A BALM TO HEAL RELIGIONS WOUNDS, Applied in a serious advice to sober-minded Christians that love the Truth, and are wellwishers to Reformation.  
IN ANSWER To the PULPIT GVARD ROUTED, lately set forth by one Thomas Collier.  
In this small Treatise you shall find divers corrupt Principles of this Collier plainly confuted. His Ignorance fully laid open. Many Scriptures cleared from his corrupt glosses. Several Questions handled touching; The Ministry. Infant-Baptism. Pardon of Sin. Extraordinary Revelations. Humane Learning. The Outward Call of the Ministers of England.  
By RICHARD SAUNDERS, Minister of the Gospel for the Church of Christ in Kentishbeer.  
London, Printed by M. Simmons, for William Adderton, and are to be sold at his Shop at the three Golden Falcons in Duck lane, 1652.   

To the Worshipful JOHN TYRLING, Esquire, One of the Justices of the Peace for the County of Devon, my Dear Uncle.  
Grace and Peace, etc.  
'tIs not long since, I received from your hand that Pamphlet, entitled, The Pulpit Guard Routed, intimating mine intentions to write an Antidote against the poison of it: And seeing you gave me such encouragement to the work, as you well remember, I could not think upon a fit Patron to commend the same unto then yourself: which I the rather have done, that I might have an opportunity more publicly to acknowledge how much I am bound to you, for those real expressions of kindness and love which I have ever had from you; especially since I have had some relation to you, which indeed have much transcended my deservings. 'tis the least I could do to mention this, though I know 'tis more pleasing to you to bestow favour and respect, then to hear of the same again to your praise.  
But I must take leave to be grateful, which is the least you can, and, I believe, the most you do, expect from any.  
I need not excuse myself to you, for that I have trimmed this Discourse no better, that it might be more worthy of your acceptance; seeing I know you judge not of things by their outside, but have respect more to their substance, then to their formalities. When Satan is so busy (as now) there is no time to stick at niceties.  
The Lord continue to hold up your spirit in his own work. I know you have appeared for the service of your Country, in your place (while others shifted their necks off the yoke) even to the wasting of your natural strength: but God will make this up again to you some other way. These are times wherein much work lies upon the hands of such as are faithful. There is nothing lost by sticking close to the interest of Christ. Christians have a good Master, and (which is a choice encouragement) the work of God is such a work, as will improve, and crown itself.  
I believe the insolency of some that pretend gifts to justle out the Ministry of Christ, yea and his truth too, doth somewhat damp your joy you take in the prosperous success of the affairs of this Commonwealth: But, Dabit Deus huic quoque 
Judas 12.  finem: These clouds without water will soon be blown over: They are as bubbles that will break with a light touch. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In quietus, turbulentus, unsettled, wavering. Legh. Sac. Crit.  For yet a little while (says David, Psal. 37.10.) and the wicked [Heb: the turbulent, wavering, or unsteady] shall not be, yea thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. In the interim let us fix our thoughts upon an immutable God. Let Patience have her perfect work, 
Jam. 1.4.  and we shall be perfect, entire, and wanting nothing. A taxie in a wise Common-wealth can never be long-lived. But what mean I keeping you from the Discourse ensuing? You will see there this tottering wall is falling; but two posts to keep it from the ground, Novelty, and Confidence, the one rots, the other breaks suddenly of itself. Praevalebit veritas, Truth will outlive its enemies, though some enemies of truth may outlive us here in the flesh. Being eyed with a spiritual understanding we may see through all these thick Clouds, which that we may be able to do, is the constant, and hearty prayer of  
Your greatly-obliged Nephew: devoted to your, and the Church's service in the Gospel, RICHARD SAUNDERS.   

To the READER.  
Courteous Reader;  
AN unpolished Peice is here put into thine hand, that which (I confess) cost me more time to write it out fair for the Press, then to compose it. I was pained within me till I had set it going, that it might come speedily to thine hand, and lest any soul should be ensnared first by that dangerous Pamphlet which I answer. Some four or five weeks I laboured hard in composing the following Discourse, and as many in writing it out again for public view. If thou blame me for not taking more time. I answer.  
First, I met not with much in mine adversaries Book, that had any difficulty in it to hold me long.  
Secondly, 'twas my tender respect to thy good that spurred me on so fast, and if I lose credit in any measure, by setting forth my conceptions in no better a dress, thou mayest well pardon me, for if I have played the fool it is for thy sake.  
But thirdly, Such as it is, if thou be not too curious, I hope it will appear sufficient as to that which 'twas intended for, viz. a confutation of mine Antagonist.  
If my Discourse chance to come into the hand of a learned, and judicious Reader; though such a one it may be may find in it, that, which may make him judge it not lost labour to read it over; yet I must say my respect was not to such in writing this, there being nothing in the Book I answer, that is like to pass for sound reason with discerning spirits. My respect was to weak Christians, Babes in Christ, and such as are ready to stagger at every straw, upon whom the boldness and confidence of the Collier may prevail too fare, especially while he covers over his design with pretensions to the honour of Christ.  
If thou findest any inclination in thyself to censure me for the tartness of some of mine expressions, consult seriously with thine own heart, whether the confidence, and yet weakness, and gross absurdities, of mine adversary doth not give just reason. I was never (if I may speak so of myself) a man of a bitter, or rigid spirit in my life, especially against any that I could look upon as Godly. And truly, if I could have seen any Characters of an humble, and Christian Spirit in the Pulpit Guard Routed, I should not have used altogether such language as now I am enforced to do. But it may be if thou seriously commune with thine own heart, instead of censuring me, thou wilt find ground to judge thyself, for not being sufficiently sensible of God's dishonour, occasioned by the venting of such corrupt principles as I engage against.  
If thou wonder (as it may be some will) to see me appearing in such Controversies as some of these are, who have lately appeared as publicly in a Discourse, 
Viz. In a short Discourse proving the lawfulness of submitting to the present Power.  wherein I discovered myself contrary minded to a great number of those, I now plead for.  
And seeing I differ, in some matters of Church-Discipline, and order, from many of my Brethren. I must tell thee,  
First, I love to speak truth (when necessity calls for it) what ever they be I speak against.  
Secondly, I cannot endure to be reputed a favourer of such corruptions as my soul ever abhorred, which I should be, if I should hold my peace in the things hereafter discoursed of.  
I have freely encouraged Christians to the use of their Liberty in edifying one another, in the use of their gifts: and how many have suspected that I countenanced the confused Liberty that is pleaded for by theh Pulpit Guard Routed?  
I have scrupled the baptising all infants, not judging but that all Church-Members infants are to be baptised, but seeing 'tis evident, that all among us are not such as may be embraced as Church-Members in this time of Reformation endeavoured, all infants are not to be baptised: and upon this account I have, for a season, suspended the dispensing of that Ordinance to any, until I can form those Christians that have hearts to submit unto the Discipline of Christ into a body, according to Apostolical rule. And how many upon this account have thought me a friend to Anabaptists, notwithstanding my profession to the contrary? When as I profess 'tis not, but that I have ever owned Baptism of infants to be an Ordinance of Christ. And my suspending the use of it, is,  
First, Because I judge it meet that those, that enjoy Church-priviledges, either for themselves, or Children, should be accountable to the Church for their walking: which cannot well be, unless there be a new-forming of Church-Societies, for present altogether without form, order, or power.  
Secondly, Because I am afraid, if I should do otherwise, what I build with one hand, I should pull down with the other, in the business of Church-Reformation.  
Now though I have sufficiently (though not so publicly as now) cleared myself of these suspicions, yet they made me somewhat the more willing to this undertaking.  
Thirdly, I appeared also in this Discourse the rather, because it may be known that all that are for the present Power, are not (as some suspect) favourers of these corruptions. I think I have appeared before, in, and after the change of affairs in this Land, as far as most of my Station, and I cannot be are the dishonour is done to the Noble Patriots of our Country by the secret whisper of these vagrant Seducers, that speak as if they were sent by Authority, and Patronizd by it. Yea some of them (as I heard) had the boldness to give out (when debate was touching a new Representative) that the Anabaptists should be the men that should choose it. 'tTwere good the insolency of such fellows were curbed. Such things trouble many honest hearts, not that they can believe such toys, but because there is no check given to such persons. Among others this Collier I writ against, deserves to be marked: who can not be contented to set himself against Ordinances of Christ, but also like a man of a seditious spirit, must jeer at Ordinances of Parliament too.  
Christian Reader, I cannot be so prudent as to let Truth suffer by holding my peace, when my speaking may displease men. 'tis true there may be a time when some Truths may not be fit to be published. But I promise thee; if God make known to me any thing further whereby I may do the Church of Christ any service, I shall not imprison the Truth in me: And though in this learned, and knowing age, wherein so many things are written by those, with whom I am not worthy to be named, there is little reason to expect me much in print, yet shall I to my power, in my place, labour the promoting of the interest of truth, To which end I desire thee to improve what interest thou hast at the throne of Grace for me, and I shall remain  
To truth, and peace: Christian liberty, and order; an hearty wellwisher. R. S.   

A BALM To Heale Religions Wounds: In answer to the Pulpit-Guard Routed.  

The Proem showing the grounds of writing this Treatise.  
IT may be much wondered why I should set pen to paper, to write an Answer to that railing Pamphlet which is come out into the World under the name of the Pulpit Guard Routed, especially seeing there is another (abler for the work) more properly and directly concerned in it. I must tell you it is no pleasure to me to be contending about questions and controversies, which engender strife. I could wish (if the wisdom of God thought it fit) that there were no occasion of such a thing given, nor any necessity lying upon those, that desire rather to be employed about more sweet and savoury studies, to turn themselves to such unpleasant work: But seeing that according to the Preacher, Eccl. 3.3. There is a time to break down, as well as a time to build up; I find God calling us now forth (as we are able) to both. Not only to building up, and repairing Gods spiritual fabric in his Saints (which is our delightful work) but to pull down those dangerous structures of hay, and stubble, which men of corrupt minds endeavour to raise up.  
But secondly; The reasons why I (who am less concerned in this business did yet interpose in it, are these.  
1. I am somewhat doubtful whether Mr Hall (whose Book 'tis that this unworthy Pamphlet pretends to answer) may have any purpose to make reply, in regard 1. It is so scurrilous, and the Answers so absurd and impertinent. 2. The danger that may come of this Book, by corrupting the minds of weak and unsteady people, may not be so visible t● him, as to me, who live in and near those parts, where the Author of it has mo●● influence: and therefore I may see mor● reason why his Book should not go without an Answer.  
2. The Author of this Pulpit Guard Routed, hath endeavoured to scatter abroad his Books in this Country, unto the great danger of ensnaring many poor souls, whom the relation of neighbourhood makes me more tender of then ordinary.  
3. Seeing his design is chief promoted in these parts, it may be, a word from me in these parts where I am known, may be more prevalent than an answer from a Stranger, though the business be better managed by him; yea, and what I shall write may take much the better abroad too, among them whose establishment and information I chief aim at, while they see my judgement, wherein I go so far to meet all wellwishers to reformation as the Truth will give me leave; as thou mayest see in part in mine Epistle to the Reader: where thou haft also a further account of the ground of mine undertaking this work.  
Upon these Reasons I have been enforced to run the hazard of being censured as meddling in other men's matters: though it be plain enough, that every honest soul is herein concerned, while the honour of Jesus Christ, and of the Truth lies at stake.  
If I deal very roundly with mine (and yet not mine so much as the Truths) Adversary, I may be excused, for that I cannot otherwise possibly come up to a full discovery of the Ignorance of that Router, it being wrapped up in such wonderful impudence.  
It is a true Proverb, Audax inseitia, Ignorance is bold: and truly I must say I never saw ignorance grown so impudent and shameless in my life. 'Tis strange that a man should write and print such absurd, weak, impertinent things, with so much confidence and disdain, triumphing over Arguments as ignorant, and invalid, which he answers only with boldness, and confident dictates of his own brain, as you will see anon: you may perceive his plot is laid only to gain upon the humours of such, as are more taken with words than things: and are swayed more by the confidence of an assertion, than the reason of it. Truly were it not that I find some that know not how to judge of the strength of an Argument, or of the fallacious juggling of men of corrupt minds, and principles; but are apt to think there must needs be some strength in that, which is boldly asserted by such as have a visor of Religion on their faces, and Scripture phrases in their mouths; I should not have thought that any passage in all his Book deserved the credit of an Answer. Ah! but mine heart is moved toward poor weak souls for whom this snare is laid: 'tis not given to all to dive into the mystery of iniquity, that some disorderly spirits advance. Beloved Souls, you that love Jesus Christ, mine heart is troubled for you, especially you of these parts, whom the relation of neighbourhood makes more precious to me: I can gladly expose myself to the censures of men for your sake, that your faith be not corrupted, nor your souls caught in a snare. Wherefore let mine advice from the Lord have place with you. Let your hearts with mine debate a little, and that seriously, as in the presence of the great searcher of hearts, before whom both you and I must one day answer, about these questions following.   

Five serious Questions to be debated by modest Christians, in order to the discovery of the genius, and scope of the PULPIT GUARD ROUTED.  
1. 
Quest. 1.  WHether such an uncharitable, censorious, proud, disdainful, inveterate, calumniating spirit as visibly works in this man, and others, ejusdem farinae, of the same lump, does ever use to show itself amongst Christians, even against godly persons, much less godly Ministers? Ah! favour mine expressions, for I tell you.  

1. I cannot flatter such corruptions, and corrupters with fair pleasing titles, nor may I.  
2. There are such as are to be rebuked sharply [or cuttingly] and all little enough, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tit. 1.13.  to make them sound in the faith.   
Is it possible (if it were true what these men would make you believe, that they are the men whom God has most eminently appeared to, to open to them the mysteries of truth, and to call them forth to be Stewards of his manifold grace above others) Is it possible, I say, if it were so, that a spirit so contrary to the Gospel, should work so mightily in them? What, use all the expressions, and scrape up all the advantages they are able, that they may pour out contempt upon those that are eminent Servants of Jesus Christ, and yet pretend to be the crop of God's family, as they would be thought to be? Surely I know not what entertainment that scurrilous language that is in that pamphlet hath where it comes, no doubt many fancies are tickled with it: but I profess, my heart even trembled in reading some passages; yea, throughout the whole Book I can hardly find any thing that speaks much to awaken my charity to believe, that there is aught of Christ in that heart, where such stuff was conceived.  
To omit those disdainful and reproachful speeches, which he uses against the man he pretends to answer; calling him, Ignorant, Fool, Knave, Enemy to truth, Of his father the Devil, Proud Pharisee, etc. To omit these, which might admit of excuse in part, for that they are against the particular adversary he has to deal withal, but that he also heaps up most insufferable reproach against the Ministry of England in general, calling them, Antichristian, A pack of cheaters and deluders, Carnal, Lose, Base in Conversation, Thiefs, Robbers, Wolves, Empty barrels making great sounds, but having nothing but vanity and pride in them, Sensualists, Idlers often, such as never knew what it is to live in a lawful Calling, Whose God is their belly, Humanists. Several times, The bastard brood of Rome. No Levites but bastard ones. No Ambassadors but ignorant ones. No Shepherds but kill them that are fed. Priestly Pharisees, Bastard Tribe of Levites. Babylonish Diviners, Egyptian jugglers, Limbs of the Devil, etc.  
Is not this brave language? Can you have worse if you did rake the filthiest corners in Hell for it?  
Neither will this excuse him that he says in his Epistle to the Reader, that he doth answer a Fool according to his folly. For, 

1. I find no such language in Mr Halls Book, nor doth he rebuke him (in his Answer) for any passage of that kind, except in speaking against the thing he disputes against: he doth not revile the persons that are dissenting from him: But,  
2. If Mr Hall hath been faulty (for I will not undertake to defend every expression of his) what ground is that for this man to be so inveterate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the whole kind, the Ministers, without exception, or distinction? Is this the genius of a Christian? Yea, is it not near blasphemy, to bring in Scripture (as he does, Prov. 26.5.) to excuse his railing, and make Christ and his Apostles to be guilty with him in the same wickedness?    
Neither doth he mend the matter when his Conscience forces him to say (in his Epistle) that some of them may be godly. For though he do less than half grant this, saying [He is not despairing of the truth of it] which implies that he doth scarce believe that there are any godly, but hath only so much hope of it, as keeps him from despairing that it is so; a most unchristian, satanical censure: I believe every humble, gracious heart will judge it so, yet, I say, this mends not the matter that he almost half grants, that 'tis possible some of them may be godly, in that all along in his Discourse, he reviles them with unworthy terms, without putting any difference. O ye Redeemed of the Lord, that are bid to try the spirits, whether they be of God, or no; examine the spirit of that Pamphleter: if it be the Spirit of Christ that moves in that puddle, I must profess 〈…〉 ver knew yet what the Spirit of Christ means.  
Upon what grounds (think you) should he, 
Quest. 2.  and men of the same temper and Spirit with him, use such bitterness against the Ministry, and vent so much rancour with their pens & tongues against them, when many hundreds of them are known to be very eminent and precious Christians, and such whose lives and conversations, as also their doctrine, speak them to be endeared to the Lord Jesus? what can be the reason of this (I say) unless it be because they give a check to those unsound principles (destructive to sound doctrine and manners) that some of them endeavour to sow among the people? Here is the gall, here is the wring, else they are known to be sound in the faith, godly in conversation, let your own experiences (that read this) be witnesses.  
'Tis true, divers of them have been unsatisfied about the late wonderful change in this Commonwealth; and have discovered themselves opposite, some more, some less, some nothing at all opposite, but yet unsatisfied in part: I could wish it had been otherwise, and that (if the Lord had pleased) they had seen things  
Hath it not been an old trick of such as have designed the shaking of the pillars of the Christian Faith, 
Quest. 5.  first to begin with the faithful Ministers, to pour out contempt upon them? Did not Paul meet with such in his time? What else made him write so much in defence of himself, and the rest of the faithful Ministers of Christ; in 2 Cor. 10. and Chap. 11. and Chap. 12. and several other places? I do not intent to plead for all those that have gone under the name of Ministers among us (not honest heart I think does) many have been for their lewdness and malignancy, justly removed from their places; and many more do deserve to be removed who are the reproach of the Gospel. But to inveigh against Ministers in general (as The P. G. Routed doth) was it ever known to be the work of any but enemies to the faith? The Devil hath his 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eph. 4.14.  method of deceiving: observe it well, he first will cast dirt in the face of the messengers of truth, and then of truth itself.  
All ye that love the Lord Jesus Christ, my Christian friends, neighbours, and countrymen, let serious deliberate trial go before resolution, in matters belonging to God. Can an humble spirited Christian easily be persuaded to swim against the stream of the most eminent and precious Saints of all Ages, and places? I know the voice and word of Jesus Christ should be infinitely more prevailing with Christians, than the examples even of the best men; But in things in controversy and doubtful, I should make a great stand at the examples of such; knowing that Christ speaks to his people by precedents as well as precepts. see Phil. 3.19. Judas 7. etc. wishing modest Christians to weigh these things in their thoughts, I shall now open a little of the vanity and childishness of the answers and arguments of this same P. G. Routed, so far as it may make for the settling of their minds in the belief of the truths he endeavours to shake.  
His errors are many (though one mainly pleaded for) I shall in order inquire into the firmness of their foundation.   

