The font-guard routed, or, A brief answer to a book written by Thomas Hall superscribed with this title, The font guarded with 20 arguments therein endeavouring to prove the lawfulness of infant baptism wherein his arguments are examined and being weighed in the ballance of the sanctuary are found too light : the most considerble of Mr. Baxters arguments for infant-baptism being produced by Tho. Hall are here answered likewise / written by Tho. Collier ; to which is added A word of reply to Tho. Halls word to Collier and another to John Feriby's [ap]pendix called The pulpit-guard relieved ; with An answer to Richard Sanders's pretended Balm to heal religious wounds, in answer to The pulpit-guard routed : with an humble representation of some few proposals to the honorable committee appointed by the Parliament for propagation of the Gospel.

AN ANSWER To a Book written by one Richard San∣ders 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 undoubt∣ed truths, unless those which are abused by you, changing the terms in which by me they were asserted; as will appear in its place.

I pass your Epistle, and come first to your five serious Que∣stions.

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. Ʋpon 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 Baby∣lon; 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 a∣mong 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 de∣parted 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 re∣spect of worship; being delivered, cannot but discover and lay open to others the mysterie of that iniquity, though all the men and Mini∣sters of the world dislike it, &c.

Your 5. Question. Hath it not been an old trick of such as have de∣signed 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 accord∣ing to Scripture, and we have done: till then, forbear giving such lan∣guage as you do to the servants of the Lord for their impartial pub∣lishing 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 Learn∣ing, 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 pro∣duce 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 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; be∣cause 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, its 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 Magi∣strates, 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 great∣est 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 Coun∣try, 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 na∣tural 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 ano∣ther, 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 Cal∣lings.

Alas man! blindness with a witness; if you quarrell so much with the word, sweat, why do you not quarrell against him who first com∣manded 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, be∣ing imployed about something that may administer to his necessity, ac∣cording 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 Mi∣nisters 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 imploy∣ment 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 for∣bear 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, be∣fore 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 inten∣ded, 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 fit∣ted for, and imployed in some lawfull Calling, if God now mani∣fest his Son to and in such a one, inabling him to the Work of the Lord in his own heart, and in the judgement of the Church, he may lawfully, nay he ought to submit unto the Call of God, be he high or low; from the Speaker of the House, or President of the Counsell of State, unto the Hewer of wood and Drawer of water; and this is a true Call, when thus called of God: therefore all you say to this, is but an idle fancy; you have no ground for it.

His second Error.

That Infant-Baptism is a childish thing.

And this you say, He will own for a Truth: And this I do say, I

still own for a Truth, and that first in the Subject. 2. In the Administra∣tors.

You say, There is an Objection lies in the way, which he sets down, viz. That the Infants of the children of Israel were as uncapable of the understanding of the mysterie of Circumcision, as Infants are now of Baptism.

My Answers (though reproached by you, I suppose its not for want of ignorance) (I shall relate them again, and leave them to the judgement of the Reader; only, adding one more) will stand, and their truth be manifest, when what you practise will fall in the streets.

Its truth, that one part of Circumcisions Mystery, viz. the Circum∣cision of the heart, was as far from the capacity of Infants, as the mysterie of Baptism is now.

2. As Circumcision was a Type and Figure in the flesh of Christ, who was to come of Abrahams Seed; and there was no such capa∣city required, because it was a Jewish Legal Type, as all the rest of their external Worships and Sacrifices were, leading to, and representing the coming of Christ in the flesh. That these are not words to please children as you pretend, unless you mean the children of God; but words of truth, it will appear, if the honest Reader do but consider, that as all the Ordinances of the Jews were Carnal and Typical, Heb. 9. 10. Col. 2. 16, 17. So those Ordinances were given to the Natu∣ral or Carnal Seed, viz. the Seed of the Flesh, which was Typical like∣wise as their Ordinances were; therefore was not the like capacity re∣quired in them, as in those in the Gospel days, who are directly led into the Mysterie unto Jesus who is come, being the substance of all those Types and shadows.

3. There was a Command for that of Circumcision; none for that of Baptism: you cry out, O egregiously gifted Disputant!

Answ. O egregiously ignorant! Is it not the Command that gives a capacity to the one and to the other? If the Lord Command the one, and not the other, is not that enough to silence man for ever? Zac. 2. 13. I say its the Command of God that gives a capacity to the creature of obeying; and there are none capable of a Duty but those that are called to the Duty; and this you confess your self, p. 86. that in weighty things of God, a Christian must have a certain evident Rule to warrant his practise. Whereas you say, They were therefore circumcised, because taken into the Covenant, and so Church Members; I shall Answer it in its place, and say something to it in my fourth An∣swer.

I shall adde a fourth, and that is, They were capable of those things promised to them in that Covenant, viz. The Land of Canaan; and only the spiritual seed are capable of those things promised in the Gospel-Covenant, viz. The spiritual Land, Jesus Christ, and all the good things of the Gospel.

2. I say its childish, as relating to the Administrators, &c. and you give a clear answer to it of just nothing. I refer the Reader to it.

His third Error.

That none must be baptized until they come to perfect age.

To this you seem to give a learned Answer, crying out of Ignorance; and where it is, let the Reader judge by the Scriptures I produce: Was not Christ himself baptized at thirty years of age? The Eunuch by Philip? Acts 8. 37. And those that came to Iohn? Mat. 3. and those Acts 2. 40, 41?

You say, When any Anabaptist in England can prove that there was no Infants baptized in the Apostles time, then it may be you will make use of that which I bring.

I shall make use of your own words before: O egregiously gifted Disputant! What, are you so well verst, that we must prove Nega∣tives? I thought that you had known so much in disputation, of Rea∣son and Scripture, that if you will practise a thing, then you must prove it, or else it is Will worship; if you can produce no precept nor president in Scripture for your practise, then you have no ground for your practise; but you can produce neither precept nor president for your practise. Ergo.

I say, Is there one rule for them, and another for us now? if there be, produce it.

To this you learnedly answer: If he did understand sense, he would see that the same Scripture-rule that was then given to the Churches, di∣rects us to a different course in gathering of Churches.

