It s true there is grace in this Covenant yet it is not the Covenant of grace there is grace in this for it is grace for God declaratively to be a God to a People And secondly there was the everlasting grace included typically in this Covenant for it relates in the mysterie unto Christ as all outward Covenants Services and the Land of Canaan it self did Gal. 3. 6 Col. 2. 17. Heb. 4. from ver 3. to the 8. That it was an outward Covenant will appear 1. The thing promised in the Covenant was outward i. e. The Land of Canaan Object He promised to be a God unto them in an everlasting Covenant Answ 1. This was a promise in an outward Covenant as will appear Isa 10. 22 23. compared with Rom. 9. 29. Though the Children of Israel be as the sand of the sea yet a remnant of them shall be saved Now if God had been a God unto them in the Covenant of grace they must have been all saved and have continued in that Covenant unto this day but it being but an outward and typical Covenant relating to Christ the antitype and substance when Christ was come that Covenant was dissolved into Christ and is given forth upon the true spiritual account to the spiritual seed Gal. 3. 16. with 29. 2. It s said to be an everlasting Covenant either 1. because it was to continue its appointed time so called Everlasting as usually the old Testament Ordinances were so God promised in this Covenant to give the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession yet they are and have been many hundreds of years turned out of it and if they had not yet that could but have been a poffession for them in their generations till the end of the world But the Covenant of grace reaches to eternity without end Psal 103. 17. Hence the Priesthood of the Law was called an everlasting Priesthood Exod. 40. 15. Num. 25. 13. Or secondly it s called Everlasting upon the account of Christ who was the substance and the Covenant it self when he came ending all other Covenants and Services Isa 42. 6. So Davids Kingdom was said to be Everlasting upon the account of Christ who was and is the true spiritual King of whom David was a type 2 Sam. 7. 16. Ps 89. 35 36. compared with Ezek. 37. 24 25. David was dead long before yet David viz. Christ must be their King for ever Thus it appears first from the Covenant it self on Gods part that it was not the Covenant of grace though grace was darkly and typically included in it only the enlightened renewed soul saw into it and partaked of Christ the substance But secondly it will appear likewise if we consider the second part of the Covenant on Abraham and his childrens part Every man-child shall be circumcised at eight dayes old v. 10. 11 12. Here is an external obedience suitable to an external covenant God promiseth the land of Canaan in lieu of this they must be circumcised which shall be a sign of their obedience and to God of his Covenant as the Rain-bow in another case 2. The Covenant being thus considered it followeth that notwithstanding this Covenant was to Abraham and his seed natural yet it is not to Believers now and their seed natural This denies your Minor and this Scripture produced by you doth not prove it Your other Scripture Act. 2. 39. I shall answer in its place when I come to your Argument drawn from it And whereas you say That there are some Infants in the Covenant of grace I deny it positively that there are Infants in the Covenant of grace upon your account viz. the account of nature because born of believing parents all fleshly boasting being taken away Rom. 3. 27. As the Covenant to Abraham and his seed was outward and typical so the Covenant of Christ or Christ the Covenant is to the spiritual seed and that only those who are of the saith of Abraham who do the works of Abraham they and they only are the seed of Abraham Joh. 8. 39. He is not a Jew that is one outwardly but he is a Jew that is one inwardly Rom. 2. 28 29. where as the outward Covenant so the natural seed are cut off and only the spiritual stands And whereas you say there is an outward being in this Covenant c. Ishmael was circumcjsed I say so too for in it self it was wholly outward this and all other Covenants and services were outward and typical except the first promise Gen. 3. The Covenant of grace now in the dayes of Christ is wholly spiritual Those then that were enlightened which were but few saw and enjoyed the substance in the shadow and form We first the substance and with it the form They were first brought by works to Christ we first to Christ and then to works as fruits of faith And whereas you conclude Baptism to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace you are as much besides the truth in this as in the Covenant it self Because you have heard others say it therefore you affirm it too as children use to speak by tradition but where is your Scripture for it Did you ever read of any New-Testament seal besides the Spirit of Christ Ephes 1. 13. ch 4. 30. But I suppose because that it 's said Rom. 4. 11. that Abraham received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of his faith which he had before he was circumcised that therefore Baptism is a seal of the Covenant of grace Oh gross mistake Abraham believed God when he first promised him the land of Canaan and commanded him to forsake all and go into it and that he would keep him and bless him Gen. 12. Here Abraham believed God and obeyed and went out not knowing whither and v. 17. God gave him Circumcision a sign and seal to confirm his faith which he had before in this promise And as Circumcision was given a seal of Abrahams faith in Gods promising him the land of Canaan so the Spirt of grace is the seal of faith to every believer of his interest in the spiritual land the substance of the outward the Lord Jesus So you are lost both in Covenant in Seal in the Subjects of the Covenant and all You mention Gal. 4. 28. I say upon the Gospel-account its truth as Isaac was heir to that Covenant so all true believers are heirs of the true promise and none else Whereas you say pag. 11. in way of answer to an objection That theirs is old and ended c. you answer That to make that old none but carnal Anabaptists will do it Your mouth is wide but let it pass I answer To make that Covenant which was of an outward land the same as ours which is of a spiritual land to bring in the natural seed upon that account when it is only to the spiritual seed none but a carnal and blind generation of men dare to do Christ saith
