Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	covenant_n	grace_n	justification_n	7,486	5	9.7652	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77397	Anabaptism, the true fountaine of Independency, Brownisme, [double brace] Antinomy, Familisme, and the most of the other errours, which for the time doe trouble the Church of England, unsealed. Also the questions of pædobaptisme and dipping handled from Scripture. In a second part of the Disswasive from the errors of the time. / By Robert Baillie minister at Glasgow.	Baillie, Robert, 1599-1662.; Baillie, Robert, 1599-1662. Dissuasive from the errours of the time.	1647 (1647)	Wing B452A; Thomason E369_9; ESTC R38567	187,930	235

them for he only admonishes us to be sparing cautious in our reasoning from proportion in positive and institute worship his advice we mind to follow as very reasonable for we doe not from analogy infer the institution of Baptisme or any other positive worship onely the application of Baptisme a worship instituted by an expresse command to a certain subject to wit infants and to reason thus far yea farther from proportions and analogies is the frequent custome both of Christ and his Apostles thus the Lord proves it lawfull for his Disciples to pluck the ears of corn on the Sabbath from Davids eating of the shew-bread and the Apostle proves the necessity of maintaining the Ministers from not muzling of the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth out the corn and their living by the Altar who serve at the Altar 1 Cor. 9.9 But the greatest stick is upon the antecedent Baptismes succession to Circumcision we therefore prove it from Col. 2.11 12. Baptisme succeeds to Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sinnes of the flesh by the Circumcision of Christ buried with him in Baptisme wherein also you are risen with him The Apostle here shewing our compleatnesse in Christ tels us that we have in him the main thing signified by Circumcision the spirituall Circumcision of the heart not made with hands the putting off of the body of sin also that in place of the abolished rite of Circumcision we have the new rite of Baptisme whose substance and signification was the very same with Circumcision a buriall with Christ and a resurrection with him a killing of the body of sin and quickning of the new man in the life of every grace The Apostle in this his parallel and comparison of the two Sacraments is clear in making the substance and signification of both to be really one In this also that Circumcision is put away and accomplished by the comming of Christ the body of all the old shadows but that Baptisme yet remains in the Christian church in place of Circumcision having the same ends and significations therewith Many dissimilitudes are here brought by some to hinder all proportion analogy and parallel betwixt these two Sacraments but how many soever can be brought they will prove no more but that those two are not one which was never affirmed by any things that are like and agree onely in some third cannot possibly be one for identity destroys analogy and similitude But if two concordances betwixt Baptisme and Circumcision be made good the third for which we reason will of its own accord follow if it be clear that Circumcision and Baptisme be both of them seals of the same covenant and both of them initiating seals it follows that if infants were capable of the one they are also of the other If the first two doe not clearly enough appear from the last passage of the Apostle there be many more Scriptures beside to make them evident The first similitude betwixt Baptisme and Circumcision is their sealing of the covenant of grace Circumcision did seal the Covenant of grace and the blessings therein contained this of Baptisme was never questioned but of Circumcision the Anabaptists did ever deny it we prove it first from Gen. 17.11 Gen. 17.11 and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and thee what covenant was this whereof Circumcision is here called a token or as the Apostle speaks Rom. 4.11 a sign and a seal Moses expresses it in the 7. v. calling it an everlasting covenant wherein God promised to be a God to Abraham and to his seed after him this covenant must be of grace since the Lord the fountain of grace and glory promises therein to communicate even himself to Abrahams posterity It is true according to the wise and wonderfull dispensation of the grace of God both under the Law and Gospel the promise is preached to the whole seed and all the members of the visible church whether elect or reprobate but what is offered to all in the Word and Sacraments is conferred onely upon the elect by the efficacy of his grace who works all in all according to the good pleasure of his will It is clear also from Deut. 30.6 Deut. 30.6 that Circumcision was a seal of the covenant of grace and the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul that thou mayest live here the thing signified by the rite of Circumcision is the sanctification of the Spirit and the planting of the love of God in the mortified