The Learned Dr. Cox upon these words Rom. 4.11 saith It is Genitivus Speciei as when we read the City of Jerusalem for the City Jerusalem and the like For we read not saith he that any other Ordinance No not Baptism is so called in Scripture but in the New Testament the sealing of Believers is attributed to the Holy Ghost For it is not possible to conceive that Circumcision should be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith c. to one that never had Faith And it is equally absurd to say that Circumcision was a Seal unto all its Subjects of the Righteousness of Faith which they had while uncircumcised as to affirm that it was the Seal of a paternal relation to all Believers unto every one that received it And I hope this Gentleman will allow me to say that it 's more absurd now under the Gospel wherein all the Children of the Covenant are to be taught of God and all of them to know God that any should affirm that Baptism is a Seal to Infants who have no Faith at all neither in Habit nor in Act espeeially seeing it 's no where called so in the Holy Scriptures If men â—â—â—ough the Lightness and Vanity of their Minds must needs play with metaphorical Expressions in Scripture yet I know not how they should have a liberty to impose words upon us as Mr. H. doth which are not at any time nor in any place so much as mentioned This is our Case Mr. H. will have Baptism called the Seal of the Covenant we will not allow it him because it 's no where so called in Scripture But suppose we should it would ruine his beloved Cause for then it could be administred to none but such who are true Believers But before Mr. H. goes any further he proposes this Question Who we are to understand by the Children in the Text viz. Acts. 2 39. His Answer is No doubt but they are the very same which in Gen. 17 are called Seed The Reason he gives for it is from the Etymology of the Greek word there used The Word saith he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for little sucking Babes Matt. 21.18 and 1 Cor. 7.14 How he came to give us this sence of the Word so contrary to the Scope of the place I know not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the singular is rendred thus by a late famous Grecian A Child an Off-spring and in the plural a numerous Off-spring In the 2d Epistle of John Ver. 1. he uses the same Words as in Acts 2.39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The elder unto the elect Lady and her Children Here it 's rendred Children as it is in Acts. 2.39 but not little sucking Babes For you have their Character given in Ver. 4. I rejoyced greatly that I found of thy Children walking in truth as we have received a commandment from the Father And he writes to her and them in the plural to look-to themselves and to 〈◊〉 false Teachers c. And in the last Verse 〈◊〉 saith The Children of thy Elect Sister greet thee Now these things can no ways agree with Mr. H's little sucking Babes And he hath every whit as much Reason to give this sence of the word here as in Acts 2.39 it being the same Word But let us examine his other two Texts In Matt. 21.18 Now in the morning as he returnned into the City he hungred This I am sure hath neither the word nor thing he intends But I suppose he intended the 15th Verse And when the chief Priests and
So that the main design of the Apostle among other Mercies of God bestowed upon that People is to commemorate that great and wonderful deliverance at the Red Sea and then to shew us what an ungrateful People they were thus to sin against him and to cause him for their sins to destroy them in the Wilderness And if this be the Scope of the place as I believe it is that so we might be warned by their fall to avoid falling into Apostacy against God as they did and had our translators so rendred the word as it imports in our English Tongue no Man would ever have dreamt of an Ordinance of Baptism from this Text. If notwithstanding all that I have said upon the Text Mr. H. will still insist upon it that it was a Baptism and that by sprinkling I shall oppose thereto the Dutch Translators to shew him their Opinion to the contrary who being Presbyterians their words may possibly have the greater force upon his Understanding They read it thus Ende alle in Mosen gedoopt Zin And they were all dipt unto Moses So that you may see the Learned Men in Holland of his own perswasion do directly contradict what he saith I will only offer one Consideration more and so pass it viz. That by the same Argument that in the word all their Infants were included their Cattle were included also for they all passed under the Cloud and thro' the Sea as well as their Little Ones for it is written Exod 10.26 Our Cattle also shall go with us there shall not a hoof be lest behind And altho' the Papists are for baptizing of Bells I hope Mr. H. will not be also for baptizing of Cattle even the Beasts of the field But let him avoid the consequence if he can in case it be not restrained to the Fathers as in the Text. The next thing Mr. H. insists upon is That there are three sorts of Baptism that of Water that of the Spirit and that of Afflictions to which I concede And whereas he saith it 's expressed by one Greek Word I do also agree but that those three as he saith are but one Baptism that I deny He is the first that I ever knew affirm it But pray Sir consider what you say Is Water the Spirit and Fire Is Affliction the Spirit or Water Affliction or Fire Water Take it which way you will I believe you will find it attended with difficulties Indeed Sir it 's one of the most intricate Metaphors that you have yet sported your self with in your whole Book and if you understand it no better than I do you might have