His First Error.  
That the life of Ministers and Scholars, educated in Schools of learning is an idle life.  
THis you find in the entrance of his discourse: where pleading for the Nailer, Baker, etc. as fit to make Preachers he lays down with much confidence (which is most of his strength) this assertion. That the life of Ministers and Scholars brought up in learning is an idle life: calling such Idlers and Drones, that never knew what it is to live lawfully in a calling: with much more such reproachful Language.  
But how doth he make this good? Why, by a learned definition that he gives of a calling. says he,  
A calling is that in and by which men may in the sweat of their face get their living. 
The P. G. Routed.   
O brave Definition of a Calling! 
Answer.  befitting a man that can call the most learned in the land ignorant, and simple. But let us examine it a little, if his definition be good, then must it reciprocari cum suo definito, so as that it agree neither to more things, nor to less, than the thing defined doth: this is the constant law of a good definition.  
Now 1. Is every thing that a man may get his living by in the sweat of his face a calling, i. e. a lawful calling? (for such he speaks of) why then, he that sweats at his robbing and stealing lives in a lawful calling. It seems he that would beat down the calling of Ministers, knows how to set up another instead of it.  
2 Is there no lawful calling, but that whereby a man gets his living in the sweat of his face? what will he say them of Magistrates, Justices of the Peace, men living by their estates, & applying themselves to the well ordering of their Country? what? because they do not work with their hands, and sweat at it, are they Idlers? Will he call the Parliament men Idlers, because they spend their time in discoursing together, and debating the affairs of State, and do not work with their hands for their living? See this man's absurdity. Yea, what will he say to Physicians? Do not they live in a lawful calling? yea, if his definition were good, 'twere time for him to go bid his Tailors, Button-makers, Sempsters, and such like, that seldom sweat at their work, especially in winter season, to find out another way of living: otherwise (although they were Preachers) yet are they not in a lawful calling, by his rule. Ah! if these men that boast themselves of abilities in a singular way from other men, to divide the word aright, do so simply mistake in giving definitions of things so familiar to the understandings of all men; what (think you) will they do when they come to give you definitions of spiritual things? Most certain it is that most of the dangerous errors that are now on foot among us, have sprung out of the weakness and ignorance of such men, who (though they can speak pleasing words that tickle the fancy, yet) are not able to give out any better account of the nature of things they speak of, than the Pulpit Guard Routed, doth here of a calling, the weakness of which is very visible.  
But thirdly, Is it so, That none lives in a lawful Calling, but he that works with his hands, and gets his living in the sweat of his face, what think you of Paul then? even of what he says, 1 Cor. 9.6. Or I only and Barnabas, have we not power to forbear working? Had Paul and Barnabas power to live Idelers? to live out of a lawful calling; or did the rest of the Ministers of the Gospel, who (as he intimates in this verse, and affirme● Verse, 12.) did use this liberty of not working, did they I say live out of a calling? were they Idlers?  
But by the way, let me from this plain Scripture frame this one Argument to prove the Ministry of the Gospel a distinct, lawful calling.  
If a man may lawfully lay by all other callings, and apply himself wholly to it, and live by it; then is it a distinct lawful calling. That is clear from his own words (which are most true) that No man may live out of a calling.  
But a man may lawfully lay by all other Callings, and apply himself to the Ministry of the Gospel, & live by it; that i● evident from the Text, where Paul says He and Barnabas might leave working, vers● 6. That the Ministers of the Gospel then, generally did, vers. 12. That they might, that 'twas fit they should, yea, that God had ordained they should live by it, ver. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.13, 14.  
Therefore the Ministry of the Gospel, is a distinct lawful calling.  
Can any thing be more plain and evident than this?  
But Fourthly, Is there no laboriousness and painstaking (for that I'll suppose he may intent by sweat) in the employment of Ministers and Scholars? It seems he never knew what it is to study hard: It appears indeed by his Book. He is not acquainted with the labour of the mind, in getting down to the bottom of things, and that's the reason he handles things so superficially. But he adds, Breeding to School is proper to children when they can not labour to fit them for some calling. 
The P. G. Routed.   
Very good, then, it seems, 
Answ.  he'll grant that breeding children at School is warrantable. But it must not be (if you will believe him) any longer than while they cannot work: And how long is that (pray) I would fain know, whether children are not able to begin to work, as soon, or almost as soon, as they are able to go to School: But it seems he would have them learn their A. B. C. and no more; for when they can labour, than they must away to that. Do not you see how this man's ignorance opens itself in every line.  
But he grants they may go to School, to fit them for some calling. Well then, then must they keep to the Schools till they are made as fit for the calling they intent, as the Schools can make them; at least till fit in some degree: and if so, then 1 His former assertion is false, that says, They must keep the School only while they cannot work. 2 Then he that intends the calling of a Minister (which I proved before to be a distinct calling) must so long abide at the Schools, as is requisite to make him an able Minister, so far as School-learning may help him: and if so, than his main position, here disputed, is false too, that would make the life of a Scholar an idle, unjustifiable life. See how weakly this man contradicts himself and all in one page. 
Object.   
If he have so much ignorance (for learning had never any enemy but ignorance) as to say humane learning is no way useful to a Minister of the Gospel; I shall use no other argument here, 
Answ.  to refute him, but his own practice; why does he sometimes make use of the original languages, to clear some Scriptures in his writings? I believe he is little acquainted with those languages, but this that he is driven to inquire into them, that he may give out the true and full sense of Scripture, it speaks out the usefulness of the same to a Minister. More of this in its place: I shall step forth unto his second Error.   

His Second Error.  
That Infant Baptism is a Childish thing.  
THis he will own for truth, and how will he make it good? he says, 'Tis childish, 1. As relating to the Subject, 
The P. G. Routed.  the child who is to be baptised, not understanding the use and end of it. 2 As relating to the Administrators, etc.  
As to the first, there lies a shrewd objection in his way, 
Answer.  which he has so much ingenuity as faithfuly to set down, but not so much wit as to answer with any sense, as you shall see by and by. The Objection he lays down thus.  
The Infants of the children of Israel were as uncapable, 
The P. G. Routed.  in (he would have written of) the understanding of the mystery of Circumcision, as Infants are now of Baptism, yet they were by the command of God to be Circumcised.  
'Tis a good objection indeed started, 
Answer.  but how is it cleared? He gives a threefold answer thus,  
1 Its truth that one part of Circumcisions Mystery, 
The P. G. Routed.  viz. the Circumcision of the heart was as far from the capacity of Infants, as the mystery of Baptism is now.  
Very good, 
Answer.  and what part of Circumcisions mystery, pray, were Infants of eight days capable of understanding, if they understood not that? risum teneamus etc. who can but smile at such an answer? as if Infants at eight days old did understand any part of the mystery of the Ordinance of Circumcision. I wonder he had not informed his Reader, what mystery such were then capable of understanding, but what have you next.  
2. 
The P. G. Routed.  As Circumcision was a type and sign in the flesh, of Christ who was to come of Abraham's seed, there was no such capacity required. His Reason follows, Because it was a Jewish legal type, as all the rest of their external worship and Sacrifices were, etc.  
O fine words to please Children, 
Answer.  little to the purpose!  
1. Was there not required a spiritual understanding of the legal Ordinances, and Sacrifices then, as well as now o● Gospel Ordinances? Doth this man thin● to persuade any Protestant, or Orthodox Christian, that the Israelites were not bound to see into the mystery of their Ordinances, as we are into ours, without any reason? 'Tis true, they saw not sofar into the mystery as we may, but that they did not at all understand, nor were bound to it, will establish the dangerous doctrine of the Pelagians, that say they were justified by their legal Ordinances, without faith in Christ: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 15.11  and give the Apostle the lie, who says, that we are saved [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] even as they.  
2. The knowledge of the mystery of Circumcision was not necessary to all that were circumcised, to make them capable of Circumcision, he grants: well, and why is the knowledge of the mystery of Baptism necessary to all that are to be Baptised, to make them capable of Baptism? If he had given a good reason for this, he had spoken something to the purpose. He says, Circumcision was a type, so is Baptism also; whereas he says 'twas Jewish and Legal, the sense is, 'twas a type unto the Jews in times of the Law: and what is that to the business? Baptism is a Type to Christians under the Gospel. They that have argued so long against Infant-Baptisme, from this reason, that they are uncapable of understanding its mystery, could never yet give a reason, why the knowledge of the mystery of Baptism is necessary to make a subject capable of it, when the knowledge of the mystery of Circumcision was not necessary to make the subject capable of it. Tell me what thing made Infants then capable of circumcision, and then I'll tell thee (and thou mayest satisfy thyself) that the same thing makes Infants capable of Baptism now. Their being such as God had vouchsafed to take (together with their Parents) into Covenant with himself, was that which made them capable of Circumcision, as appears in Gen. 17.7, 8, 9, 10. where they are commanded Therefore to be Circumcised, because God had made a Covenant with them. Now the same thing makes Children of Believers now capable of Baptism.  
But his third Answer is of all the fittest for such a man to give; it is this,  
3. 
The P. G. Routed.  There was a Command for that of Circumcision, etc.  
O egregiously gifted Disputant! 
Answer.  The Objection was if Infant-Baptisme be childish, because the subjects are Children, than Circumcision was also Childish, which was commanded of God: to this he answers, Circumcision was commanded of God. Can you believe that the spiritual gifts that these men pretend to, are real, when as in the utmost improvement of their gifts, they writ such nonsense. If they writ thus how do you think will they speak, when they come to handle difficult matters, if they preach too without meditation or study, as they boast? But whereas he says, The command is that which gives a capacity, etc. I shown even now what it was that gave the Infants than a capacity of Circumcision, from Gen. 17. The Command (as Mr Martial says well) is the cause of the existence of the duty, but the Covenant of grace is the motive to it. They were therefore circumcised (as before) because taken into Covenant, and so Church-members. But enough of this, let me away to his second Reason, why Infant baptism is childish, which is as follows.  
2. 
The P. G. Routed.  It is Childish as relating to the Administrators, etc. in not understanding the command of Christ, etc.  
But how doth he make that good? 
Answer.  why, you must take his word for it. He will call thousands of able, judicious men ignorant, that by his confidence, you may think he is knowing and intelligent.  
His next corrupt Assertion borders upon the same controversy, touching Infant-baptisme: 'Tis this,   

His third Error.  
That none must be baptised till they come to perfect Age.  
YOu have this defended by him, page 6. thus.  
And is this such a strange thing with you who profess yourself a Minister of the Gospel? 
The P. G. Routed.  etc. Was not Christ himself Baptised at thirty years of age, the Eunuch by Philip, Acts 8? And those of John, etc.  
Yea, 
Answer.  and it may be strange for all that, for what shadow of reason is there in it, why none must be baptised till they come to perfect Age? Is this good arguing, Christ and the Eunuch, etc. were of perfect age when baptised, therefore none but men of perfect age must be baptised. Is not this as good an argument? When Christ gave the Supper, none were admitted but Apostles, therefore none but Apostles may receive the Supper. If he say there be other Scriptures that give (not Apostles only, but) all believers admittance unto the Supper; I answer, so there are other Scriptures that do authorise us to admit Children to baptism.  
Therefore he might have saved the labour of answering the Objection, viz. That that was in the first Plantation of the Church, etc.  
For first, we need not fly thither, because what he urges concludes not at all the thing asserted by him.  
He says, None must be baptised but such as are of perfect age, etc. To prove it he urges, that some that were of perfect age were then baptised, which you know no way concludes that none but such must.  
When any Anabaptist in England, can prove, that no Infants were baptised in the Apostles times, than it may be we shall make use of that which he brings in as an Objection, which if we do, we must entreat him to take a little better knowledge of the Objection, and not mistake it so ignorantly, as he seems to do in his Answer.  
For the thing urged in the Objection, is not, That there was one rule for them in the infancy, and another for us now. If he did understand sense he would have seen it, but that the same Scripture rule that was then delivered to the Churches, directs us to a different course in gathering Churches, and in Churches gathered, which is very clear. So that none need wonder why they hear of baptising grown persons then, and Infants for the most part now. The reason is, because though when our work is, as theirs was, to gather Churches, we baptise grown persons upon their Profession of the Christian Faith, as they did, and that most frequently: yet when the Church is constituted, we do take in (according to Christ's appointment) the Children of Believers in their infancy, the which I shall speak more to by and by.  
Precious Souls! you that love the appearing of the Lord Jesus, I from mine heart own the lowest appearances of Christ in his people, I would not quench the smoking flax for a world, nor dare I despise the day of small things, in any: but when Ignorance doth so exalt itself, yea, even presuming to call the Spirit of Christ its Father (as in these men) give me leave to be zealous for your sakes, that you may (with the Church of Ephesus, Revel. 2.2.) Try them which say they are Apostles [or men sent] and are not, and find them liars.  
But that I may follow my valiant Antagonist (marching in the head of his victorious absurdities and impertinencies) yet a little further, in what he says more to this controversy, page 8. I shall step over one or two particulars, reserving the handling of them till afterwards, and apply myself to the finishing of what I intent about Paedobaptism.  
He undertakes in the vl page to vindicate the Anabaptists in respect of another error charged upon them, viz. that they deny all consequences of Scripture, etc. to which he says.  
You are mistaken man in this too; 
The P. G. Routed.  they deny unnecessary and untrue consequences.  
I believe indeed this is the opinion only of the weakest and simplest of them; 
Answer.  and though the Pulpit Guard Routed be ignorant enough, yet it seems he is not so ignorant as to deny necessary consequences drawn from Scripture. I should have said nothing to this, but for what follows. Says he,  
Your consequences are such as these. 
The P. G. Routed.  Baptism is come in the room of Circumcision, Infants were circumcised, therefore Infants must be baptised. The Apostles baptised households, there might be Children; therefore Children may be baptised. Children were brought to Christ, therefore they may be baptised. Goodly consequences.  
Are these the consequences that are drawn out of Scripture to prove Infant-baptisme? 
Answer.  Has not the Pulpit Guard Routed got a forehead of braffe, that is able to tell the World such a falsehood in Print?  
'Tis true, the first consequence hath been made use of by some in the proof of Infant-baptisme, and it is so plain and unquestionable a consequence, that if he had the least grain of sound reason in him, he could not have denied it. Mark it, he finds no fault with the Proposition [Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision] but denies the consequence that is drawn out of it. Now come hither Babes and Sucklings, and make good this against him; let all the world judge, whether if baptism come in the room of Circumcision, this be not a good consequence, Infants were circumcised, therefore Infants must be baptised. You will easily see his folly in this exception, if you note, he denies the consequence, not the Proposition on which 'tis grounded.  
As for the other two consequences, did ever any of those that have written for Infant-baptisme argue after that manner? But I think this man never shown so much affection to truth, or desire of information, as to read the Arguments of those that have writ sound for it; if he had, he would have found other consequences than such as he mentions. Read the Arguments of Baxter, Martial, Homes, Featly, and others, or the Arguments of any one of them, especially Mr Baxter, and see (Beloved Christians) whether he goes not about to cheat you with his forgeries. But to the particular consequences.  
1. They argue (if he will have it so) baptism comes in the room of circumcision; Infants were circumcised, therefore Infants must be baptised. What hath he to say to this? says he,  
The Law and circumcision came by Moses, 
The P. G. Routed.  but grace and truth, and Gospel Ordinances, came by Jesus Christ.  
Answ. 1. 
Answer.  See the ignorance of the great Text-man.  
Did circumcision come by Moses? Was it not instituted by God, in a command given to Abraham, long before Moses was borne? But 'tis like he remembered that he read the story of its institution in one of the five books of Moses, and therefore thought Moses to be the institutor of the same. A pitiful mistake.  
2 The Ordinances that were appointed by Moses, were they not Christ's Ordinances, as well as those appointed under the Gospel?  
But Thirdly, What is all this to the purpose? doth this at all weaken the consequence? If Moses, as Christ's servant, did appoint Circumcision, and Christ hath taken down that, and set up another Ordinance of the same end, use, and spiritual signification in the steed of it, doth this hinder the consequence aforesaid? yea, doth it not above measure establish it?— O most strong conquering answers?  
But as to the Second consequence: did ever any body (except such a Disputer as the P. G. Routed is) argue as he suggesteth in the next place, viz. Apostles baptised Households, there might be children, therefore children may be baptised.  
Did ever any of our Patrons of Paedobaptism, reason so?  
'Tis true some argue thus, The Apostles baptised whole households, therefore 'tis probable there might be some children baptised then, seeing there are few families in which are not some children. None argue from hence but for the probability of the fact, that 'tis probable some were baptised, and is not such an inference tolerable?  
Whereas he says, We must believe there were no children in those families, or if any there, yet not Baptised, because contrary to the known practice of the Apostles.  
This is the simplest begging of the question that ever I met withal; For that is the thing in controversy; to say there were no children baptised in those families. because 'twas contrary to the practice of the Apostles to baptise Children, is idem per idem, a proving a thing by itself. Good Logic for—  
But if this will not pass (with the ordinary allowance of boldness and confidence) you shall be accounted Antichristian, and wilfully blind for it, be sure.  
3. Did ever any body argue, children were brought to Christ, therefore they may be baptised? I believe he hopes some will adventure to credit him, how falsely soever he speak or write. Surely this man would make you believe there are but very slender Arguments to prove Infant-baptisme.  
But I'll tell you some of the consequents that we draw from Scripture: they are such as these.  
Those that are Church-members an to be baptised. 
Arg. 1.   
Some Infants are Church-members therefore some infants are to be baptised Again.  
Those that belong to the Kingdom of God are to be baptised. 
Arg. 2.   
But some Infants belong to the Kingdom of God.  
Therefore some Infants are to be baptised. Again.  
Such as are [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] holy by separation to God, 
Arg. 3.  are to be baptised.  
But some Infants are so. Therefore, etc.  
Here are some of our consequences t● prove Infant-baptisme, that will make the ablest Anabaptists heart in England, ak● to with stand. You have these, and many such like Arguments enlarged upon, and cleared from all cavils, by several abl● men that have writ on this subject: but especially by Mr. Baxter, in his book o● Infants Church-member ship; who, to my judgement, has done best of any on this controversy.  
I confess there has been so much spoken (and that so clearly and convincingly) by others, that for me to say any thing more, will be but to light a candle to the Sun. However I shall reason a little with you about the first argument, driving home that nail to the head, that he that can not read, or get larger Treatises, may have a sufficient hint in this short Tract, to enable him to stop the mouths of such, as shall withstand the truth here in dispute. And herein I shall tread in the steps of acute and judicious Mr Baxter for the most part.  

1. That all Church-members are to be baptised, that I presume none will deny, and therefore I shall take it for granted.  
2. That some Infants are to be admitted Church-members, I prove by Mr baxter's Argument, thus.   
If by the merciful gift, and appointment of God, not yet repealed, some Infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church, than some Infants are to be so admitted still.  
But by the merciful gift and appointment of God, not yet repealed, some Infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church.  
Therefore, They are so to be admitted still.  
Examine this well. 1. That some infants, by God's gift and appointment, were once admitted Church-members, I hope will be granted: they were members of the Church of the Jews, that is beyond all dispute. 2. God never repealed the grant of this privilege to infants. If he has done it, let me know where. Can you think that a whole species, or kind of persons should be cast out of the Church, and Scripture be silent about it? if the gift and grant of this privilege be not repealed, than it remains to infants still.  
But I shall prove the Negative thus.  
If God hath revoked this merciful grant and gift of Infant's Church membership, than it is either in mercy for their good, or in judgement for their hurt. But he hath neither revoked it in mercy for their good, nor in judgement for their hurt. This I shall prove in both parts.  
1. He hath not revoked it in judgement for their hurt: Because many of them never broke Covenant with him, either in their own persons (being in their infancy uncapable of actual sinning) or in their Parents (by virtue of relation to whom, they had a standing in the Church) many thousands of whom were believers in the Apostles times: Now God doth not cast away them, that do not cast away him, for if he should, than he himself would be the Covenant-breaker, not man, which would be blasphemous to conceive. Therefore he has not revoked this gift of Church-member-ship as to infants, in judgement for their hurt.  
2. He hath not done it in mercy for their good; for than he would have granted to them some other mercy instead of it: for it can be no mercy to take away a mercy (as Church-member-ship is) unless to give a greater in the room. But there is no greater mercy given to infants in stead of Church-member ship. If there be, then pray show what it is.  
If any should be so weak as to say, 
Object.  That Christ coming in the flesh is a greater mercy given in the room of Church-member-ship. I answer.  

1. What a fond thing is it to conceive, 
Answ. 1  that Christ should succeed Church-member ship, as a thing that was to be ended in him to any?  
2. I would feign know, how infants (while infants) have Christ now, more than infants had him then, when they were admitted Church-members.  
3. The Church is the body of Christ, and is it not absurd to say, that Christ should break off infants from his body, that he coming in the flesh may be a greater mercy to them? what is that but to be a greater mercy than himself?   
There is then no greater mercy given to infants in stead of Church-member-ship: therefore it is not taken away in mercy neither, and so by consequence, not taken away at all.  
Which way will you shift from this Argument? 
Object.  If you say the Church-constitution (whereof infants were members) is taken down, and dissolved, and a new set up, whereof infants are no members.  
I answer. 
Answer. 1.  1. Many, yea most of the Jews were broken off from the Church of God for their unbelief. So that ('tis true) that individual Church may be said to be dissolved, even as also the Church of Smyrna, Thyatira, Laodicea, and the rest of the Churches of Asia (for the most part) are also dissolved, and taken down: but that the essence, and nature of the Church is altered, so as that theirs was not the same Church of God, that ours is now, is most contrary to plain Scripture. As Rom. 11.17. where we read, that all the change that was made, was, the breaking off of some branches of the Jews, and the grafting in of some of the Gentiles into the same Olive. i e. the same visible Church. Again, the bringing in of the Gentiles is expressed by a breaking down of the partition wall, so making them one Church, by letting in the Gentiles into the same Church that the Jews were of before. And when, in a Vision, Peter was taught the doctrine of the Gentiles reception into the Church Acts 10. we find 'twas not to be, by making the Jews unclean, but by cleansing the Gentiles to become clean as the Jews were: so that it is plain, this is the same Church, standing upon the same foundation of the Covenant, that that did; and therefore some infants are still invested with the privilege of being members by the first grant: and if Church-members, then to be baptised.  
2. That all infants were not cast out of the Church under the Gospel, is clear from Rom. 11.20. where 'tis said, that such branches as were broken off, were broken off for their unbelief. But the unbelief of some that did not believe, could not cast out of the Church the children of the believing Jews, therefore they remained still in the Church. How plain is this? I have driven this nail to the head, and let him shake this truth that can: I dare venture to let lose this single Argument to all the Anabaptists in the world, and they will have somewhat to do to answer it. The other two Arguments (with many more that might be brought) prove infant's Church members, and therefore to be baptised: for if infants be Holy (as in the 1 Cor. 7.14.) if of the Kingdom of God (as in Mark 10.14.) then to be admitted Church-members, and so to be baptised. There is not one cavil to be made against these, but what is fully answered by Mr Baxter, in his book of Infant's Church-member-ship, and therefore I shall say nothing to them here, having brought one Argument to an head, and one Argument is enough to prove one truth, if there were no more.  
But here you see how false it is that he says, that our consequences to prove infant-baptisme, are no better than such as he suggesteth. All things are not true that such men dare speak, yea and print too. He that hath the impudence to print manifest falsehoods, touching matters of fact, upon hope of being believed by some that will not be at the pains to seek out the truth, will (you may suspect) speak and write many more falsehoods, in, and about, matters of faith. But I will away to his fourth Error.   