heart which without all doubt are two of the principal promises of the covenant of grace Likewise Rom. 4.11 Rom. 4.11 is so clear that in reason it ought to stop all mouths from farther debating in this point and he received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of faith Whence we reason The covenant that brings to Gospel justification to the righteousnesse of faith to remission of sins and happinesse is the covenant of grace But the Apostle there affirms Circumcision to have been a seal of such a covenant Ergo. It 's true the covenant of grace The covenant of grace has been diversly administred but ever the same and never mixed in its administration before Christs comming in the flesh was cloathed with many shadows of now abolished ceremonies and had adjoined to it upon mount Sinai the old covenant of works to be a severe paedagogue for the pointing out the way to Christ unto the very unruly children of Israel and for keeping them in awe and terrour by its threats and curses also for alluring them to obedience by its temporall promises we grant because of those adjuncts the covenant of grace is sometimes spoken of as an old covenant and is distinguished from its very self as it was administred by Christ after his incarnation the old dresse of Sinai being changed as of an old garment but that the thing was ever the same advised Christians must be loath to doubt for if the covenant which the Lord made with Abraham and his seed under the Law be not truly and substantially the new covenant of grace we desire to know by what means they obtained either grace or glory and to put all the Fathers of the Old Testament in so beastly a condition as excludes from grace and glory who dare be so insolent Now if we grant them a covenant which did bring them to a state of grace in this life and of glory hereafter how can we deny it to be gracious That which they speak of a mixed covenant is not much to the purpose we did never deny the adjunction of ceremonies and temporall promises and the whole covenant of works unto the covenant of grace under its first administration yea under the very New

Testament where the administration is much changed the new covenant wants not both its sacramentall ceremonies and the promises of this life but none of those adjuncts doe change the state and nature of the principall it remains ever a covenant of pure grace without any mixture it is neither in the whole nor in any substantiall part turned into a covenant of works it may not lose its denomination if it keeps its nature it may neither be counted wholly a covenant of works nor a mixed covenant of grace and works For the other part of the similitude that Circumcision and Baptisme as they are seals of the same covenant so they are both initiating seals Both Circumcision and Baptisme are initiating seals ceremonies whereby the first solemn entry into this covenant is made is scarce controverted by any of circumcision the thing is evident whatever covenant it sealed it was an initiating seal thereof for it was the very first ceremony exercised about any person they of age at their profession of the faith were circumcised and infants in the eight day of their life no uncircumcised person might enter the Tabernacle or Temple or eat of the Paschall supper The same is true of Baptisme upon those of age who professe faith Christ immediately puts Baptisme Goe preach and baptize none may participate of the Lords Supper who is not before baptized this was the order of the Apostolick Churches Acts 2.38.41 42. The Apostle exhorts his hearers first to repent and be baptized this being done thereafter they goe to the breaking of bread M. Tombs the over-turner of this order is deserted herein as in many other of his notions by all the Anabaptists I know Thus the parts of the analogy which we touch upon are made good as for our inference that Baptisme being an initiating sign of the same covenant in which Circumcision initiates therefore as Circumcision was administred to infants in their solemn admission to the covenant under the Law so baptisme ought to bee administred to infants in their solemn admission to the same covenant under the Gospel The main things objected against this conclusion are two first that neither under Law nor Gospel infants were admitted to any covenant of grace I grant if this exception were made not to the conclusion which is an informal way of answering but to the consequence or antecedent or some proposition it is very relevant if it were true but in the former argument I have demonstrated from divers clear Scriptures its falshood Their other exception is There needs not a particular command for the application of a sacrament to the divers ages and sexes and conditions of persons that the parallel were it most harmonious in never so many things yet if it be to the purpose it must hold also in this that as Circumcision had an express command for its application to infants so must Baptism We answer that this exception is the very point in question which this whole argument and the former and all that follows