Selected quad for the lemma: state_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
state_n	church_n	member_n	visible_a	2,963	5	9.4470	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

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

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

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-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

acknowledged right by Mr Marshall and consequently his inference overthrowne as I said above As for that which I alleaged that Baptisme was an old rite among the Jewes in initiating Proselytes to shew that baptisme in exact speech doth not succeed circumcision but is a continuation of an old rite to an●ther purpose as in exact speech the Lord doth not succed the Pas●●over but is an old rite used at the Paschall supper among the Jewes and contin●ed by Christ to another purpose Mr Marshal catcheth at as a proof for Infant-baptisme because then the Proselytes children were baptized pag. 256. But the answer to it is easie For though the rite of Baptisme was an old use continued by Iohn Baptist and Christ yet I say it was to another purpose or use as I shew pag. 89. 90. of my Examen clean of another nature as Mr Lightfoot Harmony part 1. pag. 138. and was used according to another rule then among the Jewes For they did not baptize Jewes either elder or younger as the same learned men I cited confesse but onely the Gentiles because they were uncleane and they were initiated by sacrifice as well as baptisme with many other differences but Iohn the Baptist and Christs Disciples baptized Jews as well as Gentiles without sacrifice As for Mr Marshals fourth conclusion he confesseth pag. 128. that the formall reason of the Iewes being circum●●sed was the command which if true it is the distinguishing and constituting reason qua posita ponitur res non posita non ponitur so that the Jewes ought to be circumcised because of the command without a command what ever were their interest in the Covenant or Church-state they were not to be circumcised Now this is as much as need be to overthrow Mr Marshals argument which is to prove that infants are to be baptized precisely by vertue of interest in the Covenant without a command because as hee supposeth the Jewes infants were circumcised meerly by vertue of the Covenant for so the analogy or proportion in his reasoning must hold The Jews infants were in the Covenant and therefore were to be circumcised Ergo it must be so with beleevers children now in Baptisme where the formall reason is supposed to be the Covenant but Mr Marshall both pag. 92. pag 182. confesseth the formall reason is the command and therefore though the Covenant be pu● yet if the command were not put circumcision of infants ●ad been no duty but a will-worship and by parity of reason it is so in baptisme infants are not to be baptized barely by vertue of Covenant-holinesse without a command which is the main thing I contend for As for the fifth conclusion of Mr Marshall that which I answered continues still that circumc●sion though it were a priviledge to the Iewish Church as the Arke ●abernacle high Priest Temple were b●longing to that nationall church-Church-state to have themselves and infants circumcised yet it was a priviledge proper to that time not now to continue as the Apostle Gal. 3. 4. Heb. 9. 10. shewes it did not belong to the substance of the Covenant of grace common to Jewes and Gentiles and so neither is it or any thing in the room of it any more a priviledge to us now then some house the room of the Temple some chief Bishop in the room of the High Priest c. And therefore I say still that this argument is indeed of no weight but among vulgar and non-syllogizing capacities and that Divines that use it do but flatter the people by it and that if the reason be good it overthrowes our compleatnesse in Christ in whom we have Circumcision Arke Temple Priest all and as I said in my Exercitation it is the very egge out of which most of the Popish ●eremonies were hatched to wit because they thought wee must have priviledges as the Jewes and therefore must have something like that they had Mr Marshall pag. 195. of his Defence speaketh thus First for the point of will-worship I shall desire you to prove this conclusion That all things belonging to christian worship even in the circumstances of it even the ages and sexes of the persons to whom the ordinances are to be applyed must be expressely set downe in the new Testament if you prove not this you say nothing to the purpose for this is our very case To which I reply That I owe not M. Marshall such service as to prove what he shall like another Eurystheus injoyn me I have pag. 11● pag. 152 of my Examen syllogistically set down my argument to prove Infant-baptisme will-worship it belongs to him to tell me what he denies in my syllogisme that I may prove it though I have already done it and sha●l doe more fully when he tells me what he doth deny but it is a meer shift for him to impose on me the proofe of a Proposition I owne not and not tell me what he denies in my own syllogisme This is contrary to the rules of disputation I have been acquainted with yet if Mr Marshall shall declare that he holds the subject of baptisme to be but a circumstance I shall be ready to oppose him therein further and shew that the point in difference is not the bare age or sexe but qualification of persons to be baptized yea the reason and main use of Baptisme As for Mr Marshals principle for his virtuall command I have shewed above that when he should have brought all Protestant Divines averring this maxime that all the commands and institutions of God about the Sacraments of the Jewes bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accidentall to them in stead of this he alleageth another thing that Protestant Divines make the same generall nature end and use of our Sacraments and the Iewes Sacraments and argue thereupon from one to the other which is quite beside the businesse For the maxime is of commands about the Sacraments and they are all about the rituals or administrations and concerning commands about the Sacraments binding us as the Jewes he produceth not one command binding us or one Protestant avowing it As for the command Matth. 28. 19. when I said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to make Disciples but no where are infants said to be discipled Mr Marshall tels me that some learned criticks say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers to an hebrew phrase among the Rabbins of admission of schollers that they may be taught which though I beleeve not yet if it were granted serves not Mr Marshals turn unlesse he can shew that infants were said by them to be thus admitted-schollars Then Mr Marshall referres me with a blind direction to Spanheimius whom I have consulted and I find many absurdities in that learned Authours words dub Evang. part 3. dub 27. This in effect he sayes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 containes not the act the

