THE Font-Guard Routed: OR, A brief ANSWER to a Book written by Thomas Hall, superscribed with this Title, The Font Guarded with 20. Arguments: Therein endeavouring to prove the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism. WHEREIN His Arguments are examined, and being weighed in the balance of the Sanctuary, are found too light. The most considerable of Mr. Baxters' Arguments for Infant-Baptism, being produced by Tho. Hall, are here answered likewise. To which is added, A Word of Reply to Tho. Hall's Word to Collier. And another to John Feriby's Appendix, called The Pulpit-Guard Relieved. With an Answer to Richard Sanders's pretended Balm to heal Religious wounds; in answer to the Pulpit-Guard Routed. With an humble Representation of some few Proposals to the Honourable Committee appointed by the Parliament for Propagation of the Gospel. Written by Tho. Collier.  If ye love me, keep my commandments. Joh. 14. 15. If ye continue in my word, then are ye my Disciples indeed. Joh. 8. 31. 
LONDON, Printed for the Author, and are to be sold by Giles Calvert, at the Black Spread Eagle near the West-end of Paul's. 1652.   

Some few Proposals to the Honourable Committee for Propagation of the Gospel.  
Honoured Sirs,  
GOD having been pleased to bring us forth in such an Age of the world, wherein we have seen, through mercy, not only his work of power in dethroning of unrighteous men; but likewise in a measure the arising of the Son of Righteousness with healing in his wings; and, I trust, to take to himself his great Kingdom, and to reign.  
The business committed to you (by and next to the Supreme Authority of the Nation) being of very great concernment, and indeed that which relates to him who is the most Supreme, He who is Lord of Lords, and King of Kings: Notwithstanding I find there have been many Proposals unto your Honours, it might be altogether needless for such a one as I to propose any thing unto your Wisdoms; yet not doubting your willingness to hear what the weakest may propound in this great business, though by it nothing be added to you; I providentially and occasionally coming to this City, could not with good conscience departed from hence without presenting something unto your Honours, as to the thing in hand. If in it, to you or any others, I do appear a fool, let me be excused; I have performed in this my duty both to my Lord and you. My desire is, that the former precedents of miscarriages in changing times, may be a warning unto us, viz. The plucking up of one Form, and planting of another by the Magisterial power. Every plant that the Heavenly Father hath not planted, must be plucked up. My desire is, not to be tedious: but in a word, out of tenderness to the honour of the Lord Jesus, and the Authority of the Nation, that there may be given to GOD those things that are his, and to Caesar those things that are his, have I humbly presented these following Proposals unto your Honours.  
1. Whether or no Jesus Christ be not the alone Spiritual King in and over all Cases of Conscience relating to Worship? Psal. 2. Rev. 15. 3, 4. Act. 3. 22, 23. Mat. 28. 18.  
2. Whether he hath surrendered up any part of this Authority to any Civil Magistrate under the Gospel? Jam. 4. 11, 12. Rom. 14. 4.  
3. Whether, because the Jewish Magistracy, according to the command of God, took cognisance of such things, they with all the rest of their Ordinances being typical in their anointing, power and rule, etc. it being all swallowed up into Christ the substance, he being the alone King of his people; be any ground for Magistrates now to do the like?  
4. Whether to do the like, be not to deny Christ to be come in the flesh, and to deny his Kingly Authority?  
5. Whether the work of the Magistrate, as a Magistrate, do not primely relate to the bodies of men, and things of this world; that so they may be for the praise of them that do well, and for the punishment of evil doers? Rom. 13.  
6. Whether it be not the work whereunto God hath called them, to protect all that live peaceably and civilly, in obedience to the Civil Law of the Nation; and to encourage and protect the Servants of the Lord alike, in the Preaching and professing the Gospel, though differing in their apprehensions; leaving the judgement of Cases of Conscience unto Christ, as before?  
7. Whether a State-maintenance for the Ministry of Christ, be agreeable to any Rule in the Gospel?  
8. Whether it hath not been, and is a way to make men rather State-Ministers, than Christ's Ministers?  
9 Whether this hath not proved dishonourable to jesus Christ and the Truth, having drawn so many into the worldly Ministry for love of gain?  
10. Whether it be not the duty of the Magistrate to permit the Jews, whose Conversion is promised, and we pretend to expect it, to live peaceably amongst us?  
FINIS.   

The Epistle to the Reader.  
Reader,  
I Having so suddenly, and almost unexpectedly brought forth this Treatise to public view, Plainness and brevity thou mayst find in it, though but little of that excellency which man's wisdom teacheth; yet something of the truth of Jesus mayst thou find there, in the plain evidence of the Spirit and power of truth. And whereas thou seest many differences in the world about the worship of God, it behoves thee so much the more to query after it; for it is the duty of those who have an interest in Christ, to do his will: If ye love me, saith Christ, keep my commandments, Joh. 14. 15. and that is the way to attain an increase in the knowledge of the will of God, viz. a doing of what we know, Joh. 7 17.  
I have here presented to thy view several Replies unto several Men and Things. First to the Font-guarded; wherein you have, gathered up all the Arguments of former Writers, especially Mr. Baxters, and drawn into 20 Arguments. To all which I have given a brief Reply; and although brief, yet I question not but with such plainness and clearness, as that he that runs may read: and in it through mercy thou mayst come to see the clear difference between Moses and Christ, the Covenant of the Law and the Covenant of the Gospel: the ordinances, ministry and worships of the one, and of the other: and because God hath made me public in the profession of his truth, I judge myself bound in conscience, and duty to Jesus Christ, to vindicate that truth I profess: every command and truth of Jesus being, to a lover of the truth, more precious than that of gold; and although hither unto I have and may still expect to pass through many reproaches for the sake of Christ, through good and bad report; yet I weigh it not; none of these things trouble me: it was the portion of Christ himself; and if they called the master of the house Beelzebub, what will they not do to the servant? I trust, that notwithstanding the rudeness and rage of those men who seek themselves, yet God hath hitherto so kept and carried me, that I may say truly, I have endeavoured to keep a Conscience void of offence both before God and men. And as to those Principles of Truth by me owned, although judged by men, yet my judgement is with the Lord, and he knows the way of his People, but the way of the wicked shall perish. Though I pass under the censure of Tho. Hall, whom nothing but Fire and Faggot can satisfy, and under the ignominious reproaches of Feriby, Sanders, and a thousand more, yet none of these things trouble me; and let none think that I am besides myself, because I thus profess and write: for if I am it is to the Lord, and for your sakes, for whom my desire is, that you may be made partaker of the truth, and that as it is in Jesus; not after the will of men, but of God. I have presented to thy consideration these two things. First, the insufficiency of all those grounds produced for Infant-Baptism, wherein its weakness and inconsistency with the Gospel will appear; and the continued practice of the baptising of Believers cleared and vindicated.  
2. A brief Reply to John Feriby, and Richard Sanders: wherein you may find a farther confirmation of the truth asserted in the Pulpit-Guard Routed, viz. the lawfulness of the Preaching of Gifted Brethren.  
I have likewise three things to desire of the Reader.  
1. To read and judge: Read, and consider what thou readest; for I have endeavoured to compose much in few words, and that because I judged it to be for thy profit, large Discourses being sometimes not so useful: therefore, I say, be content to spare a little time to consider, and contemplate upon what thou readest, and happily thou mayest come to see all those strong Guards broken and dispersed, as the morning dew before the Sun.  
2. Read with patience; and be not troubled at that which may seem to thee to be harsh language, or contrary to thy understanding: and this I assure thee, considering the Spirits of those men with whom I have had to deal, I have passed through with as much moderation as possibly I could, without betraying the Cause; and giving but a word of reproof to an insulting adversary.  
3. Read and judge impartially; lean not to the right hand or to the left, for affection sake, but desire the Lord, from an impartial unbyast heart, to lead thee into the truth, resolve not to follow the traditions of men or Churches, but the written word of Truth, which is able to give thee direction as a rule of life through the blessing of the Spirit of Jesus, and to make the man of God perfect, throughly furnishing him to every good work  
Tho. Collier.   

THE Font-Guard Routed.  
SIR,  
IT's fallen to my lot once more to encounter with you; and why to me more than to others? because not only the Truth of Jesus, his Honour, and his servants in the profession of it, lieth at stake; but myself likewise in a special manner being not only concerned in the case in hand, but likewise being deeply aspersed by your Libellous Tongue and Pen in your succeeding word to one Collier, to which I shall reply in its time and place. But Sir, by the way, it seems you are become an absolute Soldier, a grand Captain, Leader. But what's the work? To guard Pulpits and Fonts forsooth. I suppose you'll be cautious of suffering much in defence of your Cause; if you had intended it, you would not have set your guards about that which none intends to take from you that I know of: But is it truth in good earnest that your Font is affronted?  
1. I wonder you had not had more wisdom and forecast in you at first, and have set your Guard round about your Kirk; so one might have served for the whole, and have saved you much labour and expense of time: but I suppose your wisdom lay in this; You guarded the Pulpit first, that so being routed there, you might have a fair retreat to the holy Font; and when routed there, you might sound another retreat, but whither I know not, unless to the high Altar, viz. the Communion Table (so called) or into the Belfry, to secure the holy baptised Bells; In Pope John's time the 14. began the vile superstition of baptising Bells; Simpsons' History of the Church, Cent. 10. Or to take the Church doors, etc. But whither am I wand'ring? I say no more of this, but leave my name sake Tom to his own choice.  
2. I wonder that a wise man, as Tho. Hall, should have so little wit, or so much idle time, to set up such a strong guard in defence of that which none intends to take from him; we baptise in Rivers, not in Fonts; we do not intent to take them from you; no, we know not what to do with them, unless etc.  
But 3. Did you ever read in Scripture of the Font, or of baptising in the Font? I know you have not. I remember I have read in the Popish Histories of the holy Font, in the first institution of Infant's baptism; from thence you had both, as in its time and place I shall let you see.  
Now to your Arguments, for that is it I intent to fall upon letting pass all other things; for if I rout you there, as I doubt not in the strength of Jehovah, whom I serve in my spirit, but that I shall rout you in all your twenty Arguments; so the Commands of Christ, and practise of the Apostles may stand clear before the sons of men; and the Churches practise in baptising Believers vindicated, in opposition to all gainsayers. Now to your first Argument, Page 8.  
From the Covenant of grace which God made with the Faithful and their Seed; they are confederates say you, joined together in the Covenant of God, etc.  

Your first Argument is this, Page 9  

To whomsoever the Covenant itself belongs, to them also belongs the seal of the Covenant.  
But the Covenant belongs to Believers and their Children.  
Ergo, The seal of the Covenant belongs to them also.   
I answer: First, your Minor is denied, That Children of Believers are in the Covenant of grace; and here lies the ground of your miscarriage, ignorance, and error in this particular. We will therefore come first to consider the Covenant itself, which is the foundation on which you stand, Gen. 17 7, 10, 11. This Covenant itself is wholly outward, and it consists of two parts; the one on God's part to be performed, the other on abraham's and his children's part. That on Gods is in ver. 7, 8. I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee; and I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee the Land of thy sojourning, all the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and will be their God, This Covenant is outward, and consists of an outward promise, The Land of Canaan, etc. and is not in itself the everlasting Covenant of grace: It's true, there is grace in this Covenant, yet it is not the Covenant of grace; there is grace in this, for it is grace for God declaratively to be a God to a People. And secondly, there was the everlasting grace included typically in this Covenant, for it relates in the mystery unto Christ, as all outward Covenants, Services, and the Land of Canaan itself did, Gal. 3. 6 Col. 2. 17. Heb. 4. from ver. 3. to the 8. That it was an outward Covenant, will appear. 1. The thing promised in the Covenant was outward i e. The Land of Canaan.  
Object. He promised to be a God unto them in an everlasting Covenant.  
Answ. 1. This was a promise in an outward Covenant, as will appear Isa. 10. 22, 23. compared with Rom. 9 29. Though the Children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall be saved: Now if God had been a God unto them in the Covenant of grace, they must have been all saved, and have continued in that Covenant unto this day; but it being but an outward and typical Covenant, relating to Christ the antitype and substance; when Christ was come, that Covenant was dissolved into Christ, and is given forth upon the true spiritual account, to the spiritual seed, Gal. 3. 16. with 29.  
2. It's said to be an everlasting Covenant, either 1. because it was to continue its appointed time, so called Everlasting, as usually the old Testament Ordinances were: so God promised in this Covenant to give the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession: yet they are, and have been many hundreds of years turned out of it; and if they had not, yet that could but have been a poffession for them in their generations till the end of the world. But the Covenant of grace reaches to eternity, without end, Psal. 103. 17. Hence the Priesthood of the Law was called an everlasting Priesthood. Exod. 40. 15. Num. 25. 13. Or secondly, it's called Everlasting, upon the account of Christ, who was the substance, and the Covenant itself when he came, ending all other Covenants and Services, Isa 42. 6. So David's Kingdom was said to be Everlasting, upon the account of Christ, who was, and is the true spiritual King, of whom David was a type. 2 Sam. 7. 16. Ps. 89. 35, 36. compared with Ezek. 37. 24, 25. David was dead long before; yet David, viz. Christ, must be their King for ever. Thus it appears first from the Covenant itself on God's part, that it was not the Covenant of grace, though grace was darkly and typically included in it, only the enlightened renewed soul saw into it, and partaked of Christ the substance.  
But secondly, it will appear likewise if we consider the second part of the Covenant on Abraham and his children's part: Every manchild shall be circumcised at eight days old, v. 10. 11, 12. Here is an external obedience suitable to an external covenant: God promiseth the land of Canaan; in lieu of this they must be circumcised, which shall be a sign of their obedience, and to God of his Covenant, as the Rainbow in another case.  
2. The Covenant being thus considered, it followeth, that notwithstanding this Covenant was to Abraham and his seed natural, yet it is not to Believers now and their seed natural. This denies your Minor, and this Scripture produced by you doth not prove it. Your other Scripture Act. 2. 39 I shall answer in its place, when I come to your Argument drawn from it. And whereas you say, That there are some Infants in the Covenant of grace, I deny it positively that there are Infants in the Covenant of grace upon your account, viz. the account of nature, because born of believing parents; all fleshly boasting being taken away, Rom. 3. 27. As the Covenant to Abraham and his seed was outward and typical; so the Covenant of Christ, or Christ the Covenant is to the spiritual seed, and that only; those who are of the saith of Abraham, who do the works of Abraham, they, and they only are the seed of Abraham, Joh. 8. 39 He is not a Jew that is one outwardly, but he is a Jew that is one inwardly, Rom. 2. 28, 29. where as the outward Covenant, so the natural seed are cut off, and only the spiritual stands. And whereas you say, there is an outward being in this Covenant, etc. Ishmael was circumcjsed: I say so too; for in itself it was wholly outward; this and all other Covenants and services were outward and typical, except the first promise Gen. 3. The Covenant of grace now in the days of Christ, is wholly spiritual. Those than that were enlightened, which were but few, saw and enjoyed the substance in the shadow and form; We first the substance, and with it the form: They were first brought by works to Christ; we first to Christ, and then to works as fruits of faith.  
And whereas you conclude Baptism to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, you are as much besides the truth in this, as in the Covenant it self. Because you have heard others say it, therefore you affirm it too, as children use to speak by tradition: but where is your Scripture for it? Did you ever read of any New-Testament seal, besides the Spirit of Christ? Ephes. 1. 13. ch. 4. 30. But I suppose because that it's said Rom. 4. 11. that Abraham received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of his faith which he had before he was circumcised, that therefore Baptism is a seal of the Covenant of grace: Oh gross mistake! Abraham believed God when he first promised him the land of Canaan, and commanded him to forsake all and go into it, and that he would keep him and bless him, Gen. 12. Here Abraham believed God, and obeyed, and went out not knowing whither; and v. 17. God gave him Circumcision a sign and seal to confirm his faith, which he had before in this promise. And as Circumcision was given a seal of Abraham's faith in Gods promising him the land of Canaan; so the Spirit of grace is the seal of faith to every believer of his interest in the spiritual land, the substance of the outward, the Lord Jesus. So you are lost both in Covenant, in Seal, in the Subjects of the Covenant and all.  
You mention Gal. 4. 28. I say, upon the Gospel-account its truth, as Isaac was heir to that Covenant, so all true believers are heirs of the true promise, and none else. Whereas you say pag. 11. in way of answer to an objection, That theirs is old, and ended etc. you answer, That to make that old, none but carnal Anabaptists will do it. Your mouth is wide, but let it pass. I answer, To make that Covenant which was of an outward land, the same as ours which is of a spiritual land; to bring in the natural seed upon that account, when it is only to the spiritual seed, none but a carnal and blind generation of men dare to do. Christ saith, Joh. 4. 24 God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth, and such the Father seeks to worship him. Jesus Christ came forth from the Father for that end, that he might gain a spiritual people to worship: but your great work is to get in a natural people, a carnal people, the fleshly seed; so contradicting the end of God in giving Christ: upholding the Covenant made with Abraham and Moses; so denying Christ to be come in the flesh: I will not say, at present, for your own ends and interests.  
The force of your first Argument being thus untwisted, and its weakness and invalidity laid open, I need not trace you in your Parallels: what I have already written, puts an end to your Parallels, as far as you imagine they tend to uphold the strength of your Arguments. I shall present another Parallel from what I have declared, leaving it to the judgement of the judicious Reader to consider.  
1. The Covenant made with Abraham was an outward covenant, and promise of the Land of Canaan. Gen. 17. 10, 11, 12. 1. Ours is a spiritual Covenant, and promise of & in Jesus Christ the true spiritual Land of rest, Heb. 4. 4. to 8. 2. That was made with Abraham and his natural seed, Gen. 17. 7, 8. 2. Ours is a Covenant made with Christ and all his spiritual seed, Isa 59 21. Gal. 3 29. 3. Circumcision was the seal of that Covenant, Rom. 4. 11. 3. But the Spirit of grace is the seal of our covenant, Eph. 1 ●3. 4 30. 4. That was a Covenant that many, most of those in it, miss of eternal life, Rom. 2. 27. 4 Ours is a covenant sure & steadfast, eternal everlasting to those once truly in it, Isa. 55 3. Jer. 31. 31 32. Joh 10. 28, 29. 5. That was a Covenant that might be broken, and had an end; as all types end when the substance comes. 5. Ours is a Covenant that cannot be broken, nor shall ever have an end, being the substance itself of the type.  
Now to your second Argument from Circumcision.   

The second Argument, p. 13.  

Such as were circumcised under the Law, may be baptised under the Gospel.  
But the Jews with their Infants were circumcised under the Law  
Ergo, Christians and their Infants may be baptised under the Gospel.   
You confess that your Major is questioned, as well it may be so: I could give you several Arguments which you would not like, as well grounded as this of yours; but I forbear. For proof of your Major,  
1. You say, They are under the same Covenant. That is denied, and razed in my Answer to your former argument: It is neither the same Covenant, nor the same seal; an outward seal to an outward Covenant, an inward seal to an inward Covenant.  
2. You say, There is the same reason for the one as for the other: our children are born in original sin as well as theirs, & have the same need of the seal. Oh unimaginable blindness! was Circumcision or Baptism either ever given to seal up the pardon of original sin? If it was, than it must be pardoned, or not pardoned: if pardoned, then sure; else it is but the putting a seal to a blank. But the truth is, they were never given either of them upon that account, or for that end, to seal up the pardon of original sin. And whereas you say there is the same reason for the one as for the other, it is denied; for the command of God is the reason of the one and of the other; God commanded Infants to be circumcised, he hath commanded Believers to be baptised; and 'tis reason that he should be obeyed as in the first, so in the second; it's an unreasonable and wicked thing to contradict by contrary actions the commands of Christ.  
3. You say, If Baptism succeed in the place of Circumcision, than Baptism belongs to those to whom Circumcision did belong. But Baptism doth succeed in the place of Circumcision. Ergo, etc. I answer, your Minor is denied. 1. There is no Scripture that saith that Baptism was ordained in the place of Circumcision; it's your own invention, never mentioned by the Apostles of Christ. The Scriptures you mention, Act. 2. 38, 39 Col. 2. 11, 12. have not the least hint in them to the thing in hand, and are abundantly abused and wrested to that for which they were never intended, as will appear. 2. You confess that Baptism was in force before Circumcision was abolished. Circumcision and Baptism stood both in force by a Law for some years, at least 3 or 4 years. Now if Baptism had come in the room of Circumcision, than Circumcision must have ceased when Baptism came: But Circumcision did not cease when Baptism came; Therefore Baptism came not in the room of it. If it be objected, that Paul circumcised Timothy after the ascension of Christ; I answer, that was because of the Jews for their weakness: but it was in being by the Law of God until the death of Christ. So then I reason thus: That which put an end to Circumcision, came in the room of Circumcision; but Christ put an end to Circumcision, therefore he is come in the room of Circumcision. That it was Christ, and not Baptism that put an end to Circumcision, is clear, Rom. 10. 4. Gal. 5. 2, 3. So that Baptism did not put an end to Circumcision, but Christ did; therefore Baptism came not in the room of Circumcision. 3. It could not come in the room of Circumcision to them that never had Circumcision: but women were never circumcised, the Gentiles were never circumcised; and it could not come in the room of Circumcision to those which never were circumcised. But you will say that women were virtually circumcised in the men, etc. And why are they not baptised virtually in the men too? if you will take your rule from Circumcision, let them be baptised in the men too. 4. There is no parity, but a disparity between Baptism and Circumcision, as yourself in some things have noted. 1. In the action, 2. in the time, 3. in the subject, 4. in the end. First, in the action; that was the cutting of the foreskin of the flesh, which occasioned blood; this of Baptism a dipping into or under water. Secondly, for the time; that was to be done at eight days old, this of Baptism when the party desireth it, professing faith and repentance to the satisfying of the Church, be when it will. Thirdly, for the subject; that was the Male only, this of Baptism is to be administered on both men and women, professing faith in our Lord Jesus, and repentance towards God. Fourthly, for the end, that is far wide, as will appear in this ensuing Parallel.  
1. Circumcision set forth Christ to come. 1. Baptism declares Christ already come. 2. Circumcision represented the circumcision of the heart, the cutting off of sin and self, etc. 2. Baptism declares the washing away of the guilt of sin and death, and burial with Jesus Christ. 3. That was a seal of Abraham's faith. 3. Baptism is no seal, but the Spirit of Christ.  
These things considered, there is neither probability, reason, or Scripture for the coming of Baptism in the room of Circumcision. First, there is no Scripture for it: when false Apostles went about to bring in Circumcision, Act. 15. 10. Gal. 1. the Apostle never mentions Baptism at all; if it had come in the room of Circumcision, they might easily have stopped their mouths with this; You have Baptism in the room of it, what need you trouble yourselves so much? But they never made use of this as an answer; therefore it's evident that it came not in the room of it. 2. It was in being together. 3. It could not be so to them that were never circumcised. And 4. there being no parity between them, I add 5. If you will have it in the room of something, why might it not come in the room of those Legal washings that were amongst the Jews, as well as in the room of Circumcision? there is a parity in the one, and likelier in the end too, but none in the other; their Religion viz. the Jews, consisted in divers washings, Heb. 9 10. so that if you must of necessity have it to come in the room of any thing, why not in the room of those washings? Yet I do not believe that it came in the room of this or any other legal Ordinance; but that God gave what Ordinances he pleased to that ministration, and Jesus Christ gave what Ordinances he pleased to this ministration: not one Ordinance putting out the other; but Christ being the end of all, giveth out new upon his own account.  
But secondly, put case what you say were truth, that it were come in the room of Circumcision, which can never be proved either from Scripture or reason; yet what will this help you? We are, or profess ourselves to be Christ's servants: then harken to him, and obey his voice; receive the Law from his mouth, for he is the Messenger of the Lord of Hosts. Let Christ be King; give but so much honour to him as to inform you who is to be baptised, and the time when it is to be done, & the manner how, and the controversy will be soon ended. The truth of the business being thus considered, your Assertion and your Parallels I leave to the consideration of the understanding Reader, and so pursue you to your third Argument.   

The third Argument.  

