Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	church_n	invisible_a	visible_a	2,874	5	9.2871	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

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

in his vindiciae Paedo-baptismi ch 1. sect 3. goes somewhat more distinctly to work yet neither doth he frame a syllogisme from Rom. 11 11. 12. 13. 17. 18. c. nor doe I know how he would have it framed He saith the conclusion to be proved is that the ch●ldren of Christians have the same priviledge with children of Jewes as they were comprehended so under the Covenant with their parents as to be reputed members of the same visible kingdome and to be sealed with them This conclusion I deny if it be understood of the outward priviledge belonging to the Jewish Church in that state it was afore Christs comming To prove it he layes down four Proprositions and deduceth four con●ectaries but how he shews not The third is ambiguous and if he mean by into the place of the Iewes cut off the same Church-state and by partaking of their priviledge● the priviledges belonging to their Church 〈◊〉 as I think he doth it is to denied and so likewise his second and third consectary in that sense Nor doth either Rom. 11. 17. prove it as shall be presently shewed nor is a beleeving Jew a looser by the coming of Christ in regard of his seed sith this was a peculiar priviledge in the time of that Church state which now ceaseth to be a priviledge Christ being come as in like manner the Temple High Priest c. doe which I have more largely discussed Examen part 3. § 11. And for the fourth consectary if it be understood of pristine Church-state I likewise deny it I grant the promise will bee extended to them and their seed but how Not by an outward ordinance or initiall scale as it is called applyed to infants but by the communicating the spirit and word of God to them and their seed as the text he alleageth imports Isai 59. 20. Nor by holding that neither Jewes nor Gentiles now are to have their infants sealed wil follow that there will be two distinctestates in the Christian Churches one of the Jews holy Fathers and children another of the Gentiles who have only personall priviledges none for their seed for neither doth Baptisme belong to the one or the other because they the are seed of beleevers and for regeneration and saving benefits the Lord bestowes to the seed of either as pleaseth him Nor would this conceit of mine set up or keep up a partition wall still contrary to the Apostle Ephes 2. 14. For then a partition wall is kept up when the Gentiles as Gentiles are excluded from accesse to God which is not done by my doctrine they that hold that the command about Circumcision still binds virtually come nearer to the setting up a partition wall in the Apostles ser se I return to Mr Marshall Mr Marshall in his Sermon as I conceived made this the thing he would prove that we and our children are graffed in together this I granted in some sense to be true that God doth usually call and adopt the children with the Fathers but I denyed it to be so perpetually so as that a rule for an outward ordinance may be flamed thence And so farre as I can collect the chiefe medium Master Marshall and Master Geree take hence to prove it is that we Gentiles have the same ingrassing into the true olive which the Jewes formerly had This Master Marshall made the Apostles scope though the truth is it is so farre from being the Apostles scope that it agrees not with his words who makes the ancient Jewes naturall branches not ingraffed and the scope of the Apostle is otherwise as hath been shewed Examen pag. 65. But the thie●e difference is about the ingraffing what that is as I had said The ingraffing to me is meant of the invisible Church by election and faith To this Master Marshall pag. 136. sayes I reply if it be meant of the invisible Church onely and that all who are ingraffed in the Apostles sense whether Jews or Gentiles are only elect ones I will promise you never to plead this Scripture more for any inf●nts and after if you please let us try it out I agree to this motion and determine that the graffing in Rom. 11. 17. c. is meant of the ingraffing into the invisible Church by election and giving faith with this caution that I doe not deny that the same people might or were ingraffed into the visible Church by profession of faith and baptisme but hold that this ingraffing is more then that which is into the visible Church by outward profession and ordinances To prove my determination I thus argue 1. That ingraffing which is Gods act by his sole power is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith For graffing into the invisible Church is as Mr Marshall saith pag. 135. admission into visible membership which if it be by an outward ordinance is the easie act of the administratour if by profession of faith the easie act of the professour But the ingraffing meant Rom. 11. is Gods act from his sole power as is proved from verse 23. where the reason is rendred why the Jewes should be again grassed in is because God is able to graffe them in again Ergo the graffing here is into the invisible Church 2. That ingraffing which is called reconciliation opposite to casting away that is by election and giving faith for no other acts can reconcile but the ingraffing here is called reconciliation opposite to casting away v. 13. as may appeare in that v. 16. is a reason of the clause about the reception of the Jewes v. 15. and the 17 verse is an admonition from the supposition v. 15. that the Jewes were cast away which is called breaking off v. 17. now if breaking off v. 17. be the same with casting away v. 15. then ingraffing is the same with reconciliation Erg● ingraffing is by election and giving of faith 3. The ingraffing must bee meant of that act whereby the branch stand in the tree as a branch this will none deny it being the very terminus of ingraffing as hea● the terminus of Calefaction But that is by giving faith Ergo The minor is proved from v. 20. where it is said by ●mbeleefe they were broken off but thou standest by faith whence I argue That act whereby the branch stands in the tree as a branch must be the giving that meanes whereby the branch thus stands but that is faith v. 20. Erg● the act of ingraffing is by giving of faith 4. That ingraffing is meant v. 17. whereby the wild olive is Copartaker of the root and fatnesse of the olive tree as is asserted there But such is only election and giving of faith Ergo The minor I prove by considering who the root is and what the fatnesse of the olive tree is 1. Negatively the root is not as Master Marshall and Master Blake every beleeving pa●ent For then all the branches should be naturall the child of every beleeving parent is a naturall