And truly I must be mighty wise then to understand that which is not for mine own ends; such sense will prove sensual in the end, Jam. 3. 13, 14, 15, 16. and this is the summe of what you say; only you would flatter the people with your love to them; and its manifest it is in darkening the Truth. You have produced no Scripture for ano∣ther rule to us, then that to them, although I called for it, but only Rev. 2. 2. Try them that say they are Apostles, and are not, but lyars. I say so too, and earnestly desire, nay charge those who have any know∣ledge

of Jesus, to do it. See who sticks fastest to the Scriptures, we or you, that so they may find out the lyars, and detect and avoid them; for they serve not the Lord Jesus, but their own bellies, and by their works they shall know them.

As for those consequences mentioned; as that of Circumcision, the Housholds, and those brought to Christ, &c. I wonder that you blush not to write so audaciously as you do, knowing that almost all people know the truth of what I write; that these are the consequences, wit∣ness The Font-Guarded.

Immediatly you confess, that its true, The first consequence is made use of; but come hither all you that fear the Lord, see what a shift this man makes to help himself; he takes it for granted, that I ac∣knowledge that baptism is come in the room of Circumcision: when I do but declare your false and nonsensical consequences, not mine own conclusion. I deny Baptism to be come in the room of Circumcision; my grounds you may see in the Font-Guard Routed, in my answer to Doctor Hall; yet if it were true, that Baptism were come in the room of Circumcision, as Richard Sanders would have it, let the babes and sucklings come and see what ground here will be for Infant bap∣tism: let Jesus Christ be King, let him have but so much honour, as to tell you who shall be baptized, and how it shall be done, the con∣troversie will be ended: If you think Christ as a Son to be faithful in his house, as Moses a Servant was faithful in his house, Heb. 3. 2, 3, 4, 5. then he hath left sufficient rules for his people to walk by; they need not leave the son, and go back to the servant, Act 2. 22. but you ask What he hath to say to this consequence? Why the Law came by Moses; Grace and Truth, and Gospel-Ordinances came by Iesus Christ: to this your great answer, as to most of all the rest, is, to cry out ignorance, see the ignorance of the great Text-man, &c. that Circumcision came by Abraham, and not by Moses. I might retort back again, See the igno∣rance of this learned Disputant, that doth not yet know that Circum∣cision was reckoned upon Moses account, though given to Abraham; & is not reckoned in the new Testament so much upon Abrahams ac∣count, as upon Moses, Lev. 12. 3. Iohn 7. 22. The reason is, because that Circumcision was that in which the children of Israel were engaged to obedience, and the whole Law was included in it, when first given, or else by it they could not be bound over to the whole Law; so that the uniting of Law and Circumcision together so inseparably, being indeed both typicall, must stand and fall together; Moses being

the servant in that house, all the Ordinances being typicall, and the servant too. Circumcision is reckoned with the rest of the Law, and al∣together upon Moses account; therefore, next quarrel with Christ, and lay the blame (if there be so much) where it is. As to the sub∣stance of the consequences mentioned, I have answered already, they are commonly made use of by you. Your three Arguments I shall pass by, mentioned pag. 36 referring the Reader to my Answer to The Font-Guarded, in the beginning of this book. Only the grand Argu∣ment taken out of Master Baxters book, I shall untwist before I pass, I doubt not, though I have answered it likewise in the preceding Trea∣tise: The Argument is this.

• Those that are Church-members are to be baptized.
• Some Infants are Church-members.
• Therefore some Infants are to be baptized.

You say, you presume none will deny your Major; yet give me leave to question it a little. There is no such Scripture that I know of; for there are none that are Church-members upon the visible account, but those that are baptized, Act. 2. 41. They were baptized and added to the Church, not because members, but to make them visible mem∣bers, &c.

As for your Minor, you say you will prove it by Mr. Baxters Ar∣gument, thus,

• ...If by the merciful gift and appointment of God, not yet re∣pealed, some Infants were once to be admitted members into the visible Church, then some Infants are to be admitted so still.
• ...But by the merciful gift and appointment of God, not yet repealed, some Infants were admitted members into the visible Church.
• ...Therefore they are so to be admitted still.

Answ. 1. Your Argument both for Major and Minor serves not at all for the end for which you produce it, viz. the confirmation of the Minor of your former Argument; for it contradicts it self.

If Collier had so contradicted one Argument with another, you would have branded him for an Ignoramus. In the former Argument you say, Some Infants are Church-members, therefore ought to be bap∣tized. In this you say, as in confirmation of the former, Some Infants were once to be admitted members, so that it supposeth a time when they were not members; and you seem to contradict your self, and to con∣firm what I have said, viz. That Church-members are not admitted to Baptism, but they are admitted to membership by Baptism, or because baptized: but your self-contradiction I pass, only minde it by the way.

And 2. I come to your invincible Argument, viz. upon your own account: and the strength of your Argument I perceive lies in this, Not yet repealed. Let all the rest pass for truth, yet let this be denied, and it comes all to nothing. You say p. 38. God never repealed this grant to Infants, &c. I shall (as I have done in the former Treatise) prove the Repeal, and then your Argument is fallen. I prove it thus:

• If the Covenant made with Abraham, in which Infants had those priviledges you speak of, and Church membership, &c. be re∣pealed, then the priviledges of the Covenant are repealed.
• But the Covenant it self is repealed.
• Therefore the priviledges of that Covenant are repealed.

The Major is cleer: The Minor I prove.

• That Covenant whose promises and priviledges were typical, when the substance was come, was repealed.
• But the Covenant made with Abraham, and all its promises and priviledges were typical.
• Ergo, When the substance was come, it was all repealed.

That the Covenant was typical, I shall prove; and it typed out Christ and the spiritual seed.

1. The Covenant typed out Christ: for the Covenant on Gods part was, That he would give unto them the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession. This Land of Canaan was typical, of which Christ was the substance, Heb. 4. from v. 7. to 11. Therefore when Christ the substance was come, the type was repealed; and our Covenant now is not of the outward Land of Canaan, but of the true Spiritual Land of rest. And if the Covenant it self be repealed, as none who have their eyes in their heads but may see it, then the Church-membership of that Covenant is repealed; and the Church-membership of the Gospel is a Church-membership of another Covenant, a better Cove∣nant, established upon better promises, Heb. 8. therefore another Church-membership. Such as are capable of that Covenant and promise, to wit the Spiritual seed, are members of the Spiritual promise.

