men who seek themselves yet God hath hitherto so kept and carried me that I may say truly I have endeavoured to keep a Conscience void of offence both before God and men And as to those Principles of Truth by me owned although judged by men yet my judgement is with the Lord and he knows the way of his People but the way of the wicked shall perish Though I pass under the censure of Tho. Hall whom nothing but Fire and Fagot can satisfie and under the ignominious reproaches of Feriby Sanders and a thousand more yet none of these things trouble me and let none think that I am besides my self because I thus profess and write for if I am it is to the Lord and for your sakes for whom my desire is that you may be made partaker of the truth and that as it is in Jesus not after the will of men but of God I have presented to thy consideration these two things First the insufficiency of all those grounds produced for Infant-Baptism wherein its weakness and inconsistency with the Gospel will appear and the continued practice of the baptizing of Believers cleared and vindicated 2. A brief Reply to John Feriby and Richard Sanders wherein you may finde a farther confirmation of the truth asserted in the Pulpit-Guard Routed viz. the lawfulness of the Preaching of Gifted Brethren I have likewise three things to desire of the Reader 1. To read and judge Read and consider what thou readest for I have endeavoured to compose much in few words and that because I judged it to be for thy profit large Discourses being sometimes not so usefull therefore I say be content to spare a little time to consider and contemplate upon what thou readest and happily thou mayest come to see all those strong Guards broken and disperst as the morning dew before the Sun 2. Read with patience and be not troubled at that which may seem to thee to be harsh language or contrary to thy understanding and this I assure thee considering the Spirits of those men with whom I have had to deal I have passed through with as much moderation as possibly I could without betraying the Cause and giving but a word of reproof to an insulting adversary 3. Read and judge impartially lean not to the right hand or to the left for affection sake but desire the Lord from an impartial unbyast heart to lead thee into the truth resolve not to follow the traditions of men or Churches but the written word of Truth which is able to give thee direction as a rule of life through the blessing of the Spirit of Jesus and to make the man of God perfect throughly furnishing him to every good work Tho. Collier THE Font-Guard Routed SIR IT S faln to my lot once more to encounter with you and why to me more then to others because not only the Truth of Jesus his Honour and his servants in the profession of it lieth at stake but my self likewise in a special manner being not only concerned in the case in hand but likewise being deeply aspersed by your Libellous Tongue and Pen in your succeeding word to one Collier to which I shall reply in its time and place But Sir by the way it seems you are become an absolute Souldier a grand Captain Leader But what 's the work To guard Pulpits and Fonts forsooth I suppose you 'l be cautious of suffering much in defence of your Cause if you had intended it you would not have set your guards about that which none intends to take from you that I know of But is it truth in good earnest that your Font is affronted 1. I wonder you had not had more wisdom and forecast in you at first and have set your Guard round about your Kirk so one might have served for the whole and have saved you much labour and expence of time but I suppose your wisdom lay in this You guarded the Pulpit first that so being routed there you might have a fair retreat to the holy Font and when routed there you might sound another retreat but whither I know not unless to the high Altar viz. the Communion Table so called or into the Belfrey to secure the holy baptized Bels In Pope Johns time the 14. began the vile superstition of baptizing Bels Simpsons History of the Church Cent. 10. Or to take the Church doors c. But whither am I wandring I say no more of this but leave my name sake Tom to his own choice 2. I wonder that a wise man as Tho. Hall should have so little wit or so much idle time to set up such a strong guard in defence of that which none intends to take from him we baptize in Rivers not in Fonts we do not intend to take them from you no we know not what to do with them unless c. But 3. Did you ever read in Scripture of the Font or of baptizing in the Font I know you have not I remember I have read in the Popish Histories of the holy Font in the first institution of Infants baptism from thence you had both as in its time and place I shall let you see Now to your Arguments for that is it I intend to fall upon letting pass all other things for if I rout you there as I doubt not in the strength of Jehovah whom I serve in my spirit but that I shall rout you in all your twenty Arguments so the Commands of Christ and practise of the Apostles may stand clear before the sons of men and the Churches practise in baptizing Believers vindicated in opposition to all gainsayers Now to your first Argument Page 8. From the Covenant of grace which God made with the Faithfull and their Seed they are confederates say you joyned together in the Covenant of God c. Your first Argument is this Page 9. To whomsoever the Covenant it self belongs to them also belongs the seal of the Covenant But the Covenant belongs to Believers and their Children Ergo The seal of the Covenant belongs to them also I answer First your Minor is denyed That Children of Believers are in the Covenant of grace and here lies the ground of your miscarriage ignorance and error in this particular We will therefore come first to consider the Covenant it self which is the foundation on which you stand Gen. 17 7 10 11. This Covenant it self is wholly outward and it consists of two parts the one on Gods part to be performed the other on Abrahams and his childrens part That on Gods is in ver 7 8. I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee and I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the Land of thy sojourning all the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession and will be their God This Covenant is outward and consists of an outward promise The Land of Canaan c. and is not in it self the everlasting Covenant of grace
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
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