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 Defenc● 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 forni●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 wo●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 ●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 infer●●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 r●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

to have been 〈◊〉 ipsis Apostorum temporib●● meeting since the printing of that passage with the booke I find that in that Epistle he only confessed it to have been a secule Apostolis proximo but Bishop Andrewes saith he had put out that which elswhere he said ab Apostolorum sicul● Whence my mistake of memory conceiving he had said it there which he said elswhere but altered it in that Epistle 2. That though I had seen most of the latter part of Mr. Blakes answer to my letter have dayes before yet I had not the whole booke till Aug. 3. 1646 at which time the tenth s●eet of this Apology was printing off and therefore I cannot give thee so large 〈◊〉 on it as I desired to doe yet I have thought it 〈◊〉 say thus much in this streight of time as not knowing how I may be here●● fitted to write any more The Book is ●hered with a preface of Mr. Calmys and Mr. 〈◊〉 in which they say The right of Infants to baptisme is ear●● strongly by 〈◊〉 arguments if leg it 〈◊〉 couse quener can make a 〈◊〉 evidence To which I say that Master Marshals first argument is accounted the strongest and that is far from being 〈◊〉 as hath been shewed above They say The 〈◊〉 of the Church in all ages in baptizing them is 〈◊〉 by such unde●● testimonies of credible witnesses that he that doth not see it may well be called Strabo that is goggle eyed How true this is the Reader may perceive by the Examen of Master Marshals Sermon and this Apology The best or rather only witnesse of ancients for such a practise is August●n concerning whom how litle reason there is to count his speech and undiable hath been before declared here and in the Examen They say of the Birth-priviledge of Master Blake where thou shalt find the question so truely stated and set upon the right Basis and so well fortified that though there hath been a dust raised by some who have a better faculty to raffle and intricate an argument than to wind it off yet there is not the least wing of it routed To this I say the state of the question hath small difficulty litle or no disagreement between me and Master Marshall and Master Geree and I thinke the like of others If by the Basi● is meant Master Blakes observation pag. 3. of the Birth-priviledge A people that enjoy Gods ordinances convey to their issue a 〈◊〉 to be reputed of a society that is holy to be numbred amongst not ●ncleane but holy This observation is ambiguous it may be true in a sense that it so happens frequently but if it be meant in this sense that they convey by their generation of them a right of visible Church-membership and title to the initiall seale as it is usually called it is not true which onely serves for the purpose Now the wings by which that observation is fortifyed out of the new Testament wherein the strength lyes are Acts 2. 38. 39. Rom. 11. 16 17. 1 Pet. 2. 9. Gal. 4. 29. Gal. 2. 15. 1 Cor. 7. 14. now for three of these to wit 1 Pet. 2. 9. Gal. 4. 29. Gal. 2. 15. they flye of themselves the first expressely being spoken of them onely that beleeve v. 7. the second to wit being born after the flesh cannot be understood as importing a priviledge or benefit it being spoken of persons to the worser sense and causing a casting out of the inheritance the third is meant not of a Jew allusively so called but of a Jew by naturall generation opposed to a Gentile and so cannot be said of the children of believing Gentiles nor can all Master Blakes words keep them from running out of the field The text Acts 2. 39. if it be understood as it must of the promise of saving graces by Christ cannot be verified of any but those that are called which it being confessed to limit the first branch of the Propposition and the last you and as many as are afarre off it is to mee against reason and truth that it should be left out in the middle that is that when it is said the promise is to you and to all that are afarre off being called it should be asserted in that branch that is between the promise is to your children whether called or not Of Rom. 11. 