Church many proud men entering therein as Simon Magus Diotrephes c. ergo it must be understood of the Kingdome of glory 2 From this that our Saviour directs the speech Marke 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. to his Disciples who were already in the visible Church therefore the requiring a further condition to the Kingdome of God shewes he meant it of the Kingdome of glory 3 The speech Marke 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. is like Mat. 18. 3 4. but there it is meant of the Kingdome of glory ergo so here Deodate on Matth. 19 14. so farre are you deceived in thinking that children by reason of their weakenesse and contemptible qualitie are unworthy to be presented unto me that contrariwise no body is capable of my Kingdom unles he be first by the spirit of regeneration brought into a spirituall estate to be like a little child in the order of nature The new annot on the Bible on Matth. 19. 14. yee have no reason to blame them for bringing children to me for they may be such as have interest to the Kingdome of heaven as well as others of ripe yeares and unlesse yee be like them ye shall never come there ch 18. 3. But saith Master Blake Christ had never been so much displeased with his Disciples for forbidding them seeing their election and justification was to the Disciples wholly unknown they had a present visible title such as the Apostles ought to have knowne I answer The reason of Christs anger was their hindering him in his designe not the knowledge they had of their present visible title this is but a dreame I added further that Christs action in this was extraordinary and so no ordinary rule for baptizing by the Publike ministery Mr Blake would have me consider how this can stand with that I said before that they that brought the Infants might do it without faith in Christ as the Messiah upon the fame of his miracles and account that he was a Prophet I answer there is no opposition they might conceive him to be but a Prophet not the Messiah and yet Christ might act as an extraordinary Prophet and as the Messiah Mr Blake sayes this act of Christ is no direct precedâ—â— for baptisme but for Church-priviledges of which Infants are capable Marke this speech if but be adversative then Master Blake grants that Infants are capable of Church-priviledges not of baptisme which overthrowes all his dispute but the truth is this thing was done to these Infants not by reason of any 〈◊〉 title they had or to enter them into any outward Church-priviledge but to accomplish by his blessing their interest in the invisible Kingdome of God by election Master Blake in the close of this chapter sayes if it were true that padobaptisme had no more warrant then I conceive yet 〈◊〉 not will-worship but a misapplication of an instituted ordinance to a person But I aske Master Blake whether Infant-Communion were not will worship whether baptizing of bells were not will-worship and yet these are but misapplications of an instituted ordinance to a wrong subject We have the word will-worship but once Col. 2. 23. and if it be taken in the worser sense as Protestant Divines hitherto have done though lately Doctor Hammond at Oxford hath written a booke to prove it to be taken in the better part for a commendable thing as a free-well offering and have made it the sinne of the Pharises Matth. 15. 9. and especially non-conformists who have made every invented ceremony will-worship then much more Infant-baptisme being worship it selfe if it be not instituted must be will worship Chapt. 15. Master Blake examines what I say Examen pag. 164. about Gods sealing Master Marshall spake of Gods sealing the baptized I said God seales not to every one that is baptized but onely to true beleevers For his sealing is the confirming of his promise but God promiseth righteousnesse to none but true beleevers Master Blake answers You acknowledge baptisme to be is its nature a seale of the righteousnesse of faith and to be of God therefore in it God must seale to every baptized person or else you must say they are not baptized I reply I acknowledge baptisme of professours of faith to be of God though they be not true beleevers and I acknowledge baptisme in its nature to be a seale of the covenant of God but not a seale actuall but aptitudinall that is all right baptism is in its nature apt to seale as a garland hung out is to signify wine to be â—old yet actually the one signifies so onely to the intelligent and the other onely to true beleevers And God never seales actually till a person be a beleever I said As for the sealing by God upon condition persons agâ—ize the Covenant it is but a notion the Scripture makes not Gods promise in the Covenant of grace conditionall in that sense For Gods promise is for those he enters into Covenant with that he will put his lawes in their 〈◊〉 and in their mindes will 〈◊〉 them Heb. 10. 16. Master Blake answers If you 〈◊〉 this of the Sacraments as the words beare then according to your opinion none ought to be baptized but 〈◊〉 in whose heart the law in wrote I answer him By Gods sealing I doe not meane every right administration of baptisme for though that be in its nature apt to seale the graces of the Covenant yet actually Gods seales not but when it is administred to a beleever It may be called a right act of the administratour according to Gods appointment but not Gods sealing I call Gods sealing onely when either by his spirit or oath or outward rite he assures his grace as by circumcision to Abraham Rom. 4. 11. he appointed Ismael to be circumcised but did not seale to him righteousnesse by faith The inference Mr Blake makes from my words as if I held none baptizable but those in whose heart Gods law is written hath no colour for I do not make the administratours baptizing or sith they will have it so called sealing to be Gods sealing God appoints the word to be preached to many hypocrites and the preacher that assures them of the promises doth it by Gods appointment yet God doth not assure the promises to them I do not make him onely baptizable to whom God seales but him whom Christ appoints to be baptized whether God seales to him or no. Master Blake urgeth me with Bellarmines argument of the Sacraments be seales of grace they are often false and God should beare witnesse to a lye and tels of the speech of some that have said that this argument is unanswerable unlesse we confesse that the seale of the Sacrament is conditionall I like not to call the Sacrament a conditionall seale for that which seales doth assure and supposeth the condition In my apprehension that which is called conditionall sealing is not sealing but offering or propounding or representing but about this I will not
Disciples were to doe but the end of their sending which I think is so absurd that it needs no other refutation then the mention and then that they might 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without teaching them whereas he himselfe sayes non significat solum docere sed Discipulos facere so that according to him it includes teaching and somewhat more and aequipollet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Io 4. 1. which was by teaching and the parallell place Mark 16. 15. is preach the Gospell to every creature I had said in my Examen that the speech of baptizing Lydia's houshold Acts 16. 15. must be understood by other places which when they expresse the baptizing of the houshold they expresse also the beleeving or receiving of the word by the whole houshold and by the frequent Mr Marshall alters it into sometimes use of the word which is to put the house for the people of growth in it Mr Marshall saith who taught you it must be so interpreted I answer Augustin lib. 3. de doct Christ c. 26. ubi autem apâ—rtius ponuâ—tur ibi discendum est qummodo in locis intelligantur obscuris Chaâ—â—ier panstrat Cathol tom 1. lib. 16. c. 6. and all those Divines among which I think Mr Marshall is one that say we must expound one text by comparing it with others that are like To that I said that house is frequently taken for the grown persons in it Mr Marshall saiâ—â— it may very well be granted and hurts not me unlesse you can prove it must be so meant Though I think I proved it must be so meant yet it is enough to shew that Mr Marshall cannot prove from the baptizing of housholds an example of baptizing an infant sith the word house may be taken as Mr. Mar. saith may very wel be granted for the grown persons in that house As for Mr Marshals second argument because there was an equivocation in it and in one sense the major must be denied in another the minor and if the major be understood in one sense the minor in another there bee foure termes and the syllogisme is naught To this Mr Marshall makes no reply in a logicall form but tells us in a loose discourse that forasmuch as there is no infallible ground of certainty but onely of charity that any growne person to be baptized hath actually the inward grace and so in charity â—ee are to conceive of beleevers infants because Christ said Mark 10. 14. Of such is the kingdome of God they are to be baptized So that in his Defence Mr Marshall alters his argument which he set down in his Sermon concluding not from a capacity of inward grace to Baptisme as he did then but from the judgement of charity that they have actually the inward grace which he seems to count sufficient for Baptisme Mr Geree his reasoning is to the same effect vindic paedobapt ch 1. sect 7. and is thus formed by him into a syllogism where we have evidence for judgement of charity that there is the grace of the Covenant there we may sâ—e the seal of the Covenant But we have evidence for the judgement of charity that in infants of beleevers there is the grace of the Covenant Ergo Of this Syllogism I deny both major minor Acts 10. 