children had the spirit in their infancy John Baptist had faith in the womb the Scripture saith it not its only Thomas Hall's words Jeremiah sanctified from the womb c. and what of all this its not one swallow makes a Summer because John and Jeremiah were sanctified that is set apart from the womb to their particular offices therefore all Infants are sanctified a goodly conclusion because Balaams Asse did speak therefore all Asses may speak a likely matter You say The Promise is that in the Gospel times the childe shall die an hundred year old c. Isa 65 20. that is say you They shall be blest with spiritual life and light from Christ as if they had lived an hundred years in the Church of God when that relates to a spiritual glory in the Church of Christ which is yet to come not of the Natural but of the Spiritual Seed when they shall be freed from the former weakness and temptation this Scripture Answers Rev. 21. 1 2 3. 2 Pet. 3. 13. And whereas you say though Infants cannot lay hold on Christ yet he can lay hold on them We question not Christs laying hold on them but we are not to baptize them till they lay hold on Christ Pag. 49. you say Infants have faith repentance regeneration and before you confess they are children of wrath alike the children of wrath as heathens are pag. 10. yet now faith repentance regeneration unheard of contradictions If your preaching brethren had written such palpable contradictions you would have concluded that it had been either for want of learning or through much forgetfulness but you mend the business well you think It is virtually and potentially by way of inclination c. They have the spirit and seed of faith c. The truth of this appears apparently in Infants when they are grown doth the seed of faith appear or the seed of corruption Come forth O all ye that have any experience of the grace of Iesus and work of faith with power speak you knowledge in this particular whether there be in Infants an inclination and the seed of faith or whether there be not rather an inclination to every thing that is evil and the power of corruption remaining in them Be ashamed and blush to utter such known untruths and unheard of contradictions Children of wrath yet the seed of faith inclinations to believe I say no more but leave this Argument likewise to the wise consideration of the Reader The eleventh Argument That way which doth confound the two Sacraments and take away the distinction which God hath put between them cannot be the way of God But the way of the Anabaptists doth confound the two Sacraments and takes away that distinction which God hath put between them Ergo T is not the way of God Answ There is no truth in your Minor for first where is the Scripture that saith baptism is only for Initiation and not for Confirmation it s a fancy of your own brain may not baptism be be initiation and confirmation too 2. If it be truth what you say that Baptism is only for initiation into the Church what is become of your Mr. Baxters grand Argument That they are members of the Church then not initiated in by baptism one of your Arguments must of necessity be false I say both of them as relating to Infants 3. It was the Apostles practice to baptize believers and give them the Supper too and did they confound the two Sacraments as you call them bear with me for I know no Scripture cals them so So that the way of the Anabaptists as you falsely reproachfully call them doth not confound the Ordinances but preserve them in their place to the right end according to the right rule and you it is confound Ordinances observing neither rule place nor end The twelfth Argument Such as were typically baptized under the Law may be really baptized under the Gospel Infants were typically baptized under the Law Ergo. You reason from the type to the truth In this take a view likewise of your own ignorance in not understanding the difference between type and antitype type and substance type and truth and shew me if you can any one type in all the Scripture that typed out another type you may as well say that the Jewish Sacrifices typed out the Gospel Supper c. But all types related to substances and Christ was the substance of all legal types this truth will be clear in the resolving of these questions 1. If Christ be the substance of all types whether or no the baptizing of the natural seed in the type do not represent unto us the baptizing of the spirituall seed into the substance 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 27. 2. Whether or no as all the natural feed were baptized into Moses and into the sea and cloud so all the spiritual seed should be baptized into the profession of faith of Jesus Mat. 28. 19. Act. 19. 3. Whether to make the substance no other then the type the Covenant of the Gospel no other then that of the Law the seed of the Gospel-Covenant the same as the Legal the administration of Gospel-ordinance on the same subjects as of the Legal notwithstanding Christ hath given cleer rules to the contrary be not to make null the Gospel and to deny Christ to be come in the flesh and so to be the Antichrist Gal. 5. 2. Mat. 28. 20. Act. 3. 22. 1 Joh. 4. 2. 3. In a word if you will make this type the ground of your baptizing Infants first then you do not hearken to Christ the substance but honour him in the type deny him in his person and spirit secondly you are to baptize them as they were in the type viz. in the cloud and in the sea What is that to your sprinkling of Infants Thirdly you may from hence if that be your warrant from whence you ground your practise baptize your Cattel too for all passed through the sea and indeed not to be a pattern to you that you might hence take occasion to sprinkle Infants so denying Christ but a type of Christ the Saviour and Deliverer of his people that as the natural seed were saved in the type so the spiritual were and are saved in the substance viz. in Christ All you say to this Argument being thus untruly grounded is but a non sequitur and so I leave it The thirteenth Argument From the priviledges that Christ purchased for Infants Those who are subjects of Christs kingdom have right to the priviledges of subjects But some Infants are subjects of Christs kingdom Ergo Some Infants have right to the priviledges of Subjects You say The seal of the Covenant is a choise priviledge I have often said and say again that Baptism is no seal of the Covenant but the Spirit To your second Argument I say there is no truth in your Major for there is not a word of Baptizing in the Text and
