Mat. 28. 19. you say Christ Commandeth his Disciples and in them all Ministers successively to the end of the world to go and baptize Nations you say Children are a part of the Nations therefore they are commanded to be baptized but there is as you afterwards confess a Discipling first Disciple Nations baptizing them and here is no command for Infant-baptism but for the baptism of Disciples you pretend to put off this with the dangerousness of building Arguments on the bare placing of words in Scripture you produce Repentance and Judas's sop Repentance sometimes placed before Faith yet we know it is a fruit of Faith I answer it is such a fruit of faith as is individual and upon a right understanding Repentance may as well be said to go before as to follow after for it is a change of the mind and I querie whether any man did ever believe or can believe before his mind is changed its true after believing the change is perfected more and more But this is it which I affirm That no man believes savingly without or before a change of the mind which produceth a change of the conversation As for the Sop neither Matthew nor Mark saith that Judas received it before the Sacrament Matthew saith chap. 26. 23. He that dippeth with me in the dish shall betray me but he doth not express when it was done before or after so Mark expresseth chap. 14. 20. That he that dippeth with him in the dish should betray him but he doth not tell whether it was before or after therefore what Luke saith is no contradiction but rather a clearer explanation And whereas you say you will upon the account of placing words easily prove Baptism to be before Preaching Mark 1. 4. John did baptize in the Wilderness and preach c. Here Baptism is set before Preaching say you c. but this is answered and explained by Matthew Chap. 3. 1 2. John the Baptist preached in the Wilderness of Judea saying Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand and ver 5 6. they were baptized of him in Jordan And this is according to the Analogie of Scripture Preaching Discipling believing confessing of sins repenting before baptizing and produce if you can that ever baptizing was set before believing c. and not explained by another Scripture as that of Mark explained by Matthew and then take heed fear and tremble to change Scripture phrases at your pleasure for your own ends taking that first which is and must be last You may upon this very account turn out and contradict all the most precious truth of God in Scripture and this very thing strikes at it for the reason why Teaching Discipling and Faith is to precede baptism is evident that it is because its Christs appointment and there is a necessity that faith go before works for there is no work acceptable before or without faith but Thomas Hall will have works go before faith baptism before faith though Christ hath said the contrary and so make void the Law of Christ and the Faith of Jesus lay another foundation works before faith baptism before believing and so teach men to sin For what-soever is not of faith is sin And he that breaketh one of the least Commands and teacheth men so to do shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven Mat. 5. 19. What then shall become of those who break the great commands of Faith and Baptism that overturn the very foundation setting up works before and without Faith and that you may do it you chop and change the Scripture that so you may accomplish your own designs upon the account of Christ But all your Logical Arguments and humane distinctions will not cannot satisfie those whose eyes are enlightned to see out of obscurity and out of darkness So the truth stands firm as Christ himself that is first disciple then baptize and the practise of the Apostles answered this Command they never baptized any in the Nations but Disciples And this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciple all Nations holds forth the breaking down of that middle wall of partition and so the going forth of the Gospel to the Gentiles for so that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth Gentiles as well as Nations and it intends not all Nations viz. every one in the Nations but all that believed and became Disciples in the Nations Act. 10. 35. In every Nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousnes shall be accepted Now where is your command Sir for your practise so much pleaded for for you confess pa. 28. That this place speaks properly of the order prescribed for conversion of Heathens that were adult Then you have no command in this Scripture for your practise you are lost upon your own account You grant page 29. That all baptized ones must be taught but not all at the same time such as are capable of teaching are to be taught before baptizing but Infants of believers are to be baptized first and taught afterward But you have no Scripture for this it seems your word must stand for proof to those who will believe it you instance 2 Thess 3. 10. He that will not labour must not eat Infants cannot labour yet they must eat True but what is that to the thing in hand Do you think the Apostle intended that to give advantage to you to overturn the Commands of Christ there is a necessity for Infants to eat but none to be baptized unless there be a necessity to break the Law of Christ and a necessity to make them hypocrites c. You say There is a teaching after baptizing Mat. 28. 20. A teaching before and after and that baptizing is set in the middle implying that some must be taught before viz. Heathens some after viz. Infants of believers But you are much mistaken in the second but it implyeth that there is a teaching before for the working of faith and a teaching after for the building them up in the same faith for that end God hath appointed Prophets Pastors and Teachers in the Church and those Acts 2. 41. that were baptized ver 42. continued stedfast in the Apostles doctrine c. So that this is the teaching before and after baptism there intended You confess page 31. notwithstanding your bold assertion in your Argument That all your Command is but a consequential command and something equivalent to a command an implicite command a necessary consequence c. I advise you to take heed first how you lay down Arguments for the future in such positive terms to delude the simple yet confess at last it is but a necessary consequence 2. A little consider how necessary the consequence is it is such a consequence as first makes void the command of Christ 2. Makes null the Gospel of grace setting up works before and without faith 3. Makes all your worship vain In vain saith Christ do ye worship God teaching for doctrines the traditions of
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
〈◊〉 to plunge over head and ears is another c. Answ It s one and the same for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to dip as your self confess pag. 113. though not only to dip you say the Primitive word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath four severall significations 1. To drownd plunge or overwhelm 2. To dye or dip 3. To moysten or make wet 4. To wash or cleanse Note 1. It doth not by your own confession signifie to sprinkle you have said enough to satisfie any that desireth satisfaction in this particular that your Practise of sprinkling is not according to the Scripture and in truth sprinkling is another word and another thing then Baptizing Rantizo is the Greek word for sprinkling and Baptizo from Bapto is the Greek word for Baptizing take it in which of these four you please neither of them is to sprinkle but in dipping either of all the four is fulfilled if dipped then wet then washed then drowned or plunged so that dipping is nothing short of Baptizing for the word signifieth it it s nothing beyond Baptism for it is but a plunging a wetting or washing of the whole man so that take in all the significations of that word Baptizo dipping answers them all but sprinkling answers neither and in deed and truth is not baptizing but another thing and that which Christ never commanded Sprinkling a little water in the face is not a dipping or plunging it is not a wetting or washing the whole man and in no case answers the command of Christ But for the clearing of this particular I shall give these four grounds to confirm dipping to be the true baptizing and not sprinkling 1. From the signification of the word as hath been already minded it is the conclusion of all the Masters of the Greek Tongue in the Greek Lexicons that the first and most native and proper signification of Baptizo is to dip or plunge into or under water and this your self confesse that 1. It signifieth to drown plunge overwhelm die or dip this Mr. Lee in his Critica Sacra on the word and Passor with divers others affirms whom I suppose you conclude were Masters of the Greek Tongue and this likewise Doctor Featly in his Dipper Dipt confesseth and this I finde that the word Baptizo is never rendred in the New-Testament to sprinkle nor Rantizo to Baptize therefore do no longer wrest the truth contrary to your own knowledge but be still and know that God is God 2. From the Practise of the Servants of the Lord in the Primitive times who best knew the minde of Christ 1. John who was the Messenger of Christ Mal. 3. 