contend Yet in that sense I yeeld it to be a seale actually I yeeld it to be a seale onely to beleevers but I deny that because the Sacrament is in its nature a seale of grace God doth seale alwayes when it is rightly administred The nature of it is to be a seale aptitudinall not actuall and so it is easie to answer Bellarmines argument without crossing my speeches But be the Sacraments s●ales conditionall or absolute actuall or aptitudinall what is this to prove that God seales conditionally in this sense as if God left it to mans liberty to whom he had sealed to agnize or recognize that sealing or to free themselves if they please and so nullify all yet so as to afford them a while the favour and priviledge of being in Covenant with him which Master Marshall I conceived meant by his conditionall sealing and I find not in his answer a deniall of it to be his meaning Master Blake excepts against a speech of mine in which I say That all the Sacraments of the Jewes are abrogated circumstance and substance in whole and in part and askes me Is circumcision of heart abrogated Is all spirituall meat and drinke in Sacraments abrogated Is Christ himselfe abrogated I answer no but withall say these are idle questions as not crossing my speech unlesse he can prove circumcision of the heart spirituall meat and drinke and Christ himselfe to be Sacraments Sect. 2. Master Blake would acquit this speech Gods Covenant of grace is common to elect and reprobates from symbolizing with Arminians by producing the speeches of Pareus and Mr Ball who onely say reprobates are in Covenant with God externally or God externally contracts with them which is another thing Gods Covenant of grace is his promise of grace and of this truly Master Marshall in his defence page 117. multitudes were baptized to whom God yet never gave saving graces and therefore never promised them for had he made a promise he would have performed it Master Blake makes the nature of a Covenant an agreement betweene two parties and sayes a promise or tender without consent is no Covenant How then do children Covenant at baptisme or enter into Covenant who yeeld no consent He saith Gods tender of himselfe to his people is called his Covenant Gen. 17. 7. 9. But he doth not rightly call that a tender which was more then a tender to wit a promise Then he objects against himselfe that if Gods Covenant be such as he will not breake Jerem. 31. 32. and he hath promised to put his lawes in their inward parts then they all to whom he makes Covenant must be elect I answer saith he if we take the words exactly as in the letter of the prophecy they run then all ministery is beaten downe and all edification ceases But this is litem lite resolvere The Contraremon strantes when they urge this place for effectuall grace understand the words exactly But how will Master Blake understand them I have looked over almost two leaves in answer to this in Master Blake and cannot tell how he will understand them nor finde I that he gives any direct answer to the objection but wanders in impertinences Nor knowe I how he can answer the objection without evervating the argument for effectuall grace and perseverance in it And the not teaching one another there spoken of is meant of that obscure teaching which was under the Law Sect. 3. He intimates that I have misreported Master Marshall but Master Marshall hath not himselfe denyed the sense I conceived of his conditionall sealing by God to Infants the words are plaine enough in his Sermon pag. 49. where he talkes of Gods Covenant and sealing and Christs suretiship more like Corvinus or the Arminans then the Scripture or Contraremonstrants Master Blake accuseth me of joyning with Independents and that they will have none Church members but elect and I no Church but that which is invisible But I beleeve he wrongs both me and them me I am sure for I alwayes teach a visible profession sufficient for Chuch-membership though I deny that every visible professour is in the Covenant of grace and when they will have reall saints Church members they meane not onely such as are so before God but such as are so in the judgement of the Church Though I thinke they are more rigid then they should be in their tenet yet I thinke Master Blake wrongs them in this imputation Ch. 16. I told Mr Marshall that his speech of Anabaptists as condemning infants as out of the state of grace condemning all the infants of the whole Church of Christ as having nothing to doe with the Covenant of Grace till proved by some of their testimonies I should take to be but a false accusation Mr Blake tel●me Master Marshall for a testimony needs look no further then th●●op of your leafe where you say infant-baptisme is a corruption of the ordinance of baptisme If infants be not only held from baptisme but their baptisme is also a corruption of that ordinance and there is no such thing as Covenant-holinesse to give them any ti●le or interest then they are out of covenant strangers to the promises of God and so the doom Eph. 2. 12. lyes heavy upon them How frivolous a justification is this of an expresse and deep accusation of men of a rash and bloody sentence as condemning all the infants of the whole Church of Christ as having nothing to do with the covenant of grace me thinks a man that would accuse so expressely so many persons and those christian brethren not to be contemned of so deep so passion-provoking a charge enough to stirre up Magistrates and parents to expell and destroy such men should produce better evidence for such a crimination then such a farre fetcht consequence as Mr Blake here brings to make it good is neither my name nor peace more tenderly regarded by Master Blake then upon such light inference to accuse me so deeply I had said to Mr Marshall that if the covenant of grace bee rightly understood Mr Marshall excludes infants as much from the covenant of grace as I doe As for Mr Blake not only page 14 of his Birth-priviledge but also page 23 of his answer to my letter he expressely maintaines that the birth-right he maintaines as a fruit from the covenant of free-grace to all in the faith and their seed only entitles to outward priviledges How doth this stand with that which he asserts chap. 3. sect 2. of his answer to my letter page 13. that infants of beleevers have salvation if they dye in their infancy by vertue of the Covenant For if the Covenant onely entitle to outward priviledges how doth it entitle to salvation So that to speak plainly Mr Blake doth but play fast and loose sometimes asserting a certainty of salvation from the covenant sometimes onely a right to outward priviledges and yet he and Mr Marshall stick not to declaim

