Grace The Directory doth in my apprehension plainly appoint the begging for the child the accomplishment of the promise before asserted to Beleevers and their seed and therefore as in the petition it is meant of saving Graces so in the assertion or else the words are so ambiguous as they may be a Cothurnus which were more fit for a Canon of the Counâ—s of Trent then for the Directory of a Protestant Church Besides the same promise is said to be made to Beleevers seed which is made to Beleevers but that they will not dâ—ny to to be meant of the promise of saving Grace therefore neither the other To this Master Marshall Pag. 116 117. of his Defence answers thus 1. He leaves out the words which were for my purpose and of all other promises of the Covenant of Grace which is not right dealing 2. He makes me to conclude from that I cite out of the Directory that if there be not a promise of these saving graces to Infants in vaine are they baptized and the seal is put to a blanke And this consequence he denies but saith nothing to that which was indeed my reason which was this Master Marshal's second conclusion is to be understood as the words in the Directory this Master Marshall grants but the words of the Directory speake of a promise of saving Grace This I prove 1. Because the same promise is said to be made to the Beleevers seed which is made to Beleevers for it were a strange equivocation to understand the same terme in the same proposition in two different senses but the promise made to Beleevers there meant is the promise of saving Grace ergo so is the promise to their seed 2. Because the words speake of the same promise before in the direction concerning Doctrine which they meane after in the direction for petition else there would be a Cathurnus which were absurd but in the petition they mean the promises of saving Grace therefore also in the Doctrine As for that which Master Marshall makes my conclusion from the words of the Directory that in vaine are they baptized the Seale is put to a blanke It is no inference from the words of the Directory but comes in in another period at least fourteene lines after and among other reasons it is a mediâ—m to prove that the second conclusion must be so understood because that is the plea they make for Infant-baptisme and therfore unlesse it be so understood they must revoke that plea. M. Gâ—ree Pag. 13. if I understand him aright makes this the sense of the Directorâ— the promise is made to Beleevers and their seed that is it is to be presumed in charity of all the Infants of Beleevers that they enjoy the inward graces of the promise till they discover the contrary Wherein though he grant that which I contend for that in the Directory the promise is meant of saving Grace yet he hath invented another shift to save the credit of the assertion of Master Marshall and the Directory which he confesseth if it be taken as I conceive it is is so manifestly against Protestant principles and experience that none can hold it But who would ever construe those words The promise is made to Beleevers and their seed that is it is to be presumed in charity of all the Infams of Beleevers that they enjoy the inward graces of the promise till they discover the contrary but he that would make mens words like a nose of waxe to turne them which way he is willing they should be taken would any man construe the words 〈…〉 to Beleevers any otherwise then thus the promise of saving Grace is made by God to Beleevers and must the same phrase in the same proposition in the other part be construed thus the promise is made to the seed of Beleevers that is it is to be presumed by men in charity till they discover the contrary that all the Infants of Beleevers have the inward graces of the Covenant As if the making of a Covenant were all one with a charitable presumption or the seed of Beleevers were all one with Infants or when they are adulti they are not their seed The Apostle Rom. 9. 6 7 8. when he expounded the promise Gen. 17. 7. of the spirituall not the naturall seed did not imagine that the making the promise was mans act of presumption but Gods act and Acts 2. 39. to which and Gen. 17. 7. it's likely the Directory alludes the promise as Master Marshall expounds it is of Christ and his saving benefits and the making of it is meant of Gods act not mans presumption Adde hereunto that the whole series of the direction in the Directory carries the meaning thus For having said that Baptisme is a Seale of the Covenant of Grace of our ingrafting into Christ and of our union with him of remission of sins regeneration adoption and life eternall it followes after that the â—eed and posterity of the faithfull borne within the Church have by their birth interest in the Covenant and right to the Seale of it and to the outward priviledges of the Church c. where the Directory makes a threefold interest First interest in the Covenant Secondly right to the Seale of it Thirdly right to the outward priviledges of the Church the Covenant Seale and outward Priviledges of the Church are put as distinct things and the Covenant they have interest in is the same Covenant of which Baptisme is a Seale as is plaine by the Pronoune it which imports the same thing Now Baptisme is before said to be the Seale of the Covenant of saving Graces therefore the Covenant that the seed of Beleevers have interest in by their birth according to the Directory is the Covenant of saving Graces Which sith Master Marshall dares not assert and Mr Geree saith is manifestly against Protestant principles I wish it were as it ought to be laid to heart and that the Assembly would remember that which they say Pag 30. of the answer to the Remonstrance of the seven dissenting Brethren And it was further declared that even in those things which the Assembly had voted and transmitted to both Houses of Parliament yet we did not so leane to our own understandings nor so prize our vâ—tes but that if these Brethren should hold forth such light unto us as might convince us of an errour we should not only desire the Parliament to give us leave to revise our votes but to revoke them if there should be causâ— Which would indeed bring much honour to the Assembly and knit the hearts of the godly to them whereas through their silence at this time this and some other things in the Directory about baptism passing uncorrected standing confirmed by Law great disquiet to the Church of God and the undoing or molesting of many godly persons may follow when they cannot yeeld without sin to the Doctrine and practise of Baptisme as it is there set downe
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
Jewes were but one Church or congregation Acts 7. 28. and accordingly appointed one Tabernacle and Altar and one high Priest and solemne feasts for all to meet as and one nation all â—â—adge circumcision and hee erected them into one policy because he would have one fixed people among and 〈◊〉 whom the Massiah should come and therefoâ—â— he so provided that their tribes should be distinguished their inheritance divided and many 〈…〉 which he did not either then 〈◊〉 appoint to any other people And this Church-state Circumcision was applyed to so that if Master Marshall and Master Geree will conclude from Rom. 11. 17. c. that we must have our children baptized because they had theirs circumcised we being ingraffed into their room they must not only prove that the Gentile-beleevers are grafted into the invisible Church in place of the Jewes which is the Apostles sense there notwithstanding that which M. Geree or Master Marshall have said nor that the Gentile visible Churches are graffed into the visible Church in the place of the Jewes but they must also prove that the Gentiles are taken into the same outward Church state which the Jewes â—ad But that is most false For now God gathers not a whole nation together nor hath appointed one Temple Altar Priest c. as he did to the Jews but he gathers now by preaching some here some there and the visible Church hath now no such policy or outward government as the Jewes had then and therefore there is not the same reason of infants belonging to the visible Church of the Gentiles as they did to the Jewes except one can prove that we are to have the same outward face and constitution of the Church which they had which Papists and others imagining have corrupted the Church and baptizing of infants ariseth out of the same Jewish conceit Master Marshall had alleaged in his Sermon Rom. 11. 16. c. to prove his second conclusion I complained in my Examen of the obscurity of his inference shewed him how ambiguous his words were He takes this as if it were done in scorne and as an artifice to darken an argument but doth not mend the matter in his Defence For 1. pag. 134. whereas I distinguished of graffing in that it may be either by faith or profession of faith or by some outward Ordinance Master Marshall in the repetition leaves out this last member which is not right dealing 2. Whereas I had said The thing that is to be proved is that all the infants of every beleever are in the Covenant of free Grace in Christ and by veriue thereof to be baptised Master Marshall pag. 135. of his Dâ—fence denies this though it seemed plaine to me that this text was brought to prove his second conclusion which I took to bee the same with the antecedent of his Enthymeme or first argument and that I did conceive had this sense that all the infants of every beleever are in the Covenant of free Grace in Christ otherwise his first argument is but nugatory the antecedent and conclusion being the same and he equivocates in his two first conclusions understanding the first conclusion of the covenant of saving Grace in Christ the other of the outward Covenant as hee calls it as I shewed above which serves for no better end then to delude a reader But pag. 135. he saith thus The thing to be proved from this text is that our infants have the same right which the infants of the Jewes had pag. 140 The thing to be proved was our infants have the same priviledge with theirs yet in the same page he thus formeth the conclusion and therefore we and they making up the same body are taken in upon the same ground our children with us as well as theirs with them which last conclusion I do not take to be the same with the former nor any one of them the same with the other or with the antecedent of Mr Mar. second argument or his second conclusion 3. It is yet uncertain to me what is the medium he would prove his conclusion by out of that text In his Defence in three places he calls his confused heap of Dictates his argument to wit pag. 134. The Apostles scope was to shew that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true olive which the Jewes formerly had and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out and their taking in at the latter end of the world shall be the same graffing though more gloriously as ours is now and it is apparent that at their first taking in they and their children were taken in at their casting out they and their children were broken off and when they shall be taken in againe at the end of the world they and their children shall be taken in together and all by vertue of the Covenant Ero Deus tuus c. which is the same to us and to them we and they making up the Church of God In the same page in these words Looke how the Jewes children were graffed in so are our children we are taken instead of them who were cast out and becom on visible Kingdom of Christ with the rest of them who kept their station pag. 140. We as they were takâ—n in they and their children shall be at the last taken in again as they were at the first and therefore we and they making up the same body are taken in upon the same ground our children with us as well as theirs with them Which though hee calls his argument and sayes it hath a plaine sense yet I see so many ambiguities still in his words his speeches so informe or shapelesse that I know not well whither he would make many syllogismes or one nor which to call the major which the minor Proposition or terme or which the medium and I must professe I find Mr Marshall still so confused a disputer that I know not to what purpose his manner of writing in this point should tend but to puzzle his reader and weary his respondent And sith he was told of this p. 56. of my Examen and desired to mend it in his next writing yet instead of mending it he puts it off lightly pag. 125. of his Defence a person may suspect it is done on purpose to puzzle rather then to satisfy For why should a man that would clear truth in a point of dispute though in a Sermon ad populum especially when his auditory is such as it was at Westminster Abby be unwilling to make a syllogisme in mood and figure did not Master Marshall make sundry syllogismes in the same Sermon And would not a short syllogisme after a distinct short paraphrase have better cleared the truth then such a confused heap of words he useth in his alleaging Rom. 11. 16. c. And Acts 2. 39. However what reason or excuse he can pretend for not doing it in his Defence I see not Mr Geree