His Fourth Error.  
That God now reveals his will not only by the written word, but by Dreams and Visions, more credited than the word.  
THis he dares not so confidently to affirm, as he doth the former. I believe the prison (where I have heard he lately was in London, for his Heresies) hath done him a little good, in making him to speak warily sometimes in weighty matters, though he thinks he may rail against honest men impunè; yet no less than this doth he assert, page 7. in these words. 
The P. G. Routed.   
If some do hold this principle, Is it strange and ridiculous unto you? Hath not God formerly revealed truth to his people by Dreams and Revelations? And dare you deny it now? Is God limited? 
Answer.   
Here you see he affirms that it should not be accounted a strange thing to hold the above mentioned Principle, and he gives his reason for it: God did once so reveal himself, and he is not limited.  
Now because this is a Doctrine that such unsteady spirits do labour to instill into the minds of the simple (though this man having to do with an able Adversary, dares not to speak out here as he would) I shall give you some account of the unsoundness of the same, first answering to what he urges, and then giving my reasons for the negative.  
Is God limited? (says he) I answer, no, God is not limited, except by his own will. But alas! the question is not whether God can do it, but whether he will or no. If God hath declared his purpose to make use of such ways of revealing truth now, than we may expect it; else not upon any man's telling you, God can do it. God can make another Sun in the Firmament, to help enlighten the World, when there is one sufficient already: he can maintain our lives to us without food: but no body (I think) has any reason to expect he will do so, when food is to be had. So that this intimation of his, savours of as much ignorance, and is as impertinent as his former answers. But to the Question.  
Whether we may expect God should, 
Quest.  or very much believe that he does, reveal himself now immediately to any by way of Dreams and Visions, or the like? 
Answer. 1.   
I answer. 1. We have no ground in the world, to look for any such thing; there being no promise or word to that purpose. 2. Sound Scripture Arguments will demonstrate, that it is not to be looked for by any, nor owned by us in any, especially where the Scriptures are extant. And mine Arguments to prove this shall be drawn from the perfection of Scripture, and from those Texts that witness to the same.  
Arg. 1. 
Arg. 1.  If a sufficiency of Divine light and truth be given out in the Scriptures, than there is no need of Dreams and Visions now, for the revealing of truth unto the Saints; and by consequence such things are not to be expected where the Scriptures are; for God doth not make use of things needless and unnecessary.  
But that a sufficiency of Divine light and truth is given out in the Scriptures, is most clear to one that denies not, (as the Papists do) the perfection of Scripture.  
Therefore it follows, that there is no need of Dreams and Visions, and the like, etc.  
That there is a sufficiency in the Scripture, will appear more plain in the following Arguments.  
Arg. 2. 
Arg. 2.  That which hath enough in it to make Saints perfect, is fully complete and sufficient, etc.  
But the Scripture hath so. See 2 Tim. 3.15, 16, 17. where 'tis affirmed in so many words.  
Therefore the Scripture is complete and sufficient, without any additional supply from Dreams and Extraordinary, immediate revelations.  
Except there be a step above perfection, sure the light of Scripture is sufficient. But I know not where these men would carry you: They dream (and would make you dream too) of strange attainments beyond the Moon: But I hope my Reader will judge it enough to be made perfect; and perfection you see may be attained by Scripture light.  
Arg. 3. 
Arg. 3.  If it be sinful and evil to be wise above what is written, then may not any expect, or give heed to extraordinary Revelations by Visions, etc. and be wise by them, beside the written word.  
But it is sinful and evil to be wise above what is written. See it in express terms, 1 Cor. 4.6.  
Therefore may not any expect, or give heed to extraordinary revelations, etc.  
'Tis we are the fools, and 'tis we are the weak and low persons that confine ourselves to what is written, and dare not go an hairs-breadth beyond it: but they are the wise, and spiritual, and elevated Doctors, that converse with God immediately, and receive truth beyond the line of Scripture, as they fancy: But this satisfies my spirit, that 'tis Paul's judgement (and not Paul's, but the Spirit of God by him) that such wisdom is wickedness.  
You may perhaps object. 
Object.  Scripture-light is perfect, so far, as it discovers the mind of God; but that does not hinder but that God may reveal truth to some, even beyond what is held forth in Scripture.  
I answer. 1. Scripture, 
Answer. 1.  as hath been showed, is absolutely complete in itself, and as to Saints too; it having enough to make them complete and perfect, and therefore there is no need of another way to reveal more truth than what is in the Scripture. 2. As Moses and the Prophets were faithful in their places: So was Christ, Heb. 3.2. faithful to him that appointed him, viz. to be the great Prophet and Teacher of his people. Now wherein lies his faithfulness? why, even in laying down a sufficient rule and light for the Saints to be guided by; the which he did by his Apostles in the Scripture. These men do not consider how much they take from the honour of Christ, while they dream of additional revelations, beside the light of Scripture. I am afraid they are too ambitious of sharing with Christ in the honour of giving laws unto men: And so they may be honoured with the opinion of being entrusted with the discovery of things not revealed in Scripture, they care not though Christ suffer as unfaithful, in not discovering all that is needful. Away with such abominable pride.  
Object. 2. 
Object. 2.  Though Christ were faithful by himself and Apostles to declare the whole mind of God: yet many of those things that were done and spoken by them are not written.  
I answer, 
Answer.  All that was done and spoken by Christ and his Apostles, for the substance is contained in the Scriptures, that are left by God unto his Church: which I prove.  
1. 
Reas. 1.  From those Texts that speak to that purpose. As Luke 1. begin. and Acts 1. begin. and also 1 John 1. begin. where John (who writ last of all the Apostles.) says (speaking in his own name, and in the name of the rest of the penmen of Scripture) That which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you; that is, all that which we have seen and heard for substance; for that indefinite Proposition is equivalent to an universal.  
2. Neither could Jesus Christ otherwise have been faithful, for his faithfulness lies not in affording sufficient light unto that age of the Church in which he lived on earth, but in providing a perfect standing Rule for all the Saints unto the end of the world: he is called faithful, not only in respect of Saints living in the days of his flesh, but in respect of all, in all ages of the world. So that upon this account it is clear, that as he did in the days of his flesh declare sufficiently the will of the Father unto the world by himself, and his extraordinary Ministers; and confirmed his doctrine to be of God, by wonderful works and miracles: so he did leave the substance, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the sum or brief of this Doctrine (and so much of the works as is requisite to the confirmation of the same) upon record in Scripture for after-ages.  
Object. 3. 
Object.  You may say, although Scripture be perfect, and we grant that all truth is wrapped up in it: yet many things lying darkly there, it may please God to come in to some in an extraordinary way, by Visions, etc. to reveal the truth.  
I answer. 
Answ. 1.  1. It may please God, but what reason has any man to believe or expect that God should do so now, when he hath sufficiently revealed all truth in Scripture already?  
2. There is nothing in Scripture necessary to be known by Christians, that lies so dark there, but that it may be discovered by those ordinary helps that God affords to his people, without any such extraordinary ways. God has given out his spirit unto his people, to heal the blindness of their minds, and malignity of their hearts, which is the chief ground of the obscurity of Scripture to us (for Scripture is not dark in itself, but by the reason of the darkness of man's heart, that receives not the truth thereof) And he has also given the ordinary help of Humane Learning (as knowledge of the Tongues, Antiquity, etc.) unto men in office, for the unfolding of the darker places of Scripture. Now by these ordinary helps, those things that are not so clear in Scripture, may be brought to light, though there be no such extraordinary means as these men dream of.  
But in the next place, there is this further to be said against any such extraordinary way of revealing truth now.  
If God doth in such an extraordinary way reveal truth to any now, either the end thereof is private, and particular, respecting those only to whom such a discovery is made: Or else the end is more public and general, respecting others to whom such (as have this extraordinary discovery of truth) are to deliver over the same from God.  
But I shall show you, God doth so reveal himself in neither of these respects, and therefore not at all.  
1. God doth not (in such an extraordinary way) reveal truth to any, with respect to their private, and particular edification. This appears, 1. In that he hath ordained the Scriptures for this end, 2 Tim. 3.15, 16, 17. He hath ordained preaching for this end, Col. 1.28. He hath appointed Ministers in office for this end, Ephes. 4.11.12. In all which Scriptures you find expressed, the means which God hath appointed for the edifying and perfecting of the Saints: so that we cannot suppose (where any o● these means are, viz. Scriptures, Preaching faithful Ministers) that God should edify his people by giving in Truth to them by Visions, or such like extraordinary ways.  
And secondly, I would feign know whether ever Scripture doth say, that God hath appointed extraordinary revelations by Vision, or the like, for the private good and edification of any Believer (as it says of the means before mentioned) and whether the end of such extraordinary manifestations of truth hath not been ever chief the good and information of others, to whom, such as have had the revelation, were to Preach it.  
Thirdly, I would know whether that in Rom. 10.14. [How shall they believe i● him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a Preacher?] Doth not confine the Production and increase of faith, unto the means before mentioned? And if it be so, then questionless God does not give extraordinary revelations, with respect unto the edification o● such particular persons as have the said Revelations given in to them, for we find he hath appointed certain ordinary means to work by; the which he hath a purpose (as far as we can find in his revealed will) to confine himself unto.  
2. I prove also that God doth not, in such an extraordinary way, reveal himself to any now with respect to others whom such (as have truth thus revealed) may inform of the Truth: and that upon this reason; Because my Revelation or Vision, is not sufficient to make out truth to another; unless I have miracles to prove Gods speaking in and by me: But none now work miracles, therefore extraordinary revelations now, would be insufficient, and by consequence are not ordained of God: for God doth not ordain or appoint such means as are insufficient as to their end.  
That my Revelation or Vision, is not sufficient to make out truth unto another, without miracles going with the same, is evident, in that, without miracles I cannot give to any man a demonstration that the Vision or Revelation (that I pretend to have) is of God, and if it be doubtful, whether my Revelation be of God, 'twill be doubtful too whither that which is pretended to be revealed, be Truth. So that you see I have sufficiently proved, that God does not now reveal himself to any by visions, or extraordinary revelations, either in the first or second respect, and therefore not at all.  
It remains then, that you must take this for one of Collier's Dreams, viz. That God does now reveal truth to his people, by Dreams or Visions, and not by the Scriptures only, where they are enjoyed. Wherefore Christians, be very wary of such intimations, that God may sometime in such a way reveal himself unto his people, etc. They are but the Devil's baits to fetch off your hearts by little and little from that sure foundation that is laid for you by Christ himself, in the revealed word and will of God: which if you once forsake, and give heed to the giddy Principles of these men, you will soon make shipwreck of faith, and be wrapped up in confusion and darkness.  
Neither be you troubled, if they assault you with those Scriptures which speak to this purpose. They shall be all taught of God. The Anointing shall teach you. The daystar shall arise in your hearts. The Spirit shall lead you into all Truth, etc. For such expressions do only signify that sweet and heavenly way in which the Lord does enlighten the minds of his people, by (not without) the ordinary means before expressed.  
It is said, that in God we live, move, and have our being, in respect of our natural life; and yet we do not so much as once think of living without food, sleep, etc. the outward supports of life: even so, though it be said, God teaches, and the spirit teaches, yet let us not dream that this is immediately, and without the use of means. I would fain know of those that wait so much for immediate teaching, whether ever they got so high, as to live without the use of the outward means of relieving and supporting nature, upon a reliance on this truth, that God is the author and preserver of natural life, and that they live in him: if not, I shall give little credit to them, while they talk of living spiritually in the enjoyment, and further manifestation of Truth, without the use of the outward means, appointed by God for that end. As God is the author of spiritual life, so is he of natural life also. If thou be one that canst live naturally without food, I will not much blame thee if thou say, thou canst live spiritually, and thrive in further discoveries of truth, without the help of any of the means before expressed. But I shall say no more to this Question, having said enough (I think) to prove, that it is a gross Error, to say, that God now reveals his will, not only by the written word, but by Dreams and Visions, which are to be credited equally to, or more than the word. I descend unto his next Error.   

His Fifth Error.  
That the Saints need not ask the pardon of sin, and that it is form and custom that carries them to this Petition, FORGIVE US OUR SINS.  
THis horrible, heterodox, unchristian, unsanctified Principle, he vents in his plea for the fourth Error charged upon the Anabaptists. In these words,  
While the soul lives in the enjoyment of mercy, 
The P.G. Routed.  and love, it's then form or custom that carrieth him to that Petition: but when a soul apprehends the want of pardon, let him ask it.  
See how he labours to deceive you, 
Answer.  and to give you out his poison in sugared words. If any one apprehends the want of pardon, let him ask it, but immediately before he says, a Christian while he is in a good temper, while he lives in the enjoyment of mercy and love (as his words are) cannot put up that Petition, except formally and customarily. Is not this brave Divinity?  
He lays down nothing to prove what he says, he hopes the novelty of his Doctrine, and its compliance with the spiritual pride of man's heart, will make it pass upon his own word only; but let us weigh somewhat of that which may be said against this licentious Principle.  

1. Did not Christ teach and command his Disciples to pray, Forgive us our sins, Mat. 6.12?  
2. Did not they live in the enjoyment of mercy and love, when this command was given them? Were they not such then as could call God Father? And I hope such may go for men living in the enjoyment of mercy and love, as by the spirit of Adoption can come unto God as a Father, and own him in so near a relation. Now it is plain, touching the Disciples, that then, when they had a discovery of the nearest and sweetest relation unto God, and could come to him, saying, Our Father. I say, even than were they bid to pray, Forgive us our sins.  
3. Though I should grant that the Apostles had not such a full enjoyment of mercy and love, as this man pretends to (for observe it, nothing will satisfy this kind of men, unless they may be thought (in some thing or other) to be more excellent than Apostles themselves, and such extraordinary instruments as Christ entrusted in laying the foundation of the Gospel-Church.) I say, though I should be so far indulgent to their pride and arrogance, as to grant this: yet would Christ teach any of his people to pray for such a thing, as no Christian living in the enjoyment of mercy and love (which every true Christian ought to do) can pray for, but either out of form or custom? that were strange.   
If such as live in the enjoyment of mercy and love (i. e. such as have a discovery o● God's mercy and love to their souls) may not pray, For give us our sins, then see how necessarily some, or all of these absurdities will follow from Matth. 6.  

1. Either Christ's command there 〈◊〉 not to be obeyed, which (as far 〈…〉 judge) is his opinion. Or,  
2. The Disciples had not the discovery of God's mercy, and love to their souls: and if so, then,  
3. A man may be able to own, and come to God as a Father (as they did) and yet not know God's mercy and love to his soul; which is a contradiction.  
4. 'Twill follow, that Christ teaches and commands his Saints to do such things, as (if they be rightly informed) cannot be done, but formally and out of custom: and are not these gross absurdities, such as a pious Christian cannot bear?   
But Believers are justified from sin, 
Object.  and so may not pray for the pardoning of sin, because it is already done in their Justification.  
If this be good arguing, 
Answ. 1  how can we justify Christ's command bidding his Disciples to pray for forgiveness of sin? Were not they justified persons? I hope none will deny it. But to clear this.  
2. We must distinguish of two acts of Grace in the justifying of sinners, Viz. To justify a sinner from all his sins that he stands actually guilty of; and then a continuation of justification from sin, as it is afterward daily committed. For it is one thing to pardon, another thing to continue to pardon: now this latter, Christians (living in the enjoyment of mercy and love) may, and must pray for.  
1. 
Reas. 1.  Because all the sure mercies of the Covenant, are to be received in a way of prayer. See Ezek. 36.37. where observe, that notwithstanding the Lord declares his purpose to take away their iniquities, vers. 33. and to give out to them other mercies of the Covenant, yet he lays in this caution, vers. 37. Notwithstanding I will be sought unto, or enquired of to do this for them. He will have pardon sued out by Prayer, in order to the particular application of it, in respect of particular fins daily committed.  
2. 
Reas. 2.  Christ he continually intercedes and prays for Believers in Heaven, and that for this particular favour, viz. Pardon of sin. See 1 John 2.1, 2. My little children, these things writ I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, etc. Mark it, if Saints sin, they have Christ for an Advocate, now wherefore should he Advocate or plead for them, upon their sinning, if not for pardon? Now doth Christ plead for the pardon of believers, and may not they for their own pardon? is not Christ's intercession in Heaven, a good rule for our Prayers on Earth? You have another place to this purpose, Heb. 7.25. From which Scripture I do demand why Christ is said to be able to save to the utmost, in that he ever intercedes, unless it be because by his intercession he obtains a continuation of pardon, and an application of it in respect of particular sins daily committed. And shall any one think that there is need Christ should pray in Heaven for pardon of sin, and no need believers should on Earth? Ah! 'Tis a brave Religion you shall learn of these Doctors, if you have a mind to credit them. But it matters not what it be so it be new, and contrary to the teaching of the faithful Ministers of Christ, whom this Pamphleter labours to vilify.  
I could bring you forth the examples of many of the most eminentand precious Saints in Scripture, that have sought pardon of sin, yea and that with bleeding, broken hearts, were it not that he'll be ready to say, these men lived not in the enjoyment of mercy and love, as now we do. But I shall rather think in very deed, that he lives yet in the bosom of Hell, and wrath, then question their living in the enjoyment of mercy and love, who in Scripture are brought in suing for pardon of sin, such as were Moses, David, and the Prophets, etc.  
Some other absurdities are scattered throughout page 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. in his defence of the Anabaptists.  

As 1. Where he affirms, that the Apostle condemnes-going to law as a sin, 1 Cor. 6.2. when as the words make it plain, that he condemns only their going to Law, before the unjust and infidels.  
2. Where he blames his Adversary as contradicting himself, in saying, Anabaptists hold that wars are useless, and again afterward, that they are tumultuous, etc. when as the contradiction is in their Principles, who can Preach down the lawfulness of going to war at one time, and yet move wars and tumuls to advance their design, at another time. I wish those that are in Authority would look well to them, I hope they do.  
3. Where he urges a general toleration, because Magistrates by their Civil Power cannot Convert; as if there were no use of the Magistrates Power in restraining men's impiety, and compelling them to conformity in submitting to converting Ordinances, unless they could also change the heart.  
4. Where he denies the distinction of three persons in the Godhead, because the word Person is not used in Scripture: Though John says, There are Three, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one; Of which words there can be no sense, unless they be Three Persons (as the Church of Christ understands the word Person) for if they be Three, what three? if not Persons.   
These, and many such like absurdities, with his rail intermixed, I shall pass over, not doubting but the Reader will rank them among the rest of his Errors, which I have, and shall sufficiently confute.  
The next Error is the main and principal scope of his Book: and 'tis as follows.   

His Sixth Error.  
That Gifted Brethren may exercise the Ministerial or Pastoral act of Preaching in a constituted Church, without a Call to the Office of a Minister.  
THis Position comes nearest to what I can possibly gather (by reading over his Discourse) to be his meaning in what he writes in Answer to a Treatise Entitled, The Pulpit Guarded, etc. Though I confess, in laying down this he speaks most notable contradictions, as I shall show you by and by; so that a man can hardly know what he would have in sober sadness.  
And here (Reader) know.  