Not against the Ministry of Christ but of the World and of Antichrist 14. He reproacheth the Army making them all Independents and Anabaptists Ans It s a great untruth to say I make them all so that I say is that those whom you falsely call Anabaptists and Independents are the Instruments by which God hath given a being to you and the Nation I deny not what was done by any at first but I know not how it would have been at last if God had not raised up the Spirits of some to stand in the gap and your selves had like to have been the great Instruments for self-ends to have drawn on ruine had not the Lord prevenced 15. He dishonoureth and abuseth the present Power by Dedication of an absurd Heretical Blasphemous non-Licensed Pamphlet called a Discourse at Axbridge Answ I do affirm that none dare give such vile titles to such apparent truths but those whose eyes are blinded and whose hearts are hardned filled with all enmity against the truth of Jesus Christ I refer those who desire further satisfaction to the discourse it self And truly we had need appeal to the Authority of the Nation for a civill preservation it being our Birthright there being so many of your generation men of blood that will say nay swear blasphemy Heresie any thing that so you might be rid of us Finally I say no more to all your perverse and raging accusations but the Lord rebuke thee Some few Queries presented 1. Query Whether or no in all that Tho. Hall hath said he hath in any case answered the Pulpit-Guard-Routed or relieved his own Guard 2. Qu. Whether or no all that Tho. Hall hath said in his Font-Guard doth amount to so much as either a Precept or President for his Practise 3. Whether or no if not his Practise in sprinkling Infants be not Will-Worship 4. Whether the upholding of an outward Covenant and a natural Seed in that Covenant be not to deny Christ to be come in the flesh 5. Whether or no there be any Seed in the days of the Gospel accounted for the Seed but the Spiritual all the Promises made to Abraham being dissolved into Christ coming forth from him to the Spiritual Seed none being accounted the children of Abraham but those that do the works of Abraham 6. Whether or no Tho. Hall tells true or false when he saith he will prove Tho. Collier of above a thousand lyes and can name but fifteen upon his own account 7. Whether or no in those fifteen he mentions being rightly considered as before Tho. Hall be the lyar or Tho. Collier 8. Whether Tho. Hall have spoken true or false in these things following 1. In asserting that none ought to preach the Gospel but men in Office 2. In saying there is both precept and president for Baptizing Infants when he can produce neither 3. In saying that the Covenant of the Law is the same as the Covenant in the Gospel when the Scripture saith the contrary Isa 31. 31. Heb. 8. 4. In saying that baptizing Infants is a tradition from the Apostles when he cannot prove the Apostles baptized any 5. In saying that sprinkling is baptizing when they are two things 6. Whether the bringing in of all the People into an outward Covenant and form of Godliness without the power be not the way of delusion and confusion 7. Then whether the Leaders of the People do not cause them to erre A Word of REPLY to Iohn Ferriby in an Appendix to The Lawfull Preacher called The Pulpit-Guard-Relieved SIR You call your Appendix The Pulpit-Guard Relieved But whether it be A Relief in good earnest I leave to the Reader to judge If chiding railing and reproaching be A Relief then you have Relieved it else not And notwithstanding your great swelling words you 'l find there is so much in that Pulpit-Rout that neither you nor all your Gang will ever be able to extinguish it Rage you may but ruin it you cannot You say Page 2. That he is so bitter in his Expressions against the Gentleman so loud in railing against the Coat that he deserves no Answer But you are mistaken Sir they are not railings but true discoveries of Wolves in Sheeps cloathing But you say You forbear lest in this the Proverb should be verified Like to like quoth the Devil to the Collier And who is worst think you the Devil or the Collier By your own confession you are the Devil I the Collier The Devil it is it seems speaks to the Collier and surely if the Collier did the Devils work he would never reprove him for it But if the Collier do the work of Christ the Devil will fall upon him You say You will not meddle with the Looking-glass nor will you examine the Tryal and Verdict nor take notice of the strength of his Arguments I wonder what then you will do here 's like to be a goodly Relief anon A Pulpit Relief yet take no notice of the force of the Truth that lieth against it It 's just like to a company of men that will pretend they relieve a besieged Garison yet take no notice of the Besiegers or will stand at a distance and give great words and so go away boasting that the Work is done and the mean time the Besieged perish Thus have you dealt with your Pulpit-Guard And truly had not I had other occasions to write I had never troubled my head or pen to have given you a word of Answer And in this I shall give you but a word or two Thus having shifted your self from the substance of what is said in The Pulpit Guard-Rout you pretend to give a Glympse of his skill in the interpretation of Scripture The First is that of the Priests of the Law and the Ministers of the Gospel The Priesthood under the Law typed out Christ and he is the alone Priest by office I deny not Ministers by office under the Gospel but that Ministry that is of Christ never forbiddeth the preaching of the Brethren who have received the Gift though they never meddle with the office but rather encourageth to it 1. Pet 4. 10 11. And it is a truth that Corah's guilt was in doing that which was forbidden but the Saints are Commanded to and Commended for preaching Commanded to it Rom. 12. 3 6. 1 Cor. 14 31. 1 Pet. 4. 10. Commended for it 1 Cor. 11. 2. One Ordinance or Tradition and that not the least too was that they might nay that they ought to bring their gifts to the Church for the good of the whole There are diversities of gifts in the Church and all for the good of the whole 1 Cor. 12. And this Monopolizing spirit that hath so long reigned in those who call themselves Ministers hath been the cause of so much blindness in the World as hath been almost to this day And as for the Calling of the Worldly Ministry I leave the Reader to what is wrtten in The Pulpit-Guard Routed
to consider whether it be from above or from beneath c. You say Page 5. There is in my Book Page 19. enough granted for your Purpose T is because you do in this as in other things take but Part of what I say For though I say that none can preach according to the intention of that Scripture Rom. 10. 15. for the working of Faith and Converting of souls yet it doth not follow that every Gifted Brother may not Preach But you leave out that which follows viz. for every Gifted Brother is sent to preach according to the measure of the Gift recieved And the Mistake lieth in the word sent thinking that none but men in Office are sent of God to convert souls when Gifted Brethren are sometimes sent though not in Office Acts 8. 4. with 11. 19 21. All you say in Answer to that that gifting is sending c reacheth not the business in hand For 1. It doth not appear in those Scriptures you mention Isa 6 8 9. Mat. 10 1 5. that they were first gifted then sent Go tell them saith the Lord to Isaiah Gods putting the word in his mouth was the gifting Yet 2. I deny not in the ordinary way of prophesying and preaching gifting to precede sending first to those who are authoritatively sent by the Church or secondly to those who preach only by gift according to the measure of the gift received It is sending and they may and ought according to the measure of the gift both in the Church and out of the Church viz. in the world as occasion is offered God in those occasions calling them to it accordingly to administer Secondly you say that he is very unhappy in confounding ordinary and extraordinary Cases I answer first that extraordinary Cases make not that lawfull which in it self is unlawfull unless in cases of necessity for preservation of life then I will have mercy and not sacrifice unless it be in the bearing up of the name and truth of Christ then he that will save his life shall lose it Witness Vzzah 1 Chro. 13. 