forbore to acquaint the World with the conceited fineness of the thought But Sir I suppose I may have the same liberty to give you my thoughts as you had to impart yours The Text you have brought to prove that these three Baptisms are but one and exprest by one word is Eph. 4.5 One Lord one Faith one Baptism How this proves that those three Baptisms are but one Baptism I see not Sir you are very unhappy in one thing to lay down Assertions and when you come to prove it you urge such Texts that do not conclude the thing in Question but altho' this doth not prove three to be one and so afford us a new sort of Trinity I will not be so ungentile as not to give you my thoughts upon the Text before I pass it There is a threefold Baptism spoken of in the New Testament viz. That of Water that of Affliction and that of the Spirit and yet the Apostle here speaks after this manner one Baptism as there is one Lord one God c. Now my thoughts are these That it is Water-baptism only that is here intended And my Reason is this because to speak properly there is no other real baptism for the other two are figurative and metaphorical But besides The Apostle is there speaking of those Believers as incorporated into one body and as having been called into one hope of their calling having Christ for their one Lord and one Faith to unite them to this one Lord and one Baptism to make them visible Members of this one body the Church which Mr. H. owns to be an initiating Ordinance and God as their one common Father to supply all their wants and that these Persons that were members of this Church were baptized with water upon believing you may see Acts 19. beginning And this seems to me the most probable sense of those words One Baptism Now that it is a real Baptism is evident For as the word signifies to dip plunge or overwhelm them in the water and as it signifies the Burial and Resurrection of Christ so in respect of the thing done it 's a real act for that every person who is truly baptized as I have shewed above is plunged into the water and also raised up again out of the water the thing is really performed But that of Affliction is only metaphorical alluding to this of water as likewise also that of the Spirit and of Fire But perhaps Mr. H. may imagine that to be the Baptism of Affliction which is not and therefore let us hear what he saith about it As to the Baptism of Affliction saith he some soffer more some less some suffer lighter crosses as Mocks c. some loss of goods and liberty others Death when he hath said this he then delivers his Opinion about it in these words Now he that suffers least for Christ in a Christian manner doth as truly partake of the Baptism of Afflictions as he that suffers most Now suppose I deny this as I must how doth he prove it why he quotes no Text here but in the foregoing page Mark 10.39 Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of and with the baptism that I am baptized withall shall ye be baptized That this is the Baptism of Affliction I own We must now enquire what this hath a principal respect unto for there is something more than common intended in these words In Luke 12.50 our Saviour saith I have a Baptism to be baptized withall and how am I strained till it be accomplished Now this can be no other than that Death and bitter Agony he was to undergo for our sins that he might bring us to Glory And by his prediction to his Disciples in Mark 10.39 he foretold their deaths also for his sake Now as a Person that is baptized in water is overwhelmed therewith even so that bitter Agony our Lord endured in the Garden and upon the Cross when his Soul was exceeding sorrowful even unto death before wicked men had so much as laid their hands upon him it pleased the Lord so to bruise him and put him to grief that his sweat was as it were drops or clotters of blood falling down to the ground And when he was upon the Cross how did he cry out by reason of that sorrow that overwhelm'd his Soul
force c. Now John of Leyden had no hand at all in any of these Disturbances neither as the Beginner nor Promoter thereof for as yet he had not been at Munster But upon the 14th of February 1533. which was the year following John of Leyden came thither a strange selfish and opinionative Man who altho' he might stand up for Believers Baptism this we are sure of he differ'd in almost all other points with those of the Baptist Perswasion And after several Disputations he tells us that among other things Bernard Rotman taught John of Leyden this Opinion That it is lawful for Men not only to defend but also to propagate their Religion by Force and Arms. In the end the fore-named Persons with other Lutherans some of which agreed with John of Leyden in the point of Baptism plotted together to make a full Reformation in Religion by force and to make their beginning in Munster And when he hath told us of their opposition they made against the Bishop of Munster and the Papists with him and how they were subdu'd by the Munsterians he concludes thus This is indeed that Tragedy which was acted at Munster which was not contrived and managed by those called Anabaptists but the first rise of it must be charged upon the Lutherans and in particular Bernard Rotman and his Allies But had the Lutherans succeeded in their designed Reformation they would not have been ashamed thereof but would have much gloried in the Action and not have given the Honour of it to the Anabaptists whereupon was formerly made this following Verse in Dutch which I have rendred into English If that a Reformation had Succeeded by this Fact No Anabaptist should have had The Honour of this Act But Luther or some other Man Whom Rotman had ador'd Must then have been