Where there is a command for a thing never yet countermanded or forbidden, there that thing is still in force.  
But there is a command for signing the Infants of believers, never yet countermanded or forbidden.  
Ergo, It is still in force.   
This Argument is easily answered, only it's stated confusedly; if you intent by the command for signing Believers children, that of Circumcision, as I suppose you do, than I think that is repealed and forbidden, for the Apostle saith to the Galatians, that if they be circumcised, Christ shall profit them nothing at all. And if you deny this truth, we may well take the Apostles advice, Phil. 3. Beware of the concision; for we are the Circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, etc. If you by the sign intent Baptism, you had done well to show where it was commanded to Infants; and if nowhere commanded, than no need of repealing or forbidding. If you intent that Baptism was commanded in Circumcision, that hath been answered already; and it is but a whimsy of your own head, there hath not been any Scripture yet produced for the confirmation of it, nor ever is like to be: all you say in this, is but the substance of what you have said already; you dance about in a line, and are gotten no further yet then in your former Arguments; it's just the old Proverb, A great cry, and a little wool. Truly, if you did know and love the Lord Jesus, you could not, you would not dare to go back to lay the foundation of Gospel ordinances in Legal institutions; but you would look to Christ, and hearken what he hath said; and believe it, every one that refuseth to look to him, shall be cut off from among his people, Act. 3. 22, 23.  
You say, Let any man show if he can, when where, and how this privilege was abrogated. I answer, it was abrogated and repealed in Christ: that as all the Services, Ceremonies, Covenants, Canaan, Natural seed, and all was typical; so Christ is the body and substance of all these services, ceremonies etc. and the spiritual people, believers, are the substance typed out in the natural seed. So that as the natural seed were accounted for the seed, that is repealed, Joh. 8. 39, 44. with Rom. 2. 28, 29. and only the spiritual are accounted for the seed.  
You talk much of privilege, as if baptising of Infants were such a privilege to them. I answer, 1. Our privileges do not consist in externals; but as the Covenant was made with the spiritual seed, so the privileges of the Covenant are suitable to it; see Heb. 8. from the 6. verse to the end. And truly it betrays abundance of ignorance in those that cry out so much about privilege, as if the privilege of the Covenant of grace consisted so much in outside things. What privilege it was to the Jews to be circumcised, I know not, I mean to those who were never circumcised in their hearts; or what privilege it is to Infants to be baptised, I wonder, unless you will make it a privilege to be in the form without the power, and so to make souls think themselves Christians when they are none, so deceiving and deluding them. Certainly this will be but a sad privilege one day, when both teachers and taught must give an account together. I could sometimes be freely willing to part even with tears of blood, in sight and sense of those many thousands, yea millions of souls deeply deluded with pretended privileges, who think themselves in a good condition, and in a moment go down to hell. For the wicked must be turned into hell, and all those who forget God. And the Leaders of the people cause them to err, and they that are led of them are destroyed, Isa 9 16. Is it not much better, more safe, and an act of faithfulness for parents to deal faithfully with their children, and let them know that they are not in the Covenant of grace, but that by nature they are children of wrath as well as others, that so they may through mercy come to the sight of their natural condition, and their need of Christ; rather then to delude them with toys and fancies, mere imaginations of the fleshly mind vainly puffed up? Oh the Lord will make you know one day what it is thus to lift up yourselves in fleshly boasting, and to make a nose of wax of the Covenant of grace, turn it which way you please, in one day, and out another. 1. Believers children in; 2. All professing Christ in, though never so wicked; 3. Bastards in, all in, and all as soon and as well as any. (See pag. 5.) I must tell you, and that from the Lord, you will have a sad account to give to the Lord one day, if mercy prevent not, for your abusing the Covenant of grace, and thrusting a fleshly generation upon the Lord, when he is seeking a spiritual, a holy seed to worship him: and I would have you to know, that those you so often, and with so much contempt and reproach term Anabaptists, are not so simple as you would persuade the world to believe; they are able through mercy to see into your forgeries and delusions, and to discover them too in a measure; and to distinguish between Law and Gospel, Covenant and Covenant, not confounding things together, so denying Christ to be come in the flesh.  
I shall in a word give you the difference. The Covenant of the Law, either that with Abraham or with Moses, was a Covenant without them, and the mystery or substance was hid from all (though all was in it) unless those few taught of God: The Covenant of the Gospel is wholly spiritual, and none are in it but the spiritual seed, viz. true believers; though hypocrites may come in to the outward profession, yet they have nothing to do to be there, for there is no outside in the Covenant of grace. That which you call the outward Covenant, is but the outward profession of the invisible grace, and that is proper only to those who are in it: & although the Disciples did, and we may admit those that may prove hypocrites; yet neither did they, nor may we admit any by baptism into the visible profession of the invisible grace, but those we judge by the rule of truth in this particular to have true faith; and if any come in that have it not, to their own peril it will be. Therefore if this be truth, as I am sure it is, what account will those give to the Lord, who bring in the natural seed to the profession of the spiritual Covenant, and so make them hypocrites: A day will come, when the sinners in Zion shall be afraid, and fearfulness shall surprise the hypocrite, Isa. 33. So I conclude, that Infants are not in the Covenant of grace, nor were ever commanded to be baptised, therefore have no right unto it.   

The fourth Argument.  

Christian's ought to be baptised.  
But Infants of Christians are Christians.  
Ergo, They ought to be baptised.   
Answ. 1. If this Argument were truth, it were a very easy thing to be a Christian. Born Christians by nature! no need of Christ, the Gospel, Spirit, Regeneration, any thing; it makes void all the whole Gospel of grace and peace; a doctrine of Devils indeed: Do you not remember that Paul saith, If any man preach any other Gospel then what he had preached, he should be accursed, Gal. 1. But you have found out another Gospel, Christians by the natural generation and birth; Cursed be all such soul deceiving, and soul destroying Doctrines. You pretend to prove your Minor with much clearness, As all the parings of Gold are Gold, so all the children of Christians are Christians: The parings of gold are true gold; and the children of Christians by this account are true Christians, pared out from the spiritual man, being of the same nature: oh high privilege! Christian's can beget Christians, Saints can beget Saints by natural generation. Certainly if one of the preaching brethren had laid down such an assertion, you would have counted him an illiterate Ignoramus, one altogether unmeet to have meddled with the Scriptures, or to have spoken of the things of God: You would have accounted him no less than a blasphemer, and worthy to be burnt with his Books. Well, but you proceed, As all the Children of the Jews were Jews by birth, Gal. 2. 15. And all the Children of the Turks are Turks by birth, so all the Children of Christians are Christians, and have a right to Baptism.  
Answ. 1. The Jews were all in an outward Covenant, and so they were born Jews, viz. in that Covenant; but believers are in the Covenant of grace, as hath been already proved, and none are born in that Covenant by natural generation and birth: so that although Jews were Jews by birth, yet Christians are not so by the natural birth, for that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit.  
But secondly, the Jews were so by birth, as a distinguishing title from other Nations; so the Turks are Turks, and the Spaniards are Spaniards, and the French are French, and the English are English by birth, but they neither of them are Christians by birth.  
But you seem to mend all in answering an Objection. Then we should be born Christians, and not made Christians; we should be born children of God, and not children of wrath.  
You answer: Parents cannot convey grace to their Children, but a right to Church privileges, etc. unheard of nonsense and confusion, miserable bald shifts men make to patch up their own inventions: 1. Christians, yet no grace; a right to Church-priviledges, yet no grace; Members of the Church, yet no grace: page 23. Nay members of the Church, Christians, a right to Church privileges, holy, etc. and yet have no grace, are the children of wrath, page 23. these are like to be goodly Christians, Church Members, etc. Yet you dislike with the Anabaptists for not taking notice of this distinction, etc. A strange kind of distinction; to make them Christians, yet no Christians; Members of the Church, yet children of wrath. I suppose you would learn to distinguish a little better, were it not to please the vulgar sort of people, that so they may please you, in feeding you with the Tithes. A sad thing, when you shall lead along souls blind with the name of Christian, yet children of wrath, and if mercy prevent not, are like to perish eternally, for all the name of Christian: Thus are souls deluded by their Teachers, called Christians, made Church-members, and yet Children of wrath, etc. Alike children of wrath as Heathens, page 10.   

The fifth Argument.  
From Christ's command and commission to his Disciples, Mat. 28. 19 and from the Apostles practise, answerable to that command, thus your argue.  

That which is both commanded and commended, that hath both precept, precedent, and promise for it, may lawfully be practised by the Ministers of Jesus Christ.  
But Infant-Baptism is both commanded and commended; for it there is both precept, precedent, and promise.  
Ergo.   
Well said namesake Tom: Prove this, and thou hast done the deed that never yet was done: Prove this, and I will lay down my Arguments and practise too. Had you a good cause, you its like would be very bold, that you dare be so bold in asserting such an Argument in such positive terms, when there is never a word in Scripture of either precept, precedent, or promise to the thing you are pleading for: so that your Minor is denied.  
You pretend to prove it, Mat. 28. 19 you say, Christ Commandeth his Disciples, and in them all Ministers successively, to the end of the world, to go and baptise Nations; you say, Children are a part of the Nations, therefore they are commanded to be baptised: but there is, as you afterwards confess, a Discipling first, Disciple Nations, baptising them, and here is no command for Infant-baptism, but for the baptism of Disciples; you pretend to put off this with the dangerousness of building Arguments on the bare placing of words in Scripture; you produce Repentance and Judas' sop: Repentance sometimes placed before Faith, yet we know it is a fruit of Faith.  
I answer, it is such a fruit of faith as is individual; and upon a right understanding, Repentance may as well be said to go before, as to follow after; for it is a change of the mind; and I query whether any man did ever believe, or can believe before his mind is changed; its true, after believing the change is perfected more and more. But this is it which I affirm, That no man believes savingly without or before a change of the mind, which produceth a change of the conversation: As for the Sop, neither Matthew nor Mark saith that Judas received it before the Sacrament; Matthew saith chap. 26. 23. He that dippeth with me in the dish shall betray me; but he doth not express when it was done, before or after; so Mark expresseth chap. 14. 20. That he that dippeth with him in the dish should betray him, but he doth not tell whether it was before or after; therefore what Luke saith is no contradiction, but rather a clearer explanation. And whereas you say you will upon the account of placing words, easily prove Baptism to be before Preaching, Mark 1. 4. John did baptise in the Wilderness, and preach, etc. Here Baptism is set before Preaching say you, etc. but this is answered and explained by Matthew Chap. 3. 1, 2. John the Baptist preached in the Wilderness of Judea, saying, Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand, and ver. 5, 6. they were baptised of him in Jordan: And this is according to the Analogy of Scripture, Preaching, Discipling, believing, confessing of sins, repenting before baptising; and produce if you can, that ever baptising was set before believing, etc. and not explained by another Scripture, as that of Mark explained by Matthew: and then take heed, fear and tremble to change Scripture phrases at your pleasure, for your own ends, taking that first, which is and must be last. You may upon this very account turn out, and contradict all the most precious truth of God in Scripture; and this very thing strikes at it; for the reason why Teaching, Discipling and Faith is to precede baptism, is evident, that it is because its Christ's appointment, and there is a necessity that faith go before works; for there is no work acceptable before, or without faith; but Thomas Hall will have works go before faith, baptism before faith; though Christ hath said the contrary, and so make void the Law of Christ, and the Faith of Jesus, lay another foundation, works before faith, baptism before believing, and so teach men to sin, For whatsoever is not of faith is sin: And he that breaketh one of the least Commands, and teacheth men so to do, shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven, Mat. 5. 19 What then shall become of those who break the great commands of Faith and Baptism, that overturn the very foundation, setting up works before and without Faith; and that you may do it, you chop and change the Scripture, that so you may accomplish your own designs upon the account of Christ. But all your Logical Arguments, and humane distinctions will not, cannot satisfy those whose eyes are enlightened, to see out of obscurity, and out of darkness: So the truth stands firm as Christ himself, that is, first disciple, then baptise; and the practice of the Apostles answered this Command, they never baptised any in the Nations but Disciples; And this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Disciple all Nations, holds forth the breaking down of that middle wall of partition; and so the going forth of the Gospel to the Gentiles, for so that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth, Gentiles as well as Nations; and it intends not all Nations, viz. every one in the Nations, but all that believed, and became Disciples in the Nations, Act. 10. 35. In every Nation, he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness shall be accepted. Now where is your command Sir for your practice so much pleaded for? for you confess, pa. 28. That this place speaks properly of the order prescribed for conversion of Heathens that were adult: Then you have no command in this Scripture for your practice; you are lost upon your own account.  
You grant, page 29. That all baptised one's must be taught, but not all at the same time; such as are capable of teaching, are to be taught before baptising; but Infants of believers are to be baptised first, and taught afterward. But you have no Scripture for this, it seems your word must stand for proof to those who will believe it; you instance 2 Thess. 3. 10. He that will not labour, must not eat; Infants cannot labour yet they must eat. True, but what is that to the thing in hand? Do you think the Apostle intended that, to give advantage to you to overturn the Commands of Christ? there is a necessity for Infants to eat, but none to be baptised, unless there be a necessity to break the Law of Christ, and a necessity to make them hypocrites, etc.  
You say, There is a teaching after baptising, Mat. 28. 20. A teaching before and after; and that baptising is set in the middle, implying, that some must be taught before (viz.) Heathens; some after (viz.) Infants of believers. But you are much mistaken in the second; but it implieth that there is a teaching before for the working of faith, and a teaching after for the building them up in the same faith: for that end God hath appointed Prophets, Pastors, and Teachers in the Church; and those Acts 2. 41. that were baptised, ver. 42. continued steadfast in the Apostles doctrine, etc. So that this is the teaching before and after baptism there intended.  
You confess page 31. notwithstanding your bold assertion in your Argument, That all your Command is but a consequential command, and something equivalent to a command, an implicit command, a necessary consequence, etc. I advise you to take heed, first how you lay down Arguments for the future in such positive terms to delude the simple, yet confess at last it is but a necessary consequence.  
2. A little consider how necessary the consequence is; it is such a consequence as first makes void the command of Christ. 2. Makes null the Gospel of grace, setting up works before and without faith. 3. Makes all your worship vain; In vain (saith Christ) do ye worship God, teaching for doctrines the traditions of men, Mat. 1. 5. 9 And thus you make the Commandments of God of none effect by your traditions, ver. 6. I say, if this be permitted, to draw consequences from Scripture to overturn commands, it is the most dangerous way that ever was invented to usher in Heresy and Error; and upon that account its easy to turn out almost all the truth of God in Scripture, and set it at variance against itself; we grant consequences rightly grounded, but we deny consequences to overturn Commands, and Gospel, and all: As for all that you say from pag. 31. to 34. it is nothing but a reiteration of what hath been said before, either in this, or your former Arguments. And notwithstanding you are pleased to say pag. 33. That Infant-Baptism is clear enough to those who have eyes to see, or hearts to believe it. To see and believe what you say, and take your word for all; for there is neither Scripture nor Reason for it.  
Page 34. You say, Since the Anabaptists call and cry so much for a literal Command.  
By the way, Sir, Are you such an enemy to literal Commands? will you make void literal commands, to set up your own inventions? or do you envy against them because they overturn your practices?  
You say, They may do well to give you Commands for many of their practices: As first, what express command they have to deny the Moral Law to be a rule of life.  
Answ. They deny not the Moral Law to be a rule of life to believers in its essence; but they deny it to be a rule of life as an administration in the hands of Moses: But Christ having taken it into his own hands, and fulfilled the righteousness of it, he gives it anew unto them, and it ceaseth to be any more the Law of Moses, but is the Law of Christ; this is cleared abundantly, 1 Joh. 2. 7, 8. First, It is no new Commandment, but the old.  
Yet secondly, It is a new Commandment, which is true in him, and in us, because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth. So that notwithstanding it is the substance of the old, yet it is new, because in Christ, and from him to us, and in us: If this will not satisfy, see 1 Cor. 3. 11. compared with 1 John 2. 7, 8.  
2. You Querie, What express command against the coercive power of the Magistrate? I suppose you mean in the things of Jesus Christ.  
1. I suppose if Magistrates command any thing contrary to the mind of Christ, we are not to obey; they have nothing to do to make use of their coercive power there; if they do, they sin, and all men are commanded not to sin. That it is a sin, is clear; That which contradicts the command of God is sin: Which shall we obey, God or man? judge ye, Acts 4 19 There was the command of God, and the command of man in opposition each to other, and there the command of man was sinful.  
2. Jesus Christ is King of his Church, Rev. 15. 3. and it's his work to make use of a coercive power, to bring in souls to his Kingdom, Psal. 110. 4 In the day of his power his people shall be a willing people; and unless you can produce any Scripture, in which Christ hath resigned his power to the Magistrate, I suppose he is still King of his Church; and those who make use of a coercive power in his Kingdom, are at best but Usurpers.  
3. Christ hath entrusted and impowered none but his Ministers with that work of gathering souls into his Kingdom; and this they are to do in his power, in his authority, and in his way: And those who pretend themselves to be the Ministers of Christ, yet want the coercive power of the Magistrate, declare themselves to be none of his, not serving the Lord Jesus, but their own bellies, etc.  
4. There is the substance of an express command, Rom 14. 4. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth, etc. And Jam. 4. 12. There is one Law giver, who is able to save and to destroy; who art thou that judgest another? It's clear, that none have power to judge and determine coercively, but he that hath a power to save and destroy: And the Reason is drawn from ver. 11. that none hath power to judge of the Law, and give sentence, but he that is above the Law; and if any will go about to judge others by a coercive power, they are not doers of the Law, but Judges. This is meant only in Cases of Conscience, relating to Jesus Christ; not but that Magistrates may, and aught to take cognizance of Civil things, and sinful actions flowing from the corruptions of men; but matters Spiritual and Divine, tending to Worship, there it's the prerogative of God alone to judge.  
3. You query, What command we have to separate from the Churches which hold the foundation pure? I answer, None at all that I know; neither do we separate from any such Churches, but from Babylon and Egypt, which hath been and is a cage of every unclean and hateful birds; not true or pure either in its Constitutions, Members, Ministry, or Ordinances: and we have a Command for what we do. See and well consider 2 Tim. 3. from the first ver. to the fift, and Rev. 18 4.  
4. You query, What command we have for Rebaptising? Ans. I know no such thing as rebaptising: there is a command for baptising believers; and that which you call baptising, viz. sprinkling the faces of your Infants, we take no knowledge of it; you rantize them, and say you baptise them, so speak an untruth. So that the just judgement of God is upon you, that having changed the Subject from a Believer to an Infant, you must change the very Ordinance itself from baptising to rantizing, from dipping to sprinkling. So that you are wholly besides, and have not the least ground to say we rebaptize; for we baptise those you have rantized before, it may be. Thus have I endeavoured to give you a brief account of things you desired, and so I pass to your   

Sixth Argument, p. 35.  
From Act. 2. 38, 39 your Argument is,  

To whomsoever the promise of grace belongs, to them Baptism belongs.  
But the promise of grace belongs to believers and their children.  
Ergo, Baptism belongs to them both.   
This is but the same you have said before: your Arguments being six in number, are but two in substance. Yet I shall see what you say to the business; for your Minor is denied: yet you are pleased to say, p. 36. in confirmation of your Minor, That the Minor flows from the Text; the Parents believing and repenting, he expressly commands them to be baptised, both believers and their children. Oh unheard of falsehood! is there ever such a word in the Text, as, and their Children? He saith, Repent and be baptised every one of you; that is, every one of you that are pricked in your hearts. You add, and their Children. It seems you have either forgotten, or else you fear not that curse denounced against him that addeth to, or diminisheth from the words of this Book.  
The reason you render, is, Because the promise is to you and to your children Is, not was, and is now vanished.  
Ans. That Promise you so much plead for, which is but one and the same you have so often reiterated already, is vanished away, and the children of Israel are out of the Land of Canaan, etc. and we are under another, a better Covenant, a new Covenant, etc. Jer. 3. 31. Heb 8. established upon better promises. That promise was the Land of Canaan; ours is the true promise of the Spiritual Land: they had the Land of Canaan promised, and it was made good while they kept Covenant with God; we have the Spiritual Land promised, and that is made good to all the Spiritual seed. And this is the promise here intended, and it is limited to all that the Lord our God shall call. 1. The promise here related, is intended only to called one's; and it is a restriction to all the several terms before. As many of you as the Lord shall call. Of your children, as the Lord shall call. Of them afar off, viz. Gentiles, as the Lord shall call. For the truth is, that there is no promise in the Gospel but to called ones. See this clear, Joel. 2. 32. the Scripture to which this in the Acts relates. In mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lordshell call. It's the very same with Act. 2. 39 and note, 1. The Call is not, as you plead, universal, but to a remnant; and those who are thus called, shall be delivered, saved. This dashes to pieces your assertions throughout your Argument: they are the called ones, and they only to whom the promise belongs; for the promises are all centred in Christ, and given forth to the called one's; not those who are outwardly called, but effectually and savingly called. Heb. 9 15. Christ is said to be a Mediator of a better Testament; but you will have the same; so deny Christ to be come in the flesh. That by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions under the first Testament, Christ died to deliver his people from the transgressions under the first Covenant, that so they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. Here is the promise, the eternal inheritance; the persons to whom, they that are called, not infants the natural seed, but the spiritual: the same mentioned Rom 8. 30. Whom he predestinated, them he called, etc. and to them, and them only the promise belongs.  
This I doubt not but it will be enough to the judicious Reader to discover the vanity and emptiness of all you say to this sixth argument. For children are not taken literally any otherwise then as called of the Lord. For the Jews crucifying Christ, and wishing his blood to be upon them and their children; the Gentiles having a hand in it too, they mocked him, etc. they being pricked in their hearts at Peter's Sermon, the Apostle applieth a suitable medicine to their wounded consciences: he doth not tell them of an outward promise, a Land of Canaan, an outward federal holiness for themselves & children, which they might have, and yet be damned at last; No, no, but a spiritual promise that might reach their souls in such a condition: therefore in substance he saith, Notwithstanding you have had a hand in crucifying the Lord Jesus, the promise of the spirit of grace and of remission is to you, as many of you as the Lord shall call; and notwithstanding you have by your deprecations drawn guilt upon your children, yet the promise is to them, as many of them as the Lord shall call: and notwithstanding the Gentiles have joined with you in it, yet the promise is to them, to as many as the Lord our God shall call. And this is the sense and truth of this Scripture: and I do affirm that there is no Gospel-promise made to any but the called of God; and all others that get into the Gospel-profession, not being of the true spiritual seed, God will judge them in his time. And it is evident there were none baptised, but those that gladly received his word, v. 41.   

The seventh Argument, à probabili. pag. 40.  
From Apostolical practice, which is in the nature of a Gospel-injunction to us. We read of divers families that they baptised, as Cornelius with his household, Act. 10. 47, 48. compared with 11. 14. Lydia with her household, Act. 16. 15. the Jailor and his, Act. 16 31, 32. Crispus and all his house, Act. 18. 8, and the household of Stephanus, 1 Cor. 1. 16. Your Argument is this.  

If the Apostles baptised whole households, than Children which are an integral part of the household were baptised also.  
But the Apostles baptised whole households.  
Ergo.   
The Minor, you say, none will deny; the Major you will prove. Generals, you say, include particulars: the word household is a large word, and includes all, old and young, men, women, and children, etc.  
But stay a little; are there any Children mentioned? if not, you have but probability at best; and I query whether probability be a sufficient ground to warrant a practice contradicting a positive command.  
You say, pag. 41. Many things were done that are not mentioned in Scripture; that Christ and his Apostles did many things that are not written, Joh. 20. ult.  
I answer, 1. If it had been done, yet not being written, silent authority proves nothing. All you can say, is but that it might be done, not that it was done; because it is not written.  
2. To look after things not written, to contradict and make null things that are written, take heed of that Thomas: if your name sake the Collier should have laid down such a Principle, you would have said somewhat to it. But I pass it by; a word to the wise is enough. But I shall rather come to discover the grounds of your Probabilities from those families.  
The first is in Act. 10. 47, 48. Cornelius and his household, they were first such as heard the word; therefore not Infants. v. 33. Now therefore are we all here present before God to hear all things that are commanded thee of God. Secondly, v. 44. The Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. Thirdly, they were those, and only those that were baptised, which heard the word, and had received the holy Spirit. ver. 47. Can any forbid water, that these should not be baptised which have received the holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them, viz that had heard, and received the Spirit as well as they, to be baptised. Where are your Infants now? and where is your probability for your practice? Blame me not if I undermine you; for I am a Collier, and must dig up the blackness, that truth may appear.  
The second family is Act. 16. 15. Lydia and her family; there might be Infants, say you. Querie 1. whether Lydia was a maid, widow or wife? Ans. It is generally concluded on all hands, that she had no husband; for if she had, he had been mentioned; for always the man bears the denomination, where there is any, and not the woman. If it be objected, he might not be baptised, therefore not mentioned: I answer, the household were baptised, therefore the husband, if any; and he must have born the name, being the chief. So its clear, there was no husband; then where is your probability for Children? Secondly, the household of Lydia were brethren capable of comfort, therefore not Infants, v. 39  
The third family mentioned is the Jailers, Act. 16. 31, 32, 33. You say, pag. 43. That he believed, and presented his household upon his faith, and they were baptised.  
Ans. Consider a little better of this Scripture. 1. The Jailers household were such as were all capable of hearing the word. v. 32. And they spoke unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 2. They were such as with him rejoiced, believing in God. v. 34. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. So that they first hear, secondly believe, thirdly are baptised. Where is your probability for Children now?  
The fourth household is Crispus, Act. 18. 8. The text is clear, He believed in God with all his house.  
The fifth is Stephanus, 1 Cor. 1. 16. This household was such as were addicted to the ministry of the Saints, 1 Cor. 16. 15. therefore not Infants. But it seems you do not like to have these two Scriptures joined together, because the one so clearly explains the other. 2. You say, that those that were of years might minister, when Infants were only baptised. I wonder what you mind by only: were the Infants only baptised, and those that did minister to the Saints not baptised? That seems to be the probability, and as like as the other. But the text saith, Ye know the household of Stephanus, viz. the same household as was baptised. You will distinguish for your own end; when he saith, the household, that is, say you, those that were of years. But you will permit no such distinction to us, were not the Scriptures through mercy made clear; but it must be all the household, not the major part for the whole. Yet here you can presently divide or distinguish for your own ends, when there is no place for a distinction. These things thus considered, let the Reader judge impartially the weight of your probability for precept, promise, or precedent, as you have summed it up in the conclusion of this Argument.   