1. That my purpose is not to handle the twenty Arguments that he pretends to Answer, and to make a particular reply; for so I should weary thee out too much with the discovery of his ignorance and absurdness, which I can sufficiently rip open, going a shorter way to work.  
2. This lies upon Mr Hall his Antagonist, who is able I doubt not to defend his own Arguments if he lift.  
3. It may be all Mr Halls Arguments in this controversy may not be my Arguments. But this I'll say, for my part I find nothing said against any of Mr Hals Arguments, that can be taken for a confutation by any that can see where the strength of an Argument doth lie: so that it is like he may never reply, apprehending his Arguments untouched, though supposed by the Collier to be Routed.   
But though I will not (upon this account) make a particular reply (which would be too tedious) yet I shall give thee some few observations upon the whole in general: which will help thee to see (if thou hast but half an eye) the invalidity and weakness of every particular: and then annex my additional Reasons against him.  
Verily, if the man had ever had the opinion of being judicious, able, and solid, an understanding Reader would think him here to be out of his wits. That you may see this as well as I, I shall lay down some Observations, which may serve you instead of a key to let you in to every particular answer of his, to see the weakness, ignorance, and impertinency of the same.  
Obser. 1. 
Obser. 1.  You may take notice, that he does most pitifully say, I Sir, No Sir (and that in divers particulars) in his Discourse, upon the Question now in debate. I shall give you a taste in the instances following.  

1. One where he tells you, that Christians may Preach as gifted Brethren, without any other call but their gifts; yet they may not intrude into the office of a Minister. To usurp the Ministerial Office, says he, is sin, page 17. and yet he says, page 29. There is no one thing that belongs to a Pastor, or Minister, but a gifted Brother may do it.  
2. He says (as before) 'Tis sinful to usurp the ministerial office: And yet he say, page 45. That the duty or work of a Minister is not so distinct, but that another may perform it.  
3. In page 45. He says, A Pastor or Minister in Office, is in a distinct manner to attend upon the duties of teaching, etc. so as gifted Brethren are not to do; but how? Not altogether, for in the same page he says, Yet not so but that they may use another Calling; and if so, 'tis but sometimes only that they can attend upon teaching, and other ministerial duties. And you shall hear him say, page 29. That gifted Brethren may, and must do these duties, as often as time, opportunity, and liberty calls for it: That is, as often as they are able, and have a mind to it: O brave Automachie!  
4. Sometimes he says expressly, The Saints are all Prophets, as page 60. where he not only says it, but proves it, after his manner of proving, by this Argument. Every spiritual man is a Prophet, the Saints are all spiritual men, therefore all Prophets. And yet again (when he is driven to it by a plain Scripture, 1 Cor. 12.29.) he says, All are not Prophets, as in page 21.  
5 He says, All have not the gift to speak to the edifying of the Church, so page 21. and yet page 83. he says, He should look upon that member as useless, that hath not some gift or other for good in the Church.  
6. He says, Gifted Brethren ought to Preach, it is their Duty to Preach; and that in such a Public and authoritative way, as Ministers are by their office, to do (for he admits not of any distinction between private and public Preaching) and yet he says, page 84. By office such are not Preachers. A fine distinction! a Preacher by duty, but not by office.  
7. He demands in great fury, page 87. where ever we read Prophets called Pastors, or Pastors and Teachers called Prophets; and says, 'tis Logic learned from the Devil, to speak so: and yet ever and anon in his discourse, he says. Prophet's are Teachers, and proves that gifted Brethren are Teachers, because Prophets.   
Sure, the man is in good hope, that the most of his Readers will be men of bad memories, or judgements, or both; that when they are reading one page, will forget what he says in another: or he would not venture thus to contradict himself. But he holds a Wolf by the ears (as the Proverb is) and pitifully puzzled you may see he is. One part or other of the contradiction he knows is true, but which he cannot tell; and therefore he will be sure to speak both, that he may be sometimes found in the truth. Surely either this man hath but a bad cause to plead, or else the cause hath fall'n upon a bad Advocate in him to plead for it, notwithstanding he talks of gifts so much. He need not have another to answer him, while he is so good at confuting himself. Much of my design is to help the weaker sort to see this, that is very open to such as are intelligent.  
Obser. 2. You may observe further, 
Obser. 2.  that he never distinguisheth of Preaching, nor doth he define what Preaching is, that ye might understand what he means, when he pleads for the lawfulness of gifted brethren's Preaching. But his design is to cheat you if he can, with ambiguous terms, never adding any explanation to them.  
All the distinction that he makes of Teachers, is only this; Teachers by Office, and Teachers by gift, without Office. As good as if he had said, Teachers that are so indeed, and Teachers that are not so, but only esteem themselves so; or at best might be so, if the power of the Church did call them into the office. As if one should say, a Magistrate by gift, and a Magistrate by office. He considers not, that, as the gift disposeth a man to the office, so only the office disposeth him unto the execution of the gift. A man gifted for a Magistrate, is no Magistrate, nor may execute the work of a Magistrate, till called to the office; even so a man gifted to be a Teacher, is no Teacher, nor may execute the work of a Teacher, till he be called to that office: except in the cases signified in stating the controversy.  
All the definition he gives of Preaching (that you may know what it is) is page 59 where he says, Preaching is but a speech, or speaking of words: and if so (for all his pretended gifts) a Parrot may preach as well as he. But 'tis well he sayeth, Preaching is a speaking of words; for many of those that undertake public Preaching without any mission, speak words ('tis true) but many times no sense: let their judicious hearers (if there be any) be judges.  
But he means (I suppose) speaking words unto spiritual edification, and if this be all the Preaching he pleads for, to be allowed to gifted Brethren, why doth he contend? when as brotherly admonition, exhortation, instruction, reproof, etc. are granted by his Adversary, not to gifted Brethren only, but to all Christians in their proper sphere, and keeping within their line. I say this is granted to all Christians (even to women also) who yet I hope may not be Preachers.  
I think no honest heart (even among them that oppose his opinion) doth desire to abridge Christian's liberty in speaking to the edification one of another, in such a way, nay rather we stir them up, and provoke them (to the use of their liberty, do I say, nay) to the practice of their duty herein. But can any one be so blind as not to see a vast difference between the public, pastoral duties of a Minister (which he is obliged to by his office, called in the Scripture, feeding the flock of Christ, etc.) And those Christian duties that lie upon all Believers, enjoined in such language as this, Thou shalt not suffer thy brother to sin, but shalt reprove him and tell him his fault, Leu. 19.17. Comfort ane another with these words, 1 Thess. 4.18. And again, They shall speak of thy Kingdom, and talk of thy power, Psal. 145.11. And 2 Cor. 1.4. That we may be able to comfort them which are in trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God. (Places which among others he urges for public Preaching of men not in office.) I say is any man so blind as not to see a difference between these? Is it not plain that though they may agree in matter, yet do differ in form, 
Forma dat nomen, & esse.  which is that which gives name and being to things.  
But this he would not have you take notice of, if you do, a great part of his Book is answered without much a do. Wherefore he denies any difference between public and private Preaching. He says, This distinction came from Rome, 
The P.G. Routed.  and has no footing in Scripture, if in private, why not in public? if we may preach to one or two in private, why not to a thousand in public? page 88 91. 
Answer.  Much of the controversy depends on the clearing of this, and If I can prove this distinction from Scripture, and show you that there is a specifical difference between public and private preaching: Preaching taken in a large, and Preaching taken in a strict sense, than you'll say that the heartstrings of many of his answers and arguments are cut, and that nothing is remaining, but confident expressions, to give any life to them.  
This I shall do (God willing) by two Arguments, grounded, not on Scripture testimony only, but also on his own concessions: Thus, 
Arg. 1.   
If we find in Scripture that all Christians may Preach, take Preaching in a large sense, for the private duties that they own one to another: and that they may not all Preach, take preaching in a strict sense, for public pastoral preaching, then there is a specifical difference between these: for otherwise the same thing would be to the same persons lawful and unlawful; which is a contradiction.  
But I prove by Scripture. 1. That all Christians may Preach, take Preaching in a large sense, for brotherly exhortation, admonition, reproof, etc. See 1 Thess. 4.18. Heb. 3.13. Leu. 19.17. Mal. 3.16. 2 Cor. 1.4. with many other places; concerning which Scriptures, you may observe, that they speak not to some Gifted Brethren only, but to all the godly indefinitely. Besides, he himself grants this ever and anon in his Discourse. 2. I prove that all Christians may not preach, take Preaching in a strict sense (as before) by the plain words of the Apostle in 1 Cor. 12.29. Are all Teachers? which Question he himself acknowledges, imports a denial, and is as much as All christians are not teachers; and so may not take upon them to teach, that is in a strict proper sense.  
So that the inference is most undeniable, that there is a specifical difference between the one way of Teaching or Preaching, and the other. Unless you will believe the Scripture speaks contradictions (as he does) making, as I said before, the same thing lawful and unlawful to the same persons.  
But secondly, I argue thus. 
Arg. 2.   
If it be lawful for Women to Preach privately, take Preaching in a large sense, and forbidden them to Preach publicly and in the Church, than there is a specifical difference between these, and a good ground in Scripture for the distinction of public and private Preaching.  
But Women may Preach privately, take Preaching in the large sense. See 2 Tim. 1.5. compared with 2 Tim. 3.15. Acts 18.26. Prov. 31.1. etc. And 'tis forbidden them to Preach publicly, even in the Church. See 1 Cor. 14.34, 35. ☞ 1 Tim. 2.11, 12. Therefore this distinction is grounded on Scripture, and public and private Preaching do specifically differ one from the other. And yet hath not this fellow boldness enough to puff away solid Arguments merely with saying, there is no such distinction found in Scripture, and that 'tis fetched from Rome? Ah alas! if any thing galls them, it comes presently from Rome, 'tis Antichristian, you may be affrighted with such bugbears, without reason if you list.  
My christian friends (you whose establishment I aim at in this Discourse, that your fellowship with the Father of Lights may be more constant and sweet) take this Lesson away with you. The best Engine mystical Antichrist has to advance his design among Christians, is to be all against Antichrist, in appearance. He is sure to have best success among well meaning people, when he is in the form and appearance of an Angel of light.  
But to return to mine Adversary (return do I say? I think I never went from him in speaking of mystical Antichrist.)  
he'll say, the Apostle says, 1 Cor. 12.29. 
Object.  All are not Teachers, because all are not gifted: but all that are gifted, are Teachers, and may Preach.  
This answers to neither my first, 
Answ.  nor second Argument to prove the distinction of Preaching above mentioned.  
It answers not my first; for, 1. All Christians are gifted according to the measure they have received: yea, and he himself says, 
Gradus non variant speciem.  that every member has his gift whereby to be useful to the Church, page 83. Though some in one degree, some in another. (which is no prejudice to the thing in hand) 2. If he should deny it, as indeed elsewhere he does (for he can speak contradictions) yet the Scriptures before mentioned in proof of the first branch of the second Proposition of my first Argument do prove the same, viz. That all Christians may and aught to teach by brotherly admonition, advice, reproof, etc. and therefore are gifted (according to their measure) thereunto. And if so, then Paul does not say, All are not teachers, because all are not gifted, for all are gifted according to their degree, and so are Teachers and Preachers; take Preaching for private Preaching, and in the large sense before mentioned. But his meaning must needs be, All are not teachers, that is, Ministerial, Pastoral, public Teachers. And so it affords us a ground for a distinction of two kinds of Preaching, or Teaching, specifically differenced, as we affirm.  
2. Much less doth it weaken my second Argument. For are Women forbidden to teach in public, in the Church, because they are not gifted? 'Tis known many Women are gifted to speak to the edification of others, and may use such gifts as they have in a private way, lawfully (as was proved even now) but not publicly, and in the Church: which lays a good foundation for the distinction, and shows (though he thinks it so strange, page 91.) That it may be lawful to teach privately before a few, by brotherly exhortation, advice, etc. and not to teach publicly before a thousand.  
Carry this also along with you as you read his answers (if you think you may waste so much time as to read them) and tell me whether most of them are not turned into mere Scelitons.  
Obser. 3. 
Obser. 3.  You shall (moreover) find he seldom takes any notice of the thing that is in Question, or (as a sound handler of controversies) at all distinguisheth controversa, a non controversis, things controverted from things not in dispute; but in many of his answers beats the air, and not his Adversary: and therefore no wonder he dreamt of Routing the Pulpit Guard.  
1. Whereas the Question (as stated by his Antagonist) is, whether any may Preach in a constituted Church, unless they be called unto the office of a Minister. Those Scriptures, or the most of them, that he grounds many of his answers on, speak only of Preaching to Infidels, and in a Church not constituted. As Acts 8.1.4. Touching the Preaching of the scattered Brethren, Acts 9.20. concerning saul's Preaching, as he pretends, before called to be a Minister: with some other Scriptures, which he quotes over and over again: 'Tis evident they come not up to the Question in hand, which is, whether such as are not Ministers in office, may Preach in a Church constituted. But more of this when I come to answer to the several Scriptures he grounds all his Discourse upon.  
2. Whereas the Question stated is of Preaching taken in a strinct sense; for Pastoral, Ministerial, Public Preaching, Preaching Authoritatively: he disputed for Preaching in a large sense, as it signifies any declaration of truth for the edification of souls, which no body ever denied to belong to the duty of (not gifted Brethren only as he speaks, but) all Christians indifferently in their stations and capacities. Yea, and can you believe it? This valiant Router doth several times take up his heels and run away, and in a manner grant all in controversy, viz. That no gifted brother may preach as one in office; that 'tis sin to usurp the Ministerial office: and yet thinks he is conquering all the while.  
3. Whereas the Question is, whether men not in office may Preach in the sense before expressed, except in extraordinary cases: all that he proves, is, that such did Preach in extraordinary cases, which is not disputed. And he would feign make men believe, that that which may be done in Extraordinary cases, may be done in Ordinary, as page 72. As though rules of order, etc. are not (by God's appointment) to give place sometimes to more weighty and morally necessary things. I would fain know of him (who I perceive is an Anabaptist) whether he, having gained a Proselyte, if he should fall sick before he were dipped, would not defer the dipping of him until he were well? Though the rule be to Baptise straight way upon believing. I know these men use to be quick enough with Proselytes made by them, and will be sure to dip them (if they can) while they are in a good mood; and yet I think they would defer Baptism upon dangerous sickness, an extraordinary case. Besides, pray read Mat. 12.3, 4. Does not Christ there defend David in doing that in an extraordinary case, which the Text says, was otherwise unlawful for him to do? Yea, you find vers. 7. Christ lays down the general standing rule by which we are to walk in such cases, saying, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. And yet this man thinks it strange that we should grant it lawful, that such as are really gifted to teach, should teach publicly, without an external Call, in times of persecution, when there are none in office to be found, and Ordination cannot well be had: and yet say 'tis unlawful when no such extraordinary reason is. Why, tell him (friendly Reader) when thou meetest with him (for he uses to wander abroad) that in such extraordinary cases, God will have mercy and not sacrifice. Those tender bowels of mercy that we own to poor souls, lying in darkness, that cannot otherwise be instructed, may command this particular rule of Order to give place then; though when this necessity is over, he must know God will have mercy and sacrifice too. But you may see the depth of this man's judgement in the matters of God.  
I must tell you christian's (and I think you'll find it to be a true Rule, and therefore heed it) One Scripture witnessing that God hath appointed, and fixed some in office for the work of the Ministry, to attend upon it (a thing that Collier himself grants) is of more strength to condemn the unlimited liberty of Preaching that he pleads for, then twenty examples of gifted men's preaching (in those extraordinary times of persecution and scattering of Christians, which the historical part of Scripture relates) are to defend the same.  
Wherefore those Scriptures that speak of gifted brethren's Preaching, or telling abroad the tidings of Jesus Christ, in those extraordinary unsettled times, (unsettled through the scattering of the Brethren) make nothing to the Question. For the thing disputed, is, whether in ordinary cases, when all things are in a calm, and quiet condition, no great scarcity of able honest men in office; and Ordination to the office may be had, whether then men not in the ministerial office, may practise public Preaching without breach of the rule given to the Churches of Christ. This, which is the main of the Question, he says little too, and what he does say, I will anser anon.  
4. Whereas the Question is, whether such may preach in the sense before set down, without office, or relation and respect thereunto: He argues (sometimes in his Discourse) that they may preach, in order to the trial of their gifts; or else none can ever be duly ordained, and appointed unto the office, seeing probation and trial of gifts must go before Ordination to the office; a thing never questioned, but known to be approved of by those that oppose his corrupt opinion notwithstanding, provided it be by consent of Pastor and People, that such Preach as are not actually invested with the office. We all grant, that one really gifted, may Preach, in ordine ad munus, in order to the office, or as Mr Hall speaks, per modum probationis, as Probationers.  
And here I shall remove an Objection that possibly might be made against mine own practice.  
I acknowledge I Preached now and then, for the space of a year or two, before I was formally ordained. But, 

1. I did so in order to the taking up of the Office of a Minister.  
2. I was never against Ordination, and this was known, though suspected by some, that were least acquainted with my judgement.  
3. 'Twas only while I wanted opportunity of Ordination, in times of the war, and when in Banishment from mine own Country, and before settlement after my return.  
4. I did not this without the approbation of several able godly Ministers, which was virtually an Ordination; and therefore this makes nothing to the countenancing of their practice, that set upon this work without respect to any of these particulars.    
Now then, if you take along with you this third Observation upon his Discourse, you'll see that for the most part he meddles little with the Question, but strikes at random at a man of straw, of his own setting up, merely beating the air, and therefore nothing but air and vanity in his answers.  
Obser. 4. You may take notice also, 
Obser. 4.  that while he pleads for a general liberty of Preaching, even in constituted Churches, he does not inform you how far he would extend this, whither he mean gifted Brethren may Preach in a constituted Church by the consent of the Pastor and people: or whether he mean they may Preach whether they be willing or no: not a word of this, for his design is to advance a disorderly confused practice, in general terms, which he is ashamed to own in plain terms, distinctly laid down: if it were not so, he could never have omitted the satisfying of his Reader in this.  
If so be one that pretends gifts may Preach in a Church constituted, without the consent of the Pastor, and people; then what liberty or power is left unto the Churches of Christ? let any man judge. If a stranger may come and suspend a Church-officer from the execution of his Ministerial duties among his peopie, without his consent, and undertake to teach them, without his approbation; where is Church-liberty and Church-power then? How are Ministers Shepherd's, appointed to keep off Wolves from the Flock, if by the Rules of Christ, any Wolf may come in under the name of a gifted Brother, and devour the flock, cum privilegio, without control?  
If he intends only that a gifted brother may teach in a constituted Church, by the free and unanimous consent, and desire of Pastor and people, why doth he contend? This would not be denied, but that if there be one of known gifts, sound in the faith, that desires to speak to the edification of the people, if he have the free consent of the Pastor, and People, he may: But alas! this will no● serve his turn. I suppose the practice h● pleads for, is the same with that which he, and his Associates have taken up, o● coming tumultuously and forceably into Congregations, without consent, either of Minister or People, to the grea● scandal of the Gospel. Let the tumul● that have been made by this means in Somerset and Devon (what ever has been done in other places) be witnesses, that this is their practice, and therefore 'tis like 'tis that which he here intends: and if so, then pray judge whether this be according to the Gospel, or consistent with christian liberty: and whether any one of all the Scriptures he produces in his book, do give the least countenance to the same; if not, than all he says is vain and impertinent.  
Obs. 5. 
Obser. 5.  In most of his answers he doth not reply to the Scripture-reason alleged against him, but, declining that as a little too hard for him, he answers by affirming the thing disputed, and in controversy, from some few Scriptures which he quotes at least (I think) ten times over. So that he answers by disputing, and takes not off his Adversaries Arguments, but gives you in his own. This I could show you in several particulars, but that I had rather make you see how bad his cause is, then how abfurdly he manages it. Now sigh he grounds all on a few Scriptures (abused by him) if I can demonstrate the impertinency of them to his purpose, and clear them from speaking any thing for his opinion, than you'll say, The Router is Routed. This I shall do in the next place.   