And lest any should think there was a difference between the Co∣venant made with Abraham, and that made with Moses, I cannot pass it thus: for it was all one. When Moses was raised up, it was gathered into one Covenant, and related all to one thing. Circum∣cision is given by Moses; the promise made to Abraham was the same as made to Moses, to wit, the Land of Canaan: therefore the Cove∣nant

mentioned Heb. 8. is said to be established upon better promises, because it was a better Covenant; that is, better promises then the Land of Canaan, viz. the Heavenly Land.

If any man dare to say, that it is the same Covenant as that with Abraham; let him take heed, fear and tremble to give God the lye: God one day will appear to be a God of truth, and all self-seeking and gainsaying men will be sound lyars. If any desire to see further into this truth, let them have recourse unto my former Treatise (Font-Guard Routed) in answer unto the same Argument.

And as to your Arguments to prove the Negative, That this mer∣cifull grant is not revoked; if it be, it must be in mercy or judgment, &c. I trace you not in it; I suppose to any reasonable man it will be need∣less: For if it be cleer as the Sun, that it is repealed; whether in mercy or judgment, to us is not material. Yet this I shall say, that it is in mer∣cy, and much wisdom; For all the works of God are wrought in mercy and truth. It was the will and wisdom of God, that the Natural seed should have an interest in the outward Covenant, and that the Spiritual seed should have a true interest in the spiritual Covenant and priviledges. Therefore cease reasoning thus: let God be true; let God have his will, though he take away all cause of fleshly boasting from us: For now we have no interest in any thing in this Covenant, unless Christ be ours; and if Christ be ours, then all is ours; but lose him, and lose all, 1 Cor. 3. 21, 22.

You come (you say) to his fourth Error.

That God now reveals his will not only by the written word, but by dreams and visions, more credited then the Scriptures.

This you assert; it's none of mine; as the Reader may see, if he please to peruse the place. It is your own invention, and a lying one too. And to this you adde another as great immediately following, viz. That you believe the Prison at London had done me good, where you heard I lately was for my Heresies.

Strange man I you are speaking against Dreams, and yet are in the very interim dreaming: you did but dream that I was in prison, and I suppose it was because you would have it so; you had studied deep upon the point the day before, and so it seems you dream'd the thing was done. What, Richard Sanders dream a lye? if he can dream no better then that, he were as good give off dreaming, or at least for∣bear to publish it in writing, lest all men count him but as he is. And

what I say of Dreaming, is no more but this; that I dare not condemn the thing, because God hath not limited himself; he may reveal him∣self which way he pleaseth, though not contrary, but agreeable to the Scripture. And further, that it is not my experience, nor any of that I know; therefore may be a whimsie of Tho Halls own head.

This is the substance of what I say; yet you dare to assert, that I af∣firm that God reveals his will that way, & that its more to be credited then the written word; when all I say, is, that for all that I know, some may have something revealed thar way, although I know it not. See Mr. Fox in the Book of Martyrs, vol. 3. pag. 607. he relates of that good Martyr Mr. Philpot, in a dream or vision he saw as it were a glo∣rious City full of excellencies, &c. and it brought much joy to his soul; it was cleered to him that it was a representation of the glorious Church of Christ: and dare you say this was false? And may not God do the like, if he please? though it's not usual, yet limit not God.

His fifth Error.

That the Saints need not ask the pardon of sin; that it is form and custome that carries them to this petition, Forgive us our sins, &c.

It seems you resolved to lye when you began, and so you will do it to the purpose: but you are driven to confess the truth immediately, that every one that runs may read you. While any lives in the cleer enjoyment of mercy, it is form and custom that carries them to that petition; but if a soul apprehends want of pardon, let him ask it. And is this so strange unto you? truly I do not wonder; I believe it is in good earnest as strange as you make it. It seems you know not that there is a time for all things, and every thing in its season is sweet and comely. There is a time to ask pardon, and a time to rejoyce in the en∣joyment of pardon; there is a time to be merry & a time to be sorry: If any be merry, saith James, let him sing; if afflicted, let him pray. And for that word, If any soul, or when a soul apprehends the want of pardon, let him ask it; its no otherwise then what James saith, If any want wisdom, let him ask of God, &c. Jam 1. 5. All you say about this, is either a spurning against the truth, and a manifesting of your igno∣rance in this truth of God; or secondly a declaration of what is in∣cluded in my assertion, That as they commit new sins, so being sensible of it, and of the want of pardon, let them ask it.

His sixth Error.

That gifted Brethren may exercise the Ministerial or Pastoral act of Preaching in a constituted Church, without any Call to the Office of a Minister.

Ans. 1. I suppose it's impossible for you to state any thing truly as it was laid down by me. But that you pretend, that what I have writ∣ten is so full of contradictions, that in sober sadness you know not what I would have. Truly in sober-sadness I am much of the mind, that your mind in writing was rather to make the Truth, and my self its ser∣vant contemptible to the people, then to answer the truth written in my book: for else you durst not change my language into your own so oft as you do; and then rail, and pretend you answer me; nay, pre∣tend you know not what I would have, when it is so cleerly asserted from Scripture grounds, not only in the generall, but in particular, pag. 95. 96. in seven or eight particulars: and I shall at present mind but one, which is the first; That all the brethren in the Church that have the gift, may prophesie. You assert it thus; That they may exer∣cise the Ministerial or Pastoral act, &c.

Well, but you pretend you will not answer the Arguments; that you will leave to your brother Hall. But you pittifully cry out of igno∣rance in the Collier: but I suppose, and its not my supposition only, that it is your own pittifull ignorance makes you so to cry out against me: for the Arguments you pass; nor do you say any thing of substance unto those things you pretend to be Errors. You say, you will lay down some Observations, which may serve as a key to see the weakness, ignorance, and impertinency of the same.

You observe, p. 66. That I do pittifully say, I Sir, and No Sir. And is this such a pittiful thing? Let the Reader judge.