1. Baptized and he baptized in Jordan Mat. 3 6. And he baptized Christ himself in Jordan ver 16. with Mark 1. 9. and he came up out of the water What need Christ and John go down into the water if sprinkling would do the deed And the Text saith Mat. 3. 13. That Jesus cometh to John to be baptized that is upon Mr. Hales one account to be plunged dipped wet or washed not sprinkled and being dip'd he was both wet and washed And Joh. 3. 23. its said That John was baptizing not sprinkling in Enon neer Salim because there was much water there If sprinkling had been the thing required no need of much water To this you say 1. Water was scarce in those hot Countries that infers not a stripping naked and plunging of all that were Baptized but only the conveniency of baptizing a multitude c. Answ 1. Do you know or have you heard of any such hot Country where there could not be water had enough to sprinkle many thousands if need require 2. Was Canaan such a Country as that water was scarce in it being the promised fruitfull Land in the whole world a type of the Heavenly Canaan where were Wells digged Deut. 6. 11. Neh. 9. 25. and Rivers in abundance or else the Type holds not correspondence to the Antitype Ezek. 34. 13 Is 12. 3. Therefore for shame talk no more of a dry and hot Country it being a Land of Rivers and Wells digged c. So that if a little water would have done it as a little would have sprinkled thousands they needed not to have been baptized in Enon so the word is not at but in Enon and so these several places translated with water Mat. 3. 11. Mark 1. 8. Luk. 3. 6. Iohn 1. 26. Act. 1. 5. in the Greek it is rendred in every one of them in water although you seem to hold forth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifieth with yet the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in and is so understood and rendred twenty times in the New Testament against once with that being the proper signification of the word and most sutable to the Practise of the Apostles and servants of the Lord. Compare the former Scriptures with Act 8. 38. and its clear they baptized in the water not because of the scarcity of water as you pretend but because there was much water without which that Ordinance of dipping could not be administred As for your Font-sprinkling there is not the least shadow of any ground for it in the Scripture and whereas you say not a stripping naked c. the Scripture mentions no such thing neither is it our Practise nor yours neither Do you use to strip naked when you sprinkle neither do we when we baptize c. 2. You say Suppose the Apostles did dip those whom they baptized yet 't will not follow therefore that we must do so too because t is only an example without a precept and so doth not binde us c. Answ 1. There was the precept both to them and us 2. they knew the will of him who gave the precept and walked according to it and we by their president know what the precept was and so it s a precept to us as well as them They lived in Judea in hot climates where was no danger of dipping c. Answ 1. And was there one way for them in Judea and another for us in England prove that by Scripture when you write next 2. Was their Country so much hotter then ours had they not Winter and Summer heat and cold frost and snow as we have Ioh. 10. 22. Psal 74. 17. Ier. 36. 22. Psal 148. 8. Therefore give off this for shame likewise Say no more their Country was hot and ours cold You say The danger of dipping in our cold Country is that many in our dayes have dyed If you intend the dipping of Believers you speak a horrid untruth I am confident that never one perished in that way But secondly if you minde dipping of Infants I know none are dipped 2. If any be no wonder if they perish being done out of Gods way having no warrant from him You confess Mr. Perkins approves of dipping in hot Countries and in men of years but denies the use of
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
as any president for it you would feign presidents for sprinkling of Infants if you could but you endeavour to overturn Presidents of preaching Brethren that they should not be usefull to us let the people judge of what Spirit you are of And the reason I judge is this your own standing depends so positively upon it that unless you can uphold the one and suppress the other you are like to fall together Observ 4. That in my pleading for a general liberty of Preaching in a constituted Church I do not inform how far I extend it Whether it be with the consent of the Pastor and people or whether he may Preach whether they will or no Answ I leave the truth of this likewise to the Reader to judge whether it be not often asserted in my Book pag 29. The Churches freedom or desire is Call enough if the party be gifted to it all lawfull Calls to Preach either within or without are sutable to the Gift pag. 30. The Church hath power to Call forth a gifted Brother to do service for the Church and in the Postscript at the end it is thus written In what I have written I intend that only Brethren that have Gifts may exercise them in an orderly way that is with the desire or consent of the Church as any man might easily understand so there is no truth in your observation Obser 5. That in most of his Answers he doth not reply to the Scripture reason alledged against him but declining that as a little too hard for him That I leave to the Reader to judge whether I have declined a positive Answer to all both the Arguments and Scriptures and who hath declined the Argument and Scriptures most I in my Answers to Tho. Hall or Rich. Sanders in his answer to mine So you come you say to open several Scriptures from giving any countenance to that Babel and the two first that you will speak to is Act 8. 4. and Act 9. 20 but in this you will ohserve two Rules 1. That in weighty things of God a Christian must have a certain Rule or warrant for his practise c. I like it well and if you held firm to this truth you must deny all your own practise 2. That Arguments drawn from examples in Scripture are of credit according to the credit of the persons whose examples they are c. This I own for truth likewise But you say Those examples are of men not infallible c. How prove you that dare you question it and doth not the Scripture say the hand of the Lord was with them yet dare you question the spirit by which they were guided Acts 11. 21. All the rest you say to this is nothing at all therefore I say no more but refer the Reader to what is at large answered in the Pulpit-Guard Routed as for the second Scripture Act. 9. 20. you confess That he Preached before he was solemnly set apart to be an Apostle to the Gentiles 2. You say he was sent by an immediate voice to Ananias that he should tell him what he should do but Ananias did not bid him preach but arise and be baptized c. You minde what you have from Sauls own mouth ch 22. 