intend to prove that for the application of Baptism to infants there is so much of a divine commandment as is requisite in such a case That expresse cōmands are not required for the application of ordinances to the diverse ages sexes and conditions of subjects is clear in a number of instances Who ever did require a particular command or expresse institution for admitting of women to the Lords Supper for the baptisme of old men the baptisme of Kings of Queens of Merchants and so forth If the premises therefore be granted as we have proved them from Scripture that infants are in the covenant of grace that Circumcision was and Baptisme is a Sacramentall seal initiating and solemnly bringing into this covenant all who are admitted thereto and that Circumcision did initiate infants therein it will not in reason be avoided but Baptisme must still do the same and that to deny Baptisme the initiating seal of the covenant of grace to infants is nothing else but the excluding of them from the covenant of grace it self It is Mr Tombes remark that under the very Law Baptism was in use Infants Baptisme under the Law and Mr Marshall addes very judiciously from the Talmud from Maimonides and other Authors that who ever were circumcised among the Jews were also baptized infants as well as their parents women as well as men That this custome of baptizing all who were added to the church children as well as parents did constantly continue in all ages of the Christian church is proved by many without any satisfactory reply but we intend here to dispute from Scripture alone Our third argument we take from Mat. 28.19 The third argument from Mat. 28.19 Goe ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Son and of the holy Ghost Hence we reason thus To whom that commission of the Apostles to baptize did extend they are commanded to be baptized But to some infants that commission of the Apostles does extend Ergo. The minor only is questionable we prove it by these reasons first To whom the chief matter of that commission does belong to them the commission does extend But to some infants the chief matter of that commission does belong The promises of the Gospel belong to infants for the chief matter thereof was the glad tidings of salvation in Christ the holy covenant and mercy promised to the Fathers the oath sworn to Abraham as Zachary expounds it Luke 1.72 73. Now that the covenant and promise in the very tearms of it concerned infants as much as any appears by the words of God to Abraham Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed and Peter Acts 2.39 does preach expresly that this promise did belong as well to his hearers children as to themselves Infants are not in a worse condition under the Gospel then under the Law A second proof if this commission of the Gospel of salvation and its initial seal extend not to any infants then the extent of the covenant of grace should be much straiter among the Gentiles then it had been among the Jews for infants are a great part of every Nation and among the Jews the covenant in the promise of grace and of glory and in the seals of both was extended to infants as well as to any others so if among the Gentiles now under the Gospel infants were excluded it would be a very sensible and pitifull restraint of the covenant but a very absurd one for every christian Nation has the covenant of grace communicate to them in no worse but in much better tearms then the Jews of old All who are baptized needs not be capable of teaching The great objection against al this is this argument None are the objects of baptisme but who first are the objects of teaching But infants are not the objects of teaching Ergo. We answer that both the

Church visible but reprobates The argument to the contrary that only Jews are Abrahams seed according to the flesh is not good for these very Scriptures Gal. 3. 4. which they cite for its ground do distinguish the children of Abraham according to the flesh and according to the promise the children of Sarah and Hagar these that were born of the free-woman the Jerusalem above and the bondwoman Sinai and Jerusalem upon earth all this is applied to the Galatians who were Gentiles the one part of the distinction to those of them who were justified by faith the other to those of them who pleaded for a justification by the works of the Law and thereby lay under the bondage and curse of the Law If both parts of the distinction may not be applied to the Gentile Galatians the ground of the Apostle his argument and of his whole discourse is overturned This Arg. many ways absurd The other part of the minor is far more absurd That only actuall believers are the children of the promise for if so then first at one breath all Christian Infants are blown out of heaven none of them have any more interest in Christ in grace and in salvation then Turks and Pagans Thus farre the most of the Anabaptists wont not to goe but the Disputants professe it is their reall meaning their retortion here upon us is very silly that we do put Christian infants in as evill a condition as they