Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	church_n	member_n	visible_a	4,197	5	9.3868	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94733	An apology or plea for the Two treatises, and appendix to them concerning infant-baptisme; published Decemb. 15. 1645. Against the unjust charges, complaints, and censures of Doctor Nathanael Homes, Mr Iohn Geree, Mr Stephen Marshall, Mr John Ley, and Mr William Hussey; together with a postscript by way of reply to Mr Blakes answer to Mr Tombes his letter, and Mr Edmund Calamy, and Mr Richard Vines preface to it. Wherein the principall heads of the dispute concerning infant-baptism are handled, and the insufficiency of the writings opposed to the two treatises manifested. / By Iohn Tombes, B.D.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1646 (1646)	Wing T1801; Thomason E352_1; ESTC R201072	143,666	170

words 〈◊〉 the●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 Ma●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

Ames and Voetius as I have shewed in this Apology above § 5. Master Blake addes I onely say some more learned then I as learned as you have denied my words to be either absurd or heterodox Be it so yet affection may blinde their eyes But let us examine the speech I reasoned thus if the precedent to be followed be a houshold then those of the houshold are to be baptized either because of the houshold if this be said then the Infidell wife is to be baptized because of the houshold or because they professe the faith and then the precedent is not a houshold but a professor of faith To this Master Blake For full answer I say that wife and servant as wife and servant are in a capacity for baptisme if any wife and servant were in those housholds they were baptized else the Scripture would not have said the whole family was baptized It is sufficient that Scripture mentioning baptisme of whole housholds excepts none from a capacity of baptisme I reply in that which he cals a full answer there is no answer at all to my reason for he neither denyes my distinction to be sufficient nor doth he tell us which member he will choose in the Dilemma nor how he will avoid the consequent upon his choice And therefore his learned friends though they were ten times learneder then my selfe yet in this are mistaken in acquitting either the former speech of this answer from absurdity But let us consider what he sayes It is sufficient that Scripture mentioning baptisme of whole housholds excepts none from a capacity of baptisme I reply Is this sufficient to make the baptizing of housholds the precedent that is the pattern by which we may now baptize Infants because Infants are not excepted Then neither are Infidels excepted there nor naturall fooles or idiots of ripe yeares and so are to be the precedent of baptizing But wife and servant as wife and servant are in a capacity for baptisme Answer It is not true that wife and servant as wife and servant are in a capacity for baptisme if ●s betaken with reduplication and capacity of actuall right but as they are professors of faith But if it be understood that 〈◊〉 wife that is though wife and capacity in respect of future possibility then it is true of an Infidell of any man shall we therefore make an Infidell or a man simply the precedent of baptizing I said there 's no reason why it should not be laid as well that baptizing Samaria Acts 8. 12. the 3000. Acts 2. 42. all Judea Matth. 3. 5 should be the precedent as baptizing of housholds Acts 16. True saith Master Blake if Semaria be converted all Judaea is taken for some considerable numbers out of every part of Judaea So say I the terme houshold is taken Acts 16. for those of the house that being of growne yeares professed the faith And so there 's no precedent there for baptizing an Infant Chapt. 13. Mr Blake passing over all that I say to Mr Marshals second argument till pag. 145. concerning it tels me that I might have given Mr Marshal leave to explain his own argument And And I tell Mr Blake that so I did and then did my part to shew what was faulty in it so effectually that I conceive in his Defence he hath quitted it and put another in its room as weak as it as I shewed above But Mr Blake thinkes it is sufficient to make the argument good that infants of beleevers have an accesse in Gods ordinary way of dispensation whilst infants Here is a new phraseology which serves for nothing but to puzzle there is no face of an argument in it and therefore I let it passe To shew how uncertaine the argument is from from Matth. 19. 14. for infant-baptisme I produced Pis●a●ors reasons to prove that it is not cleare they were infants that were brought to Christ These reasons I did not stick to and so need not own what is contradictory to my exposition of Matth. 18. 5. before The second exception I took to the argument from Matth. 19. 14. I delivered onely doubtfully and yet I conceived Mr Marshals reason not cogent for somewhat that Christ meant to reach by that Embleme of a little child could not be well resembled by a sheep for though meeknesse might yet not d●ciblenesse I might have added that the similitude or Embleme of a sheep had not so much decorum in it But I stick not to that exposition of not including those infants as conceiving not from Mr Marshals or Mr Blakes reason but from the circumstances of the thing that Christ intended some extraordinary blessing to them and declaration concerning them As for Mr Blakes glosse he puts upon me I disclaimed it It is his owne mistake not my conceit that those infants or infants of beleevers in infancy have no interest in Christ but are without Covenant of promise without God without hope But for that I said thirdly that there is no certainty onely conjecture that they were infants of beleevers I avow it Mr Blake averres a certainty beyond conjecture because Christ was minister of the circumcision Rom. 15. 8. sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Mat. 15. 24. carried himselfe otherwise to the Canaanitish woman in behalfe of her daughter verse 22. 23. If these had had no other interest Christ would have been as facile to others as to them I reply Christ was minister of the ci●●●mcision was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel yet cured the servant of the Centurion the Samaritan leper the daughter of the Syrophenician He carried himselfe strangely at first to that woman to provoke her faith and he pleaded against her not that shee was not a beleever but that shee was a Canaanite if this reason prove any thing it is that the childrens parents were Jewes but that proves not they were beleevers few of them beleeving on Christ Iohn 1. 11. Against the fourth thing I say of those children that were brought to Christ that the speech of such is the kingdome of heaven is meant of the kingdome of glory and that this is not common to all infants of beleevers Mr Blake excepts that it is meant of the visible Church and and of all infants of beleevers as such now on this hinge turns the fifth exception also and so the answer to the whole argument I determine the Kingdome of heaven to be meant of the Kingdome of glory and I thus prove it 1 The Kingdome of God must be understood Marke 10. 14 as it is verse 15. and Lu. 18. 16. as verse 17 and Matth. 19. 14. as it is in both those this I prove because our Saviour from their estate inferres a likenesse to them in others for the same estate but Marke 10. 15 Luke 18. 17. can be understood of no other then the Kingdome of glory the proposition being false being understood of the visible

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 preced●● 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 ●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 ag●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

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 disqui●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 ● Sect. 2. Of M. Calamy and Mr. V●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 p●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 2● 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 a●criby me to master marshall and master Blake in my Examen page 130. Pag. 140. sect 17. About arguments draw●● 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 2● Pag. 147. sect 19. Of baptizing ●ous●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 15 164● 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 vindic●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 Sal●marsh addes his acclamation in these words There be divers● 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

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 ●●adge circumcision and hee erected them into one policy because he would have one fixed people among and 〈◊〉 whom the Massiah should come and therefo●● 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 ●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 D●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 tak●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

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 Prot●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. Berma●aus r. Be●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. ho●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. ● 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 contra●y to engagement with a Declaration of the Authors proceedings therein §. 5. O● 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 Col●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 t●e clearing of the Author of the two Treatises from va●nting and challenging in the composing and publishing the Treatises §. 8. Of the clearing the Author o● the two Treatises from Sophistry in them whereby occasion is taken to vindicate the Treatises in many of the chie●e things contained in them §. 9. Of the meaning of Master Marshals second conclasion the words in the D●rect●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 tr●f●ing and equivocating in his first argument and two first conclusions and of M. Marshal● mistake of my opinion 11. Of Master Marshal● 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. B●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 disq●●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 p●ove● not Intant-baptisme §. 15. of M. Marshals unjust charge against me as ●arkning his arguments and casting fi●th in the face of the Assembly § 16.