14. Ananias saith to him Thou shalt be a witness to all men of what thou hast seen and heard ver 15. This was no setting of him apart to the Office he told him that he should be a witness c. but did not Ordain him unto it and upon your account Saul should have been silent till he had been ordained but he was not as before and Act. 26. 16 17 18. Gods immediate sending him was nor the outward Office as you pretend You say the other Scripture he often urges and why not having often occasion 1 Pet. 4. 10 11. Rom. 12. 6. 7. These you say are far fetcht consequences Answ They are no consequences man but plain Scripture Precepts Christians must administer their gifts therefore they must be publick Preachers c. Why not publick do the Scriptures make a difference And what you say further to these Scriptures hath been answered already therefore I say no more The ntxt Scripture is Psal 145. 10 11. All you say to this is very learnedly As though this hath any relation to publick preaching when he saith they shall make known to the sons of men his mighty Acts and the glorious Majesty of his Kingdom but this you have left out you durst not put it in your Book lest the Reader should see your folly The next Scripture is 1 Cor 14. 31. This you pretend to prove was extraordinary Prophesie and not ordinary as the Pulpit-Guard Routed sayes And you say That your great work shall be to prove that prophecy 1 Cor. 14. 31. was extraordinary and not ordinary as the Pulpit-Guard-Routed sayes 1. You say You read p. 60. that the reason why prophesie was extraordinary in the Law and this ordinary 1 Cor. 14. 3. is because its a speaking to edification exhortation and comfort c. The substance of what you seem to answer to this is 1. Because such as were prophets did speak to edification therefore those who speak to edification are prophets In this you say is some Sophistry c. But give me leave to shew your Sophistry and that first in pretending an Answer when t is nothing to the purpose the end of my using these words was to present the Reader with the difference between the Prophesie of the Old Testament which was to foretell things to come and this of the New this 1 Cor. 14. is an ordinary way of prophesie for the building up of the Church that so all may be instructed and all may be comforted 2. I answer that those Saints that can speak to edification c. are prophets nay all the Lords People are prophets therefore your Sophistry nor yet your Logick will not hold for though the ground may be wet without rain yet it is not often wet without water and if a Saint a Member of the Church can speak to edification exhortation and consolation he is a Prophet if he have the Testimony of Jesus he hath the Spirit of Prophesie 2. You say The Prophets under the Law spake to edification I answer There is none questions that but that their prophesyings had that end in it and it s so to us at this day when we come to understand them but the prophesying mentioned 1 Cor. 14. was a common and ordinary prophesying in the Church for the edification of the Body That in the Law was a foretelling of things to come and therefore written to be kept on Record to posterity this not written because ordinary and as Thomas Hall confesseth it was such a prophesie as in it they might err c. So that I say again they under the Law took not their denomination from this kind of prophesying viz. an ordinary speaking to build up souls in the present knowledge
of God for if he understand the sense and meaning of the Scripture then he understands the mind of God and this is contrary to the Scripture For the natural man doth not understand the things that are of God neither can he understand them 1 Cor. 2. 14 But we have the mind of Christ 2. If this be truth that you affirm then what is the reason that you with all your humane Learning do not yet understand the sense and meaning of the Scripture and that first in common and ordinary things as that the Covenant made with Abraham and Moses c. is not the same as the Gospel-Covenant when the Scripture saith plainly that it is not the same but another Covenant not such a Covenant as the first was but established upon better promises c. What is the reason that you do not understand that Command of Christ that it is Believers that are to be baptized and not Infants and that you understand not that when Christ saith That upon this Rock will I build my Church he means not Peter but the Rock of Peters confession viz. Christ Jesus who is so often in Scripture called The Rock or foundation stone of Sion but Pope-like think it s meant of Peter And are there not many Prophesies and much of the Revelation which is yet a sealed mysterie to you and John saith expresly Rev. 5. that the Scripture viz Christ the mysterie of God in Scripture is a sealed book that none could open it but the Lion of the Tribe of Judah Yet you say that a natural man can do it I leave it to the Reader to judge of the truth of this And 3. Whereas you say if the Spirits work be to teach men the sense of Scripture it is to make them Notionists I answer first then upon your own account your humane Learning doth but make you Notionists for you say that helps you to the knowledge of the sense of Scripture It s no wonder then that you are so far from the power of truth for you confess that with all your learning you are but Notionists at the best and truly you are but bad Notionists neither for there is much of the sense of Scripture that you are not acquainted withall You say Knowledge puffeth up Answ True fleshly knowledge such as you are pleading for but not the true saving knowledge of the Spirit of Christ for the Scripture saith expresly That without knowledge the heart cannot be good and for want of knowledge the people perish And that its life eternal to know God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent and the more a soul knows of God and Christ of God in Christ the more he comes to abbor himself Isa 6. Act. 9. And whereas you are so much upon this That the Scripture expressions are plain and express their own meaning page 137. Else they cannot be a perfect rule and if men must understand them by or in the light or teaching of the Spirit what were this but to make the Scripture a nose of Wax as the Papists do plyable to any sense c. Answ 1. It s true the Scripture expressions are plain and express their own meaning yet not so plain as you pretend that every one may attain the sense of them for you confess that there is need of means and help to understand them Then I querie which is the likeliest means to help us to understand the meaning of the Scripture in comparing Scripture with Scripture the Spirit of Christ or humane Learning Who best knows the meaning of the Scripture that Spirit by which it was given or that humane spirit so much pleaded for that never did nor never shall know the Lord 2. The Scriptures are no perfect rule to ignorant and carnal men or hypocrites it s a perfect rule only to such who by them know the Lord and his mind by the teachings of the Spirit and so walk according to it for if it be a perfect rule then it s so to those who know it You say a naturall man may know it then a naturall man may have a perfect rule and if he walk according to it he must be saved for who so walks by a perfect rule and answers it in his walking must be justified by that rule Now the Scripture is no perfect rule of justification of life to any but the Saints not that there is imperfection in the Scripture but none comes truly to know it but those who are taught from above 3. To say that the knowledge of the mind of God in Scripture by the teachings of the Spirit is to make it a nose of Wax c. is a fond imagination For first though its true upon this account men that have not the Spirit of God may abuse it thinking they have the Spirit of Christ when they have it not Yet 2. The Spirit is truth and is at unity in and with it self and speaks but one thing I mean he doth not contradict himself though there are contradictions amongst the Saints yet it is not from the Spirit who dwels in unity but from the worldly spirit not yet subdued in them and I thought you had known at least the Scripture Zeph. 3. 