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
these two were opposite and priviledge of ordinances were not of grace or that saving grace could be had in Gods ordinary way without this priviledge To acquit my selfe of this imputation I say that it was very necessary to take that paines I did to bring my selfe out of that maze which I had not run my selfe into but the confusednesse and ambiguity of Master Marshals expressions lead me into Master Marshall had made this the anteceedent in his first argument The Infants of beleeving parents are faederati or within the covenant of grace This I conceived to be the same with his second conclusion though against the rule of dispute he varies the terme faederati or within the covenant of grace into this he would have to be accounted his to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devils which I do not take to be equipollent This necessitated me to shew the many senses of his words and to take paines to find out his meaning else I knew not what to deny or what to grant Now to clear the matter when it is said Infants of beleevers are faederati or in the covenant of grace this may be understood three wayes 1 They are in the covenant of grace by their owne act of covenanting because they promise the performance of the condition on their part and this sense is manifestly false and yet when Master Marshall sayes they are to be accounted covenanters he speakes as if he meant so For what is a covenanter but he that makes a promise 2 They are in the covenant of grace by the administratours act because he gives them the seale of the covenant but then the second conclusion should be they are baptized or to be baptized now this being the same with the antecedent of Master Marshals first argument his argument must be thus Infants of beleevers are baptized or to be baptized ergo they are to be baptized which is meerly to trifle and yet as I shewed above this is the effect of Master Marshals arguing who will have his second conclusion and antecedent understood of the outward covenant as he cals it 3 They are in the covenant of grace by Gods act of promise and this is that which Master Marshall should have said if he would have spoken plainly without equivocation God by his promise to the Infants of beleevers puts them in the covenant of grace or he accounts them in the covenant of grace because he hath promised grace 〈◊〉 them and not have said God would have them accounted his by us by giving them the outward covenant as he calls it Now if he affirme this that God hath promised grace to Infants of beleevers this grace is either saving grace or outward ordinances But saith Master Blake these are not opposite but subâ—â—dinate Be it so yet they are distinct and the promise of the one is not a promise of the other the promise of the Word and Sacraments is not a promise of the Spirit Now here was the doubt whether Master Marshall affirme a promise of saving grace to beleevers Infants or of outward ordinances I said neither was true yet the former was more agreeable to his meaning To prove this I alleaged that though sometimes Master Marshall Master Blake and others spake more warily in which I dealt candidly with Master Blake reciting his expresse words full enough for the purpose yet I said most of Mr. Marshals and others expressions and one expression of Master Blake spake as if they meant that God had made a covenant or promise of saving grace And to prove it to be their meaning produced their allegation of these textes Acts 2. 39. Gen. 17. 7. Matt. 19. 14. which are to be understood of saving grace and that otherwise the seale would be put to a blanke and that Master Blake saith God promiseth to be a God in covenant to his and their seed which people in covenant have also a promise from him of the Spirit Now what sayes Master Blake to this he denyes not that these texts speake of a promise of saving grace but askes me how 's they are meant whether absolutely or immediately and then fastens upon me an assertion that is none of mine and I beleeve wrongs Master Blackwood too But herein Master Blake goes from the businesse and instead of a respondent becomes a poserâ—â— proved these texts alleaged by them for Infants being in the covenant of grace speake of a promise of saving grace and therefore if Master Marshall meane not that the covenant of saving grace is made to a beleevers child these texts are alleged to no purpose by him This is no place to answer Mr. Blakes unpertinent questions which he propounds to me as supposing that because I said the texts are plainely meant of saving graces therefore I had affirmed the Jewes and all their seed had an absolute promise of a saving grace let Master Blake tell us whether in alleaging Gen. 17. 7. Acts 2. 39. for infants of beleevers being in the Covenant he understand not those texts of a promise of saving grace which is all I there contend for As for Mat. 19. 14. it is plâ—â—â—ly meant of the kingdome of glory Luk. 18 16. 17 Mark 10. 14 15. And for the speech of sealing to a blanke c. Whether it be true or false it was not materiall to my purpose but whether it shew that he users of it assert a promise of saving grace to beleevers Mr Blake upon a mistake that I had set down sundry things as my assertions chargeth 〈◊〉 as using Bellarmines argument and sâ—ts down his own answer out of Amesius besides the bâ—sines who onely alleaged other mens speeches to shew their meaning As for his own speech he endeavours to make it good which for present was not excepted against but onely alleaged to to shew that even Mr Blake asserts a promise of saving grace to 〈◊〉 of beleevers for a promise of the Spirit is such But saith Mr Blake Some promises 〈◊〉 suppose a condition such is the promise of the Spirit 〈◊〉 here I understand it and you may see in Christs words John 7. 39. in the Apostle 〈◊〉 Ephes 1. 13. To which I say that it is true of the speciall gifts of the Spirit or the increase or comforts or assurance of the Spirit as John 7. 39. Ephes 1. 13. they suppose a condition but if hee meane it of the regenerating work of the Spirit as the words lead me to conceive he meant then the promise of the Spirit hath no condition as Doctor 〈◊〉 proves in many places particularly The Synod of Dort â—â—d Arlâ— c. part 3. Sect. 6. and it is cleare for if God have promised regenerating grace upon condition that condition must be performed either by himselfe or by the person to whom it is â—â—â—ised if the condition he to be performed by himselfe it is all one with an absolute promise if by the person to whom it is
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
his Analysis c. 9. ad Rom. and opposeth Bayne it was right For Arminius saith Ratio est à duplice semine Abrahami quorum unum tantum verbo isto proposito comprehendatur And this double seed of Abraham he calls the sons of promise whom he defines sunt illi qui fide in Christum justitiam salutem quaerunt and the children of the flesh whom he defines qui per opera legis justittam salutem consectantur I confesse it was in my copy through an easie but not materiall oversight consequuntur yet in the English I render it follow but why this should puzzle Mr. Marshall I know not And to this calling some Abrahams seed who no otherwise were Abrahams seed but in that they professing Judaisme sought righteousnesse by the law Bayne rightly opposeth that speech that those that conceive carnally of the law seeking righteousnesse by it without something else adjoyned to wit naturall generation are never called Abrahams seed Yet Mr. Marshall in his Sermon and again in his defence pag. 10. calls those Abrahams seed who are not so by naturall generation or by faith but are Proselytes seeking Iustification by the works of the Law Which is the very ground of Arminius his perverting the ninth of the Romans to maintain his opinion of respective Predestination As for Master Marshall's vindication of himselfe it goes upon this mistake as if I had charged him with agreeing with Arminius in the expounding the ninth to the Romans and in his opinion of election upon foreseen faith whereas I only charged him with joyning with Arminius in this particular to call the Proselytes that were Jewes by profession but sought righteousnesse by the law Abrahams seed pag. 105. Mr. Marshall sayes that I try all my wits and artifices to shake the strength of his second conclusion by scornfull speeches c. The truth is I was put to the triall of all my wits to find out the meaning of his second conclusion but as for the strength of it it is so small that he that can but shew the ambiguity in it may refute it without much adoe As for the scornfull speeches Mr. Marshall can find but one which was the calling of his second conclusion a Cothurnus which I never dream't would have been taken for an expression of scorne but a proverbiall phrase signifying an ambiguous speech used by David Pareus in his judgement on the 5 Articles sent to the Synod of Dort and by others the most grave and solid Divines I said pag. 54. That Mr. Marshall did very carnally imagine the Church of God to be like civill corporations this he calls pag. 121. a scornfull puffe but why he should call it so I am yet to seek pag. 124. he sayes that I sleight and scorn that which I know nor how to answer but it would be hard for Mr. Marshall to verify this in any particular pag. 133. he calls the use of the word Coccysme very frequent among Schollars and of the same meaning with Crambe used by Mr. Marshall pag. 256. a scornfull expression and because I say pag. 63. of my Examen your argument needs a swimmer of Delos to bring it out of the deep this he calls pag. 134. my method to cast a scorn upon an argument which is only the using a proverbiall speech used by Spanheimius in his dubia Evangelica and others concerning a thing that there is need of skill to find it out pag. 162. 163. in answering the argument brought to prove that holinesse 1 Cor. 7. 