The eighth Argument, p. 44.  

Elect Infants may be Baptised;  
Some Infants are Elect.  
Ergo, Some Infants may be Baptised.   
1. I deny your Major, though you are pleased to say it's granted by Mr. Tombs: you abuse him; he saith, if that it were made known to us by their sanctification; which is not; so that Baptism was never administered upon this account, viz. of Election, but Believing: so that though some Infants are Elect, yet none are to be baptised upon that account only, God having given us a visible rule to walk by, and not to walk by such invisible rules, which is known to God alone.  
You confess page 45. That Election is a secret thing, and that it belongs to God; how dare you then to forsake that rule Christ hath laid down in the Gospel, and dig after God's secrets: But were it truth what you say, That elect Infants might be baptised if we knew them; you do not know them, therefore you cannot baptise them; God hath given us a surer way.  
2. Should it be granted by way of concession; if elect infants might be baptised, will you therefore baptise all? that's the way to be sure indeed to catch the Elect: but take heed of inventing and maintaining a way which never came into the heart of Jesus Christ to command; look rather at things revealed, and leave secret things to God.   

The ninth Argument.  

All Disciples ought to be baptised.  
Infants are Disciples.  
Ergo.   
The Major you say none will deny; the Minor is denied; you say it's proved divers ways.  
1. Those which the Scripture calls Disciples, they are Disciples; but the Scripture calls Infants by the name of Disciples. Acts 15. 10. Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples? And Circumcision is the yoke whereof the Apostle is speaking; and they on whose necks this yoke lay, were ordinarily Infants. But were these Infants mentioned in this Chapter, or was it not the Church of Antioch that was troubled with legal Teachers? As a Child almost an Infant, one of those you are pleading for, might understand; a simple and weak Argument, to prove Infants Disciples; there was circumcising others besides Infants, when they came to be Proselytes; And the Jews calling themselves Moses Disciples, John 9 28. because they owned Moses Doctrine, as they thought, in opposition to Christ; therefore you say, Infants were Moses Disciples; a goodly conclusion. A Disciple is one that is doctrinated, or taught the principles of Moses, or the principles of Christ; this are not Infants, therefore none of the Disciples of Christ.  
2. You say you prove it thus.  

To belong to Christ, is to be a Disciple of Christ.  
Infants are said to belong to Christ.  
Ergo.   
The Major is denied: For though all true Disciples belong to Christ, yet all that belong truly to Christ, are not Disciples. All the Elect belong to Christ before they come into the world, nay before they are conceived, yet they are not Disciples. Saul belonged to Christ before his conversion, yet Saul was not a Disciple before, but an enemy, a persecutor of the Disciples: and the truth is, that no man is a Disciple before he receive the doctrine of Jesus Christ; you make up strange Disciples for the Lord, such as we never read of in Scripture; you catch them in their Cradles to make them Disciples; but they are never the rather for that the Disciples of Christ. The Church of Ephesus belonged to Christ before their conversion, yet see what Disciples they were before, Ephes. 2. 1, 2, 3. And likewise the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10. 11. And this I dare be bold to affirm, That there is never a man or woman that is a Disciple indeed, but knows a time when he was not a Disciple; and yet now can see and say that he belonged to God before he was a Disciple.  
Your Minor I question not, but that some Infants belong to Christ.  
3. You say, They are capable of Gods own teaching, etc.  
That is not questioned, what capacity, but what they are, and what it appears they are taught, when they are grown up to manifest it: their capacity makes them no more Disciples, than saul's capacity made him a Disciple before he was converted.  
4. You say, They are Church members, and so by consequence Disciples: Hence you argue.  

All Church members are Disciples.  
Infants of believing Parents are Church-members.  
Ergo.   
The Minor is denied: You seem to refer to Mr. Baxter. This being Mr. baxter's grand Argument, I shall say something to it in this place, though I have in brief answered it already. If I grant they were Church-members, yet they are not so now, we being under another ministration, more spiritual, more immediate; and he owns none to be members of the Church, but those who are truly spiritual; when but one comes in without a wedding garment, he takes notice of him, Friend, how camest thou in hither without a wedding garment? Mat. 22. 11, 12. And you bring in none else but those without a wedding garment; what account you will give your Lord, I know not: but I shall let you see the repeal of that Church-membership you so much boast of: the Promises made to Abraham, run all into Christ, and are dissolved into him, Gal 3. 16. So that if you trace the Promises, you shall see where they all centre; The promise was made to Abraham, and to his seed; he saith, not to seeds, as of many but to his seed, which is Christ.  
2. See to whom the Promises come forth, whether to the natural, or to the spiritual seed. ver. 29. If you are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. So that you must now be Christ's, before you can be Abraham's seed; and then being Christ's, we are heirs according to the promise. So here is the promise, and the heirship; you need not go so far back into the old Testament, if the Lord enlighten your darkness. And how come we to be Christ's? by believing, ver. 26. Rom. 2. 28 29. He is not a Jew that is one outward, but he is a Jew that is one inward, etc. So that the outward Jew, the natural seed, is cut off from the spiritual Covenant; for when the outward Covenant was ended, and the spiritual one was come, than the natural Church-membership was lost, and the spiritual one come in: if what you would have were truth, that it were the same Covenant, and the same members, than the Jews had not been broken off to this day; for they are the seed of those that were members in the first Covenant; but they are broken off for want of faith, which alone gives an interest in the Covenant, and we by faith stand: So to wind up all, Infants of believers are not Disciples, no Church members, therefore not to be baptised.   

The tenth Argument.  

All that have faith, may be baptised.  
But some Infants have faith.  
Ergo.   
The Major you say none will deny.  
Yet give me leave to question it, and highly too; for first, those are to be baptised that manifest faith; if Infants have faith, which I shall question; in the second place yet they have not that faith which is required of those that are to be baptised, viz. In the manifestation of it; so than if Infants have faith; yet none knows that they have it; none knows who of them have it: It's apparent that none but the elect have it; further its apparent that but few of the elect have it neither in infancy; all that live and come to experience, they had it not in infancy, they can experience it, they know how they came by it: than it can be but those elect Infants that die that are believers; & then God can save without faith by virtue of his electing love in Christ; and if he doth work faith in them, that is able to save them without Baptism, it not being required of them: and it's our duty to walk by Rule; then we walk safe; and to administer the Ordinances of Christ according to his mind, not our own: the mind of Christ is, that he that believeth shall be baptised, Mark 16. 16. that is, upon the hearing of the Gospel and confession of his Faith; not Infants, those that we know not whether they believe or no; he hath not left us so to walk in the dark: this I think is sufficient to answer both your Major and Minor, although for all you say to prove your Minor, there is no weight in it: neither do I clearly assent that Infants have faith. That Scripture you mention, Mat. 18. 6. is not so express as you pretend or imagine; but it relates to those who are humble and meek, qualified as little children; see ver. 3, 4, 5. so that it is such a little child so qualified, one of those that did believe.  
1. Query. What children are they that usually are persecuted for the name of Christ, Infants in nature, or children on in Grace?  
2. Query. Whether Christ is now teaching his disciples and encouraging them against suffering, or little Infants?  
By this you may with ease come to perceive what Believers are intended in this Text.  
1. You say, They receive the Kingdom of God, Mark 10. 15. It is not said that Infants receive the Kingdom of God; but whosoever doth not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, etc. that is, to be humble and meek and teachable, etc. and you had wisdom enough to give this interpretation yourselves formerly; but that now the case is altered you need to apply it another way.  
And 2. Though some Infants do receive the Kingdom, etc. Yet it is not many as you have heard already, not all.  
3. You say, they please God because he blessed them. Doth God use to bless Infants or others because they please him? or doth he bless them with Grace because he pleaseth himself in so doing, when they are enemies to him?  
4. Faith, you say, must be allowed them, else not salvation. And when the Scripture speaks of faith, it intends it to such as are adult; and those who are adult, not believing, shall be damned; the Scripture determines nothing about Infants, but leaves it as a secret to God; for they cannot have that faith the Scripture speaks of, which comes by hearing; and the Scripture speaks of no other faith, that I know of; and therefore they cannot have that damnation the Scripture threatens to unbelievers; though the elect Infants dying may obtain through the Grace of Election the same Salvation without Faith, as believers do through faith, Rom. 11. 7.  
5. You say, Though Infants cannot make an actual profession of faith as adults can; yet being born in the bosom of the Church they have somewhat to bring, etc. Yet are children of wrath as well as the children of the Gentiles are, as you confess before, 1. Reckoned in the number of God's people with the Parents. No truth in that, as hath been often proved; none are accounted for the seed but Believers. 2. Some of them elect, etc. 1. That some, you know not. 2. For that some, you will take in all: Find out the Elect, and then we shall be silent: you say, Hence we read that some children had the spirit in their infancy; John Baptist had faith in the womb; the Scripture saith it not, its only Thomas Hall's words, Jeremiah sanctified from the womb, etc. and what of all this? its not one swallow makes a Summer: because John and Jeremiah were sanctified, that is, set apart from the womb to their particular offices, therefore all Infants are sanctified: a goodly conclusion, because Balaams' Ass did speak, therefore all Asses may speak; a likely matter.  
You say, The Promise is, that in the Gospel times the child shall die an hundred year old, etc. Isa. 65 20. that is, say you, They shall be blest with spiritual life and light from Christ, as if they had lived an hundred years in the Church of God; when that relates to a spiritual glory in the Church of Christ, which is yet to come; not of the Natural, but of the Spiritual Seed, when they shall be freed from the former weakness and temptation; this Scripture Answers Rev. 21. 1, 2, 3. 2 Pet. 3. 13. And whereas you say, though Infants cannot lay hold on Christ, yet he can lay hold on them. We question not Christ's laying hold on them; but we are not to baptise them till they lay hold on Christ. Pag. 49. you say, Infants have faith, repentance, regeneration; and before you confess they are children of wrath, alike the children of wrath as heathens are: pag. 10. yet now faith, repentance, regeneration; unheard of contradictions! If your preaching brethren had written such palpable contradictions, you would have concluded that it had been either for want of learning, or through much forgetfulness; but you mend the business well you think, It is virtually and potentially, by way of inclination, etc. They have the spirit and seed of faith, etc. The truth of this appears apparently in Infants when they are grown; doth the seed of faith appear, or the seed of corruption? Come forth O all ye that have any experience of the grace of jesus, and work of faith with power, speak you knowledge in this particular, whether there be in Infants an inclination, and the seed of faith; or whether there be not rather an inclination to every thing that is evil, and the power of corruption remaining in them? Be ashamed and blush, to utter such known untruths, and unheard of contradictions; Children of wrath, yet the seed of faith, inclinations to believe; I say no more, but leave this Argument likewise to the wise consideration of the Reader.   

The eleventh Argument.  

That way which doth confound the two Sacraments, and take away the distinction which God hath put between them, cannot be the way of God.  
But the way of the Anabaptists doth confound the two Sacraments, and takes away that distinction which God hath put between them.  
Ergo, 'tis not the way of God.   
Answ. There is no truth in your Minor; for first, where is the Scripture that saith baptism is only for Initiation, and not for Confirmation; it's a fancy of your own brain; may not baptism be be initiation and confirmation too?  
2. If it be truth what you say, that Baptism is only for initiation into the Church, what is become of your Mr. baxter's grand Argument, That they are members of the Church? then not initiated in by baptism; one of your Arguments must of necessity be false. I say both of them as relating to Infants.  
3. It was the Apostles practice to baptise believers, and give them the Supper too; and did they confound the two Sacraments as you call them? bear with me, for I know no Scripture calls them so. So that the way of the Anabaptists, as you falsely & reproachfully call them, doth not confound the Ordinances, but preserve them in their place, to the right end, according to the right rule; and you it is confound Ordinances, observing neither rule, place, nor end.   

The twelfth Argument.  

Such as were typically baptised under the Law, may be really baptised under the Gospel.  
Infants were typically baptised under the Law.  
Ergo.   
You reason from the type to the truth.  
In this take a view likewise of your own ignorance, in not understanding the difference between type and antitype, type and substance, type and truth; and show me if you can any one type in all the Scripture that typed out another type; you may as well say that the Jewish Sacrifices typed out the Gospel Supper, etc. But all types related to substances, and Christ was the substance of all legal types; this truth will be clear in the resolving of these questions.  
1. If Christ be the substance of all types, whether or no the baptising of the natural seed in the type, do not represent unto us the baptising of the spiritual seed into the substance? 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 27.  
2. Whether or no, as all the natural seed were baptised into Moses and into the sea and cloud, so all the spiritual seed should be baptised into the profession of faith of Jesus? Mat. 28. 19 Act. 19  
3. Whether to make the substance no other than the type, the Covenant of the Gospel no other than that of the Law, the seed of the Gospel-Covenant the same as the Legal, the administration of Gospel-ordinance on the same subjects as of the Legal, notwithstanding Christ hath given clear rules to the contrary, be not to make null the Gospel, and to deny Christ to be come in the flesh, and so to be the Antichrist? Gal. 5. 2. Mat. 28. 20. Act. 3. 22. 1 Joh. 4. 2. 3.  
In a word, if you will make this type the ground of your baptising Infants, first than you do not hearken to Christ the substance, but honour him in the type, deny him in his person and spirit: secondly, you are to baptise them as they were in the type, viz. in the cloud and in the sea. What is that to your sprinkling of Infants? Thirdly, you may from hence, if that be your warrant from whence you ground your practice, baptise your  too, for all passed through the sea: and indeed not to be a pattern to you that you might hence take occasion to sprinkle Infants, so denying Christ; but a type of Christ the Saviour and Deliverer of his people; that as the natural seed were saved in the type, so the spiritual were and are saved in the substance, viz. in Christ. All you say to this Argument being thus untruly grounded, is but a non sequitur, and so I leave it.   

The thirteenth Argument.  
From the privileges that Christ purchased for Infants.  

Those who are subjects of Christ's kingdom, have right to the privileges of subjects.  
But some Infants are subjects of Christ's kingdom.  
Ergo, Some Infants have right to the privileges of Subjects.   
You say, The seal of the Covenant is a choice privilege. I have often said, and say again, that Baptism is no seal of the Covenant, but the Spirit.  
To your second Argument I say, there is no truth in your Major; for there is not a word of Baptising in the Text; and therefore no ground to receive them to Baptism, though Christ received them and blessed them. I shall answer the Scripture more at large by and by.  
As to the third, Those that Christ invites, the Church may not refuse. Where doth Christ invite Infants? Those Infants are gone long since. He saith, Suffer the Infants, not all Infants. 2. The Church are to receive those Christ hath given rule and command to receive, viz. Believers. Christ may receive some Infants, because he knows them: The Church doth not know them, therefore the Church may not receive them.  
4. You say, They that are capable of the Kingdom and Blessing, which is the greater, are much more capable of Baptism, which is the lesser. But Infants are capable of the greater. Ergo.  
Ans. Some Infants by virtue of Election may be capable of the greater, yet not capable of the lesser. 1. Because not capable to understand the lesser. 2. Because we are not capable to understand and know them. 3. Because there is no command for it; for that is it we are to walk by, and that capacity in which we are to judge.  
5. You say, If the Kingdom of heaven receive them, the Church may not exclude them.  
Ans. The Kingdom of heaven, of glory, receives none but the elect of God: the Church doth not know them; therefore the Church cannot receive them, etc.  
Now to your Scripture, Mar. 10. 14. Suffer the little Children, and forbidden them not. Note, he saith not, suffer little children, but suffer the little children; not all little children, but the little ones, that is, those that were then brought unto him. You draw a Conclusion from hence to have all, p. 3, 4, 5. It's evident in that, that he would have them to come to him, that so he might take an occasion to discover a gospel-mystery, viz. That of such is the Kingdom of Heaven; that is, so qualified spiritually, as they were naturally, meek, humble, teachable, helpless, etc. This is clear, compared with v. 15. Verily I say unto you, whosoever doth not receive the kingdom of heaven as a little child, he shall not enter therein; that is, as I said before, so qualified spiritually, as little children are naturally. Hence 1 Pet. 2. 2. As new born babes desire the sincere milk of the word, etc. that is, not as newborn babes desire the sincere milk of the word; but as new born babes desire the milk of the breast, so do you desire the milk of the word. Mat. 18. 2, 3, 4. clears the whole. Except a man be converted, and become as a little child, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. So that the substance of the whole in every Scripture mentioned by you to this purpose, directly presents us with the same truth, viz. the humble child like qualifications of his servants; and not to fill up the Church with Infants contrary to Christ's command, and the practice of all his servants, which is to be our alone rule and precedent.  
In a word, the Scriptures produced for proof of your Arguments, have not a word of baptism in them, nor the least hint that way; and for you to draw consequences from such grounds, especially those consequences overturning precepts and precedents, is very dangerous and unsafe, and that which we are bound in duty and conscience to renounce.  
Christ knew what he had to do, and hath left us a rule for what we should do; he that forsakes this rule, and will not hear Christ, is to be cut off from amongst his people, Acts 3. 22, 23. They that will draw conclusions into practice from what Christ did, contradicting what he hath commanded, will be found enemies not permitting Christ to reign over them; and what the danger will be of such conclusions, see Luke 19 27.  
The sum of all is this, that although Christ knows the Elect Infants, and receives them, yet we do not know them; it's God's secret, and we are to walk by revealed rules, and are to receive none before the manifestation of faith, Mar. 16. 16. Act. 8. 37. and it's evident the Church did receive none but such, Act. 2. 41, 42. The Apostle in his Epistles writing to the Churches, calls them Saints, not Infants, 1 Cor. 1, 2. 2 Cor. 1. 1. & 1 Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church be come together into some place, and all speak with tongues, the unlearned will say ye are mad; but if all prophecy, etc. Where note, the whole Church meets together, and they may, being thus assembled, all prophecy; and were here Infants, think you? They might all prophecy, none excepted that had the gift, but women. And 1 Cor. 12. 27. The Church is the body of Christ, and members in particular: and this body is made up of many members v. 28, 29, 30. and Infants are none of them. Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, gifts of healing, helps in government, miracles, interpreters, etc. There is never a true member in the Church of Christ, but hath some one or other of these gifts, more or less: here are no Infants, see v. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.   

The fourteenth Argument.  From Rom. 12. 26. you say, but I say 11. 16. If the first-fruit be holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root be holy, so are the branches. The sum of all you say is, That by the root and first fruit is meant Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. p. 62. 
If it appear that there is no truth in this assertion, than your Argument falls to the ground: But there is no truth in this assertion. Ergo. I shall make it appear, 1. In the Covenant made with Abraham: his posterity stood not by faith, but outward observation, Circumcision, keeping the Law. If thou be willing and obedient, thou shalt eat the good of the Land; if thou be disobedient thou shalt be destroyed with the sword, Isa. 1. 19, 20. But when Christ the true root, Isa. 11. 10. Rom. 15. 12. Rev. 5. 5. & 22. 6. and first-fruits, 1 Cor. 15. 20, 23. was come, they not believing were broken off, because not by faith graffed upon the true root. For when Christ the true spiritual seed was come, the natural seed and membership was broken off, and only that of saith was graffed in: That as the natural seed stood members upon the account of the first Covenant and promise made with Abraham; so the spiritual seed, viz. the seed of faith, Christ being come, and is the substance of that Covenant, they are ingraffed into that root; he being holy, they are also holy, according to the words of Christ, Joh. 15. 1, 2.  
2. That this is the truth intended, will more clearly appear, if you consider v. 18. Boast not against the branches (i e. against the branches broken off) for thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Now, Thomas Hall, what root is it that bears the believing branches? Natural parents, or Christ the true root? Is not he the foundation upon which they are built, and the true root and stock into which they are engrafted; and bears them up, and makes fruitful?  
Whereas you say, That by engraffing in, is meant admission into visible communion. I say, it is not only that; but first faith, and then admission into visible communion. And one word by the way; what visible communion are Infants capable of, if they may some of them be capable of invisible union and communion with Jesus Christ; yet where is their capacity of visible communion with the Church, which consists in communicating of experiences; in Ordinances, fellowship in breaking bread, and prayers? where is your visible communion of Infants, Sir?  
You seem to answer an objection, p. 63. Paul speaks of an invisible Church. For my part I own no such objection; for I know no invisible Church here upon earth: for a Church of Christ is a company of believers walking in the visible profession of truth; and there should be none in that profession, but such as are believers indeed; and if any come into the outward, without the inward grace, they must be plucked up. Therefore I own not that distinction of visible and invisible. The invisible Church are those out of sight, that are departed; the visible are those living in the visible profession of truth: and these are they which are graffed in, Rom. 11. Those that are graffed in truly, shall stand and thrive, the root Christ bears them; They that are but in show shall fall, the root will not bear them, because not graffed in by the heavenly Father. In all this here is no room for the natural seed. I leave it to the Reader to judge.   

The fifteenth Argument.  
From 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.  
From hence you argue.  

They that are holy with a Covenant-holiness, may be baptised.  
But Infants born of one believing Parent, are holy with a Covenant-holiness.  
Ergo, Such Infants may be baptised.   
Your Major hath been often denied, for it's but the substance of what you have often said before; and therefore in substance I must answer what I have answered before; there is no such thing mentioned in all the New-Testament as a federal holiness, viz. an external Covenant-holiness without an internal, this being the substance of what you say pag. 65. you confess children only by nature, that there is no difference between the child of a Christian and the child of an Infidel: Yet consider him as believing, so he and his are holy; he is holy spiritually, but are his Infants so too? no; you confess pag. 62. This caution must be remembered, that the holiness you speak of is not personal inherent holiness; for this cannot be transmitted to posterity; but 'tis a federal, external Covenant-holiness. Pray Sir the next time let me know where in the New Testament this same external holiness, without the internal, is so much spoken of or commended: The Lord loveth truth in the inward parts, and condemns hypocrisy and hypocrites; he condemns the form without the power; he owns no Jew but the spiritual, no seed but the spiritual: the axe is now laid to the root of the Tree; every Tree that bringeth not forth good fruit must be cut down, Mat. 3. and yet you are all for an outward holiness without the inward, which is indeed and truth an abomination unto the Lord. But to come to the Scripture you pretend to ground your Argument from: You say, The Anabaptists have invented an evasion to avoid the force of the Text: that say they, it's a matrimonial holiness, that they are legitimate and no bastards, etc. Which I affirm, is the truth of the Scripture, and shall 1. give some brief answers to what you assert. And Secondly, set down my reasons, for what I affirm. 1. You pretend the many absurdities that will follow if it be meant of a civil holiness. 1. Then the children of Turks and Pagans born in Matrimony should be holy. Answ. and why not upon a Matrimonial account, more holy, that is, more lawful than those born of fornication? And whereas you say, they are dogs that are without, etc. It is true, that is, comparatively to the true Church and Spiritual Seed; so are not only Turks and Pagans, but most of your Church-members, who do the same, if not worse works than they; only you have persuaded them into an outward Covenant as you and they imagine; but that helps not the business. 2. It's sin to wicked men what ever they do; yet their civil actions are better to them, as eating, drinking, ploughing, Marriage, lawful procreation of children, than the contrary evil actions; the Apostle saith that marriage is honourable among all. Heb. 13. 4. If among all, then among Turks, and their children are civilly holy, lawfully begotten according to a civil institution; though nothing be truly and spiritually holy, but to those in Christ, it's a Law God hath written in the hearts both of Turks and Indians, that they are more conscientious in defiling of the Marriage estate, than many of those you call Christians.  
2. You say, The Apostles reason would have no weight with it; for their children were legitimate before conversion, so he should allow them no more privilege then mere Infidels have, etc. The Query is not, what they were before conversion, but one being converted, and the other not; the doubt ariseth, whether or no, the Believer must put away the unbeliever: if he or she must do so, than the children must be gone too, both before and after conversion, and this was a Privilege to the Believer, not to be compelled to part with his children: though unbelievers had the same in being, yet it was not to them such a privilege, for mercy is mercy to a Believer indeed; he sees every thing sanctified to him, which the unbeliever doth not.  
3. You say, Then all bastards are unholy and must be damned, Here is a simple one indeed, coming forth from so wise and deep a head as Thomas Hall's. 1. Must all be damned of necessity without the holiness you are pleading for? 2. Do we or the Scriptures say, that Bastards must be damned? do you know from whence you have drawn that conclusion yourself, that Bastards must be damned? if that be not a federal holiness, but a marriage holiness; that their children are legitimate, than bastards must be damned; Is this your Logic? I leave it with you.  
4. You say, The word holy is never used in all the Scripture for legitimation, but generally for a thing separated from common use to God's service, etc. 1. Thomas Hall shall confute Thomas Hall by and by; see pag. 67. he saith, That the sanctification of the unbelieving husband to the believing wife, is not in respect of his personal condition, but in respect of his conjugalrelation; though he continue unclean towards God, yet to his believing wife in a way of marriage he is sanctified, that is, he is holy; for so the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth, and in essence it's the same as is said of the child, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but now are they holy: so that first you say, holiness is never used in all the Scripture for legitimation, but generally for things separated to God's service; yet here you confess, holiness is attributed to the unbeliever upon the Marriage account; in way of Marriage he is sanctified, etc. And the Infants, or children are sanctified with the same sanctification in the same way, and this I take to be the jenuine signification of this Scripture. I shall now give my reasons for it.  
1. There is no such thing in the Gospel as an external federal holiness; it's a mere invention of man, as I have often cleared.  
2. This interpretation, viz. That they were lawfully begotten; 1. reacheth the thing in hand most suitable: for, as Mr. Hall confesseth, the Apostle is giving satisfaction to them concerning a scruple or doubt about mixed Marriages, from Ezra 10. 2, 3. Nehem. 13 23. And he satisfieth them, that the Believer need not put away the unbeliever, as the Jew did the Heathen; for God had sanctified the unbeliever to the believer; else were your children unclean, that is, your children must departed, as those did Ezra 10. and Neh. 13. But now are they holy, that is, holy as the unbeliever is holy; sanctified as the unbelieving husband is sanctified: This is suitable to the thing in hand, they are sanctified as every creature of God is sanctified to the believer, 1 Tim. 4. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is sanctified by the word and prayer; so is the unbeliever and children sanctified to the believer, that he may comfortably enjoy them.  
3. It can be no other sanctification then that of the unbeliever, and that is granted by Tho: Hall, to be but a Marriage-Sanctification, and the child's holiness can be no other, for it flows from it; the unbeliever is sanctified, else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. He doth not say, the Believer is sanctified, else they were unclean, and that must have been the words to have made any thing for your federal holiness; but the unbeliever is sanctified, etc. It being thus cleared, that the holiness of the child flows from the Sanctification of the unbeliever, than its the same with the unbeliever; but it flows from it, therefore one with it; and this is concluded, that a cause cannot produce a more excellent effect then itself: the unbeliever he is sanctified, saith Tho. Hall in way of marriage: then I suppose its clear that the child's sanctification flowing from hence can be but of the same nature: these things thus considered, I leave it to the judgement of the Reader.   