9. that saith God will turn to his people a pure language that they may serve him with one consent it s not the work of fleshes wisdom but I will do it saith the Lord and how think you if not in helping them to know his mind c. And 2. Doth not your humane wisdom indeed make a nose of wax of the Scripture do you not wrest iâ— and turn it which way you please and is it not for want of the clear teachings of the Spirit there are such rentings and divisions amongst us at this day Is it not about the sense of the Scriptures all the differences in the world are at this day And do you seek to God to guide you into a oneness in the understanding of the meaning of it or to your humane Learning Oh be ashamed for ever so much to undervalue Scripture and overvalue mans wisdom as that its sufficient to find out the meaning of the Scriptures When you have joyned up all together yet notwithstanding all your Learning yea and the Spirits teaching too you have not yet attained to all the sense of the Scriptures if you had there would not be division but unity not that I question the sufficiency of the Spirits teaching in its own time but certainly you are very much to blame having gotten that which is able to teach you the sense and meaning of the Scripture with your own endeavour yet to know so little of it as you do you must needs be very sluggards or else able to resolve infallibly any place of Scripture you having that which is able as you say to help you to understand it and you think you have the Spirit of Christ besides these two being by you joyned up together in you
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
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
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
therefore no ground to receive them to Baptism though Christ received them and blessed them I shall answer the Scripture more at large by and by As to the third Those that Christ invites the Church may not refuse Where doth Christ invite Infants Those Infants are gone long since He saith Suffer the Infants not all Infants 2. The Church are to receive those Christ hath given rule and command to receive viz. Believers Christ may receive some Infants because he knows them The Church doth not know them therefore the Church may not receive them 4. You say They that are capable of the Kingdom and Blessing which is the greater are much more capable of Baptism which is the lesser But Infants are capable of the greater Ergo. Ans Some Infants by vertue of Election may be capable of the greater yet not capable of the lesser 1. Because not capable to understand the lesser 2. Because we are not capable to understand and know them 3. Because there is no command for it for that is it we are to walk by and that capacity in which we are to judge 5. You say If the Kingdom of heaven receive them the Church may not exclude them Ans The Kingdom of heaven of glory receives none but the elect of God the Church doth not know them therefore the Church cannot receive them c. Now to your Scripture Mar. 10. 14. Suffer the little Children and forbid them not Note he saith not suffer little children but suffer the little children not all little children but the little ones that is those that were then brought unto him You draw a Conclusion from hence to have all p. 3 4 5. It 's evident in that that he would have them to come to him that so he might take an occasion to discover a Gospel-mysterie viz. That of such is the Kingdom of Heaven that is so qualified spiritually as they were naturally meek humble teachable helpless c. This is cleer compared with v. 15. Verily I say unto you whosoever doth not receive the kingdom of heaven as a little child he shall not enter therein that is as I said before so qualified spiritually as little children are naturally Hence 1 Pet. 2. 2. As new born babes desire the sincere milk of the word c. that is not as new-born babes desire the sincere milk of the word but as new born babes desire the milk of the breast so do you desire the milk of the word Mat. 18. 2 3 4. cleers the whole Except a man be converted and become as a little child he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven So that the substance of the whole in every Scripture mentioned by you to this purpose directly presents us with the same truth viz. the humble child like qualifications of his servants and not to fill up the Church with Infants contrary to Christs command and the practise of all his servants which is to be our alone rule and president In a word the Scriptures produced for proof of your Arguments have not a word of baptism in them nor the least hint that way and for you to draw consequences from such grounds especially those consequences overturning precepts and presidents is very dangerous and unsafe and that which we are bound in duty and conscience to renounce Christ knew what he had to do and hath left us a rule for what we should do he that forsakes this rule and will not hear Christ is to be cut off from amongst his people Acts 3. 22 23. They that will draw conclusions into practise from what Christ did contradicting what he hath commanded will be found enemies not permitting Christ to reign over them and what the danger will be of such conclusions see Luke 19. 27. The summe of all is this that although Christ knows the Elect Infants and receives them yet we do not know them it 's Gods secret and we are to walk by revealed rules and are to receive none before the manifestation of faith Mar. 16. 16. Act. 8. 37. and it 's evident the Church did receive none but such Act. 2. 41 42. The Apostle in his Epistles writing to the Churches cals them Saints not Infants 1 Cor. 1 2. 2 Cor. 1. 1. 1 Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church be come together into some place and all speak with tongues the unlearned will say ye are mad but if all prophesie c. Where note the whole Church meets together and they may being thus assembled all prophesie and were here Infants think you They might all prophesie none excepted that had the gift but women And 1 Cor. 12. 27. The Church is the body of Christ and members in particular and this body is made up of many members v. 28 29 30. and Infants are none of them Apostles Prophets Teachers gifts of healing helps in government miracles interpreters c. There is never a true member in the Church of Christ but hath some one or other of these gifts more or less here are no Infants see v. 13 14 15 16 17. The fourteenth Argument From Rom. 12. 26. you say but I say 11. 16. If the first-fruit be holy the lump is also holy and if the root be holy so are the branches The sum of all you say is That by the root and first fruit is meant Abraham Isaac and Jacob. p. 62. If it appear that there is no truth in this assertion then your Argument fals to the ground But there is no truth in this assertion Ergo. I shall make it appear 1. In the Covenant made with Abraham his posterity stood not by faith but outward observation Circumcision keeping the Law If thou be willing and obedient thou shalt eat the good of the Land if thou be disobedient thou shalt be destroyed with the sword Isa 1. 19 20. But when Christ the true root Isa 11. 10. Rom. 15. 12. Rev. 5. 5. 22. 6. and first-fruits 1 Cor. 15. 20 23. was come they not believing were broken off because not by faith graffed upon the true root For when Christ the true spiritual seed was come the natural seed and membership was broken off and only that of saith was graffed in That as the natural seed stood members upon the account of the first Covenant and promise made with Abraham so the spiritual seed viz. the seed of faith Christ being come and is the substance of that Covenant they are ingraffed into that root he being holy they are also holy according to the words of Christ Joh. 15. 1 2. 2. That this is the truth intended will more cleerly appear if you consider v. 18. Boast not against the branches i e. against the branches broken off for thou bearest not the root but the root thee Now Thomas Hall what root is it that bears the believing branches Natural parents or Christ the true root Is not he the foundation upon which they are built and the true root and stock into which they are