14. is not federall Mr. Marshall sayes All the reply you make to 〈◊〉 pag. 80. is to bestow a few scoffes upon it that my answer is to deny the conclusion that I shew no faultinesse either in the matter or the forme of the argument that the scope that I mention is but a meer figment that I doe as good as say that the objectour can make no argument out of it and that therefore I need make no answer And that in one place I grant the minor then the major and thus you most gallantly vapour upon me and after I durst leave all Schollers to judge whether my answer deserves all this scorne and after you thought to carry it with more advantage to you by scoffing then by solemn refuting and after Truly Sir I am perswaded all learned men either laugh at or pity this vanity of your disputing and pag. 164 not once suspecting I should have met with an adversary so uningenious to say no worse who would have said the balking of this question had been the yeelding of the cause To all this I reply that my words are misrecited by Mr. Marshall I did not say his answer is to deny the conclusion but thus I find no answer to the argument here except it be an answer to an argument to deny the conclusion Nor doe I say that the baulking of the question whether the beleever when he commits fornication with an infidell remove the barre in the unbeleeving party as that the child is in the beleeving parents right to be reckoned to belong to the covenant of Grace and Church of God had been the yeelding of the Cause which he makes my uningenuity 2. The passages only taxe a defect in Logick in Mr. Marshall in that place but doe indeed containe neither matter of scorn nor gallant vapouring 3. And however learned men pitty or laugh at the vanity of my disputing I doubt not to make it appeare that neither Mr. Marshall nor Mr. Geree have yet made an answer to that argument which doth overthrow his exposition of federall holinesse that though Mr. Geree sayes there was ignoratio Elenchi yet indeed there is no ignoratio Elenchi the thing being concluded that was to be concluded and whereas Mr. Marshall first new makes the major and then denies it he deales not rightly in putting in words to anothers argument and yet the major is rather true with his addition and then Mr. Marshall puts a minor of his owne and denies it But the truth is the argument should be thus framed That holinesse which might be though one of the Parents were not sanctified to the other is not here meant but faederall holinesse might be though one of the Parents were not sanctified to the other Ergo Federall holinesse is not here meant or thus that uncleanesse whâ—ch doth not agree to all the children of those whose Parents are not sanctified one in or to another is not here meant but federall uncleanesse doth not agree to all the children of those whose Parents are not sanctified one in or to another Ergo Federall uncleannesse is not here meant But these things I reserve till I review the dispute about the meaning of 1 Cor. 7. 14 concerning which I doubt not but if God spare me life and liberty I shall make good my argument and answer Mr. Marshalls exceptions yea and further shew that if the sanctification and bolinesse be taken from the faith
Assembly And I think he should not shoote very wide from the marke that should imagine that these exceptions against the Author are for want of a cleare answer to the Booke There is yet another charge against me that flies higher and comes â—earer to the matter if it were true and it is indeed though they do not call it so the deceit of Sophistry in my writing which if it were so were a damnable sin to pervert the Truth of God by such prophane handling But let us consider what is said Master Marshall Pag. 2. of his Defence saith thus wherein I shall not as you have done carpe at every phrase or expression nor digresse into impâ—rtinent discourses thereby to swell up a volume nor amuse the Reader with multitudes of quotations of Latin and Greeke Authors and then turne them into English nor frame as many sense of an expression as is possible and then confute them and so fight with men of straw of mine own setâ—ing up nor spend a whole sheet of paper together in confuting what was never intended by my adversary as the Reader shall clearly perceive you have dealt with me In answer hereto I say The first charge is so ranke that unlesse he meane by carpâ—â—g something else then I conceive to wit a wanton unnecessary quarrelling or excepting without cause it is so palpable an untruth that I wonder he would let it fall from his 〈…〉 he wrote at adventure I do sometimes and yet not so frequently as there was occasion declare the ambigâ—ity and unfitnesse of some expressions but never without reason our of a carping humour much lesse carpe at every phrase or expression And for the second it is true I do make some digressions and so did Doctor 〈◊〉 White in his 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 Church Doctor Twiss◠〈…〉 Arminiuâ— but these digressions I am 〈◊〉 a reall 〈◊〉 pertinent and necessary to a full discussion of the argument in hand 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 a volume but to cleare the 〈◊〉 The third châ—â—ge is as vaâ—â—e for the quotations are not multitudes 〈◊〉 so many as that praise worthy writer Master Gatâ—â—er 〈◊〉 of them 〈…〉 not for amusing the Reader but for 〈…〉 speakes it of himselfe and I there through mistake of memory put Arâ—es for Orange a City neare it And these I thanke Doctor Homes for advertising me of and shall be willing to confesse any other oversights that no reader may be deceived by me though for the present I know no other Doctor Homes names some other yet I conceive wrongfully As for the framing of as many senses of an expression as is possible and then confuting them this I thought had been a vertue in disputing to find out the many senses of an expression and to confute them I ever tooke this good arguing if the conclusion be true then in this or that sense but in none of all these it is true ergo it is not true and that this had not been fighting with men of straw but fighting with the strongest enemy that was in the field The last charge is that I spend a whole sheet of paper in confuting what was never intended by him be it so yet if the Reader were likely to take it so it was fit it should be refuted and himselfe blamed for speaking no plainer but leading his Reader and Answerer out of the way by the ambiguity of his expression But to examine this charge more fully He meanes I assure my selfe the refuting of this conclusion Exam Part. 3. Sect. 4. from Pag. 48. to 54. which comes short of a whole sheet That the Covâ—nant 〈◊〉 saving grace in Christ expressed in Gen. 7. 7. in these words I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is made to beleevers and their naturall â—eede This saith Master Marshall Pag. 116. of his Defence was never asserted by him For my part though I conceived still that Master Marshall would never stand to this assertion and I acknowledged in expresse termes that sometimes Master Marshall spake moâ—â— warily yet I gave many reasons why in his second conclusion his words were to be so taken as if he had asserted that which Master Marshall neither hath nor I thinke can clearly take off nor did I herein fasten any thing upon him against 〈…〉 as he 〈◊〉 to suspect Pag. 116. of his Defence and Master Geree Pag. 13 of his Vindiciae paedobaptisms For the passage be brings out of my Book is not contradictory sâ—th I might suppose he held not all the Infants of Beleevers to be actually regenerate and yet might suppose he held that the Covenant of saving Grâ—â—â— was made to them all sith all the Elect persons have the Covenanâ— made to them as the Apostle supposeth Rom. 9. 8. and yet are not actually regenerate Besides Master Marshall in his answer to the fourth and fifth objection speakes as if he held the Covenant of Grace conditionall and so might hold that all the children of Beleevers have the Covenant of saving Grace made to them conditionally though not absolutely I will adde what Doctor Homes Pag. 1. 3. of his Animadversions tels me Master T. knâ—w learned Master P. I thinke he meanes Master William Pemble of Magdalen Hâ—ll in Oxford a famous worthy writer whose memory is very pretious to me in whose time Doctor Homes Master Geree and my selfe lived together in that house to the benefit of us all who would say can any meere man write much and not in any thing contradict himselfe Why then should it be thought strange that I should conceive Master Marshall would contradict that in one place which he had avouched elsewhere especially sith I find it frequent for Protestant Divines in this very thing to unsay in dispute against Arminians about perseverance what they avow in dispute against Anabaptists sure I am Master Cottons words which I examine in a digression meane plainly the Covenant of saving Grace and therefore he interprets Gen. 17. 7. of the Covenant of saving Grace and Master Philips that the Covenant is made to them because offered and Master Thomas Goodwin in his Lectures about Infant-baptisme meant it of the Covenant of saving Grace and therefore limited it so as that for the most part Election did run through the loynes of Beleevers and Master Herle at Bow-Church for Master Goodwin on Heb. 8. 10. tooke upon him to refute Anabaptists from thence because the Covenant there was made with the house of Judah and Gal. 3. 14 the blessing of Abraham was to come upon the Gentiles and that was the Covenant of saving Grace And for my part I know not how to construe those words of the Directory That the promise is made to Beleevers and their seed any otherwise then of the promise of saving Grace which I conceived plaine by the expression following make this baptisme to the Infant a seale of adoption remission of sins regeneration and eternall life and of all other promises of the Covenant of