9. 10. for putting his hand to stay the Ark was smote with death So that your so often mentioning extraordinary cases helps you nothing for it s not the extraordinariness of the case that justifies the thing if it be in it self unlawfull so that you do indeed condemn the practice of the Saints recorded in Scripture for our example in Acts Chap. 8. and 11. with divers others and all for the keeping up your own Ends and Interests I am sure if you stood in the counsel and truth of Jesus the preaching of the Brethren could not would not trouble you As for what is said from pag. 8 to 10. I refer the Reader to the clearness of the assertions in my Book Pag. 9. You say The Gentleman Pretended Servants for so the word Minister signifies yet Gentle men-Masters Servants ruling over their Masters having said that the Holy-Ghost commends Learning he Replyes pag. 41. Holy Ghost is there any such word in the Scripture as Ghost You say How now which way went the Spirit of God from him what immediately inspired yet ignorant of this hath he forgotten Mat. 28. 20. c Ans Nay Sir he hath not quite forgotten it but have you indeed forgotten or else did you never learn it that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifiyeth spirit not ghost and so it is translated and read in all other languages except the English and sometimes it s truly translated in English too and the word ghost is an old English Popish ugly word which indeed if rightly considered is not so fit to be given to the Holy Spirit As for the interpretation of I. Cor. 14. 31. 32. Let the spirits of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets though I deny not what is mentioned v. 29. that the Prophets speak two or three and the others judge for the Church is to judge of the doctrine taught in it yet it s evident to any whose eyes are not shut against the truth that the interpretation of v 31 32. is in v 33 for God is not the author of confusion but of peace See his Brother Richard Sanders confuting this in his Balm to heal religious wounds pag. 202. he saith The spirit of the Prophets was subject to the Prophets that is the Spirit of Prophesie was not so violent on them but that they had power to contain themselves and to stay one for another and so to speak in order c. Here Richard Sanders confutes John Ferriby let the Reader judge As to what you say in the rest in way of Reply there being no weight at all in it I pass by it referring the Reader to the examination of that Book you pretend to Answer Where I make no question but that the clearness of the truth asserted will appear to the satisfaction of any unbyassed and impartial Reader As for your reproachfull terms which is indeed the sum of all your Answer I pass it by as unworthy taking notice leaving the controversie betwixt both you and us unto the righteous Judge who will in his own time bring it forth to the light and put a difference between those who serve the Lord Jesus and those who serve their own bellies To him and with him I leave the controversie who undoubtedly will plead his own Cause and Truth in his own Time AN ANSWER To a Book written by one Richard Sanders of Kentishbeer entituled A Balm to heal Religious wounds Called An Answer to the Pulpit-Guard Routed written by Thomas Collier SIR MEeting with your Book the Title bespeaks what I find not in it 1. You call it A Balm to heal Religious wounds c. But when I came to take a view of it I found it far from the nature of its name but it rather tends to make the wounds deeper and the breach wider your book being stuffed with as much rancor almost in every page as any I have read except Tho. Halls who writ the Pulpit and Font Guards So that if what you say of mine were a truth you have ballanced it on the other hand down to the ground viz. with reproachfull terms and as for that you call harsh language in mine it is no other then what hath been given by the servants of the Lord in Scripture upon the like occasion 2. You call it An Answer to the Pulpit-Guard Routed Two open and cleer untruths in the Title First A Balm to heal Religious wounds when it is far from it Secondly An Answer to the Pulpit-Guard Routed when you scarce come so neer as to meddle with it unless with railing and reproachful terms and if that be a sufficient answer you have done it to the purpose Or secondly in passing by the material and substantial things you have culled out some few particular things calling them Colliers Errors when they are undoubted truths unless those which are abused by you changing the terms in which by me
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
Jesus Christ 3. That was a seal of Abrahams faith 3. Baptism is no seal but the Spirit of Christ These things considered there is neither probability reason or Scripture for the coming of Baptism in the room of Circumcision First there is no Scripture for it when false Apostles went about to bring in Circumcision Act. 15. 10. Gal. 1. the Apostle never mentions Baptism at all if it had come in the room of Circumcision they might easily have stopped their mouths with this You have Baptism in the room of it what need you trouble your selves so much But they never made use of this as an answer therefore it s evident that it came not in the room of it 2. It was in being together 3. It could not be so to them that were never circumcised And 4. there being no parity between them I adde 5. If you will have it in the room of something why might it not come in the room of those Legal washings that were amongst the Jews as well as in the room of Circumcision there is a parity in the one and likelier in the end too but none in the other their Religion viz. the Jews consisted in divers washings Heb. 9. 10. so that if you must of necessity have it to come in the room of any thing why not in the room of those washings Yet I do not believe that it came in the room of this or any other legal Ordinance but that God gave what Ordinances he pleased to that ministration and Jesus Christ gave what Ordinances he pleased to this ministration not one Ordinance putting out the other but Christ being the end of all gives out new upon his own account But secondly put case what you say were truth that it were come in the room of Circumcision which can never be proved either from Scripture or reason yet what will this help you We are or profess our selves to be Christs servants then hearken to him and obey his voice receive the Law from his mouth for he is the Messenger of the Lord of Hosts Let Christ be King give but so much honour to him as to inform you who is to be baptized and the time when it is to be done the manner how and the controversie will be soon ended The truth of the business being thus considered your Assertion and yout Parallels I leave to the consideration of the understanding Reader and so pursue you to your third Argument The third Argument Where there is a command for a thing never yet countermanded or forbidden there that thing is still in force But there is a command for signing the Infants of believers never yet countermanded or forbidden Ergo It is still in force This Argument is easily