As to your 7 particulars instanced, there is no contradiction in them. For first, that gifted brethren may preach according to their gift both in and out of a constituted Church, is cleer; and there is not any thing you have said that bears the least shew of a solid answer un∣to it. For both of these, see 1 Cor. 14. 31. Rom. 12. 3. 6. 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11. Act. 8. 4. with chap. 11. 19, 20, 21. & Act. 9. 20. & chap. 18. 25, 26. in all which it appears, the lawfulness of the Preaching of gifted Bre∣thren, both in and out of the Church; and truly I cannot think that you are so ignorant of this Truth as you pretend; only you are wil∣ling to make a Trade of Preaching; that so you may uphold your ho∣nour

and profit; and that distinction between Gift and Office is as clear as the Sun; and you say nothing in answer unto it from the Scri∣pture, but in way of comparison with the Magistrate, which will not hold: for men have preached, and it was their duty, without the Of∣fice, only by Gift, as in the former Scriptures; but men may not be Magistrates, unless called to office; and the disproportion between things Spiritual and things natural, is that in which natural men are lost, and the wisdom of man cannot reach it.

But you seem with Tho. Hall, to make much ado about private Preaching; and to confirm it you produce two Arguments. 1. If we finde in Scripture that all Christians may preach, taking preaching in a large sence for private duties we owe one to another, &c. But you prove by Scripture that all Christians may Preach, take Preaching in a large sence, &c. How now Richard Sanders; why you are proving more then ever I asserted: Where will you be anon? they may Preach, and they may not; for that which I asserted, was, that gifted brethren might Preach; you say all.

Query 1. Whether these Scriptures produced by you, do at all speak of Preaching? 1 Thes. 4. 18. comfort one another with these words, Heb. 3. 13. But exhort one another daily, while it is called to day.

Qu. 2. If it do infer Preaching, why not publick in the Church? If they were to exhort one another, why not in the Church? What word is there that hinders that it was not in the Church, and so publick?

So likewise in the rest of the Scriptures; so that by all that is said, here is no room for private Preaching, unless particular exhortation; so men in office may preach as well as men out of office; So that be∣cause there is a private watching in the Church of Christ, and a pri∣vate admonition, exhortation, &c. you will therefore call it private Preaching; and if you make that Preaching, then you think to limit all the gifts in the Church there, so contradicting all the Scriptures before mentioned: and its true all are not teachers in way of Office: yet all that have gifts, may, nay ought to make use of them for the good of the body and the glory of Christ.

The second Argument is taken from women. If it be lawfull for women to preach privately, &c. But women may preach private∣ly, &c.

Answ. Here you lie pittifully in the dust; let the Reader peruse the Scripture produced by you for proof of your assertion, that women may Preach, 2 Tim. 1. 5. and 2 Tim. 3. 15. See if there be ever a word

of Preaching in that place, or any thing that hath a tendency to it. Surely you think people are so ignorant that the very mentioning of Scripture will satisfie them, although it be nothing to the purpose; the other Scripture Act. 18. 26. The text saith, it was Aquila and Priscilla his wife. The word is, expounded the way of the Lord, &c. But how will you prove that it was Priscilla that expounded? Why not Aquila, if it must be preaching, as well as Priscilla?

But what should I rake after such nonsence and confusion? I do not in the least question the womens Duty in their station, as well as all the brethrens, which is to watch, to reprove, to restore, to exhort, &c. yet this prevents not the brethrens Duty, who have received Gifts from the Lord to make use of them publickly for the good of the whole: and they justly forfeit them if they neglect, and they may be taken from them, and given to those who will better improve them; and I am confident that the gifts of Christ in the Saints, will confound and bring to nothing the Worldly Ministry, and that so much the rather too, because they so much envy and oppose the Truth, and way of God in this particular.

You observe 3ly. That I take no notice of the thing in hand, when the question is stated, Whether any may Preach in a constituted Church, not called to Office? the Scriptures my answers are grounded upon, speak only of Preaching to Infidels, &c.

Ans. If you were not wilfull or blinde, you might see, that I prove Preaching both in, and out of a constituted Church too; the Scri∣ptures I produced for Preaching in a constituted Church, are Rom. 12. 3. 6. 1 Cor. 14. 31. and that it intends the Brethren without excep∣tion, see ver. 1. where he speaks to the Church, Desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesie, and none are excepted but wo∣men, ver. 34. 1 Pet. 1. 10, 11. and as for that you make so much ado about, the extraordinariness of the case of the Preaching of the scat∣tered brethren to Infidels: I have answered it in the former Treatise; yet something shall I say here; 1. An unlawfull thing is not made lawful by the extraordinariness of the case, unless in case of saving life; so the Lord will have mercy and not sacrifice, as in the Scripture men∣tioned by you; provided it be not in the profession of Christ; then he that to save his life will deny Christ before men, he will deny him be∣fore his Father which is in heaven; so that necessity makes not an un∣lawfull thing lawfull: If Ʋzzah touch the Ark, he must die, 2 Sam.

6. 6, 7. But 2. What necessity was there in it, that Paul, or the scat∣tered Brethren or Apollo should preach? if it were unlawfull, there was no necessity, unless such as Paul minds, A necessity is upon me, and wo is me if I preach not the Gospel, 1 Cor. 9. 16. And if this ne∣cessity was upon them I think it was lawfull, and upon the same ac∣count is it lawfull for any of the Saints that have received the Gift to Preach; therefore for shame forbear to tell of the extraordinariness of the Case any more, if the thing in it self was lawfull: and do not abuse the Scripture for the upholding of your own ends and interests, and do no more charge folly upon the Servants of the Lord for their fulfilling of the will of Christ. And whereas you pretend, That one Scripture witnessing that God hath appointed and fixed some in office for the work of the Ministry, is of more strength to condemn the liberty of preaching pleaded for, then twenty Examples of gifted mens prea∣ching. Let the Reader judge of the truth of this, or whether both these held forth in Scripture do not clearly speak thus much to it, that both are to have being together, not one to put out the other; and that Office that thinks to silence Gift, is no Office of Jesus Christ, but that which seeks it self, and its reward will be ac∣cordingly.

But I might conclude more sure then you, that there being a fixed Scripture that Commands Baptizing of Believers, is of strength e∣nough to condemn a thousand consequences for sprinkling of Infants, having not so much as any president for it: you would feign presi∣dents for sprinkling of Infants if you could; but you endeavour to overturn Presidents of preaching Brethren that they should not be use∣full to us; let the people judge of what Spirit you are of: And the reason I judge is this, your own standing depends so positively upon it, that unless you can uphold the one and suppress the other, you are like to fall together.