16 17. I have said sufficiently before Of 1 Cor. 7. 14. somewhat also before and intend more in this postscript If Mr Calamy and Mr. Vines accuse me of raising a dust and raffling and intricating an argument which I imagine they doe because the raising of a dust is Master Marshals phrase they are answered in this Apology My entring into the lists with Mr Marshall was not out of choice as valuing my self as they mistake but out of necessity lead thereto by providence of God How well I have acquitted my selfe may appeare by the bringing of Master Marshall to many concessions which overthrow his first argument Whether this answer of Master Blake be sinewy for argument I hope in time to examine I conceive that to put the question upon the right Basis is to examine whether the formall reason why the Jewes were circumcised were their interest in the Covenant whether there be the same Church-state now that was then whether any command about the Jewes Sacraments now bind us But I passe to Mr Blakes answer Mr Blake chargeth me with defect and neglect of charity For the former I doe not take my writing to discover it what I shall deprehend I have failed in I shall I hope confesse to God and to Master Blake when we meet My not speaking to Master Blake was because I presumed Master Marshall had acquainted him with the thing and the reason of printing my Treatises as they were is declared above Why I would not take upon me the place of opponent in the dispute with my brethren I gave the reason because the argument would presently lead them to oppose this being al my argument against Infant-baptism that I could wel urge in dispute that it is not appointed by God and so presently upon one or two syllogismes they must become opponents again sith affirmanti incumbit probatio I sent not my Exercitation to my opponents because I was advised to send to the Committee named in the Prologue of my Examen the rest is answered in the Apology To the point of antiquity in Ch. 2. I thinke not needfull to adde any more here To the third chapter sect c. Master Blake because I said Examen pag. 144. these I mention that you may see what stuffe Paedobaptists do feed the people with doth the●● against reason and charity inferre that I branded therein all the Ministers of Christ that ever held Infant-baptisme whereas my speech being indefinite should in such a contingent matter have been interpreted only as equipollent to a particular proposition 〈◊〉 the words were used onely of that Author and such as delivered

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 contu●●licus consurer and practises as Master Blakes sinister conceits p●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 births●● 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 Rab●● out of the visible Ch●●ch and therefore we may not determine universally that out of the visible Church there is no sal●●tion at all but leave this to Gods free-will It doth not 〈◊〉 follow tha● beathens have equall hopes of sal●●●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 g●●●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 ace●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 ●ith I intended not a full answer to him but to Master Marshall it was enough that I onely reci●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 int●●st to 〈…〉 the bos●● 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 Bl●ke you shut out the literall sense of birth after the flesh both from the history and parallel and bring a● 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 i● 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 contra●● 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

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 sub●●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 poser●● 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 pl●●●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 s●ts down his own answer out of Amesius besides the b●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 ●●d Arl● 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 ●●●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