Of Mr Marshals untrue charge against me as if I rested on Grotius in setting down the tenent of Antiquity upon occasion of which the tenent of Antiquity is again examined my judgment of their doctrine vindicated Mr. Marshals new all●gations answered and my diligence to find out their tenets manifested § 17. Of my opinion about excommunication Church-government the admission unto all ordinances my former conformity alleaged to alienate mens minds from me and my writings § 18. Of the vanity of Mr Ley's vaunt concerning the deadly wound given to my cause and the contrary demonstrated by a briefe going through the principall points about this argument as they have hitherto been disputed As about Acts 2. 39. Rom. 11. 16. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Colos 2. 12. Matth. 28. 19. Acts 16 15. Matth. 19. 14. c. Baptisme and the rite of eating bread and drinking wine through old ●ites among the Iewes yet used to another end and after another rule by Christians The command confessed to be the formal reason of circumcision by Mr Marshall Circumcision a priviledge proper to the Jewish Church state No command about the Iewes Sacraments now in force Infants not Disciples as Matth. 28. 19. is meant Baptizing housholds inferres not infant-baptisme We have no evidence for judgement of charity concerning infants nor is a judgement of charity to be our rule in adminstering Baptisme § 19. Of Master Hassey his pretended satisfactory answer to my exerci●ation § 20. The Epilogue of this Apology concerning the reason of the enlargement of it the Authors present estate and future intentions § 1. The occasion of this postscript § 2. Of Mr. Calamys and M. Vines their wrong judgement of the dispute Mr. Blakes book and my discussing the point §. 4. They that deny Infant-baptisme need not teach that Infants perish § 5. Of my censure of Master Blakes producing Gal 4. 29 for the birth priviledge §. 6. Or the necessity of my taking paines in my Examen to find out the meaning of Mr. Marshals second conclusion by reason of the ambig●ity of his expressions §. 7. Of the Corinthians doubt 1 Cor. 7 12 13 14. 1 Cor 7. 14. is not meant of instrumentall sanctification and federall holinesse §. 9. Of M Blak●s m●sallegation of Gal. 2. 15. which was the text he chose for his birth-priviledge § 8. That 1 P● 2. 9. is meant of the Church invisible §. 11. Of precedents for womens receiving the Lords Supper §. 12. To say that God hath promised to be the God of every believer and his uncurall seed is a new Gospell §. 13. Or Mr Ruthersurds Mr Blakes opinion about holinesse of a chosen nation mediate An cestors profession intitling to Infant-baptisine the Independents advantage in this point §. 14. Of the word nations Mat. 28. 19. how to be taken §. 15. Of M. Rutherfurds and Mr Blakes and mine opinion concerning the rule to know who are baptizable §. 16. About two suppositions ascribed by m● to Mr Marshal and Mr Blake in my Examen page 130. §. 17. About arguments drawn from Analogy in positive rites and their invalidity and the insufficiency of M. Blakes rules §. 16. That Mr Blake hath not proved that Infants are disciples from Mat. 18. 5. nor pertinently alleaged Isai 49 22. §. 19. of baptizing housholds my censure of Mr Blakes speech concerning it §. 20. About Mat. 19 14. that by the Kingdome of heaven is meant the Kingdome of glory §. 21. That God seales not to every person that is rightly baptized that his Covenant of grace belongs onely to the elect that his Covenant is effectuall and leaves it not to mans liberty to include or exclude himself Of Mr Blakes unjust crimmination of me as putting the children of beleevers out of the covenant of grace and the epilogue of this postscript