Observ. 4. That in my pleading for a general liberty of Preaching in a constituted Church, I do not inform how far I extend it, Whe∣ther it be with the consent of the Pastor and people, or whether he may Preach whether they will or no?

Answ. I leave the truth of this likewise to the Reader to judge; whether it be not often asserted in my Book, pag 29. The Churches freedom or desire is Call enough, if the party be gifted to it; all law∣full Calls to Preach either within or without are sutable to the Gift, pag. 30. The Church hath power to Call forth a gifted Brother to do

service for the Church; and in the Postscript, at the end, it is thus writ∣ten; In what I have written, I intend that only Brethren that have Gifts may exercise them in an orderly way, that is, with the desire or con∣sent of the Church, as any man might easily understand; so there is no truth in your observation.

Obser. 5. That in most of his Answers he doth not reply to the Scri∣pture reason alledged against him, but declining that, as a little too hard for him.

That I leave to the Reader to judge, whether I have declined a posi∣tive Answer to all, both the Arguments and Scriptures; and who hath declined the Argument and Scriptures most; I in my Answers to Tho. Hall, or Rich. Sanders in his answer to mine.

So you come, you say, to open several Scriptures, from giving any countenance to that Babel; and the two first that you will speak to is Act 8. 4. and Act 9. 20 but in this you will ohserve two Rules.

1. That in weighty things of God, a Christian must have a certain Rule, or warrant for his practise, &c. I like it well; and if you held firm to this truth, you must deny all your own practise.

2. That Arguments drawn from examples in Scripture are of cre∣dit, according to the credit of the persons whose examples they are, &c.

This I own for truth likewise: But you say, Those examples are of men not infallible &c.

How prove you that? dare you question it? and doth not the Scri∣pture say, the hand of the Lord was with them? yet dare you que∣stion the spirit by which they were guided? Acts 11. 21. All the rest you say to this is nothing at all; therefore I say no more but refer the Reader to what is at large answered in the Pulpit-Guard Routed: as for the second Scripture, Act. 9. 20. you confess, That he Preached before he was solemnly set apart to be an Apostle to the Gentiles. 2. You say he was sent by an immediate voice to Ananias, that he should tell him what he should do; but Ananias did not bid him preach, but arise and be baptized, &c. You minde what you have from Sauls own mouth, ch. 22. 14. Ananias saith to him, Thou shalt be a witness to all men of what thou hast seen and heard, ver. 15. This was no setting of him apart to the Office; he told him that he should be a witness, &c. but did not Ordain him unto it: and upon your account Saul should have been silent till he had been ordained; but he was not as before, and Act. 26. 16, 17, 18. Gods immediate sending him, was nor the outward Office, as you pretend.

You say, the other Scripture he often urges; and why not, having often occasion? 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11. Rom. 12. 6. 7. These, you say, are far fetcht consequences.

Answ. They are no consequences man, but plain Scripture Pre∣cepts; Christians must administer their gifts, therefore they must be pub∣lick Preachers, &c. Why not publick? do the Scriptures make a dif∣ference? And what you say further to these Scriptures, hath been an∣swered already; therefore I say no more.

The ntxt Scripture is Psal 145. 10, 11. All you say to this is very learnedly; As though this hath any relation to publick preaching, when he saith, they shall make known to the sons of men his mighty Acts and the glorious Majesty of his Kingdom; but this you have left out; you durst not put it in your Book, lest the Reader should see your folly. The next Scripture is 1 Cor 14. 31. This you pretend to prove was ex∣traordinary Prophesie, and not ordinary, as the Pulpit-Guard Rout∣ed sayes.

And you say, That your great work shall be to prove that prophe∣cy 1 Cor. 14. 31. was extraordinary, and not ordinary, as the Pulpit-Guard-Routed sayes.

1. You say, You read, p. 60. that the reason why prophesie was ex∣traordinary in the Law, and this ordinary 1 Cor. 14. 3. is because its a speaking to edification, exhortation and comfort, &c. The substance of what you seem to answer to this is, 1. Because such as were prophets did speak to edification; therefore those who speak to edification are prophets. In this you say is some Sophistry, &c.

But give me leave to shew your Sophistry; and that first in pre∣tending an Answer, when tis nothing to the purpose; the end of my using these words, was to present the Reader with the difference be∣tween the Prophesie of the Old Testament, which was to foretell things to come, and this of the New; this 1 Cor. 14. is an ordinary way of prophesie for the building up of the Church, that so all may be instructed, and all may be comforted.

2. I answer, that those Saints that can speak to edification, &c. are prophets; nay all the Lords People are prophets; therefore your So∣phistry, nor yet your Logick will not hold; for though the ground may be wet without rain; yet it is not often wet without water: and if a Saint, a Member of the Church can speak to edification, ex∣hortation and consolation, he is a Prophet: if he have the Testimony of Jesus, he hath the Spirit of Prophesie.

2. You say, The Prophets under the Law spake to edification.

I answer. There is none questions that, but that their prophesyings had that end in it: and its so to us at this day, when we come to un∣derstand them; but the prophesying mentioned 1 Cor. 14. was a com∣mon and ordinary prophesying in the Church, for the edification of the Body: That in the Law was a foretelling of things to come, and therefore written, to be kept on Record to posterity; this not written, because ordinary, and as Thomas Hall confesseth, it was such a prophe∣sie, as in it they might err, &c. So that I say again, they under the Law took not their denomination from this kind of prophesying, viz. an ordinary speaking to build up souls in the present knowledge of God; but from their receiving their prophesie immediatly from God, disco∣vering 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; its 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 vin∣dicate, applyeth that Scripture 1 Cor. 14. 32. The spirits of the Pro∣phets are subject to the Prophets: viz. to the probation and examination of the Presbyterie; and he hath no other Scripture to prove the Pres∣byterian examination and probation, but that; yet afterwards both with him and you, that prophesie is extraordinary; and yet you con∣fess 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 conse∣quence to the thing in hand: That the extraordinary way of Revela∣tion 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 pro∣phesie, 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 its the manifestation of their prophesie, because they manifested to others (by divine inspirati∣on) things past, present, and to come. So that now you confess its the ma∣nifestation, 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, its 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 testi∣mony 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 consola∣tion; 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 ex∣traordinary.