by granting all infants to be born in originall sin for they know that we joyn to this a second assertion That the elect infants of believing Parents though born in sin and the children of wrath by nature as well as others yet by supernaturall grace and mercy are born under the new Covenant and have their right and interest both in the Covenant of grace and the seals thereof Secondly by this Doctrine the Disputants cut off all Jewish infants from any interest in the promises of grace Isaac himself Jacob and Joseph cannot be children of the promise in their childhood but according to the Disputants they must be children according to the flesh totally flesh without the Covenant of grace that so they behoved to remain till they came to those yeares wherein they did actually believe and by this actuall faith became children of the promise which promise before their actuall faith did no more belong to them then to any other of mankinde Thirdly by this argument Circumcision is made to be a seal only of a Covenant of works So Isaac and the rest of the Patriarchs by their Circumcision had no promise of grace sealed unto them all of them except Abraham at the time of their Circumcision and many years after were under a Covenant of works only all of them to the years of their discretion and actuall faith were incapable of any interest in the Covenant of grace strange absurdities Fourthly by this argument they must professe that none but true believers justified sanctified and elect persons are under the Covenant of grace that such onely have right to participate of the Sacraments the seals of that Covenant and that such only can be lawfull members of any true Church They reject our distinction of an outward and inward Covenant of grace We teach that the Covenant of grace in the outward administration thereof both in preaching the promises and applying the seals of the Sacraments is to be proponed by Gods appointment to all the outward visible members of the Church But the inward saving grace of this Covenant whether in preaching of the word or administring the Sacraments is by the holy Ghost conferred onely upon the true living invisible members of Christs mysticall body By this common and necessary distinction we escape easily that blot of Arminianism which they would lay upon us for although we put all whom we baptize and all to whom we preach as to Church members under the outward administration of a gracious Covenant yet do we not grant any true saving grace to any but the elect and regenerate who do never totally and finally fall away But the most of our adversaries are full grosse Arminians yea their refusing to distinguish betwixt the outward and inward Covenant or something equipollent does draw them to all these and greate absurdities Th● 7 8. and 9. Arg. are but repetitions Their seventh argument is a meer Battology Infant Baptism say they is unlawfull and will-worship because not administred according to the rule of the word having neither precept nor example nor rule for it Ans We need not repeat what was said before to the same thing only we observe that they insist upon the baptizing of true believers only for they speak here in terminis that they only of the Gentiles might be baptized who did sincerely believe and they prove this from Acts 8.37 so then it shall be as unlawfull to baptize the fairest professors if hypocrites as to baptize infants Their eighth argument is another Battology to wit that infant Baptism is unlawful because Christ did not command his Apostles to preach and practice it Their ninth argument is of the same nature That infant Baptism is unlawfull because it is no part of the revealed will of God to those tautologies our former answers need not be repeated The absurdities of every one of the nine arguments These be the nine great arguments wherewith the Ministers of the City were to be confounded their mouths for ever to be stopped and the peoples eies to be opened so clearly that with chearfulness they might renounce their old receive a new Baptism yet I am in the opinion that the keeping of those arguments within doors had served much more for the honour of the Authors for every one of them is clogged with its own proper absurdity The first makes example alone a full and compleat rule of practice in all ordinances The second is grounded upon a wilde logick notion of such an essentiall difference as makes a man in his riper years differ essentially from himself in his infancy The third cuts off all reasoning from Scripture but in terminis were the consequence never so clear The fourth makes Christ and the Apostles ordinary practice of clearing their doctrine from the Law and the Prophets to be no lesse a wickednesse then Antichristianisme and the deniall of the comming of Christ in the flesh The fifth makes the personall example of Christ a full and compleat rule of all Gospel ordinances The sixth denys Isaac Jacob Joseph or any of Abrahams elect seed when they were circumcised to have had any right at all in the covenant of grace also it imports that no infant either of Jew or Gentile had ever any interest in God more then a Turk or a Pagan before they come to so ripe years as actually to beleeve and repent The seventh eighth and ninth are meer repetitions of the third and import clearly the unlawfulnesse of the baptisme and