This by the way But Mr. Marshalls tells me pag. 1â—0 of his Defence you cannot be ignorant how our Divines owne the outward administration of the Covenant under the notion of Foedus externum and the spirituall grace of it under the notion of Foedus internum and that still I restraine the Covenant to the spirituall part onely and would perswade my reader that they who speake of the Covenant of Grace must meane it thus strictly and yet I bring not arguments to disprove a true visible membership upon a visible profession whether the inward saving grace be known or not To this I answer I confesse I have met with that distinction of foedus externum internum in some Protestant writers but not meeting with it in Mr Marshals Sermon I had no occasion in my Eâ—aâ—en to meddle with it but now I will declare my thoughts of it I confesse that Circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 1â— 13 by a meâ—onymy of the thing signified for the signe as the text it selfe expounds it and I confesse that the Apostle Rom. 2. 28. distinguisheth of Circumcision outward in the flesh and circumcision of the heart but no where in Scripture doe I meet with the distinction of the outward and inward Covenant nor doe I conceive the expression right For if the distinction be only distinctio nominis it should be thus Covenant is taken either properly or improperly by a trope and not Covenant is either outward or inward if the distinction be distinctio rei then there is some common notion of a Covenant thus distributed and so the sense must be some Covenants that is promises for the nature of a Covenant is a mutuall or single promise are either externall or internall and this may be understood either in respect of the making of the promise and so it is not right for all promises in that sense are externall none internall for afore it be declared by some transeunt act it is not a promise but an intention or else it may be understood in respect of the thing promised and it is confessed that God promiseth inward and outward good things and if this were the meaning I should not much except against it though I should like it better to expresse it thus The things covenanted are outward or inward which is plain and easie to be understood then to say the Covenant is outward or inward But Mr Marshall by the outward Covenant means the outward administration of it and by the inward Covenant the spirituall grace of it According to which explication the distinction is not agreeable to Logick rules nor can stand Mr Marshall in any stead but to convince him of trifling and equivocating in his first argument and two first conclusions Trifling I say in his first argument For the first argument was this The infants of beleeving parents are foederati therefore they must be signati Now Mr Marshall will not have the antecedent understood of the inward Covenant that is the spirituall grace he blames me for that and he himselfe rejects it in that sense then the sense must be the infants of beleeving parents are foederatâ— that is in the outward Covenant of Grace that is according to Mr Marshall in the outward administration of the Covenant Now what is the outward administration he expresseth pag. 48. of his Sermon calling Baptisme the new administration and Circumcision the old This then is Mr Marshals argument The infants of beleevers are in the outward Covenant that is in the outward administration meaning Baptisme or Circumcision this is the antecedent the consequent or conclusion is therefore they must be signati that is baptized or circumcised But is not this a meer inept tautology all one as to prove they must bebaptized because they must be baptized all one as to argue he must have ensem because he must have gladium this is Pauls Epistle because this is Pauls letter I said equivocating For by the Covenant Mr Marshall makes shew of one thing in the first conclusion but meanes another in the second For he had said conclusion the first The Covenant of Grace for substance hath been alwayes the same and pag. 10. he shewes wherein lies the substance of it to wit the spirituall part now who would not have expected that the second conclusion should be meant of the same Covenant to wit the inward sith he sayes pag. 26. The proving the two first conclusions gains the whole cause if the Covenant be the same and children belong to it then they are to be owned as Covenanters yea and his first text to prove the second conclusion Acts 2. 39. he himselfe expounds it of Christ and saving benefits by him But it seems Mr Marshal's heart failes him he found that assertion too hot for him though that be the ordinary assertion in the Directory in books and Sermons insomuch that it is an usuall expression to say infants are confederates with their beleeving parents in the Covenant of Grace and therefore now the second conclusion that the children of beleevers belong to the Covenant of Grace must be understood in another sense then as the Covenant of Grace is taken in the first conclusion which is to equivocate Yea further by reading Mr Marshalls defence pag. 92. and elsewhere I suspect there is a farther equivocation in Mr Marshalls argument which Mr Marshall it seems doth not perceive divers expressions being by him taken as the same which are not the same nor to be confounded For pag. 92. Mr Marshall speaks thus I concluded therefore that by Gods own will such as enter into Covenant ought to receive the seale which seems to be the Proposition by which the sequele of Mr Marshalls first argument is to be proved so that he seems to frame the Syllogisme entirely thus They that enter into Covenant ought to receive the seale but the children of beleevers enter into Covenant therefore they ought to receive the seale so that the minor seems to him to be all one with this Proposition the children are foederati which is elsewhere expounded of the outward Covenant or the right to be baptized but to have right to be baptized is not all one with entring into Covenant Entring into Covenant is some act farther then having of right for a person may have right to Baptism before he enters into Covenant Mr Marshall should have heedfully distinguished the Covenant of Grace which is Gods act in his promise of grace and belongs to none but those he hath made that promise to and the outward administration which is the administratours act and not have called it the Covenant and the entring into Covenant with God which is the act of the baptized and cannot be done ordinarily by an infant who is onely passive and makes no promise at Baptisme and therefore cannot be rightly said to enter into Covenant with God The want of such distinctnesse in expression serves for no other purpose but to puzzle a
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
against Anabaptists for not assuring salvation to the deceasing infants of beleevers from that covenant which Mr Marshall will not assert pag. 116. as it is a Covenant of saving grace to be made to beleevers and their naturall seed and Mr Blake saith onely entitles to outward priviledges But we say saith Master Blake that all infants and men of yeers for ought that we can find from any Scripture grounds are utterly lost that want all right of Baptisme He might say they are in danger to be lost by reason of originall corruption not for want of right to Baptisme but to say they are utterly lost is more then Mr Blake hath ground to affirme I have often shewed that a right to baptism is from the command of Christ not from such covenant holinesse as Mr Blake asserts salvation comes from Gods election and Christs redemption It is a meer slander and a groundlesse crimination wherewith Mr Blake chargeth me that the position he produceth out of my book or any other he can produce doth inferre that all the infants of the whole Church of Christ have nothing to doe with the Covenant of grace I challenge him with Mr Marshall and Mr Blakes seconds Mr Calamy and Mr Vines if they can to make that charge good or else let Mr Blake and Mr Marshall retract it As for Mr Blakes conclusion I conceive his Protâ—station makes him deservedly the object of pitty his motions carry a sting in the tayl to wit a false accusation from which I doubt not but I have acquitted my selfe by this writing The elogy the worthy member of the house of Commons bestowes on me and the unrighteous censure of my learned namelesse acquaintance I value not books as meats relish differently with different palates pro captu lectoris habent sua fata libelli This apollogy will state me and my writing better in their thoughts if they can will understand the truth If not the same spirit that hath enabled me to beare greater burthens I trust will enable me to bear these hard censures I hope that I shall not be wanting to the overthrow of any errors according to my ability paedobaptisme I am more assured then ever is a great corruption founded as now it is taught on very great errours and of any service I suppose I can doe to God it is one of the chiefe which I ought to apply my selfe to that it may be cleared to be an errour I bear as much love and reverence to M. Blake as ever he is not despised by me though his errours be freely censured I aimed not either in the former or in this latter writing at any grievance to him and should be sorry this controversie should make a separation between us though I find by experience much estrangednes in many of my former acquaintance from me And for encountring with Mr Blake for the truths sake I held my selfe necessitated to it by reason of Mr Vines and M. Calamy their former and latter as I still conceive inconsiderate plaudite FINIS Errata PAge 2. line 24. above read about p. 30. l. 10. sticks r. strikes p. 33. l. 1. And r. But. p. 40. l. 22. Gen. 7. r. Gen. 17. p. 50. l. 4. Bermaâ—aus r. Beâ—mannus l. 5. 20. r. 2. p. 51. l. 3. meerly r. merry l. 36. Iannes 1. Iames. l. 13. r. upon what p. 53. l. 20. r. that they who l. 21. to r. doe p. 57. l. 13. Marshall r. Ball. p. 59. l. 24. 57. r. 75. p. 67. l. 27. artificer r. artifice mind r. mend p. 70. l 12 r. will be l. 15. r. are the. p. 72. l. 29. r. examen p. 42. 64. 65. p. 75. l. 16 dele And M. Blake c. p. 77. l. 14. which r. this p. 80. l. 20. r. inconsideretenes which p. 84. l. 33. dele it p. 85. l. 1. r. either out p. 97. l. 25. 256. r. 170. l. 37. 128. l. 182. p. 98. l. 30. r. hoâ—se in p. 1 co l. 12 them 1. Infants p. 101. l. 15. see r. set l. 31. dele first p. 102. l. 36. cuts r. cut p. 118. l. 20. r. the thing p. 129. l 5. r. that they p. 140. l. 25. r. positive rites as morall precepts p. 142. l. â— dele it p. 145. l. 1. margine 16. r. 18. p. 148. l. 32. p. 149. l. 2. precedent r. subject §. 1. Of the occasion of writing this Apology §. 2. Of the intention of the Author upon that occasion §. 3. Of the necessity and seasonablenes of publishing the two Treatises about Infant-Baptisme §. 4. Of freedome from publishing the two Treatises contraâ—y to engagement with a Declaration of the Authors proceedings therein §. 5. Oâ— the clearing the Author of the two Treatises from scornfulnesse in writing them of my censure of M. Thomas Goodwins handling this point and of all writers about Colâ—s 2 12. Of the exposition I give of Colos 2 12. Confessed to be right by Mr Marshall himselfe §. 6. Of the clearing the Author of the Examen from either justifying the Anabaptists in 〈◊〉 or condemning the godly and grave Nonconformists in England §. 7. Of tâ—e clearing of the Author of the two Treatises from vaâ—nting and challenging in the composing and publishing the Treatises §. 8. Of the clearing the Author oâ— the two Treatises from Sophistry in them whereby occasion is taken to vindicate the Treatises in many of the chieâ—e things contained in them §. 9. Of the meaning of Master Marshals second conclasion the words in the Dâ—rectâ—ry the promise is made to Beleevers and their seed and the Doctrine therein delivered disavowed by Mr Marshall and Mr. Geree §. 0. Of the distinction of inward and outward Covenant and that it can stand Master Marshall in no stead but to shew his trâ—fâ—ing and equivocating in his first argument and two first conclusions and of M. Marshalâ— mistake of my opinion 11. Of Master Marshalâ— false and most unjust charge that I carry the Socinian plot through my examen and exercitation §. 12. Of M. Marshals unjust charge of me as itching after new opinions and particularly about rebaptization and receiving the Lords Supper afore Baptism §. 13. Of alleadging Authors against their mind particular Mr Daniel Rogers M. Bâ—ll Chamter Aretius and Beza 1 Cor. 7. 14. §. 14. Of Master Marshal's unjust charging Anabaptists with a bloody sentence concondemning all the Infants of beleevers as having nothing to doe with the Covevenant of Grace his imputing to me as if I held that they all belong actually to the kingdome of the Devill no more promise for them then for children of Turks their actuall standing in the visible kingdome of the Devill A large disqâ—â—isition of Rom. 11. 17. c. wherein is shewed that the ingraffing there is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith and that it pâ—oveâ— not Intant-baptisme §. 15. of M. Marshals unjust charge against me as â—arkning his arguments and casting fiâ—th in the face of the Assembly § 16.
