Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	line_n	page_n	read_v	2,889	5	9.7617	5	false

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

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.

thought it best to answer 1. By granting much of the relation to be true though perhaps vehemency of opposition ●ath made matters more or worse then they were as it is wont to be in such cases To this Master Marshall saies that he is confident I shew more good will to the Anabaptists then intend ill will against those worthy men who have written those stories I do take with the right hand this charitable opinion in Master Marshall of my intentions and I plainly reply that the truth is that I did use those words neither out of partiall good will to the one nor partiall ill will to the other but out of a desire to remove that prejudice which hindered men from examining the Truth As for the men I abhorre the wicked practises of the one yea so much the more I abhorre he practises of them that would so solemnly by baptisme engage themselves to be Christ Disciples and yet act such monstrous villanies as having learned that the more profession a man makes of holinesse the more accursed is his wickednesse and for the other I beare as much good will to the memory of them as if they had agreed with me in opinion I hope I shall never make agreement with me in opinion the reason or rule of my love but relation to Jesus Christ appearing in holinesse of life Master Marshall saies that the things are not to be questioned and that he thinks that I am the first of our Divines who have suspected them to overlash in their relations To this I say my words are plaine that much of this is true I make no question meaning the maine of the relations that the men denied baptizing of Infants and that they brake out into such turbulent practises as are related of them That which I added though perhaps vehemency of opposition hath made matters more or worse then they were as it is wont to be i● such cases meaning this of some particular circumstances in some persons was not because I suspected the overlashing of the Historians as if they wanted fidelity but because many things were brought to the publike knowledge by the Bishop and Canons of Munster their partisans who were Papists and would aggravate all things to the most to make the Lutheran Reformation become odious as Studley did in the accident of Euoch ap Evan killing his mother and brother or else by captives or desertors who for favour or mercy would frame their tales as they conceived might further their ends and because experience of the uncertainty of the manner of carrying things in our times hath made me speake warily concerning things past And to speake plainly when I consider what Hooker relates out of Guy de Bres of the seeming holinesse of the generality of them their Orthodox confession at first mentioned by Master Marshall from Master Dury his knowledge the proceedings and parts of Bernardus Rotmannus and some others the things mentioned by my Examen Part 2. Sect. 3. the testimonies of Gualter and Cassander that the commotions in Germany began from oppression in the State that Luther wrot to the Germane Princes against their opressions the strange spirit of Lutherans ever since and the wofull tragedies of Germany in this last age I do count the story of the Anabaptists to containe in it many things the true reasons of which and the true knowledge of the circumstances concerning them will not appeare till the day of the revelation of the righteous judgement of God 2. I assigned some possible meanes of the turbulent carriages and errours of the Anabaptists beside their opinion of Antipaedobaptisme To which Master Marshall saies he can hardly guesse whether I int●●ded to excuse the Anabaptists in part or to blame the Reformed Churches for not hearing them or to hint it as a warning to our selves I answer I did it to shew there might be other reasons of those tumults and divisions that the Anabaptists fell into then the opinion of Antipaedobaptisme sundry of which if not all I think happened in their case Master Marshall saies he never read that they sought Reformation in a regular way or were denied it before they fell into those furies How farre they sought it I cannot tell it is plaine that Carolostadius and Pelargus and some say Melancthon would have reformed it in Saxony had not Luthers pertinacy in that as well as Consubstantiation and Images withstood it and how Baltazar Huebmer sought it at Zurich and was denied it is known I thinke the Reformed Churches have been to blame and so may be our present Reformers that they have never yeelded to reforme it in a regular way and if Anabaptists have never sought it afore me it hath been it's likely because they saw mens spirits so bent against them that they thought it in vaine yea they have beene rather forced to conceale themselves it having beene accounted criminall justly deserving excomunication deprivation and sometimes death so much as to question it And that the Anabaptists have been so cast out and rendered odious as they have been hath been the reason why they have been forced to become a Sect which I do not justifie and by reason thereof factious spirits have joyned with them and perverted them with other errours which perhaps had not happened had th●y been more tenderly and considerately handled at first 3. I said but have not the like of not the same things happened in other matters Did not the like troubles happen in Queen Elizabeths daies in seeking to remove Episcopacy and ●eremoni●s To this Master Marshall saith The rest of that Section is to me extreamely scandalous when I read your odious compar●●●●s between the Non-conformists in Queene Elizabeths daies and the Anabaptists in Germany it even grieves me to consider whether affection to your cause doth carry you And Master Geree not only Pag. 70. of his Vina●●c●● paedobapt●smi wonders at me that I should compare the troubles of the Non-conformists and the Anabaptists and marva●les such an uncharitable and unjust thought should arise in me that divisions or other miscarriages of the Non-conformists should bring them low in England And beside all this Master Geree publisheth a single sheet in print and it came to my knowledge first by one that carried it about with other news Books and this Paper he styles the Character of an old Pur●tan 〈◊〉 Non-conformist and in the end saith thus R●ader s●ing a passage 〈◊〉 Master Tombes his book against P●dob ●pt●sme where in he compares the Non-conformists in England to the Anabaptists in Germany in regard of their miscarr●ages and ill successe in them endeavours till of late yeares I was moved for the vind●cation of those faithfull and reverend witnesses of Christ to publish this character In which Mr Geree plainly insinuates that I acculed those faithfull witnesses of Christ whom he cals elsewhere the grave godly learned and unblameable Non-conformists in England I o answer this objection I say that I never