The sixteenth Argument.  
From the many dangerous errors and absurdities that will follow this tenet.  1. Than Christians Infants shall be losers by the coming of Christ. etc. 
Ans. No losers at all; for what advantage is it to be in an outward Covenant, and to have that which you call a Seal, and not to be in the grace of the Covenant, but to be children of wrath as much as heathens, as you confess pag. 10. a mear cheat, a seal to a blank: and the truth is, you cannot devise a greater cheat for Infants, then to tell them they are in the Covenant of Grace, yet children of wrath as well as heathens; in it, yet out of it; and by this are the nations cheated into a Form of Godliness, thinking themselves in a Covenant of Grace, and in a moment go down to Hell.  2. You say, Then grace should be larger then, than it is now, etc. 
Answ. No such thing, the Covenants considered; that was a Covenant of the land of Canaan which belonged to all the Seed, therefore they were all circumcised as a sign of their obedience; and all partaked of the Promise which was but a Type of the Gospel. Covenant: ours is a Spiritual Covenant of the Spiritual Land, the Lord Jesus, and belongs to none but the Spiritual Seed; and to them its more excellent, and more large, and as sure, if not more sure than that was to the natural, Rom 4. 16. That was large and sure to the natural, this large and sure to the Spiritual seed.  3. You say, Then there would be no difference between the child of a Christian, and the child of a Pagan, etc. Then Dogs and Swine, shut out of the new Jerusalem, Rev. 22. 15. 
Answ. And is there any difference by nature think you, unless grace make a difference? doth your federal holiness and baptism make such a difference? doth it receive them into the new Jerusalem, when you confess them children of wrath, as well as the children of heathens are, notwithstanding your federal holiness? Do not you by your pretended outside holiness rather shut them out of the new and true Jerusalem? and dare you say, Turks, Tartars, and Heathens are all shut out from thence? May there not be a time when grace may reach them too? And may not Infants, when grown in years, have the means of working faith; and that in a more hopeful way, when dealt faithfully withal, and not deluded with a shadow without the substance; by which means they may through grace come to attain an interest in the new and true Covenant?  4. You say, Then they are without Christ, without hope, without God, etc. 
Ans. And are they any better in your feigned Covenant, unless they have an interest in truth in Christ and in God? Which is best; to be without Christ, and think they have him; or to be without Christ, and know it? And who are likeliest to abide longest without Christ, those who are deluded and cheated with something like Christ, yet not him; or those who are left as they are in their natural condition, that so they may have nothing to delude themselves withal, but seek after the true God in the use of means, God making them sensible of the want of it?  5. You say, Then they are the Devils children. 
Ans. So they are, notwithstanding your federal holiness, if they do his work, Joh. 8. 44. All you plead for, changes not the nature, but the name; a sad delusion!  6. You say, This robs Christ of his glory; then the first Adam was more powerful to destroy, than Christ to save, etc. 
Ans. It is that makes for the glory of Christ; it's the fulfilling of his will and mind. But you dishonour him, in calling his name upon a company of people that do not know him, nor honour him in their conversation. It seems you are an Vniversalian, you will have Christ to save all that fell in Adam; if all that partake of Adam's sin, must partake of Christ. Truly sir, none are like to partake of Christ's grace but believers, that I know of; and this faith is the gift of God, Ephes. 2. 8. Therefore take heed how you stretch the grace of Christ beyond what it was intended, lest you delude souls with the name of grace, without the truth.  7. You say, Then Infants have no original sin, etc. 
Ans. If they have, will your outward, outside, pretended Covenant and Seal wash it away? how then doth it leave them children of wrath still, as the heathens? Oh sad unheard of contradictions! They are not excluded from the preaching of the Gospel, the ordinary means.  8. You say, This robs Infants of their right, Parents of their comfort, the Church of her members, Christ of his merits, and God of his glory. 
Ans. I tell you, there is a great cry, and but little wool, when looked after. 1. Children of their rights. When Christ in the Gospel hath nowhere given them that right. Secondly, when they have it given them, it is such a right as deludes them, there is nothing in it, but words and wind. 2. Parents of their comfort. What comfort is it to parents who understand, and are not as ignorant as their babes, to have their children cheated, sealed with a blank or a counterfeit that can do them no good? 3. The Church of its members. Alas, of what use are such members in the Church of Christ? Did you ever find such members there? There are, or should be none but useful members. 4. Christ of his merits. Did Christ merit baptism for Infants? if so, you should have proved it. Or purchase his Church? Act. 20. 28. Eph. 5. 25. 5. And God of his glory. What glory would Infants bring to God in the Church of Christ? Can they worship spiritually? Such he seeks to worship him, Joh. 4. 24. can they offer up spiritual sacrifice, acceptable, & c? This is the work of the Church of Christ, 1 Pet. 2 5. and they that cannot do this, dishonour God in his Church, and have nothing to do to be there. These things thus considered, I leave the Reader to judge who dishonour God most, those who contrary to his revealed will thrust upon him of their own heads a company of ignorant dead members, that do not know him, and cannot worship; or those who according to his revealed will endeavour to keep the Church pure, and admit none but those they judge living members, knowing that none else can offer to him living sacrifice, acceptable, etc.   

The seventeenth Argument.  
From the benefit that redounds both to parents and their children.  1. Much comfort comes hereby to Parents, when they consider Gods free grace to them and theirs etc. 
Ans. 1. There is no such thing in the Gospel covenant, as hath been already proved; neither have you, nor can you produce any such word in the Gospel-covenant: but that he is a God, a Father to the true seed, viz. the seed of Christ; and none else are accounted for the seed; they, and they only who believe, have received this privilege, this right, to be called the children of God, Joh. 1. 12. And then,  
2. What comfort can it be to Parents to have their Children called and accounted that which indeed at present they are not, nor have no right so to be called or accounted? For the Covenant of grace is this, I will write my Law in their heart, etc. so will I be a God unto you, etc. And ye shall no more teach one another, saying, Know the Lord; for ye shall all know me from the greatest to the least. They that are accounted to be in this Covenant, are such as know the Lord by virtue of their being taught of him. And this is set in opposition to the Covenant of the Law, which was made with the natural seed, which were a people for the most part not knowing God. But it is not so in the Gospel-Covenant; there are none but those who know the Lord, etc. Jer. 3 31. Heb 8. 10, 11. Therefore I say again, that it is but little comfort to those Parents who are not more ignorant than their Infants, to have their Children called and accounted that which they are not: to have their Children (as you say) admitted into Christ's school, members of his Church, sheep of his fold, distinguished from heathens, etc. What true comfort can it be to Parents, or benefit to Infants to have all these outward things you pretend they gain by it, and yet may be without the truth of all; and are, as you confess, Children of wrath, as well as the children of heathens? Is not this the way to lead them on in a fools paradise; make them have good conceits of themselves, that they are in the Covenant and so delude and undo them for ever? And the truth is, and Christ hath said it, Joh. 10. 9 that He is the door into the sheepfold, viz. the Church, and none can enter in but by him: and those who enter by him shall be saved, and shall go in and out and find pasture. They shall not be mocked & cheated with an outside Covenant-holines, Church membership, etc. as you serve the Children of the Nation: but they shall be saved etc.   

The eighteenth Argument.  

All will-worship must be avoided.  
But the refusing to baptise Infants of Christian parents till they come to years of discretion, is will-worship.  
Ergo, It must be avoided.   
Your Minor is denied. You pretend to prove it with another Argument, wherein your weakness appears: the Argument is,  

That which hath neither precept nor precedent for it in the word of God, is will-worship.  
But the deferring the baptising the Infants of Christian parents, hath neither precept nor precedent for it in the word of God.  
Ergo, It is will-worship.   
Ans. 1. That the weight of your Argument may the better appear unto the Reader, I shall give another Argument as well grounded as yours:  

That which hath neither precept nor precedent for it in the word of God, is will-worship.  
But the deferring the baptising of the Infants of Heathen parents, hath neither precept nor precedent for it in the word of God.  
Ergo, It is will-worship.   
Secondly, I answer,  

That which hath neither precept nor precedent for it in the word of God, is will-worship.  
But the baptising of Infants of believing parents hath neither precept nor precedent in the word of God.  
Ergo, it is will-worship.   
You confess 'tis true, Men of years professing faith are fit subjects of Baptism: So then, upon your own confession, we take the fit subjects. But not the only subjects, excluding Infants, etc. Although the Scripture excludes all except men of years professing faith. I prove it thus:  

If there but one waterbaptism mentioned in the Gospel as an Ordinance of Christ by way of precept and precedent, and that is to persons of years professing faith; then all others are excluded.  
But there is but one waterbaptism mentioned in the Gospel as an Ordinance of Christ, by way of precept and precedent; and that is to persons of years professing faith.  
Ergo, All others are excluded. Mat. 28. 19 Mar. 16. 16. Act. 2. 38, 39, 41. Act. 8. 12.   
You require a precedent for it. Let any man show but one example of any Child of God, that ever kept his Child unbaptised till he could make profession of his faith, etc.  
Ans. 1. When you have produced any Scripture that requires Infants of Believers to be baptised, then shall I show you a Scripture where they kept them back till they professed faith.  
2. There being no command for the practice of baptising Infants, there needs no record for the keeping them from it; it's enough that there is neither precept nor precedent for the doing of it: that was enough to them, and should be to us.  
3. The not doing of a thing is no part of worship: all worship consists in doing or suffering the will of God; and suffering is a doing the will of God too: in both of which the renewed mind is active, as well as the body is in the one active in the other passive, Heb. 10. 36. But the refusing to baptise Infants is no part of worship, therefore cannot possibly be will-worship. If baptism of Infants were a command of Christ, as you say, though never proved; yet to neglect it is no more will-worship, then to neglect prayer, praising, or the like is will-worship; it's no worship, not will-worship.  
Thus have I briefly minded you of the simplicity and nonsense of your Argument in every particular; and proceed to your   

Nineteenth Argument,  
From the blessing of God upon the Churches that have practised Infant-Baptism.  
Ans. 1. If you mind by the blessing outward prosperity, I suppose the Church of Rome, whom you condemn for heretical in your separating from her, hath had as great a share, and the longest standing of any Church or State in the world. And that is no trial of the truth of a Church, outward prosperity, and long continuance; for the Churches of Christ in the Primitive times were, and yet are under persecution, reproach and contempt, but little prosperity in the world, Joh. 16. ult.  
2. If you mind, as you seem to intimate, Because so many bless God for their Infant-Baptism.  
Answ. 1. So did many bless God for Episcopal Government, yet at last the very same blessed God for the fall of it.  
2. I suppose, as many upright souls now are blessing God for his discovery of the vanity of it.  
3. It's not men's blessing God for things, that proves the truth of these things, but the approbation of him who is Truth itself.  
4. If you mind, because those you falsely call Anabaptists have been condemned persecuted, and afflicted, as you intimate, and the others justified, upheld, etc.  
Answ. 1. It's the likelier to be truth; for that hath always passed under reproach and contempt: as for affliction, Job suffered much, the loss of all; will you judge Job for his afflictions, and justify his wicked enemies, yea and the Devil too that afflicted him? for shame learn more civility then to reason thus: did you never hear of jobs losses? was it because he was an Anabaptist think you? or was it because God gave Satan liberty to try him, for his good? and may not God give Satan the same liberty to try his own servants, and it may be to prove the Devil a liar, as he did in the trial of job? have you never heard of great part of Cities, Towns, and Houses burnt? and was it because they were Anabaptists think you? As for your vile and railing expressions, I pass it by, and leave it to the righteous Judge, who will do right both to his servants and his enemies.   

The twentieth Argument.  
From the principles and practice of all reformed Churches.  

That which is condemned by all the Churches of God, and is contrary both to their principles and practice, is unlawful.  
But Anabaptism is condemned by all the Churches of God, and is contrary both to their principles and practice.  
Ergo.   
Answ. Your Major is granted, viz. That that which is condemned by the principles and practices of the Churches in Scripture, and all those reform, or rather gathered upon the same principles and practices, is unlawful.  
Your Minor is denied; for baptising of believers hath been, and is the principle and practice of the Churches of Christ: whereas you produce 1 Cor. 11. 16. We have no such custom, nor the Churches of Christ; I say there was no such custom as the baptising of Infants in the Churches of Christ; and for those you call reform Churches, the most of them, if not all, brought their baptism of Infants from their mother Church of Rome. So then, it is not the practice of the Church of Rome, or of her members that are rend from her that we look unto, but the Scripture, the word of truth, which should be both their and our rule; and when Churches or persons contradict that, let them be Anathema Maranatha.  
And whereas you are pleased, as you pretend, in confirmation of what you have asserted in this Argument, to arraign the prisoner at the Bar, so producing your reformed Churches and Divines, so judging the servants of the Lord for their following of him, and obedience to him; Be assured, you will one day know what you have done, When the Lord jesus shall appear to render vengeance to those who know him not, neither obey his Gospel, but to be admired in all those who believe and follow him, 2 Thes. 1. 8. When he will judge his enemies for all their hard words spoken against him. Judas 5. and notwithstanding you can make so bold now to arraign the prisoner at the bar, viz the servants of the Lord, for their professing and practice of the truth; yet the Lord will deliver them in his time, and they shall judge their Judges, And bind their Kings in Chains, and their Nobles in fetters of Iron; this honour shall all the Saints have; praise ye jehovah, Psal. 149. Although I could, yet I shall in this trace you no farther, but leave you to the Judgement of him who will judge righteous Judgement between us in the end: referring those who desire to see more, as to this particular, to my book entitled The Pulpit Guard Routed.  
So much briefly in way of answer to your Font Guarded with twenty Arguments.   

Now I should proceed to the discovery of the weakness of your Answers to the Scruples, Scripture-Objections, and Answers mentioned by you in your Book, in defence (as you call it) of Anabaptism.  
But that first there are some Arguments not made use of that I know, but are rather your own inventions.  
And secondly, because the sum of all you say, hath been answered and confuted in what is written in answer to your Arguments: and it would be indeed but a tautology, as you have very many in your Book, and upon that account I have been necessitated to make use of many, that so I might give some answer to you: I shall therefore refer the Reader for satisfaction to what you say in this which follows, to what I have written in answer to that which precedes; that which succeeds being but the substance of that which is gone before: only the second and last I shall say something unto.  

The second Objection, pag. 88 of your Book.  
Baptising of Infants is a new invention, found out by the Pope and the Devil, 'tis the mark of the Beast, invented by Antichrist; either by Pope Higinus, who lived in the second Century, about 150 years after Christ: or else by Pope Innocent the third, who lived at least 1000 years after Christ, 1215.  
You answer 1. If Higinus Bishop of Rome, were the first inventor of it, than it was more ancient than many will grant.  
2. You say, That he was not the inventor of it, but you find by Platina, that he was the first that enjoined Sureties.  
And why not the first that enjoined Infant baptism? you produce nothing to the contrary but your word; and that the same authority that ordained the one, ordained the other, is very apparent.  
1. Because neither of them have any footing in the Scripture.  
And 2. Because History relates, that both Infant-baptism, and Sureties, or Godfathers, came in together, as is related in the History of the names and customs of all Nations, written by johannes Boemus Aubamus, a Dutchman, translated out of Latin into English by Edward Aston, 1611. page 159. he saith, That Baptism heretofore, as it was established by a Canonical sanction, was not ministered unto any (unless upon very urgent necessity, but unto such as were beforehand well instructed in the Faith, and sufficiently catechised and examined thereof seven several times, to wit, upon certain days in Lent, etc. But this Sacrament being above all the rest most necessary to salvation, and lest any one should departed out of this life without the benefit thereof, it was ordained, that assoon as an Infant was born he should have Godfathers procured for him to be his Witnesses or Sureties; and that then the child being brought by his Godfathers before the Church-door, the Priest standing there for the purpose, should demand of the child, before he dip him in the holy Font. Whether he will forsake the Devil and all his pomps? and whether he believe all the Articles of the Christian Faith; and the Godfathers affirming on his behalf etc.  
The reason why I record this in this place, is first to present to view the probability of Higinus bringing in of Infant's Baptism; for you say, that you find by Platina, that he brought in Godfathers first; and I find by Joannes Boemus, that he that brought Godfathers first, brought in Infants-Baptism with it  
2. I find that there was a time when there was a Canonical Sanction or Statute against it.  
3. The coming in of Infant-Baptism, with the reason of it, viz. lest any should die without it, and the manner of it with Godfathers; and dipping not sprinkling in the holy Font.  
And this Mr. Baxter confesseth himself, in his third Edition of the Saints Everlasting Rest, part. 1. ch. 8. Sect 5 p, 179. in the Margin he saith, And in the Primitive times none were Baptised without an express Covenanting, wherein they renounced the world, flesh, and Devil, and engaged themselves to Christ, and promised to obey him, as you may see in Tertul. Origen, Cyprian, and others at large, etc. This being a Truth, where is ground for Infant-Baptism, upon Mr. baxter's own confession? So that these things thus considered, takes off all your probabilities, that the Apostles did baptise Infants, and that it hath been a practice in the Church ever since; yet you confess immediately, that some of the ancients, pag. 89. did persuade men from baptising Infants; yet say you, their dissuasions show that their usual practice was to baptise them. I say, that it rather did show that those Ancients knew that it was but an invention of man, and that there was no ground for it in Scripture; else what need they to dissuade them from it?  
1. You say, S. John died 104. saith Alsteed; a likely or unlikely matter; the Psalmist saith long before, a man's days were threescore and ten, etc. John died a 104 years after Christ; if this be likely, I leave all to judge. Justin Martyr, you say, who lived in all probability; It is but probability then, and very unlikely; for you say he flourished about 130. is this like to be in John's days? all John days might be, nay must be, well near 200 years then; and all this you strain to draw down, if you could, Baptism of Infants from the Apostles; the sum of all is this, Justin Martyr disputes the difference between Infants who die baptised, and those who die unbaptised; he lived probably in S. John's days, and knew the practice of the Apostle; but he lived 130 years after Christ; John must live so long too, or 104 at least, that so Justin Martyr might know Apostolic practice from John: You mention others, as Tertullian, Origen Cyprian, etc. who mention baptising of Infants; it may be they mention it as an Innovation: for Mr. Baxter saith expressly, as before, that they say there were none baptised in the Primitive times without an express Covenanting, etc. So you conclude that Infant's Baptism is no new invention, either of Pope or Devil; no man can show what Pope or man invented it.  
Answ. 1. Christ never commanded it, the Apostles never practised it; that is evident, not only from the Scriptures silence, but Master baxter's confession; and then some Pope, man or Devil must invent it; and we are come very near the mark; you produce a History that saith Pope Higinus brought in Godfathers: I have mentioned another that saith Godfathers and Infant-Baptism came in together: and why not by the same Pope? you conclude, that you will retort this upon the Anabaptists, that their practice is but a new invention, not above an hundred years old, etc.  
Answ. There is no truth in that: Baptising of Believers is 1652 years old, and that is many scores of years before your Infant-Baptism was invented: and this Practice of the baptising, and non baptising of Infants, is that which hath been mentioned with much envy, almost in all Ages since the Primitive times; which notes, that there hath been some Witnesses to the truth in all Ages. About the year 1525. Zuinglius being busied about Reformation, there crept in the Heresy of the Catabaptists, who forbade the baptising of Infants, and did rebaptize themselves. With these Zuinglius dealt friendly, at first disputing with them, and convincing them of their errors; but they being obstinate in their opinions, he caused the Senate severely to punish them, some with imprisonment some with death: this is recorded in a Book, entitled Abel redivivus, or The dead yet speaking, pag. 92. And your own confession, That some Ancients dissuaded from the baptising of Infants, etc.   