Joh. 4. 24 God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth and such the Father seeks to worship him Jesus Christ came forth from the Father for that end that he might gain a spiritual people to worship but your great work is to get in a natural people a carnal people the fleshly seed so contradicting the end of God in giving Christ upholding the Covenant made with Abraham and Moses so denying Christ to be come in the flesh I will not say at present for your own ends and interests The force of your first Argument being thus untwisted and its weakness and invalidity laid open I need not trace you in your Parallels what I have already written puts an end to your Parallels as far as you imagine they tend to uphold the strength of your Arguments I shall present another Parallel from what I have declared leaving it to the judgment of the judicious Reader to consider 1. The Covenant made with Abraham was an outward covenant and promise of the Land of Canaan Gen. 17. 10 11 12. 1. Ours is a spiritual Covenant and promise of in Jesus Christ the true spiritual Land of rest Heb. 4. 4. to 8. 2. That was made with Abraham and his natural seed Gen. 17. 7 8. 2. Ours is a Covenant made with Christ and all his spiritual seed Isa 59. 21. Gal. 3 29. 3. Circumcision was the seal of that Covenant Rom. 4. 11. 3. But the Spirit of grace is the seal of our covenant Eph. 1 â—3 4 30. 4. That was a Covenant that many most of those in it missed of eternal life Rom. 2. 27. 4 Ours is a covenant sure stedfast eternal everlasting to those once truly in it Isa 55 3. Jer. 31. 31 32. Joh 10. 28 29. 5. That was a Covenant that might be broken and had an end as all types end when the substance comes 5. Ours is a Covenant that cannot be broken nor shall ever have an end being the substance it self of the type Now to your second Argument from Circumcision The second Argument p. 13. Such as were circumcised under the Law may be baptized under the Gospel But the Jews with their Infants were circumcised under the Law Ergo Christians and their Infants may be baptized under the Gospel You confess that your Major is questioned as well it may be so I could give you several Arguments which you would not like as well grounded as this of yours but I forbear For proof of your Major 1. You say They are under the same Covenant That is denied and rased in my Answer to your former argument It is neither the same Covenant nor the same seal an outward seal to an outward Covenant an inward seal to an inward Covenant 2. You say There is the same reason for the one as for the other our children are born in original sin as well as theirs have the same need of the seal Oh unimaginable blindness was Circumcision or Baptism either ever given to seal up the pardon of original sin If it was then it must be pardoned or not pardoned if pardoned then sure else it is but the putting a seal to a blank But the truth is they were never given either of them upon that account or for that end to seal up the pardon of original sin And whereas you say there is the same reason for the one as for the other it is denied for the command of God is the reason of the one and of the other God commanded Infants to be circumcised he hath commanded Believers to be baptized and 't is reason that he should be obeyed as in the first so in the second it 's an unreasonable and wicked thing to contradict by contrary actions the commands of Christ 3. You say If Baptism succeed in the place of Circumcision then Baptism belongs to those to whom Circumcision did belong But Baptism doth succeed in the place of Circumcision Ergo c. I answer your Minor is denied 1. There is no Scripture that saith that Baptism was ordained in the place of Circumcision it 's your own invention never mentioned by the Apostles of Christ The Scriptures you mention Act. 2. 38 39. Col. 2. 11 12. have not the least hint in them to the thing in hand and are abundantly abused and wrested to that for which they were never intended as will appear 2. You confess that Baptism was in force before Circumcision was abolished Circumcision and Baptism stood both in force by a Law for some years at least 3 or 4 years Now if Baptism had come in the room of Circumcision then Circumcision must have ceased when Baptism came But Circumcision did not cease when Baptism came Therefore Baptism came not in the room of it If it be objected that Paul circumcised Timothy after the ascension of Christ I answer that was because of the Jewes for their weakness but it was in being by the Law of God untill the death of Christ So then I reason thus That which put an end to Circumcision came in the room of Circumcision but Christ put an end to Circumcision therefore he is come in the room of Circumcision That it was Christ and not Baptism that put an end to Circumcision is cleer Rom. 10. 4. Gal. 5. 2 3. So that Baptism did not put an end to Circumcision but Christ did therefore Baptism came not in the room of Circumcision 3. It could not come in the room of Circumcision to them that never had Circumcision but women were never circumcised the Gentiles were never circumcised and it could not come in the room of Circumcision to those which never were circumcised But you will say that women were virtually circumcised in the men c. And why are they not baptized virtually in the men too if you will take your rule from Circumcision let them be baptized in the men too 4. There is no parity but a disparity between Baptism and Circumcision as your self in some things have noted 1. In the action 2. in the time 3. in the subject 4. in the end First in the action that was the cutting of the foreskin of the flesh which occasioned blood this of Baptism a dipping into or under water Secondly for the time that was to be done at eight dayes old this of Baptism when the party desireth it professing faith and repentance to the satisfying of the Church be when it will Thirdly for the subject that was the Male only this of Baptism is to be administred on both men and women professing faith in our Lord Jesus and repentance towards God Fourthly for the end that is far wide as will appear in this ensuing Parallel 1. Circumcision set forth Christ to come 1. Baptism declares Christ already come 2. Circumcision represented the circumcision of the heart the cutting off of sin and self c. 2. Baptism declares the washing away of the guilt of sin and death and burial with
