an innovation not of many years standing in this Nation as is well known Austin when he came first into England baptized in Rivers in particular as History relates he baptized some thousands in a River neer York Thus have I given you a brief Answer to the material things in your Guard I leave it to the consideration of the Reader and shall proceed to give you a brief Reply to your inveterate Word to Collier A Reply to Thomas Hall Sir YOu are pleased to write a Word to Thomas Collier c. A Love-letter he that runs may read it And indeed we did conclude before what we might expect from you if the Lord gave you power according to your will And I make no question but what you have here written will make the Magistrate the more sensible of what spirit you are and will keep from you what you so much expect viz. a Coercive power to compell or persecute all that are contrary to you And in what you have done I believe you have more wounded your self and your own interest then either the truth or me the Truth standing pure in it self getting advantage by its enemies though no thanks to them And as for my self a poor weak and contemptible Creature held forth in the hand of the Lord and being upheld by Divine assistance shall I doubt not but with joy pass through good report and bad reportt till I have finished my course and done the work whereunto I am appointed accounting the reproach of Christ greater riches then the treasures of Egypt viz. Tythes You say I Colly every thing Trinity Scripture Law Gospel c. Sir you are mistaken in it all and so indeed have written forged falshood and sent it abroad into the world But I own and honour all these you mention in their proper place and according to the appointment of the Lord and your self it is who have been in the Black so long that you Colly all as will appear anon and you will be the Hall it seems the storehouse which retains all blackness darkness c. and from thence it cometh forth unto the rest You say I set my self against the Anabaptists themselves whom I canonize for Saints in the highest form yet blame them for adhering to Ordinances It s very false there is no such word written but it is for making too much of them not for making use of them And if some fail is it not lawful to reprove but Thomas Hall must raise an untruth and reproach upon it change my words for his own ends I pass your foul and filthy language more fit for Billinsgate then the Press and come to your particular Charges 1. An Heretick and a Blasphemer To this purpose you mention the Discourse at Axbridge where Parson Smith and Parson Carlile both Cavaliers falsly swear 1. That he denied Jesus Christ to be the eternal Son of God 2. He denied a local Heaven 3. He denied the equality of the Son with the Father 4. He denied that Jesus Christ by his death upon the Cross did satisfie Divine Justice 5. He denied the Trinity 6. He affirmed that the Saints are the sons of God in the same manner as Christ 7. He affirmed that the Divine Essence was communicated to the Saints 8. That the bodies of the Saints should be turned into spirits 9. That the Moral Law was abolished Ans Were you not of the same blind and malicious spirit as those two lying Parsons were you durst not call such things Blasphemies as were in truth by me maintained and is apparent in the same Book or Discourse 1. I denied not the Eternity of Jesus Christ but the eternal generation in the Godhead for which there is not one Scripture that speaks the least hint 2. As to the locality of Heaven that I said was that God was not locally limited c. 3. The Equality of the Son Quality and equality is proper only to man there is no quality or equality in the Godhead whatever is in God is in him essentially not as a quality It s true Christ as the Messiah is equal with God but in the union of the Divine essence there is no quality nor equality but union in essence and essence in union 4. For Satisfaction to the Divine Justice I own it and have proved it had you not been blind upon the true account it was the great end why Christ was inabled to the work and sent forth that so he might satisfie the righteousness and truth of the Father which man could never do unto justification 5. As to the Trinity that is false likewise it was the Trinity of Persons not the Trinity that I own but no Person in the Godhead no Scripture saith it 6. That the Saints are the sons of God in the same manner as Christ that is in being made partakers of the same Spirit Rom. 8. 9. 7. That the Divine Essence is communicated to the Saints If the Spirit of Christ be in them then the Divine Essence is in them But the Spirit of Christ is in them Therefore the Divine Essence is in them I do not mean the whole Essence but a spark or influence of the Divine Essence 8. That the bodies of the Saints should be turned into Spirits that I said was no other then what the Apostle saith they shall be raised with spiritual bodies 9. That the Moral Law was abolished to Believers as a dispensation in the hands of Moses all this more at large might you see in the discovery of that Discourse but you were blinde it seems and could not see afar off But you manifest your minde Collier it seems is in your way you would fain have him burnt with his Books What another Bonner Will you justifie your Fathers in their wickedness and so bring upon your self all the righteous blood shed from Abel to this day but if the Lord hath so determined I trust in the strength of the Grace of Christ my life and blood will be as ready to witness to the truth as my tongue and pen. I say no more about your Charge of Blasphemy but this After the way you call Blasphemy and Heresie worship I the God of my Fathers And that seed you falsly and wickedly call the Devils seed am I still sowing and doubt not but there will grow up such a happy and blessed Harvest as will be to the honour of Truth and joy of Saints though to the grief and amazement of enemies and gain-sayers Mean while go you on blaspheming God and them that dwell in Heaven gnaw your tongue for pain yet not repent of your deeds 2. You say he is a Lyar dyed in grain You say You can prove him guilty of above a thousand lyes and errours c. Was there ever the like lyar heard of in the world What above a thousand lyes yet mentions but 15. when he hath done all that he can and these fifteen are most of them truth by him falsely called lyes