sentence condemning all the infants of beleevers as having nothing to doe with the covenant of Grace his imputing to me as if I held that they all belong actually to 〈◊〉 kingdom of the devill no more promise for them then for children of Turks their actuall standing in the visible kingdome of the devill Pag. 67. A large disquiâ—ition of Rom 11. 17. c. wherein is shewed that the ingraffing there is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith and that it proves not Infant-baptisme Pag. 78. Sect. 15. Of master marshals unjust charge against me as darkning his argument and casting filth in the face of the Assembly Pag. 80. Sect. 16. Of master Marshals untrue charge against me as if I rested on Grotius in setting down the tenent of Antiquiry upon occasion of which the tenent of Antiquity is again examined my judgement of their doctrine vindicated master Marshals new allegations answered and my diligence to find out their tenets manifested Pag 91. Sect. 17. Of my opinion about excommunication Church-government the admission unto all ordinances my former conformity alleaged to allenate mens minds from me and my writings Pag. 9. Sect. 18. Of the vanity of master Leyes vaunt concerning the deadly wound given to my cause and the contrary demonstrated by a briefe going through the principall points about this argument as they have hitherto been disputed As about Acts 2. 39. Rom. 11. 16. Colos 2. 12. Mat. 28. 19. Acts 16. 15. Mat. 19 14. c. Pag. 97. Baptisme and the rite of eating bread and drinking wine at the passeover though old rites among the Iewes yet used to another end and after another rule by christians Pag. 98. The command confessed to be the formall reason of circumcision by mr marshall Circumcision a priviledge proper to the Jewish Church-state Pag. 99. No command about the Jewes Sacraments now in force Pag. 100. Infants not disciples as Mat. 28. 19 is meant Baptizing housholds inferres not infant-baptisme Pag. 101. We have no evidence for judgement of charity concerning infants nor is a judgment of charity to be our rule in administring baptisme Pag. 102. Sect. 19. Of master Hussey his pretended satisfactory answer to my Exercitation Pag. 106. Sect. 20 The Epilogue of this Apology concerning the reason of the enlargeing of it the Authours present estate and future intentions The Contents of the Postscript PAge 109. Sect. 1. The occasion of this Postscript â— Sect. 2. Of M. Calamy and Mr. Vâ—nes their wrong judgement of the dispute mast Blakes book and my discussing the point P. 111. sect 3. Of master Blakes charge of defect of charity and some other imputations Pag. 112. sect 4. They that deny infant-baptisme need not teach that infants perish Pag 113. sect 5. Of my censure of master Blakes producing Gal. 4 29. for the birth-priviledge Pag. 114. sect 6. Of the necessity of my taking pâ—ins in my Examen to find out the meaning of master Marshals second conclusion by reason of the ambiguity of his expressions Pag. 120. sect 7. Of the Corinthians doubt 1 Cor. 7. 12. 13. 14. Pag. 121. sect 8. 1 Cor. 7. 14. is not meant of instrumental sanctification federal holines P. 125. sect 9. Of mast Blakes misallegation of Gal. 2. 15. which was the text he chose for his birth-priviledge Pag. 128. sect 10. That 1 Pet. 2. 9. is meant of the Church invisible Pag. 130. sect 11. Of precedents for womens receiving the Lords supper P. 131. sect 12. To say that God hath promised to be the God of every beleever and his naturall seed is a new Gospell P. 132. sect 13. Of master Rutherfurds and M. Blakes opinion about holinesse of a chosen nation and mediate Ancestours profession intitling to infantbaptisme and the Independents advantage in this point Pag. 134. sect 14. Of the word nations matth 2â— 19. how to be taken Pag. 135. sect 15. of master Ruthersfurds and master Blakes and mine opinion concerning the rule to know who are baptizable Pag. 138. sect 16. About two suppositions aâ—criby me to master marshall and master Blake in my Examen page 130. Pag. 140. sect 17. About arguments drawâ—â— from Analogy in positive rites and their invalidity and the insufficiency of master Blakes rules Pag. 145. sect 28. That Master Blake hath not proved that infants are disciples from Matth. 18. 5. nor pertinently alleaged Isai 49 2â— Pag. 147. sect 19. Of baptizing â—ousâ—olds and 〈◊〉 censure of Mr Blakes speech concerning it Pag. 149. sect 20. About Matth. 19 14. that by the kingdome of heaven is meant the kingdome of glory Pag. 151. sect 21. That God seales not to every person that is rightly baptized that his covenant of grace belongs only to the elect that his covenant is effectuall and leaves it not to mans liberty to include or exclude himselfe Pag. 155. sect 22. Of Mr Blakes unjust crimination of 〈◊〉 as putting the children of beleevers out of the covenant of Grace and the Epilogue of this Postscript An Apology for the two Treatises and Appendix to them concerning Infant-Baptisme against the unjust Charges Complaints and Censures of D. Nathanael Homes M. John Geree and M. Steven Marshall and M. John Ley. DEcember 15 164â— were published with my consent two Treatises and an Appendix to them concerning Infant-Baptisme The writing that could not in nineteene moneths before obtaine a few lines hath now gained foure answers in foure moneths In January came forth Treatise of one Thomas Bakewell in which the Title pretends a briefe answer to my twelve doubtfull Arguments as he stiles them against Infant-baptism in my Exercitation about it This Treatise I think hath honour enough done it that it is named If any man shew me any thing worth the answering in it it may in time gain a reply otherwise for me it may take it's rest The next moneth was published Doctor Homes his Vindication of baptizing Beleevers Infants in some animadversions on my Exercitation and examen The next moneth I received from Master Iohn Geree his vindicâ—ae paedobaptisms in a full answer as is asserted to my twelve Arguments in my exercitation and whatsoever is rationall or materiall in my Answer to Master Marshals Sermon The next moneth I received Master Stephen Marshall his defence of Infant-baptisme in answer to my two Treatises and Appendix in which also I am informed of two peices at least from New-England in which I am concerned And unto all or some of these Master Iohn Ley in his Epistle to Master Iohn Salâ—marsh addes his acclamation in these words There be diversâ— Davids who are ready for a single encounter with that braving Goliah and some have given his Cause such a wound already as though he may play the Montebanke with it and skin it over will never be cured at the bottom Thus farre they have spoken I presume they will allow me now liberty to speake for my selfe and for the truth My Cause as Master Ley cals it
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
reader and the very truth is the argument which Mr Marshall Mr Geree Doctor Homes c. bring from the Covenant to the Seale for the baptizing Infants if it be well sifted is either a Tautology or an equivocation as I may more abundantly shew if ever I have liberty to examine their intangled discourâ—es Now from hence he may know the reason why I still restâ—aine the Covenant to the spirituall part only which is because I love to speake plainly without equivocation and as the Scripture doth and why I would perswade the Reader that they who speake of the Covenant of Grace must meant it thus strictly because I would have it thought they do not equivocate but speake plainly And for bringing arguments to disprove a true visible membership upon a visible profession whether the inward grace be known or not I marvell Master Marshall should expect this of me who never denied a true visible membership upon a visible profession whether the inward Grace be known or not but in expresse termes granted it and therefore Master Marshall doth untruely charge me when he saies Pag. 112. This mistake runs through your whole booke that none are to be repuâ—â—â— to have a visible right to the Covenant of Grace but only such as partake of the saving Graces of it And yet Mr Marshall acknowledgeth Pag. 2â—3 of his Defence the contrary when he saith to all this you assent and consequently that there is nothing needfull according to the Word but a visible right But Master Marshall addes and then what will become of all your pleading That because we cannot know that all Infants of Beleevers have the inward Grace we may not therefore baptize them This Master Marshall makes all my pleading but Master Marshall neither doth nor can shew that this is all or any part of my pleading Master Marshall Pag. 222. hath these words And as for that you adde That Baptisme is to be administred not to them who may have Grace but to them who have it Then it seemes they are all wrongly baptized who have not inward grace But how doth this follow from my words with any shew of right deduction That because I say it is not enough that Baptism be administred to persons in that they may have Grace but it is to be administred to them that have it that therefore it seemes they are all wrongly baptized who have not inward Grace unlesse my speech had been that it is to be administred to none but them that have it which cannot be drawne from my words till it be proved that every affirmative proposition is exclusive which true Logick will disclaime He that saith A Coate is not a mans because he may buy it but because he hath bought it doth not affirme that he only hath a Coate by right that hath bought it for he may have right to it another way viz. by legacy My pleading is because we have no command we cannot baptize Infants without will-worship according to ordinary rule sith the command is only to baptize Disciples or such as professe faith I grant that if any be a reall actuall Beleever that cannot speake yet if he professe the Faith by other signes or God do reveale it for him he may be baptized by the force of Philips rule Acts 8 38. and Peters speech Acts 10 47. But he that saith reall actuall Beleevers may be baptized doth not thereby affirme that they only are to bee baptized A proprio primo modo ad proprium secundo modo non valet argumentum All Crowes are black therefore only Crowes are black is no good argument Master Marshall tels me Pag 95. that he is confident that I who durst baptize an Infant known to be regenerate durst not give the other Sacrament to it because more is required to make them capable of that Sacrament then is required to make them capable of Baptisme a regenerate Infant I thinâ— is capable of thus but besides regeneration he is sure I will grant that an examination of a mâ—ns selfe and an ability to discerne the Lords Body is required to 〈…〉 capable of that To put him out of doubt I say upon the same supposition that God should regenerate and make an infant an actuall believer I should as soone give the Lords supper as baptisme to it as conceiving that the same actuall faith that makes capable of the one makes capable of the other and the same supernaturall extraordinary power that begets actuall faith can beget selfe examination and discerning the Lords body And thus I have answered that accusation of spending a whole sheet of paper together in confuting what was never intended by my adversary and have retorted this point of sophistry as more justly chargeable on himselfe But Mr Marshall hath yet more of sophistry to charge me with and thus he speakes pag. 3. of his defence But first give me leave to observe your destructive artifice It is the Socinians way to clude all texts of Scripture which are urged against them if they have been differently expounded by learned and godly men ancient or moderne to question all conclusions infer'd by consequence from Scriptuâ—e to deride the testimonies of any of the Ancients by discovering the nakednesse errour and oversight of those reverend men and by making themselves merry by turning the Orations Epistles or allusions of the Fathers into syllogismes and by inserting of ergo now and then to make all their rhetoricall passages seeme ridiculous I appeal to the judicious reader whither this plot be not carried through your Examen and exercitation It is a very sad thing that brethren should thus yeeld either to their passion or zeale of God but not according to knowledge so as to paint out their opponents in as ougly a forme as they can without cause Mr Marshall appeales to the judisious reader and I am very willing to accept of the appeale provided that under the terme Judicious reader he do not meane one that is resolved to gainsay whatsoever is contrary to the streame of other reformed Churches or the present Synod or that may endanger his present station or carried away with prejudice and passion He desires leâ—ve to observe my destructive artifice If he meane my skill to overthrow his arguments I confesse it it was my businesse if he meanes something else when he names it he may have an answer He tels me what the Socinians way is and would have it thought that is my way For the Socinians way I have read Mr Cheyuels discourse but remember not that their way is described as Mr Marshall sets it downe I have read very little either in Socinus or any Socinâ—â—n In that which I have read I confesse I finde much shifting and impudence in eluding the scriptures urged against them Christâ—â—nus Bermanus Exâ—rcit Theolog 20. hath collected 38 examples hereof I finde that they make little account of the testimonies of the Ancients since the first Nicene Council in