answered only it 's stated confusedly if you intend by the command for signing Believers children that of Circumcision as I suppose you do then I think that is repealed and forbidden for the Apostle saith to the Galatians that if they be circumcised Christ shall profit them nothing at all And if you deny this truth we may well take the Apostles advice Phil. 3. Beware of the concision for we are the Circumcision who worship God in the Spirit c. If you by the sign intend Baptism you had done well to shew where it was commanded to Infants and if nowhere commanded then no need of repealing or forbidding If you intend that Baptism was commanded in Circumcision that hath been answered already and it is but a whimsie of your own head there hath not been any Scripture yet produced for the confirmation of it nor ever is like to be all you say in this is but the substance of what you have said already you dance about in a line and are gotten no further yet then in your former Arguments it 's just the old Proverb A great cry and a little wooll Truly if you did know and love the Lord Jesus you could not you would not dare to go back to lay the foundation of Gospel ordinances in Legal institutions but you would look to Christ and hearken what he hath said and believe it every one that refuseth to look to him shall be cut off from among his people Act. 3. 22 23. You say Let any man shew if he can when where and how this priviledge was abrogated I answer it was abrogated and repealed in Christ that as all the Services Ceremonies Covenants Canaan Natural seed and all was typical so Christ is the body and substance of all these services ceremonies c. and the spiritual people believers are the substance typed out in the natural seed So that as the natural seed were accounted for the seed that is repealed Joh. 8. 39 44. with Rom. 2. 28 29. and only the spiritual are accounted for the seed You talk much of priviledge as if baptizing of Infants were such a priviledge to them I answer 1. Our priviledges do not consist in externals but as the Covenant was made with the spiritual seed so the priviledges of the Covenant are suitable to it see Heb. 8. from the 6. verse to the end And truly it bewrayes abundance of ignorance in those that cry out so much about priviledge as if the priviledge of the Covenant of grace consisted so much in outside things What priviledge it was to the Jews to be circumcised I know not I mean to those who were never circumcised in their hearts or what priviledge it is to Infants to be baptized I wonder unless you will make it a priviledge to be in the form without the power and so to make souls think themselves Christians when they are none so deceiving and deluding them Certainly this will be but a sad priviledge one day when both teachers and taught must give an account together I could sometimes be freely willing to part even with tears of blood in sight and sense of those many thousands yea millions of souls deeply deluded with pretended priviledges who think themselves in a good condition and in a moment go down to hell For the wicked must be turned into hell and all those who forget God And the Leaders of the people cause them to erre and they that are led of them are destroyed Isa 9. 16. Is it not much better more safe and an act of faithfulness for parents to deal faithfully with their children and let them know that they are not in the Covenant of grace but that by nature they are children of wrath as well as others that so they may through mercy come to the sight of their natural condition and their need of Christ rather then to delude them with toyes and fancies meer imaginations of the fleshly mind vainly puffed up Oh the Lord will make you know one day what it is thus to lift up your selves in fleshly boasting and to make a nose of wax of the Covenant of grace turn it which way you please in one day and out another 1. Believers children in 2. All professing
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
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
ingrafted and bears them up and makes fruitful Whereas you say That by ingraffing in is meant admission into visible communion I say it is not only that but first faith and then admission into visible communion And one word by the way what visible communion are Infants capable of if they may some of them be capable of invisible union and communion with Jesus Christ yet where is their capacity of visible communion with the Church which consists in communicating of experiences in Ordinances fellowship in breaking bread and prayers where is your visible communion of Infants Sir You seem to answer an objection p. 63. Paul speaks of an invisible Church For my part I own no such objection for I know no invisible Church here upon earth for a Church of Christ is a company of believers walking in the visible profession of truth and there should be none in that profession but such as are believers indeed and if any come into the outward without the inward grace they must be plucked up Therefore I own not that distinction of visible and invisible The invisible Church are those out of sight that are departed the visible are those living in the visible profession of truth and these are they which are graffed in Rom. 11. Those that are graffed in truly shall stand and thrive the root Christ bears them They that are but in shew shall fall the root will not bear them because not graffed in by the heavenly Father In all this here is no room for the natural seed I leave it to the Reader to judge The fifteenth Argument From 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your children unclean but now are they holy From hence you argue They that are holy with a Covenant-holiness may be baptized But Infants born of one believing Parent are holy with a Covenant-holiness Ergo Such Infants may be baptized Your Major hath been often denied for it s but the substance of what you have often said before and therefore in substance I must answer what I have answered before there is no such thing mentioned in all the New-Testament as a federal holiness viz. an external Covenant-holiness without an internal this being the substance of what you say pag. 65. you confess children only by nature that there is no difference between the childe of a Christian and the childe of an Infidel Yet consider him as believing so he and his are holy he is holy spiritually but are his Infants so too no you confess pag. 62. This caution must be remembred that the holiness you speak of is not personal inherent holiness for this cannot be transmitted to posterity but t is a federal external Covenant-holiness Pray Sir the next time let me know where in the New Testament this same external holiness without the internal is so much spoken of or commended The Lord loveth truth in the inward parts and condemns hypocrisie and hypocrites he condemns the form without the power he owns no Jew but the spiritual no seed but the spiritual the axe is now laid to the root of the Tree every Tree that bringeth not forth good fruit must be cut down Mat. 3. and yet you are all for an outward holiness without the inward which is indeed and truth an abomination unto the Lord. But to come to the Scripture you pretend to ground your Argument from You say The Anabaptists have invented an evasion to avoid the force of the Text that say they it s a matrimonial holiness that they are legitimate and no bastards c. Which I affirm is the truth of the Scripture and shall 1. give some brief answers to what you assert And Secondly set down my reasons for what I affirm 1. You pretend the many absurdities that will follow if it be meant of a civil holiness 1. Then the children of Turks and Pagans born in Matrimony should be holy Answ and why not upon a Matrimonial account more holy that is more lawfull then those born of fornication And whereas you say they are dogs that are without c. It is true that is comparatively to the true Church and Spiritual Seed so are not only Turks and Pagans but most of your Church-members who do the same if not worse works then they only you have perswaded them into an outward Covenant as you and they imagine but that helps not the business 2. It s sin to wicked men what ever they do yet their civil actions are better to them as eating drinking plowing Marriage lawfull procreation of children then the contrary evil actions the Apostle saith that marriage is honourable among all Heb. 13. 