Several Scriptures opened and cleared from giving any countenance to that Babel and confusion pleaded for, by the P. G. Routed.  
THe two first Scriptures that I shall speak to, are, Acts 8.4. Acts 9.20. The first speaks of the scattered Brethren, that Preached. The second of saul's Preaching (as he supposes) before called to be a Minister. These are brought in by him as a running verse in the end of several answers, as being of great weight to his cause, but how little they make for him, shall, I hope, appear.  
Before I speak particularly to them, let me lay you down these two profitable Rules as preparatory.  
Reg. 1. 
Rule 1.  In weighty things of God, a Christian must have a certain, evident rule to warrant his practice, and may not ground it upon likelihood and probability. Though Scriptures be produced that make the thing somewhat likely, yet if they do not necessarily conclude the matter in Question, they are not sufficient to lead any forth unto the practice of the same.  
Reg. 2. Arguments drawn from Testimonies, 
Rule 2.  or examples of men in Scripture, are of credit, according to the credit of the persons whose testimonies, or examples they are. So that if the persons from whose testimony or example the Argument is drawn, be fallible, in their testimony, or example; the Argument drawn therefrom, must needs be infirm, and fallible too.  
These two things being premised, I shall to the clearing of the two Scriptures, which present us with the example of the scattered brethren, and Saul, their Preaching.  
If we should suppose that these precedents did suit the matter in Question (as they do not) for their Preaching was not in a Church constituted, but to Infidels. Yet,  
1. They are the examples of men not infallibly guided in what they did. This is most certain as to the scattered brethren: no man I think will say we have very much reason to judge that they were infallibly guided in what they did, and as to Saul, it is as evident too, supposing that which he affirms, that Saul was a private Christian, and not called forth to be a Minister, if so, than his example is no more infallible than theirs. Now if there be not an infallibility in these examples, they do not necessarily conclude the Jus or right of the thing done, though they make it likely; which is not sufficient for Christians, that (in such weighty matters especially) must walk by a certain rule; so that, if I should say no more, what is become of these two strong holds that he flies to so often? At most they do but conclude a likelihood of the lawfulness of this practice which he pleads for. It concludes only a may be, and may any go upon may bees in such weighty matters?  
But 2. As for the scattered brethren, it is a great Question whether the Apostles (that were at Jerusalem at the time of the scattering of the Christians there) did not give them Commission to Preach, as Mr Hall says, 
The P. G. Routed.  And what has The P. G. Routed, to say to this? Why, says he, The Scripture doth not speak of any such thing. 
Answer.  Very good, neither doth Scripture speak the contrary, and what follows then, but that it is doubtful whether they were sent by the Apostles, or no: and if so, then still doubtful (notwithstanding that example) whether any man else may preach without an external call.  
Besides 3. was their preaching in a constituted Church, and not among the unbelieving Jews rather? as Acts 11.19.  
4. Was it not in an extraordinary season? which as has been proved before, quite altars the case. This Scripture than you see proves nothing certain and to the purpose.  
As for the latter Scripture concerning Saul his Preaching (before he was called to be a Minister, as he affirms) 'Tis evident he Preached, but that he Preached before he was called to be a Minister, is most false. 'Tis true, he Preached before he was solemnly set a part to be an Apostle to the Gentiles; as Acts 13.2, 3. compared with Acts 9.20. proves: but he was called to be a Minister before. And I wonder this man was not afraid to bring in Acts 13.2, 3. lest any should have looked into the verse immediately preceding, verse 1. where it is said expressly, that before this he was one of the Prophets and Teachers that were at Antioch.  
But it may be objected, 
Object.  that the persons there mentioned were Teachers by gift, not by office, and so Saul was not in office before this time.  
I Answer, 
Answ.  All the members of the Church of Antioch were Teachers by gift, according to the measure that they had received (for all Saints are Prophets and Teachers in that sense, as he himself says) but these were Prophets and Teachers that were in the Church that was at Antioch: therefore these must needs be Teachers in another sense then the rest of the members there; and if so, than they were Teachers by office, and not by gift only. Pardon me, if in using this distinction of Teachers by gift, and Teachers by office, I hardly speak sense, for I must conform myself to his language.  
2. Is there not (in that very Chapter which he brings in one Verse of to prove saul's Preaching before called to the office of a Minister, Acts 9) an express history of his call? even by a voice from Heaven. If there needed any proof in this matter, I could show you how verse 6. when Saul cried out, what wilt thou have me to do? the Lord says, Arise, and go into the City, and it shall be told thee what thou must do, etc. He sends him to Ananias, & what Ananias by Vision tells him, (though you have it not fully related in the same Chapter, yet) you have it from saul's own mouth in Chap. 22. vers. 14, 15. viz. That he was to go to be a witness unto the truth which was miraculously given in to him. Was not this a sufficient outward call? Yea more plain Acts 26.16, 17, 18, 19 where you find that God himself in that heavenly Vision told him, that he appeared to him to make him a Minister, vers. 16. and that he did then send him, vers. 17. And yet see, Ah! how often doth this fellow presume to bring in Saul as Preaching before his call, to the office of a Minister, to make his matter good, although Scripture testimony is so express against him.  
Besides, saul's Preaching was not in a constituted Church neither, and therefore the less to his purpose.  
Oh the confidence of men that can triumph in such heterogeneous stuff!  
But let us see whether the Scriptures that are behind will prove any whit better for his turn.  
He often urges 1 Pet. 4.10, 11, Every man as he hath received the Gift, so let him minister the same, etc. And Rom. 12.6, 7. they may be spoken to both under one.  
1. This is a very fare fetched consequence, Christians must administer their gifts: therefore they must be Public Preachers. Is there no way in which a gifted Christian can make use of his Talon, unless he enter upon that work which God hath appointed men in office to do? How many precious souls (when this thing was never heard of) did in former times meet together, & discourse together of the things of God, making use of their gifts in comforting one another, instructing their children, families, friends, in such a way as was convenient, and yet never dreamt of turning Preachers: though they knew they must administer their gifts. The P. G. Routed is unwilling to see the soundness of the distinction between public and private Preaching: Preaching taken in a large, and Preaching taken in a strict sense; which I proved before by two (I think) invincible Arguments. Take that distinction along with you, and you may easily answer what is pleaded from these Scriptures.  
But 2. Doth not this exhortation in 1 Pet. 4. & Rom. 12. extend to women, think you, as well as men? 'Tis in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Every one. Must not women administer their gifts as they have received? I have proved they must, from 2 Tim. 1.5. compared with 2 Tim. 3.15. Acts 18.26. Prov. 31.1. and yet you know they may not Preach publicly in the Church.  
Wherefore the meaning of the two Apostles can be no more but this, Let every one, as he is enabled, labour to communicate good unto others, every one in his proper place, and capacity; if he have the station of a private member, let him use his gifts, by brotherly advice, admonition, etc. if he hath the extraordinary gift of Prophecy (for I shall prove Prophecy signifies an extraordinary gift) let him Prophecy. If he be called to be a Pastor and Teacher, let him attend diligently on that: if a Deacon, let him follow that work faithfully: if a Ruling Elder, let him be diligent and upright in Ruling. Weigh the expressions well, with what I have said, and tell me whether this be not the very direct scope of these two Scriptures now under examination: and if so, then alas what make they for his purpose? sure nothing at all.  
A small matter you see, will lead men that way which the stream of their spiritual pride carries them, or else these Scriptures would not be taken for a sufficient ground for private Christians to undertake the public work of a Minister.  
He sometimes comes in with that in Psal. 145.10, 11. All thy works shall praise thee, O Lord, and thy Saints shall bless thee. They shall speak of the glory of thy Kingdom, and talk of thy power. As though this hath any relation to public Preaching, and not rather to those Christian duties of Prayer, Praise, and Discourse, in which the Saints shall acknowledge God and the great things which he has done for them.  
There is but one Scripture more, and that is the constant place of refuge which he makes use of, when most put to it, and forced to speak to his Question, and that is, 1 Cor. 14.31. which, as he says, proves gifted brethren's liberty to Preach in a Church constituted: This I shall clear in a Discourse by itself, concerning Prophecy, in the next place. In the mean while see how these men cry out for express Scripture, express Scripture, when the Question is about any thing that crosses their fancy; and yet cry down all for Antichristian, and enemies to the Spirit in the Saints, who withstand such things as they can bring no other Scripture for, than what indeed speaks nothing at all to their purpose, being rightly understood: as you see.   

That the gift of Prophecy which we read of in first times of the Gospel Church, was extraordinary, and not as the P. G. Routed, says, proper to all the Saints.  
I Resolved to handle this by itself, and that somewhat largely, because there is no one thing he doth so much insist upon, as this, that Prophesying is an ordinary gift, and (as he says) proper to all the Saints; and therefore, according to Paul, 1 Cor. 14.31. Christian's may all Prophecy, one by one. This then is necessary to be cleared, that the gift of Prophecy was extraordinary, and so ending with the Apostolical times, when the Scriptures were perfected: which if I can do, there will remain nothing unanswered of all he hath written for Preaching without Ordination, or an external call to the Ministerial office.  
You may read, page 79. how that he brings in his Adversary objecting, that the Prophets spoken of in 1 Cor. 14. were extraordinary, and you may observe it, he takes no notice of his Reasons, but answers, I say they were not extraordinary, but ordinary. A good answer, Ipse dixit, Collier says it. This puts me in mind of a story I have heard of a polemical Doctor that used in his Sermons to beat much upon Controversies, & once handling a difference between us and the Papists, he citys Bellarmine, and says, Bellarmine says so, but I say, Bellarmine thou lieft, and where is he now? So this man, Mr Hall says they were extraordinary, but I say, no, where is he now? If his testimony be infallible, than you may take it for a truth, which he so confidently affirms, but if we may believe Scripture before him, I shall discover it to be false: and that, first answering his Arguments, and then laying down mine own.  
I will do him so much right as to give you a view of all his strength, not in one place only, but in every place where he speaks any thing argumentatively to this Question, that nothing may go unanswered. I find five reasons urged not all together, but some in one place, some in another; in page 60.81.83.87. I shall make reply to them in their order.  
His first Reason is in page 60. where he says.  
Prophesying was an extraordinary gift in the time of the Law, 
The P. G. Routed.  but in the Gospel days it is not so: because it is to speak edification, exhortation, and comfort. 1 Cor. 14.3. which is ordinary, and proper to all the Saints.  
You shall have some sophistry from him, though but little good Logic. 
Answer.   
Prophet's speak to edification, etc. Therefore those that speak to edification are Prophets: This is his reasoning. But I answer.  
This is a Fallacy which we call Fallacia consequentis, which is when one thinks consequencies or propositions are convertible, and reciprocal when they are not. 'Tis true, such as were Prophets did speak to edification, etc. But it follows not that if men speak to edification, they are therefore Prophets. This is as if one should argue thus, If it reigned but now, the ground is wet; therefore if the ground be wet, it reigned but now: a mere non sequitur, for the ground may be wet some other way then by rain. Even so he because the Prophets did speak to edification, he thinks he may conclude that if men speak to edification they are Prophets, and so prophecy is ordinary, because speaking to edification is so. It follow not, for though Prophets speak to edification, yet 'tis not that, but the extraordinary spirit by which they speak that denominates them Prophets.  
2. Whereas he says [The Prophets under the Law were extraordinary, but these not, because they did speak to edification.] 'Tis very strange, for is it not evident that the Prophets in the old Testament spoke to edification also? To this he answers two things, page 83. for I will not pass over any thing of weight that he speaks.  
1. 
The P. G. Routed.  This is more than the Scripture affirms.  
Is it not strange that this man should have so much boldness as to speak thus? 
Answ.  He that will question whether Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and the rest of the Prophets did speak to edification in their Prophesying, had need question too whither those Books that go under their names, and contain the sum of their Prophecies, be indeed theirs or no; for is not the matter contained in those Books for edification? Else what do we make with them in our Bibles? Ah filthy blasphemy! See what a bad cause will drive men to. But he adds,  
2. If they did, 
The P. G. Routed.  they took not their denomination of Prophets from this kind of Prophesying.  
Well far a good confidence! 
Answ.  you may take his word for it if you will. If they were not denominated Prophets from this kind of prophesying, from what kind of Prophesying then? Did they ever Prophecy except for edification? Sure the man hath much forgot himself. But for his learning: They were called Prophets, not from the matter of their Prophecies (which was divers) but from the manner of receiving the same from God by Inspirations, Dreams and Visions. See Numb. 12.6. If there be a Prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a Vision, and will speak unto him in a Dream. Hence 'tis that Prophets were called Seers, 1 Sam. 9.9. For he that is now called a Prophet, was beforetime called a Seer. That is, such a one as God reveals himself unto by Vision.  
This name is also given unto the latter Prophets, in many places; as Isa. 30.10. Isa. 29.10. Amos 7.12. to show us, that they were called Prophets as Seers, i. e. men to whom God appeared by Visions, and extraordinary, inspiration, not because they foretold things to come, as he doth intimate. And this I prove also by the following Argument.  
That which did denominate their say Prophecies, did denominate them Prophets, that I hope will not be denied.  
But the extraordinary way of revelation did denominate their say Prophecies. Therefore that did denominate them Prophets.  
That the extraordinary way of revelation did denominate their say Prophecies, not this, that they did foretell things to come (as he intimates) is very evident, in that in Prophesying they spoke not only of things to come, but sometimes of things past, sometimes of things present. 'Tis true, the Prophets often spoke of things to come, but not always, and therefore they were not from thence called Prophets. I shall make this yet more plain to you by giving you forth a definition of Prophecy, that you may know what it is, and whence 'tis that men are called Prophets.  
Prophecy is a manifesting by divine inspiration, 
What Prophecy is.  of hidden or secret things, whether past, present, or to come.  
I say, a manifestation of hidden things, that is, of things that are not, or cannot be known or manifested any other way. 2. By Divine inspiration, which is the only way in which things secret and not revealed can be manifested. 3. I add, Whether the things be past, present, or to come, because Prophesying is not only of things future, but 
(a) Nec futura tantum praedicere est prophetare, sed praeterita, & praesentia humanae scientiae, & industriaeimpossibilia c●gnitu. Fl. Illyr. Cl. Ser. par. 1. p. 973.  present, and past also. Moses, he Prophesied of the Creation of things unknown to others. Elisha by a Prophetical spirit discovered Gehazi's theft, 2 K. 5.25, 26. He disclosed the King of Syria's Counsel, and the present posture of his Army, 2 Kings 6.8, 9 The Prophets often Prophesied of the present wickedness of the people, as in Isai. 1.1, 2. etc. Here you see is Prophesying of things past, and present, as well as things to come. So that the P. G. Routed is much mistaken in the reason he gives why the Prophets in the time of the Law were denominated, or called Prophets: 'Twas not because they foretold things to come, as is proved, but because they manifested to others (by Divine inspiration) things that were secret and not known; whether past, present, or to come, it makes no difference. And observe too, in this they spoke to edification? as was proved before) even as the Prophets spoken of 1 Cor. 14. are said to do. And therefore this reason alleged to prove the Prophets in the Gospel days ordinary, is very frivolous and weak.  
If there were any difference between the Prophets before Christ, and those in the Apostles time, it lay either in the clearness of their Prophecies, one above the other, or else in this, that the inspiration of the one was 
(b) Afflatus Apostolorum non erat similis afflatui Prophetarum non enim erat ecstaticus sed compositus & sedatus, etc. Cam. Tom. 3. p. 319.  Extaticall, and violent; and the other (ordinarily) more quiet and sedate, viz. the inspiration of the Prophets spoken of in 1 Cor. 14. concerning whom 'tis said, vers. 32. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets. That is 
(c) So Fl. Illyr. in his Cl. Script. Part 2. p. 194. And Cam. Tom. 3. p. 76. & p. 461. Expound this place.  the Spirit of Prophecy was not so violent on them, but that they had power to contain themselves, and to stay one for another, and so to speak in order: Whereas usually 'twas otherwise with the Prophets in the Old Testament, in whom the inspiration was many times so violent, that they could not take their own time for Prophesying, as these in the New Testament ordinarily could. But both had an extraordinary inspiration of things secret, and not revealed and manifested: from the which, both the one and the other, were denominated Prophets.  
Now if the P. G. Routed can bring me any in our days that are extraordinarily or immediately inspired by God unto the manifestation of things not revealed already, I will own them to be Prophets, and grant that they may Preach without any other call but their gift: but if there be none such, then there are no Prophets, and so his allegation from 1 Cor. 14. is vain and impertinent.  
But I'll pass to his second reason, to prove the gift of Prophecy ordinary, which is in the same place with the first.  
The Testimony of Jesus is the spirit of Prophecy, 
The P. G. Routed.  Revel. 19.10. But this is given to the brethren. Therefore, etc.  
Here is another Fallacy (I am afraid the Devil has played the Sophister with him, 
Answ. 1.  and taught him to play the Sophister with others) 'Tis that which is called, A dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter, when a thing is said to be simply so, or so; because it is so only in some respect. The Testimony of Jesus is the spirit of Prophecy, not simply, but as it is extraordinarily inspired into such as do Prophecy of Jesus Christ, and of his Kingdom: so considered, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of Prophecy. But now will it follow, the Blackmore is white in his teeth, therefore he is all white, or white, simpliciter, simply? No more will it follow, The Testimony of Jesus (as immediately and extraordinarily inspired, and given in to such as are Prophets) is the spirit of Prophecy; therefore the Testimony of Jesus, simply considered as it is in all the Saints, is the spirit of Prophecy. This follows not.  
And lest any should think I distinguish thus without any ground; you shall find in Chap. 1. vers. 2. John himself distinguishes between the word of God, and the Testimony of Jesus, here called, The spirit of Prophecy. And vers. 9 he says, He was in the Isle of Patmos for the word of God, and for the Testimony of Jesus. That is (as some 
(d) Nempe relegarus fueratin insulam Patmon a Domitiano imperatore (uti fert historia Ecclesrastica) quod singularis, esset Evangelij dei praeco, quodque spiritu prophetico actus Christo singulare redderet Testimonium. Lud. Cappel. Spic. p. 139.  judicious men interpret) he was banished there, for that he was a singular Preacher of the Gospel, and not only so, but because, being acted by a prophetical spirit, he gave a more singular testimony to Jesus Christ, than other ordinary Preachers did. For this extraordinary testimony of Jesus, which he had, together with other Prophets, was he banished, and this is called the spirit of Prophecy.  
Therefore secondly I answer, 
Answ. 2.  that such a testimony of Jesus as is there spoken of, is the spirit of Prophecy, and no other: but in that place, not any Testimony of Jesus is meant, but a special kind of testimony: that is evident, because this clause [The Testimony of Jesus is the spirit of Prophecy] is added to explain what went before, that every one might understand what testimony of Jesus the Angels meant. Says he, I mean by the Testimony of Jesus, the spirit of Prophecy, not every kind of Testimony, but that which is the spirit of Prophecy. If this be not the sense, this clause were needless. Therefore it follows, that 'tis a special kind of Testimony that is here intended, not such as is in all the Saints. You will find if you examine the Text well, that indeed the intent of this clause which The P. G. Routed, urges, is not to signify to us what the Testimony of Jesus is considered simply in itself, but to signify in what sense it is used in the former part of the Verse: So that it makes nothing at all to his purpose.  
3. Compare this Rev. 19.10. with Rev. 22.9. where the same speech of the Angel, is set down, though in other words, and 'twill help to make the sense more clear.  
I have done with his second Reason, let us try the third, and see whether 'twil prove any better: 'tis laid forth in this form.  
Every spiritual man is a Prophet. But the Saints are all spiritual, 
The P. G. Routed.  therefore all Prophets. 1 Cor. 14.37. And by consequence Prophesying is an ordinary gift.  
'Tis well concluded, 
Answ. 1.  if his first Proposition were true. But he had need have a better Scripture for his purpose, to prove it, then that which he brings (1 Cor. 14.37.) or else he must give me leave not to take it for true. The words are, If any man think himself a Prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge, etc. Because 'tis said, a Prophet or spiritual, therefore he concludes, Every spiritual man is a Prophet: How does this follow? May a man conclude because Paul says in the same Epistle, Chap. 5. ver. 11. If any brother be a fornicator, or covetous; therefore every covetous man is a fornicator? I hope not; but grant that [Spiritual] be an epithet given to Prophet, as I believe it is, yet all that can be concluded, is, that every Prophet is a spiritual man: And then, though every Prophet be a spiritual man, yet it will not follow, that every spiritual man is a Prophet, as he concludes, no more than it will follow, Every Goose is a living creature, therefore every living creature is a Goose. If this consequence were good, than the P. G. Routed is a Goose too; and indeed he shows himself little better in this Argument.  
2. He himself says, page 21. The Saints are not all Prophets, but the Saints are all spiritual. Therefore his Argument here, page 60. proves him a liar, page 21.  
2. I answer; 'tis true, every one that is spiritual, i. e. having the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit mentioned before in that Chapter, is a Prophet, but if he takes [Spiritual] in that sense, than the second Proposition of his Argument is false, for all the Saints are not spiritual in that sense.  
You see what is become of his three first Reasons, laid down, page 60. There be two more yet behind, one in page 83. to this purpose.  
These Prophets were such as needed direction from the Apostle, 
The P. G. Routed.  as to the manner and order of Prophesying, which if extraordinary they could rather have directed the Apostles.  
I am persuaded this man hath looked this 1 Cor. 14. many times over, 
Answer. 1.  and yet can you think he should never take notice that the Apostle doth not only give directions to the Prophets there, but prescribes rules also to those that spoke in unknown tongues? ver. 27, 28. And were not they extraordinarily inspired unto that exercise, think you? He himself doth in one place acknowledge it. Therefore 'tis not strange that Paul should give direction to the Prophets, concerning the order and manner of Prophesying, though they were extraordinarily inspired, for you see he does give directions in the same place to some extraordinarily inspired with the gift of tongues: but he is unwilling to take notice of any thing that makes against him. Ah how are these men blinded with love to novelty? They 
* They are drunk with error, and so seldom walk steadily.  stagger and reel near the truth many times, but cannot, or rather will not see it.  
But 2. I answer; these Prophets might be inspired what to speak, 
Answer 2.  but not in what manner and order. You know Prophets infallibly guided in what they spoke, were not always infallibly guided in their actings, but therein might err. Again, all things are not revealed to one, God raised up many Prophets then, and what was not revealed to one was revealed to another. So that it might please the Lord that Paul (who had the spirit of Prophecy more than they all) should have this among other things left to him, viz. to give directions to the other Prophets, as to the manner and order of Prophesying.  
3. 
Answer 3.  This direction might be given by Paul (perhaps) not so much for their sakes who were true Prophets ('tis like they would have kept to this order though Paul had never prescribed it) but rather because of some that might pretend a spirit of Prophecy, when not inspired by God; and so bring in disorder and confusion into the Church: this seems to be intimated, vers. 37.  
But he hath yet one reason more, which lies in page 87. in these words.  
Praying, and Prophesying are put together, 1 Cor. 11.5. was it extraordinary Praying too, 
The P. G. Routed.  I wonder that is left out.  
I answer; 
Answer.  I will put in that too 〈◊〉 his Learning, and prove there was an extraordinary gift of praying then, as well as an extraordinary gift of Prophesying. And indeed 'tis strange, a man that pretends to so much acquaintance with Scripture as he does, should never read of an extraordinary gift of praying, yea and singing too among the Corinthians: Pray read 1 Cor. 14.14, 15. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but mine understanding is unfruitful, etc. What think you of this? is not here extraordinary praying? You may conjecture how these men read Scripture, if they did not rather strive to bring Scripture to their opinions, than their opinions to Scripture, these plain things could not be hid from them.  
You have had an account of the five Reasons he gives to prove the gift of Prophecy to be ordinary, and as he says proper to all the Saints: you shall have as many of mine to prove the contrary.  
My first Reason is, 
Reas. 1.  because it is joined in 1 Cor. 14. with gifts only extraordinary. Observe, that in this whole Chapter there are no gifts spoken of, but such as are extraordinary, as speaking in strange languages, and interpretation of tongues, both which all acknowledge to be extraordinary: as for the first [strange languages] they were used three ways; in preaching, praying, and singing; all these extraordinary, and the Apostle puts in Prophesying among these, and discourses of all promiscuously, as gifts of the same kind, only differing in degrees of excellency, and yet shall we conceive that Prophesying is ordinary, when all the rest that are intermixed in discourse with it, are extraordinary? sure 'tis very unlikely.  
Another parallel place is Ephes. 4.11. where we find Prophets are set between two extraordinary officers, Apostles and Evangelists. He gave some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, etc. Are Apostles and Evangelists extraordinary? and yet Prophets (placed in order between them) ordinary? he must be a very easy and tractible soul that can believe it. But to this he answers somewhat, page 81. and 84. And what is it? Why, lest you should think that Prophets were extraordinary, because joined with Apostles that were so; he says, that Apostles were not extraordinary neither (As for Evangelists, he has nothing to say to them.) Ah alas! what is it that this man will not say to help a bad cause. Apostles were no Extraordinary officers he thinks if he put a good face upon it, 'twill pass.  
But what is his Reason? you have it page 84. Apostles (says he) signifies 〈…〉 sent. O profound reasoning! Therefore all that are sent are Apostles. And wh● may not I say as well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Angels signifies Messengers. There all Messenger are Angels. The Prophets of old were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Seers, or men seeing. Therefore all that see are Prophets. I confess this way they may be all Prophets, if they have not lost their eyer. But if any man should argue thus, would you not laugh at him? Would you not answer him? true, all that See as the Prophets did, Divine and extraordinary Visions, are indeed Prophets. Why so? pra● answer this man, that all that are Sent 〈…〉 the Apostles were, by extraordinary revelations, and by an immediate call from God, and are guided to speak infallibly as they were, are Apostles, and none else: ●nd such I hope will be acknowledged to be extraordinary persons, by all that are not extraordinary stupid.  
But he says, Apostles are men sent to gather Churches, or to gather Saints, as his words are: why then, all that are sent to gather Churches, are Apostles. What will he say of the seventy Disciples, the seattered Brethren, were not they sent to gather Saints? Or were they therefore all Apostles? I am sure he argues very stiffly, page 70. That they were not Apostles. An what confusion is here? they were Apostles, and they were not Apostles: any thing for a shift.  
I would not so particularly discover his weakness, and absurdity, but that he deceives many with the opinion of much knowledge, when alas you may see he appears as very an Ignoramus, as ever, I think, was read in print.  
My second Reason is, 
Reas. 2.  because this word Prophet has been always used to signify a person extraordinarily inspired by God, when taken in a good sense: and to signify a Diviner, or a man of a familiar spirit, when taken in a bad sense. I might bring at least an hundred Texts to prove this, if 'twere needful: but, because he says Prophets under the Gospel were not such as they were that were under the Law. I shall only bring some Scriptures out of the New Testament, to prove that the Prophets were such them too. As for Agabus, Act. 11.27. he acknowledges he was extraordinary, because as foretold things to come. But what with he say to Zecharias, Luke 1.22.67, etc. Ananias, Act. 9.10. Cornelius, Act. 10.3. Peter, Act. 10.10.19. Paul, 2 Cor. 12.1. etc. Act. 9 The Disciples mentioned, Acts 19.6. Were not all these Prophet by extraordinary Vision and Inspiration? Do not the Texts before mentioned make it plain? I could give more instances, as in the Prophets that were at Antioch, to whom also God did speak immediately, Acts 13.1, 2.  
Now if all these Prophets (which an more than we read of in all the New Testament beside) were extraordinarily inspired, and there be no reason in Scripture why we should question the like of the rest; I hope we may conclude that Prophets even in the Gospel days, were extraordinary also; and by consequence that those in 1 Cor. 14. Ephes. 4.11. were not ordinary, but such as the rest before mentioned.  
Will any man (unless one that hath prostituted his soul to Novelty) presume to interpret a Scripture expression in one or two places diversely, from the constant acception of the same in all other places of Scripture where it is used, without any forcible reason? I believe this consequence will hold, and appear necessary. Prophet is constantly used in Scripture, to signify one extraordinarily inspired and gifted to teach; and there is no good reason why it may not signify the same in 1 Cor. 14. Ephes. 4.11. etc. Therefore it signifies one extraordinarily inspired in those places also.  
That the word Prophet is constantly used in Scripture to signify one extraordinarily inspired, etc. I proved even now.  
Whether any good reason be given why it should not signify so in 1 Cor. 14. etc. as well as in other places, you may judge by my answer to his reasons before; if not, than you easily find the consequence that will follow, viz. That the word Prophet as used in 1 Cor. 14. etc. doth signify one extraordinarily inspired to teach, not an ordinarily gifted brother, as the P. G. Routed would have it.  
My third Argument follows. 
Reas. 3.   
If the gift or spirit of Prophecy given out to the New Testament Prophets, be a fulfilling of that promise, Joel 2.28. than it is extraordinary, for that promise speaks of extraordinary gifts, as appears by the plain words thereof.  
But the gift or spirit of Prophecy given out to the New Testament Prophets, is a fulfilling of that promise.  
Therefore it is extraordinary.  
All that I have to prove is the second Proposition, That the gift of Prophecy given out to the Prophets mentioned in the New Testament, is a fulfilling of that promise, Joel 2. And if any man doubt of this, let him look into Acts 2.16, 17. where the extraordinary gifts poured out on the Apostle there, are said in express terms to be a fulfilling of that promise. Now that could be a fulfilling of it only in part; for the promise says, Your sons and your daughters shall Prophecy and see Visions, etc. Which can have relation to no other but the Prophets, both Men and Women, that were in the Church of Antioch, Act. 13.1. And the Church of Corinth, & other Churches in those days. Therefore they were extraordinary Prophets.  
In the fourth place I argue thus.  
If Prophesying be set down by the Apostle as distinct from ordinary teaching, 
Reas. 4.  than it is not the same with it, and so ordinary as that is.  
But Prophesying is set down by the Apostle, as distinct from ordinary teaching, in Rom. 12.6, 7, 8.  
Therefore prophesying is not ordinary, and the same with ordinary teaching.  
There is nothing in this Argument that I can see needs any further proof.  
Fifthly, 
Reas. 5.  It appears that this gift of prophecy was not ordinary, and (as he says) proper to all the Saints, upon this reason, because the gift of prophecy was given to others beside the Saints, therefore not proper to them. Some had the gift of prophecy that had no saving grace in them, as you may gather from 1 Cor. 13.1, 2. Mat. 7.22. John 11.50, 51. Now that which is given to others beside Saints, is not proper to Saints. Neither can the spirit or gift of prophecy be the experimental knowledge of Christ (as he says) so as that every one that has experience of Christ, and can speak of it, is a Prophet: because some you see, had indeed the gift of Prophecy, that never had any spiritual experience of Christ in their lives.  
These are mine Arguments to prove that the gift of prophecy is extraordinary; I could add more but that there is no need, the thing is so plain.  
Now you may see what is become of his strong Bulwark, which he says, all our wisdom cannot undermine, page 79. 'Tis only a Castle in the air, and so I leave it. Only take notice, that I having sufficiently proved that the gift of Prophecy, and the Prophets spoken of in the New Testament, were extraordinary, and spoke by Vision, and inspiration; it follows, that all he brings to defend the preaching of gifted brethren, from the liberty of prophesying, is nothing to the purpose; unless his gifted Brethren have extraordinary Visions, or Inspirations, as the Prophets than had.  
I think I have now levelled all his strong holds with the ground, and thou wilt not meet with any thing spoken to by him Argumentatively, but hath a sufficient answer in what I have writ. Some imputations, reproaches, slanders, rail, going along almost in every leaf, I shall leave to thy charity to confute, desiring in quietness to pass them over.  
And although there be enough Arguments unanswerably to prove the unlawfulness of private-gifted-christians preaching, among those 20 laid down by Mr Hall in his Pulpit Guard: Yet shall I cast in my mite after, consisting only of four Arguments, and those but very briefly touched upon.   