Christ in though never so wicked 3. Bastards in all in and all as soon and as well as any See pag. 5. I must tell you and that from the Lord you will have a sad account to give to the Lord one day if mercy prevent not for your abusing the Covenant of grace and thrusting a fleshly generation upon the Lord when he is seeking a spiritual a holy seed to worship him and I would have you to know that those you so often and with so much contempt and reproach term Anabaptists are not so simple as you would perswade the world to believe they are able through mercy to see into your forgeries and delusions and to discover them too in a measure and to distinguish between Law and Gospel Covenant and Covenant not confounding things together so denying Christ to be come in the flesh I shall in a word give you the difference The Covenant of the Law either that with Abraham or with Moses was a Covenant without them and the mysterie or substance was hid from all though all was in it unless those few taught of God The Covenant of the Gospel is wholly spiritual and none are in it but the spiritual seed viz. true believers though hypocrites may come in to the outward profession yet they have nothing to do to be there for there is no outside in the Covenant of grace That which you call the outward Covenant is but the outward profession of the invisible grace and that is proper only to those who are in it although the Disciples did and we may admit those that may prove hypocrites yet neither did they nor may we admit any by baptism into the visible profession of the invisible grace but those we judge by the rule of truth in this particular to have true faith and if any come in that have it not to their own peril it will be Therefore if this be truth as I am sure it is what account will those give to the Lord who bring in the natural seed to the profession of the spiritual Covenant and so make them hypocrites A day will come when the sinners in Sion shall be afraid and fearfulness shall surprise the hypocrite Isa 33. So I conclude that Infants are not in the Covenant of grace nor were ever commanded to be baptized therefore have no right unto it The fourth Argument Christians ought to be baptized But Infants of Christians are Christians Ergo They ought to be baptized Answ 1. If this Argument were truth it were a very easie thing to be a Christian Born Christians by nature no need of Christ the Gospel Spirit Regeneration any thing it makes void all the whole Gospel of grace and peace a doctrine of Devils indeed Do you not remember that Paul saith If any man preach any other Gospel then what he had preached he should be accursed Gal. 1. But you have found out another Gospel Christians by the natural generation and birth Cursed be all such soul deceiving and soul destroying Doctrines You pretend to prove your Minor with much clearness As all the parings of Gold are Gold so all the children of Christians are Christians The parings of gold are true gold and the children of Christians by this account are true Christians pared out from the spiritual man being of the same nature oh high priviledge Christians can beget Christians Saints can beget Saints by natural generation Certainly if one of the preaching brethren had laid down such an assertion you would have counted him an illiterate Ignoramus one altogether unmeet to have medled with the Scriptures or to have spoken of the things of God You would have accounted him no less then a blasphemer and worthy to be burnt with his Books Well but you proceed As all the Children of the Jews were Jews by birth Gal. 2. 15. And all the Children of the Turks are Turks by birth so all the Children of Christians are Christians and have a right to Baptism Answ 1. The Jews were all in an outward Covenant and so they were born Jews viz. in that Covenant but believers are in the Covenant of grace as hath been already proved and none are born in that Covenant by natural generation and birth so that although Jews were Jews by birth yet Christians are not so by the natural birth for that which is born of the Spirit is spirit But secondly the Jews were so by birth as a distinguishing title from other Nations so the Turks are Turks and the Spaniards are Spaniards and the French are French and the English are English by birth but they neither of them are Christians by birth But you seem to mend all in answering an Objection Then we should be born Christians and not made Christians we should be born children of God and not children of wrath You answer Parents cannot convey grace to their Children but a right to Church priviledges c. unheard of nonsence and confusion miserable bald shifts men make to patch up their own inventions 1. Christians yet no grace a right to Church-priviledges yet no grace Members of the Church yet no grace page 23. Nay members of the Church Christians a right to Church priviledges holy c. and yet have no grace are the children of wrath page 23. these are like to be goodly Christians Church Members c. Yet you dislike with the Anabaptists for not taking notice of this distinction c. A strange kind of distinction to make them Christians yet no Christians Members of the Church yet children of wrath I suppose you would learn to distinguish a little better were it not to please the vulgar sort of people that so they may please you in feeding you with the Tythes A sad thing when you shall lead along souls blind with the name of Christian yet children of wrath and if mercy prevent not are like to perish eternally for all the name of Christian Thus are souls deluded by their Teachers called Christians made Church-members and yet Children of wrath c. Alike children of wrath as Heathens page 10. The fifth Argument From Christs command and commission to his Disciples Mat. 28. 19. and from the Apostles practise answerable to that command thus your argue That which is both commanded and commended that hath both precept president and promise for it may lawfully be practised by the Ministers of Jesus Christ But Infant-Baptism is both commanded and commended for it there is both precept president and promise Ergo. Well said namesake Tom Prove this and thou hast done the deed that never yet was done Prove this and I will lay down my Arguments and practise too Had you a good cause you its like would be very bold that you dare be so bold in asserting such an Argument in such positive terms when there is never a word in Scripture of either precept president or promise to the thing you are pleading for so that your Minor is denyed You pretend to prove it