47. doth not provethe major For the Apostle there did not baptize upon a judgment of charity of what was latent but from a certaine sense of their magnifying God and the gift of the holy Ghost nor was Simon Magus baptized because in the judgement of charity hee had the grace of the Covenant but because he professed the faith which was certain to Philip. And this was Master Marshals doctrine in his Sermon pag. 47. where he confesseth that the Apostles charity or charitable conjecture was not the ground of their admitting them to the ordinance but the profession and confession of the party made according to the word which they were bound to rest in And therefore I see not how Mr Marshall can count a judgement of charity sufficient for Infant-baptisme without crossing himselfe in his first Sermon For my part I doe not think a Minister ought to be ruled in baptizing by his own judgement of charity which is ofttimes very uncharitable to those that deserve best but by certain knowledge of true sanctification by extraordinary revelation or of the parties profession of the faith by other meanes either of which is sufficient not both necessary Nor do I require of infants more assurance then of grown men but shewes of repentance and faith in either Yet as when one being required to bring no more then a servants testimony for the grant of a thing if he bring the masters hand and seale without the servants testimony and the thing be granted he that grants it doth require no more then the servants testimony so when I say if shewes of repentance and faith be exhibited I will baptize and I will baptize upon extraordinary revelation that an infant is a beleever I doe not require more assurance of an infant then of a growne person when I say if the infant professe the faith I will baptize if God witnesse for it that it is a beleever I will baptize in neither goe I by judgement of charity but certainty either of revelation or profession which neither Master Geree nor Master Marshall can make good of all the infants of beleevers But saith Master Geree there 's evidence in charity to judge that the children of beleevers have the grace of the Covenant To this I answer the evidence for judgement of charity is to be taken from a persons own deeds according to the rule 1 Cor. 13. 7. charity beleeveth all things capacity of grace is common to all persons on earth and therefore is no ground to baptize one more then another That some infants have been actually partakers of inward grace as Mat. 19. 14. Luke 1. 15. Ierem. 1. 5. yeelds nothing to prove any judgement to be right that it is so in any other but onely that it may be so Infants of beleevers are not under the Covenant of Grace or within the externall administration of it by vertue of Gen. 17. 7. Deut. 30. 6. they speak of more then externall administration and must be understood of the elect which the Apostle denies to have bin ever by God assured to the natural seed Rom. 9. 8. 15. no judgements of charity that the infants of beleevers are under the Covenant of Grace can be deducted from these texts the most is conjecturall hope that it shall be so which experience shewes to miscarry often therefore these things yeeld not a warrant for infant-baptisme Doctor Homes argues from Matth. 19. 14. that baptizing did in nature antecede imposition of hands which is false nor doth Heb. 6. 2. prove it Nor is his argument good Infants had the greater Christs blessing therefore they had or might have the lesse to wit Baptisme
containes either the manner or the matter of my Treatises The defence of the matter of them is the chiefest thing and is first in my intention But the clearing of my selfe from some complaints or charges in the manner of handling the whole businesse is so necessary for the removing of prejudices which would prevent reading and entertaining my writings and do undermine my present station that I am constrained first to plead for my selfe before I engage further in the Controversie wherefore I shall answer those charges by themselves apart that so the main question may be discussed by it selfe First Doctor Homes in his Epistle to the Reader hath these words Meane while I could not but lament the untimely birth of Master T. his Exercitation and his unnecessary falling intravell with it after at least sixe able Brethren and above so many daies by nervous disputation had given him so much Cause to doubt of his Tenâ—t or at least a while to suspend it And this hath been by sundry persons objected to me that the publishing my Booke was extreamly unseasonable Two reasons are implyed in Doctor Homes his words to insinuate that it was untimely because it was unnecessary Secondly because it was after such a nervous disputation as he mentions To that of needlesnesse I answer If it were necessary to maintaine Truth though generally opposed when few or none were willing to appeare for it and speciall providence called me out to do it if it were necessary to endeavour the preventing of unjust persecution for holding a Truth to which in Sermons and other waies Law-makers and Magistrates were every where instigated if it were necessary when the people of God were perplexed about a poynt of conscience that pertaines to their continuall practice and disputation in publike was declined to endeavour the bringing of Truth to light if it were necessary for a man to keep the solemne Covenant he hath by oath bound himselfe to though it were to his great hazzard if it were necessary in a time of Reformation for a Minister of the Gospell to do what belonged to him to further it if it be necessary for a Minister of the Gospell to provide for the giving of his account at the day of Jesus Christ then it was necessary for me to fall in travell with my Exercitation and examen for all these ends and ties concurred in the writing and publishing of my Treatises And therefore I am assured that what I did was so necessary that had I not done what I did I should neither have been faithfull to Christ nor to his people nor to the State nor to my own soule I confesse my Book was untimely published in reference to my own preferment and outward peace I saw few or none regarded for clearing of Truth but popular Orators such as relate to great men or are usefull to uphold a Party are the men esteemed I could not expect any other then opposition to my opinion being against such a stream of men But I feared that of our Lord Christ He that is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinfull Generation of him shall the Son of man be ashamed when he shall come in his glory with his holy Angels How nervous the disputation he mentions was I suppose the Doctor knowes not but by report forasmuch as I never perceived him present at it The strength and substance of all the Arguments as well as my memory who was then the respondent could beare them away was faithfully digested by me in my Exercitation which was composed not long after in part upon occasion of that disputation In which disputation I was so farre from finding cause to doubt of my Tenet that I professe sincerely both that disputation and the severall Answers of my learned Antagonists and reverend brethren Doctor Homes and Master Geree and Master Marshall have giuen me lesse cause to doubt of my Tenet especially sith Master Marshall Pag. 116. of his Defence saies it was never asserted by him That the Câ—venant of saving Grace is made to Beleevers and their naturall seed and Pag. 92. The command is the cause of the existence of the duty but the Covenant of Grace is the motive to it and Pag. 182. he grants that the formall reason which is the adequate reason of the Iewes being Circumcised was the command of God the Covenant of Grace or their Church-state he only makes the motive to it and the thing it related to which with many more concessions in his Defence and the others Answers I doubt not but if the Lord vouchiâ—ase me time and liberty to improve to the overthrow of his first and maine Argument and the inference he makes from the Texts of Scripture he brings to confirme it and consequently his whole Cause as he himselfe confesseth in his Sermon Pag. 26. And for giving me cause to suspend my 〈◊〉 if he mean by suspension stifling my doubts in mine own bosome and never imparting them to learned men for resolution it had been in my apprehension extreame imprudence if not stupidity to have let slip the opportunity of making known the reasons of my doubts in this juncture of time in which by Covenant the State was engaged to settle worship Catechizing confession of faith discipline according to Gods Word to each of which this point is of no small moment if he meane by suspending my Tenet the not printing my writings neither am I justly to be blamed therein considering how long I waited and yet never received any resolution and after I say not a moneth only but ten moneths at least waiting for an answer about my motion to Master Marshall in the Epilogue of my Examen it was plainly rejected And though Master Marshall excuseth himselfe by relating that I declared to him that I could and that I intimated to him I would keep the opinion private to my selfe in which either his memory or his apprehension were defective and therefore took no further thought of examining my Treatises yet I suppose it concerned Master Marshall for many reasons to have contrived some course for my satisfaction or the abatement of height of pride and confidence which the perturbation of his mind rather then the true intelligence of my spirit in that businesse made him imagine in my writings As for the unseasonablenesse in politicke respects though I do not take upon me inâ—ight therein yet so farre as my reason is able to discerne it could never have come more seasonably to have a matter of such moment discussed while Reformation and Lawes confirming it were yet in fieri all men knowing that it is too late to speake when the Legislative power hath fully enacted a Law And whereas Master Marshall saies he verily thought I would have 〈◊〉 qâ—iet by down preached kept my opinion to my self and not have any further appeared especially at this time to encrease the flame of 〈…〉 I answer For my quiet sitting