Same additional Arguments, proving that all Gifted Brethren may not Preach, viz. as Gifted Brethren, not being appointed unto the Office, etc.  

The First Argument.  
IF God hath not appointed and ordained that all gifted brethren should live of the Gospel, 
Arg. 1.  than all gifted brethren may not Preach the Gospel.  
But God hath not ordained that all gifted brethren should live of the Gospel.  
Therefore all gifted brethren may not Preach the Gospel.  
The consequence of my first proposition (which is that that I suppose will be denied) I prove by a plain Scripture, 1 Cor. 9.14. where 'tis said, Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel. The words need no Paraphrase. God hath ordained that all those that Preach the Gospel, should be maintained that way: if you may be public Preachers, you may challenge a maintenance too: God has ordained you should have it for Preaching, 'tis evident in the Text.  
But now as to the second proposition, that God has not ordained that all gifted Brethren should live of the Gospel, that is, by a maintenance given them for Preaching of the Gospel; I think it will not be denied. For if so be that a maintenance is to be given to all such, than it must be provided by some body or other: now I would feign know by whom. All Christians by his confession are gifted more or less to teach, now from whom should their maintenance rise, if but the greatest part of them should turn Preachers? Oh see this Babel and abhor it for shame: God does not ordain things impossible.   

The Second Argument.  
If to Preach publicly be to exercise authority over others, 
Arg. 2.  than none may Preach publicly but such as have Ministerial authority: which is not without the office.  
But to Preach publicly is to exercise Authority. Therefore, etc.  
The first proposition is undeniable.  
The second I prove by another plain Scripture, 1 Tim. 2.12. where Women are forbidden to teach publicly, because they may not usurp authority over the Man: Intimating, that to teach is to exercise Authority over those that are taught.  
If any should reply against the last clause of the first proposition, that the gift bestowed by God gives authority to the person, though the office be wanting. I answer, if the gift without the Office could give authority, than women's gifts would give them Authority too over the man; but that's not so: therefore, etc. And here by the way you may take notice of another ground for the distinction between public and private Teaching. Private teaching is no exercising of Authority, for women might do that (as was proved formerly) who yet might not exercise Authority: Yea, and for a Christian to give private admonition, advice, or reproof, to his brother, is no usurping of Authority over him. But public Preaching (as you see) is to exercise Authority.   

The Third Argument.  
If there be power in the Church to keep of Wolves, 
Arg. 3.  i. e. false Teachers from the Sheep, than all that conceive they are gifted, may not Preach till they are approved by such as have power in the Church.  
But the antecedent is undeniable.  
Therefore the consequent is so too.  
The connexion of the antecedent and consequent is unquestionable, for if men may Preach without being approved first by such as have power in the Church, than (though they should be Wolves) the Church have no power to keep them off. But they have power to keep such off; read Revel. 2.20.   

The Fourth Argument.  
If to appoint unto the office of a Minister, 
Arg. 4.  and to the work of a Minister, be all one, than no man is appointed unto the work of a Minister (viz. Preaching) but he that is appointed to the office.  
But to appoint to the office of a Minister, and to the work of a Minister, is all one.  
Therefore no man is appointed unto the work of a Minister (viz. Preaching) but he that is appointed to the office.  
The first proposition he that has Collier's impudence twice over cannot well question.  
The second I shall prove by showing you what it is to be appointed or ordained to the office of a Minister. And me thinks this should be no very hard thing to understand, except unto such as are not willing to see. He, you know, is said to be appointed to such or such an office, who is (by such as have power) entrusted with, or commanded to the work thereto belonging. So to be put into the Office of a Constable, is only to be appointed (by such as have power) to do the work of a Constable. And so it is in other offices. Now even so to be appointed to the Office of a Minister, is to be entrusted with, and sent forth to the work of a Minister, by such as have power to do the same. So that you see to be appointed to the work, and to the office of a Minister, is the same: And therefore his distinction of Preachers by office, and Preachers by gift, without the office, (made use of so often by him) is mere nonsense.  
Now the power of sending forth men to the work of the Ministry, is in God alone, by Jesus Christ. And he does the same, either immediately, by himself, viz. by Visions and extraordinary inspirations, and revelations: or mediately, by those that have power in the Church. If therefore his gifted brethren be appointed to the work of the Ministry, neither immediately by God himself, as before by extraordinary Vision, etc. as were the Prophets and Apostles: nor mediately, by such as have power in the Church, than they have nothing to do with the said work: but if they put themselves upon the same, that is verified in them that is spoken by the Prophet, They run, but I sent them not, etc.  
If this be not plain enough, 'tis because there is no light in thee; or if any, yet covered over with such a thick vail (I am afraid) of pride, or prejudice, as a divine power only can remove. If thou see not this truth, all that I can do more, is but to mourn in secret for thy blindness.  
I have done with this Question.    

His Seventh Error.  
That Humane Learning is no way necessary unto a Minister of the Gospel, but that a man may Expound, and open the difficulties of Scripture, stop the mouths of Gain-sayers, etc. as well without it as with it.  
THis he contends stiffly for in page 38, 39, 41. Saying,  
The Power of the Spirit of Christ in Saints, 
The P. G. Routed.  is sufficient to make men able to divide the word aright, to convince Gain-sayers, to find out the fullness and emphasis of the Original, etc.  
Now that you may not be deceived by his ambiguous terms, 
Answer.  nor mistake me in what I shall say, take a little direction along with you; for I love not to walk in the clouds of doubtful expressions, as he does, whose design is to cheat you.  

1. I do not question but the spirit of Christ is sufficient to do as he says, if he pleased, for besides that he is Omnipotent, we have examples in Scripture showing that he hath immediately supplied the want of humane Learning, by extraordinary gifts of Tongues, and interpretation of tongues. But the question is not, whether the spirit be sufficient, but, whether a Christian (by the spirit, as now it works in the Saints) may be sufficient unto these things, being not furnished in some measure with skill in the languages, etc.  
2. The Question is not, whether or no the main and principal Doctrine of the Scriptures be so plainly laid down as that a Christian may attain unto the knowledge of the same without Humane learning, that is granted if he have a Translation (which cannot be but by the help of some that are learned) he may.   
But the Question is, whether the emphasis and fullness of particular Scriptures can be found out, and the difficulties of dark places opened, without these outward helps; or rather, whether a spiritual Christian, furnished with the additional help of Learning, cannot bring forth more of the sense and meaning of Scripture, and give a better account of the same, than another that has not Learning; if he can (which is that which we affirm) then Humane Learning is requisite unto one that will be a public Preacher, and Expounder of Scripture: Though not absolutely necessary, so as that where no learned men are, none may be Preachers: yet by a necessity of expediency, so as that such as are learned only are to be chosen to that work, if there be enough to be had. Learning is not necessary to make a Minister, but to make a Minister complete.  
If you object (as he does) that the Apostles, etc. were not learned, yet complete Ministers.  
I answer; The Lord supplied in them the want of Humane acquired Learning, with the extraordinary gift of Tongues, and Interpretation of Tongues: 'Tis true, he found them unlearned, but he would not leave them so, when they were to be his Ministers. If you consider this well, it will make most against him of any thing else. For, Observe it, God would not have those that are employed by him in such a great work as the Ministry of the Gospel is, to be destitute of Learning, no not Humane: for so was that which they had in a sense, differing nothing from the gift of Tongues, and Interpretation of Tongues, that now is among us, but in this, that the one was immediately inspired, the other acquired by industry, and study: both humane in this respect, because conversant about that which is humane, viz. The Languages of several Nations. God saw it fit then that they should not be without this part of Humane Learning, he saw it to be requisite to complete them for their work, therefore much more is it requisite now.  
You have the state of the Question, and me thinks the very stating of it makes the matter so plain and out of doubt, that little needs to be spoken more to clear the same; for I think there is no man (that hath any ingenuity in him) but will acknowledge, that a spiritual Christian that hath the help of humane Learning, is able to unfold more of Scripture, and do better to the clearing of the same, than another that hath not learning. But least any man should be so absurd as to think otherwise (as The P. G. Routed does) I shall give a few instances for the proof of the same among many more that might be brought.   

Some SCRIPTURES and Scripture-Expressions, a good account of which cannot be given, without the help of Humane Learning.  