4. If among all then among Turks and their children are civilly holy lawfully begotten according to a civil institution though nothing be truly and spiritually holy but to those in Christ it s a Law God hath written in the hearts both of Turks and Indians that they are more conscientious in defiling of the Marriage estate then many of those you call Christians 2. You say The Apostles reason would have no weight with it for their children were legitimate before conversion so he should allow them no more priviledge then meer Infidels have c. The Query is not what they were before conversion but one being converted and the other not the doubt ariseth whether or no the Believer must put away the unbeliever if he or she must do so then the children must be gone too both before and after conversion and this was a Priviledge to the Believer not to be compelled to part with his children though unbelievers had the same in being yet it was not to them such a priviledge for mercy is mercy to a Believer indeed he sees every thing sanctified to him which the unbeliever doth not 3. You say Then all bastards are unholy and must be damned Here is a simple one indeed coming forth from so wise and deep a head as Thomas Hall's 1. Must all be damned of necessity without the holiness you are pleading for 2. Do we or the Scriptures say that Bastards must be damned do you know from whence you have drawn that conclusion your self that Bastards must be damned if that be not a federall holiness but a marriage holiness that their children are legitimate then bastards must be damned Is this your Logick I leave it with you 4. You say The word holy is never used in all the Scripture for legitimation but generally for a thing separated from common use to Gods service c. 1. Thomas Hall shall confute Thomas Hall by and by see pag. 67. he saith That the sanctification of the unbelieving husband to the believing wife is not in respect of his personal condition but in respect of his conjugalrelation though he continue unclean towards God yet to his believing wife in a way of marriage he is sanctified that is he is holy for so the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth and in essence it s the
make profession of his faith c. Ans 1. VVhen you have produced any Scripture that requires Infants of Believers to be baptized then shall I shew you a Scripture where they kept them back till they professed faith 2. There being no command for the practise of baptizing Infants there needs no record for the keeping them from it it s enough that there is neither precept nor president for the doing of it that was enough to them and should be to us 3. The not doing of a thing is no part of worship all worship consists in doing or suffering the will of God and suffering is a doing the will of God too in both of which the renewed mind is active as well as the body is in the one active in the other passive Heb. 10. 36. But the refusing to baptize Infants is no part of worship therefore cannot possibly be will-worship If baptism of Infants were a command of Christ as you say though never proved yet to neglect it is no more will-worship then to neglect prayer praising or the like is will-worship it s no worship not will-worship Thus have I briefly minded you of the simplicity and nonsense of your Argument in every particular and proceed to your Nineteenth Argument From the blessing of God upon the Churches that have practised Infant-Baptism Ans 1. If you mind by the blessing outward prosperity I suppose the Church of Rome whom you condemn for heretical in your separating from her hath had as great a share and the longest standing of any Church or State in the world And that is no trial of the truth of a Church outward prosperity and long continuance for the Churches of Christ in the Primitive times were and yet are under persecution reproach and contempt but little prosperity in the world Joh. 16. ult 2. If you mind as you seem to intimate Because so many bless God for their Infant-Baptism Answ 1. So did many bless God for Episcopal Government yet at last the very same blessed God for the fall of it 2. I suppose as many upright souls now are blessing God for his discovery of the vanity of it 3. It s not mens blessing God for things that proves the truth of these things but the approbation of him who is Truth it self 4. If you mind because those you falsly call Anabaptists have been condemned persecuted and afflicted as you intimate and the others justified upheld c. Answ 1. It s the likelier to be truth for that hath alwayes passed under reproach and contempt as for affliction Job suffered much the loss of all will you judge Job for his afflictions and justifie his wicked enemies yea and the Devil too that afflicted him for shame learn more civility then to reason thus did you never hear of Iobs losses was it because he was an Anabaptist think you or was it because God gave Satan liberty to try him for his good and may not God give Satan the same liberty to try his own servants and it may be to prove the Devil a lyar as he did in the trial of Iob have you never heard of great part of Cities Towns and Houses burnt and was it because they were Anabaptists think you As for your vile and rayling expressions I pass it by and leave it to the righteous Judge who will do right both to his servants and his enemies The twentieth Argument From the principles and practise of all reformed Churches That which is condemned by all the Churches of God and is contrary both to their principles and practise is unlawful But Anabaptism is condemned by all the Churches of God and is contrary both to their principles and practise Ergo. Answ Your Major is granted viz. That that which is condemned by the principles and practises of the Churches in Scripture and all those reformed or rather gathered upon the same principles and practises is unlawfull Your Minor is denyed for baptizing of believers hath been and is the principle and practise of the Churches of Christ whereas you produce 1 Cor. 11. 