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
the judgement of the Church he may lawfully nay he ought to submit unto the Call of God be he high or low from the Speaker of the House or President of the Counsell of State unto the Hewer of wood and Drawer of water and this is a true Call when thus called of God therefore all you say to this is but an idle fancy you have no ground for it His second Error That Infant-Baptism is a childish thing And this you say He will own for a Truth And this I do say I still own for a Truth and that first in the Subject 2. In the Administrators You say There is an Objection lies in the way which he sets down viz. That the Infants of the children of Israel were as uncapable of the understanding of the mysterie of Circumcision as Infants are now of Baptism My Answers though reproached by you I suppose it s not for want of ignorance I shall relate them again and leave them to the judgement of the Reader only adding one more will stand and their truth be manifest when what you practise will fall in the streets It s truth that one part of Circumcisions Mystery viz. the Circumcision of the heart was as far from the capacity of Infants as the mysterie of Baptism is now 2. As Circumcision was a Type and Figure in the flesh of Christ who was to come of Abrahams Seed and there was no such capacity required because it was a Jewish Legal Type as all the rest of their external Worships and Sacrifices were leading to and representing the coming of Christ in the flesh That these are not words to please children as you pretend unless you mean the children of God but words of truth it will appear if the honest Reader do but consider that as all the Ordinances of the Jews were Carnal and Typical Heb. 9. 10. Col. 2. 16 17. So those Ordinances were given to the Natural or Carnal Seed viz. the Seed of the Flesh which was Typical likewise as their Ordinances were therefore was not the like capacity required in them as in those in the Gospel days who are directly led into the Mysterie unto Jesus who is come being the substance of all those Types and shadows 3. There was a Command for that of Circumcision none for that of Baptism you cry out O egregiously gifted Disputant Answ O egregiously ignorant Is it not the Command that gives a capacity to the one and to the other If the Lord Command the one and not the other is not that enough to silence man for ever Zac. 2. 13. I say its the Command of God that gives a capacity to the creature of obeying and there are none capable of a Duty but those that are called to the Duty and this you confess your self p. 86. that in weighty things of God a Christian must have a certain evident Rule to warrant his practise Whereas you say They were therefore circumcised because taken into the Covenant and so Church Members I shall Answer it in its place and say something to it in my fourth Answer I shall adde a fourth and that is They were capable of those things promised to them in that Covenant viz. The Land of Canaan and only the spiritual seed are capable of those things promised in the Gospel-Covenant viz. The spiritual Land Jesus Christ and all the good things of the Gospel 2. I say its childish as relating to the Administrators c. and you give a clear answer to it of just nothing I refer the Reader to it His third Error That none must be baptized until they come to perfect age To this you seem to give a learned Answer crying out of Ignorance and where it is let the Reader judge by the Scriptures I produce Was not Christ himself baptized at thirty years of age The Eunuch by Philip Acts 8. 37. And those that came to Iohn Mat. 3. and those Acts 2. 40 41 You say When any Anabaptist in England can prove that there was no Infants baptized in the Apostles time then it may be you will make use of that which I bring I shall make use of your own words before O egregiously gifted Disputant What are you so well verst that we must prove Negatives I thought that you had known so much in disputation of Reason and Scripture that if you will practise a thing then you must prove it or else it is Will worship if you can produce no precept nor president in Scripture for your practise then you have no ground for your practise but you can produce neither precept nor president for your practise Ergo. I say Is there one rule for them and another for us now if there be produce it To this you learnedly answer If he did understand sense he would see that the same Scripture-rule that was then given to the Churches directs us to a different course in gathering of Churches And truly I must be mighty wise then to understand that which is not for mine own ends such sense will prove sensual in the end Jam. 3. 13 14 15 16. and this is the summe of what you say only you would flatter the people with your love to them and its manifest it is in darkening the Truth You have produced no Scripture for another rule to us then that to them although I called for it but only Rev. 2. 2. Try them that say they are Apostles and are not but lyars I say so too and earnestly desire nay charge those who have any knowledge of Jesus to do it See who sticks fastest to the Scriptures we or you that so they may find out the lyars and detect and avoid them for they serve not the Lord Jesus but their own bellies and by their works they shall know them As for those consequences mentioned as that of Circumcision the Housholds and those brought to Christ c. I wonder that you blush not to write so audaciously as you do knowing that almost all people know the truth of what I write that these are the consequences witness The Font-Guarded Immediatly you confess that its true The first consequence is made use of but come hither all you that fear the Lord see what a shift this man makes to help himself he takes it for granted that I acknowledge that baptism is come in the room of Circumcision when I do but declare your false and nonsensical consequences not mine own conclusion I deny Baptism to be come in the room of Circumcision my grounds you may see in the Font-Guard Routed in my answer to Doctor Hall yet if it were true that Baptism were come in the room of Circumcision as Richard Sanders would have it let the babes and sucklings come and see what ground here will be for Infant baptism let Jesus Christ be King let him have but so much honour as to tell you who shall be baptized and how it shall be done the controversie will be ended If you think
judgment to us is not material Yet this I shall say that it is in mercy and much wisdom For all the works of God are wrought in mercy and truth It was the will and wisdom of God that the Natural seed should have an interest in the outward Covenant and that the Spiritual seed should have a true interest in the spiritual Covenant and priviledges Therefore cease reasoning thus let God be true let God have his will though he take away all cause of fleshly boasting from us For now we have no interest in any thing in this Covenant unless Christ be ours and if Christ be ours then all is ours but lose him and lose all 1 Cor. 3. 