adde and their Children It seems you have either forgotten or else you fear not that curse denounced against him that addeth to or diminisheth from the words of this Book The reason you render is Because the promise is to you and to your children Is not was and is now vanished Ans That Promise you so much plead for which is but one and the same you have so often reiterated already is vanished away and the children of Israel are out of the Land of Canaan c. and we are under another a better Covenant a new Covenant c. Jer. 3. 31. Heb 8. established upon better promises That promise was the Land of Canaan ours is the true promise of the Spiritual Land they had the Land of Canaan promised and it was made good while they kept Covenant with God we have the Spiritual Land promised and that is made good to all the Spiritual seed And this is the promise here intended and it is limited to all that the Lord our God shall call 1. The promise here related is intended only to called ones and it is a restriction to all the several terms before As many of you as the Lord shall call Of your children as the Lord shall call Of them afar off viz. Gentiles as the Lord shall call For the truth is that there is no promise in the Gospel but to called ones See this cleer Joel 2. 32. the Scripture to which this in the Acts relates In mount Sion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance as the Lord hath said and in the remnant whom the Lord she ll call It s the very same with Act. 2. 39. and note 1. The Call is not as you plead universal but to a remnant and those who are thus called shall be delivered saved This dashes to peeces your assertions throughout your Argument they are the called ones and they only to whom the promise belongs for the promises are all centered in Christ and given forth to the called ones not those who are outwardly called but effectually and savingly called Heb. 9. 15. Christ is said to be a Mediator of a better Testament but you will have the same so deny Christ to be come in the flesh That by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions under the first Testament Christ died to deliver his people from the transgressions under the first Covenant that so they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance Here is the promise the eternal inheritance the persons to whom they that are called not infants the natural seed but the spiritual the same mentioned Rom 8. 30. Whom he predestinated them he called c. and to them and them only the promise belongs This I doubt not but it will be enough to the judicious Reader to discover the vanity and emptiness of all you say to this sixth argument For children are not taken literally any otherwise then as called of the Lord. For the Jews crucifying Christ and wishing his blood to be upon them and their children the Gentiles having a hand in it too they mocked him c. they being pricked in their hearts at Peters Sermon the Apostle applieth a suitable medicine to their wounded consciences he doth not tell them of an outward promise a Land of Canaan an outward federal holiness for themselves children which they might have and yet be damned at last No no but a spiritual promise that might reach their souls in such a condition therefore in substance he saith Notwithstanding you have had a hand in crucifying the Lord Jesus the promise of the spirit of grace and of remission is to you as many of you as the Lord shall call and notwithstanding you have by your deprecations drawn guilt upon your children yet the promise is to them as many of them as the Lord shall call and notwithstanding the Gentiles have joyned with you in it yet the promise is to them to as many as the Lord our God shall call And this is the sense and truth of this Scripture and I do affirm that there is no Gospel-promise made to any but the called of God and all others that get into the Gospel-profession not being of the true spiritual seed God will judge them in his time And it is evident there were none baptized but those that gladly received his word v. 41. The seventh Argument à probabili pag. 40. From Apostolical practise which is in the nature of a Gospel-injunction to us We read of divers families that they baptized as Cornelius with his houshold Act. 10. 47 48. compared with 11. 14. Lydia with her houshold Act. 16. 15. the Jailor and his Act. 16 31 32. Crispus and all his house Act. 18. 8 and the houshold of Stephanus 1 Cor. 1. 16. Your Argument is this If the Apostles baptized whole housholds then Children which are an integral part of the houshold were baptized also But the Apostles baptized whole housholds Ergo. The Minor you say none will deny the Major you will prove Generals you say include particulars the word houshold is a large word and includes all old and young men women and children c. But stay a little are there any Children mentioned if not you have but probability at best and I querie whether probability be a sufficient ground to warrant a practise contradicting a positive command You say pag. 41. Many things were done that are not mentioned in Scripture that Christ and his Apostles did many things that are not written Joh. 20. ult I answer 1. If it had been done yet not being written silent authority proves nothing All you can say is but that it might be done not that it was done because it is not written 2. To look after things not written to contradict and make null things that are written take heed of that Thomas if your name sake the Collier should have laid down such a Principle you would have said somewhat to it But I pass it by a word to the wise is enough But I shall rather come to discover the grounds of your Probabilities from those families The first is in Act. 10. 47 48. Cornelius and his houshold they were first such as heard the word therefore not Infants v. 33. Now therefore are we all here present before God to hear all things that are commanded thee of God Secondly v. 44. The Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word Thirdly they were those and only those that were baptized which heard the word and had received the holy Spirit ver 47. Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Spirit as well as we And he commanded them viz that had heard and received the Spirit as well as they to be baptized Where are your Infants now and where is your probability for your practise Blame me not if I undermine you for I am a Collier and must dig up the blackness that truth may appear