16. We have no such custome nor the Churches of Christ I say there was no such custome as the baptizing of Infants in the Churches of Christ and for those you call reformed Churches the most of them if not all brought their baptism of Infants from their mother Church of Rome So then it is not the practise of the Church of Rome or of her members that are rent from her that we look unto but the Scripture the word of truth which should be both their and our rule and when Churches or persons contradict that let them be Anathema Maranatha And whereas you are pleased as you pretend in confirmation of what you have asserted in this Argument to arraign the prisoner at the Bar so producing your reformed Churches and Divines so judging the servants of the Lord for their following of him and obedience to him Be assured you will one day know what you have done When the Lord Iesus shall appear to render vengeance to those who know him not neither obey his Gospel but to be admired in all those who believe and follow him 2 Thes 1. 8. When he will judge his enemies for all their hard words spoken against him Jude 5. and notwithstanding you can make so bold now to arraign the prisoner at the bar viz the servants of the Lord for their professing and practise of the truth yet the Lord will deliver them in his time and they shall judge their Judges And bind their Kings in Chains and their Nobles in fetters of Iron this honour shall all the Saints have praise ye Iehovah Psal 149. Although I could yet I shall in this trace you no farther but leave you to the Judgement of him who will judge righteous Judgement between us in the end referring those who desire to see more as to this particular to my book entituled The Pulpit Guard Routed So much briefly in way of answer to your Font Guarded with twenty Arguments Now I should proceed to the discovery of the weakness of your Answers to the Scruples Scripture-Objections and Answers mentioned by you in your Book in defence as you call it of Anabaptism But that first there are some Arguments not made use of that I know but are rather your own inventions And secondly because the summe of all you say hath been answered and confuted in what is written in answer to your Arguments and it would be indeed but a tautologie as you have very many in your Book and upon that account I have been necessitated to make use of many that so I might give some answer to you I shall therefore refer the Reader for satisfaction to what you say in this which follows to what I have written in answer to that which precedes that which succeeds being but the substance of that which is gone before only the second and last I shall say something unto The second Objection pag. 88. of your
〈◊〉 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
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
had not fallen foul with the Scripture and have blamed him that commanded it but you are so wise and honest as to leave out the Scriptures that I grounded my definition upon Gen 3. 19. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the dust Query Doth the Lord here intend that some men must eat bread in the sweat of their faces and others must live idle The other Scripture is Eph. 4. 28. But you Answer 1. Is every thing a man doth get a living by a lawfull calling then he that sweats by robbing and stealing lives by a lawfull calling c. Answ It seems you have a minde to quarrell against the Truth because the word lawfull is not put in you will conclude Robbery is lawful do not you discover ignorance or wilfulness quarrelling against the very plain words of the Scripture which saith In the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat thy bread c. he doth not say in the lawfull sweat of thy face but that is implyed in the words so when I say in the sweat of mens face they should get their bread it s intended lawfully not by robbing and stealing and truly you manifest your self to be no friend to Truth in drawing such a conclusion from such clear and undeniable premises I am confident never a Robber in this Nation durst to have drawn such a conclusion from such undoubted truth and Scripture 2. You say Is there no lawfull Calling but that whereby a man gets his living in the sweat of his face what will you say then of Magistrates Justices of the Peace c. Answ They are not bred up Justices of the Peace but are or should be bred up in some Calling I am sure the Scripture allows of idleness in none though there may be a difference in labour yet I suppose that less then this should not be in the breeding of the greatest mens children in the Nation to be able to do things of Husbandry that so they may be able to manage their estates the better and know themselves when their business is well done And so they may be the better fitted for their Calling as Magistrates Justices of the Peace c. You say Will he call the Parliament Idlers c. Alas man he knows the Parliament is a particular Calling while it continues the Members of it being called and sent up by the Country and they being faithfull in it serve the Country As for Physitians I question not their Calling that relates unto the body but there is a difference between a Physitian of the body and of the Soul the one is natural therefore needs time of study to finde out the natural Causes and Remedies and I question not the lawfulness of breeding to School till men are fit for those Callings to which they are appointed but the Calling of the Minister is not a natural Calling but a Spiritual and only God fits and enables to it therefore for men to live out of a Calling to fit themselves for the Ministry is a very corrupt and dangerous thing for in conclusion they must be Ministers right or wrong they were bred up unto it they expect a maintenance from it c. Whereas the Ministers of Christ have ever been chosen upon another account viz. God gives gifts and the Church chooses and they are called from one Calling to another yet may lawfully live in the use of both Then you say Taylors Button-makers Seamsters c. because they do not sweat at it especially in the Winter are not lawfull Callings Alas man blindness with a witness if you quarrell so much with the word sweat why do you not quarrell against him who first commanded it But do you not know first that there is no Calling but that sometimes those implyed in it may nay do sweat 2. That the word sweat primarily relates to a mans diligence in his Calling being imployed about something that may administer to his necessity according to the Scripture so not living idly 3. You say Is it so that none live in a lawfull Calling but he that works with his hands what think you of Paul 1 Cor. 9. 