did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accident all to them that it inferres an obligation to all the Mosaicall ceremonies and consequently Judaisme yet Mr Marshall would not think it equall I should charge him with Judaisme and then make a declamation against him as turned Jew and preaching Judaisme and to be abandoned by Christians as going about to make them Jewes Why then doth Mr Marshall deale so with others I know Mr. Marshall pag. 198. of his defence endeavours to justifie his principle he tells me that his meaning never was to assert the practise of the rituall part in the least particle but that there is a generall nature end and use in which they are agree which is to answer just nothing For the question was concerning the commands of the Jewes whither they bind and particularly whither the command of circumcising infants bind us virtually now all the commands are about the practise of the rituals and if they bind they are still in force the generall nature is conteined in the definition which is aeternae vâ—ritatis and expressed in an enunciation and is not commanded but declared and so is the generall end and use to be known and beleeved not to be practised but commands are orationes non enunciativâ— never of the generall nature but of particular acts Who did ever talke of a command that a man should be animal rationale or of a Sacrament that it should be a Seale of the Covenant 2. Mr. Marshall tells us he did not compare the Anabaptists and Hazaels intentions but the fruit of their principles The truth is Mr Marshall did not compare their intentions nor the fruit of their principles with Hazaels act but their bloudâ— sentence with his act As for â—â—sting out of the Covenant of Grace indeed and before God no promise or errour of ours can doe it were our intentions never so malicious the malice of men cannot nullifie the faith of God As for casting out in their sentence I conceive it suspends any judgement of them we can neither say they are in or out yea I say again if all be examined Mr Marshall puts them as much out as we unlesse Mr Marshall understand no more by the Covenant of Grace then Baptisme which though Mr Marshall may doe in a popular auditory which cannot discern between chalke and cheese yet me thinks he should forbeare to doe it in print in a treatise dedicated to the Assembly of Divines But I wonder the lesse at Mr Marshalls rashnesse in accusing the Anabaptists when he is not ashamed to tell me thus pag. 238 of his defence It is your judgement that all infants even of beleevers as well as Pagans though they may potentially belong to the Kingdome of Christ yet actually they belong to the Kingdome of the Devill which I am sure he no where findes in my writings but to the contrary in divers passages as exercit pag. 24. But saith Mr Marshall you acknowledge no more promise for the children of beleevers then for the children of Turks This matter I had disputed at large part 2. § 10 of my Examen and to mitigate the odium which popular preachers cast on us by this Allegation I had said so doth the opinion of Cyprian with his 66 Bishops that would have Gods grace denied to none and therefore his opinion puts all the infants of beleevers in the same condition with Turks children To this saith Mr Marshal pag. 85. of his defâ—â—ce which I have shewed will not follow out of the words of the Epistle Now that I conceive he means he had formerly shewed is pag. 41 in these words though he layes it downe in generall termes that none are to be hindred from comming to Christ yet what he sayes ought to be understood of the Church because he speakes of such as God hath cleansed or purified who were common which passage I should sooner have expected from a Jesuit then Mr Marshal to say that Cyprian ought to be understood of the Church when the words nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei gratium denegandam nulla anima perdenda est are as expresse as may be that he means it of any that are born of mankind that the grace of God is not to be denied them And after omnem omnino hominem ad 〈◊〉 Christi admittendum esse and the reason he useth is not from a cleansing proper to the Church but because all men are equall quando 〈◊〉 Deo semel facti saint as he that reades the Epistle will presently perceive I alleaged also the words of the Grave confutation of the Brownists published by Mr Rathband to shew not that which Mr Marshall it seems intended which was to charge all the Anabaptists of putting all the children of beleevers out of the Covenant of Grace as the Turks children but to shew that the opinion of paedobaptisme as some assert it doth put all the infants of beleeveâ—s into the selfe-same condition with the infants of Turkes and indians which were Mr Marshalâ—s words by putting all of them alike into the Covenant of Grace For if they may be lawfully accounted within Gods Covenant if any of their Ancestours in any generation were faithfull and that because of Gods promise Exod. 20. 5. then the children of Turks are lawfully accounted within the Covenant yea all the infants in the world for it is not beyond the thousandth generation to Noah Mr Marshal tells me that hee supposeth I do not think those words Exod 20. 5. were intended to intimate that all the children in the world who came from Adâ—m 〈◊〉 Noaâ— were intended in the Covenant of Grace nor that I beleeve Mr Rathband thought so What Mr Rath thought I know not but his words import so much and if that was not intended the text was impertinently alleaged and though it is true I do not think with them yet I might 〈◊〉 alleage their words which I approve not to shew this is no such 〈◊〉 which Mr Marshall called 〈◊〉 great mischiefe that by the Anti-pâ—dobaptists opinion all the children of beleevers should be put into the some condition with the children of Tarkes sith the same followes on the 〈…〉 doctrine also I had also Examen part 2. § 10. set down my opinion freely in 4 Propositions about the parity of condition of the Turks and our infants and told Mr Marshall thus possibly if you open your selfe plainly there will be no difference between us Mr Marshal in his Defence neither plainly opens himselfe wherein he puts the difference nor sets down my answer justly but leaves out wholly the the fourth Proposition or confounds it with the third and other wise mangles and alters my words in his abridgement that they are much unlike what I delivered For instance pag. 85 he sets down this for my second proposition That I know no more promise for beleevers children then for the children of 〈…〉 whereas my
branch from his father but here the Apostle makes the Gentiles branches and a wild olive graffed in besides nature and the Jewes only naturall branches growing from the root v. 21. 24. Nor is it of any moment which is objected that other parents are called roots as Jesse Isai 11. 1. For here only the root notes such a Father as is holy and from whom the branches are holy which agrees not to every beleeving Father 2. Positively The root is no other then Abraham I said twice in my Examen pag. 68. 129. Abraham only is a holy root or at most Abraham Isaac and Iacob which I said only by concession that if it were so yet every godly parent was not a holy root and therefore it served my turn there if it were so This Mr Marshall pag. 134. calls saying and unsaying But Mr Marshall might have considered that I did in that addition only mention the judgement of others and not contradicted it there where it was not against my purpose if it were granted but otherwise where I expresse my owne judgement I mention only Abraham as the root Exercit. pag. 10. Examen pag. 64 65. And soe doe Deodate annot on v. 16 17. The new Annot. on v. 16. Beza on v. 17. Neque dubium est quin radicis nomine intelligatur Abraham credentium pater Which contains the reason of this opinion For he must be the root who is a Father both to Jewes and Gentiles who are also branches in this root the root is said to beare them v. 18. But we read not this of any other then of Abraham called the Father of the faithfull Rom. 4. 11. and the Gentile beleevers his seed Rom. 4. 13. 16. Gal. 3. 29. no where are these things said of Isaac and Iacob It is said indeed that the Jewes are beloved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Fathers either because of the Covenant made with them or because of the favour God bare them as often he is said to reserve a lamp in Judah for Davids sake but this speech hath speciall respect to the Jewes whereas the benefit of the root v. 17. 18. is common to Gentiles and Jews As for the fatnes of the olive tree Deodate saith truly it is the blessing and promise made to Abraham his seed so the Apostle expresâ—eth it Gal. 3. 