and errours the rest of them Inventions falslely charged by him 1. That Infant-Baptism came from the Pope and the Devil The truth of this assertion I refer the Reader to what I have said before and there you will see the Pope very probably that brought it in Higinus in the second Century 150 years after Christ 2. That Christ hath abolished the Law that is as to Believers as a dispensation in the hands of Moses see 2 Cor. 3. 11. 13. And the pure Gospel is the only Rule What son of Belial dare to deny this for the Law is brought forth in Gospel and as given forth by Christ is the pure Gospel Rule therefore though the substance of the old Command yet is called new because given forth upon the new and true account 1 Ioh. 2. 7. 8. 3. A Socinian his Tenet is that all gifted persons may preach without Ordination This is according to the truth of Scripture 1 Cor. 4. 31. 34. Where all that have gifts may prophesie none exempted except women 4. He is a Familist approving of dreams c. Answ That is false I do not approve them yet neither do I altogether deny but God may manifest himself in that way if he please not that it is my experience neither would I limit God Against Vniversities Arts Sciences not in themselves upon the humane account but as they are set up in the room of the Spirit of Christ so the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God 5. He is an Antiscripturist denying the truth of Scripture c. Answ Another most abominable falshood who will be the lyar anon Thomas Hall but you prove it learnedly 1. Because I approve of such who will not permit you to draw any consequences from Scripture because you have so much abused them with your consequences 2. Because minding some of your consequences I conclude that they are as true as Scripture if the people would but believe it You infer then that these consequences must be true or the Scripture is false I say and I supposed that you had had wit enough to understand that I spake in your language or in your sence that you account these consequences as true as Scripture if the people would believe you 3. He saith that in his general Epistle to the Saints chap. 10. p. 28. the Scripure is not sufficient to teach the knowledge of God I Query of any one who knows the Lord whether the Scripture without the Spirit of Christ doth or can teach any one true and saving knowledge and that some make too much of it that is such as Thomas Hall who think it able without the Spirit of Christ to teach the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and if you could have told all you might have seen and said that I say there likewise that many make too little of it and that the substance of my Discourse there is to hold forth the truth and authority of the Scripture in the light of the Spirit that so souls by the teaching of the Spirit of Christ may come to a right understanding of them and that indeed its your selves that truly teach people to deny Scripture I own the truth of it and say that whoever denieth it must deny God Christ and all Religion and the truth is that your self it is that disowns it and reproacheth it too further then it stands with your own will 6. You say He is an Arian and Anti-Trinitarian denyes the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons c. Answ I deny not the Trinity Father Son and Spirit but I deny any person in the Godhead at all that is a word or title given only to man and the Scripture you mention Heb. 1. 3. I am not altogether so ignorant of it as you would have me it is substance and not Person and this you know and abuse it not ignorantly but wilfully The same word Heb. 11. 1. is rendred substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faith is the substance of things hoped for not the Person that would be nonsense you must produce some Scripture where that Prosopon which signifieth Person is attributed to God or that Hypostasis is attributed to man before you can have any colour to call God three Persons or one either for he is a Spirit and will be worshipped in Spirit and Truth 7. He is an Anti-Sabbatarian he is all for a Spiritual Sabbath Answ Because I write of a spiritual Sabbath doth it therefore follow that I am an Anti-Sabbatarian have you ever seen any thing written by me against the Sabbath have you not cause to blush at your weakness or wickedness because I discover the spiritual Sabbath therfore you say I am against the Sabbath 8. An Independent as to man and creatures in the things of God but only on Jesus Christ and is this such a dangerous thing to be off from every thing save Jesus Christ 9. Arigid Separatist Answ Never too rigid in separating from Babylons false ways and worships which is no other then the Synagogue of Satan a Cage of every unclean and hatefull Bird I say it again for all your anger I must be faithfull I may not pittie or spare you for that will ruine you 10. A Perfectist see his Generall Epist to the Saints ch 15. p. 52. Answ No other then is the duty of every Saint to be that is pressing after perfection I there declare that perfection is not attainable in this life till the body of flesh is dissolved nor till the Resurrection neither I say no more of this but refer the Reader to the Epistle it self where you may see how the Hall hath stored up lyes to reproach the innocent 11. He is an enemy to all Learning he oft calls it the language of the beast c. Answ Keep it in its place and do as much good as you can with it but let it once get in the room of the Spirit then it puffs up with pride then it s but the language of the Beast of the fleshly man the smoak of the bottomless pit of mans wisdom and that which must be destroyed That the Spirit and Scriptures are sufficient for the Ministers calling c. At this you seem to rage extreamly as if this were such a dangerous Heresie that deserves no less then a stake a faggot and a fire could Tho Hall have his will let the Understanding judge I am sure I have heard one of your brethren more famous then ever your self in the eyes of the people assert this that the Scripture was sufficient for the Ministers calling c. who left out the Spirit of Christ but it seems your abilities depend upon your good old books Popish Fathers c. 12. He is against Magistrates Answ No such thing only my desire is that Magistrates should not rule where its alone Christs Prerogative I desire to give to Caesar that which is his and to God that which is his 13. Against Ministry Ans