21 22. You come you say to his fourth Error That God now reveals his will not only by the written word but by dreams and visions more credited then the Scriptures This you assert it 's none of mine as the Reader may see if he please to peruse the place It is your own invention and a lying one too And to this you adde another as great immediately following viz. That you believe the Prison at London had done me good where you heard I lately was for my Heresies Strange man I you are speaking against Dreams and yet are in the very interim dreaming you did but dream that I was in prison and I suppose it was because you would have it so you had studied deep upon the point the day before and so it seems you dream'd the thing was done What Richard Sanders dream a lye if he can dream no better then that he were as good give off dreaming or at least forbear to publish it in writing lest all men count him but as he is And what I say of Dreaming is no more but this that I dare not condemn the thing because God hath not limited himself he may reveal himself which way he pleaseth though not contrary but agreeable to the Scripture And further that it is not my experience nor any of that I know therefore may be a whimsie of Tho Halls own head This is the substance of what I say yet you dare to assert that I affirm that God reveals his will that way that it s more to be credited then the written word when all I say is that for all that I know some may have something revealed thar way although I know it not See Mr. Fox in the Book of Martyrs vol. 3. pag. 607. he relates of that good Martyr Mr. Philpot in a dream or vision he saw as it were a glorious City full of excellencies c. and it brought much joy to his soul it was cleered to him that it was a representation of the glorious Church of Christ and dare you say this was false And may not God do the like if he please though it 's not usual yet limit not God His fifth Error That the Saints need not ask the pardon of sin that it is form and custome that carries them to this petition Forgive us our sins c. It seems you resolved to lye when you began and so you will do it to the purpose but you are driven to confess the truth immediately that every one that runs may read you While any lives in the cleer enjoyment of mercy it is form and custom that carries them to that petition but if a soul apprehends want of pardon let him ask it And is this so strange unto you truly I do not wonder I believe it is in good earnest as strange as you make it It seems you know not that there is a time for all things and every thing in its season is sweet and comely There is a time to ask pardon and a time to rejoyce in the enjoyment of pardon there is a time to be merry a time to be sorry If any be merry saith James let him sing if afflicted let him pray And for that word If any soul or when a soul apprehends the want of pardon let him ask it it s no otherwise then what James saith If any want wisdom let him ask of God c. Jam 1. 5. All you say about this is either a spurning against the truth and a manifesting of your ignorance in this truth of God or secondly a declaration of what is included in my assertion That as they commit new sins so being sensible of it and of the want of pardon let them ask it His sixth Error That gifted Brethren may exercise the Ministerial or Pastoral act of Preaching in a constituted Church without any Call to the Office of a Minister Ans 1. I suppose it 's impossible for you to state any thing truly as it was laid down by me But that you pretend that what I have written is so full of contradictions that in sober sadness you know not what I would have Truly in sober-sadness I am much of the mind that your mind in writing was rather to make the Truth and my self its servant contemptible to the people then to answer the truth written in my book for else you durst not change my language into your own so oft as you do and then rail and pretend you answer me nay pretend you know not what I would have when it is so cleerly asserted from Scripture grounds not only in the generall but in particular pag. 95. 96. in seven or eight particulars and I shall at present mind but one which is the first That all the brethren in the Church that have the gift may prophesie You assert it thus That they may exercise the Ministerial or Pastoral act c. Well but you pretend you will not answer the Arguments that you will leave to your brother Hall But you pittifully cry out of ignorance in the Collier but I suppose and it s not my supposition only that it is your own pittifull ignorance makes you so to cry out against me for the Arguments you pass nor do you say any thing of substance unto those things you pretend to be Errors You say you will lay down some Observations which may serve as a key to see the weakness ignorance and impertinency of the same You observe p. 66. That I do pittifully say I Sir and No Sir And is this such a pittiful thing Let the Reader judge As to your 7 particulars instanced there is no contradiction in them For first that gifted brethren may preach according to their gift both in and out of a constituted Church is cleer and there is not any thing you have said that bears the least shew of a solid answer unto it For both of these see 1 Cor. 14. 31. Rom. 12. 3. 6. 1 Pet. 4. 10 11. Act. 8. 4. with chap. 11. 19 20 21. Act. 9. 20. chap. 18. 25 26. in all which it appears the lawfulness of the Preaching of gifted Brethren both in and out of the Church and truly I cannot think that you are so ignorant of this Truth as you pretend only you
of God but from their receiving their prophesie immediatly from God discovering things to come Whereas you say They were not called Prophets in the old Testament from the matter of their prophesie but for the manner of receiving it 1. I answer it was from both matter and manner too 2. If what you say be truth see a clear difference those 1 Cor. 14. are called Prophets not so much from the manner as the matter He that prophesieth speaketh to edification exhortation and consolation as if he should say if you would know a Prophet it is such a one as speaks to edification c. and whosoever speaks not to edification c. is no Prophet for the Apostle doth not only direct them in the manner of prophesie but in the matter too it s a word to edification and truly you either miserably contradict your selves or else do of purpose to keep souls in the dark for Thomas Hall whom you pretend to vindicate applyeth that Scripture 1 Cor. 14. 32. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets viz. to the probation and examination of the Presbyterie and he hath no other Scripture to prove the Presbyterian examination and probation but that yet afterwards both with him and you that prophesie is extraordinary and yet you confess that Presbyterie was an ordinary office what contradictions are these and what will you not say for your own ends You seem much to harp upon one thing and that of little consequence to the thing in hand That the extraordinary way of Revelation did denominate their sayings to be prophesies and not their foretelling things to come I say that not only that but the matter of the prophesie as well as the manner as a blind man might see or understand for if any prophesie and the matter of the prophesie proved not true he was no true Prophet therefore that the people might know a true Prophet under the Law they were to look at the matter of the prophesie not the manner of receiving it Isa 23. 26. How long shall this be in the heart of the Prophets to prophesie lies ver 28. The Prophet that hath a dream let him tell a dream and he that hath my word let him speak my word faithfully c. So that it was the faithful and true speaking of the word from whence they had the denomination of Prophet and this in substance you confess page 101. contradicting what you say p. 100. It was the extraordinary way of Revelation here it s the manifestation of their prophesie because they manifested to others by divine inspiration things past present and to come So that now you confess its the manifestation by revelation of truth that made them Prophets not the ordinary way of speaking to edification c. mentioned 1 Cor. 14. 3. As to all you say to Rev. 19 10. page 103. I may truly retort your own words I am afraid the devil hath taught you to play the Sophister for when the Text saith The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophesie you say immediatly and extraordinarily inspired Doth the Text say so or is it your own invention I leave to the Reader to judge And as for your distinction from Chap. 1. ver 2. The word of God and the Testimony of Jesus it s one and the same in substance or at most the Testimony of Jesus is but an explanation of the word of God He was banished for the word of God even for the Testimony of Jesus so the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must of necessity sometimes be understood As Col. 2. 