14. And it would be too frigid and washy an exposition to expound it of outward priviledges ordinances Yea it were false for the Gentiles were not partaker of the outward priviledges and ordinances of Abraham and the Jewes they being taken away Now these things being put it must needs be that this ingraffing must be by giving faith sith by faith only the Gentiles are partakers of the root Abraham and the fatnesse of the olive tree the beleeving Church not by naturall generation of beleeving parents nor by outward administrations Ergo the ingraffing here into the invisible Church is by election and giving of faith 5. From verse 25. If the breaking off the Jewes be by blinding then the ingraffing is by giving faith but the former is true verse 25. Ergo the latter 6. If reingraffing of the Jewes produceth salvation is by turning them from iniquity taking away their sins according to Gods Covenant then it is into the invisible Church by giving faith but the former is true verse 26 27. Ergo the latter 7. If the reingraffing be by vertue of Gods election and love his gifts of calling then it is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith but the former is true v. 28 29. Ergo the latter 8. If the ingraffing both of Jewes and Gentiles be the fruit of gods mercy the breaking off by shutting up in unbeleefe then the ingraffing is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith but the former is true verse 30 31 32. Ergo the latter What should I say more It is so plaine from the whole scope and tenour of the Apostles words that the ingraffing there spoken of is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith that from the first verse of the chapter to verse 13. there is scarce a verse but speaks of â—â—jecting foreknowing election grace hardning giving a spirit of slumber dâ—â—kning the eyes stumbling falling or some equipollent terme to these and the Apostle doth plainly signify his intention in all that discourse to be the shewing the mystery of Gods counsell in elcting reprobating blinding converting one while the Jewes another while the Gentiles so that I cannot but admire that Mr Marshall should interpret the ingraffing of bare admission into visible Church-membership 9. Adde hereto The places which I conceive answer to Rom. 11. 17. must be understood of the invisible Church as Eph. 3. 6. 1 Cor. 12 13. Gal. 3. 14. 26. 28. 29. Lastly for testimonies of interpreters I find but two in Marlorats Cathol Exposition on Rom. 11. 17. and they have these words Hyperius Neque enim hic amplius docet sed orationem totam ad Gentes convertens sapienter monet ne propter electionem suam efferantur aut Judaeos quia rejecti sunt contemnant maxime quum Judaeorum plurimi salutem sint adhuc per Evangelium conseqâ—uturi Gentes verò iterum possent si Deo ita visum foret reprobari Bucer Insitus fuisti illis Hoc beneficium est quod Genâ—ibus per Iudaeos contigit Gentes enim per fidem Christi factae sunt semen Abrahae Gal. 3. 29. Ergo insitae Iudaeis ut grati sanctis patribus promissa fruantur spiritu illorum vivant id quod Apostolus per communionem radicis pinguedinis significat ut namque filii Dei omnes eadem Dei benevolentia nituntur ita eorum spiritu aguntur etiamsi hic donetur grandior post revelatum Christum Hic verò ex praecipuis locis est ex quibus probatur eodem spiritu verae justitiae donatos fuisse Iudaeos ante incarnatum Christum Calvin ad vers 20. nam erectio Iudâ—orum si ob incredulitatem facta est Gentium insitio per fidem quid restat nisi ut Dei gratiam recognoscendo inde ad modestiam ac submissiâ—uem formentur And this I thought so plain that I conceived Mr Marshall himselfe so expounded it in his sermon pag. 43. in these words It being the primary intention of the Covenant of Grace in it's first work to shew what free grace can and will doe to miserable nothing to cut miserable man of from the wild olive and graffe him into the true olive to take away the heart of stone to create in them a heart of flesh c. which thing hee saith nothing to in his Defence though I alleaged it pag. 64. of my Examen except it be that he meant the words he useth pag. 137 of his Defence alleaging that I say insition not incâ—â—on as it is printed in Mr Marshalls Defence may be either into the visible or invisible Church
from Abraham then it must be that we are elect in Abraham Abraham may say without me yee can doe nothing c. I answer if I made Abraham a root as communicating faith by infusion or impetration mediatory as Christ this would follow but I make Abraham onely a root as he is called the Father of all them that beleeve Rom. 4. 11. not by begetting faith in them but as an exemplary cause of beleeving as I gather from the expression verse 12. that he is a â—ather to them that walk in the steps of our Father Abraham which he had yet being uncircumcised Mr Blake ibid. pag. 31. what made Abraham Isaac and Jacob roots as in nature so holy roots but the Covenant And was not the Covenant made as well with David as with Abraham Isaac and Jacob. I answer I make Abraham onely the root as hee is only the Father of beleeevers exemplarily and that which made him the Father of beleevers was not the Covenant but his exemplary faith as I gather from the words of the Apostle Rom. 4. 16 17 18 19. 21. And this is all the accession of strength I find him opposing to my so manifest weaknesse The rest is answered already Mr Marshall pag. 124. sayes I raise a dust about his argument because I tell him he doth not distinctly expresse what the promise is Acts 2. 39. and I require of him to forme his proofes into an argument as if it were unreasonable to require him to make a syllogisme in mood and figure in a Sermon And yet hee did make diverse in that Sermon as pag. 39 41. But it seems neither then nor since is he willing to tell what promise that is Acts 2. 39 and then conclude syllogistically for then it would plainly appear that that text serves not his purpose who in his second conclusion will not assert that the promise of saving grace is made to the naturall seed of beleevers and yet that text speaks of the promise of Christ and saving Grace by him However I remember this was Doctor Prideaux his manner in Oxford to require the disputant when he urged a text to read it and then to gather his argument from it and this I ever took to be a bringing of light and not raising a dust about an argument And I shall still professe it to be a very irksome thing to me to answer an authour that will not doe so and till Mr Marshall doe it shall censure him as one that takes not the way to clear truth but to darken it with multitude of woâ—ds among which a man shall have much adoe to find the medium and the conclusion Mr Marshall pag. 247. accuseth me of slurring plundering darkning the â—rguments of my adversaries If he had told me wherein he had done me a pleasure that I might know how to amend it but if he mean as his words pag 134. to bring in so many imaginary senses thereby to darken an argument import in that I tell hâ—m his conclusions and speeches may have many senses and desire him to set down what sense he means it is a conceit scarce sober sith it is plaine that distinction and distinct expression is rightly called by Logicians lumen rationis and is the onely way to enlighten not to darken speeches And therefore all that are able in dispute make this their chiefe businesse to distinguish termes or things that differ and then set down their conclusions and frame their arguments and answers which is the thing I would have Mr Marshall doe Nor is my pretending obscurity in Marshall a kind of art to evadâ— what cannot plainly be answered as Mr Geree conceives vind paedobap ch 1. sect 3. but a means to find out the force of the argument that I might give it a plain answer Whereas I had framed the fifth argument in my exercitation thus That which in succeeding ages in which it was in use was in force 1. As a tradition not written 2. Out of imitation of Jewish circumcision 3. Without universall practise 4 Together with the errour of giving infants the Lords Supper and many other humane inventions under the name of Apostolicall traditions that is deservedly doubtfull but such is Infant-baptisme Ergo Mr Marshall pag. 251. 252. tells me this is a poor argument And yet such arguments have been accounted after other arguments from Scripture of great moment against Papists and Prelates in rejecting of ceremonies But how doth Mr Mar. answer this He denies the major which hath been accounted good in other points And then because I make a severall proofe of the severall parts of the minor he repeats my words as if I had made a severall argument from each branch and to make a shew of their weaknesse puts in another argument and conclusion then mine as like with this inference Ergo we are not bound to observe it Ergo it was not a duty which were none of my conclusions And then sayes This kind of arguing is almost as wild as that which the schooles call à baculo ad angulum and the boyes in the schooles would stamp and hisse at such an inference I professe if I should in schooles repeat my opponents arguments as Mr Marshall doth mine I should allow the boyes in the Schooles to stamp and hisse at such a practise Mr Marshall pag. 124. hath these words You still goe on in your wonted equivocation of the word Covenant of Grace taking it onely of the Covenant of saving grace not including the externall way of administration with it I this I said above I did because I love to speak plainly without equivocation but it seems to Mr Marshall that which I count plain speech without equivocation is equivocating with him But what a ridiculous charge is this It 's equivocation when a word is taken in various senses Is it equivocation in me to take the word covenant of grace onely of the covenant of saving grace This is like as if a man should be charged with speaking nonsense because he speakes good reason in right language But I hope by this time the Reader doth understand who hath used sophistry in disputing I or Master Marshall What I said of the Assembly pag. 27. of my Examen I did it not to cast filth in their face as Master Marshall construed it but as a brotherly intimation of my feares and apprehensions to make them cautelous whose wise and faithfull deportment in that great trust reposed in them is of great moment to the whole Christian Church Of whom I professe I am still jealous out of Love to them that especially in this matter they are not so sensible as they should be of the truth of God and the good of the Church For which jealousie and for what I said about wasting of time about inconsiderable things comparatively I suppose I am able to give a sufficient account And this I speake meerly to awaken them and to prevent that inconsideratenes through an
