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
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
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
same as is said of the child 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but now are they holy so that first you say holiness is never used in all the Scripture for legitimation but generally for things separated to Gods service yet here you confess holiness is attributed to the unbeliever upon the Marriage account in way of Marriage he is sanctified c. And the Infants or children are sanctified with the same sanctification in the same way and this I take to be the jenuine signification of this Scripture I shall now give my reasons for it 1. There is no such thing in the Gospel as an external federal holiness it s a meer invention of man as I have often cleared 2. This interpretation viz. That they were lawfully begotten 1. reacheth the thing in hand most sutable for as Mr. Hall confesseth the Apostle is giving satisfaction to them concerning a scruple or doubt about mixed Marriages from Ezra 10. 2 3. Nehem. 13 23. And he satisfieth them that the Believer need not put away the unbeliever as the Jew did the Heathen for God had sanctified the unbeliever to the believer else were your children unclean that is your children must depart as those did Ezra 10. and Neh. 13. But now are they holy that is holy as the unbeliever is holy sanctified as the unbelieving husband is sanctified This is sutable to the thing in hand they are sanctified as every creature of God is sanctified to the believer 1 Tim. 4. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is sanctified by the word and prayer so is the unbeliever and children sanctified to the believer that he may comfortably injoy them 3. It can be no other sanctification then that of the unbeliever and that is granted by Tho Hall to be but a Marriage-Sanctification and the childes holiness can be no other for it flows from it the unbeliever is sanctified else were your children unclean but now are they holy He doth not say the Believer is sanctified else they were unclean and that must have been the words to have made any thing for your federal holiness but the unbeliever is sanctified c. It being thus cleared that the holiness of the childe flows from the Sanctification of the unbeliever then its the same with the unbeliever but it flows from it therefore one with it and this is concluded that a cause cannot produce a more excellent effect then it self the unbeliever he is sanctified saith Tho. Hall in way of marriage then I suppose its clear that the childs sanctification flowing from hence can be but of the same nature these things thus considered I leave it to the judgment of the Reader The sixteenth Argument From the many dangerous errours and absurdities that will follow this tenet 1. Then Christians Infants shall be losers by the coming of Christ c. Ans No losers at all for what advantage is it to be in an outward Covenant and to have that which you call a Seal and not to be in the grace of the Covenant but to be children of wrath as much as heathens as you confess pag. 10. a mear cheat a seal to a blank and the truth is you cannot devise a greater cheat for Infants then to tell them they are in the Covenant of Grace yet children of wrath as well as heathens in it yet out of it and by this are the nations cheated into a Form of Godliness thinking themselves in a Covenant of Grace and in a moment go down to Hell 2. You say Then grace should be larger then then it is now c. Answ No such thing the Covenants considered that was a Covenant of the land of Canaan which belonged to all the Seed therefore they were all circumcised as a sign of their obedience and all partaked of the Promise which was but a Type of the Gospel Covenant ours is a Spiritual Covenant of the Spiritual Land the Lord Jesus and belongs to none but the Spiritual Seed and to them its more excellent and more large and as sure if not more sure then that was to the natural Rom 4. 16. That was large and sure to the natural this large and sure to the Spiritual seed 3. You say Then there would be no difference between the childe of a Christian and the childe of a Pagan c. Then Dogs and Swine shut out of the new Jerusalem Rev. 22. 15. Answ And is there any difference by nature think you unless grace make a difference doth your federal holiness and baptism make such a difference doth it receive them into the new Jerusalem when you confess them children of wrath as well as the children of heathens are notwithstanding your federal holiness Do not you by your pretended outside holiness rather shut them out of the new and true Jerusalem and dare you say Turks Tartars and Heathens are all shut out from thence May there not be a time when grace may reach them too And may not Infants when grown in years have the means of working faith and that in a more hopeful way when dealt faithfully withall and not deluded with a shadow without the substance by which means they may through grace come to attain an interest in the new and true Covenant 4. You say Then they are without Christ without hope without God c. Ans And are they any better in your fained Covenant unless they have an interest in truth in Christ and in God Which is best to be without Christ and thinke they have him or to be without Christ and know it And who are likeliest to abide longest without Christ those who are deluded and cheated with something like Christ yet not him or those who are left as they are in their natural condition that so they may have nothing to delude themselves withall but seek after the true God in the use of means God making them sensible of the want of it 5. You say Then they are the Devils children Ans So they are notwithstanding your federal holiness if they do his work Joh. 8. 44. All you plead for changes not the nature but the name a sad delusion 6. You say This robs Christ of his glory then the first Adam was more powerfull to destroy then Christ to save c. Ans It is that makes for the glory of Christ it 's the fulfilling of his will and mind But you dishonour him in calling his name upon a company of people that do not know him nor honour him in their conversation It seems you are an Vniversalian you will have Christ to save all that fell in Adam if all that partake of Adams sin must partake of Christ Truly sir none are like to partake of Christs grace but believers that I know of and this faith is the gift of God Ephes 2. 8. Therefore take heed how you stretch the grace of Christ beyond what it was intended lest you delude souls with the name of grace without the truth 7. You say Then Infants
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