Certain disputations of right to sacraments, and the true nature of visible Christianity defending…

ANSWER.

This is the only Argument of all the seventeen that doth so much as speak to the question. A strange way of arguing▪ To the Major. 1. I deny the Consequence. The Argument will not hold from one common gift, to any common gifts, nor to this common faith. Prove this Consequence. 2. I distinguish in the Antecedent between arguing from gifts as a Title, or the condition of a Title, and arguing from them as satisfactory evidences of a Title, such as profession it self is. To the proof from Acts 10.47. I say further: It followeth not [he that hath received the Holy Ghost may be baptized] therefore he that hath your common faith may be baptized. For that's no evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost. 2. The Holy Ghost was promised only to be true Believers, Mark 16.17. and not to any others: Yet God did not hereby restrain his own power from giving it to others. Seeing therefore God had promised it to true believers, though he did give it to some others, it followeth that ⟨p. 187⟩it was a probable evidence of saving faith, though not a certain: And therefore it might warrant us to baptize them, as Profession it self might do: Especially when it accompanied that Profession: seeing that both Evidences are more full than one, and yet one is sufficient as to us. 3. You cannot prove that ever God gave the holy Ghost to any that professed not saving faith: Nor yet that any man was baptized upon any such gift of Miracles without the profession of saving faith. Those Acts 10. confessed Christ, and professed faith before they were baptized. 4. You cannot prove that it was only common gifts of the Spirit that is meant in