Israel KKK Historia Dav. p. 45. Whosoever will reject so clear a light of truth so powerfully manifesting it self in the ministery of David George by adhering too much unto the imperfect state of the Prophets and Apostles Doctrine shall sin as much as they of old who preferred Abraham to Christ and the Law to the Gospel and properly this is the sin against the holy Ghost which could not be committed in former ages when this so great light was not yet revealed LLL Vide supra MMM Vide supra NNN Heresbachius Preface Menno in his Book of fundamentalls speaking of the Anabaptists of Munster I doubt not saith he but these our beloved Brethren who lately did sin a little against God by defending their faith with Arms are in the favour of God OOO Clopenburg p. 123. The Anabaptists contradict this truth and do ascribe unto infants in their first birth without any regeneration the purity of innocency wherein they do please their Creator affirming also that onely by actuall sinne men become sinners p. 131. They say that Adam did obtain not onely to himself but to his whole posterity propitiation and remission of sins so that none of Adams posterity is born in sin or guiltinesse of eternall death but all men are born partakers of the grace of God in Christ Also Bullinger p. 26. These men did not acknowledge originall sin and affirmed that infants were born pure from sin PPP Vide supra QQQ Bullinger p. 117. In the great article of justification by faith and not by works the Anabaptists do grosly erre Also Clopenburg p 158. The Anabaptists say that in the matter of justification faith and works are so strictly joyned that the one without the other is nothing so that good works are necessary means of obtaining justification RRR Clopenburg p. 124. Concerning free-will the Anabaptists teach that Adam in the state of corruption was not so evill but that he was able by the use of reason left to him by God to hear and to receive the promise of redemption offered to him in Christ yea that Adam did really make use of that liberty and power for the use of his restitution that the posterity of Adam did keep that same free-will which is placed in the use of reason not only for the discerning but for the free choosing of good and evill Ibid. p. 198. Vnto this Tenet another Heterodoxy is conjoyned concerning the uncertainty of the Saints perseverance for the Anabaptists affirm plainly that the truly faithfull children of God may become the unfaithfull children of the Devill and lose their salvation SSS Clopenburg p. 131. cited before TTT Ibid. p. 155. They do destroy the eternall election of single persons to salvation which they say is only done when the faithfull embrace the benefits of Christ and do faithfully keep them that there is no eternall election or decree to give salvation unto certain persons but that which is made with consideration of faith and chiefly of perseverance in faith VVV Clopenburg p. 18. cited before Ibid. p. 37. They deny the immutable immortall Deity of Christ XXX Clopenburg p. 56. Their Tenet here in blasphemous that while Christ did die in the flesh the very Deity of Christ did suffer end die YYY Clopenburg p. 10. cited before Also p. 12. cited before Also Bullinger p. 62. Among the abominable Anabaptists Michael Servetus has the first place his blasphemies against the holy Trinity were abominable ZZZ Clopenburg p. 145. I will not in this place refute their latent Socinianisme whereby they make Christ only an exemplary Saviour AAAA Clopenburg p. 83. cited before BBBB Bullinger l. 3. p. 119. They say that they will hear the word of God but the interpretation and the words of the Ministers upon it they cannot take for the word of God neither will they hear or receive it CCCC Bullinger p. 74. Among the abominable Anabaptists we place these who reject the old Testament and who receive me the Testimonies that are brought thence for the clearing and confirming of the Doctrines of our Christian faith or for the refuting of Errors saying that the old Testament is now abrogate DDDD Clopenburg p. 235. The Anabaptists covered that the Covenant made with Abraham sealed by Circumcision does not belong any thing to the Church in the new Testament for they make the Covenant it self as carnall as circumcision CHAP. III. The modern Tenets of the Anabaptists in ENGLAND WHAT is set down in the former Chapters of the old Anabaptists over Sea The spirit of Anabaptisme clearly devillish was in relation to their present off-spring in England with them chiefly it is that I intend to deal desiring if possible to draw some of them from their evill way or at least to hold off others who yet are free from running too rashly into their errour before they have a little considered it I hope I have made it so clear that no ingenuous knowing reader will hereafter call it in question