2. the Apostle manifesting his earnest desire for the Saints that they might come to the Knowledge of God and of the Father c. which must be rendred even of the Father a word rather to explain the former then distinguish c. So that John doth not so distinguish as if he had been more excellent then the rest of the Apostles in the testimony of Jesus c. but for that it was he was banished and the truth is that the Testimony of Jesus though not so eminent as the Apostles yet if by the same spirit according to the rule of truth and according to the measure received it is the spirit of prophesie As for what you say to that Scripture 1 Cor. 14. 37. Every spiritual man is a Prophet All the Saints are spiritual Therefore all Prophets What you with so much contempt say to this doth but discover of what spirit you are and you might know that when I say the Saints are not all Prophets page 21. I intended that they had not all the same gift of prophesie to speak to the edifying of the Church and upon that account they are not all Prophets Yet secondly they are all Prophets upon a common account and are able to speak something of God and Christ as occasion is offered this God promised and hath made good that he would pour out of his Spirit upon all flesh c. So that the truth holds clear That every spiritual man is a Prophet and that according to the measure of the gift so he may and ought to speak though all are not Prophets viz. able to speak in the Church to edification exhortation and consolation yet all are Prophets and may speak occasionally to edification though not in the Church Some of the grounds you pretend to answer As that these Prophets were such as needed direction from the Apostles c. therefore not extraordinary You pretend to answer this first Because there were extraordinary tongues and the Apostle directs them and why not direct extraordinary Prophets too Answ 1. If by ordinary and extraordinary you mean the one common to all the other more then ordinary so not common to all that I alwayes have granted and shall as in the case of prophesying So of tongues All have the Spirit of Christ that is ordinary to all If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his Rom. 8. 9. yet all have not the gift of prophesie to speak in the Church as before So in those tongues there was that speech of the things of God that was ordinary to all and that of tongues which was proper to but some as Prophesie yet not so extraordinary as to be either 1. infallible therefore needed direction or 2. passing for the Apostle spake with tongues more then they all And secondly that this of tongues was not such an extraordinary business as you pretend is clear and that first from the Apostles disswading them from it as you may see at large in the Chapter and that from the unprofitableness of it both to the Church and to the world too ver 2 3. and 23 24. 2. He saith ver 5. Greater is he that prophesieth then he that speaketh with tongues and the reason is rendred because he that prophesieth edifieth the Church c. You say there is yet one reason more page 87. Praying
it is of God not a wolf but a sheep not a false but a true Prophet speaking to edification exhortation and consolation they may with comfort hear and approve the speaking of such in the Church Your fourth Argument is If to appoint to the office of a Minister and the work of a Minister be all one then no man is appointed to the work of a Minister but he that is appointed to the office But to appoint to the office of a Minister and the work of a Minister be all one Ergo. Ans Your Minor is denied A man may be appointed to the work of a Minister yet never be appointed to the office For 1. Richard Sanders himself in his own practise shall confute this Logick for he saith That he Preached a long time before he was Ordained c. but he mends the matter It was in order to the Ministry But in case Richard Sanders had died before he had been ordained then Preaching and the Office of the Ministry had not been one there had been a great deal of Preaching without Office So that in this your practise you contradict your reason and you allowed your self in the thing which you condemn 2. Were these Act. 8. 4. appointed to the office they did the work but the office you read not of And those 1 Pet. 4. 10 11. they were commanded to the work but not to the office for then every one must have been officers c. 3. You have given your Argument but never a Scripture to confirm it but you endeavour to confirm one Reason by another without Scripture Take heed Richard of outing Scripture with your Reason be content to fall down under the power of truth let God be true and all fleshes wisdom so far as it opposeth God be a lye You now come to his 7. Error That Humane Learning is no way necessary to the Ministry of the Gospel and that I affirm p. 38. 39. 41. Pulpit-Guard Routed that the power of the Spirit of Christ in Saints is sufficiently able to make them to divide the word aright and to convince gain-sayers And dare you deny this Truth Is not the Spirit of Christ sufficient dare you derogate from the Holy Spirit and do you find any other Ministery or Teacher then the Spirit in the Scripture 1 Cor. 12. Joh. 14. 26. 16. 7 8. But you seem to help this again you deny not the ability of the Spirit but you question the will or if he please to do it I think that needs not be the Question but rather whether you are in the Scripture directed to any other way for the attaining of the minde of God then the Spirit and the Scripture but you question pag. 126. Whether the main and principle Doctrine of the Scriptures be so plainly laid down as that a Christian may attain unto the knowledge of the same without humane Learning you grant that if he have a Translation he may and have not we a Translation in English and is it not true but false then the Translators have done wrong but is it not true in the substance is there any material fundamental mistake if not then an English man in the English Translation may understand the minde of God as much and more if he have a greater measure of the Spirit then an Hebritian and Grecian can understand in those Languages 2. I answer that I do not quarrell against Tongues but at the abuse of them to make an Idol of them I know you may come to the knowledge of the Letter of Scripture in an ordinary way more fully with it then without it but it is the abuse of it that I quarrel at because you set it up in the room of the Spirit as if none could understand Scripture but those that have Tongues then the Faith of all others must be an implicite Faith built upon the credit of men which would prove very weak in the end 3. It s the use of Philosophy in the things of God as some of you affirm that there is a necessity of studying Arts Sciences Logick Rhetorick c. to make them Ministers as Tho. Halls Pulpit Guard make use of your tongues bring forth the truth of the Original to the people help those that want it and make not an Idol of it c. You proceed to produce some Scriptures A good account of which cannot be given without the help of humane Learning Answ In this you shew so much weakness that I would not say a word unto it were it not for one or two of them and I shall say but a word or two 1. Is there any thing material in any of these Scriptures Put case a man knew not the Emphasis of the Original as Rich. Sanders cals it Is any thing laid open by him material or 2. if so it s that which may be easily attained But to the Scriptures the first is Apostolos and what if a man never knew that it signifies Sent why might he not understand as much as your self in it for every man that knows any thing knows that the twelve Apostles and Paul were Apostles and you know no more you do not know that all that are sent of Jesus Christ are Apostles viz. Sent. The second Scripture of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Rock you seem to give a learned interpretation as if Christ intended to build his Church upon Peter so much is clearly hinted in what you say I trace you no farther in this I leave the weight of what you say concerning those Scriptures to the Reader because I am in haste As to that you say concerning Ghost I perceive you know well what the word is in the Greek and what if it were alwayes so translated in English and I think it is one of the greatest wrongs to our English translation the mispronouncing of words in pronouncing Hebrew and Greek instead of English Messias from Mesha instead of Anointed Emmanuel instead of God with us In Greek Christ from Christos instead of anointed Jesus instead of Saviour Apostle instead of Sent Baptize instead of Dip or Wash c. and Ghost instead of Spirit though that 's no Greek word Why do you not reform these things with your learning unless it be done on purpose to keep people in ignorance But you have something farther to say it seems and that very learnedly page 134. and you have much to say to this particular That there is not any Scripture understood by spiritual Christians the grammatical sense of which a man that hath not the Spirit of Christ may attain unto and page 135. That Scripture is sufficient to discover its own sense to all men diligently improving the outward helps afforded by God and that if it be the Spirits work to discover the sense and meaning of Scripture then the Spirits work is to make Notionists c. Answ And is this your spiritualness indeed That a natural man without the Spirit may understand the mind