1. THe P. G. Routed could not tell you that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Apostle, signifies one scent (to clear a Scripture he speaks to from mistake, as he conceives) without looking into the Original, either with his own eyes or some other man's. For I take it for granted that he will not say he knew Apostolos did signify one sent, by inspiration. Ex ore suo, etc. Out of his own mouth shall he be condemned.  
2. You cannot give any reason why Christ should say to Peter, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church: unless you be acquainted with the Original, and so see the affinity (in sound) of those two words, Petros, Peter, and Petra, a Rock, which Christ had respect to in that speech.  
3. You can give no reason why, nor discover the mystery that lies in this, that Our Mediator is called Christ Jesus, Messiah, etc. because without the Original Languages, you know not what these names do signify.  
4. In the 2 Tim. 3.5. mention is made of some having a FORM of godliness, but denying the power of it. And in Phil. 2.6. 'tis said of Christ, that he was in the FORM of God, etc. Why may not one that denies the Divinity of Christ, say, the meaning of the latter Text is only, that Christ was in the outward appearance of God, seeing that in the former place the word FORM signifies only the outward show and appearance? How can you withstand this Interpretation, unless you know that (though our English word be the same in both places, yet) the word used in the Original in the former Scripture signifies only the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  outward show or appearance; that used in the latter signifies the 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  essential form of a thing.  
5. How can any man give a rational account of the meaning of that which we read, Rom. 5.7, 8. unless he be in some measure acquainted with the Jewish Antiquities? where we are given to understand, that the Body of the Jewish people were distinguished into three sorts. The 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Chasidim, i. e. Good men. The 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Tsadikim, i.e. just or righteous men. And the 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Reschangnim, i. e. wicked or ungodly men, to which the Apostle has respect.  
6. How will a gifted Brother without Learning clear the difficulty that lies in that which is written in Matth. 1.23. compared with Luke 2.21? In the former place it is said (according to the Prophecy of the Prophet, Isa. 7.14.) That Christ's Name should be called Emmanuel: And in the latter place 'tis clear, that at his Circumcision, when he came to be named, he was Named Jesus. There is no salving of this seeming opposition, but by being acquainted with the Hebraisme in the former place: for according to the Hebrews manner of speaking, to be called signifies to be: and so it will consist well enough with what is written in the latter Text. For he was to be named by the name Jesus, and he was to be Emmanuel, i. e. God with us.   
An hundred more such instances might I give you both in the Old and New Testament, of such Scriptures as you cannot give a clear account of, but by the help of Learning, or by the help of such as are Learned. But I think this is enough to demonstrate his ignorance in saying, (without any reason, or any answer to what is urged against him) that there is no use of Learning to the unfolding and clearing of Scripture, though I should say no more.  
But there is yet one thing besides, which I cannot pass over, page 41. speaking against the needfullnesse of humane Learning, he quarrels with his Adversary for using the word Holy Ghost, ask deridingly of him, 
The P. G. Routed.  whether there be any such word in all the Scripture.  
1. 
Answ.  I know not what Scripture this man hath got, but in that which we account Scripture, the word is used near an hundred times, even in the New Testament.  
But 2. It may be that he hath heard that the words in the Original [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] signify Holy Spirit. And how came he to know that, but by the help of Humane Learning? Though he hath little reason to except against the English translation of those words. (Ghost and Spirit being all one, only it may be the one a word more obsolete and out of use then the other) yet if it be true what his exception implies, that the English Translation is not exact in all points, then sure there is need of Humane Learning to perfect it. For we had not the English Translation at first without the help of the Learning of the Translatours, nor can we have it mended but by the labour and help of such as are Learned, that can look into the Original. And if so, is not Humane Learning necessary to an Expositor of Scripture?  
There needs a wiser man by far then I am to reconcile this man to himself. He quarrels with Translations as imperfect, and yet holds there is no need of Learning to rectify them.  
But I have yet somewhat more to say before I leave this Question. Seeing the design of such men (as the P. G. Routed) is to deceive the simple with fair pretences to the honour of Christ, and the Spirit, and to make them believe that others (that oppose their corruptions) do strive to diminish and darken the glory of the operation of the Spirit of Christ in his Saints, that they may set up somewhat that is humane in the room of the same. I shall lay down three or four Conclusions or Notes, to give you some light in this thing, that you may know What is the work of the Spirit in revealing Truth to, or in the Saints. And How outward Humane helps to find out the sense of Scripture are consistent with, and subservient to the same.  
1. I grant it to be an unquestionable truth, that no man is able without the sweet and gracious operation of the spirit of truth, savingly to understand and embrace the mysteries of truth that are revealed in the Scriptures. The natural man (says the Apostle, 1 Cor. 2.14.) receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned. That is, he cannot know them effectually, savingly, he cannot know them as the spiritual man does, whose mind and heart is renewed through grace. However,  
2. There is not any Scripture understood by spiritual Christians, the true Grammatical sense of which, a man that hath not the Spirit of Christ may not attain unto, by those outward helps that are afforded to him. A notional knowledge of the sense of Scripture, is common to natural, as well as spiritual men. Else knowledge were an infallible Character of grace; which no body, I suppose, will affirm. So that,  
3. (Observe it) That most blessed and heavenly work that the Lord Jesus has to do by his Spirit, in his Saints, is not so much to discover the Grammatical sense of Scripture (which may be found out by such as live much below Christ) as to bring home the sense of Scripture close to the heart, and to enlighten the mind to see the beauty and goodness of that truth, that swims only in the brains of Natural men. The work of the Spirit is to engrave truth upon the heart, to make our knowledge effectual, practical, and experimental. Ah alas! many (I am afraid) are carried very high in the air of sublime Angelical Notions, upon the wings of such a knowledge as the Apostle says, puffeth up, who are all the while strangers to this work of the Spirit, which is not to fill men's heads, but their hearts, with the truth.  
'Tis much to be suspected, that such as would make you believe that the work of the Spirit of grace, is to discover the sense of Scripture, have never yet felt this saving work on their hearts. The Spirits work is not so low, and ordinary. If it were as these men would have it, why, then the work of the Spirit were only to make Notionists. Ah! let not Christians be deceived; knowledge puffeth up, 'tis love edifies.  
Scripture is sufficient to discover its own sense to all men diligently improving the outward helps afforded by God (though a sanctified and saving knowledge of the same, be communicated to none but through the Spirit) otherwise Scripture were no perfect rule, yea indeed not rule at all: For what is a Book or Waiting, without its meaning? 'Tis not the words or expressions, but the sense of Scripture that is man's rule: if that be not visible, we have no visible rule, yea and if the Scriptures be given out in such terms and expressions, as do not discover their own meaning, what are they? or of what use? Besides, if they do not declare their own meaning, but every one must fetch it from an immediate work of the spirit, what were this but to make the Scripture a Nose of Wax (as the Papists speak) pliable to any sense that the darkness and vanity of men's minds will put upon it?  
Surely, he that denies a sufficiency in Scripture to clear its own meaning to one that uses the outward means to that end afforded, denies Scripture to be any rule at all.  
But to make this plain, suppose a Question arise about the sense or meaning of a particular Text; one says this is the meaning, another that: which way will you go to decide the controversy? Will you go to the revelation of the Spirit in you? Or to the letter of Scripture, arguing from the proper signification and use of such words and expressions, as are in the Text disputed of? If you have recourse to the supposed revelation of the Spirit of Christ in you, why then the Scripture is not your rule: and how will you follow the Apostles advice, which is To try the spirits, & c? If you have recourse to the letter of Scripture, and argue from it, than Scripture has sufficient in it to make out its own sense.  
Scripture, 'tis true, contains in it an heavenly mystery, that is hid from the wise and prudent. But what is the reason 'tis hid? Paul will tell you in 2 Cor. 4.3, 4. If our Gospel be hid, 'tis hid to them that are lost. In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, etc. Mark the ground of this, that the Gospel is hid, is because they are blinded through unbelief. The Devil ruling in natural men by fin and corruption, doth hinder them from giving hearty welcome unto the Truth. Questionless the most of those that heard Paul's Preaching, knew what he meant in his Sermons: and yet the Gospel was hid to many of them: how so? why, they believed not: Their understandings and affections did not close in with those heavenly mysteries of God's love which he did discover, so as to assent unto the reality of what was Taught, and to love, and delight in the same. The Gospel is as a sealed Book to natural men, because of the corruption that is in the heart, and in the mind, from whence it comes to pass that they cannot see the reality, beauty, and goodness of Scripture discoveries; 'tis not because there is not plainness enough in Scripture expressions, or because the Ministers of the Gospel do not speak plain enough when they Preach Christ to them, but because through corruption their minds are averse from assenting to, and closing with the Truth.  
Now you must know that the work of the Spirit is to heal the understanding, and to sanctify and change the heart, and to make it pliable to the Truth; yea, and to stir up the whole man withal, unto a more diligent use of means of knowledge: Thus the Spirit of Christ brings in truth unto the soul, and that so as it dwells and becomes fruitful in the heart, and in the conversation. This is a step higher than the quaintest Notionists of our times desire to be brought. If Truth were thus revealed in them, they would be more humble, more peaceable, more meek, then now they show themselves.  
In short, I know not any truth in Scripture which a true Christian hath an effectual and practical knowledge of by the Spirit, but a natural man may know the same, only his heart is not sanctified through the Truth. Truth is not in him in power. The work of the spirit is to bring that into the heart, which by outward means and helps, may be brought into the head.  
Now then 4ly. I honour I admire, I prise this blessed work of Jesus Christ, by his Spirit in his Saints, revealing Truth in them. But this no way opposes the expediency and needfullnesse of outward helps, to bring men to the knowledge of truth, which is that I plead for. The Spirit is pleased to make use of them, not that it elf needs them, but because we need them.  
The Spirit can communicate truth to souls without reading, hearing, meditation, etc. and yet seeing the Lord hath declared that he hath appointed these as the means that he will only (in an ordinary way) make effectual to the enlightening of the soul; I hope 'tis no dishonour to the Spirit of truth to say, that without these men cannot come to the knowledge of the Truth. Even so, the Spirit can by Extaticall Revelations, or an immediate inspiration, give in truth unto the Preachers of the Gospel now, as he did to the Prophets, and Penmen of Scripture of old; but because (as has been proved in confutation of the fourth Error) God does not now reveal himself to any after that manner, the Scripture rule being perfected; I hope it takes nothing from the honour of the Spirit to say, that the outward help of Learning, etc. is expedient, and needful for a Minister of the Gospel; and that Scripture cannot be well opened and cleared without it.  
Alas! these men are mistaken of the work of the Spirit, one part of which is (as I hinted before) to stir up souls unto a faithful, diligent use of the outward means afforded for to lead them unto the knowledge of his mind in the word. The work of the Spirit is to stir up private Christians to make use of the means they have, as Reading, Hearing, etc. And to stir up Ministers to make use of their helps, and to bring in to the service of Jesus Christ in this great work of the Ministry, all that knowledge both divine and humane, which they can attain unto. Not, as these men would have it, to cast away as useless all outward helps, and fit still, waiting when knowledge will drop into their mouths, without any use of means.  
But you may smell what these men drive at.  

1. They are loath that any sort of men should be thought to have any thing more than themselves.  
2. They would feign have their own spirits or fancies to be the judge of the sense of Scripture, that so their glosses on the same may go for currant, though they have no affinity at all with the true Grammatical sense, and then his Exposition shall be best, that has most boldness and confidence in asserting it.   
Oh the wantonness and vanity of a proud heart! Let Christians take heed.  
I have spoken I suppose sufficiently to this matter.  
Whereas he says, 
The P. G. Routed.  The Spirit of Christ is enough to make men able Disputants, such as can convince gainsayers.  

1. You may see how true it is by himself, 
Answ.  who pretends to more gifts of the Spirit then ordinary: If he can dispute no better than he writes, I undertake that the meanest of the Romish Emissaries will easily argue him out of all his Religion.  
2. How evident is it to every man's experience, that there are thousands of precious souls that have the truth so deeply engraven upon their hearts, that all the powers of darkness cannot take it from them; and yet are not able to maintain it in dispute against cunning opposers. Of which number was that Martyr that said, I can die for Christ, though I cannot dispute for him.   
But let this suffice you in short as a defence of Humane Learning so much slighted.  
I confess 'tis but a very small portion of it (in comparison of many of my Brethren) that I ever attained to, being soon taken off from the University, by the breaking forth of our Civil Wars. But as for that little which I have, I may say of it as Luther did of his skill in the Hebrew Language, I would not change it for all the riches in the World. Neither indeed should I know what to do in the Ministry without it. Though withal I must profess too that God has been very gracious to me (I must speak it to his praise) in blessing mine endeavours very much upon the little stock I have. Unto which blessing especially, I must attribute that sufficiency I have unto my Ministerial duties.  
'Tis said, Learning has never any adversary to withstand it, but Ignorance: I have so much learning as makes me see the worth and usefulness of Learning. And truly my experience of the same enforces me to speak upon this subject (among other things) which I know the squeamish stomaches of many will not relish very well: However I shall take comfort in this, that I have done my duty.   

His Eighth Error.  
That the Ministry of ENGLAND is Antichristian.  
THis lies in the end of his Book, and I believe to persuade men of this, is his end: First in his intention, though last in execution. His design is not so much to make more Preachers, as to vilify those that are already as Antichristian, and no Ministers.  
'Tis an heavy charge this that he brings in, not against some, but all Ministers: I shall examine the strength of what he urgeth to make it good.  
That which he speaks is either in answer to what is pleaded on their behalf by his Adversary: or else something that he urgeth against them. I shall give you mine answer to every thing in its order; so as that you shall easily perceive that what he writes is grounded either on pitiful ignorance, or else on certain slanderous, reproachful, uncharitable calumnies, springing out of his unsanctified, malicious spirit, in which he cannot expect to be believed by any, but such as have made shipwreck of love and godliness, as he himself (I am much afraid) has.  
Mr Hall in his Book has six Arguments to prove that the Ministers of England are not Antichristian: before I take off his answers to these Arguments, I shall reply to somewhat that he has to say against something that Mr Hall speaks in Answer to an Objection, to this purpose.  
The Authority of a Minister doth not depend on the persons Ordaining, but principally on Christ's inward call, discerned by gifts, etc. We have our Ordination from Christ, by Bishops, and Presbyters, etc.  
To this he gives answer in these words.  
You yourselves have concluded the Bishop's Antichristian in their calling, 
The P. G. Routed.  and is yours Christian? A Riddle.  
Did ever any of those that have pleaded against the usurped power of Bishops, 
Reply.  say that Bishops are Antichristian simply considered? We all say their Lordly power which they assumed to themselves over other Ministers, was Antichristian, not the Calling of Bishops consider it simply, as it signifies no other than the calling of a 
* Which is the true & ancient sense of the word Bishop.  Pastor or Elder. He might know if he were not wilfully blind, that those that have pleaded against the Lordly power of Bishops, have constantly affirmed, that the calling and office of a Bishop, and a Pastor, or Elder, are one and the same, and so that Power which they usurped over their Brethren, was Antichristian, and nothing else.  
But secondly, he adds,  
The outward calling you have from them, 
The P. G. Routed.  and can they give you that they have not themselves? A Paradox.  
He should have proved that the Bishops had not the outward calling of Ministers. 
Reply.  Though Christ never called them to that superintendency over their fellow-Ministers, which they took to themselves, yet he called many of them to the office of Ministers, and in that respect they might ordain and approve others to that office. This he has nothing to say to, unless a confident dictate in the next page, in answer to this. That Bishops were Ministers, and Ordained, not as Lord Bishops, but as Presbyters: To this he says,  
You juggle with the business, 
The P. G. Routed.  etc. Who knows not that not long since the name of Presbyter was a stranger among us, and to yourselves too?  
Who knows not? 
Reply.  There is no man that is not as blind and ignorant as The P. G. Routed is, but knows that the name of Presbyter was ever as frequent among men of knowledge, as that of Bishop, and known to be the name of Ministers of the Gospel, and so used, though his ignorance makes him so bold as to say, we were strangers to it. Hardly any that have written of the Ministry, but have used this name or title more or less, to signify Ministers in office.  
So that we do not new name Bishops in calling them Presbyters (as he affirms) we give them their old name which they had before ever Lord Bishops were known.  
'Tis known that in former ages of the Church, a Bishop was only as the Chairman of the Eldership, not having any power over the rest. Now as such (not in respect of the additional power, which by favour of Princes they got into) did they ordain our Ministers. This is no juggling (I hope) but plain enough for any to understand.  
Whereas he says, 
The P. G. Routed.  Why is not Episcopos as good Scripture, as ancient, as honourable, as Presbyteros, an Elder?  
I answer, who says but it is? 
Answ.  Therefore we allow both the name and office of a Bishop, as he is the same with a Preaching Elder. But this he suggesteth to persuade his unwary Reader, that our Ministers do deny that they were Ordained by Bishops as Bishops; when as 'tis only denied that they were ordained by them as Lord Bishops. If this be not a cheating trick to deceive the weak, let any man judge. But he adds.  
If they were Ministers and so ordained you, 
The P. G. Routed.  you have done ill to Preach them down as Antichristian. And so to lay them aside as no Ministers.  
Who ever did so, 
Answ.  unless such rash spirits as himself? Is it not known that those that were faithful and godly among them, have been, and still are looked upon as Ministers? And do Preach Christ (and that too by appointment of Authority) in this Nation. I am sure they did not long since 
* Dr. Hall, Dr. Usher, & others.  and if not dead do yet; and yet see how impudently he vaunts upon this account [Where is your call from them now?] Notwithstanding his confidence, those Bishops that were godly were never denied to be true Ministers, though they were justly spoken against in respect of their usurped power. They sinned in taking that power to themselves that Christ never gave them, but that did not make void that ministerial power which they had from Christ, by virtue of which, they ordained and appointed other Ministers.  
Whereas 'tis moreover urged against him, That the Power of the Presbytery is only Ministerial, whereby it testifies, declares, and approves of those whom God approves and calls. This, I perceive by his answer he doth not understand, and therefore I shall help him a little according to my apprehension of it, because indeed it makes very much to the clearing of this Question. Wherefore take notice, that the Presbytery do not give the Minister's authority to him: That is from God, who appoints officer in his Church for the edification, and comfort thereof. The Presbytery do only testify and declare (after they have proved and examined) that such and such are approved and called of God: that so they may be Ministers and in authority unto the Church, and may give themselves to the work of the Ministry with more freedom, having such a Seal to their Mission. Now it being so, that the authority and office descends to our Ministers from Christ, and their Ordination by the Presbytery, is but their Ministerial testifying to the same; if that which is testified of our Ministers be real, and true (that is, if they be men that have an inward call from Christ) the corruption of those that did approve and testify, cannot at all make void their office. So that those that are really gifted, and are faithful among our Ministers (for I plead only for such) are true Ministers of Christ, notwithstanding some spots of Antichristianisme (if you will call it so) not then discovered to them, did stick upon those that did testify, declare, and appoint them to be Ministers. For that blemish which stuck on the Ordainers, could no way redound to them that were Ordained any further than they did approve the same in them; and therefore now can redound nothing at all to such as have condemned, and publicly declared against the same, as our faithful Ministers have done.  
This is a thing of special note as to the clearing of the controversy in hand; and though Mr Hall gives a sufficient hint of it, yet The P. G. Routed passes it over as though he understood it not, when indeed I rather think 'tis because he could not tell what to say to it.  
Only you may find some of the froth of his unsanctified spirit swimming on the top of the 98th page, which you must take as his answer in these words.  
If in some, 
The P. G. Routed.  pride, covetousness, ignorance, malice, treachery, bloodthirstiness, etc. in others, looseness of life, profaneness, drunkenness, whoring, etc. may declare men to be called of God: You (speaking of the Ministers of England) have so much to say for yourselves as any people in the World.  
This is to persuade, 
Answ.  and make the world believe that our Ministers have no inward call from God. But how notoriously false, and unchristian hellborn a scandal this is (as applied by him) I leave to any modest Christian to judge. I profess it even makes mine heart tremble to read him. He hopes if he can rail and revile roundly, some thing will stick, though all be not believed. Is this christianity?  
But let us see what he has to show for an answer to the six Arguments urged to prove the validity of the Ordination of the ministers of England.  

The First Argument.  
Those whose Ordination was right for substance (though it fail in some circumstance, 
Arg. 1.  yet) is valid.  
But the Ministers of England, their Ordination was right for substance, in that they had the inward call, and the outward too, being examined for life, and learning; approved of, and set a party by prayer, exhortation, etc.  
Therefore their Ordination is valid, notwithstanding some failing in circumstantials.  
He denies not the first proposition, it being indeed unquestionable: and against the second he says several things. As for the inward Call (says he) That upon your own account is no part of Ordination, 
The P. G. Routed.  and the outward call came by succession from Rome.  
To the latter clause [The outward call came from Rome, 
Reply.  etc.] I will reply, when I come to answer his Reasons to prove the Ministry of England Antichristian.  
But as to the first [The inward call is no part of Ordination upon your own account.] I answer; Do we say any such thing? viz. That the inward call is no part of Ordination. Nay, do we not say on the contrary, that the inward call is the very life and soul of Ordination? What is this man's forehead made of, think you? 'Tis true, the inward call is no part of the outward Ordination, as the soul is no part of the body, but yet is in the body, and is an essential part of the man; even so this inward call is part of that complete Ordination that makes a Minister; yea it makes that ordination which in respect of its external part may be defective, and lame, to be for the main, valid where it is: as the presence of the soul in the body that is maimed, or diseased, makes a true living man. Ah! this he would not have you see, if you do, then farewell to his whole cause.  
But he hath some what more to say against this Argument, which is to this purpose.  
The inward call? say little of that. 
The P. G. Routed.  [intimating that our ministers have not the inward call] And the imposition of hands, examination of life, and learning, prayer etc. you so much boast of is nothing but an Antichristian form without power; for neither they, nor you know what the gift, calling, or work of the ministry of Christ is. etc.  
This is his answer. 
Answ.  Now if any man can put so much confidence in him, as to take his word for this (when there is no proof of it yea when 'tis contrary to every  man's knowledge, and experience) he may. But if you can but believe (as I think no modest christian can choose but do) 1 that those many hundreds of godly ministers that are in England have an inward call from God. 2. That imposition of hands, examination and approbation, with prayer and exhortation are some thing besides an antichristian form: being commended in Scripture both by precept, and precedent. 3. That those that did ordain, and those that were ordained, did any of them know what the gift, calling, or work of a minister is, if you can (I say) believe any of these particulars, than (for aught is in his answer) he gives you leave to conclude that our ministers ordination is valid, and of force. And I desire to leave the controversy to the reader upon these terms too; for I think him not worthy to be disputed with, that hath so far made shipwreck of ingenuity and charity as to deny any of the particulars before mentioned. The 1. and 3. being so fully testified by experience, the 2. by Scripture.   