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 com∣mon 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 dis∣swading 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 extra∣ordinary 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 extraordina∣ry praying?

Doth the Scripture call it extraordinary anywhere: and may we not say truly, as the Apostle saith of Prophesie, greater is he that pro∣phecieth, then he that speaketh with tongues? and the reason is, be∣cause 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 speak∣ing in an unknown tongue; and if that prayer had been extraordi∣nary, 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 extra∣ordinary: 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 ex∣traordinary 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 A∣postles? are all Prophets? are all Teachers? are all Workers of Mi∣racles? &c

You affirm Apostles, Prophets, Miracles are extraordinary: and Tea∣chers 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 ex∣traordinary; yet its 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 dis∣coursed at large in the Pulpit-Guard Routed; But the ordinary stand∣ing gifts and offices in the Church of Christ. And Secondly, if other∣wise,

upon your own account, Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists which you say are extraordinary, are reckoned up with Pastors and Teach∣ers 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 o∣thers; 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 An∣tichrist.

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 A∣postles, 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 Church∣es, 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 notwith∣standing none are so sent as those Apostles were; 1. immediately or by an immediate mission from his own mouth. 2. So immediately in∣spired 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 full∣ness. 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 its more then probable there were. Rom. 16. 7. the Scripture saith that Andronicus and Junias were of note among the Apostles.

1. Its 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, Its 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; there∣fore 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 Pro∣phesies are recorded, therefore no extraordinary Prophets. And fur∣ther, 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 ope∣rations of the Spirit, might in their Prophesies be above us: yet ac∣cording 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 ad∣ditional 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 dis∣covery 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 dis∣solves 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 u∣surp 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 it is of God; not a wolf, but a sheep; not a false, but a true Prophet, speaking to edification, exhortation, and consolation, they may with comfort hear and approve the speaking of such in the Church.

Your fourth Argument, is; If to appoint to the office of a Minister, and the work of a Minister be all one, then no man is appointed to the work of a Minister, but he that is appointed to the office. But to appoint to the office of a Minister, and the work of a Minister, be all one. Ergo.

Ans. Your Minor is denied. A man may be appointed to the work of a Minister, yet never be appointed to the office. For,

1. Richard Sanders himself in his own practise shall confute this Logick; for he saith, That he Preached a long time before he was Or∣dained, &c. but he mends the matter, It was in order to the Ministry. But in case Richard Sanders had died before he had been ordained, then Preaching and the Office of the Ministry had not been one, there had been a great deal of Preaching without Office. So that in this your practise you contradict your reason, and you allowed your self in the thing which you condemn.

2. Were these Act. 8. 4. appointed to the office? they did the work: but the office you read not of. And those 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11.

they were commanded to the work, but not to the office; for then every one must have been officers, &c.

3. You have given your Argument, but never a Scripture to confirm it; but you endeavour to confirm one Reason by another, without Scripture. Take heed, Richard, of outing Scripture with your Reason; be content to fall down under the power of truth; let God be true, and all fleshes wisdom, so far as it opposeth God, be a lye.

You now come to his 7. Error.

That Humane Learning is no way necessary to the Ministry of the Gospel; and that I affirm, p. 38. 39. 41. Pulpit-Guard Routed, that the power of the Spirit of Christ in Saints, is sufficiently able to make them to divide the word aright, and to convince gain-sayers.

And dare you deny this Truth? Is not the Spirit of Christ suffici∣ent? dare you derogate from the Holy Spirit? and do you find any other Ministery or Teacher then the Spirit in the Scripture? 1 Cor. 12. Joh. 14. 26. & 16. 7, 8. But you seem to help this again; you deny not the ability of the Spirit; but you question the will, or if he please to do it. I think that needs not be the Question, but rather whether you are in the Scripture directed to any other way for the attaining of the minde of God then the Spirit and the Scripture; but you question, pag. 126. Whether the main and principle Doctrine of the Scriptures be so plainly laid down, as that a Christian may attain un∣to the knowledge of the same without humane Learning; you grant, that if he have a Translation he may: and have not we a Translation in English; and is it not true, but false? then the Translators have done wrong: but is it not true in the substance? is there any material, fundamental mistake? if not, then an English man in the English Translation may understand the minde of God as much and more, if he have a greater measure of the Spirit, then an Hebritian and Grecian can understand in those Languages. 2. I answer, that I do not quarrell against Tongues, but at the abuse of them, to make an I∣dol of them: I know you may come to the knowledge of the Letter of Scripture in an ordinary way more fully with it then without it; but it is the abuse of it that I quarrel at, because you set it up in the room of the Spirit, as if none could understand Scripture but those that have Tongues; then the Faith of all others must be an implicite Faith, built upon the credit of men, which would prove very weak in the end.

3. Its the use of Philosophy in the things of God, as some of you affirm, that there is a necessity of studying Arts, Sciences, Logick, Rhe∣torick, &c. to make them Ministers, as Tho. Halls Pulpit Guard; make use of your tongues; bring forth the truth of the Original to the people, help those that want it, and make not an Idol of it, &c.

You proceed to produce some Scriptures, A good account of which cannot be given without the help of humane Learning.

Answ. In this you shew so much weakness, that I would not say a word unto it, were it not for one or two of them, and I shall say but a word or two.

1. Is there any thing material in any of these Scriptures? Put case a man knew not the Emphasis of the Original, as Rich. Sanders cals it; Is any thing laid open by him material? or 2. if so, its that which may be easily attained. But to the Scriptures; the first is Apo∣stolos; and what if a man never knew that it signifies Sent? why might he not understand as much as your self in it? for every man that knows any thing, knows that the twelve Apostles, and Paul, were Apostles; and you know no more; you do not know that all that are sent of Je∣sus Christ, are Apostles, viz. Sent.