that the spirit which was the author of Anabaptisme in Germany and carried on all its principall leaders along their whole course could be no better Angel then Satan who under the colour of a more then ordinary zeal to the smallest truths and of a vehement affection to the highest degrees of all holinesse was palpably found to set on foot the most grosse and damnable Errours the most abominable obscenities cruelties robberies that ever the Sun from its first creation to this day did shine upon in any part of the earth How much of his nature that spirit has laid down since his late appearance in England it cannot yet with confidence be pronounced He was an Angel of light in Germany for a longer time then yet he has dwelt among us in any considerable visibility for till of late he did but lurk it this Land in the habit of an Incognito Since the time he began to appear in publick there is nothing which he would more gladly disclaim then these crimes and that face wherewith he did walk over Sea when he took the boldnesse to lay aside his mask and to shew his true visage as it was without any disguise Tell the English Anabaptists now of the Doctrine and practises of their fathers in Munster and elswhere The fair profession of many English Anabaptists not to be trusted they are ready with passion to deny all affinity all consanguinity with such monstrous Hereticks They will be nothing lesse then Anabaptists the furthest they will professe to maintain is but a simple Antipaedobaptisme How ever this will be found a very grosse and dangerous errour yet we wish that all our questions with that generation of men were come to so narrow an issue we are loth to force upon any man the errours which he is willing to disallow the fewer the differences be a full agreeance is the more easie and near the multiplication of controversies makes peace the more difficult and desperate yet for many

one and always so remain is above the reach of any man I may say to him as Mat. 7.3 Luke 6.41 42. OOOO Vide supra KKKK PPPP Gangren second Part p. 123. A person of quality told me that in Westminster Hall near the House of Commons doore a great Sectary had been discoursing with him that he would be loth the Parliament should bring Paul Bests bloud upon them for denying the Trinity QQQQ Vide supra Also in Gangren first Part second division p. 105. See Cousins of Rochesters horrible blasphemies against the Manhood of Christ Den and Lamb doe preach in this mans House RRRR Gangren first Part division second p. 5. M. Webbe a man that pretends a new light said to me That he blessed God he never trusted in a crucified Christ nor did he beleeve him to be the Sonne of God nor the Scriptures divine but humane inventions SSSS Gangren second Part p. 142. A Sectary in Lambs Church affirmed that he was Jesus Cbrist and maintained it stiffely the man was in his wits for he spoke sensibly and to the things that were spoken of though in this blasphemous abominable way TTTT Little Non-such p. 3 4. Some seeing the shape and form that man bears in his personall appearance do conceive that God the Creator beareth the same form Man was made according to the likenesse of God in personall shape it is said God shewed unto Moses his back parts but his face should not be seen therefore if he hath back parts and a face he hath a shape which when he pleaseth he can make visible as then he did What were the three men that appeared to Abraham as he sate in the Tent if not the Trinity VVVV Gangren second Part p. 134. John Boggis comming down to Yarmouth with Captain Hobson as his Chirurgion and in M. Oats company he went from Anabaptism to the desperate height of Atheisme being spoken to at Table to give thanks he said To whom should he give thanks whether to the Butcher or to the Bull or to the Cow when it was told him to God he replied Where is your God in heaven or in earth aloft or below c. going on in unspeakable blasphemies XXXX Gangren first Part division second p. 22. M. Webbe confessed that he was in the ready way to Atheisme and many of his companions in these opinions were turned Atheists YYYY Ibid. p. 111. The Anabaptists of Somersetshire teach that the whole Scripture doth hold forth nothing else but a Covenant of works thus vilifying the whole word of God by the name Letter and making their interpretation to be the Spirit Little Non-such p. 4. Some would have the whole matter of eating the forbidden tree to be an allegory and understand by the Serpent in this place no other then concupiscence and by the fruit of the tree in the midst of the Garden some other thing then the eating of a materiall Apple ZZZZ Webbe affirmed that the Scriptures were onely a humane invention and not fit for a rule of life and conversation for any to walk by and in confirmation of this he said The Scriptures were that golden Calf and Brazen Serpent that set at variance King and Parliament and Kingdome against Kingdome and things would never be well untill the golden Calf and Brazen Serpent were beaten to pieces AAAAA Gangren third Part p. 34. It was witnessed before the Magistrates