my self you are by this time ashamed of your impertinent quotation I assure my selfe if you be not your friends are p. 157. But Sir why do you thus frequently abuse your Readers with the names of learned men inserting some one sentence of theirs into your booke and thereby insinuating to your Reader thâ— they are of your opinion in the point wherein you cite them I assure you it concernes your conscience as well as your cause to be thus often taken tardy Mr Geree vindic Poedobaptism pag. 22. which you expresse in Beza's words but against Beza's mind pag. 28. And therefore I wonder you should so of 〈◊〉 alleâ—ge an Author impertinently especially such an one as is punctually and 〈◊〉 against you To all this I answer If Mr Marshall could have shewed that I had either falsified the words or wrested their meaning he had said something but to tell me because I alleage the words of authors according to their meaning to prove the contrary to that they hoâ—d therefore I abâ—â—se them and infâ—◠〈◊〉 â—o the Reader that they art of my mind or side when they are point blanke against me or that my allegation is â—â—pertinent 〈…〉 is so frivolous a charge that it deserves no other answer then Mr. 〈◊〉 own words out of Horace pag. 294. 〈…〉 ashamed of my impertinent quotationâ— it is because Mr Marshall and Mr Geree have misrepresented them otherwise those my quotations are every one of them pertinent to the particular point I alleage them for and not yet answered by Mr Geree or Mr Marshall And I confesse I cannot but smile at Mr Marshalls conceit of me when he sayes And I am sure you must agree with me Sixthly that 〈◊〉 all these testimonies you have cited out of Chamier there is not one word against my interpretation or for the justification of yours as if I were another Claudiâ— to subscribe to my own condemnation which if I doe in this thing he may well beg me for a foole It is untruly ascribed to me that I cite Beza as if he were of my mind in the interpretation of 1 Cor. 7. 14. to construe it of matrimoniall holinesse For whereas I did distinctly explain first the term sanctified in the forepart of the verse then the terms unclean holy in the later which M. Marshall confounding in his defence to putting all my arguments together to the number of eight as he multiplies them not sorting them as I did hath made his answers colourable but indeed misleads the unwary Reader and though I knew Beza to disagree from me in expounding the term holy which I had expressely set down pag. 16. of my exercitation and therefore never intended to abuse the Reader or to insinuate that he was of my side in the expounding the latter part of the verse yet he expounds the first part with me of matrimoniall sanctification and so I said pag. 73 57 of my Examen not that Beza did construe it of matrimoniall holines but matrimoniall sanctification which I should wonder Mr Marshall did not consider being so plainly and necessarily distinguished by me but that distemper of body or mind or hast to prevent the studying of my book by crying it down the like whereto may be said of Doctor Homes and Mr Geree made him compose his answer aâ—ore hee had well studied my book As for Chamier I did pag. â—6 expressely say his opinion was for federall holinesse Do federalâ— illa sanctitate quid decomâ—verit 〈◊〉 mentem Chemiro Calvino c. and yet I need not be ashamed to bring his own words against his own tenet no more then King James to bring Bellarmines words against him or Bishop Morton to bring the Bapists words against them or Mr Marshall himselfe to bring my words against me but rather indeed it is most commendable to bring an authors words to refute his own opinion as being a most cogent and pertinent way of disputing And for Aretius pag. 92. of my Examen I used this very expression sayes rightly in this intimating that though he agree with M. Marshall in his inference from Col. 2. 11. 12. yet those words which I cited and that rightly served to overthrow Mr Marshall's reason from whence their inference is gathered And therefore it concernes Mr Marshall's conscience as well as his cause to be thus often taken tardy in false accusations insinuations against me As for that he tells me of Aretius his opinion there and elsewhere it is indeed a meer impertinency sith I never denied Aretius to be of his opinion and therefore if I may use his own phrase pag. 147. he doth but bumbast his booke to no purpose And here I cannot but take notice that whereas Master Marshall had charged in the first use of his Sermon the Anabaptists with a rash and bloudy sentence condemning all the infants of the whole Church of Christ as having nothing to doe with the Covenant of Grace or the seale of it and then aggravates it as like Hazaels act I said pag. 170. of my Examen till you produce some testimonies of those you call Anabaptists so determining I shall take it to be but a false accusation and a fruit of passion not of holy zeale Mr Marshall both pag. 5. and pag. 243. of his Defence saith thus I compared not their intentions with his but the fruits of their principles casting all beleevers children as much out of the covenant of Grace as they doe the children of Turks and Pagans and this I am sure they doe and your selfe joyne with them who acknowledge no more promise for the children of beleevers then for the childâ—en of the Turkes and leave them to have their actuall standing in the visible kingdome of the Devill In this reply Mr Marshall brings no testimony out of the Anabaptists writings to prove them guilty of that rash and bloody sentence he doth in expresse termes charge them with suppose Mr Marshall should be able which I am assured he cannot do to prove by consequence that by their principles they condemne all the infants of the whole Church of Christ as having nothing to doe with the Covenant of Grace or the Seale of it which were the words of his Sermon pag. 52. though in his defence he alter the words to mince the matter yet Davenanâ—â— exhorts to brotherly communion Ch. 12. Gataker vindication against Walker and many other cry out against it as most unreasonable to accuse men of that sentence which themselves disclaime because it followes from their principles by remote consequence much more in downright termes to say they passe a bloody sentence and condemn all the infants of beleevers If it should follow from their principles yet M. Marshall were not acquitted from rashnes false accusation and passion in those his speeches I have proved from Mr Marshall's principle pag. 35. of his Sermon that all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jewes bind us as well as they
words 〈◊〉 theâ—e For the Covenant or Promise of Grace that is righteousnesse and life as Christ though I acknowledge a peculiar promise to Abrahams naturall posterity mentioned Rom. 11. 27. yet I know not that God hath made such a Covenant to any much lesse to all the naturall beleeving seed of any beleeving Gentile and Propos 3. I say they have some promises though generall indefinite and conditionall And I mean by generall and indefinite such as determine not the kind of good promised nor the particular person and therefore are true if performed to any persons in any sort of good and conditionall upon condition of faith and obedience as when it is said the generation of the righteous shall be blessed his righteousnesse to childrens children to such as keep his Covenant Ps 103. 17. 18. Ps 112. 2. c. I tell Mr Marshall if he can shew any more promises then I doe I shall count them a treasure if not why doth he endeavour to make me and my opinion odious to the people as if I put all the children of the whole Church out of the Covenant of Grace as I doe the children of the Turkes and acknowledge no more promise for the one then for the other whereas when he hath said as much as he can for them he can bring no more promise for them then I doe nor dares reject the limitations I restraine them by But sayes Mr Marshall you leave them to have their actuall standing in the visible kingdome of the Devill I ask whither the children have actuall standing in the visible kingdome of the Devill afore they are baptized or not If he say they have not then by not baptizing I leave them not in the visible kingdome of the Devill they are out of the visible kingdome of the Devill though they be not baptized if he say they have their actuall standing in the visible kingdome of the Devill afore they are baptized then how is it true which the Protestants disputing against Bellarmin alleage against the necessity of baptizing infants to salvation that the children of beleevers are holy afore baptisme The truth is I neither leave infants in the Devills nor Gods visible kingdome for I conceive they are in neither kingdom visibly till they declare by their profession to whom they belong visibly Mr Marshall used often this expression of belonging to the visible kingdom of the Devill and I told him Examen pag. 41. I feared he did it ad faciendum populum to move the people by affrighting them by a bug-beare word if they keep their children from baptisme then they leave them to have an actuall standing in the visible kingdome of the Devill or to please them by making them beleeve that by baptisme their children are put out of the visible kingdome of the Devill This I said not judging his heart but being jealous least it was so and I confesse I am still suspicious he doth so because he still useth it after he hath been told it and it is a meer engine to stirre popular affections For how hath the unbaptized infant an actuall standing in the visible kingdome of the Devill unlesse it be true that all unbaptized persons have an actuall standing in the visible kingdome of the Devill which is false in the Catechumeni of old the converted theefe on the Crosse Constantine the Great and many others who were in the visible kingdom of the Christ afore they were baptized On the other side thousands of people in America baptized by the Spaniards had as visible standing in the Devills kingdome as before I confesse when the baptized professeth the faith of Christ then baptisme is a note of a visible member and a distinguishing badge between the people of God and the Devill and so by baptisme a person is exhibited a member of the Church but otherwise I see no reason why an infant that makes no profession of Christ should be counted after baptisme a visible member of the Church more then before Let a child of a Christian be baptized and after being an infant and taken by a Turke be circumcised wherein is that child more a visible member of the Church of Christ then a Turkes child or is hee not rather a member of the Church of Mahomet then of Christ Are the Janizaries any whit the more Christians because they were baptized infants of Christian Greekes Protestant writers are wont to define the visible Church of Christians a number of persons that professe the faith of Christ So Art 19 of the Church of England and all sorts of Protestant writers Now that which makes the visible Church makes each member a visible member and that is profession Baptisme and the Lords Supper and hearing are notes as they signify profession otherwise if a person be baptized if he should heare or receive the Lords Supper and did not professe the faith he should not be a visible member for all that I confesse I have met with some writings which put Baptisme into the definition of the Church as necessary to the being of a visible Church and the words in the Confession of Faith of the 7 Churches of Anabaptists about London being baptized into that faith Artic. 33. are somewhat doubtfull though they seem rather to import that Baptisme is necessary to the right order of a Christian Church then to the being of a Church and I confesse they that hold that members are added to the Church by Baptisme and not otherwise and hold a nullity of Paedo baptisme must needs say the Churches that have no other then Infant-Baptisme are no true Churches nor their members Church-members as Master Maâ—shall sayes pag. 84. of his Defence and so voluntary separation necessary But these points of the necessity of right Baptisme not onely to the right order but also to the being of a visible Church and Church-member and so voluntary separation barely for the defect of it I have ever disclaimed as considering the many errours and ill consequences that would follow thereupon and though provocations still increase yet I have in my practise shunned separation from my disenting brethren and I presume though Mr Marshall count right Baptisme a necessary duty yet he will be more advised then to make it essentiall either constitutivè or consecutivè to the being of a Church or Christian either visible or invisible for feare of giving too much advantage to Separatists and Seekers I suppose in reference to the present point this is the truth that however every infant is either in the invisible kingdome of God or Satan that is elect or reprobate yet no child till hee make profession doth visibly belong either to the one or to the other I acknowledge that in the visible Church of the Jewes the infants were reckoned to the Church and the reason was from the peculiar Church-state of the Jewes For then God took the whole family of Abraham together in one day and after the whole nation of the