The second Scripture, of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Rock, you seem to give a learned interpretation, as if Christ intended to build his Church upon Peter; so much is clearly hinted in what you say. I trace you no farther in this; I leave the weight of what you say concerning those Scriptures, to the Reader, because I am in haste. As to that you say concerning Ghost, I perceive you know well what the word is in the Greek; and what if it were alwayes so translated in English? and I think it is one of the greatest wrongs to our English translation, the mispronouncing of words, in pronouncing Hebrew and Greek instead of English; Messias from Mesha, instead of Anointed: Emmanuel instead of God with us: In Greek Christ from Christos, instead of anointed; Jesus instead of Saviour; Apostle instead of Sent; Baptize instead of Dip or Wash, &c. and Ghost instead of Spirit, though thats no Greek word. Why do you not reform these things with your learning, un∣less it be done on purpose to keep people in ignorance?

But you have something farther to say it seems, and that very learn∣edly, page 134. and you have much to say to this particular; That there is not any Scripture understood by spiritual Christians, the gram∣matical sense of which, a man that hath not the Spirit of Christ may at∣tain unto; and page 135. That Scripture is sufficient to discover its own

sense to all men, diligently improving the outward helps afforded by God; and that if it be the Spirits work to discover the sense and meaning of Scripture, then the Spirits work is to make Notionists, &c.

Answ. And is this your spiritualness indeed? That a natural man without the Spirit may understand the mind of God? for if he under∣stand the sense and meaning of the Scripture, then he understands the mind of God; and this is contrary to the Scripture, For the natural man doth not understand the things that are of God, neither can he under∣stand them, 1 Cor. 2. 14, But we have the mind of Christ.

2. If this be truth that you affirm, then what is the reason that you, with all your humane Learning, do not yet understand the sense and meaning of the Scripture? and that first in common and ordinary things, as that the Covenant made with Abraham and Moses, &c. is not the same as the Gospel-Covenant; when the Scripture saith plainly that it is not the same, but another Covenant, not such a Cove∣nant as the first was, but established upon better promises, &c. What is the reason that you do not understand that Command of Christ, that it is Believers that are to be baptized, and not Infants? and that you understand not, that when Christ saith, That upon this Rock will I build my Church, he means not Peter, but the Rock of Peters confession; viz. Christ Jesus, who is so often in Scripture called The Rock or foun∣dation stone of Sion: but Pope-like, think its meant of Peter. And are there not many Prophesies, and much of the Revelation which is yet a sealed mysterie to you? and John saith expresly, Rev. 5. that the Scri∣pture, viz Christ the mysterie of God in Scripture, is a sealed book, that none could open it but the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. Yet you say, that a natural man can do it. I leave it to the Reader to judge of the truth of this.

And 3. Whereas you say, if the Spirits work be to teach men the sense of Scripture, it is to make them Notionists.

I answer first, then upon your own account, your humane Learning doth but make you Notionists; for you say, that helps you to the knowledge of the sense of Scripture: Its no wonder then that you are so far from the power of truth; for you confess, that with all your learning you are but Notionists at the best; and truly you are but bad Notionists neither; for there is much of the sense of Scripture that you are not acquainted withall.

You say, Knowledge puffeth up.

Answ. True; fleshly knowledge, such as you are pleading for, but

not the true saving knowledge of the Spirit of Christ; for the Scrip∣ture saith expresly, That without knowledge the heart cannot be good; and for want of knowledge the people perish: And that its life eternal to know God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent: and the more a soul knows of God and Christ, of God in Christ, the more he comes to abbor himself, Isa. 6. Act. 9.

And whereas you are so much upon this, That the Scripture expres∣sions are plain, and express their own meaning, page 137. Else they can∣not be a perfect rule; and if men must understand them by or in the light or teaching of the Spirit, what were this but to make the Scripture a nose of Wax, as the Papists do, plyable to any sense, &c.

Answ. 1. Its true, the Scripture expressions are plain, and express their own meaning: yet not so plain as you pretend, that every one may attain the sense of them; for you confess, that there is need of means and help to understand them. Then I querie which is the like∣liest means to help us to understand the meaning of the Scripture, in comparing Scripture with Scripture; the Spirit of Christ, or humane Learning? Who best knows the meaning of the Scripture? that Spirit by which it was given, or that humane spirit so much pleaded for, that never did, nor never shall know the Lord?

2. The Scriptures are no perfect rule to ignorant and carnal men, or hypocrites: its a perfect rule only to such who by them know the Lord and his mind by the teachings of the Spirit, and so walk accord∣ing to it; for if it be a perfect rule, then its so to those who know it.

You say a naturall man may know it; then a naturall man may have a perfect rule; and if he walk according to it, he must be saved; for who so walks by a perfect rule, and answers it in his walking, must be justified by that rule: Now the Scripture is no perfect rule of justifi∣cation of life to any but the Saints; not that there is imperfection in the Scripture; but none comes truly to know it, but those who are taught from above.

3. To say, that the knowledge of the mind of God in Scripture, by the teachings of the Spirit, is to make it a nose of Wax, &c. is a fond imagination. For first, though its true, upon this account men that have not the Spirit of God may abuse it, thinking they have the Spirit of Christ, when they have it not.

Yet 2. The Spirit is truth, and is at unity in and with it self, and speaks but one thing: I mean he doth not contradict himself: though there are contradictions amongst the Saints: yet it is not from the

Spirit, who dwels in unity, but from the worldly spirit not yet subdu∣ed in them; and I thought you had known at least the Scripture Zeph. 3. 9. that saith, God will turn to his people a pure language, that they may serve him with one consent; its not the work of fleshes wis∣dom; but I will do it, saith the Lord; and how think you, if not in helping them to know his mind, &c.

And 2. Doth not your humane wisdom indeed make a nose of wax of the Scripture? do you not wrest i•• and turn it which way you please? and is it not for want of the clear teachings of the Spirit, there are such rentings and divisions amongst us at this day? Is it not about the sense of the Scriptures all the differences in the world are at this day? And do you seek to God to guide you into a oneness in the under∣standing of the meaning of it, or to your humane Learning?