of Norwich that Priscilla Miles had said None would speak against Anabaptists but drunkards and liers she avowed there was in the Scriptures a number of lies BBBBB The Anabaptists of Somersetshire say that the Scriptures are not the word of God but the conceits of men and that we are not to adhere unto them but to revelations Gangren second Part p. 136. Clarkson in Colchester in his Sermon did vilifie the Scriptures all Ordinances Duties Ministers and Church-state CCCCC Mans mortality or a Treatise wherein is proved both Theologically and Philosophically that whole man as a rationall creature is a compound wholly mortall contrary to that common distinction of soul and body and that the present going of the soule into heaven or hell is a meer fiction Ibid. The hell-hatched doctrine of the immortall soule discovered the heavens triumph in the wain of the world to see such light break out on its posterity Pag. 3. Death returns man to what he was before he was that is not to be whence appeareth p. 8. that none ever entred into heaven since the Creation during death man is void of actuall beeing and has no present actuall beeing in glory p. 24. I prove it from the non-entity of hell that there can be no casting into hell before hell be p. 28. Christs humanity was three days and three nights in the grave after his death Ibid. p. 29. I may possibly affirm that the place of glory for the dead Saints is not yet p. 34. Christs ascension was into the Sunne according to famous Copernicus it is in the highest station of the whole Creation it may bee fitly called the right hand of God DDDDD Gangren first Part p. 112. The Anabaptists of Somersetshire affirm that the Divine essence which subsists in the persons of men shall be reduced unto God again but the persons shall be annihilated for the soul is mortall and the body shall never rise from the dead that even the body of Christ did never rise from the dead but was annihilated the world shall ever endure by generation from time to time without an end Ibid. p. 5. I asked Webbe of his opinion concerning the resurrection and he affirmed that there was no more resurrection of a man then of a beast nor had he any more soule then the body EEEEE Ibid. Webbe a great Ring-leader of the seduced Sect of Anabaptists acknowledged no differen●e between the godly and the wicked for locall torment more then is upon earth he denies any locall hell Ibid. p. 26. Marshall a great follower of Randall maintained that there was no hell that all the hell that is is in this life which is nothing else but the legall terrors and fear men had in their consciences FFFFF Ibid. p. 5. Webbe denies that there are any devils more then men are devils in themselves Gangren second Part p. 6. A woman came to the Minister of S. Martins to question him about his Sermon and affirmed to him that there was not any such thing as sin or hell or the devill or tentation or the holy Ghost or Scriptures she said all the hell that was was the darknesse of the night GGGGG Gangren first Part p. 112. The Anabaptists of Somersetshire do teach that God in the beginning did give forth of his divine essence a variety of forms and severall substances which we call creatures so that God doth subsist in the creatures HHHHH Ibid. They teach that the world shall ever endure by way of generation from time to time without an end IIIII Ibid. Others of them teach that

as well as their Parents The manifold windings and turnings of the adversary from this place does but wrap them the further in the net The next place I cite is the first of the Cor. 7 14. How infants are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 For the unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbeleeving wife is sanctified by the Husband else were your children unclean but now are they holy Here the children of Christians are affirmed to be holy that is separated and dedicated to the service of God as those who are in Covenant with him to whom he is a God and whom he takes for his people for the Church in the Old Testament both young and old were accounted a holy and separate people Deut. 14.1 2. Ye are the children of the Lord your God thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himselfe above all the Nations that are upon the earth Isaiah 63.18 The people of thy holinesse have possessed it but a little while This priviledge continues to the Church in the New Testament to the worlds end 1 Pet. 2.9 But ye are a chosen generation a royall Priesthood an holy Nation a peculiar people which in time past were not a people but are now the people of God The Anabaptists for to loose the knot of this argument endeavour with much paine to cast a mist of confusion upon the whole text but to make clear and short work with them we reason thus The holinesse spoken of by the Apostle Paul here is one of three either the holinesse of justification and inherent sanctification flowing from the application of the bloud of Christ and inhabitation of the holy Ghost or else a civill holinesse of legitimation flowing from the lawfulnesse of a just matrimony