6. have not we power to forbear working c. Answ 1. I did not nor do not affirm that those who are the Ministers of Christ lawfully called c. may not forbear working but that they ought not to be bred up idle till they are called and that God always maketh choice of men of particular Callings 2. That Paul might forbear work not that he must do it for he did work His hands ministred to his necessities for the Gospels sake I wonder when we shall finde any of you Ministers of the Nation in that temper 4. You say Is there no laboriousness and pains taking in the imployment of the Ministry c. Answ I know there is and notwithstanding you say that it appears by his book he is not acquainted with the labour of the minde in getting down to the bottom of things Sir I have through grace gone so to the bottom of things as hath and will root up all your Religion root and branch Ministry Church Ordinances and all therefore forbear complaining of the want of going to the bottom of things and I doubt not but that I shall go to the bottom of your Book too before I have ended But you say he adds Breeding to School is proper to children when they cannot labour to fit them for some Calling You pretend That Infants are able to labour almost assoon as they are able to go to School c. Answ 1. If you were not ignorant at best or envious you might understand that Infants are not able to labour in their Callings assoon as able to go to School and I dare affirm that there is time enough for children to get Learning to fit them for any Calling in this Nation before they have ability of body to perform it I do not judge children sufficiently capable in body for a Calling untill 14. years of Age and here is time enough for children to get Learning as for Universities we read of none in Scripture and Simson in his History of the Church saith that Clemens Alexandrinus and Pantenus were the Authors of Universities and Colledges p. 259. 2. I say That children may be fit for some Callings before they be for others and according as the Calling is unto which they are intended may their Parents give the time of breeding them some more and some less untill fit and able to manage that Calling unto which they are appointed yet all this makes nothing at all for the breeding up of Ministers unless you will make a Trade of it which I perceive is the great Work you are about When men are thus bred up and fitted for and imployed in some lawfull Calling if God now manifest his Son to and in such a one inabling him to the Work of the Lord in his own heart and in
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
and Prophesying are put together 1 Cor. 11. 5. Was it extraordinary praying too You answer You will put in that too for his Learning 1 Cor. 14. 14 15. If I pray in an unknown Tongue c. Is not here extraordinary praying Doth the Scripture call it extraordinary anywhere and may we not say truly as the Apostle saith of Prophesie greater is he that prophecieth then he that speaketh with tongues and the reason is because he speaketh to edification so say I greater was and is he that prayeth in a known tongue then he that prayeth in an unknown tongue and the Apostle upon the same account disswades them as well from praying or praising in an unknown tongue as from speaking in an unknown tongue and if that prayer had been extraordinary surely he would not have perswaded them from it for I think that prayer is most extraordinary that is most prevailing with God and that is the prayer of Faith not of an unknown tongue You now come to give your Reasons why this Prophesie is extraordinary 1. Because it is joyned with extraordinary gifts 1 Cor. 14. viz. The gift of Tongues Ans 1. Those gifts as hath been already shewed were not so extraordinary as you pretend For greater was be that prophesied then he that spake with tongues But 2. Were what you say truth that that Prophesy in this Chapter were intermixed with extraordinary gifts as that of tongues for which you say its unlikely that Prophesy should be ordinary I say were what you say in the first place truth yet the second doth not follow For in Scripture its ordinary to place or intermix those gifts or offices which you call ordinary and extraordinary together And I wonder you had not so much in you as to see it That might have saved you the labour of setting down this Reason See 1. Cor 12 29. Are all Apostles are all Prophets are all Teachers are all Workers of Miracles c You affirm Apostles Prophets Miracles are extraordinary and Teachers placed in the midst to be ordinary or by way of ordinary office So Rom 12. v. 6 7 8. v. 6. he speaks of Prophesy You say that it is extraordinary yet it s joyned in with that you call ordinary Teaching and exhortation v. 7 8. you parallel with it for your proof Ephes 4. 11. which Scripture makes as much against you as any I know when rightly understood For 1. these are not extraordinary offices as is discoursed at large in the Pulpit-Guard Routed But the ordinary standing gifts and offices in the Church of Christ And Secondly if otherwise upon your own account Apostles Prophets Evangelists which you say are extraordinary are reckoned up with Pastors and Teachers which you say are ordinary and continuing offices in the Church of Christ And 3. I wonder how you dare to divide and with Tho. Hall to pick out what you please and to call one ordinary and another extraordinary when the Scripture presents them all as standing in the Church upon the same account gifts given forth by the Spirit from Christ to the Church And you would take some and leave others so rob the Church of Christ of those gifts orders Priviledges and Officers that Christ hath given to it but no wonder for you own neither Church Ordinances Gifts or Officers according to the mind of Christ but what you have received by Tradition from Antichrist You say that he sayth Apostles are not extraordinary and as for Evangelists he hath nothing to say of them c. Truly had you not been blind or forgetfull there is enough said of them It seems I must say it again Pag. 70. An Evangelist is not an extraordinary but an ordinary work a cryer or publisher of glad tydings which is proper to all the servants of the Lord that preach glad tydings to men and as for Apostles they are not extraordinary but ordinary I say it again and I wonder you durst to oppose so clear a truth those who are sent of God to preach the Gospel for converting souls and gathering Churches are Apostles viz. sent ones and the Twelve Apostles did not take their denomination from their extraordinary gifts of the Spirit but from their mission from Christ to do his work so that notwithstanding none are so sent as those Apostles were 1. immediately or by an immediate mission from his own mouth 2. So immediately inspired and abilitated from above nor 3. to do the same work in every particular though the same in substance viz. to be the first Planters of the Gospel to establish it by signs and miracles c. Yet there is the same in truth and men sent for the gathering of Churches are as truly Apostles as they were as the sons of God are as truly the sons of God as Christ himself though not filled with the same fullness And that you may see there were more Apostles then those Christ was the great Apostle Heb. 3. 1. and he sent the Twelve and other Apostles it s more then probable there were Rom. 16. 7. the Scripture saith that Andronicus and Junias were of note among the Apostles 1. It s probable that they were Apostles c. else how should they be of note or reckoned among them 2. That there were Apostles there and it could not be of the Twelve For Paul was the only Apostle to the Gentiles and the others of the Circumcision they were of note among the Apostles of or belonging to the Church in Rome But Secondly It s apparent that there are or shall be both Apostles and Prophets at the Fall of Babylon which work I believe is now begun and the Lord hath his sent ones abroad in the World in and by whom he will effect his work who shall rejoyce in the fall of Babylon Rev. 18. 20. Rejoyce over her ye holy Apostles and Prophets for God hath avenged you on her So that notwithstanding all your scuffling shifts you make to help your self and to keep up your honour with the people yet know that God is truth and every man that opposeth him shall be found a lyar and that he hath left these ordinary standing gifts and offices in his Church Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers c. And whereas you say that I argue against it p. 70. that those scattered brethren Act. 8. were not Apostles though sent to gather Saints c. That I say is as a blind man may understand that they were none of the twelve Apostles for they tarried at Jerusalem in answer to Tho. Halls assertion that they might be Apostles whereas it is said that the Apostles tarried at Jerusalem but that they were Apostles viz. sent forth by the Lord not in a common way though not of the twelve Apostles The second Reason Because this word Prophet hath been alwayes used to signifie a person extraordinarily inspired of God when taken in a good sense c. Ans 1. Because Prophets were ordinarily taken in this sense