begin at the removing it And it is easie to conceive that forasmuch as the grosse ignorance of people is much occasioned by their baptizing afore they know that if they were not baptized till they knew christian Religion as it was in the first ages grosse ignorance in christian professours would be almost wholly reformed and for christian walking if baptisme were administred with a solemn abrenunciation profession and promise by the baptized in his own person upon that were baptized I doubt not but it would have more aw on mens consciences then many other means used or devised considering how in the primitive times men differred baptisme for feare they might not enjoy their lusts and they were counted by some as guilty of inexpiable crime that fell away after baptisme and on the other side infant-baptisme is the ground upon which innumerable people ignorant and profane harden themselves as if they were good christians regenerate and should be saved without holinesse of life never owning or considering any profession or promise made for them as theirs There have been other suggestions hinted by Mr Geree but amplified in clancular whisperings concerning my former conformity to ceremonies and Episcopall government which are carried about in private to render me a person suspected and to lessen the credit of my writing the chiefe part of which I have answered in my Sermon intituled Fermentum Pharisaeorum and the time end necessity manner and circumstances in doing what I did being pleas sufficient to acquit me and the things not belonging to the present cause but being fitter for private audience I will trouble the Reader no further with my Apology assuring my selfe that setting aside this opinion of paedobaptisme and common infirmities my life labours doctrine even in the judgement of those that dissent from me and knew me will abundantly answer for me against all clancular whisperings whatsoever And concerning my two treatises8 notwithstanding Mr Ley's censure passed perhaps afore he had compared mine and my Antagonists writings together I may rather say that by my two treatises there is such a wound given already to Infant-baptisme that however men may play the Mountebanks and skin it over it will never be cured at the bottome For in point of antiquity it still stands good which I asserted That Infant-baptisme is not so ancient as is pretended as now taught is a late Innovation that a great number of those that sought reformation in the thirteenth Century opposed infant-baptisme that the doctrine of Anti-paedobaptisme neither undermines Magistracy Ministery Lords day nor any true interest of the infants of beleevers that the argument from the Covenant to the Seale is either a tautology or invalid without a command that the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. was a mixed Covenant having in it not onely promises of spirituall benefits common to all beleevers but also peculiar promises concerning things temporall that Acts 2. 39. being meant of Christ and saving benefits by him as Master Marshall confesseth cannot serve Master Marshals turn to prove his second conclusion which he denies to be meant of the promise of saving grace as if it were made to beleevers and their naturall seed As for Master Marshals paraphrase which he calls argument pag. 129. 130. of his Defencâ— I think it to bee most absurd in that it makes the promise Acts 2. 39. when applyed to the Fathers to be meant of justification when to the children of outward administrations nor so expounded are the words true there being no such promise That Rom. 11. 16. c. proves not that there is the same Church state in the Churches of the Gentiles that was in the Jewes so as that the Infants of Beleevers should by vertue of naturall generation be reckoned as visible members forasmuch as now the Church is not nationall as it was then nor gathered as God did the Jewish Church by taking the whole nation for his people in one day but now the Church of God is gathered by preaching up and down some in one place and some in another in succession of time That 1 Cor. 7. 14. speakes not of federall holinesse but matrimoniall yea if the reason of the lawfulnesse of the living of two persons together in disparity of Religion be taken from the vertue of faith in the one party not from the relation of husband and wife as Mr Marshals exposition makes it the medium of the Apostle to prove the lawfulnesse of the living of a beleeving wife with an unbeleeving husband will as well prove the lawfulnes of the living of a beleeving forniâ—atrix with an unbeleeving fornicator as may appeare by a syllogisticall analysis of the Apostles argument the major whereof is this according to Mr Marshals exposition That man and woâ—an may lawfully dwell together notwithstanding the unbeleefe of the one party whereof one is sanctified by the faith of the other for begetting of a holy seed this is manifestly the force of the Apostles reason after his exposition Nor is it necessary to insert being husband and wife sith the sanctification is not ascribed by him to the relation of husband and wife but to the faith of the one party as the proper cause of it And by Mr Blake Birth priviledge pag. 11. Holinesse in the text is a fruit or result of faith in the parent Now the assumption the unbeleeving form catour is sanctified by the faith of the â—eleeving whore for the begetting a holy seed Master Marshall denies not but salkes only telling me pag. 163 of his Defence he could name Divines who are no whit inferâ—â—ur to my selfe who conceive that a beleever even then when he commits fornication with an infidell doth so remove the barre in the unbeleeving party as that the child is in the beleeving parents right to be râ—ckoned to belong to the Covenant of Grace and the Church of God which is in his sense to be sanctified and it must needs be granted for 〈◊〉 causa ponitur effectus if the quality of faith be the cause of that sanctification the sanctification followes in one as well as the other The conclusion then followes from Mr Marshals exposition that the beleeving fornicatrix may still live after conversion with her unbeleeving fornicator for they are still sanctified for the begetting of a holy seed and the children so begotten are federally holy it being Gods rule in this case if Mr Marshall say true partus sequitur meliorem partem But this is so absurd a thing that I beleeve Mr Marshall himselfe will when he understands it quit his chiefe hold and the judicious reader explode the exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. of federall holinesse And for the third conclusion of Mr Marshall he hath not yet proved that the rite of Baptisme was appointed by Christ to succeed into the room place and use of circumcision or that a command concerning circumcision should be a command concerning baptisme yea my exposition of Colos 2. 11 12. is
promised then something may be done by a man that may procure Gods grace and so gratia Dei datur secundum merita nostra which is Palagiâ—â—sme Now they that say the Covenant of grace in respect of saving graces is made to a beleevers seed must either exclude the 〈◊〉 promise in the Covenant of grace Heb. 8. 10 of 〈◊〉 God 〈◊〉 their hearts without which he is not their God or else hold that promise absolute so al infants of beleivers 〈◊〉 be 〈…〉 saved Yet that this is the common doctrine 〈◊〉 beleevers children have a promise of saving graces is manifest in that from hence they assert the certainty of their salvation if they dye in infancy not considering that if God have made such a promise to a beleevers seed it will as well assure the salvation of a beleevers seed in old age as infancy sith in old age they are their seed and the promise in respect of regenerating grace which brings with it all the rest must needs be absolute And therefore the promises Deut. 30. 6. Isai 54. 13. and such like must be restrained to the elect as our Saviour doth John 6. 45. Gen. 17. 47. is expounded by Paul Rom 9. 8. I had said Mr Marshals words must be understood as the words of the Directory the promise is made to beleevers and their seed which is to be meant of the promise of saving grace Mr Blake conceives the meaning to be of the promises mentioned that they are the grace promised but I perceive he did not or would not understand my words I did not speak of the word promises in the direction for petition that Mr Marshals conclusion must interpreted by it but of the word promise in that assertion in the doctrinall part the promise is made to beleevers and their seed which cannot be interpreted of the thing promised but Gods act of promise which is said to be made to wit by him afore the promised is obtained So that this new devise will not serve the words of the Directory I had said And that in that Covenant Gen. 17. 7. should be a promise to us beleeving Gentiles which words Mr Blake leaves out in the repetition that to our seed should be conferred visible Church-priviledges c. is but a dream c. to this saith M. Bl. This objection riseth up against God himselfe rather then any one of your adversaries But how this should rise up against God Mr Blake neither doth nor can shew Mr Blake seems to runne to his old shift that God promiseth Church-priviledges upon condition If so Cede conditionem Let Mr Blake set down that condition and I doubt not but either to force him to confesse that the reason of the preaching the Gospell to some their being visible members is something in man which will be Pelagianisme or else Gods promise is absolute and so God not keeping it shall be guilty of Faith-breaking Master Marshall pag. 127. of his Defence accuseth me that I sometimes say that Gen. 17. 7. was a promise peculiar to Abraham at other times it was at the utmost to be extended no further then to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to have their posterity as born of them to belong to the visible Church But Master Marshall wrongs me I have neither of these Propositions in either of my Treatises what I conceive of it I have set down plainly Exercit. pag. 2. 