or else a foederall holinesse whereby the whole church of God young and old by vertue of his covenant with them are separate and dedicated unto him no other senses use to be ascribed to the word holy in this place by any disputant the first two are inconsistent with the text the third therefore must be received The first cannot be approved by any who is sound in the doctrine of justification and sanctification for who ever will make all the children of every beleeving parent to have the holinesse of a reall justification and sanctification must either recall this tenet or in the end cannot but join with the Papists and Arminians in their great article of totall and finall apostasie from the most saving grace As for the second sense we deny that ever in Scripture children are called holy because begotten in lawfull marriage for so the children of the greatest Idolaters and worst of the Pagans who have no relation at all to God but as sinfull creatures dedicated to Idols that is of creatures very unholy and at best meerly naturall and civill must be accounted holy according to Scripture 2. The Apostle speaking of an holinesse which belongs to the Corinthians children from this that one of their parents is a beleever Legitimation cannot be such an holinesse for the faith of one or both parents contributes nothing to that the children of two unbeleevers are as lawfull as the children of two beleevers and so as holy in such a sense But the holinesse whereof the Apostle is there speaking is such whereof the children of parents who are both unbeleevers are not capable for it belongs to the children by vertue of the faith of one of the parents So this civill holinesse of legitimation if there were any such could not agree to the Apostles words in hand The first two senses being removed from the words onely the third does remain a foederall holinesse whereby the children are joined with God in covenant and dedicated to the service of God by vertue of that covenant as well as their parents Such an holinesse is a good reason of that which goes before and a solid ground of solution of the Corinthians scruple which the Apostle is loosing they had propounded to the Apostle their doubt If a beleeving husband might lawfully cohabit with his unbeleeving wife the Apostles answer is affirmative and the reason of the answer is because what ever the unbeleeving parties may be in themselves yet their cohabitation is sanctified to beleevers and of this sanctification the holinesse of their children is brought for an evidence since the Lord counted their children holy and in covenant with him the beleevers might rest assured that their abode with their companions though unbeleeving was acceptable unto God The Apostle here is speaking of husbands and wives not of men and whores though some other Scriptures should prove the bastards of beleevers to be holy yet this Scripture speaks nothing either of them or of their holinesse or of any thing else belonging to them only to settle the conscience of beleeving husbands and wives concerning their lawfull abode and sanctified cohabitation with their unbeleeving companions the foederal holines of their children is brought in for a proof To have said that children was lawful was no more then that their marriage was lawful which was not the question but to say that the children of their lawfull marriage were holy did infer not onely the lawfulnesse of the marriage but the sanctified use of the marriage and that now their cohabitation was without sin and acceptable to God My second argument I take from infants Circumcision The second argument is from the Circumcision of Infants which thus I frame Circumcision was administred to infants under the Law Ergo Baptisme ought to be administred to infants under the Gospel Nothing here is doubtfull but the consequence which thus I prove Baptisme under the Gospel succeeds to Circumcision under the Law Ergo if Circumcision was ministred to infants under the Law Baptisme ought to be ministred to infants under the Gospel Both the consequence and the antecedent of this argument are denyed When for the proof of the consequence we bring in the common rule of reasoning from analogy and proportion It is safe to resume from Scripturall consequences yea proportions these of the adversaries who prove to be so great disputers as to challenge the chief Ministers of the City to publick debates doe deny to us all such rules of disputation and which is much worse avow their mis-regard of what ever consequence we are able to fetch from any Scripture by the rules of the rightest reason leading us directly to that base and brutall fancy of the Jesuite Veron who for a time did please himself to admit from Protestants in all controversies no consequences at all but onely expresse formall and syllabick texts Though the Jesuits themselves did cry down and crush this irrationall inhumane conceit of their colleague yet the Anabaptists among many more exploded and sopited errors shew their boldnesse to renue this also but in this madnes their learned friend M. Tombs deserts