the least of which is able to help you to the infallible sense c. What then hinders that you are not infallible and yet that you are not infallible is clear for what need a difference then between Papist and Protestant yet both Learned between Episcopacie and Presbyterie yet both Learned Presbyterie and Independency yet both Learned Independency and the Baptists yet some of both Learned between them all and those that deny both Church and Ordinances yet some of them Learned too Oh be ashamed for ever of these Fopperies and let all who know the Lord look to him for the teachings of the Spirit that so we may come to know his minde and will that so we may worship him with one shoulder and let all that love the Lord Jesus say Amen This shall suffice at present as an answer to what you say of your humanity I deny not the use of means but the abuse of it I leave it to the Reader to judge You come to the 8. Error That the Ministry of England is Antichristian Answ This is a dangerous one with you it seems but because I have said so much to this in the Pulpit Guard Routed I shall wholly wave it in this place seaving both Tho. Halls assertions my answers to him and yours again to mine to the judgment of the Reader a word to the wise is enough it s a word that you cannot yet well bear therefore I shall at present forbear only give me leave to minde you with two words 1. You answer but one of my six Arguments to prove them Antichristian the rest you pass by as if the naming of them as Tho. Hall said in contempt were answer enough to them if it be I leave it to the Reader I am satisfied 2. In that which you pretend to answer what do you more or less then say the same that I have said You confess 1. It came from Rome but you think to mend it with this because the Scriptures came from Rome but if by the hand of Gods grace the Scripture was kept pure in Rome and not defiled then the case is altered but they were so kept Ergo that it is so I prove If the Scriptures preserved by the Romans have sufficient in them to overturn the very practise and Religion of the Romans then they had not a power to corrupt it for their own ends But the Scriptures preserved by the Romans have sufficient in them to overturn all the Religion of the Romans viz. Papists Ergo. The Minor I prove Those who use to corrupt Scripture do it for their own ends and interests but the Papists have not corrupted it for their own ends and interests Ergo. I mean in the Hebrew and Greek which I suppose must necessarily be that which you intend for you say the Scriptures as well as Ordination was very much corrupted by the Papists p. 169. but among us hath been restored by degrees now our Work hath not been to restore the Popish Translators but to Translate out of the Greek and Hebrew Copies which I do not believe were or are materially or substantially corrupted so that by this you teach the People to deny the Scripture and at best to take it upon the account of man reducing it from corruption I must tell you if the Collier had written as much as black as you make him he must have expected to have had all the black-Coats in the Nation about his ears and that justly too So that the Case is altered now the Scripture in its essence was kept pure but the very essence of Ordination was Antichristian and how you could bring a clean thing out of an unclean I leave to the Reader to judge As to the Argument you confess the truth of it that the Calling came from Rome but you restore it by degrees Now which is better to come to the Scripture for Ordination Ordinances c. or to retain that which is Antichristian I leave to the Reader to judge as for Austin the Monk you confess what I say only you think you mend the matter in saying that Monks were not so bad then as now and that Rome was a true Church then the truth of this I leave to the judgement of the wise these things considered 1. When Austin came into England here was some that owned Christ as History relates for as you say the Gospel had been preached in England before both by Joseph of Arimathea and afterward Lucius King of the Britains desiring it not Elutherius as you affirm but Fugatius and Damianus being sent by Elutherius Pope or Bishop of Rome they Preached and Baptized in England that King being the first King that History mentions that was Baptized in England but when Austin came those Bishops you mention with the People because they would not submit to the pride of Austin were by him persecuted and brought to ruine by this you may judge a little of the truth of Romes being a true Church and Austin a true Minister 2. Whereas you say You hope Rome was then a true Church I say you have but little ground for it for I do not believe that ever Rome was a true Church My Reason is because I do judge that never a Nation Province or City was a true Gospel-Church its true there was once a true Church in Rome but the Scripture never calls Rome a Church for a true Church of Christ are a People gathered out of the world by the power of the Gospel to believing in Christ and professed obedience to him but this was never any Nation Province or City therefore no true Church of Christ Rev. 5. 9 but such Churches were at first and so it hath hitherto continued gathered by the authority of the Civil Magistrate compelling all to come in or else they must not live under their Authority fulfilling in a measure Rev. 13. 17. by which means the true Church in Rome and all other true Churches in Relation to Form Order and Worship have been extinguished so that I say Rome was never a true Church since it became a Church nor any Nation in the World besides its inconsistent with the true Church of Christ who are a People gathered out of Nations as before c. But to draw to a conclusion The other five Arguments you pass over as having no weight in them c. I leave it to the Reader to judge if there be no weight in them I say no more only aword to your Postscript You say There is another dangerous pestilent blasphemous Book of this Colliers against Ordinances c. which you heard of but never saw it Answ I suppose you did but dream a second time and this proves false too give off dreaming or lying for shame for I suppose none dare lye so grosly as to tell you so though you dare dream a lye and publish it but there is a hand of God in it that the world may know what you are My Books are not in private if there were any such it might be gotten assuredly let this satisfie I do declare that I never writ any such Book and if any have done or do gather from any passage that I deny Ordinances though I know no passage in any from whence any can draw such a positive conclusion I do affirm that I never writ any thing in which I denyed the Ordinances of Jesus Christ and it is my judgement and practise to walk in the use of them Thus at present have I done leaving the Premises to the publick view and censure of those to whom it comes desiring the Lord to give understanding c. FINIS