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 Coun●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 d●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 medi●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. G●ree Pag. 13. if I understand him aright makes this the sense of the Director● 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 ●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 v●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 caus● 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 v●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 enunciativ● 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 bloud● sentence with his act As for ●●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 def●●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 beleeve●s into the selfe-same condition with the infants of Turkes and indians which were Mr Marshal●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 Ad●m 〈◊〉 Noa● 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-p●dobaptists opinion all the children of beleevers should be put into the some condition with the children of Tarkes sith the same followes on the 〈…〉 doctrine also I had also Examen part 2. § 10. set down my opinion freely in 4 Propositions about the parity of condition of the Turks and our infants and told Mr Marshall thus possibly if you open your selfe plainly there will be no difference between us Mr Marshal in his Defence neither plainly opens himselfe wherein he puts the difference nor sets down my answer justly but leaves out wholly the the fourth Proposition or confounds it with the third and other wise mangles and alters my words in his abridgement that they are much unlike what I delivered For instance pag. 85 he sets down this for my second proposition That I know no more promise for beleevers children then for the children of 〈…〉 whereas my

branch from his father but here the Apostle makes the Gentiles branches and a wild olive graffed in besides nature and the Jewes only naturall branches growing from the root v. 21. 24. Nor is it of any moment which is objected that other parents are called roots as Jesse Isai 11. 1. For here only the root notes such a Father as is holy and from whom the branches are holy which agrees not to every beleeving Father 2. Positively The root is no other then Abraham I said twice in my Examen pag. 68. 129. Abraham only is a holy root or at most Abraham Isaac and Iacob which I said only by concession that if it were so yet every godly parent was not a holy root and therefore it served my turn there if it were so This Mr Marshall pag. 134. calls saying and unsaying But Mr Marshall might have considered that I did in that addition only mention the judgement of others and not contradicted it there where it was not against my purpose if it were granted but otherwise where I expresse my owne judgement I mention only Abraham as the root Exercit. pag. 10. Examen pag. 64 65. And soe doe Deodate annot on v. 16 17. The new Annot. on v. 16. Beza on v. 17. Neque dubium est quin radicis nomine intelligatur Abraham credentium pater Which contains the reason of this opinion For he must be the root who is a Father both to Jewes and Gentiles who are also branches in this root the root is said to beare them v. 18. But we read not this of any other then of Abraham called the Father of the faithfull Rom. 4. 11. and the Gentile beleevers his seed Rom. 4. 13. 16. Gal. 3. 29. no where are these things said of Isaac and Iacob It is said indeed that the Jewes are beloved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Fathers either because of the Covenant made with them or because of the favour God bare them as often he is said to reserve a lamp in Judah for Davids sake but this speech hath speciall respect to the Jewes whereas the benefit of the root v. 17. 18. is common to Gentiles and Jews As for the fatnes of the olive tree Deodate saith truly it is the blessing and promise made to Abraham his seed so the Apostle expres●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 ●●jecting foreknowing election grace hardning giving a spirit of slumber d●●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 conseq●uturi Gentes verò iterum possent si Deo ita visum foret reprobari Bucer Insitus fuisti illis Hoc beneficium est quod Gen●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 Iud●orum si ob incredulitatem facta est Gentium insitio per fidem quid restat nisi ut Dei gratiam recognoscendo inde ad modestiam ac submissi●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 inc●●on as it is printed in Mr Marshalls Defence may be either into the visible or invisible Church