they were asserted as will appear in its place I pass your Epistle and come first to your five serious Questions 1. Qu. Whether such an uncharitable censorious proud disdainfull inveterate calumniating spirit as works in this man and others of the same lump doth ever shew it self in Scripture Ans 1. If not then you have declared your self to be as far from the spirit of a Christian upon the same account as the Collier whom you so much reproach witness this very question propounded and almost every page in your book witnesseth it but I desire not to scrape them up together And secondly The truth of those titles mentioned by you pag. 6. I leave to the Reader to judge and if I am become your enemy for telling you the truth I am contented through mercy to pass under your censure Your 2. quest Vpon what ground think you should he and men of the same temper and spirit with him use such bitterness against the Ministery c. Ans 1. We never used such bitterness against the Ministery of the Nation as they have against us We never desired to get an Ordinance from both Houses of Parliament to have them burnt in the forehead with the letter B. to have them imprisoned without Bail or Main-prise c. Though this is no ground to retort bitterness again in way of revenge but rather to pitty them 2. It is not their persons but their destructive Principles against which I write the Lord who knoweth all things knoweth that I lye not I should rejoyce in their conversion and do not question but that there are many that are honest and godly of them yet in Babylon and their duty is to come forth and till then blame us not for our dealing faithfully though sometimes ruggedly with them And I would have you to know that it is not a power to persecute them we look for no I had a thousand times rather Thomas Halls desire were granted to him that I with my books were burnt together then to have a hand in the personal persecution of Tho. Hall your self or any other for any principle or practise you hold in Conscience though it be known to me that it is contrary to truth Your 3. Quest Whether this open enmity against the Ministery of England which these men proclaim to all the world inveighing against them as Antichristian be not a thing abhorred of all gracious hearts For proof of this you produce Mr. Tho. Goodwyn Mr. Philip Nye Mr. Sidrach Simpson Mr. Jeremiah Burroughs Mr. William Bridge Apol. Nar. p 6. Ans The honesty of these men I question not Yet first what they say proves not the truth of what you desire for it is not the testimony of men but of God in the Scripture that will justifie both Ministry and Church And if that would do it I could produce others of the same way I suppose none will deny but that they were equal with them for godliness and learning who say the contrary Ainsworth Smith Robinson You seem to propound a strange Querie pag. 14. Whither would these men transport and carry you Not only off from Presbytery but Independents c. Ans In the light and power of truth we would carry them to the Lord Jesus that so they might know and obey him and worship the Father in him in spirit and in truth and this is the utmost that we desire And truly this is that which is my principle and practise 1. That we are justified freely by grace And 2. that this Justification where it is in truth enjoyed works over souls to a holy and humble walking with the Lord and obedience to him in all things That it is the duty of Believers according to the command of Christ and practise of his servants in the Primitive times to be baptized and so come into Church fellowship walking as with the Lord so one with another in love performing all duties of brotherly love as becometh souls made one in so high and heavenly a calling And hither it is we would transport and carry every soul that knows the Lord and this is a journey that you who call your selves Ministers cannot endure to undertake nor suffer those that would Your 4. Question is Were such things heard of in former times among the old Puritans c. Ans They were not sensible of those delusions in that way which now appear and many of them are made sensible of it and are departed from it Gods people cannot but depart out of Babylon when once they see themselves there and hear the Lords voice saying Come out of her my people partake not of her sins lest you partake of her plagues Those that have seen themselves in Babels confusion in respect of worship being delivered cannot but discover and lay open to others the mysterie of that iniquity though all the men and Ministers of the world dislike it c. Your 5. Question Hath it not been an old trick of such as have designed the shaking of the Christian faith first to begin with the faithfull Ministers c A. Though it hath been the design of the enemies of truth so to do yet 1. That justifies not you to be the godly Ministers And 2. The servants of the Lord may not neglect their duty in reproving sin where they find it because enemies to truth oppose the Ministers of Christ And 3. We give grounds from Scripture for what we say and do Justifie your selves to be the Ministers of Christ by your works according to Scripture and we have done till then forbear giving such language as you do to the servants of the Lord for their impartial publishing and professing of truth You 'll one day be ashamed of it So you say you come to his Errors which are many His first Error That the life of Ministers and Schollers educated in Schools of Learning is an idle life Ans 1. There are no such words in my book neither is there any truth in what you say but that which I say is that God hath always in all ages made use of men of Callings to be the Ministers of his mind unto the people and I desired you to produce any example in the Scripture that God made choice of any to be the Ministers of his mind unto the people who were bred up idly all dayes of their life without a Calling I do not say that the life of the Ministers of Christ is an idle life no I know the contrary but that which I say is that you can produce no example of any that were bred up idly without a Calling called to be Ministers yet you will have Idlers and none but them by your wils and God must have them or else he must have none at all You say o confirm this he sayes A Calling is that in and by which men in the sweat of their face get their living You answer O brave definition of a Calling c. Ans I wonder you