The 20. Objection you mention, is,  

That Baptising is dipping.  
But your Infants are not dipped.  
Ergo, They are not Baptised.   
You answer 1. That dipping is a thing indifferent, and not absolutely necessary or essential to Baptism: there may be true Baptism, where there is no dipping, etc.  
2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Baptise is one thing, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to plunge over head and ears, is another, etc.  
Answ. It's one and the same; for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to dip as yourself confess, pag. 113. though not only to dip: you say the Primitive word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath four several significations: 1. To drowned, plunge or overwhelm, 2. To die or dip. 3. To moisten or make wet. 4. To wash or cleanse. Note 1. It doth not by your own confession signify to sprinkle: you have said enough to satisfy any that desireth satisfaction in this particular, that your Practice of sprinkling, is not according to the Scripture; and in truth, sprinkling is another word, and another thing then Baptising; Rantizo is the Greek word for sprinkling, and Baptizo from Bapto is the Greek word for Baptising: take it in which of these four you please; neither of them is to sprinkle; but in dipping, either of all the four is fulfilled; if dipped, then wet, then washed, then drowned or plunged; so that dipping is nothing short of Baptising, for the word signifieth it; it's nothing beyond Baptism; for it is but a plunging, a wetting, or washing of the whole man: so that take in all the significations of that word Baptizo, dipping answers them all; but sprinkling answers neither; and in deed and truth, is not baptising, but another thing, and that which Christ never commanded. Sprinkling a little water in the face is not a dipping or plunging, it is not a wetting or washing the whole man, and in no case answers the command of Christ.  
But for the clearing of this particular, I shall give these four grounds, to confirm dipping to be the true baptising, and not sprinkling.  
1. From the signification of the word, as hath been already minded, it is the conclusion of all the Masters of the Greek Tongue, in the Greek Lexicons, that the first, and most native, and proper signification of Baptizo is to dip or plunge into, or under water: and this yourself confess, that 1. It signifieth to drown, plunge, overwhelm, die or dip; this Mr. Lee in his Critica Sacra on the word, and Passor, with divers others affirms, whom I suppose you conclude were Masters of the Greek Tongue; and this likewise Doctor Featly in his Dipper Dipped confesseth; and this I find, that the word Baptizo is never rendered in the New-Testament to sprinkle, nor Rantizo to Baptise; therefore do no longer wrest the truth contrary to your own knowledge, but be still, and know that God is God.  
2. From the Practice of the Servants of the Lord in the Primitive times, who best knew the mind of Christ: 1. John who was the Messenger of Christ, Mal. 3. 1. Baptised; and he baptised in Jordan, Mat. 3 6. And he baptised Christ himself in Jordan, ver. 16. with Mark 1. 9 and he came up out of the water. What need Christ and John go down into the water, if sprinkling would do the deed? And the Text saith, Mat. 3. 13. That Jesus cometh to John to be baptised, that is, upon Mr. Hales one account, to be plunged, dipped, wet, or washed, not sprinkled, and being dipped he was both wet and washed. And Joh. 3. 23. its said, That John was baptising (not sprinkling) in Enon near Salim, because there was much water there; If sprinkling had been the thing required, no need of much water. To this, you say, 1. Water was scarce in those hot Countries; that infers not a stripping naked, and plunging of all that were Baptised, but only the conveniency of baptising a multitude, etc.  
Answ. 1. Do you know, or have you heard of any such hot Country, where there could not be water had enough to sprinkle many thousands, if need require? 2. Was Canaan such a Country as that water was scarce in it, being the promised fruitful Land in the whole world, a type of the Heavenly Canaan? where were Wells digged, Deut. 6. 11. Neh. 9 25. and Rivers in abundance, or else the Type holds not correspondence to the Antitype, Ezek. 34. 13 Is. 12. 3. Therefore for shame talk no more of a dry and hot Country; it being a Land of Rivers and Wells digged, etc. So that if a little water would have done it, as a little would have sprinkled thousands, they needed not to have been baptised in Enon; so the word is not at, but in Enon; and so these several places translated with water, Mat. 3. 11. Mark 1. 8. Luk. 3. 6. john 1. 26. Act. 1. 5. in the Greek it is rendered in every one of them in water; although you seem to hold forth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifieth with; yet the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in, and is so understood and rendered twenty times in the New Testament against once with; that being the proper signification of the word, and most suitable to the Practice of the Apostles and servants of the Lord. Compare the former Scriptures with Act 8. 38. and its clear they baptised in the water, not because of the scarcity of water as you pretend, but because there was much water, without which that Ordinance of dipping could not be administered. As for your Font-sprinkling there is not the least shadow of any ground for it in the Scripture; and whereas you say, not a stripping naked, etc. the Scripture mentions no such thing, neither is it our Practice, nor yours neither. Do you use to strip naked when you sprinkle? neither do we when we baptise, etc.  
2. You say, Suppose the Apostles did dip those whom they baptised, yet 'twill not follow therefore that we must do so too, because 'tis only an example without a precept, and so doth not bind us, etc.  
Answ. 1. There was the precept both to them and us. 2. they knew the will of him who gave the precept, and walked according to it, and we by their precedent know what the precept was, and so it's a precept to us as well as them.  
They lived in Judea in hot climates where was no danger of dipping etc.  
Answ. 1. And was there one way for them in Judea, and another for us in England? prove that by Scripture when you write next.  
2. Was their Country so much hotter than ours? had they not Winter and Summer, heat and cold, frost and snow, as we have? joh. 10. 22. Psal. 74. 17. jer. 36. 22. Psal. 148. 8. Therefore give off this for shame likewise. Say no more their Country was hot, and ours cold. You say, The danger of dipping in our cold Country, is, that many in our days have died. If you intent the dipping of Believers, you speak a horrid untruth: I am confident that never one perished in that way. But secondly, if you mind dipping of Infants, I know none are dipped. 2. If any be, no wonder if they perish, being done out of God's way having no warrant from him.  
You confess Mr. Perkins approves of dipping in hot Countries, and in men of years, but denies the use of it to Infants, because of their health.  
Answ. First, is not this Country hot enough to Dip? they had winter who dipped, as well as we; but no wonder if it be dangerous to the health of Infants; let it be administered to the right Subjects, viz. Believers, and you need not doubt of dipping. Whereas you question it for sick and old folks, pag. 115. I say there is no such necessity to Baptise such in Winter, God will have mercy and not sacrifice: let them stay till Summer; but take heed, change not the Ordinance from Dipping to Sprinkling; that is a dangerous thing. But you confess pag. 114. That dipping is a lawful manner of Baptising; in this you have confuted all you have said to this particular either before or after: For if dipping be a lawful manner of Baptising, than first sprinkling is unlawful, for there is but one lawful way of baptising; the Scripture I am sure mentions no more, there is but one Baptism. 2. Then our dipping is lawful. 3. You have done ill service in all you have said to render a practice so contemptible, which is as you confess in itself lawful.  
1. You say, The Scripture calls sprinkling baptising.  
Ans. No such thing: Let any examine the Scriptures you produce; see if you speak true or false. Heb. 9 10, 13, 19, 21. You say, the word signifieth washing as well as dipping. Ans. Granted; but sprinkling is neither washing nor dipping.  
2. In Circumcision a little skin in one part only was cut off.  
An. That was done according to the command; so should Baptism, which is a dipping (as you confess) and we may not make ourselves wiser than Christ, in inventing new ways that he never required: therein we do indeed show our pride, and are but fools.  
3. Washing, sprinkling, is a safer way, etc.  
Ans. 1. Sprinkling is not washing, but dipping is. 2. As to safety in doubtful cases, I have answered already.  
4. Sprinkling is sufficient, because the thing signified is set forth by sprinkling, etc.  
Ans. There is no such thing: for though the blood of Christ be one thing signified in Baptism, yet there are other things signified in it; and yet sprinkling doth not reach this of the applying the blood of Christ so fully as dipping, which is a washing of the whole man; representing, that as truly as the whole body is washed by dipping in water, so those who are baptised upon the true account shall be wholly washed from not only the guilt of sin but from the filth and presence of it. Which shall be my 3. ground, that dipping, and not sprinkling is the true Baptism.  
3. Because the things signified are not so significantly resembled in sprinkling as they are in baptising, viz. in dipping. 1. As I have already said, the whole washing away of sin. 2. An outward conformity to Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection; wherein is represented our spiritual death to sin, and resurrection to newness of life, Rom. 6. 3, 4, 5. and this is not, cannot be resembled by sprinkling. And notwithstanding you are pleased in way of reproach to say, Then they must drown themselves under water, as Christ lay buried three days etc. Note here, you say, they must lie three days under water; yet before, you confess, dipping is a lawful way of baptising.  
You say, Should you grant a necessity of this resemblance and representation; yet why may not sprinkling represent it as well, & c?  
Ans. 1. I leave it to all rational men to judge, whether sprinkling a little water in the face doth represent a death and burial with Christ, as well as a dipping into and under water. 2. I shall give you the Judgement of one approved and learned, Mr. Tho. Goodwin, in his Support of faith from Christ's resurrection, ch. 7. p. 54. He saith, Rom. 6. 3, 4. We are said to be buried with him in baptism, & Col. 2. 12. Buried with him in baptism. It is not simply said, Like as he was buried, etc. but, Buried with him. So our communion and oneness with him in his resurrection is represented to us therein, and not only our conformity or likeness unto him therein. And so Baptism representeth this to us; that Christ having once in himself sustained the persons of all the elect in his burial and resurrection; that now upon the party himself is personally, particularly, and apparently reacted the same part again in his baptism; thereby showing what his communion with Christ before was, in what was done to Christ; that he then was buried with Christ, and risen with him, and upon that ground is now in this outward sign of Baptism, as in a show or representation, both buried, and also riseth again. Thus far Tho. Goodwin.  
You say, If dipping be true baptising, (which you have already granted, that dipping is lawful baptising; yet here you put an if to it, as if you had forgotten what you had said before: but it's no wonder, for it is usual with you) than some that have been dipped by Popish Priests, have been rightly baptised.  
Ans. We deny it: for though you have lost the right way of doing it, as well as the subject, yet we do not say that those Infants that are dipped are rightly baptised; because you fail in the right subject, viz. Believers. Only we cannot but take notice of the just hand of God in it against you; that having transgressed in taking Infants in stead of Believers, you should change the very thing, and do another thing in stead of baptism, viz, sprinkle; that so you might have the less to say in your own cause. Thus have you fulfilled that word, Isa. 24. 5. Transgressed the Law, changed the Ordinances, broken the everlasting Covenant, applying it to the natural seed, when it belongs to none but the spiritual. How you will avoid that curse, I know not.  
You say, It is the custom and practice of all Reformed Churches to baptise by sprinkling, etc.  
Ans. What of that, if it contradict Scripture, which is the rule of Saints? You have confessed that dipping is a lawful baptising; and there is but one lawful baptising; therefore we must do that which is lawful, though all people in the world do contrary.  
The 4. ground why sprinkling is not baptising, is from the custom retained from the Primitive times, as it is probable. And give me leave in this to conclude thus much; that I may much safer conclude this, it being so agreeable with the analogy of Scripture, than you can take up the whole practice upon that account. I say, Dipping in all Ages hath been the practice, (whether Believers or Infants.) The History I mentioned before of Joannes Boemus, in the Manners and Customs of all Nations, p. 159. Infants were dipped in the holy Font. In Simpsons' History of the Church, in the fourth Council of Toledo, it was ordered that there should be but one dipping in baptism, p. 527. An 639. And the Church of Rome, from whence you came, retains by tradition Dipping: and Sprinkling is an innovation not of many years standing in this Nation, as is well known; Austin when he came first into England, baptised in Rivers; in particular (as History relates) he baptised some thousands in a River near York.  
Thus have I given you a brief Answer to the material things in your Guard; I leave it to the consideration of the Reader, and shall proceed to give you a brief Reply to your inveterate Word to Collier.     

A Reply to Thomas Hall.  
Sir,  
YOu are pleased to write a Word to Thomas Collier, etc. A Love-letter; he that runs may read it. And indeed we did conclude before what we might expect from you, if the Lord gave you power according to your will. And I make no question but what you have here written, will make the Magistrate the more sensible of what spirit you are, and will keep from you what you so much expect, viz. a Coercive power to compel or persecute all that are contrary to you. And in what you have done, I believe you have more wounded yourself and your own interest, then either the truth or me; the Truth standing pure in itself, getting advantage by its enemies, though no thanks to them. And as for myself, a poor weak and contemptible Creature, held forth in the hand of the Lord, and being upheld by Divine assistance, shall, I doubt not, but with joy pass through good report and bad reportt, till I have finished my course, and done the work whereunto I am appointed; accounting the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, viz. Tithes.  
You say, I Colly every thing; Trinity, Scripture, Law, Gospel, etc.  
Sir, you are mistaken in it all, and so indeed have written forged falsehood, and sent it abroad into the world. But I own and honour all these you mention, in their proper place, and according to the appointment of the Lord: and yourself it is who have been in the Black so long, that you Colly all, as will appear anon; and you will be the Hall, it seems, the storehouse which retains all blackness, darkness, etc. and from thence it cometh forth unto the rest.  
You say, I set myself against the Anabaptists themselves, whom I canonize for Saints in the highest form; yet blame them for adhering to Ordinances. It's very false, there is no such word written; but it is for making too much of them, not for making use of them: And if some fail, is it not lawful to reprove? but Thomas Hall must raise an untruth and reproach upon it, change my words for his own ends.  
I pass your foul and filthy language, more fit for Billingsgate then the Press; and come to your particular Charges.  

1. An Heretic, and a Blasphemer.  
To this purpose you mention the Discourse at Axbridge, where Parson Smith and Parson Carlisle, both Cavaliers, falsely swear,  

1. That he denied Jesus Christ to be the eternal Son of God.  
2. He denied a local Heaven.  
3. He denied the equality of the Son with the Father.  
4. He denied that Jesus Christ by his death upon the Cross, did satisfy Divine Justice.  
5. He denied the Trinity.  
6. He affirmed that the Saints are the sons of God in the same manner as Christ.  
7. He affirmed that the Divine Essence was communicated to the Saints.  
8. That the bodies of the Saints should be turned into spirits.  
9 That the Moral Law was abolished.   
Ans. Were you not of the same blind and malicious spirit as those two lying Parsons were, you durst not call such things Blasphemies as were in truth by me maintained, and is apparent in the same Book or Discourse.  
1. I denied not the Eternity of Jesus Christ, but the eternal generation in the Godhead, for which there is not one Scripture that speaks the least hint.  
2. As to the locality of Heaven; that I said, was, that God was not locally limited, etc.  
3. The Equality of the Son. Quality and equality is proper only to man; there is no quality or equality in the Godhead; whatever is in God, is in him essentially, not as a quality. It's true, Christ as the Messiah is equal with God; but in the union of the Divine essence there is no quality nor equality, but union in essence, and essence in union.  
4. For Satisfaction to the Divine Justice, I own it and have proved it (had you not been blind) upon the true account; it was the great end why Christ was enabled to the work, and sent forth, that so he might satisfy the righteousness and truth of the Father, which man could never do unto justification.  
5. As to the Trinity, that is false likewise; it was the Trinity of Persons, not the Trinity; that I own; but no Person in the Godhead, no Scripture saith it.  
6. That the Saints are the sons of God in the same manner as Christ, that is, in being made partakers of the same Spirit. Rom. 8. 9  
7. That the Divine Essence is communicated to the Saints; If the Spirit of Christ be in them, than the Divine Essence is in them: But the Spirit of Christ is in them; Therefore the Divine Essence is in them: I do not mean the whole Essence, but a spark or influence of the Divine Essence.  
8. That the bodies of the Saints should be turned into Spirits; that I said, was no other than what the Apostle saith; they shall be raised with spiritual bodies.  
9 That the Moral Law was abolished to Believers as a dispensation in the hands of Moses; all this more at large might you see in the discovery of that Discourse; but you were blind it seems, and could not see afar off: But you manifest your mind; Collier it seems is in your way, you would fain have him burnt with his Books: What another Bonner! Will you justify your Fathers in their wickedness, and so bring upon yourself all the righteous blood, shed from Abel to this day? but if the Lord hath so determined, I trust in the strength of the Grace of Christ my life and blood will be as ready to witness to the truth as my tongue and pen. I say no more about your Charge of Blasphemy, but this, After the way you call Blasphemy and Heresy, worship I the God of my Fathers. And that seed you falsely and wickedly call the Devil's seed, am I still sowing, and doubt not, but there will grow up such a happy and blessed Harvest, as will be to the honour of Truth, and joy of Saints, though to the grief and amazement of enemies and gainsayers. Mean while, go you on blaspheming God, and them that dwell in Heaven; gnaw your tongue for pain, yet not repent of your deeds.   

2. You say he is a Liar died in grain.  
You say, You can prove him guilty of above a thousand lies and errors, etc. Was there ever the like liar heard of in the world? What above a thousand lies? yet mentions but 15. when he hath done all that he can; and these fifteen are most of them truth, by him falsely called lies and errors; the rest of them Inventions falslely charged by him.  
1. That Infant-Baptism came from the Pope and the Devil: The truth of this assertion, I refer the Reader to what I have said before, and there you will see the Pope very probably that brought it in (Higinus) in the second Century, 150 years after Christ.  
2. That Christ hath abolished the Law; that is, as to Believers as a dispensation in the hands of Moses; see 2 Cor. 3. 11. 13. And the pure Gospel is the only Rule: What son of Belial dare to deny this? for the Law is brought forth in Gospel; and as given forth by Christ, is the pure Gospel Rule, therefore though the substance of the old Command, yet is called new, because given forth upon the new and true account, 1 joh. 2. 7. 8.  
3. A Socinian; his Tenet is that all gifted persons may preach without Ordination. This is according to the truth of Scripture, 1 Cor. 4. 31. 34. Where all that have gifts may prophesy, none exempted, except women.  
4. He is a Familist, approving of dreams, etc.  
Answ. That is false, I do not approve them; yet neither do I altogether deny but God may manifest himself in that way if he please; not that it is my experience; neither would I limit God. Against Universities, Arts, Sciences; not in themselves, upon the humane account; but as they are set up in the room of the Spirit of Christ, so the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God.  
5. He is an Antiscripturist, denying the truth of Scripture, etc.  
Answ. Another most abominable falsehood; who will be the liar anon Thomas Hall? but you prove it learnedly. 1. Because I approve of such, who will not permit you to draw any consequences from Scripture because you have so much abused them with your consequences. 2. Because minding some of your consequences, I conclude that they are as true as Scripture, if the people would but believe it. You infer then that these consequences must be true, or the Scripture is false; I say, and I supposed that you had had wit enough to understand that I spoke in your language, or in your sense, that you account these consequences as true as Scripture, if the people would believe you.  
3. He saith that in his general Epistle to the Saints, chap. 10. p. 28. the Scripure is not sufficient to teach the knowledge of God.  
I Query of any one who knows the Lord, whether the Scripture, without the Spirit of Christ, doth, or can teach any one true and saving knowledge; and that some make too much of it, that is, such as Thomas Hall, who think it able without the Spirit of Christ to teach the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ; and if you could have told all, you might have seen and said, that I say there likewise, that many make too little of it; and that the substance of my Discourse there, is to hold forth the truth and authority of the Scripture in the light of the Spirit; that so souls by the teaching of the Spirit of Christ may come to a right understanding of them: and that indeed its yourselves that truly teach people to deny Scripture. I own the truth of it, and say that whoever denieth it, must deny God, Christ and all Religion, and the truth is, that yourself it is that disowns it, and reproacheth it too, further than it stands with your own will.  
6. You say, He is an Arian and Anti-Trinitarian; denies the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons, etc.  
Answ. I deny not the Trinity, Father, Son, and Spirit; but I deny any person in the Godhead at all; that is a word or title given only to man; and the Scripture you mention, Heb. 1. 3. I am not altogether so ignorant of it as you would have me; it is substance and not Person; and this you know, and abuse it not ignorantly but wilfully. The same word, Heb. 11. 1. is rendered substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; faith is the substance of things hoped for, not the Person; that would be nonsense; you must produce some Scripture where that Prosopon which signifieth Person, is attributed to God, or that Hypostasis is attributed to man, before you can have any colour to call God three Persons, or one either; for he is a Spirit, and will be worshipped in Spirit and Truth.  
7. He is an Anti-Sabbatarian, he is all for a Spiritual Sabbath.  
Answ. Because I writ of a spiritual Sabbath, doth it therefore follow that I am an Anti-Sabbatarian? have you ever seen any thing written by me against the Sabbath? have you not cause to blush at your weakness or wickedness? because I discover the spiritual Sabbath, therefore you say I am against the Sabbath.  
8. An Independent as to man and creatures (in the things of God) but only on Jesus Christ; and is this such a dangerous thing, to be off from every thing save Jesus Christ?  
9 Arigid Separatist.  
Answ. Never too rigid in separating from Babylon's false ways and worships, which is no other than the Synagogue of Satan, a Cage of every unclean and hateful Bird; I say it again, for all your anger, I must be faithful, I may not pity or spare you, for that will ruin you.  
10. A Perfectist; see his General Epist. to the Saints, ch. 15. p. 52.  
Answ. No other than is the duty of every Saint to be, that is, pressing after perfection; I there declare that perfection is not attainable in this life, till the body of flesh is dissolved, nor till the Resurrection neither. I say no more of this, but refer the Reader to the Epistle itself, where you may see how the Hall hath stored up lies to reproach the innocent.  
11. He is an enemy to all Learning, he oft calls it the language of the beast, etc.  
Answ. Keep it in its place, and do as much good as you can with it; but let it once get in the room of the Spirit, than it puffs up with pride, then it's but the language of the Beast, of the fleshly man; the smoke of the bottomless pit of man's wisdom, and that which must be destroyed. That the Spirit and Scriptures are sufficient for the Ministers calling, etc. At this you seem to rage's extremely, as if this were such a dangerous Heresy that deserves no less than a stake, a faggot, and a fire, could Tho: Hall have his will; let the Understanding judge. I am sure, I have heard one of your brethren, more famous than ever yourself in the eyes of the people, assert this, that the Scripture was sufficient for the Ministers calling, etc. who left out the Spirit of Christ; but it seems your abilities depend upon your good old books, Popish Fathers, etc.  
12. He is against Magistrates.  
Answ. No such thing; only my desire is, that Magistrates should not rule, where its alone Christ's Prerogative: I desire to give to Caesar that which is his, and to God that which is his.  
13. Against Ministry.  
Ans. Not against the Ministry of Christ; but of the World and of Antichrist.  
14. He reproacheth the Army, making them all Independents and Anabaptists.  
Ans. It's a great untruth to say I make them all so: that I say, is, that those whom you falsely call Anabaptists and Independents are the Instruments by which God hath given a being to you and the Nation: I deny not what was done by any at first; but I know not how it would have been at last, if God had not raised up the Spirits of some to stand in the gap; and yourselves had like to have been the great Instruments for self-ends to have drawn on ruin, had not the Lord prevenced.  
15. He dishonoureth and abuseth the present Power, by Dedication of an absurd, Heretical, Blasphemous, non-Licensed Pamphlet, called a Discourse at Axbridge.  
Answ. I do affirm that none dare give such vile titles to such apparent truths, but those whose eyes are blinded, and whose hearts are hardened, filled with all enmity against the truth of Jesus Christ: I refer those who desire further satisfaction, to the discourse itself.  
And truly we had need appeal to the Authority of the Nation for a civil preservation, it being our Birthright; there being so many of your generation, men of blood, that will say, nay swear blasphemy, Heresy, any thing, that so you might be rid of us.  
Finally, I say no more to all your perverse and raging accusations, but the Lord rebuke thee.   

Some few Queries presented.  
1. Query. Whether or no in all that Tho. Hall hath said, he hath in any case answered the Pulpit-Guard-Routed, or relieved his own Guard?  
2. Qu. Whether or no all that Tho. Hall hath said in his Font-Guard doth amount to so much as either a Precept or Precedent for his Practice?  
3. Whether or no (if not) his Practice in sprinkling Infants be not Will-Worship?  
4. Whether the upholding of an outward Covenant, and a natural Seed in that Covenant, be not to deny Christ to be come in the flesh?  
5. Whether or no there be any Seed in the days of the Gospel accounted for the Seed but the Spiritual; all the Promises made to Abraham being dissolved into Christ, coming forth from him to the Spiritual Seed; none being accounted the children of Abraham, but those that do the works of Abraham?  
6. Whether or no Tho. Hall, tells true or false, when he saith, he will prove Tho. Collier of above a thousand lies, and can name but fifteen upon his own account.  
7. Whether or no, in those fifteen he mentions being rightly considered as before, Tho. Hall be the liar, or Tho. Collier?  
8. Whether Tho. Hall have spoken true or false in these things following? 1. In asserting, that none ought to preach the Gospel but men in Office. 2. In saying, there is both precept and precedent for Baptising Infants, when he can produce neither. 3. In saying that the Covenant of the Law is the same as the Covenant in the Gospel, when the Scripture saith the contrary, Isa. 31. 31. Heb. 8. 4. In saying, that baptising Infants is a tradition from the Apostles, when he cannot prove the Apostles baptised any. 5. In saying that sprinkling is baptising, when they are two things. 6. Whether the bringing in of all the People into an outward Covenant and form of Godliness, without the power, be not the way of delusion and confusion? 7. Then whether the Leaders of the People do not cause them to err?    