which reason if good it would follow they might have the Lords Supper be ordained Ministers for these are lesse then Chris●s blessing Afore the printing of this Apology I met with and read a book of one Mr William Hussey a man unknown to me saving by a former treatise of his which I have seen and he intitles it satisfaction to Master Tombes his scepticall exercitation and in his Epistle to the Reader he saith and here I will turn sceptique with Master Tombes If I should give him the title of fantasticke in requitall of the title of scepticke he pins upon me I could give better reason for it then he brings for his imposition of that new title on me but it is enough for me to clear my self Gel. l. 11. c. 5. noct Attic. sayes the ●y●honian Philosophers were called Sceptickes that is seekers and considerers because they determined nothing but were alwayes in considering and seeking but Master Marshall thinks me guilty rather of too much selfe-confidence Yea in this point though I did as I conceived befitting me then propound my thoughts in the disputation with my brethren in the ministery and in my Exercitation to the Committee of the Assembly under the term of doubts yet in my Examen I assert them as positions and therefore that authour doth unworthily intitle my Exercitation scepticall or me a scepticke which is in effect if he understood what he sayes to accuse me as adhering to nothing as certain in matters of sense reason or faith But concerning the book though he intitle it satisf●action and the licenser sayes finding it to be in his judgement solid and judicious and I am pretty well acquainted with the humour of men who are ready to cry up any thing as satisfactory which they affect yet I beleive the Assembly will not conceive his book satisfactory nor these passages following to be solid and judicious As that in his Epistle to the Reader he calls Baptisme the seale of the proffer of Grace pag. 3. I answer that was an especiall priviledge of the Iewes that they had their civill lawes from God but what lieth upon a nation as a duty that it may require of all and cuts off them that refuse and this is implyed in the Commission when Nations shall covenant to be Discip●●s which may be done by a part for the whole then are such ● are in commission from Christ commanded to baptize and teach the whole nation such as are in authority may covenant in a nationall 〈◊〉 for the inferiour sort and justly require all externall performances from them such as baptisme and submission to b●e taught 〈◊〉 pag. 4. And what a parent can doe over his child in matter of 〈◊〉 duty ● that may the parents of the country the Magistrates require of the nations God requireth it of them they may put all nations to schoole to Christ Now what if some of them be too young to learne yet if they be under the discipline of the Master they are Schollers as may appeare in many litle children that are set to schoole to keepe them safe and from wantonesse before they be of capacity to learne many have a Hornbooke given more for a play-game then a booke yet are they Schollers because under the discipline and correction of the Master is it not therefore great reason that a Christian should dedicate his child●● to Christ to be partaker of the blessing and discipline of Christ pag. 5. And certainly words could not have been invented that could have required the Ministers to baptize all the World Infants and all willing or unwilling so that any would see they might be taught and submit to the precepts and discipline of Christ then to expresse it by the word nation and d●sciple pag. 12. Abrahams seed must be divided into equivocall and univocall equivocall seed Christ for that he was not like Abraham he was of Abraham but ex parte according to the flesh Rom. 1. 3. He was the promised seed not the seed unto whom the promise did belong as the seed of Abraham pag. 43. That which we argue from receiving of families and from the Apostles commission to baptize nations is that nations may make Lawes for their whole nations to be baptized and if the major part of a nation do according to their duty receive baptisme and undertake for the whole nation to submit themselves to become Schollers of Christ they may justly compell by any penalty to joyne with them in the externall worship of God This therefore is it which is drawn from the commission directed to the Disciples for the baptizing of nations that nations may act as nations and families as families that is that the more organ●all parts must act for the residue the magistrates for the nation the master of the family for the residue the magistrates for the nation the master of the family for the family otherwise it cannot be said to be the act of the nation or of the family though a post factum may be historically related to overspread a nation that is done without a nationall consent to shew the universality of a spreading evill yet where a duty is charged upon a nation it cannot be orderly received without a nation ●ll consent pag. 44. He that keepeth any servant that will not be baptized is not a good Christian it is true all men of discretion ought to consent sent to every duty baptisme 〈…〉 precepts 〈◊〉 it is pactum impositum pag. 40. The parties to be baptized are all nations withoutany restriction 〈…〉 If they that claime their interest in baptisme can undertake for whole nations the commissioner must not refuse them the nation bel●eveth by the magistrate by whose authority the whole nation is put to schoole to Christ pag. 54. Men may require of him that is of years to consent to his baptisme 〈…〉 a sinne and punishing him for it as for adult●ry formation or any other publique offence pag. 59. If any will bring Turkes children and Infidels to baptisme and 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of them in the doctrine of the Gospel I know not but they may and if 〈◊〉 would 〈◊〉 with their children to Christians I thinke it were a very charitable thing so to do For the promise was ●ever so tyed to Abrahams loyns neither for ought I know to any beleevers but to education in the family of Abraham or any other beleeving family pag. 61. They that beleeve and they that beleeve not heare the word and 〈◊〉 is no 〈◊〉 of the work●● Preach it to 〈◊〉 Infidel neither 〈◊〉 it any 〈◊〉 of baptisme to baptize an Infidel pag. 64. And indeed 〈◊〉 were a very strange thing for the Sacrament of baptisme to be tendered to 〈…〉 and approved declared and 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉 it is true it may be tendered to men this professe them faith because man cannot judge them faithfull notwithstanding any profession and therefore baptize them but if they could know and judge them faithfull