Oh be ashamed for ever, so much to undervalue Scripture, and overvalue mans wisdom, as that its sufficient to find out the meaning of the Scriptures. When you have joyned up all together, yet not∣withstanding all your Learning, yea, and the Spirits teaching too, you have not yet attained to all the sense of the Scriptures; if you had, there would not be division, but unity; not that I question the suffi∣ciency of the Spirits teaching in its own time; but certainly you are very much to blame, having gotten that which is able to teach you the sense and meaning of the Scripture, with your own endeavour, yet to know so little of it as you do; you must needs be very sluggards, or else able to resolve (infallibly) any place of Scripture, you having that which is able, as you say, to help you to understand it, and you think you have the Spirit of Christ besides; these two being by you joyned up together in you, the least of which is able to help you to the infallible sense, &c. What then hinders that you are not infallible? and yet that you are not infallible, is clear; for what need a difference then between Papist and Protestant, yet both Learned? between Epis∣copacie and Presbyterie, yet both Learned? Presbyterie and Independen∣cy, yet both Learned? Independency and the Baptists, yet some of both Learned? between them all, and those that deny both Church and Ordinances, yet some of them Learned too?

Oh be ashamed for ever of these Fopperies, and let all who know the Lord, look to him for the teachings of the Spirit, that so we may come to know his minde and will, that so we may worship him with one shoulder; and let all that love the Lord Jesus say Amen. This shall suffice at present as an answer to what you say of your hu∣manity.

I deny not the use of means, but the abuse of it. I leave it to the Reader to judge.

You come to the 8. Error.

That the Ministry of England is Antichristian.

Answ. This is a dangerous one with you it seems; but because I have said so much to this in the Pulpit Guard Routed, I shall wholly wave it in this place, seaving both Tho. Halls assertions, my answers to him and yours again to mine, to the judgment of the Reader; a word to the wise is enough; its a word that you cannot yet well bear, there∣fore I shall at present forbear; only give me leave to minde you with two words, 1. You answer but one of my six Arguments to prove them Antichristian; the rest you pass by, as if the naming of them (as Tho. Hall said) in contempt, were answer enough to them; if it be, I leave it to the Reader, I am satisfied. 2. In that which you pre∣tend to answer, what do you more or less, then say the same that I have said? You confess, 1. It came from Rome; but you think to mend it with this, because the Scriptures came from Rome; but if by the hand of Gods grace the Scripture was kept pure in Rome and not defiled, then the case is altered; but they were so kept. Ergo: that it is so, I prove;

• If the Scriptures preserved by the Romans, have sufficient in them to overturn the very practise and Religion of the Romans: then they had not a power to corrupt it for their own ends.
• But the Scriptures preserved by the Romans, have sufficient in them to overturn all the Religion of the Romans, viz. Papists.
• ...Ergo.

The Minor I prove. Those who use to corrupt Scripture, do it for their own ends and interests; but the Papists have not corrupted it for their own ends and interests: Ergo. I mean in the Hebrew, and Greek, which I suppose must necessarily be that which you intend; for you say the Scriptures as well as Ordination, was very much corrupted by the Papists, p. 169. but among us hath been restored by degrees; now our Work hath not been to restore the Popish Translators, but to Translate out of the Greek and Hebrew Copies, which I do not be∣lieve were, or are materially or substantially corrupted; so that by this you teach the People to deny the Scripture; and at best to take it upon the account of man reducing it from corruption. I must

tell you if the Collier had written as much, as black as you make him, he must have expected to have had all the black-Coats in the Nation about his ears, and that justly too.

So that the Case is altered now; the Scripture in its essence was kept pure; but the very essence of Ordination was Antichristian; and how you could bring a clean thing out of an unclean, I leave to the Reader to judge. As to the Argument, you confess the truth of it, that the Calling came from Rome, but you restore it by degrees: Now which is better, to come to the Scripture for Ordination, Ordinances, &c. or to retain that which is Antichristian: I leave to the Reader to judge; as for Austin the Monk, you confess what I say; only you think you mend the matter, in saying that Monks were not so bad then as now, and that Rome was a true Church then; the truth of this I leave to the judgement of the wise; these things considered;

1. When Austin came into England, here was some that owned Christ, as History relates; for as you say the Gospel had been preach∣ed in England before both by Joseph of Arimathea, and afterward Lucius King of the Britains desiring it, not Elutherius as you affirm, but Fugatius and Damianus being sent by Elutherius Pope or Bishop of Rome, they Preached and Baptized in England, that King being the first King that History mentions that was Baptized in England; but when Austin came, those Bishops you mention with the People, because they would not submit to the pride of Austin, were by him persecuted, and brought to ruine: by this you may judge a little of the truth of Romes being a true Church, and Austin a true Mi∣nister.

2. Whereas you say, You hope Rome was then a true Church. I say, you have but little ground for it; for I do not believe that ever Rome was a true Church. My Reason is, because I do judge, that never a Na∣tion, Province or City, was a true Gospel-Church; its true there was once a true Church in Rome, but the Scripture never calls Rome a Church; for a true Church of Christ are a People gathered out of the world by the power of the Gospel, to believing in Christ, and professed obedience to him; but this was never any Nation, Province, or City; therefore no true Church of Christ, Rev. 5. 9 but such Churches were at first, and so it hath hitherto continued, gathered by the authority of the Civil Magistrate, compelling all to come in, or else they must not live under their Authority, fulfilling in a measure Rev. 13. 17. by which means the true Church in Rome, and all other

true Churches, in Relation to Form, Order and Worship, have been extinguished; so that I say, Rome was never a true Church since it became a Church, nor any Nation in the World besides; its incon∣sistent with the true Church of Christ, who are a People gathered out of Nations, as before, &c.

But to draw to a conclusion; The other five Arguments you pass over, as having no weight in them, &c. I leave it to the Reader to judge, if there be no weight in them. I say no more, only aword to your Postscript.

You say, There is another dangerous pestilent blasphemous Book of this Colliers against Ordinances, &c. which you heard of, but never saw it.

Answ. I suppose you did but dream a second time, and this proves false too; give off dreaming or lying for shame; for I suppose none dare lye so grosly as to tell you so, though you dare dream a lye and publish it; but there is a hand of God in it, that the world may know what you are. My Books are not in private; if there were any such, it might be gotten assuredly; let this satisfie, I do declare that I never writ any such Book; and if any have done or do gather from any passage that I deny Ordinances; though I know no passage in any, from whence any can draw such a positive conclusion: I do affirm, that I never writ any thing in which I denyed the Ordinances of Jesus Christ; and it is my judgement and practise to walk in the use of them. Thus at present have I done, leaving the Premises to the publick view and cen∣sure of those to whom it comes, desiring the Lord to give under∣standing, &c.

FINIS.