A Word of REPLY to john Ferriby, in an Appendix to The Lawful Preacher: called The Pulpit-Guard-Relieved.  
SIR, You call your Appendix The Pulpit-Guard Relieved; But whether it be A Relief in good earnest, I leave to the Reader to judge. If chiding, railing and reproaching be A Relief, than you have Relieved it; else not. And notwithstanding your great swelling words, you'll find there is so much in that Pulpit-Rout, that neither you nor all your Gang will ever be able to extinguish it. Rage's you may, but ruin it you cannot.  
You say Page 2. That he is so bitter in his Expressions against the Gentleman, so loud in railing against the Coat, that he deserves no Answer. But you are mistaken, Sir; they are not rail, but true discoveries of Wolves in Sheep's clothing.  
But you say, You forbear, lest in this the Proverb should be verified, Like to like, quoth the Devil to the Collier. And who is worst think you, the Devil or the Collier? By your own confession you are the Devil, I the Collier. The Devil it is, it seems, speaks to the Collier; and surely if the Collier did the Devil's work, he would never reprove him for it. But if the Collier do the work of Christ, the Devil will fall upon him.  
You say, You will not meddle with the Looking-glass: nor will you examine the Trial and Verdict, nor take notice of the strength of his Arguments.  
I wonder what then you will do; here's like to be a goodly Relief anon; A Pulpit Relief, yet take no notice of the force of the Truth that lieth against it. It's just like to a company of men that will pretend they relieve a besieged Garrison, yet take no notice of the Besiegers, or will stand at a distance, and give great words, and so go away boasting that the Work is done; and the mean time the Besieged perish. Thus have you dealt with your Pulpit-Guard; And truly, had not I had other occasions to write, I had never troubled my head or pen to have given you a word of Answer; And in this I shall give you but a word or two.  
Thus having shifted yourself from the substance of what is said in The Pulpit Guard-Rout you pretend to give a Glimpse of his skill in the interpretation of Scripture.  
The First is that of the Priests of the Law and the Ministers of the Gospel.  
The Priesthood under the Law typed out Christ, and he is the alone Priest by office. I deny not Ministers by office under the Gospel; but that Ministry that is of Christ, never forbiddeth the preaching of the Brethren (who have received the Gift, though they never meddle with the office) but rather encourageth to it. 1. Pet 4. 10, 11.  
And it is a truth, that Corah's guilt was in doing that which was forbidden; but the Saints are Commanded to, and Commended for preaching. Commanded to it Rom. 12. 3, 6. 1 Cor. 14 31. 1 Pet. 4. 10. Commended for it 1 Cor. 11. 2. One Ordinance or Tradition, and that not the least too, was that they might, nay that they ought to bring their gifts to the Church for the good of the whole. There are diversities of gifts in the Church, and all for the good of the whole. 1 Cor. 12. And this Monopolising spirit that hath so long reigned in those who call themselves Ministers, hath been the cause of so much blindness in the World as hath been almost to this day. And as for the Calling of the Worldly Ministry, I leave the Reader to what is wrtten in The Pulpit-Guard Routed, to consider whether it be from above or from beneath, etc.  
You say Page 5. There is in my Book, Page 19 enough granted for your Purpose.  
'tis because you do in this as in other things take but Part of what I say. For though I say that none can preach according to the intention of that Scripture Rom. 10. 15. for the working of Faith and Converting of souls; yet it doth not follow that every Gifted Brother may not Preach.  
But you leave out that which follows. viz. for every Gifted Brother is sent to preach according to the measure of the Gift received. And the Mistake lieth in the word sent, thinking that none but men in Office are sent of God to convert souls; when Gifted Brethren are sometimes sent though not in Office. Acts 8. 4. with 11. 19, 21.  
All you say in Answer to that that gifting is sending &c reacheth not the business in hand. For  
1. It doth not appear in those Scriptures you mention, Isa 6 8, 9 Mat. 10 1, 5. that they were first gifted, then sent; Go tell them saith the Lord to Isaiah. God's putting the word in his mouth, was the gifting. Yet  
2. I deny not in the ordinary way of prophesying and preaching gifting to precede sending, first to those who are authoritatively sent by the Church; or secondly to those who preach only by gift according to the measure of the gift received. It is sending; and they may and aught according to the measure of the gift, both in the Church and out of the Church, viz. in the world as occasion is offered, God in those occasions calling them to it, accordingly to administer.  
Secondly you say, that he is very unhappy in confounding ordinary and extraordinary Cases.  
I answer first, that extraordinary Cases make not that lawful which in itself is unlawful, unless in cases of necessity for preservation of life: then I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: unless it be in the bearing up of the name and truth of Christ; then he that will save his life, shall lose it. Witness Vzzah 1 Chro. 13. 9 10. for putting his hand to stay the Ark, was smote with death. So that your so often mentioning extraordinary cases helps you nothing; for it's not the extraordinariness of the case that justifies the thing, if it be in itself unlawful; so that you do indeed condemn the practice of the Saints recorded in Scripture for our example, in Acts Chap. 8. and 11. with divers others; and all for the keeping up your own Ends and Interests. I am sure if you stood in the counsel and truth of Jesus, the preaching of the Brethren could not, would not trouble you.  
As for what is said from pag. 8 to 10. I refer the Reader to the clearness of the assertions in my Book.  
Pag. 9 You say, The Gentleman (Pretended Servants; for so the word Minister signifies; yet Gentle men-Masters, Servants ruling over their Masters) having said that the Holy-Ghost commends Learning, he Replies, pag. 41. Holy Ghost! is there any such word in the Scripture as Ghost? You say How now! which way went the Spirit of God from him? what, immediately inspired, yet ignorant of this? hath he forgotten Mat. 28. 20. & c?  
Ans. Nay Sir, he hath not quite forgotten it; but have you indeed forgotten? or else did you never learn it that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifiyeth spirit, not ghost? and so it is translated and read in all other languages except the English; and sometimes it's truly translated in English too: and the word ghost is an old English Popish ugly word, which indeed if rightly considered, is not so fit to be given to the Holy Spirit.  
As for the interpretation of I. Cor. 14. 31. 32. Let the spirits of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets; though I deny not what is mentioned v. 29. that the Prophets speak two or three, and the others judge; for the Church is to judge of the doctrine taught in it; yet it's evident to any whose eyes are not shut against the truth that the interpretation of v 31 &; 32. is in v 33 for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. See his Brother Richard Sanders confuting this, in his Balm to heal religious wounds, pag. 202. he saith, The spirit of the Prophets was subject to the Prophets, that is, the Spirit of 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, etc. Here Richard Sanders confutes John Ferriby; let the Reader judge.  
As to what you say in the rest, in way of Reply, there being no weight at all in it, I pass by it, referring the Reader to the examination of that Book you pretend to Answer. Where I make no question, but that the clearness of the truth asserted, will appear to the satisfaction of any  and impartial Reader.  
As for your reproachful terms, which is indeed the sum of all your Answer, I pass it by as unworthy taking notice; leaving the controversy betwixt both you and us unto the righteous Judge, who will in his own time bring it forth to the light, and put a difference between those who serve the Lord Jesus, and those who serve their own bellies. To him and with him I leave the controversy, who undoubtedly will plead his own Cause and Truth in his own Time.   

AN ANSWER To a Book written by one Richard  of Kentishbeer; entitled, A Balm to heal Religious wounds. Called, An Answer to the Pulpit-Guard Routed; written by Thomas Collier.  
SIR,  
MEeting with your Book, the Title bespeaks what I find not in it. 1. You call it A Balm to heal Religious wounds, etc. But when I came to take a view of it, I found it far from the nature of its name; but it rather tends to make the wounds deeper, and the breach wider: your book being stuffed with as much rancour almost in every page as any I have read, except Tho. Halls who writ the Pulpit and Font Guards. So that if what you say of mine were a truth, you have balanced it on the other hand down to the ground, viz. with reproachful terms: and as for that you call harsh language in mine, it is no other than what hath been given by the servants of the Lord in Scripture upon the like occasion.  
2. You call it, An Answer to the Pulpit-Guard Routed. Two open and clear untruths in the Title. First, A Balm to heal Religious wounds; when it is far from it. Secondly, An Answer to the Pulpit-Guard Routed; when you scarce come so near as to meddle with it, unless with railing and reproachful terms; and if that be a sufficient answer, you have done it to the purpose: Or secondly, in passing by the material and substantial things, you have culled out some few particular things, calling them Colliers Errors, when they are undoubted truths, unless those which are abused by you, changing the terms in which by me they were asserted; as will appear in its place.  
I pass your Epistle, and come first to your five serious Questions.  1. Qu. Whether such an uncharitable, censorious, proud, disdainful, inveterate, calumniating spirit as works in this man (and others of the same lump) doth ever show itself in Scripture? 
Ans. 1. If not, than you have declared yourself to be as far from the spirit of a Christian upon the same account, as the Collier whom you so much reproach: witness this very question propounded and almost every page in your book witnesseth it; but I desire not to scrape them up together.  
And secondly, The truth of those titles mentioned by you pag. 6. I leave to the Reader to judge; and if I am become your enemy for telling you the truth, I am contented through mercy to pass under your censure.  Your 2. quest. Upon what ground (think you) should he and men of the same temper and spirit with him, use such bitterness against the Ministry, & c.? 
Ans. 1. We never used such bitterness against the Ministry of the Nation as they have against us. We never desired to get an Ordinance from both Houses of Parliament, to have them burnt in the forehead with the letter B. to have them imprisoned without Bail or Mainprize, etc. Though this is no ground to retort bitterness again in way of revenge, but rather to pity them.  
2. It is not their persons, but their destructive Principles against which I writ: the Lord who knoweth all things, knoweth that I lie not. I should rejoice in their conversion; and do not question but that there are many that are honest and godly of them yet in Babylon; and their duty is to come forth: and till then, blame us not for our dealing faithfully, though sometimes ruggedly with them. And I would have you to know, that it is not a power to persecute them we look for; no, I had a thousand times rather Thomas Halls desire were granted to him, that I with my books were burnt together, then to have a hand in the personal persecution of Tho. Hall, yourself, or any other, for any principle or practise you hold in Conscience, though it be known to me that it is contrary to truth.  Your 3. Quest. Whether this open enmity against the Ministry of England, which these men proclaim to all the world, inveighing against them as Antichristian, be not a thing abhorred of all gracious hearts? For proof of this you produce Mr. Tho. Goodwin, Mr. Philip Nye, Mr. Sidrach Simpson, Mr. Jeremiah Burroughs, Mr. William Bridge. Apol. Nar. p 6. 
Ans. The honesty of these men I question not: Yet first, what they say proves not the truth of what you desire; for it is not the testimony of men, but of God in the Scripture, that will justify both Ministry and Church. And if that would do it, I could produce others of the same way, (I suppose none will deny but that they were equal with them for godliness and learning) who say the contrary. Ainsworth, Smith, Robinson.  
You seem to propound a strange Querie, pag. 14. Whither would these men transport and carry you? Not only off from Presbytery, but Independents, etc.  
Ans. In the light and power of truth, we would carry them to the Lord Jesus; that so they might know and obey him, and worship the Father in him in spirit and in truth: and this is the utmost that we desire.  
And truly, this is that which is my principle and practice, 1. That we are justified freely by grace; And 2. that this Justification where it is in truth enjoyed, works over souls to a holy and humble walking with the Lord, and obedience to him in all things. That it is the duty of Believers, according to the command of Christ, and practise of his servants in the Primitive times, to be baptised, and so come into Church fellowship, walking as with the Lord, so one with another in love, performing all duties of brotherly love, as becometh souls made one in so high and heavenly a calling. And hither it is we would transport and carry every soul that knows the Lord; and this is a journey, that you who call yourselves Ministers, cannot endure to undertake, nor suffer those that would.  Your 4. Question is, Were such things heard of in former times among the old Puritans? etc. 
Ans. They were not sensible of those delusions in that way which now appear; and many of them are made sensible of it, and are departed from it; God's people cannot but departed out of Babylon, when once they see themselves there, and hear the Lords voice saying, Come out of her my people; partake not of her sins, lest you partake of her plagues. Those that have seen themselves in Babel's confusion, in respect of worship; being delivered, cannot but discover and lay open to others the mystery of that iniquity, though all the men and Ministers of the world dislike it, etc.  Your 5. Question. Hath it not been an old trick of such as have designed the shaking of the Christian faith, first to begin with the faithful Ministers, & c? 
A. Though it hath been the design of the enemies of truth so to do; yet, 1. That justifies not you to be the godly Ministers. And 2. The servants of the Lord may not neglect their duty in reproving sin where they find it, because enemies to truth oppose the Ministers of Christ. And 3. We give grounds from Scripture for what we say and do. Justify yourselves to be the Ministers of Christ by your works according to Scripture, and we have done: till then, forbear giving such language as you do to the servants of the Lord for their impartial publishing and professing of truth. You'll one day be ashamed of it.  
So you say you come to his Errors, which are many.  

His first Error.  
That the life of Ministers and Scholars educated in Schools of Learning, is an idle life.  
Ans. 1. There are no such words in my book; neither is there any truth in what you say: but that which I say, is, that God hath always in all ages made use of men of Callings to be the Ministers of his mind unto the people; and I desired you to produce any example in the Scripture, that God made choice of any to be the Ministers of his mind unto the people, who were bred up idly all days of their life without a Calling.  
I do not say that the life of the Ministers of Christ is an idle life; no, I know the contrary: but that which I say, is, that you can produce no example of any that were bred up idly without a Calling, called to be Ministers: yet you will have Idlers, and none but them by your wills; and God must have them, or else he must have none at all. You say, o confirm this, he says, A Calling is that in and by which men in the sweat of their face get their living.  
You answer, O brave definition of a Calling, etc.  
Ans. I wonder you had not fallen foul with the Scripture, and have blamed him that commanded it; but you are so wise and honest as to leave out the Scriptures that I grounded my definition upon. Gen 3. 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the dust.  Query. Doth the Lord here intent, that some men must eat bread in the sweat of their faces, and others must live idle? 
The other Scripture, is Eph. 4. 28. But you Answer. 1. Is every thing a man doth get a living by, a lawful calling; then he that sweats by robbing and stealing, lives by a lawful calling, etc.  
Answ. It seems you have a mind to quarrel against the Truth; because the word (lawful) is not put in, you will conclude Robbery is lawful do not you discover ignorance or wilfulness, quarrelling against the very plain words of the Scripture, which saith, In the sweat of thy face, thou shalt eat thy bread, etc. he doth not say, in the lawful sweat of thy face; but that is employed in the words; so when I say in the sweat of men's face they should get their bread, it's intended lawfully; not by robbing and stealing; and truly you manifest yourself to be no friend to Truth in drawing such a conclusion from such clear and undeniable premises: I am confident never a Robber in this Nation durst to have drawn such a conclusion from such undoubted truth and Scripture.  
2. You say, Is there no lawful Calling but that whereby a man gets his living in the sweat of his face? what will you say then of Magistrates, Justices of the Peace etc.  
Answ. They are not bred up Justices of the Peace, but are, or should be bred up in some Calling: I am sure the Scripture allows of idleness in none, though there may be a difference in labour; yet I suppose that less than this should not be in the breeding of the greatest men's children in the Nation, to be able to do things of Husbandry, that so they may be able to manage their estates the better, and know themselves when their business is well done.  
And so they may be the better fitted for their Calling, as Magistrates, Justices of the Peace, etc.  
You say, Will he call the Parliament Idlers, etc.  
Alas man! he knows the Parliament is a particular Calling while it continues, the Members of it being called and sent up by the Country, and they being faithful in it serve the Country.  
As for Physicians, I question not their Calling; that relates unto the body; but there is a difference between a Physician of the body and of the Soul; the one is natural, therefore needs time of study to find out the natural Causes and Remedies: and I question not the lawfulness of breeding to School till men are fit for those Callings to which they are appointed; but the Calling of the Minister is not a natural Calling, but a Spiritual; and only God fits and enables to it; therefore for men to live out of a Calling to fit themselves for the Ministry, is a very corrupt and dangerous thing; for in conclusion they must be Ministers right or wrong; they were bred up unto it; they expect a maintenance from it, etc. Whereas the Ministers of Christ have ever been chosen upon another account; viz. God gives gifts, and the Church chooses, and they are called from one Calling to another, yet may lawfully live in the use of both.  
Then you say, Tailors, Button-makers, Seamsters, etc. because they do not sweat at it, especially in the Winter, are not lawful Callings.  
Alas man! blindness with a witness; if you quarrel so much with the word, sweat, why do you not quarrel against him who first commanded it? But do you not know, first, that there is no Calling, but that sometimes those employed in it may, nay, do sweat. 2. That the word, sweat, primarily relates to a man's diligence in his Calling, being employed about something that may administer to his necessity, according to the Scripture, so not living idly;  
3. You say, Is it so, that none live in a lawful Calling, but he that works with his hands? what think you of Paul, 1 Cor. 9 6. have not we power to forbear working, etc.  
Answ. 1. I did not, nor do not affirm that those who are the Ministers of Christ, lawfully called, etc. may not forbear working; but that they ought not to be bred up idle, till they are called; and that God always maketh choice of men of particular Callings. 2. That Paul might forbear work, not that he must do it; for he did work, His hands ministered to his necessities, for the Gospel's sake. I wonder when we shall find any of you Ministers of the Nation in that temper?  
4. You say, Is there no laboriousness and pains taking in the employment of the Ministry, etc.  
Answ. I know there is; and notwithstanding you say, that it appears by his book, he is not acquainted with the labour of the mind in getting down to the bottom of things. Sir, I have through grace gone so to the bottom of things, as hath and will root up all your Religion, root and branch, Ministry, Church, Ordinances and all; therefore forbear complaining of the want of going to the bottom of things; and I doubt not but that I shall go to the bottom of your Book too, before I have ended.  
But you say he adds, Breeding to School is proper to children when they cannot labour, to fit them for some Calling.  
You pretend, That Infants are able to labour almost assoon as they are able to go to School, etc.  
Answ. 1. If you were not ignorant at best, or envious, you might understand that Infants are not able to labour in their Callings assoon as able to go to School; and I dare affirm, that there is time enough for children to get Learning to fit them for any Calling in this Nation, before they have ability of body to perform it. I do not judge children sufficiently capable in body for a Calling until 14. years of Age, and here is time enough for children to get Learning; as for Universities, we read of none in Scripture; and Simson in his History of the Church saith that Clemens Alexandrinus, and Pantenus were the Authors of Universities and Colleges, p. 259.  
2. I say, That children may be fit for some Callings before they be for others; and according as the Calling is unto which they are intended, may their Parents give the time of breeding them, some more, and some less, until fit and able to manage that Calling unto which they are appointed; yet all this makes nothing at all for the breeding up of Ministers, unless you will make a Trade of it; which I perceive is the great Work you are about. When men are thus bred up and fitted for, and employed in some lawful Calling, if God now manifest his Son to and in such a one, enabling him to the Work of the Lord in his own heart, and in the judgement of the Church, he may lawfully, nay he ought to submit unto the Call of God, be he high or low; from the Speaker of the House, or Precedent of the Counsel of State, unto the Hewer of wood and Drawer of water; and this is a true Call, when thus called of God: therefore all you say to this, is but an idle fancy; you have no ground for it.   

His second Error.  
That Infant-Baptism is a childish thing.  
And this you say, He will own for a Truth: And this I do say, I still own for a Truth, and that first in the Subject. 2. In the Administrators.  
You say, There is an Objection lies in the way, which he sets down, viz. That the Infants of the children of Israel were as uncapable of the understanding of the mystery of Circumcision, as Infants are now of Baptism.  
My Answers (though reproached by you, I suppose it's not for want of ignorance) (I shall relate them again, and leave them to the judgement of the Reader; only, adding one more) will stand, and their truth be manifest, when what you practise will fall in the streets.  
It's truth, that one part of Circumcisions Mystery, viz. the Circumcision of the heart, was as far from the capacity of Infants, as the mystery of Baptism is now.  
2. As Circumcision was a Type and Figure in the flesh of Christ, who was to come of Abraham's Seed; and there was no such capacity required, because it was a Jewish Legal Type, as all the rest of their external Worships and Sacrifices were, leading to, and representing the coming of Christ in the flesh. That these are not words to please children as you pretend, unless you mean the children of God; but words of truth, it will appear, if the honest Reader do but consider, that as all the Ordinances of the Jews were Carnal and Typical, Heb. 9 10. Col. 2. 16, 17. So those Ordinances were given to the Natural or Carnal Seed, viz. the Seed of the Flesh, which was Typical likewise as their Ordinances were; therefore was not the like capacity required in them, as in those in the Gospel days, who are directly led into the Mystery unto Jesus who is come, being the substance of all those Types and shadows.  
3. There was a Command for that of Circumcision; none for that of Baptism: you cry out, O egregiously gifted Disputant!  
Answ. O egregiously ignorant! Is it not the Command that gives a capacity to the one and to the other? If the Lord Command the one, and not the other, is not that enough to silence man for ever? Zac. 2. 13. I say its the Command of God that gives a capacity to the creature of obeying; and there are none capable of a Duty but those that are called to the Duty; and this you confess yourself, p. 86. that in weighty things of God, a Christian must have a certain evident Rule to warrant his practice. Whereas you say, They were therefore circumcised, because taken into the Covenant, and so Church Members; I shall Answer it in its place, and say something to it in my fourth Answer.  
I shall add a fourth, and that is, They were capable of those things promised to them in that Covenant, viz. The Land of Canaan; and only the spiritual seed are capable of those things promised in the Gospel-Covenant, viz. The spiritual Land, Jesus Christ, and all the good things of the Gospel.  
2. I say its childish, as relating to the Administrators, etc. and you give a clear answer to it of just nothing. I refer the Reader to it.   

His third Error.  
That none must be baptised until they come to perfect age.  
To this you seem to give a learned Answer, crying out of Ignorance; and where it is, let the Reader judge by the Scriptures I produce: Was not Christ himself baptised at thirty years of age? The Eunuch by Philip? Acts 8. 37. And those that came to john? Mat. 3. and those Acts 2. 40, 41?  
You say, When any Anabaptist in England can prove that there was no Infants baptised in the Apostles time, than it may be you will make use of that which I bring.  
I shall make use of your own words before: O egregiously gifted Disputant! What, are you so well versed, that we must prove Negatives? I thought that you had known so much in disputation, of Reason and Scripture, that if you will practise a thing, than you must prove it, or else it is Will worship; if you can produce no precept nor precedent in Scripture for your practice, than you have no ground for your practice; but you can produce neither precept nor precedent for your practice. Ergo.  
I say, Is there one rule for them, and another for us now? if there be, produce it.  
To this you learnedly answer: If he did understand sense, he would see that the same Scripture-rule that was then given to the Churches, directs us to a different course in gathering of Churches.  
And truly I must be mighty wise then to understand that which is not for mine own ends; such sense will prove sensual in the end, Jam. 3. 13, 14, 15, 16. and this is the sum of what you say; only you would flatter the people with your love to them; and its manifest it is in darkening the Truth. You have produced no Scripture for another rule to us, then that to them, although I called for it, but only Rev. 2. 2. Try them that say they are Apostles, and are not, but liars. I say so too, and earnestly desire, nay charge those who have any knowledge of Jesus, to do it. See who sticks fastest to the Scriptures, we or you, that so they may find out the liars, and detect and avoid them; for they serve not the Lord Jesus, but their own bellies, and by their works they shall know them.  
As for those consequences mentioned; as that of Circumcision, the Households, and those brought to Christ, etc. I wonder that you blush not to write so audaciously as you do, knowing that almost all people know the truth of what I writ; that these are the consequences, witness The Font-Guarded.  
Immediately you confess, that its true, The first consequence is made use of; but come hither all you that fear the Lord, see what a shift this man makes to help himself; he takes it for granted, that I acknowledge that baptism is come in the room of Circumcision: when I do but declare your false and nonsensical consequences, not mine own conclusion. I deny Baptism to be come in the room of Circumcision; my grounds you may see in the Font-Guard Routed, in my answer to Doctor Hall; yet if it were true, that Baptism were come in the room of Circumcision, as Richard Sanders would have it, let the babes and sucklings come and see what ground here will be for Infant baptism: let Jesus Christ be King, let him have but so much honour, as to tell you who shall be baptised, and how it shall be done, the controversy will be ended: If you think Christ as a Son to be faithful in his house, as Moses a Servant was faithful in his house, Heb. 3. 2, 3, 4, 5. then he hath left sufficient rules for his people to walk by; they need not leave the son, and go back to the servant, Act 2. 22. but you ask What he hath to say to this consequence? Why the Law came by Moses; Grace and Truth, and Gospel-Ordinances came by jesus Christ: to this your great answer, as to most of all the rest, is, to cry out ignorance, see the ignorance of the great Text-man, etc. that Circumcision came by Abraham, and not by Moses. I might retort back again, See the ignorance of this learned Disputant, that doth not yet know that Circumcision was reckoned upon Moses account, though given to Abraham; & is not reckoned in the new Testament so much upon Abraham's account, as upon Moses, Leu. 12. 3. john 7. 22. The reason is, because that Circumcision was that in which the children of Israel were engaged to obedience, and the whole Law was included in it, when first given, or else by it they could not be bound over to the whole Law; so that the uniting of Law and Circumcision together so inseparably, being indeed both typical, must stand and fall together; Moses being the servant in that house, all the Ordinances being typical, and the servant too. Circumcision is reckoned with the rest of the Law, and altogether upon Moses account; therefore, next quarrel with Christ, and lay the blame (if there be so much) where it is. As to the substance of the consequences mentioned, I have answered already, they are commonly made use of by you. Your three Arguments I shall pass by, mentioned pag. 36 referring the Reader to my Answer to The Font-Guarded, in the beginning of this book. Only the grand Argument taken out of Master baxter's book, I shall untwist before I pass, I doubt not, though I have answered it likewise in the preceding Treatise: The Argument is this.  

Those that are Church-members are to be baptised.  
Some Infants are Church-members.  
Therefore some Infants are to be baptised.   
You say, you presume none will deny your Major; yet give me leave to question it a little. There is no such Scripture that I know of; for there are none that are Church-members upon the visible account, but those that are baptised, Act. 2. 41. They were baptised and added to the Church, not because members, but to make them visible members, etc.  
As for your Minor, you say you will prove it by Mr. Baxters' Argument, thus,  

If by the merciful gift and appointment of God, not yet repealed, some Infants were once to be admitted members into the visible Church, than some Infants are to be admitted so still.  
But by the merciful gift and appointment of God, not yet repealed, some Infants were admitted members into the visible Church.  
Therefore they are so to be admitted still.   
Answ. 1. Your Argument both for Major and Minor serves not at all for the end for which you produce it, viz. the confirmation of the Minor of your former Argument; for it contradicts itself.  
If Collier had so contradicted one Argument with another, you would have branded him for an Ignoramus. In the former Argument you say, Some Infants are Church-members, therefore aught to be baptised. In this you say, as in confirmation of the former, Some Infants were once to be admitted members, so that it supposeth a time when they were not members; and you seem to contradict yourself, and to confirm what I have said, viz. That Church-members are not admitted to Baptism, but they are admitted to membership by Baptism, or because baptised: but your self-contradiction I pass, only mind it by the way.  
And 2. I come to your invincible Argument, viz. upon your own account: and the strength of your Argument I perceive lies in this, Not yet repealed. Let all the rest pass for truth, yet let this be denied, and it comes all to nothing. You say p. 38. God never repealed this grant to Infants, etc. I shall (as I have done in the former Treatise) prove the Repeal, and then your Argument is fallen. I prove it thus:  

If the Covenant made with Abraham, in which Infants had those privileges you speak of, and Church membership, etc. be repealed, than the privileges of the Covenant are repealed.  
But the Covenant itself is repealed.  
Therefore the privileges of that Covenant are repealed.   
The Major is clear: The Minor I prove.  