3. But Master Marshall would have the promise I will be the God of thy seed as promising visible Church-membership to belong to the naturall seed of every beleever 1. because the Covenant was made to him for his Faiths sake Ans if that were the motive yet it followes not the promise belongs to every beleever as Abraham no more then it followes the promise Matth. 16. 18 19. was made to Peter by reason of his confession verse 16. therefore it was made to every one that confesseth as Peter did 2. How else should Proselytes children have Church-membership Answ Not by vertue of that promise but by vertue of Gods command Exod. 12. 48 To his third reason I have often answered and proved that Deut. 30. 6. Isai 44. 2 3. Isai 59. 21. must be meant of the elect else how did God keep that promise when he did not circumcise the heart of Davids and Josiahs children Master Marshall pag. 129. puts this upon me that I say God made this promise to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to be the God of them and their seed But I doe not remember that I say so any where nor that the Scriptures sayes so though I meet with promises somewhat like it Gen. 26. 24 Gen. 28. 4. 14. But these promises so farre as they pertain to their naturall seed were peculiar to them and pertain not to every beleever and his naturall seed For none of the Gentiles are Abrahams seed but by Faith From all which I conclude there is not a promise either of saving grace or Church-priviledge made to the seed of beleevers and so they are not certainly in the Covenant of grace in respect of Gods act of promising Master Blake sayes What will you say of those that remembred that God was their rocke and the high God their redeemer yet were not stedfast in his Covenant Psalm 78. 35. 37. These were a people within Covenant I say this to it that by his covenant is not meant Gods Covenant or promise to them but their Covenant to God or rather Gods commands called metonymically his Covenant Master Blake saith And where I pray you doe you find those words that christianity is hereditary These are no words of mine but a supplement of yours I answer these words are Master Blakes Birth-previledge pag. 6. The priviledges which in 〈◊〉 or nation are hereditary are conveyed from 〈◊〉 to posterity the the child of a noble man is noble so the child of a christian is a christian and this is all one as to say christianity is 〈◊〉 I passe by the vindicating of two speeches of mine in this chapter because I must hasten To the sixth chapter I have spoken so much as is needfull before In the seventh Master Blake accuseth me for abusing Master Thomas Goodwin but there is no abuse all for my words onely make use of Master Goodwins expression which Master Blake denies not to have been his but that he altered it which may be unwitting to me But for the thing I still say that the Cerinthians doubt was not about their children For that which is the doubt is to be the conclusion of his argument that resolves it but that which the Apostle speaks of the Corinthians children it is plain by the argumentative particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 else ware is a medium of a syllogism as Mr Blake page 37. denies not now 〈◊〉 probâ—â— est per notiora therefore it was not the thing â—â— doubt Besides ver 15 16. following pertain to the resolution of the doubt versâ— 12 13. which
God because it is contrary to the definition of legitimation which is a state consequent upon birth by the lawfull copulation of lawfull husband and wife To my Analysis of the Apostleâ— argument Mr Blake saith the last words else were c. may be a mâ—dâ—â— and a resolution of another doub◠〈◊〉 but that cannot be 〈◊〉 it is an argument and that is 〈◊〉 drawn from the thing in doubt 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 and that 〈…〉 which they would not yeeld but the contrary was certain to them Mr Blake mislikes not my forming the Apostles argument but he excepts against the Proposition I conceive the Apostles sequele pâ—supposeth which is All the children of those parents whereof the one is not saâ—ctified to the other are 〈…〉 To this faith Mr Blake I appeale to your selfe whether the truth of that sequel by you rightly laid down doe depend upon thaâ— Proposition which you draw from themâ— I answer it doth Mr Blake Is the Apostle 〈◊〉 Proposition of parents in generall 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 beleeving and another unbeleeving in particular I answer it is of an unbeleeving husband and a wise And yet the Proposition must be 〈◊〉 be of all parents which must prove it as he that will prove if an Englishman be noble he is honourable must prove it by this universall or 〈◊〉 All noble men are honourable and not put in all English 〈◊〉 noble for then the antecedent and conclusion would be alâ—ong whereas the Proposition proving must be larger then the Proposition proved else we might concludâ— ex meris 〈◊〉 To 〈◊〉 if the unbeleeving â—â—â—band were not sanctified by the wife your children were unclean is all one with this All the children of the unbeleeving husband not sanctified to the wife are uncleane Mr Blake saith The truth of the Apostles sequele depends on this Proposition All the children of an nobeleever are unclean unlesse for generation he or shee be sanctified by a beleever I deny it for the termes for generation by a beleever are added by him not in the Apostle and so he changeth the terms Yet it is to be noted that though the Apostles major be of husband and wife in particular Mr Blake makes the Proposition on which it depends of unbeleevers in generall and so by his own practife justifies me against his owne exception 2. The Proposition Mr Blake layes down as upon which the major in the Apostle syllogisme depends All the children of an unbeleever are unclean unlesse for generation be or shee be sanct fied by a beleever is false and so is that which he saith after All those that are borne of unbeleeving parents and one of them not sanctified in the other are out of the Covenant of grace yea the other is false too according to Mr Blakes opinion unbeleeving parents never beget children by birth-priviledge holy For children born of infidels brought into Abrahams family had right to circumcision and so were by birth-priviledge holy in Mr Blakes sense Mr Blake tels me the Apostles Proposition according to my interpretation is this All the children of an unbeleever are bastards except in generation he or shee be sanctified by a beleever But this I deny I have set down the Proposition according to my interpretation plainly enough already My alleaging Chamiers words against his opinion was no jeare but a right way of using an authors reasons against another against his own opinion And that I did rightly for these Propositions according to Chamiers explication are included in the Apostles reason omnes nati ex tis parentibus quorum alâ—ur non sanctificatur in al ero sunt extra foedus gratiae Nunquam parentes infideles gignunt liberos intra foedus gratiae fusuros The adding futuros was necessary because their being in the Covenant of grace is after their begetting if I had said qui fuerunt nut sunt intra foedus gratiae M. Blake would justly then have had exception against me as not righly setting down Chamiers conceit now those Propositions of â—hamier are false and consequently his explication according to his own grounds The putting in aut fornicantes was because I would include both explications of the forepart of the verse both that of matrimoniall which I conceive was Beza's and that of instrumentall sanctification The using of the term ridâ—caâ—lam was no more a jear of Chamier then his using of it a jeare of Augustin But my An agonists are so touchy that expressions that are not so much as motes in other mens eyes are beames in mine To the exceptions of Master Blake pag. 40. I say though I did not keep his words yet I keep the effect of them If he use not the term Covenant of grace yet I suppose he will not deny he meant that which usually Divines expresse by it in this point though Master Blake thinkes the word Covenant of grace cannot be found in his treatise for baptism yet if he please he may find the word Covenant of free grace pag. 14. of his birth-priviledge used to that purpose I ascribe to him where he saith the holinesse he maintaines is from the Covmam of free grace to all in the faith and their seed My explication of 〈◊〉 meaning of the Apostles words Master Blake sayes is almost the same with his in terminis Then I have not wronged the Apostle and it followes the Apostle cals himselfe a Jewe by nature as tied to keep the law of Moses Now I called it a dreame to make Gal 2. 15. 1 Cor. 9. 14. every way pâ—â— allel they neither agreeing in scope occasion words nor matter which are dissimilitudes enough I grant his sense of the word nature and that the Apostle there speakes of himselfe and other Jewes as in reputation more holy then the Gentiles because of their interest in circumcision and observance of Moses law but this was proper to the Jewes in that Church-state who had prerogatives peculiar to them Master Rutherford Due right of Presbyteries chap. 4. sect 5. pag 192. That they had prerogatives above us is cleare Rom. 3. 1 2 3. Rom. 9. 4. But I deny that a holinesse of birth flowing from a parent beleeving and in Covenant is asserted 1 Cor. 7. 14. The term sinâ—â—â— of the Gentiles is not all one with uncleane 1 Cor. 7. 14. Bâ—â—â—ne chiefe thing he brings that text for is to prove that our children have a Covenant holinesse because they are to be comprehended under the first member of the distinction Jewes by natuâ—â—â— I wondered at this his collection but it seems Master Blake takes the term Jewes not properly for people so called because borns in Judes or of Jewish descent but allusively as Rom. 2. 28. 29. But Master Blaks doth not observe that the terme Jewe allusively taken is a term common to all godly people or beleevers whereas here Jew is taken as opposite to them that are of the Gentiles and the denomination of a Jew allusively taken is not from nature