Book Baptizing of Infants is a new invention found out by the Pope and the Devil t is the mark of the Beast invented by Antichrist either by Pope Higinus who lived in the second Century about 150 years after Christ or else by Pope Innocent the third who lived at least 1000 years after Christ 1215. You answer 1. If Higinus Bishop of Rome were the first inventor of it then it was more ancient then many will grant 2. You say That he was not the inventor of it but you find by Platina that he was the first that enjoined Sureties And why not the first that enjoyned Infant baptism you produce nothing to the contrary but your word and that the same authority that ordained the one ordained the other is very apparent 1. Because neither of them have any footing in the Scripture And 2. Because History relates that both Infant-baptism and Sureties or Godfathers came in together as is related in the History of the names and customes of all Nations written by Iohannes Boemus Aubamus a Dutchman translated out of Latine into English by Edward Aston 1611. page 159. he saith That Baptism heretofore as it was established by a Canonical sanction was not ministred unto any unless upon very urgent necessity but unto such as were beforehand well instructed in the Faith and sufficiently catechized and examined thereof seven several times to wit upon certain days in Lent c. But this Sacrament being above all the rest most necessary to salvation and lest any one should depart out of this life without the benefit thereof it was ordained that assoon as an Infant was born he should have God-fathers procured for him to be his Witnesses or Sureties and that then the childe being brought by his Godfathers before the Church-door the Priest standing there for the purpose should demand of the childe before he dip him in the holy Font. Whether he will forsake the Devil and all his pomps and whether he believe all the Articles of the Christian Faith and the Godfathers affirming on his behalf c. The reason why I record this in this place is first to present to view the probability of Higinus bringing in of Infants Baptism for you say that you finde by Platina that he brought in Godfathers first and I finde by Joannes Boemus that he that brought Godfathers first brought in Infants-Baptism with it 2. I finde that there was a time when there was a Canonical Sanction or Statute against it 3. The coming in of Infant-Baptism with the reason of it viz. lest any should die without it and the manner of it with God-fathers and dipping not sprinkling in the holy Font. And this Mr. Baxter confesseth himself in his third Edition of the Saints Everlasting Rest part 1. ch 8. Sect 5 p 179. in the Margin he saith And in the Primitive times none were Baptized without an express Covenanting wherein they renounced the world flesh and Devil and engaged themselves to Christ and promised to obey him as you may see in Tertul. Origen Cyprian and others at large c. This being a Truth where is ground for Infant-Baptism upon Mr. Baxters own confession So that these things thus considered takes off all your probabilities that the Apostles did baptize Infants and that it hath been a practise in the Church ever since yet you confess immediatly that some of the ancients pag. 89. did perswade men from baptizing Infants yet say you their disswasions shew that their usual practice was to baptize them I say that it rather did shew that those Ancients knew that it was but an invention of man and that there was no ground for it in Scripture else what need they to disswade them from it 1. You say S. John died 104. saith Alsteed a likely or unlikely matter the Psalmist saith long before a mans days were threescore and ten c. John died a 104 years after Christ if this be likely I leave all to judge Justin Martyr you say who lived in all probability It is but probability then and very unlikely for you say he flourished about 130. is this like to be in Johns days all John days might be nay must be well near 200 years then and all this you strain to draw down if you could Baptism of Infants from the Apostles the sum of all is this Justin Martyr disputes the difference between Infants who die baptized and those who die unbaptized he lived probably in S. Johns days and knew the practise of the Apostle but he lived 130 years after Christ John must live so long too or 104 at least that so Justin Martyr might know Apostolick practise from John You mention others as Tertullian Origen Cyprian c. who mention baptizing of Infants it may be they mention it as an Innovation for Mr. Baxter saith expresly as before that they say there were none baptized in the Primitive times without an express Covenanting c. So you conclude that Infants Baptism is no new invention either of Pope or Devil no man can shew what Pope or man invented it Answ 1. Christ never commanded it the Apostles never practised it that is evident not only from the Scriptures silence but Master Baxters confession and then some Pope man or Devil must invent it and we are come very near the mark you produce a History that saith Pope Higinus brought in Godfathers I have mentioned another that saith Godfathers and Infant-Baptism came in together and why not by the same Pope you conclude that you will retort this upon the Anabaptists that their practise is but a new invention not above an hundred years old c. Answ There is no truth in that Baptizing of Believers is 1652 years old and that is many scores of yeers before your Infant-Baptism was invented and this Practise of the baptizing and non baptizing of Infants is that which hath been mentioned with much envy almost in all Ages since the Primitive times which notes that there hath been some Witnesses to the truth in all Ages About the year 1525. Zuinglius being busied about Reformation there crept in the Heresie of the Catabaptists who forbade the baptizing of Infants and did rebaptize themselves With these Zuinglius dealt friendly at first disputing with them and convincing them of their errours but they being obstinate in their opinions he caused the Senate severely to punish them some with imprisonment some with death this is recorded in a Book intituled Abel redivivus or The dead yet speaking pag. 92. And your own confession That some Ancients disswaded from the baptizing of Infants c. The 20. Objection you mention is That Baptizing is dipping But your Infants are not dipped Ergo They are not Baptized You answer 1. That dipping is a thing indifferent and not absolutely necessary or essential to Baptism there may be true Baptism where there is no dipping c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Baptize is one thing and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
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