advanc'd on high And crowned as a Lord. The like Account may be seen in a Treatise Entituled The profundity of Innocence Printed at Haerlem Anno 1631. Also in the annexed History of the Martyrs before the Introduction with the divers Attestations of Bernard Rotman Godfrey Stralensis Rullius and others the Defenders of Lutheranism at Munster which being found written under their own hands presently after this Action were printed and published c. I could say more about it but this may suffice to convince Mr. H. how shamefully he hath abused us in this matter and therefore I may spare my pains to return answers to all his particular abusive Reflections Having done with the Story of John of Leyden I come now to consider what he saith of the rest of them whose Names he hath affixt They saith he fancying themselves inspired from above most confidently uttered their Heretical blasphemiâ—â— which were 1. That no Infant ought to be baptized 2. None were rightly baptized but such as were dipped These two plain and undeniable Truths this Man hath the confidence to call Heretical Blasphemies You may guess by this what a latitude he allows himself in the exercise of Billingsgate Rhetorick Pray Sir consider Suppose these two were Errors yet they could not be Heresies nor Blasphemies For if they are so you have declared your self for Communion with Hereticks and Blasphemers For in Part 2. page 50. speaking of the particular Baptists you say you can bear with them in these two points and give them the right hand of Fellowship as Brethren if they have no other Errors Let them but be like-minded to me and the Peace and Quiet of the Church will never be interrupted by either of us Now the Apostle saith Titus 3.10 11. Him that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject For he that is such is subverted and sinneth being condemned in himself And of Hymeneus and Alexander he saith whom I have delivered unto Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme 1 Tim. 1.20 But if Mr. H. be contrary to himself it 's no wonder to find him so to the blessed Apostle 3ly Mr. H. saith That Magistrates were not to be suffered in the Church No Christian ought be a Magistrate Answ I know not what he means by Magistrates in the Church nor himself neither there is no such thing in Rerum Natura But suppose some Christians have scrupled the lawfulness thereof and were willing to deny themselves therein is this Heresie and Blasphemy 4ly That it was Unlawful to take an Oath Answ Suppose it were so that some of them did scruple it he doth not shew his Loyalty to King Willam by charging it as a blasphemous Heresie for by Act of Parliament it 's made lawful for the People called Quakers to give their Testimony without an Oath 5. That there ought to be no difference between the Clergy and Laity that every one that hath Gifts might preach and administer the Sacraments Answ I fancy this Gentleman doth not know whence the word Clergy is derived if he doth he hath shewed his profound ignorance in this Assertion I shall therefore inform him in what sence it 's used in the New Testament 1 Pet. 5.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by our Translators Heritage and that we may understand the true intent and meaning of the Apostle therein read but the 1 2 and 3. verses together and you will find that he is speaking to the Elders or Ministers and that he is speaking of the Flock of God over which he had made them Overseers and that he applies the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clergy or Heritage to the People distinct from their Ministers As to the second That every one that hath Gifts may preach I answer If he means every one that hath received Gifts from God to fit him for that work it 's certainly true And if he or any other take upon them to preach without a Gift from God to qualifie them for that work they certainly run before they are sent For all Humane Authority without Divine Ability can never qualifie any for that Undertaking But is this a blasphemous Heresie 6ly That there is no Original Sin Answ If there be any sin in the World it must have a beginning If there be a second there must be a first Either he knows not what he talks of or else I affirm there were no such Men in the World neither of our perswasion or any other 7. That Man hath Free-Will Answ This Position was never denyed by any Mortal either Heathen Jew or Christian that I know of All Men agree that Wicked Mens Wills are free to do evil and the Wills of those who are regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Spirit are free to do good To will is present with me Rom. 7.18 8ly That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are not three distinct Persons and in Nature and Essence one God They made every Saint equal with Christ That Christ is not God Answ I believe this to be a false Accusation and shall return it to the Father of Lyes from whence it came 9ly They denyed