or birth as here Master Blake rightly expounds the word nature but from faith as the term seed of Abraham and the Israel of God and the term circumcision Philip. 3. 3. so that Master Blakes owne exposition overthrowes his owne inference But then saith Master Blake our children must be under sinners of the Gentiles and so they are aliens dogs without hope c. Ephes 2. 12. I answer our children are of the Gentiles who were sinners and as the Apostle speaâ—â—s Ephes 2. 12. at that time that went before their calling strangers from the Covenant of promise c. But it doth not follow that he that saith our children are of the Gentiles who were once strangers from God and so called sinners according to their condition then must hold that they 〈◊〉 now The most godly beleever now is under the second mother of the distinction being born of Gentile parents and yet not as the Gentiles were then stranger from Christ Master Blake is most vaine in saying that by my tâ—not there were ne more hope of the salvation of a Christians Infâ—â—â— then of Numa I acknowledge no such matter nor doth any such thing follow from my words which are plaine and true Master Blake should if he would have dealt fairly have showed 〈◊〉 of which words and how that followes which he obtand 〈◊〉 me When I said the Iewes birth priviledge did not 〈◊〉 them to the Covenant of grace I meant the same with the Apostle 〈◊〉 yet they had this benefit by their birth that they were among the people of God had the priviledge of 〈◊〉 according to the Church-state then were to eat the 〈◊〉 come into the court of the Temple had the law Christ was to come of them Rom. 9. 4 5. Rom. 3. 〈◊〉 and yet many of them not children of the promise The 〈◊〉 of grace being made by God doth promise to all and every person to whom that Covenant is made that he shall be effectually wrought upon I said the common priviledge of cirâ—â—â—sion belonging to the Jewes did not arise from the Covenant of grâ—â— recording to the substance of it but according to the administration that then was My meaning was circumcision was common to them which had no part in the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. neither an interest in the Evangelicall nor houshold promises made to Abraham as for instance Ismael and therefor I say it did not arise from the Covenant of grace or parents faith as the formal reason why Infants were circumcised but from Gods command according to that Church-state that then he thought good to appoint This being clear from Gal. 3 4. Master Blake interprets it as if I had said circumcision was not a signe of the substance of the Covenant and runs out in a large discourse to prove the contrary which toucheth not me who have expressely granted it Exercit pag. 3. Examen pag. 39 c. And it is a meer calumny in Master Blake to to tell me that I close with the Jesuites and with high disdaine shake off the doctrine of the Protestants But saith Master Blake pag. 43. you say in your exercitation pag. 2. The Covenant made with Abraham is not a pâ—â—e Gospell Covenant but mixt In the same place I explaine my meaning and prove it so fully that I wonder that Master Marshall Master Blake and others are not ashamed to except against it What the Jesuites say in this matter or what the Protestants say against them I have not time to examine The thing as I deliver it is plaine according to Scripture that there were some peculiar promises made to Abraham Ge. 17. which are not made to every beleever To tell us that godlinesse hath the promise of the life that now is 1 Tim. 4. 8. is nothing to the present purpose for it doth not follow therefore that godlinesse hath the promise of the Land of Canaan or that Christ should be every godly mans seed c. Mr Blake saith circumcision was a fruit of the faith of the parents but this is false for then all none but children of beleevers were to be circumcised which is not true whose children soever they were if in Abrahams house if bought with money of any stranger they were to be circumcised I had said circumcision was a priviledge in that time of the Churches minority and this the Apostle delivers Gal. 3. 4. Mr Blake takes it as if I had said the fruition of the promises in such a latitude were onely a priviledge during the time of the Churches minority and would have me give some Scripture or colour of reason for it which is to impose on me the proving of that I affirme not I said he that will prove the birth priviledge of our children from the Jewes must make our case as theirs and so bring us under the ceremoniall law This Master Blake puts into a formall proposition of his owne a man of straw and then denies it the reason of my words is plaine circumcision of Infants was from the paedagogy or peculiar Church-state of the Jewes as may be proved from Gal. 3. 25. Gal. 4. 1 2 3. and obliged to the ceremoniall law Gal. 5. 3. therefore they that from hence would draw the birth priviledge of our children must make our case the same with the Jewes and so bring us under the ceremoniall law The rest of that section is vaine and not worth a line in answer I said truely that the interpetation of 1 Cor. 7 14. of legitimation is no more to be called a singular opinion then Master Blakes and that I have proved by alleaging eleven Authors for it and can do more To the 8th chapter what he sayes of Doctor Wilmot I assent to he was a precious man and my dear friend when Master Blake shall demonstrate to me what passages in my booke of scandals are inexcusable I shall endeavour some way or other to retract them Why I did not alter one or two passages that Doctor Wilmot excepted against I shall be willing to give Master Blake the reason Master Blake is mistaken in that he saith that my friend of the Assembly that delivered my letter to Master Marshal was the man that told me of the Committee of the Assembly and advised me to present the reasons of my doubts to them it was not he but my reverend and deare Father in law And that friend of mine of the Assembly that delivered my letter to Mr Marshall tels me that though he was desirous to have Master Blakes book printed that the point might be disputed yet he did not approve many of his proofes but by his speech with me lately I conceive he did except at sundry of the same things which I did But to the matter of that chapter Letting passe the conference and the occurrence therein which was promised should not be divulged by any hearers nor was there any exact record kept of it the dispute is now
be the God of Abraham and his seed yet I still averre it to be a new Gospell to say that God hath promised to be the God of beleevers and their seed The Coveâ—â—â—t with Abraham and his seed I find 〈◊〉 17. 7. and the urging of this Covenant I deny not Exod. 32. 13. Deut. 9. 27. Levit 26. 42. Exod. 3. 6. And though I say not that it contained onely the promise of 〈◊〉 but grant it contained the promise of 〈◊〉 by Christ 〈◊〉 1. 17. yet I like not Chaâ—iors saying to call the promise of Canâ—â— an appâ—â—â—â— to the Covenâ—â— sith the Holy Ghost me thinkes speakes otherwise Ps 105. 8. 9. 10. 11. That 〈◊〉 cap. 39. speak not of 〈◊〉 his faederall holinesse hath been shewed before and 〈…〉 which Master Blake cites pag. 57. saying that 〈…〉 biunt expectant baptismum do me thinkes prove that Infants were not ordinarily baptized in his time Nor do I thinke Master Blake can prove the Doctrine of Covenant-holinesse out of Justin martyr Epiphanius Augustin Isidor Pelusiota I had said that I guesse by some words of Master Marshall Mr Blake and Master Rutherfurd that to maintaine the baptizing of all sorts of persons in the Kingdome as foundlings Infants of Papists whores excommunicat persons which is the ordinary practise excepted against by Independents that this assertion was upon the anvil that when a nation shall receive the faith that is a great or eminent part the governours and chiefe cities and representative bodyes shall receive the faith that nation shall in like manner have all their litle ones capable of baptisme and counted visible members of the Church as the posterity of the Jewes were in the time of that Church administration Mr Blake askes me in which of these words I pray you can you find one word of that businesse which you say is on the aâ—vill I answer to let Master Blakes words alone for the present me thinkes Master Rutherfurds sound plainly as much For if notwithstanding the Father and Mother were as wicked as the Jewes who slew the Lord of glory who did obstinately deny Christ the children were holy by the holinesse of the chosen nation which I conceive when the Ancestors are not included must meane the body or generality of the nation then the assertion I set downe as theirs must follow but this I did deliver but as my guesse yet so as that I thought necessary to oppose it and I say it opposeth their owne grounds who derive the title to Infant-baptisme from the Covenant to a beleever and his seed but these are not the seed of beleevers but the seed of them that deny and impugne the faith and from 1 Cor. 7. 14. of which Master Blake himselfe faith pag. 38. of his answer so my letter The truth of the Apostles sequel depends on this proposition All the children of the unbeleever are uncleane that is out of the Covenant in his sense unlâ—esse for generation he or she be sanctifyed by a beleever Which speech of Master Blake I conceive plainly overthrowes Master Blakes position in the birth priviledge pag. 24. c. and Master Rutherfurds in the words before named For if all the children of an unbeleever are uncleane unesse for generation he or she be sanctifyed by a beleever it will not be enough to say the nation is holy or the mediate ancestors were holy sith the Apostles position is of the immediate parents about whose living together the question was and therefore saith else were your children unclean Mr Blakes answer here is a mistake of the force of my reason which was not from the term beleever in 1 Cor. 7. 