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
acknowledged right by Mr Marshall and consequently his inference overthrowne as I said above As for that which I alleaged that Baptisme was an old rite among the Jewes in initiating Proselytes to shew that baptisme in exact speech doth not succeed circumcision but is a continuation of an old rite to anâ—ther purpose as in exact speech the Lord doth not succed the Pasâ—â—over but is an old rite used at the Paschall supper among the Jewes and continâ—ed by Christ to another purpose Mr Marshal catcheth at as a proof for Infant-baptisme because then the Proselytes children were baptized pag. 256. But the answer to it is easie For though the rite of Baptisme was an old use continued by Iohn Baptist and Christ yet I say it was to another purpose or use as I shew pag. 89. 90. of my Examen clean of another nature as Mr Lightfoot Harmony part 1. pag. 138. and was used according to another rule then among the Jewes For they did not baptize Jewes either elder or younger as the same learned men I cited confesse but onely the Gentiles because they were uncleane and they were initiated by sacrifice as well as baptisme with many other differences but Iohn the Baptist and Christs Disciples baptized Jews as well as Gentiles without sacrifice As for Mr Marshals fourth conclusion he confesseth pag. 128. that the formall reason of the Iewes being circumâ—â—sed was the command which if true it is the distinguishing and constituting reason qua posita ponitur res non posita non ponitur so that the Jewes ought to be circumcised because of the command without a command what ever were their interest in the Covenant or Church-state they were not to be circumcised Now this is as much as need be to overthrow Mr Marshals argument which is to prove that infants are to be baptized precisely by vertue of interest in the Covenant without a command because as hee supposeth the Jewes infants were circumcised meerly by vertue of the Covenant for so the analogy or proportion in his reasoning must hold The Jews infants were in the Covenant and therefore were to be circumcised Ergo it must be so with beleevers children now in Baptisme where the formall reason is supposed to be the Covenant but Mr Marshall both pag. 92. pag 182. confesseth the formall reason is the command and therefore though the Covenant be puâ— yet if the command were not put circumcision of infants â—ad been no duty but a will-worship and by parity of reason it is so in baptisme infants are not to be baptized barely by vertue of Covenant-holinesse without a command which is the main thing I contend for As for the fifth conclusion of Mr Marshall that which I answered continues still that circumcâ—sion though it were a priviledge to the Iewish Church as the Arke â—abernacle high Priest Temple were bâ—longing to that nationall Church-state to have themselves and infants circumcised yet it was a priviledge proper to that time not now to continue as the Apostle Gal. 3. 4. Heb. 9. 10. shewes it did not belong to the substance of the Covenant of grace common to Jewes and Gentiles and so neither is it or any thing in the room of it any more a priviledge to us now then some house the room of the Temple some chief Bishop in the room of the High Priest c. And therefore I say still that this argument is indeed of no weight but among vulgar and non-syllogizing capacities and that Divines that use it do but flatter the people by it and that if the reason be good it overthrowes our compleatnesse in Christ in whom we have Circumcision Arke Temple Priest all and as I said in my Exercitation it is the very egge out of which most of the Popish â—eremonies were hatched to wit because they thought wee must have priviledges as the Jewes and therefore must have something like that they had Mr Marshall pag. 195. of his Defence speaketh thus First for the point of will-worship I shall desire you to prove this conclusion That all things belonging to christian worship even in the circumstances of it even the ages and sexes of the persons to whom the ordinances are to be applyed must be expressely set downe in the new Testament if you prove not this you say nothing to the purpose for this is our very case To which I reply That I owe not M. Marshall such service as to prove what he shall like another Eurystheus injoyn me I have pag. 11â— pag. 152 of my Examen syllogistically set down my argument to prove Infant-baptisme will-worship it belongs to him to tell me what he denies in my syllogisme that I may prove it though I have already done it and shaâ—l doe more fully when he tells me what he doth deny but it is a meer shift for him to impose on me the proofe of a Proposition I owne not and not tell me what he denies in my own syllogisme This is contrary to the rules of disputation I have been acquainted with yet if Mr Marshall shall declare that he holds the subject of baptisme to be but a circumstance I shall be ready to oppose him therein further and shew that the point in difference is not the bare age or sexe but qualification of persons to be baptized yea the reason and main use of Baptisme As for Mr Marshals principle for his virtuall command I have shewed above that when he should have brought all Protestant Divines averring this maxime that all the commands and institutions of God about the Sacraments of the Jewes bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accidentall to them in stead of this he alleageth another thing that Protestant Divines make the same generall nature end and use of our Sacraments and the Iewes Sacraments and argue thereupon from one to the other which is quite beside the businesse For the maxime is of commands about the Sacraments and they are all about the rituals or administrations and concerning commands about the Sacraments binding us as the Jewes he produceth not one command binding us or one Protestant avowing it As for the command Matth. 28. 19. when I said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to make Disciples but no where are infants said to be discipled Mr Marshall tels me that some learned criticks say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers to an hebrew phrase among the Rabbins of admission of schollers that they may be taught which though I beleeve not yet if it were granted serves not Mr Marshals turn unlesse he can shew that infants were said by them to be thus admitted-schollars Then Mr Marshall referres me with a blind direction to Spanheimius whom I have consulted and I find many absurdities in that learned Authours words dub Evang. part 3. dub 27. This in effect he sayes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 containes not the act the
like doctrine with particular exception of Master Marshall and many others there named Passion I confesse was in me sometimes in writing my examen a mixt passion of griefe and indignation that Preachers of the Gospell should be so hard as then I found and saw likely would be more to their dissenting brethren upon such weake reasons But such contuâ—â—licus consurer and practises as Master Blakes sinister conceits pâ—t upon me I deny To the second section I answer that I still conceive they that deny Infant-baptisme and grant originall sinne are 〈◊〉 necessitated to say that Infants perish in their birthsâ—â— It is true as Master Blake sayes they that will hold a certainty of the salvation of such Infants they must maintain a promise or covenant to them but such a covenant I deny to be made as assures salvation to the Infants of beleevers and I have proved at large Examen part 3. § 4. there is not such a Covenant If that Gen. 17. 7. be produceed I have proved that it was particularly spoken of Abrahams feed expounded Rom. 9. 8. not to be meant of his naturall feed but spirituall and therefore till it be proved that all Infants of believers dying in Infancy are Abrahams spirituall feed that promise will not inferre the certainty of their salvation Therefore this is my judgement that God will have us to suspend our judgement of this matter to rest on the Apostles determination Rom. 9. 18. But they that hold that there is no certainty of their salvation are not necessitated to hold a certainty of their perdition for there is a medium between both a hope though not certain yet probable and comfortable that the children of believers dying in their Infancy are saved taken from some generall indefinite promises the favour of God to the parents and the experience that in all ages hath been had of his mercifull dealing with the children of his servants all which cannot be said of the Infants of Infidels though on the other side we must not so exclude the Infants of Infidels as to affirme that none of them are saved For though the Gentiles were without hope Ephes 2. 12. in respect of the body of them yet now and then God called some as Rabâ—â— out of the visible Châ—â—ch and therefore we may not determine universally that out of the visible Church there is no salâ—â—tion at all but leave this to Gods free-will It doth not 〈◊〉 follow thaâ— beathens have equall hopes of salâ—â—â—ion with Infants of 〈…〉 For though they have not hopes from their innocency in themselves or certaine interest in Christ yet they have more probable hopes of interest in Christ upon the gâ—â—â—ds 〈…〉 And thus is that section answered The fourth chapter is about my censure of his argument from Gal. 41 29. as containing very grosse passages He aceâ—seth me as one that intended not any 〈…〉 because I bring but one branch of the 〈◊〉 in his argument and yet call it his medium But â—ith I intended not a full answer to him but to Master Marshall it was enough that I onely reciâ—ed that in which was indeed the strength of his argument which was that birth after the flesh ascribed to some now Gal. 4. 