on purpose to damn them as the Calvinists say And this leads me to the Second Reason for he triumphs over us in this saying Thus this rotten Pillar of universal Grace is overthrown His 2d is this He denyes that God hath afforded every person in the Visible Church sufficient Grace for their Conversion To make it out he insists upon three things necessary in order to Conversion 1. That a Person sit under the Ministry of the Word faithfully preached Multitudes saith he in the visible Church do not enjoy a faithful Ministry some none at all others only such as are sent in Judgment that dawb with untempered Mortar c. Answ What visible Church must this be that he speaks of What a Church and have no Preacher and others Churches that have Preachers sent to them in Judgment only This cannot be the Church of Christ but the Synagogue of Satan For Christ hath promised to be with his Church by his Spirit alway even to the end of the World But will he charge all this upon God I know that when some Persons have sinned away all their Mercies and the Grace offer'd them then he doth sometimes give them up to strong Delusions to believe Lyes as is the case of the Papists and others but he charges the fault upon themselves because they did not receive the love of the Truth that they might be saved but took pleasure in Unrighteousness It would therefore be horrid wickedness for any that professes Christianity to charge God with being the cause of this when he hath declared their Destruction is of themselves 2. He saith They cannot be converted except their Consciences be awakened and stirr'd under the Ministry of the Word c. Persons may sit under the best Ministry and yet never be thus convinced Now that we may know where he hath a Mind to lay the blame he insinuates it in saying this Conviction is only from the Holy Spirit who bloweth where he listeth Answ Aâ—â—ho ' I acknowledge that no Man is converted without the Operation of the Holy Spirit yet I am far from thinking that the reason why they are not converted is because the Holy Spirit doth not operate with the Word but it is because they resist the motions and striveings thereof God's Spirit did strive with the Old World but they resisted it and perished by the Flood And as Stephen saith Acts 7. 51. Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost as your Fathers did so do ye Now Stephen was better skilled in these matters than Mr. H. for he justifies God and charges it upon them as being a stiff-necked and obstinate People uncircumcised in Heart and Ears But 3ly saith he There must be a divine powerful drawing of the Soul to Christ by the Spirit which he calls an irresistible power which he also saith is not afforded to all that sit under the Gospel-Ministry and they cannot come to Christ without it Answ That the Divine Power is in it self irresistable I grant but that is not here the Question But whether that power be exerted in an irresistable way which was the thing he should have proved if he had spoken ad rem but that he seldom does And I have already proved that the Spirit in its Operations upon the Souls of Men hath often been resisted However the Man crys â—ictory and saith This Anabaptistical Doctrine of Universal Grace is but a lying Invention of their own c. which I will put up among the rest of his Railery for it deserves no better Treatment As for what he says that Free-will is the consequence of our Opinion I may truly â—â—y by a figure in Rhetorick that he is a profound man for drawing of Consequences But to the point in Hand The Words in the 4th Article of our Confession which he refers to are these Unbelief therefore being the cause why the just and righteous God will condemn the Children of Men it follows against all contradiction that all Men at one time or other are put into such a capacity as that through the Grace of God they may be eternally saved John 1.7 Acts 17.30 Mark 6.6 Heb. 3. 10 18 19. 1 John 5.10 John 3.17 Now there is not one word of Free-will in those words as quoted by himself nor yet in the whole Articles in that Confession so that he quarrels with his own shaddow and not with us for we say through the Grace of God But suppose we had let fall such Words as his Friend Mr. Baxter hath used about Free-will in his Call to the Vnconverted Oh! what a noise would he have made about our Ears His Words are these 1. In his Presace And for the point of Free-will which you harp so long upon Divines are not so much disagreed about it as you imagine Augustine as well as Pelagius Calvin as well as Arminius the Dominicans as well as the Jesuites all do generally maintain that Man hath Free-will No man of Brains denyeth that a Man hath a Will that is naturally free it 's free â—â—â—m Violence and it 's a Self-determining principle In page 31. We are commanded to tell you what thoughts of Kindness God hath towards you and how happy how certainly and unspeakably happy you may be if you will page 32. I do here in the Name of the Lord of Life proclaim to you all that hear me this day to the worst of you to the greatest to the oldest Sinner that you may have Mercy and Salvation if you will but turn there is Mercy in God there is sufficiency in the Satisfaction of Christ the promise is free and full and universal you may have Life if you will but turn page 90. If nothing will serve turn but Men will yet refuse to turn we are next to consider who it 's long of if they be damned And this brings me to the last Doctrine which is That if after all this Men will not turn it is not long of God that they are condemned but of themselves even of their own Wilfulness They dye because they will dye that is because they will not turn if you will go to Hell what Remedy God here acquits himself of your Blood it shall not lye on him if you be lost pag. 102. But you seem to intimate all this while that Man hath Free-will his Answer is The Dispute about Free-will is beyond your Capacity I shall therefore now trouble you with no more than this about it your Will is naturally a free that is a self-determining Faculty but it is vitiously inclined and backward to do good but that is the wickedness of it which deserveth the punishment your disability is your very unwillingness it self which excuseth not your sin but maketh it the greâ—â—er page 44. And think not to exteâ—â—ate I by saying that it was only for his Elect for it was thy sin and the sin of all the World that lay upon our Redeemer and his Sacrifice and Satisfaction is sufficient for all