in the Old Testament and sometimes so taken in the New Testament therefore to conclude they were alwayes so taken is a Non sequitur and there is no ground for it no more then because in the Old Testament all were circumcised in the New Testament some were circumcised therefore all must be circumcised 2. Usually these extraordinary Prophets as you call them had their Prophesies written and they were kept upon record for after-times but amongst so many Prophets in every Church none of their Prophesies are recorded therefore no extraordinary Prophets And further that they were not extraordinary is cleer in that their Doctrine was to be tryed by the Church or at least by the rest of the Prophets and this you never find done by any of the extraordinary Prophets And lastly if they had been extraordinary they could rather have directed the Apostle then the Apostle should have directed them as Act. 21. 11. Which arguments were urged in the Pulpit-Guard Routed but you were so wise it seems as to take no notice of them I might add to all the rest that the extraordinary Prophesie was such an immediate revelation and inspiration as that when it came they could not but prophesie This was such a prophesie as they had first need to be exhorted to it and secondly are bid to desire it and thirdly had need to be informed of their liberty and fourthly to be directed unto the right manner of the performing of it 1 Cor. 14 1 2. 31. 29. 30. therefore no extraordinary but ordinary Prophets These things thus considered I question not but that it sufficiently makes null your second Reason Your third Argument is That the gift or spirit of Prophesie given out to the New Testament Prophets is the fulfilling of the promise Joel 2. 28. therefore extraordinary Ans Granted that it is the same spirit and fulfilling of the same promise yet not the same extraordinary gift If no Prophets but those who have extraordinary gifts then no Pastors and Teachers for then they had extraordinary gifts and upon the same account those who have not the like gifts are not Pastors and Teachers upon the same account no believers Mar. 16. 17. These signs shall follow them that believe c. So that upon this account you will reason out all Religion and Christianity out of the world Therefore secondly they having the Spirit or the gifts and operations of the Spirit might in their Prophesies be above us yet according to the measure received we may nay ought viz. the Prophets to speak in the Church c. Or else that prophesie Joel 2. 28. hath nothing to do with us nor we with it we are not under that promise so all the promises are not in Christ yea and amen to us And how dare you to make null the great Gospel prophesie and promise nay the great and blessed promise of Christ at his departure from his Disciples Joh. 14. 16. viz. of the Spirit Your fourth Argument is Because Prophesie is set down distinct from ordinary Teaching Rom. 12. 6. A little to discover the strength of this Argument I reason thus Exhortation in the same place is set down distinct from Teaching therefore it is extraordinary Exhortation Therefore I have in the Pulpit Guard Routed cleerly distinguished between Gift and Office and if the Lord enlighten us in these that we could but distinguish we should not thus confound one thing with another and turn out some truths to retain others but every truth would stand in its place and so there would be a sweet harmony as in Scripture so in the Church of Christ Your fifth Argument is Because the gift of Prophesie was given to others besides Saints This is learned Logick indeed Because wicked men have the use of the things of the world therefore it is not proper to all the Saints to have the use of the things of the world because wicked men may have the spirit of Prophesie therefore it is not proper to the Saints to have it Let the Reader judge of this Logick Or else because wicked men may have a form of godliness denying the power therefore it is not proper to all the Saints to have the form of godliness This Argument I leave to the Reader and follow you to your other additional Arguments 1. Because God hath not appointed all gifted brethren to live of the Gospel therefore they are not to preach the Gospel The Scripture you produce is 1 Cor 9. 14. Ans This Scripture is to be understood in way of distinction and that 1. That they that preach the Gospel may not that they must live of the Gospel then Paul lived unlawfully when he wrought with his hands Act 18. 3. and his hands ministred to his necessities and it is a more blessed thing to give then to receive So that it is only a discovery of the mind of God what he that preaches the Gospel may do if he need it Hence Paul saith he had a power not to work but to live of the Gospel and he had a power to work and not to live of the Gospel But it seems you are very loth to heare on that eare 2. It intends that only those who are called to the office and set apart wholly to that work that they should if they need live of the Gospel 1 Tim. 5. 17 18 You never read that Prophets were to live of the Gospel So that this distinction keeps the truth cleer and dissolves your Argument to nothing Your second Argument is Because to preach publiquely is to exercise authority But none may exercise authority but such as have Ministerial authority c. The Scripture for confirmation of this is 1 Tim 2. 12. where Women are forbidden to teach publikely because they may not usurp authority over the man Ans This Argument and Scripture will do you no good to that end for which you have produced it but cleerly contradicts that you drive at for the Apostle both in 1 Cor. 4. 34. 1 Tim. 2. 12. holds forth the difference in generall between men and women in the Church not between women and men in office that is non-sense for he saith 1 Cor. 14. 35. If the woman will know any thing let her ask her husband at home There is no such word spoken of the men So that men have authority to speak in the Church to edification having the gift but women have not that authority allowed them although they have the gift c. Your third Argument If there be a power in the Church to keep off wolves and false teachers from the sheep then all that conceive they have gifts may not preach till they are approved c. Ans It is granted that there is such a power in the Church of Christ and they are able to judge of gifts when they hear whether it be of God or of man and they must hear before they can judge And when they hear and judge that