29. imports a priviledge 〈…〉 Church intâ—â—st to 〈…〉 the bosâ—â— of the Church of Christians In saying this was very grosse I sayed no more then that which was right the Apostle opposing persons borne after the flesh to them that are borne after the spirit to be cast out and not to inherit But sayes Master Blâ—ke you shut out the literall sense of birth after the flesh both from the history and parallel and bring aâ— allagericall 〈◊〉 in both when the 〈◊〉 in the text is evident I answer I shut not out the literall sense from the history but from the parallel and that iâ— so farre from being contrary to the text that it is expresly said these things are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But he further objects you make birth after the flesh and birth of the spirit two contradistinct species of births that both cannot be incident 〈…〉 it is the distribution of a subject 〈…〉 I answer I make them not onely contradistinct but also contraâ—â— and I deny that it is a distribution 〈…〉 For them the same person should be both borne after the flesh and after the spirit which I would tell Master Blake to be very absurd but that I would give him no more occasion to say I do insult whoop and jeere which he unjustly chargeth on me And for that he saith that Isaack was borne after the flesh though it be true he was so in the two senses Master Blake mentions which are nothing to this place of the Apostle it is untrue in the Apostles sense for then he should be the child of the bondmayd not by promise a persecutor to be cast out not to inherit and a type of legall justiciaries belonging to the covenant in mount Sinai for all these things are true of him that is borne after the flesh Gal. 4 22 c. But the Apostle doth not say that they are cast out but mentions a command of casting them out As if Gods dictum were not factum if they were not cast out why doth the Apostle alleage that text But they are in the Church otherwise they could not be cast out I answer I deny not but legall institiaries may be in the visible Church as Ishmael in Abrahams house though the Apostle make the parallel only in the casting out that they might not inherit but if Master Blake would gather any thing hence for his purpose he must prove that the Apostle makes some to be in the visible Church by vertue of being borne after the flesh as their prerogative which is as wide from the Apostles meaning as East West But saith Master Blake where I pray you do I make suoh Abrahams seed it is no grosse errour of mine but a grosse device or calumny of yours I answer his words if there yet remaine in the bosome of the Church children borne after the flesh so that distinction of births as applied to Abrahams seed still hath place amongst beleeving Christians shew that he applied birth of the flesh to Abrahams seed else why are those words put in at applied to Abrahams seed but to shew a double seed of Abraham one borne after the flesh which is all one with the Apostle as legall institiaries another borne after the spirit which is all one as bebeleevers so that this is Master Blakes tergiversation not my calumny In The fifth chapter Mr Blake complaines that I take more paines then needs to find out Master Marshals meaning in his second conclusion and after And indeed I never saw a learned man so run himselfe into a maze needlesly as you in this discourse do being at a stand you say whether Master Marshall meanes a covenant of grace or outward ordinances as though
brought to writing the question is whether I Pet. 2. 9 prove a birth priviledge of Christians equall to the nation of the fewes I deny it and say the words there are meant of the Church as it is invisible And to prove this 1 I argue from the termes chosen generatior royall priest-hood holy nation peculiar people or a purchased people that is by Christs death Tit. 2. 14. which cannot be affirmed of any other then elect and true beleevers ergo 2 From that which is said of them that were called by God by his power or vertue into his marvailous light and v. 10. that now had obtained mercy which they had not before which cannot be affirmed of any but elect persons and true beleevers ergo 3 It is said v. 7. that these persons did beleeve contradistinguished to them that were disobedient and stumbled at the word to which they were appointed but such are onely the elect ergo 4 v. 5. They are said to be built as living stones on Christ a spirituall house a holy priesthood to offer up spirituall Sacrifice acceptable to God by Jesus Christ which can agree to none but elect persons and true beleevers ergo But the terme nation comprehends Fathers and Children Answ The word nation taken in these passages must be understood restrainedly of a spirituall people as is plaine by considering that the Apostle Gal. 3. 8 sayes this is the Gospell in thee shall all nations be blessed that is beleevers of all nations else the Apostles collection v. 9. were not right And so the word Kinred is used Acts 3. 25. compared with Ephes 3 15. the word houshold Ephes 2. 19. But they may be said to beleeve with a dogmaticall faith Answ Those that do so never come to Christ as living stones nor are built a spirituall house which is proper to them that are made an habitation of God through the spirit Ephes 2. 22. But the calling of a people is spoken of the ten tribes revolted Hos 1. 10. Hos 2. 23. Deut. 32. 21. Answ However it be in the places to which the allusion is it is certaine that here is meant such a calling as is from darkenesse to his marvailous light by his vertues or powers which therefor deserve to be shewed forth and which they do shew forth that are thus called And this is confirmed from Rom. 9. 24. 25. 26. which is manifestly said of them who were called v. 23. vessels of mercy nor is this a denomination a parte prast antigri for it is expressely said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the same whom he called vessels of mercy And I still say that I wonder Master Blake would persist in maintaining so grosse an abuse of this Scripture in which I hardly beleeve any approved writer joynes with him Master Blake had said no particular president for womens receiving the Lords Supper more then for this of Infants baptisme I alleaged 1 Cor. 11. 28. where I said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehends both sexes To this Master Blake sayes ch 9. if arguments from the Grammer use be of force then circumcision of femalâ— may be proved from John 7. 22. I reply the subject matter of the command as well as the Grammer use of the word prove femals to be included Master Coleman an Assembly man and an able linguist in his malè dicis pag. 32. hath these words But that I confesse is something harsh that he should aske me where there is the institution for women to receive the Sacrament when as 1 Cor. 11. 28. is as cleare for women as men Mr Martin Blake in his answer to Master Benjamin Coxe ch 7. sect 4. pag. 82. produceth many places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much quisque any one Matth. 16. 26. Joh. 3. 27. 7. 46. Gal. 6. 1. c. I alleaged for an expresse example of women receiving the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 10. 17. 1. Cor. 12. 13. and this I did in the Pulpit at Gabriel Fench-Church as Mr Blake tels me and I had fit occasion sith 1 Cor. 10. 17. was my text then and that text is expresse without consequence for womens receiving the Lords Supper if we comprehend women as well as men which Master Blake will not deny And yet Mr Marshals allegation to prove women virtually to be circumcised in the males serves not for his purpose I alleaged Acts 10. 7. Master Blake doubts whether it be meant of the Lords Supper and if it b meant so he knoweth not how to avoid the Pepish argument for Communion in one kinde and that this yeelds a proofe onely by conseqvence I answer if women be comprehended under the terme Disciples and breaking bread be meant of the Lords Supper as to me it seems certaine because it was the end of their custoâ—â— meeting on the first day of the weeke and therefore could not be any other breaking bread then the example is expresse without consequence for womens receiving the Lords Supper It Mr Blake know not how to answer the Papists I wish him to read Chamier panstrat Cathol tom 4. de Ench. lib. 9. c. 2. § 34. c. Master Blake would bring Acts 2. 47. for example farre more formall and expresse then mine of Infant-baptisme and he tels me of a syllogisme The Lord added to the Church dayly such as should be saved Infants are saved therefore are to he baptized A strange syllogisme where in the major permiâ—â— is not in the major proposition at all consisting of four termes and so farre as I can gather in secunda figura ex omnibus affirmantibus for the medium saved is the predicate in both premises or else the major is particular and so it consists ex meris particularibus I go on to the 10th chapter I said that it is a new Gospell to affirme that this is one of the promises of the Covenant of grace that God will be the God of beleevers and their seed To this Mr Blake saith A very high charge from that mouth which very lately preached it as a Gospell truth and now being suddenly otherwise perswaded can bring no other arguments then those that are harrowed from Antichristian â—â—â—aries who are confessed sub verters of the Gospell I answer Master Blake cannot prove that I ever preached that Doctrine I scarce thinke I did ever preach it Forasmuch as I conceived that Doctrine directly contradictory to the Apostle Rom. â— 8. ever since in Oxford I examined Arminius his Aâ—dysis of Rom. â— Suddenly I was not perswaded as I shew in my Apology before I knowe not what Antichristian sectaries he means who are confessed subverters of the Gospell from whom I borroâ—ed my arguments I neither had them from Anabaptists â—o called nor Papists Master Blake gives way to his passion in this charge My arguments I have from Scripture from the most learned Protestants as he may see part 3. 54. And though it be an old Gospell that God hath promised to
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
Of Mr Marshals untrue charge against me as if I rested on Grotius in setting down the tenent of Antiquity upon occasion of which the tenent of Antiquity is again examined my judgment of their doctrine vindicated Mr. Marshals new allâ—gations answered and my diligence to find out their tenets manifested § 17. Of my opinion about excommunication Church-government the admission unto all ordinances my former conformity alleaged to alienate mens minds from me and my writings § 18. Of the vanity of Mr Ley's vaunt concerning the deadly wound given to my cause and the contrary demonstrated by a briefe going through the principall points about this argument as they have hitherto been disputed As about Acts 2. 39. Rom. 11. 16. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Colos 2. 12. Matth. 28. 19. Acts 16 15. Matth. 19. 14. c. Baptisme and the rite of eating bread and drinking wine through old â—ites among the Iewes yet used to another end and after another rule by Christians The command confessed to be the formal reason of circumcision by Mr Marshall Circumcision a priviledge proper to the Jewish Church state No command about the Iewes Sacraments now in force Infants not Disciples as Matth. 28. 19. is meant Baptizing housholds inferres not infant-baptisme We have no evidence for judgement of charity concerning infants nor is a judgement of charity to be our rule in adminstering Baptisme § 19. Of Master Hassey his pretended satisfactory answer to my exerciâ—ation § 20. The Epilogue of this Apology concerning the reason of the enlargement of it the Authors present estate and future intentions § 1. The occasion of this postscript § 2. Of Mr. Calamys and M. Vines their wrong judgement of the dispute Mr. Blakes book and my discussing the point §. 4. They that deny Infant-baptisme need not teach that Infants perish § 5. Of my censure of Master Blakes producing Gal 4. 29 for the birth priviledge §. 6. Or the necessity of my taking paines in my Examen to find out the meaning of Mr. Marshals second conclusion by reason of the ambigâ—ity of his expressions §. 7. Of the Corinthians doubt 1 Cor. 7 12 13 14. 1 Cor 7. 14. is not meant of instrumentall sanctification and federall holinesse §. 9. Of M Blakâ—s mâ—sallegation of Gal. 2. 15. which was the text he chose for his birth-priviledge § 8. That 1 Pâ— 2. 9. is meant of the Church invisible §. 11. Of precedents for womens receiving the Lords Supper §. 12. To say that God hath promised to be the God of every believer and his uncurall seed is a new Gospell §. 13. Or Mr Ruthersurds Mr Blakes opinion about holinesse of a chosen nation mediate An cestors profession intitling to Infant-baptisine the Independents advantage in this point §. 14. Of the word nations Mat. 28. 19. how to be taken §. 15. Of M. Rutherfurds and Mr Blakes and mine opinion concerning the rule to know who are baptizable §. 16. About two suppositions ascribed by mâ— to Mr Marshal and Mr Blake in my Examen page 130. §. 17. About arguments drawn from Analogy in positive rites and their invalidity and the insufficiency of M. Blakes rules §. 16. That Mr Blake hath not proved that Infants are disciples from Mat. 18. 5. nor pertinently alleaged Isai 49 22. §. 19. of baptizing housholds my censure of Mr Blakes speech concerning it §. 20. About Mat. 19 14. that by the Kingdome of heaven is meant the Kingdome of glory §. 21. That God seales not to every person that is rightly baptized that his Covenant of grace belongs onely to the elect that his Covenant is effectuall and leaves it not to mans liberty to include or exclude himself Of Mr Blakes unjust crimmination of me as putting the children of beleevers out of the covenant of grace and the epilogue of this postscript