That Covenant whose promises and privileges were typical, when the substance was come, was repealed.  
But the Covenant made with Abraham, and all its promises and privileges were typical.  
Ergo, When the substance was come, it was all repealed.   
That the Covenant was typical, I shall prove; and it typed out Christ and the spiritual seed.  
1. The Covenant typed out Christ: for the Covenant on God's part was, That he would give unto them the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession. This Land of Canaan was typical, of which Christ was the substance, Heb. 4. from v. 7. to 11. Therefore when Christ the substance was come, the type was repealed; and our Covenant now is not of the outward Land of Canaan, but of the true Spiritual Land of rest. And if the Covenant itself be repealed, as none who have their eyes in their heads but may see it, than the Church-membership of that Covenant is repealed; and the Church-membership of the Gospel is a Church-membership of another Covenant, a better Covenant, established upon better promises, Heb. 8. therefore another Church-membership. Such as are capable of that Covenant and promise, to wit the Spiritual seed, are members of the Spiritual promise.  
And lest any should think there was a difference between the Covenant made with Abraham, and that made with Moses, I cannot pass it thus: for it was all one. When Moses was raised up, it was gathered into one Covenant, and related all to one thing. Circumcision is given by Moses; the promise made to Abraham was the same as made to Moses, to wit, the Land of Canaan: therefore the Covenant mentioned Heb. 8. is said to be established upon better promises, because it was a better Covenant; that is, better promises then the Land of Canaan, viz. the Heavenly Land.  
If any man dare to say, that it is the same Covenant as that with Abraham; let him take heed, fear and tremble to give God the lie: God one day will appear to be a God of truth, and all selfseeking and gainsaying men will be sound liars. If any desire to see further into this truth, let them have recourse unto my former Treatise (Font-Guard Routed) in answer unto the same Argument.  
And as to your Arguments to prove the Negative, That this merciful grant is not revoked; if it be, it must be in mercy or judgement, etc. I trace you not in it; I suppose to any reasonable man it will be needless: For if it be clear as the Sun, that it is repealed; whether in mercy or judgement, to us is not material. Yet this I shall say, that it is in mercy, and much wisdom; For all the works of God are wrought in mercy and truth. It was the will and wisdom of God, that the Natural seed should have an interest in the outward Covenant, and that the Spiritual seed should have a true interest in the spiritual Covenant and privileges. Therefore cease reasoning thus: let God be true; let God have his will, though he take away all cause of fleshly boasting from us: For now we have no interest in any thing in this Covenant, unless Christ be ours; and if Christ be ours, than all is ours; but lose him, and lose all, 1 Cor. 3. 21, 22.   

You come (you say) to his fourth Error.  
That God now reveals his will not only by the written word, but by dreams and visions, more credited than the Scriptures.  
This you assert; it's none of mine; as the Reader may see, if he please to peruse the place. It is your own invention, and a lying one too. And to this you add another as great immediately following, viz. That you believe the Prison at London had done me good, where you heard I lately was for my Heresies.  
Strange man I you are speaking against Dreams, and yet are in the very interim dreaming: you did but dream that I was in prison, and I suppose it was because you would have it so; you had studied deep upon the point the day before, and so it seems you dreamed the thing was done. What, Richard Sanders dream a lie? if he can dream no better than that, he were as good give off dreaming, or at least forbear to publish it in writing, lest all men count him but as he is. And what I say of Dreaming, is no more but this; that I dare not condemn the thing, because God hath not limited himself; he may reveal himself which way he pleaseth, though not contrary, but agreeable to the Scripture. And further, that it is not my experience, nor any of that I know; therefore may be a whimsy of Tho Halls own head.  
This is the substance of what I say; yet you dare to assert, that I affirm that God reveals his will that way, & that it's more to be credited then the written word; when all I say, is, that for all that I know, some may have something revealed that way, although I know it not. See Mr. Fox in the Book of Martyrs, vol. 3. pag. 607. he relates of that good Martyr Mr. Philpot, in a dream or vision he saw as it were a glorious City full of excellencies, etc. and it brought much joy to his soul; it was cleared to him that it was a representation of the glorious Church of Christ: and dare you say this was false? And may not God do the like, if he please? though it's not usual, yet limit not God.   

His fifth Error.  
That the Saints need not ask the pardon of sin; that it is form and custom that carries them to this petition, Forgive us our sins, etc.  
It seems you resolved to lie when you began, and so you will do it to the purpose: but you are driven to confess the truth immediately, that every one that runs may read you. While any lives in the clear enjoyment of mercy, it is form and custom that carries them to that petition; but if a soul apprehends want of pardon, let him ask it. And is this so strange unto you? truly I do not wonder; I believe it is in good earnest as strange as you make it. It seems you know not that there is a time for all things, and every thing in its season is sweet and comely. There is a time to ask pardon, and a time to rejoice in the enjoyment of pardon; there is a time to be merry & a time to be sorry: If any be merry, saith James, let him sing; if afflicted, let him pray. And for that word, If any soul, or when a soul apprehends the want of pardon, let him ask it; it's not otherwise than what James saith, If any want wisdom, let him ask of God, etc. Jam 1. 5. All you say about this, is either a spurning against the truth, and a manifesting of your ignorance in this truth of God; or secondly a declaration of what is included in my assertion, That as they commit new sins, so being sensible of it, and of the want of pardon, let them ask it.   

His sixth Error.  
That gifted Brethren may exercise the Ministerial or Pastoral act of Preaching in a constituted Church, without any Call to the Office of a Minister.  
Ans. 1. I suppose it's impossible for you to state any thing truly as it was laid down by me. But that you pretend, that what I have written is so full of contradictions, that in sober sadness you know not what I would have. Truly in sober-sadness I am much of the mind, that your mind in writing was rather to make the Truth, and myself its servant contemptible to the people, then to answer the truth written in my book: for else you durst not change my language into your own so oft as you do; and then rail, and pretend you answer me; nay, pretend you know not what I would have, when it is so clearly asserted from Scripture grounds, not only in the general, but in particular, pag. 95. 96. in seven or eight particulars: and I shall at present mind but one, which is the first; That all the brethren in the Church that have the gift, may prophesy. You assert it thus; That they may exercise the Ministerial or Pastoral act, etc.  
Well, but you pretend you will not answer the Arguments; that you will leave to your brother Hall. But you pitifully cry out of ignorance in the Collier: but I suppose, and it's not my supposition only, that it is your own pitiful ignorance makes you so to cry out against me: for the Arguments you pass; nor do you say any thing of substance unto those things you pretend to be Errors. You say, you will lay down some Observations, which may serve as a key to see the weakness, ignorance, and impertinency of the same.  
You observe, p. 66. That I do pitifully say, I Sir, and No Sir. And is this such a pitiful thing? Let the Reader judge.  
As to your 7 particulars instanced, there is no contradiction in them. For first, that gifted brethren may preach according to their gift both in and out of a constituted Church, is clear; and there is not any thing you have said that bears the least show of a solid answer unto it. For both of these, see 1 Cor. 14. 31. Rom. 12. 3. 6. 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11. Act. 8. 4. with chap. 11. 19, 20, 21. & Act. 9 20. & chap. 18. 25, 26. in all which it appears, the lawfulness of the Preaching of gifted Brethren, both in and out of the Church; and truly I cannot think that you are so ignorant of this Truth as you pretend; only you are willing to make a Trade of Preaching; that so you may uphold your honour and profit; and that distinction between Gift and Office is as clear as the Sun; and you say nothing in answer unto it from the Scripture, but in way of comparison with the Magistrate, which will not hold: for men have preached, and it was their duty, without the Office, only by Gift, as in the former Scriptures; but men may not be Magistrates, unless called to office; and the disproportion between things Spiritual and things natural, is that in which natural men are lost, and the wisdom of man cannot reach it.  
But you seem with Tho. Hall, to make much ado about private Preaching; and to confirm it you produce two Arguments. 1. If we find in Scripture that all Christians may preach, taking preaching in a large sense for private duties we own one to another, etc. But you prove by Scripture that all Christians may Preach, take Preaching in a large sense, etc. How now Richard Sanders; why you are proving more than ever I asserted: Where will you be anon? they may Preach, and they may not; for that which I asserted, was, that gifted brethren might Preach; you say all.  
Query 1. Whether these Scriptures produced by you, do at all speak of Preaching? 1 Thes. 4. 18. comfort one another with these words, Heb. 3. 13. But exhort one another daily, while it is called to day.  
Qu. 2. If it do infer Preaching, why not public in the Church? If they were to exhort one another, why not in the Church? What word is there that hinders that it was not in the Church, and so public?  
So likewise in the rest of the Scriptures; so that by all that is said, here is no room for private Preaching, unless particular exhortation; so men in office may preach as well as men out of office; So that because there is a private watching in the Church of Christ, and a private admonition, exhortation, etc. you will therefore call it private Preaching; and if you make that Preaching, than you think to limit all the gifts in the Church there, so contradicting all the Scriptures before mentioned: and its true all are not teachers in way of Office: yet all that have gifts, may, nay aught to make use of them for the good of the body and the glory of Christ.  
The second Argument is taken from women. If it be lawful for women to preach privately, etc. But women may preach privately, etc.  
Answ. Here you lie pitifully in the dust; let the Reader peruse the Scripture produced by you for proof of your assertion, that women may Preach, 2 Tim. 1. 5. and 2 Tim. 3. 15. See if there be ever a word of Preaching in that place, or any thing that hath a tendency to it. Surely you think people are so ignorant that the very mentioning of Scripture will satisfy them, although it be nothing to the purpose; the other Scripture Act. 18. 26. The text saith, it was Aquila and Priscilla his wife. The word is, expounded the way of the Lord, etc. But how will you prove that it was Priscilla that expounded? Why not Aquila, if it must be preaching, as well as Priscilla?  
But what should I rake after such nonsense and confusion? I do not in the least question the women's Duty in their station, as well as all the brethren's, which is to watch, to reprove, to restore, to exhort, etc. yet this prevents not the brethren's Duty, who have received Gifts from the Lord to make use of them publicly for the good of the whole: and they justly forfeit them if they neglect, and they may be taken from them, and given to those who will better improve them; and I am confident that the gifts of Christ in the Saints, will confound and bring to nothing the Worldly Ministry, and that so much the rather too, because they so much envy and oppose the Truth, and way of God in this particular.  
You observe 3ly. That I take no notice of the thing in hand, when the question is stated, Whether any may Preach in a constituted Church, not called to Office? the Scriptures my answers are grounded upon, speak only of Preaching to Infidels, etc.  
Ans. If you were not wilful or blind, you might see, that I prove Preaching both in, and out of a constituted Church too; the Scriptures I produced for Preaching in a constituted Church, are Rom. 12. 3. 6. 1 Cor. 14. 31. and that it intends the Brethren without exception, see ver. 1. where he speaks to the Church, Desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy, and none are excepted but women, ver. 34. 1 Pet. 1. 10, 11. and as for that you make so much ado about, the extraordinariness of the case of the Preaching of the scattered brethren to Infidels: I have answered it in the former Treatise; yet something shall I say here; 1. An unlawful thing is not made lawful by the extraordinariness of the case, unless in case of saving life; so the Lord will have mercy and not sacrifice, as in the Scripture mentioned by you; provided it be not in the profession of Christ; then he that to save his life will deny Christ before men, he will deny him before his Father which is in heaven; so that necessity makes not an unlawful thing lawful: If Vzzah touch the Ark, he must die, 2 Sam. 6. 6, 7. But 2. What necessity was there in it, that Paul, or the scattered Brethren or Apollo should preach? if it were unlawful, there was no necessity, unless such as Paul minds, A necessity is upon me, and woe is me if I preach not the Gospel, 1 Cor. 9 16. And if this necessity was upon them I think it was lawful, and upon the same account is it lawful for any of the Saints that have received the Gift to Preach; therefore for shame forbear to tell of the extraordinariness of the Case any more, if the thing in itself was lawful: and do not abuse the Scripture for the upholding of your own ends and interests, and do no more charge folly upon the Servants of the Lord for their fulfilling of the will of Christ. And whereas you pretend, That one Scripture witnessing that God hath appointed and fixed some in office for the work of the Ministry, is of more strength to condemn the liberty of preaching pleaded for, then twenty Examples of gifted men's preaching. Let the Reader judge of the truth of this, or whether both these held forth in Scripture do not clearly speak thus much to it, that both are to have being together, not one to put out the other; and that Office that thinks to silence Gift, is no Office of Jesus Christ, but that which seeks itself, and its reward will be accordingly.  
But I might conclude more sure than you, that there being a fixed Scripture that Commands Baptising of Believers, is of strength enough to condemn a thousand consequences for sprinkling of Infants, having not so much as any precedent for it: you would feign precedents for sprinkling of Infants if you could; but you endeavour to overturn Precedents of preaching Brethren that they should not be useful to us; let the people judge of what Spirit you are of: And the reason I judge is this, your own standing depends so positively upon it, that unless you can uphold the one and suppress the other, you are like to fall together.  
Observe. 4. That in my pleading for a general liberty of Preaching in a constituted Church, I do not inform how far I extend it, Whether it be with the consent of the Pastor and people, or whether he may Preach whether they will or no?  
Answ. I leave the truth of this likewise to the Reader to judge; whether it be not often asserted in my Book, pag 29. The Church's freedom or desire is Call enough, if the party be gifted to it; all lawful Calls to Preach either within or without are suitable to the Gift, pag. 30. The Church hath power to Call forth a gifted Brother to do service for the Church; and in the Postscript, at the end, it is thus written; In what I have written, I intent that only Brethren that have Gifts may exercise them in an orderly way, that is, with the desire or consent of the Church, as any man might easily understand; so there is no truth in your observation.  
Obser. 5. That in most of his Answers he doth not reply to the Scripture reason alleged against him, but declining that, as a little too hard for him.  
That I leave to the Reader to judge, whether I have declined a positive Answer to all, both the Arguments and Scriptures; and who hath declined the Argument and Scriptures most; I in my Answers to Tho. Hall, or Rich. Sanders in his answer to mine.  
So you come, you say, to open several Scriptures, from giving any countenance to that Babel; and the two first that you will speak to is Act 8. 4. and Act 9 20 but in this you will ohserve two Rules.  
1. That in weighty things of God, a Christian must have a certain Rule, or warrant for his practice, etc. I like it well; and if you held firm to this truth, you must deny all your own practice.  
2. That Arguments drawn from examples in Scripture are of credit, according to the credit of the persons whose examples they are, etc.  
This I own for truth likewise: But you say, Those examples are of men not infallible etc.  
How prove you that? dare you question it? and doth not the Scripture say, the hand of the Lord was with them? yet dare you question the spirit by which they were guided? Acts 11. 21. All the rest you say to this is nothing at all; therefore I say no more but refer the Reader to what is at large answered in the Pulpit-Guard Routed: as for the second Scripture, Act. 9 20. you confess, That he Preached before he was solemnly set apart to be an Apostle to the Gentiles. 2. You say he was sent by an immediate voice to Ananias, that he should tell him what he should do; but Ananias did not bid him preach, but arise and be baptised, etc. You mind what you have from saul's own mouth, ch. 22. 14. Ananias saith to him, Thou shalt be a witness to all men of what thou hast seen and heard, ver. 15. This was no setting of him apart to the Office; he told him that he should be a witness, etc. but did not Ordain him unto it: and upon your account Saul should have been silent till he had been ordained; but he was not as before, and Act. 26. 16, 17, 18. God's immediate sending him, was nor the outward Office, as you pretend.  
You say, the other Scripture he often urges; and why not, having often occasion? 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11. Rom. 12. 6. 7. These, you say, are far fetched consequences.  
Answ. They are no consequences man, but plain Scripture Precepts; Christians must administer their gifts, therefore they must be public Preachers, etc. Why not public? do the Scriptures make a difference? And what you say further to these Scriptures, hath been answered already; therefore I say no more.  
The ntxt Scripture is Psal 145. 10, 11. All you say to this is very learnedly; As though this hath any relation to public preaching, when he saith, they shall make known to the sons of men his mighty Acts and the glorious Majesty of his Kingdom; but this you have left out; you durst not put it in your Book, lest the Reader should see your folly. The next Scripture is 1 Cor 14. 31. This you pretend to prove was extraordinary Prophecy, and not ordinary, as the Pulpit-Guard Routed says.  
And you say, That your great work shall be to prove that prophecy 1 Cor. 14. 31. was extraordinary, and not ordinary, as the Pulpit-Guard-Routed says.  
1. You say, You read, p. 60. that the reason why prophecy was extraordinary in the Law, and this ordinary 1 Cor. 14. 3. is because its a speaking to edification, exhortation and comfort, etc. The substance of what you seem to answer to this is, 1. Because such as were prophets did speak to edification; therefore those who speak to edification are prophets. In this you say is some Sophistry, etc.  
But give me leave to show your Sophistry; and that first in pretending an Answer, when 'tis nothing to the purpose; the end of my using these words, was to present the Reader with the difference between the Prophecy of the Old Testament, which was to foretell things to come, and this of the New; this 1 Cor. 14. is an ordinary way of prophecy for the building up of the Church, that so all may be instructed, and all may be comforted.  
2. I answer, that those Saints that can speak to edification, etc. are prophets; nay all the Lords People are prophets; therefore your Sophistry, nor yet your Logic will not hold; for though the ground may be wet without rain; yet it is not often wet without water: and if a Saint, a Member of the Church can speak to edification, exhortation and consolation, he is a Prophet: if he have the Testimony of Jesus, he hath the Spirit of Prophecy.  
2. You say, The Prophets under the Law spoke to edification.  
I answer. There is none questions that, but that their prophesyings had that end in it: and it's so to us at this day, when we come to understand them; but the prophesying mentioned 1 Cor. 14. was a common and ordinary prophesying in the Church, for the edification of the Body: That in the Law was a foretelling of things to come, and therefore written, to be kept on Record to posterity; this not written, because ordinary, and as Thomas Hall confesseth, it was such a prophecy, as in it they might err, etc. So that I say again, they under the Law took not their denomination from this kind of prophesying, viz. an ordinary speaking to build up souls in the present knowledge of God; but from their receiving their prophecy immediately from God, discovering things to come.  
Whereas you say, They were not called Prophets in the old Testament from the matter of their prophecy, but for the manner of receiving it.  
1. I answer, it was from both matter and manner too.  
2. If what you say be truth, see a clear difference; those 1 Cor. 14. are called Prophets, not so much from the manner, as the matter: He that prophesieth, speaketh to edification, exhortation, and consolation: as if he should say, if you would know a Prophet, it is such a one as speaks to edification, etc. and whosoever speaks not to edification, etc. is no Prophet; for the Apostle doth not only direct them in the manner of prophecy, but in the matter too; it's a word to edification; and truly you either miserably contradict yourselves, or else do of purpose to keep souls in the dark; for Thomas Hall, whom you pretend to vindicate, applieth that Scripture 1 Cor. 14. 32. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets: viz. to the probation and examination of the Presbytery; and he hath no other Scripture to prove the Presbyterian examination and probation, but that; yet afterwards both with him and you, that prophecy is extraordinary; and yet you confess that Presbytery was an ordinary office; what contradictions are these, and what will you not say for your own ends?  
You seem much to harp upon one thing, and that of little consequence to the thing in hand: That the extraordinary way of Revelation did denominate their say to be prophecies, and not their foretelling things to come.  
I say, that not only that, but the matter of the prophecy, as well as the manner; as a blind man might see or understand: for if any prophecy, and the matter of the prophecy proved not true, he was no true Prophet: therefore, that the people might know a true Prophet under the Law, they were to look at the matter of the prophecy, not the manner of receiving it. Isa. 23. 26. How long shall this be in the heart of the Prophets, to prophesy lies? ver. 28. The Prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully, etc. So that it was the faithful and true speaking of the word, from whence they had the denomination of Prophet; and this in substance you confess, page 101. contradicting what you say, p. 100 It was the extraordinary way of Revelation; here it's the manifestation of their prophecy, because they manifested to others (by divine inspiration) things past, present, and to come. So that now you confess its the manifestation, by revelation of truth, that made them Prophets, not the ordinary way of speaking to edification, etc. mentioned 1 Cor. 14. 3.  
As to all you say to Rev. 19 10. page 103. I may truly retort your own words, I am afraid the devil hath taught you to play the Sophister; for when the Text saith, The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, you say immediately, and extraordinarily inspired: Doth the Text say so, or is it your own invention? I leave to the Reader to judge: And as for your distinction from Chap. 1. ver. 2. The word of God, and the Testimony of Jesus, it's one and the same in substance; or at most, the Testimony of Jesus is but an explanation of the word of God: He was banished for the word of God, even for the Testimony of Jesus, so the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must of necessity sometimes be understood: As Col. 2. 2. the Apostle manifesting his earnest desire for the Saints, that they might come to the Knowledge of God, and of the Father, etc. which must be rendered, even of the Father; a word rather to explain the former, then distinguish, etc. So that John doth not so distinguish, as if he had been more excellent than the rest of the Apostles in the testimony of Jesus, etc. but for that it was he was banished: and the truth is, that the Testimony of Jesus, though not so eminent as the Apostles, yet if by the same spirit, according to the rule of truth, and according to the measure received, it is the spirit of prophecy.  
As for what you say to that Scripture 1 Cor. 14. 37.  