in the Old Testament and sometimes so taken in the New Testament therefore to conclude they were alwayes so taken is a Non sequitur and there is no ground for it no more then because in the Old Testament all were circumcised in the New Testament some were circumcised therefore all must be circumcised 2. Usually these extraordinary Prophets as you call them had their Prophesies written and they were kept upon record for after-times but amongst so many Prophets in every Church none of their Prophesies are recorded therefore no extraordinary Prophets And further that they were not extraordinary is cleer in that their Doctrine was to be tryed by the Church or at least by the rest of the Prophets and this you never find done by any of the extraordinary Prophets And lastly if they had been extraordinary they could rather have directed the Apostle then the Apostle should have directed them as Act. 21. 11. Which arguments were urged in the Pulpit-Guard Routed but you were so wise it seems as to take no notice of them I might add to all the rest that the extraordinary Prophesie was such an immediate revelation and inspiration as that when it came they could not but prophesie This was such a prophesie as they had first need to be exhorted to it and secondly are bid to desire it and thirdly had need to be informed of their liberty and fourthly to be directed unto the right manner of the performing of it 1 Cor. 14 1 2. 31. 29. 30. therefore no extraordinary but ordinary Prophets These things thus considered I question not but that it sufficiently makes null your second Reason Your third Argument is That the gift or spirit of Prophesie given out to the New Testament Prophets is the fulfilling of the promise Joel 2. 28. therefore extraordinary Ans Granted that it is the same spirit and fulfilling of the same promise yet not the same extraordinary gift If no Prophets but those who have extraordinary gifts then no Pastors and Teachers for then they had extraordinary gifts and upon the same account those who have not the like gifts are not Pastors and Teachers upon the same account no believers Mar. 16. 17. These signs shall follow them that believe c. So that upon this account you will reason out all Religion and Christianity out of the world Therefore secondly they having the Spirit or the gifts and operations of the Spirit might in their Prophesies be above us yet according to the measure received we may nay ought viz. the Prophets to speak in the Church c. Or else that prophesie Joel 2. 28. hath nothing to do with us nor we with it we are not under that promise so all the promises are not in Christ yea and amen to us And how dare you to make null the great Gospel prophesie and promise nay the great and blessed promise of Christ at his departure from his Disciples Joh. 14. 16. viz. of the Spirit Your fourth Argument is Because Prophesie is set down distinct from ordinary Teaching Rom. 12. 6. A little to discover the strength of this Argument I reason thus Exhortation in the same place is set down distinct from Teaching therefore it is extraordinary Exhortation Therefore I have in the Pulpit Guard Routed cleerly distinguished between Gift and Office and if the Lord enlighten us in these that we could but distinguish we should not thus confound one thing with another and turn out some truths to retain others but every truth would stand in its place and so there would be a sweet harmony as in Scripture so in the Church of Christ Your fifth Argument is Because the gift of Prophesie was given to others besides Saints This is learned Logick indeed Because wicked men have the use of the things of the world therefore it is not proper to all the Saints to have the use of the things of the world because wicked men may have the spirit of Prophesie therefore it is not proper to the Saints to have it Let the Reader judge of this Logick Or else because wicked men may have a form of godliness denying the power therefore it is not proper to all the Saints to have the form of godliness This Argument I leave to the Reader and follow you to your other additional Arguments 1. Because God hath not appointed all gifted brethren to live of the Gospel therefore they are not to preach the Gospel The Scripture you produce is 1 Cor 9. 14. Ans This Scripture is to be understood in way of distinction and that 1. That they that preach the Gospel may not that they must live of the Gospel then Paul lived unlawfully when he wrought with his hands Act 18. 3. and his hands ministred to his necessities and it is a more blessed thing to give then to receive So that it is only a discovery of the mind of God what he that preaches the Gospel may do if he need it Hence Paul saith he had a power not to work but to live of the Gospel and he had a power to work and not to live of the Gospel But it seems you are very loth to heare on that eare 2. It intends that only those who are called to the office and set apart wholly to that work that they should if they need live of the Gospel 1 Tim. 5. 17 18 You never read that Prophets were to live of the Gospel So that this distinction keeps the truth cleer and dissolves your Argument to nothing Your second Argument is Because to preach publiquely is to exercise authority But none may exercise authority but such as have Ministerial authority c. The Scripture for confirmation of this is 1 Tim 2. 12. where Women are forbidden to teach publikely because they may not usurp authority over the man Ans This Argument and Scripture will do you no good to that end for which you have produced it but cleerly contradicts that you drive at for the Apostle both in 1 Cor. 4. 34. 1 Tim. 2. 12. holds forth the difference in generall between men and women in the Church not between women and men in office that is non-sense for he saith 1 Cor. 14. 35. If the woman will know any thing let her ask her husband at home There is no such word spoken of the men So that men have authority to speak in the Church to edification having the gift but women have not that authority allowed them although they have the gift c. Your third Argument If there be a power in the Church to keep off wolves and false teachers from the sheep then all that conceive they have gifts may not preach till they are approved c. Ans It is granted that there is such a power in the Church of Christ and they are able to judge of gifts when they hear whether it be of God or of man and they must hear before they can judge And when they hear and judge that