The Second Argument.  
The next Argument to prove the validity of the Ministry (notwithstanding it hath run down to us through channels somewhat impure) is the validity of Baptism, 
Arg. 2.  which hath come the same way to us.  
Thus, if our Baptism be true Baptism, than our Ministry is a true Ministry.  
But our baptism is true baptism, etc. Ergo.  
Here he is glad he hath the advantage to speak as bad of our Baptism as of our Ministry: for he denies both as Antichristian. Grant one absurdity, and a thousand will follow.  
He says;  
You have now hit the nail upon the head, 
The P. G. Routed.  etc. I deny either their or your Baptism to be any Baptism at all, etc.  
I answer 1. 
Reply.  You must know this Argument was never framed to convince an Anabaptist. There are others beside Anabaptists that question the validity of the Ordination of the Ministers of England, and to them this Argument will prove unanswerable. For if the Ministry (because it came down to us running a while through a dirty channel) be therefore null, than Baptism (which descended to us by the same way) must be null too. He that can deny that there is any Baptism or Baptised persons in any of the Churches (whether Independent or Presbyterian) of England, New-England, Scotland, France, etc. will make light of this Argument: but it will make others, of more modest Principles, to be at a stand.  
And here let me advise such as (being no Anabaptists) do yet conclude the Ministry of England no Ministry, and the Churches thereof no Churches, to examine their Arguments well, and see whether by the same Arguments may not be also proved as well that their own Baptism is no Baptism. I am afraid they will find it so; and a hard task to answer the Anabaptists plea against them.  
But to return to my Router.  
2. He denies our Baptism as well as our Ministry, because of its descending to us through the Church of Rome. But what will become of his Baptism then? If that be true which he confesses, page 97. That none can give that which he hath not himself. None can ordain a Minister but he that is a Minister, and so none baptise but he that is baptised. How then is he or any of the Anabaptists in England, baptised? When 'tis known, that when they did set up their Dipping within these few years, two of them went down into the water, and one dipped the other, and so they the rest. Can either of them be a baptised person by his own rule? Sure 'tis time for him (by that time he hath well thought upon this) to deny his own new Baptism, or to own ours. And if he own our Baptism, than he must our Ministry too.   

The Third Argument.  
If the Papists disclaim our Ministers as having no call from them, 
Arg. 3.  than their calling cannot be Antichristian.  
But they disclaim our Ministers, etc. Therefore, etc.  
To this he answers three things.  
1. 'Tis known, and yourselves know, your Ordination came from thence. 
The P. G. Routed.   
This is a bold falsehood, as I shall evidence more fully anon: never did any Protestant go to Rome for Ordination. 'Tis true, in time of the first reformation begun by Luther, those worthies that were ordained ministers in the Church of Rome, according to the corrupt way of ordaning then in use, after they were made sensible of the corruption, and witnessed against it, and became instruments of gathering out the precious from the vile, were not again ordained; but by virtue of what call they had, did ordain others after a more pure and regular way; and have we our call from Rome and Antichrist therefore? that is very strange. But he adds,  
They (viz the Papists) do not say that your ordination in its rise came not from them, 
The P. G. Routed.  but in the present its not approved of by them.  
This is also a false hood, 
Reply.  as full of ignorance as the other is of boldness. I believe he never read what any of them say as to this thing. 'Tis most evident that they do flatly deny any succession of our Ministry from theirs. And therefore call our Ministers in Queen Elizabeth's time, and so downward 
* Scultingius, Bristous, Sanderus, Bellarmunus.  Ministros Parliamentarios, and Ministros Reginales; Queen Ministers, and Parliament Ministers. And they give the reason, Non a legitima consecratione aut inauguratione Catholica, sed a Regina & Parliamentis suam authoritatem ementitam derivant. i e. They derive their feigned authority not from lawful consecration, or catholic inauguration, but from the Queen, and two houses of Parliament. To this purpose speak the Popish Writers mentioned in the margin with others; and yet doth not his ignorance make him so bold as to say, that the Papists do not deny our ministry in its rise to come from them? sure these men think there is nothing true but what they know; when alas (poor souls) the Lord knows they have but little to help them to know very much. But he adds in the third place.  
3. 
The P. G. Routed.  Grant by way of concession that what you say were truth, yet is there but one Antichrist in the World? etc.  
This he says to show you, 
Reply.  how our Ministers may be Antichristian, though their Ordination came not from Rome: says he, there are more Antichrists than one.  
To this I answer; 1. See here he gins to fear lest he should not be able to make it good, that our Minister's Ordination came from Rome, and therefore seeks a new starting hole. There are more Antichrists than one: therefore they may be Antichristian, though their Ordination came not from the Pope.  
2. I confess there are other. Antichrists beside the Pope; The P. G. Routed, and the men of his principles are Antichrists, being against Christ's Baptism, Ministry, Churches, if no more. But I hope our Ministers had never Ordination from them, and therefore are not Antichristian. Beside the Pope on the one hand who is Literal Antichrist, and the Familisticall Enthusiasts of our times on the other hand, who are mystical Antichrists, I, for my part, know no notable Antichrists in the World. If he had told what Antichrist our Ministers had their Ordination from, if not from the Pope, I should have known what further reply to make; but now I must follow him in his answer to the 4th Argument.   

The Fourth Argument.  
If their Ordination be Antichristian, then cannot they with modesty accuse our Ministers as Antichristian. 
Arg. 4.   
But their Ordination is Antichristian, which is by the people, whereas Christ's rule is, that Pastors should ordain Pastors, Acts 14.23. 1 Tim. 4.14. Tit. 1.5.  
Therefore, etc.  
To this he answers.  
A goodly Argument sir! 
The P. G. Routed.  as if because ours is Antichristian, therefore yours may be so by a Law; Learned Logic! etc.  
Oh the stupid ignorance of this fellow! 
Reply.  was that the conclusion? The Argument concludes not that our Ministers are not Antichristian, but that the Anabaptists cannot with modesty call them so, because their own Ministry is Antichristian, being contrary to Christ's rule. And that I hope is undeniable.  
Whereas he goes on saying, that as to the Ordination mentioned (by the people) he knows none such: Truly I believe him, because for the most part these men own no Ordination at all; but that Ordination that they have (where they have any) is by the people; as he confesses (if there be any sense in the words that follow (but as yet I take them to be pure nonsense, in a dress of new words to deceive affectours of Novelty) if there be any sense, I say, in what he goes on to speak in this answer, it affirms that their Ordination is by the people, and if such an Ordination be good, how is it that page 97. he says, 'tis a paradox to affirm that any one can give Ordination to another, that hath it not himself? Sure the man seems to have a bad memory, or we should not read such gross contradictions. Their Ordination is good though it be only by the people, and yet our Minister's Ordination not good or valid, because those that Ordained them were no Ministers. If there be any reconciling of these two, then may we reconcile fire and water, light and darkness.   

The Fifth Argument.  
Those Ministers which are elected, 
Arg. 5.  proved, ordained, etc. according to the mind of Christ, cannot be Antichristian.  
But the Ministers of England now are so.  
Therefore they cannot be Antichristian.  
To this he gives a threefold answer, to which I shall make reply in order.  
1. Tour Minor I deny, you have no such election, 
The P. G. Routed.  because you have no Church of Christ, etc. but professing hypocrites.  
This being an unchristian slander, 
Reply.  need speak nothing to it. If any man can think that all Churches, except Anabaptists, are but professing hypocrites, I count him not worthy of an answer. He adds,  
2. 
The P. G. Routed.  Those Churches, such as they are, never elected you, etc.  
This is a downright falsehood, 
Reply.  like much of the rest of his Book; seeing (as 'tis well known) none are admitted to places, without a call from the people, or the better part of them.  
3. 
The P. G. Routed.  You were (says he) never proved, viz. of the knowledge of the Lord and his ways, but of your Learning, etc.  
This likewise is most untrue, 
Reply.  and known to be so by all that are acquainted with the examination that such as are ordained pass under; for when any one presents himself to be Ordained, first of all testimonials under the hand of men of undoubted credit are required, to witness to his blameless conversation: when such testimonials are produced, then is the person examined first concerning the work of grace on his heart, of which if he can give an account, he is then examined concerning his skill in the Original Languages, his knowledge in the doctrine of the Gospel, etc. which is proved by a disputation on some controversy in Divinity, that it may be known whether he can maintain the truth against Gainayers. Then is he to Preach publicly for the trial of his gifts. And is here no proving of our knowledge of the Lord and his ways? 'Tis strange a man should venture to publish to the world things so apparently untrue.   

The Sixth Argument.  
Those Ministers that are diametrically opposite to the Priests and shavelings of Antichrist, 
Arg. 6.  cannot be Antichristian.  
But the Ministers of England are so. Therefore, etc.  
To this he answers.  
You are so in some circumstantials, not in the substance, for you own their Ministry true, 
The P. G. Routed.  their Ordinances true, etc.  
1. What, do we differ from them, 
Reply.  only in circumstantials? Ah poor man! that can shift no better to help his bad cause. Are Justification by works, worshipping of Images, praying to Saints, the Mass, etc. but circumstantials? Sure he'll prove himself the best Advocate for Rome, if he can make this good, that the things we differ from them in, be only circumstantials.  
But 2. Is it not notoriously false, that we acknowledge their Church, Ministry, Ordinances, as true? What if Mr Hall in his second Argument do acknowledge that they were so? so does that famous worthy, Mr Burton, who lost his ears under the Arch-Episcopall Tyranny, for the truth of Christ, in his answer to Mr Chomley's defence of the Church of Rome. He grants they had the essence of a Church until the Council of Trent, but not afterward, when they were completely apostatised, and the faithful had withdrawn from them. So do we acknowledge also; not that their Church and Ministry is true now.  
There is yet one rub more which he labours to take out of his way. 'Tis urged that our ministers do convert souls, and therefore appear to be sent of God, in that their Embassage is made successful by God.  
To this he answers.  
If conversion be a proof of a Minister in office, 
The P. G. Routed.  than women may be Ministers in office, or any man by whom God converts, etc.  
Who but one of a womanish spirit and brain, would have given such an answer? 
Reply.  No man says that converting souls, proves all ministers in office that do convert, but 'tis a proof of the ministry of those that do officiate as ministers, and in so doing convert. This is most evident by what Paul speaks, 1 Cor. 9.2. If a private Christian, making use of his Talents in his place, and within his sphere, do convert souls; this is a seal of Gods approving such pious means as he uses in order to the same. Even so if a man officiate as a minister in office, and God bless his endeavours with the conversion of souls, 'tis a seal of his mission. And the reason is, because God will not ordinarily concur with such as he sends not. Such as pretend unto an office from God, when he never gave them any, use not to have success given them by God in dispensing the same. God will not seal to a false and pretended ministry, by his blessing the same, as is plain Jer. 23.21, 22. wherefore it is evident, that (seeing the Lord hath continually blessed the labours of our Ministers, with the conversion of many souls) our ministers are the true ministers of Christ.  
But he says, page 71.  
In this likewise hath the Lord manifested his approving and calling the Preaching Brethren, 
The P. G. Routed.  the great number of converts from Antichristian, and Babilonish ignorance and confusion, etc.  
Converts? 
Answ.  he means anabaptistical Proselytes, whom they have drawn away from holding any communion with the people of God in this Nation, or in any of the Churches of Christ in the world. A fine piece of Conversion indeed! Let him show me any that have been brought off from a carnal, sensual living, unto a real and serious profession of the power of godliness, by such Preachers, ministering as they do without being appointed unto the office according to the rules of Christ; and he will show more than ever I could find in all mine experience. I do not doubt but men really gifted, ministering their gifts in a peaceable and orderly manner, as becomes men in a private capacity, may have their endeavours blest with the Conversion of souls: but as for such as go beyond their line, and contentiously usurp the ministerial function (as the P. G. Routed, and such like travelling Preachers do) well may they pervert many: I never found they converted any.  
That which he adds [That the conversion our Ministers boast of, is not a conversion from sin to God, but only from sin to resting in duty.] It is such a palpable untruth, and so big of envy, and pride, that I shall say nothing to it: Let Saints experiences speak.  
You have seen the invalidity and weakness of his answers to those six Arguments that prove our Ministers free from Antichristianisme: notwithstanding what he alleges they firmly prove that which they are brought for, therefore I shall not add any more.  
Only in a word or two I shall examine the strength of his Arguments to prove the affirmative, that they are Antimristian.  
His Arguments as six in number, but only one in weight, and that the first which is as follows.  
Those Ministers whose Ordination by succession came from the authority of the Pope, 
The P. G. Routed.  are Antichristian.  
But your Ordination by succession came from the authority of the Pope, Ergo, etc.  
This is his Vnum magnum, which if I can answer, 
Answ.  the controversy will be at an end.  
I shall first distinguish as to his first Proposition, and so answer.  
I would feign know what he means by [An Ordination coming by succession from the Authority of the Pope.] the expression is equivocal. Whether doth he mean, such an Ordination as came by succession from the Pope's authority as the first Original of it? or else such an Ordination as came from the Pope, only by being conveyed down to us through his hands?  
If he mean the former, than I deny his second Proposition. The ministers of England have not such an Ordination as came by succession from the Pope's authority, as the first Original of it. For that Ordination which they have, as to its substance, was appointed by Jesus Christ, and grounded on the Scriptures. 1 Tim. 3.10.4.14. Tit. 1.5. Acts 14.23. etc.  
If he mean the latter, than I deny his first Proposition. For all ministers are not Antichristian, that have such an Ordination as (descending from Christ) has sometime passed through the Pope's hand: for if so, than all that has passed through his hands must be Antichristian: which if we grant, than not only our ministry and baptism, but the Scriptures also must be Antichristian too. How will he help it? If he say the Scriptures came forth from Jesus Christ, and so are received; so say I, our Ordination came from Jesus Christ, and so, under that consideration, our ministers receive it. If he say, the Scriptures are received in their perfection, but the Ordination was vitiated and corrupted. I answer, the Scriptures also were very much corrupted by the Papists, as the Ordination was; but among us hath been restored, by degrees, the beauty of both. Let him look to himself, the same door he goes out at, the same will I. If he can free the Scriptures from Antichristianisme descending to us through the Church of Rome, the same way will I free the ministry and Ordination from Antichristianisme, notwithstanding it descended to us through the Pope; hands.  
But 2.  he is so particular in telling us when we had our Ordination from Rome, in the 99th page. I shall speak somewhat to the clearing of this also: he says,  
Your Saint Austin the Monk being sent from Rome to establish the Romish faith in this Nation, 
The P. G. Routed.  he accordingly accomplishing the work, you have your Ordination by succession from thence.  
Very good: I am not very unwilling to grant him this. 
Answ.  Only all the danger lies in these odious terms which he makes use of, as Rome, Romish faith, and Austin the Monk; I shall discover his underhand deceitful dealing in using these expressions, and the matter will appear as clear as the Sun.  
1. Whereas he says, Austin came hither from [Rome] to establish the [Romish faith] he speaks deceitfully, or ignorantly; for the Romish faith, was then the true, christian faith, and there was no Christian Church visible on Earth but held communion with the Church of Rome (as then it was) in the same faith, for the main.  
2. Austin was not the 
a Mason de Min Angl. l. 2. cap. 4. Heyl. Geo. p. 469.  first that established the Christian faith in England. This he is mistaken in too. The Gospel was received in England, long before Austin was. This Nation, that is now one Commonwealth; was anciently divided into several Kingdoms, some of them had received the faith long before Augustine's coming, if not by the means of the Apostles themselves (as some writ) yet in the Apostolical times by 
b Baronius, Capgravius  Joseph of Arimathaea, and then afterward was the doctrine of Christ revived by 
c Mason. l. 2. c. 3. Heyl. p. 469.  Eleutherius, Anno Dom. 180. which is 1471. year's since. At which time, I hope, the Bishops of Rome were true ministers, and the Church of Rome a true Church: moreover when Austin (that he speaks of) came hither, which as 
d Beda. Epit. Hist. Angl Heyl. Geogr. p. 490.  history witnesses, was about 1058. years since, there were several 
e Florebant apud illos eo ipso tempore septem Episcopi, etc. Mason. secundum. Bed. L. 2. c. 2.  Bishops in England, professing and preaching the Christian faith. So that if we go this way to work, our Minister's Ordination will have an higher beginning than the Collier conceives. But if we do grant that Austin (as he would have it) did first begin to ordain Ministers here (being sent from Rome) and our Minister's Ordination be from him: Yet that being (as you heard before) 1058. years ago, the Church of Rome was then also undoubtedly a true Church of Christ. And 
f Vide obsecro an universalem Episcopum se vocaret Gregorius, quod hodie Romae fit: An imperatorem Dominum suum jam vocaret Pontifex qued fecit Grego rius. Mason. de Min. Angl. L. 2. c. 4.  Gregory the Great, than Bish: of Rome, whom he (to affright and startle ignorant people, calls Pope) was as fare from taking upon him that Antichristian power, that now the Popes of Rome take to themselves, as east is from west. So that Austin and his companions (that were appointed and sent by this Gregory to establish the Church of Christ in England, Baptising such as were added to the Church, and setting Pastors over them) had a lawful and valid mission (at least for the main) and therefore their Acts both of Baptising, and Ordaining Ministers, were valid also.  
3. Whereas he styles Austin, our [Saint Austin the Monk] 'tis either ignorantly, or deceitfully as before; for those that were called Monachi, which we render Monks, in some of those first hundred years after Christ, were as much different from those idle gluttons, now in the Church of Rome called Monks, as the Bishops of Rome then, are from the Popes now. 
Divinis rebus vacantes. Mason.  The name signified, some wholly devoted to divine things; some wholly separating themselves unto the study of the heavenly mysteries of truth. And so it was used then. 'Tis true, since the Apostasy, this name is become odious by reason of those swarms of luxurious idle belly-Gods, that are of that Order, in the Church of Rome. However, it was not so at first, nor at that time when Austin was sent in this Nation. The 
g Alsted. Parat. Theol. de Mon. Incredibile est quantum a majoribus suis degeneraverunt. Says an Ital. Papist.  word than had a better acceptation and signification; and was taken up no doubt by pious men. Wherefore the P. G. Routed doth not deal plainly with his Reader (if he knew this, as I confess I think he did not) in calling Austin a Monk in contempt; when as it was the wickedness of after times that made this name contemptible and odious, that had before a better use.  
4. Though Austin was a Monk before his mission into this Land, yet at his coming over he was Ordained a Bishop 
h See Mason. de Min. A●gl. 〈◊〉 c. 5.  either by the Bishops of Germany (as Gregory) or else by the Bishops of France (as Beda) writes: and so he ordained (with the help of others) those Ministers that were ordained here.  
So that now see what is become of his great leading Argument, The Ministers of England are Antichristian, because their Ordination came from the Pope, by the means of Austin the Monk, who was sent hither to establish the Romish faith. The History being fully cleared up, it appears to be a mere bugbear, and so far from making against our Ministers, that it abundantly vindicates them, and their Ordination. As for the truth of the relation, I have pointed at some in the margin for the confirmation of the same: And whoever is versed in History, knows it to be as certain as History can make a thing; and that is as certain as any thing is that we do not see.  
No man knows that there was such a one as Austin, or a Bishop of Rome that sent him hither, but by humane History: and by the same know you that my relation of this matter is true. I speak to the weak.  
As for his five other Arguments, they being nothing else but an heap of most malicious and wicked slanders: I shall say nothing to them.  
He says our Ministers are Antichristian; because, 

1. 
The P. G. Routed.  They do not Christ's work.  
2. They desire to sit in Christ's seat.  
3. They are belly-gods.  
4. They are enemies to the fellowship of the Saints.  
5. They set up something like truth, in the room of truth, in opposition to truth.    
These are his five other Arguments to prove them Antichristian. 
Answ.   
This poisonous froth thou mayest easily scum off, if thou hast but a little of the Spirit of the Gospel in thee. I intent my Discourse principally for honest hearts: wherefore, saying no more, I shall take my leave of The Pulpit Guard Routed, having I think, sufficiently scattered his worthy, host of answers, and Arguments which he hath gathered up against Christ and the truth. I shall only advise thee, Never credit boldness more for this man's sake. But seriously weigh all things in the balance of the Sanctuary. Try all things, hold fast that which is good.     

A POSTSCRIPT- Advertisement To the READER.  
THere is another dangerous, pestilent, blasphemous Book of this Colliers (against Ordinances, yea and against the Person and Offices of Christ) which I did endeavour to get while I was answering this but could not. I know not whether he will make reply to this that I have written: Possible he may. 'Tis easy for a man to multiply Answers, if he take no care to speak pertinently. If he should Print another such answer to me, as The Pulpit Guard Routed is to Mr Hall; I shall promise him never to take the pains to reply. Thou mayest well think he spoke his best in answer to Mr Hall. and if that (notwithstanding all his boldness, and confidence in writing) be so weak, absurd, and impertinent, as thou mayest perceive by reading my reply: sure if he should put on double the confidence in writing another answer, I suspect (and so mayest thou) 'twill be for strength of Argument like the former; which if it be, I shall be content to suffer him to have the last word: supposing that none of those (whose good I aim at) will count his cause best, that speaks last.  
This, that is now swollen into a Treatise, was intended, at first, only as a monitory Epistle, in two or three sheets to stop the gangrene of his Errors from spreading among Christians. I ut I met with such variety of absurdities, so boldly and dangerously laid down in his Discourse to entrap the weak, that I could not well be shorter than I am.  
The Lord give thee understanding in all things.   

February 14. 1651.  
IMPRIMATUR, Edmund Calamy.