Every spiritual man is a Prophet.  
All the Saints are spiritual.  
Therefore all Prophets.   
What you with so much contempt say to this, doth but discover of what spirit you are; and you might know, that when I say the Saints are not all Prophets, page 21. I intended that they had not all the same gift of prophecy, to speak to the edifying of the Church, and upon that account they are not all Prophets.  
Yet secondly, they are all Prophets upon a common account, and are able to speak something of God and Christ, as occasion is offered; this God promised, and hath made good, that he would pour out of his Spirit upon all flesh, etc. So that the truth holds clear, That every spiritual man is a Prophet, and that according to the measure of the gift, so he may, and aught to speak: though all are not Prophets, viz. able to speak in the Church to edification, exhortation, and consolation; yet all are Prophets, and may speak occasionally to edification, though not in the Church.  
Some of the grounds you pretend to answer, As that these Prophets were such as needed direction from the Apostles, etc. therefore not extraordinary.  
You pretend to answer this, first, Because there were extraordinary tongues, and the Apostle directs them: and why not direct extraordinary Prophets too?  
Answ. 1. If by ordinary and extraordinary, you mean the one common to all; the other more than ordinary, so not common to all; that I always have granted, and shall, as in the case of prophesying. So of tongues, All have the Spirit of Christ; that is ordinary to all: If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his, Rom. 8. 9 yet all have not the gift of prophecy, to speak in the Church, as before. So in those tongues there was that speech of the things of God that was ordinary to all, and that of tongues which was proper to but some, as Prophesy: yet not so extraordinary, as to be either 1. infallible, therefore needed direction: or 2. passing; for the Apostle spoke with tongues more than they all.  
And secondly, that this of tongues was not such an extraordinary business as you pretend, is clear; and that first from the Apostles dissuading them from it, as you may see at large in the Chapter, and that from the unprofitableness of it, both to the Church, and to the world too. ver. 2, 3. and 23, 24.  
2. He saith, ver. 5. Greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues; and the reason is rendered, because he that prophesieth, edifieth the Church, etc.  
You say there is yet one reason more, page 87.  
Praying and Prophesying are put together 1 Cor. 11. 5. Was it extraordinary praying too?  
You answer, You will put in that too for his Learning. 1 Cor. 14. 14, 15. If I pray in an unknown Tongue, etc. Is not here extraordinary praying?  
Doth the Scripture call it extraordinary anywhere: and may we not say truly, as the Apostle saith of Prophecy, greater is he that prophesieth, than he that speaketh with tongues? and the reason is, because he speaketh to edification: so say I, greater was, and is he that prayeth in a known tongue, than he that prayeth in an unknown tongue; and the Apostle upon the same account dissuades them as well from praying or praising in an unknown tongue, as from speaking in an unknown tongue; and if that prayer had been extraordinary, surely he would not have persuaded them from it; for I think, that prayer is most extraordinary that is most prevailing with God, and that is the prayer of Faith; not of an unknown tongue.  
You now come to give your Reasons, why this Prophecy is extraordinary: 1. Because it is joined with extraordinary gifts, 1 Cor. 14. viz. The gift of Tongues.  
Ans. 1. Those gifts as hath been already showed, were not so extraordinary as you pretend. For greater was be that prophesied than he that spoke with tongues.  
But 2. Were what you say truth, that that Prophecy in this Chapter were intermixed with extraordinary gifts as that of tongues; for which you say its unlikely that Prophecy should be ordinary; I say, were what you say in the first place truth; yet the second doth not follow. For in Scripture its ordinary to place or intermix those gifts or offices which you call ordinary and extraordinary together; And I wonder you had not so much in you as to see it; That might have saved you the labour of setting down this Reason. See 1. Cor 12 29. Are all Apostles? are all Prophets? are all Teachers? are all Workers of Miracles? &c  
You affirm Apostles, Prophets, Miracles are extraordinary: and Teachers placed in the midst to be ordinary, or by way of ordinary office. So Rom, 12. v. 6, 7, 8. v. 6. he speaks of Prophecy. You say that it is extraordinary; yet it's joined in with that you call ordinary Teaching and exhortation. v. 7, 8. you parallel with it for your proof Ephes, 4. 11. which Scripture makes as much against you as any I know when rightly understood. For 1. these are not extraordinary offices, as is discoursed at large in the Pulpit-Guard Routed; But the ordinary standing gifts and offices in the Church of Christ. And Secondly, if otherwise, upon your own account, Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists which you say are extraordinary, are reckoned up with Pastors and Teachers which you say are ordinary and continuing offices in the Church of Christ.  
And 3. I wonder how you dare to divide, and with Tho. Hall to pick out what you please; and to call one ordinary, and another extraordinary: when the Scripture presents them all as standing in the Church upon the same account, gifts given forth by the Spirit from Christ to the Church. And you would take some, and leave others; so rob the Church of Christ of those gifts, orders, Privileges and Officers that Christ hath given to it; but no wonder; for you own neither Church, Ordinances, Gifts or Officers according to the mind of Christ, but what you have received by Tradition, from Antichrist.  
You say that he saith, Apostles are not extraordinary; and as for Evangelists, he hath nothing to say of them etc.  
Truly, had you not been blind or forgetful, there is enough said of them. It seems I must say it again.  
Pag. 70. An Evangelist is not an extraordinary, but an ordinary work; a crier or publisher of glad tidings; which is proper to all the servants of the Lord, that preach glad tidings to men; and as for Apostles, they are not extraordinary, but ordinary; I say it again, and I wonder you durst to oppose so clear a truth; those who are sent of God to preach the Gospel for converting souls, and gathering Churches, are Apostles, viz. sent one's; and the Twelve Apostles did not take their denomination from their extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, but from their mission from Christ to do his work; so that notwithstanding none are so sent as those Apostles were; 1. immediately or by an immediate mission from his own mouth. 2. So immediately inspired and abilitated from above; nor 3. to do the same work in every particular, though the same in substance; viz. to be the first Planters of the Gospel, to establish it by signs and miracles, etc. Yet there is the same in truth; and men sent for the gathering of Churches are as truly Apostles as they were: as the sons of God are as truly the sons of God as Christ himself, though not filled with the same fullness. And that you may see there were more Apostles than those, Christ was the great Apostle, Heb. 3. 1. and he sent the Twelve; and other Apostles it's more than probable there were. Rom. 16. 7. the Scripture saith that Andronicus and Junias were of note among the Apostles.  
1. It's probable that they were Apostles etc. else how should they be of note or reckoned among them?  
2. That there were Apostles there; and it could not be of the Twelve. For Paul was the only Apostle to the Gentiles, and the others of the Circumcision; they were of note among the Apostles of or belonging to the Church in Rome. But Secondly, It's apparent that there are or shall be both Apostles and Prophets at the Fall of Babylon: which work I believe is now begun: and the Lord hath his scent ones abroad in the World, in and by whom he will effect his work; who shall rejoice in the fall of Babylon, Rev. 18. 20. Rejoice over her ye holy Apostles and Prophets, for God hath avenged you on her. So that notwithstanding all your scuffling shifts you make to help yourself, and to keep up your honour with the people; yet know that God is truth, and every man that opposeth him shall be found a liar; and that he hath left these ordinary standing gifts and offices in his Church, Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, etc. And whereas you say that I argue against it, p. 70. that those scattered brethren, Act. 8. were not Apostles, though sent to gather Saints, etc. That I say is (as a blind man may understand) that they were none of the twelve Apostles; for they tarried at Jerusalem: in answer to Tho. Hall's assertion, that they might be Apostles; whereas it is said that the Apostles tarried at Jerusalem: but that they were Apostles, viz. sent forth by the Lord, not in a common way, though not of the twelve Apostles.  
The second Reason, Because this word Prophet hath been always used to signify a person extraordinarily inspired of God, when taken in a good sense, etc.  
Ans. 1. Because Prophets were ordinarily taken in this sense in the Old Testament, and sometimes so taken in the New Testament; therefore to conclude they were always so taken, is a Non sequitur, and there is no ground for it; no more than because in the Old Testament all were circumcised, in the New Testament some were circumcised, therefore all must be circumcised.  
2. Usually these extraordinary Prophets, as you call them, had their Prophecies written, and they were kept upon record for aftertimes: but amongst so many Prophets in every Church, none of their Prophecies are recorded, therefore no extraordinary Prophets. And further, that they were not extraordinary, is clear, in that their Doctrine was to be tried by the Church, or at least by the rest of the Prophets; and this you never find done by any of the extraordinary Prophets. And lastly, if they had been extraordinary, they could rather have directed the Apostle, than the Apostle should have directed them, as Act. 21. 11. Which arguments were urged in the Pulpit-Guard Routed; but you were so wise, it seems, as to take no notice of them.  
I might add to all the rest, that the extraordinary Prophecy was such an immediate revelation and inspiration, as that when it came, they could not but prophesy. This was such a prophecy, as they had first need to be exhorted to it, and secondly are bid to desire it, and thirdly had need to be informed of their liberty, and fourthly to be directed unto the right manner of the performing of it, 1 Cor. 14 1, 2. & 31. & 29. 30. therefore no extraordinary, but ordinary Prophets. These things thus considered, I question not but that it sufficiently makes null your second Reason.  
Your third Argument is, That the gift or spirit of Prophecy given out to the New Testament Prophets, is the fulfilling of the promise, Joel 2. 28. therefore extraordinary.  
Ans. Granted that it is the same spirit, and fulfilling of the same promise, yet not the same extraordinary gift. If no Prophets but those who have extraordinary gifts, than no Pastors and Teachers; for than they had extraordinary gifts; and upon the same account those who have not the like gifts are not Pastors and Teachers; upon the same account no believers. Mar. 16. 17. These signs shall follow them that believe, etc. So that upon this account you will reason out all Religion and Christianity out of the world.  
Therefore secondly, they having the Spirit, or the gifts and operations of the Spirit, might in their Prophecies be above us: yet according to the measure received, we may, nay ought, viz. the Prophets, to speak in the Church, etc. Or else that prophecy Joel 2. 28. hath nothing to do with us, nor we with it, we are not under that promise; so all the promises are not in Christ yea and amen to us. And how dare you to make null the great Gospel prophesy and promise, nay the great and blessed promise of Christ at his departure from his Disciples Joh. 14. 16. viz. of the Spirit?  
Your fourth Argument is, Because Prophecy is set down distinct from ordinary Teaching, Rom. 12. 6.  
A little to discover the strength of this Argument, I reason thus: Exhortation in the same place is set down distinct from Teaching, therefore it is extraordinary Exhortation. Therefore I have in the Pulpit Guard Routed, clearly distinguished between Gift and Office; and if the Lord enlighten us in these, that we could but distinguish, we should not thus confound one thing with another, and turn out some truths to retain others; but every truth would stand in its place, and so there would be a sweet harmony, as in Scripture, so in the Church of Christ.  
Your fifth Argument is, Because the gift of Prophecy was given to others besides Saints.  
This is learned Logic indeed: Because wicked men have the use of the things of the world, therefore it is not proper to all the Saints to have the use of the things of the world: because wicked men may have the spirit of Prophecy, therefore it is not proper to the Saints to have it. Let the Reader judge of this Logic. Or else because wicked men may have a form of godliness, denying the power; therefore it is not proper to all the Saints to have the form of godliness. This Argument I leave to the Reader; and follow you to your other additional Arguments.  
1. Because God hath not appointed all gifted brethren to live of the Gospel, therefore they are not to preach the Gospel. The Scripture you produce is 1 Cor 9 14.  
Ans. This Scripture is to be understood in way of distinction; and that,  
1. That they that preach the Gospel, may, not that they must, live of the Gospel: then Paul lived unlawfully, when he wrought with his hands, Act 18. 3. and his hands ministered to his necessities; and it is a more blessed thing to give then to receive. So that it is only a discovery of the mind of God, what he that preaches the Gospel may do, if he need it. Hence Paul saith, he had a power not to work, but to live of the Gospel; and he had a power to work, and not to live of the Gospel. But it seems you are very loath to hear on that ear.  
2. It intends that only those who are called to the office, and set apart wholly to that work, that they should, if they need, live of the Gospel, 1 Tim. 5. 17, 18 You never read that Prophets were to live of the Gospel. So that this distinction keeps the truth clear, and dissolves your Argument to nothing.  
Your second Argument, is Because to preach publicly, is to exercise authority: But none may exercise authority, but such as have Ministerial authority, etc. The Scripture for confirmation of this, is 1 Tim 2. 12. where Women are forbidden to teach publicly, because they may not usurp authority over the man.  
Ans. This Argument and Scripture will do you no good to that end for which you have produced it; but clearly contradicts that you drive at: for the Apostle both in 1 Cor. 4. 34. & 1 Tim. 2. 12. holds forth the difference in general between men and women in the Church, not between women and men in office; that is nonsense; for he saith, 1 Cor. 14. 35. If the woman will know any thing, let her ask her husband at home. There is no such word spoken of the men. So that men have authority to speak in the Church to edification, having the gift; but women have not that authority allowed them, although they have the gift, etc.  
Your third Argument. If there be a power in the Church to keep off wolves and false teachers from the sheep; then all that conceive they have gifts, may not preach, till they are approved, etc.  
Ans. It is granted that there is such a power in the Church of Christ; and they are able to judge of gifts, when they hear, whether it be of God or of man; and they must hear, before they can judge: And when they hear and judge that it is of God; not a wolf, but a sheep; not a false, but a true Prophet, speaking to edification, exhortation, and consolation, they may with comfort hear and approve the speaking of such in the Church.  
Your fourth Argument, is; If to appoint to the office of a Minister, and the work of a Minister be all one, than no man is appointed to the work of a Minister, but he that is appointed to the office. But to appoint to the office of a Minister, and the work of a Minister, be all one. Ergo.  
Ans. Your Minor is denied. A man may be appointed to the work of a Minister, yet never be appointed to the office. For,  
1. Richard Sanders himself in his own practice shall confute this Logic; for he saith, That he Preached a long time before he was Ordained, etc. but he mends the matter, It was in order to the Ministry. But in case Richard Sanders had died before he had been ordained, then Preaching and the Office of the Ministry had not been one, there had been a great deal of Preaching without Office. So that in this your practice you contradict your reason, and you allowed yourself in the thing which you condemn.  
2. Were these Act. 8. 4. appointed to the office? they did the work: but the office you read not of. And those 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11. they were commanded to the work, but not to the office; for then every one must have been officers, etc.  
3. You have given your Argument, but never a Scripture to confirm it; but you endeavour to confirm one Reason by another, without Scripture. Take heed, Richard, of outing Scripture with your Reason; be content to fall down under the power of truth; let God be true, and all flesh's wisdom, so far as it opposeth God, be a lie.   

You now come to his 7. Error.  
That Humane Learning is no way necessary to the Ministry of the Gospel; and that I affirm, p. 38. 39 41. Pulpit-Guard Routed, that the power of the Spirit of Christ in Saints, is sufficiently able to make them to divide the word aright, and to convince gainsayers.  
And dare you deny this Truth? Is not the Spirit of Christ sufficient? dare you derogate from the Holy Spirit? and do you find any other Ministry or Teacher then the Spirit in the Scripture? 1 Cor. 12. Joh. 14. 26. & 16. 7, 8. But you seem to help this again; you deny not the ability of the Spirit; but you question the will, or if he please to do it. I think that needs not be the Question, but rather whether you are in the Scripture directed to any other way for the attaining of the mind of God than the Spirit and the Scripture; but you question, pag. 126. Whether the main and principle Doctrine of the Scriptures be so plainly laid down, as that a Christian may attain unto the knowledge of the same without humane Learning; you grant, that if he have a Translation he may: and have not we a Translation in English; and is it not true, but false? then the Translators have done wrong: but is it not true in the substance? is there any material, fundamental mistake? if not, than an English man in the English Translation may understand the mind of God as much and more, if he have a greater measure of the Spirit, than an Hebritian and Grecian can understand in those Languages. 2. I answer, that I do not quarrel against Tongues, but at the abuse of them, to make an Idol of them: I know you may come to the knowledge of the Letter of Scripture in an ordinary way more fully with it then without it; but it is the abuse of it that I quarrel at, because you set it up in the room of the Spirit, as if none could understand Scripture but those that have Tongues; then the Faith of all others must be an implicit Faith, built upon the credit of men, which would prove very weak in the end.  
3. It's the use of Philosophy in the things of God, as some of you affirm, that there is a necessity of studying Arts, Sciences, Logic, Rhetoric, etc. to make them Ministers, as Tho. Hall's Pulpit Guard; make use of your tongues; bring forth the truth of the Original to the people, help those that want it, and make not an Idol of it, etc.  
You proceed to produce some Scriptures, A good account of which cannot be given without the help of humane Learning.  
Answ. In this you show so much weakness, that I would not say a word unto it, were it not for one or two of them, and I shall say but a word or two.  
1. Is there any thing material in any of these Scriptures? Put case a man knew not the Emphasis of the Original, as Rich. Sanders calls it; Is any thing laid open by him material? or 2. if so, it's that which may be easily attained. But to the Scriptures; the first is Apostolos; and what if a man never knew that it signifies Sent? why might he not understand as much as yourself in it? for every man that knows any thing, knows that the twelve Apostles, and Paul, were Apostles; and you know no more; you do not know that all that are sent of Jesus Christ, are Apostles, viz. Sent.  
The second Scripture, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Rock, you seem to give a learned interpretation, as if Christ intended to build his Church upon Peter; so much is clearly hinted in what you say. I trace you no farther in this; I leave the weight of what you say concerning those Scriptures, to the Reader, because I am in haste. As to that you say concerning Ghost, I perceive you know well what the word is in the Greek; and what if it were always so translated in English? and I think it is one of the greatest wrongs to our English translation, the mispronouncing of words, in pronouncing Hebrew and Greek instead of English; Messiah from Mesha, instead of Anointed: Emmanuel instead of God with us: In Greek Christ from Christos, instead of anointed; Jesus instead of Saviour; Apostle instead of Sent; Baptise instead of Dip or Wash, etc. and Ghost instead of Spirit, though that's not Greek word. Why do you not reform these things with your learning, unless it be done on purpose to keep people in ignorance?  
But you have something farther to say it seems, and that very learnedly, page 134. and you have much to say to this particular; That there is not any Scripture understood by spiritual Christians, the grammatical sense of which, a man that hath not the Spirit of Christ may attain unto; and page 135. That Scripture is sufficient to discover its own sense to all men, diligently improving the outward helps afforded by God; and that if it be the Spirits work to discover the sense and meaning of Scripture, than the Spirits work is to make Notionists, etc.  
Answ. And is this your spiritualness indeed? That a natural man without the Spirit may understand the mind of God? for if he understand the sense and meaning of the Scripture, than he understands the mind of God; and this is contrary to the Scripture, For the natural man doth not understand the things that are of God, neither can he understand them, 1 Cor. 2. 14, But we have the mind of Christ.  
2. If this be truth that you affirm, than what is the reason that you, with all your humane Learning, do not yet understand the sense and meaning of the Scripture? and that first in common and ordinary things, as that the Covenant made with Abraham and Moses, etc. is not the same as the Gospel-Covenant; when the Scripture saith plainly that it is not the same, but another Covenant, not such a Covenant as the first was, but established upon better promises, etc. What is the reason that you do not understand that Command of Christ, that it is Believers that are to be baptised, and not Infants? and that you understand not, that when Christ saith, That upon this Rock will I build my Church, he means not Peter, but the Rock of Peter's confession; viz. Christ Jesus, who is so often in Scripture called The Rock or foundation stone of Zion: but Pope-like, think it's meant of Peter. And are there not many Prophecies, and much of the Revelation which is yet a sealed mystery to you? and John saith expressly, Rev. 5. that the Scripture, viz Christ the mystery of God in Scripture, is a sealed book, that none could open it but the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. Yet you say, that a natural man can do it. I leave it to the Reader to judge of the truth of this.  
And 3. Whereas you say, if the Spirits work be to teach men the sense of Scripture, it is to make them Notionists.  
I answer first, then upon your own account, your humane Learning doth but make you Notionists; for you say, that helps you to the knowledge of the sense of Scripture: It's no wonder then that you are so far from the power of truth; for you confess, that with all your learning you are but Notionists at the best; and truly you are but bad Notionists neither; for there is much of the sense of Scripture that you are not acquainted withal.  
You say, Knowledge puffeth up.  
Answ. True; fleshly knowledge, such as you are pleading for, but not the true saving knowledge of the Spirit of Christ; for the Scripture saith expressly, That without knowledge the heart cannot be good; and for want of knowledge the people perish: And that its life eternal to know God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent: and the more a soul knows of God and Christ, of God in Christ, the more he comes to abbor himself, Isa. 6. Act. 9  
And whereas you are so much upon this, That the Scripture expressions are plain, and express their own meaning, page 137. Else they cannot be a perfect rule; and if men must understand them by or in the light or teaching of the Spirit, what were this but to make the Scripture a nose of Wax, as the Papists do, pliable to any sense, etc.  
Answ. 1. It's true, the Scripture expressions are plain, and express their own meaning: yet not so plain as you pretend, that every one may attain the sense of them; for you confess, that there is need of means and help to understand them. Then I query which is the likeliest means to help us to understand the meaning of the Scripture, in comparing Scripture with Scripture; the Spirit of Christ, or humane Learning? Who best knows the meaning of the Scripture? that Spirit by which it was given, or that humane spirit so much pleaded for, that never did, nor never shall know the Lord?  
2. The Scriptures are no perfect rule to ignorant and carnal men, or hypocrites: it's a perfect rule only to such who by them know the Lord and his mind by the teachings of the Spirit, and so walk according to it; for if it be a perfect rule, then it's so to those who know it.  
You say a natural man may know it; then a natural man may have a perfect rule; and if he walk according to it, he must be saved; for who so walks by a perfect rule, and answers it in his walking, must be justified by that rule: Now the Scripture is no perfect rule of justification of life to any but the Saints; not that there is imperfection in the Scripture; but none comes truly to know it, but those who are taught from above.  
3. To say, that the knowledge of the mind of God in Scripture, by the teachings of the Spirit, is to make it a nose of Wax, etc. is a fond imagination. For first, though its true, upon this account men that have not the Spirit of God may abuse it, thinking they have the Spirit of Christ, when they have it not.  
Yet 2. The Spirit is truth, and is at unity in and with itself, and speaks but one thing: I mean he doth not contradict himself: though there are contradictions amongst the Saints: yet it is not from the Spirit, who dwells in unity, but from the worldly spirit not yet subdued in them; and I thought you had known at least the Scripture Zeph. 3. 9 that saith, God will turn to his people a pure language, that they may serve him with one consent; it's not the work of flesh's wisdom; but I will do it, saith the Lord; and how think you, if not in helping them to know his mind, etc.  
And 2. Doth not your humane wisdom indeed make a nose of wax of the Scripture? do you not wrest i● and turn it which way you please? and is it not for want of the clear teachings of the Spirit, there are such renting and divisions amongst us at this day? Is it not about the sense of the Scriptures all the differences in the world are at this day? And do you seek to God to guide you into a oneness in the understanding of the meaning of it, or to your humane Learning?  
Oh be ashamed for ever, so much to undervalue Scripture, and overvalue man's wisdom, as that its sufficient to find out the meaning of the Scriptures. When you have joined up all together, yet notwithstanding all your Learning, yea, and the Spirits teaching too, you have not yet attained to all the sense of the Scriptures; if you had, there would not be division, but unity; not that I question the sufficiency of the Spirits teaching in its own time; but certainly you are very much to blame, having gotten that which is able to teach you the sense and meaning of the Scripture, with your own endeavour, yet to know so little of it as you do; you must needs be very sluggards, or else able to resolve (infallibly) any place of Scripture, you having that which is able, as you say, to help you to understand it, and you think you have the Spirit of Christ besides; these two being by you joined up together in you, the least of which is able to help you to the infallible sense, etc. What then hinders that you are not infallible? and yet that you are not infallible, is clear; for what need a difference then between Papist and Protestant, yet both Learned? between Episcopacy and Presbytery, yet both Learned? Presbytery and Independency, yet both Learned? Independency and the Baptists, yet some of both Learned? between them all, and those that deny both Church and Ordinances, yet some of them Learned too?  
Oh be ashamed for ever of these Fopperies, and let all who know the Lord, look to him for the teachings of the Spirit, that so we may come to know his mind and will, that so we may worship him with one shoulder; and let all that love the Lord Jesus say Amen. This shall suffice at present as an answer to what you say of your humanity. I deny not the use of means, but the abuse of it. I leave it to the Reader to judge.   

You come to the 8. Error.  
That the Ministry of England is Antichristian.  
Answ. This is a dangerous one with you it seems; but because I have said so much to this in the Pulpit Guard Routed, I shall wholly wave it in this place, seaving both Tho. Hall's assertions, my answers to him and yours again to mine, to the judgement of the Reader; a word to the wise is enough; it's a word that you cannot yet well bear, therefore I shall at present forbear; only give me leave to mind you with two words, 1. You answer but one of my six Arguments to prove them Antichristian; the rest you pass by, as if the naming of them (as Tho. Hall said) in contempt, were answer enough to them; if it be, I leave it to the Reader, I am satisfied. 2. In that which you pretend to answer, what do you more or less, then say the same that I have said? You confess, 1. It came from Rome; but you think to mend it with this, because the Scriptures came from Rome; but if by the hand of God's grace the Scripture was kept pure in Rome and not defiled, than the case is altered; but they were so kept. Ergo: that it is so, I prove;  

If the Scriptures preserved by the Romans, have sufficient in them to overturn the very practice and Religion of the Romans: then they had not a power to corrupt it for their own ends.  
But the Scriptures preserved by the Romans, have sufficient in them to overturn all the Religion of the Romans, viz. Papists.  
Ergo.   
The Minor I prove. Those who use to corrupt Scripture, do it for their own ends and interests; but the Papists have not corrupted it for their own ends and interests: Ergo. I mean in the Hebrew, and Greek, which I suppose must necessarily be that which you intent; for you say the Scriptures as well as Ordination, was very much corrupted by the Papists, p. 169. but among us hath been restored by degrees; now our Work hath not been to restore the Popish Translators, but to Translate out of the Greek and Hebrew Copies, which I do not believe were, or are materially or substantially corrupted; so that by this you teach the People to deny the Scripture; and at best to take it upon the account of man reducing it from corruption. I must tell you if the Collier had written as much, as black as you make him, he must have expected to have had all the black-Coats in the Nation about his ears, and that justly too.  
So that the Case is altered now; the Scripture in its essence was kept pure; but the very essence of Ordination was Antichristian; and how you could bring a clean thing out of an unclean, I leave to the Reader to judge. As to the Argument, you confess the truth of it, that the Calling came from Rome, but you restore it by degrees: Now which is better, to come to the Scripture for Ordination, Ordinances, etc. or to retain that which is Antichristian: I leave to the Reader to judge; as for Austin the Monk, you confess what I say; only you think you mend the matter, in saying that Monks were not so bad then as now, and that Rome was a true Church then; the truth of this I leave to the judgement of the wise; these things considered;  
1. When Austin came into England, here was some that owned Christ, as History relates; for as you say the Gospel had been preached in England before both by Joseph of Arimathea, and afterward Lucius King of the Britain's desiring it, not Elutherius as you affirm, but Fugatius and Damianus being sent by Elutherius Pope or Bishop of Rome, they Preached and Baptised in England, that King being the first King that History mentions that was Baptised in England; but when Austin came, those Bishops you mention with the People, because they would not submit to the pride of Austin, were by him persecuted, and brought to ruin: by this you may judge a little of the truth of Rome's being a true Church, and Austin a true Minister.  
2. Whereas you say, You hope Rome was then a true Church. I say, you have but little ground for it; for I do not believe that ever Rome was a true Church. My Reason is, because I do judge, that never a Nation, Province or City, was a true Gospel-Church; its true there was once a true Church in Rome, but the Scripture never calls Rome a Church; for a true Church of Christ are a People gathered out of the world by the power of the Gospel, to believing in Christ, and professed obedience to him; but this was never any Nation, Province, or City; therefore no true Church of Christ, Rev. 5. 9 but such Churches were at first, and so it hath hitherto continued, gathered by the authority of the Civil Magistrate, compelling all to come in, or else they must not live under their Authority, fulfilling in a measure Rev. 13. 17. by which means the true Church in Rome, and all other true Churches, in Relation to Form, Order and Worship, have been extinguished; so that I say, Rome was never a true Church since it became a Church, nor any Nation in the World besides; its inconsistent with the true Church of Christ, who are a People gathered out of Nations, as before, etc.  
But to draw to a conclusion; The other five Arguments you pass over, as having no weight in them, etc. I leave it to the Reader to judge, if there be no weight in them. I say no more, only aword to your Postscript.  
You say, There is another dangerous pestilent blasphemous Book of this Colliers against Ordinances, etc. which you heard of, but never saw it.  
Answ. I suppose you did but dream a second time, and this proves false too; give off dreaming or lying for shame; for I suppose none dare lie so grossly as to tell you so, though you dare dream a lie and publish it; but there is a hand of God in it, that the world may know what you are. My Books are not in private; if there were any such, it might be gotten assuredly; let this satisfy, I do declare that I never writ any such Book; and if any have done or do gather from any passage that I deny Ordinances; though I know no passage in any, from whence any can draw such a positive conclusion: I do affirm, that I never writ any thing in which I denied the Ordinances of Jesus Christ; and it is my judgement and practice to walk in the use of them. Thus at present have I done, leaving the Premises to the public view and censure of those to whom it comes, desiring the Lord to give understanding, etc.   
FINIS.