14. but from this that by their own expoâ—ition they are unclean who are not borne of a beleever therefore they cannot be holy either by holinesse of remote ancestours or the chosen nation when the immediate pareâ—ts are as wicked as the Jewes who crucified Christ I said the Independents had the advantage in this and I am sure they have against Mr Blake and Mr Rutherfurd and I guesse that the Assembly were sensible of it when they appointed in the Directory the child to be presented by the Father though I conceive that remedy will little or nothing rectify the abuse Mr. Blake saith it were worth enquiry whom I mean by officiating Priests I tel him non-preaching Priests made by the Bishops Mr Blake saith your selfe were well aware that every weapon that you left up against this Protestant doctrine was forged on the Jesuitas aâ—vill and that in the whole conflict you were necessitated to borrow help from the Philisten Artists when you were put upon it to say page 13. This is no undeniable Axiome that what all the Protestant Divines defend against the Papists must be truth undeniable To this I say I am well aware that this is a loud calumny the contrary whereof is manifest by the many and best Protestant Divines I quote all along my Examen and very seldome make use of a Jesuite throughout my Treatise Nor was I put upon that speech I used because I borrowed help from Papists but because Mr Marshall spake of his virtuall consequence as undeniable as if he had been Doctor irrefragabilis and it is necessary when men goe about to bind men to the consent of Divines in some Churches that we freely claime our liberty and not become the servants of men Mr Blake saith I doe not know one Protestant writer that hath declared himselfe in this thing but hath declared himself to be your adversary I answer none of the Antipaedopaptists are my adversaries in this yet some of them are Protestant writers in the point of expounding Gen. 17. 7. which is the chiefe hold for Covenant holinesse Twisse Bayne Ames Downame and many others are for me in the point of expounding 1 Cor. 7. 14. Camerarius Melanchthon Musculus O siander are for me Mr Blake saith but a little before pag. 58. Zuinglius in this hand went right in which Luther his contemporary and opposite in this thing is charged to be defective But saith Mr Blake I and you have entred into Covenant to the extirpation of Popery and I would learn of you by what character or marke it may be now discerned I answer not by this that that is to be accounted Popery which all Protestant Divines oppose the Papists in for then many things would not be counted Popery which are nor any thing to be counted Popery till we knew all Protestant Divines oppose it an endles impossible busines But there is a shorter way then that and it is that is to be counted Popery which is commonly known by that name as the doctrine of the Popes supremacy infallibility the doctrine of the Masse Transubstantiation Bread-worship Crosse-worship Invocation of Saints c. Or if you will have a more fixed way you may take that to be Popery which either the 39 Articles of the Church of England condemn in opposition to
contend Yet in that sense I yeeld it to be a seale actually I yeeld it to be a seale onely to beleevers but I deny that because the Sacrament is in its nature a seale of grace God doth seale alwayes when it is rightly administred The nature of it is to be a seale aptitudinall not actuall and so it is easie to answer Bellarmines argument without crossing my speeches But be the Sacraments sâ—ales conditionall or absolute actuall or aptitudinall what is this to prove that God seales conditionally in this sense as if God left it to mans liberty to whom he had sealed to agnize or recognize that sealing or to free themselves if they please and so nullify all yet so as to afford them a while the favour and priviledge of being in Covenant with him which Master Marshall I conceived meant by his conditionall sealing and I find not in his answer a deniall of it to be his meaning Master Blake excepts against a speech of mine in which I say That all the Sacraments of the Jewes are abrogated circumstance and substance in whole and in part and askes me Is circumcision of heart abrogated Is all spirituall meat and drinke in Sacraments abrogated Is Christ himselfe abrogated I answer no but withall say these are idle questions as not crossing my speech unlesse he can prove circumcision of the heart spirituall meat and drinke and Christ himselfe to be Sacraments Sect. 2. Master Blake would acquit this speech Gods Covenant of grace is common to elect and reprobates from symbolizing with Arminians by producing the speeches of Pareus and Mr Ball who onely say reprobates are in Covenant with God externally or God externally contracts with them which is another thing Gods Covenant of grace is his promise of grace and of this truly Master Marshall in his defence page 117. multitudes were baptized to whom God yet never gave saving graces and therefore never promised them for had he made a promise he would have performed it Master Blake makes the nature of a Covenant an agreement betweene two parties and sayes a promise or tender without consent is no Covenant How then do children Covenant at baptisme or enter into Covenant who yeeld no consent He saith Gods tender of himselfe to his people is called his Covenant Gen. 17. 7. 9. But he doth not rightly call that a tender which was more then a tender to wit a promise Then he objects against himselfe that if Gods Covenant be such as he will not breake Jerem. 31. 32. and he hath promised to put his lawes in their inward parts then they all to whom he makes Covenant must be elect I answer saith he if we take the words exactly as in the letter of the prophecy they run then all ministery is beaten downe and all edification ceases But this is litem lite resolvere The Contraremon strantes when they urge this place for effectuall grace understand the words exactly But how will Master Blake understand them I have looked over almost two leaves in answer to this in Master Blake and cannot tell how he will understand them nor finde I that he gives any direct answer to the objection but wanders in impertinences Nor knowe I how he can answer the objection without evervating the argument for effectuall grace and perseverance in it And the not teaching one another there spoken of is meant of that obscure teaching which was under the Law Sect. 3. He intimates that I have misreported Master Marshall but Master Marshall hath not himselfe denyed the sense I conceived of his conditionall sealing by God to Infants the words are plaine enough in his Sermon pag. 49. where he talkes of Gods Covenant and sealing and Christs suretiship more like Corvinus or the Arminans then the Scripture or Contraremonstrants Master Blake accuseth me of joyning with Independents and that they will have none Church members but elect and I no Church but that which is invisible But I beleeve he wrongs both me and them me I am sure for I alwayes teach a visible profession sufficient for Chuch-membership though I deny that every visible professour is in the Covenant of grace and when they will have reall saints Church members they meane not onely such as are so before God but such as are so in the judgement of the Church Though I thinke they are more rigid then they should be in their tenet yet I thinke Master Blake wrongs them in this imputation Ch. 16. I told Mr Marshall that his speech of Anabaptists as condemning infants as out of the state of grace condemning all the infants of the whole Church of Christ as having nothing to doe with the Covenant of Grace till proved by some of their testimonies I should take to be but a false accusation Mr Blake telâ—me Master Marshall for a testimony needs look no further then thâ—â—op of your leafe where you say infant-baptisme is a corruption of the ordinance of baptisme If infants be not only held from baptisme but their baptisme is also a corruption of that ordinance and there is no such thing as Covenant-holinesse to give them any tiâ—le or interest then they are out of covenant strangers to the promises of God and so the doom Eph. 2. 12. lyes heavy upon them How frivolous a justification is this of an expresse and deep accusation of men of a rash and bloody sentence as condemning all the infants of the whole Church of Christ as having nothing to do with the covenant of grace me thinks a man that would accuse so expressely so many persons and those christian brethren not to be contemned of so deep so passion-provoking a charge enough to stirre up Magistrates and parents to expell and destroy such men should produce better evidence for such a crimination then such a farre fetcht consequence as Mr Blake here brings to make it good is neither my name nor peace more tenderly regarded by Master Blake then upon such light inference to accuse me so deeply I had said to Mr Marshall that if the covenant of grace bee rightly understood Mr Marshall excludes infants as much from the covenant of grace as I doe As for Mr Blake not only page 14 of his Birth-priviledge but also page 23 of his answer to my letter he expressely maintaines that the birth-right he maintaines as a fruit from the covenant of free-grace to all in the faith and their seed only entitles to outward priviledges How doth this stand with that which he asserts chap. 3. sect 2. of his answer to my letter page 13. that infants of beleevers have salvation if they dye in their infancy by vertue of the Covenant For if the Covenant onely entitle to outward priviledges how doth it entitle to salvation So that to speak plainly Mr Blake doth but play fast and loose sometimes asserting a certainty of salvation from the covenant sometimes onely a right to outward priviledges and yet he and Mr Marshall stick not to declaim