Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	church_n	member_n	visible_a	5,442	5	9.2031	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62859	An addition to the Apology for the two treatises concerning infant-baptisme, published December 15, 1645 in which the author is vindicated from 21 unjust criminations in the 92 page of the book of Mr. Robert Baille, minister of Glasgow, intituled Anabaptisme and sundry materiall points concerning the covenant, infants-interest in it, and baptisme by it, baptism by an unbaptized person, dipping, erastianism and church-government, are argued, in a letter, now enlarged, sent in September 1647, to him / by John Tombes . ..	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1652 (1652)	Wing T1794; ESTC R11324	36,211	48

nor any on earth are certain what child of a Believer is elect or reprobate Sure I am Mr. Marshall in his Sermon page 48 saith Charity is not tyed to conclude certainly of any of them although in the beginning of his Sermon page 7. he would ground the salvation of all the infants of believers dying in their infancy on Gods promise to be the God of Believers and of their seed Besides my words in my Apology page 64 66. which you alledge speak onely of infants belonging visibly to the Kingdome of the Devil or God and I still deny that they belong to either visibly untill they make their profession according to the constitution of the visible Church of Christians which it behoved you to disprove and not to misreport my words as you do SECT. II. Of the second Crimination that I make Circumcision to the Jewes a Seal onely of earthly and temporall priviledges AS for your second accusation you bring onely Mr. Marshals words which onely declare his suspicion yet so unreasonable and groundless as one might wonder any man should have the face to draw me into a suspicion of that the contrary whereof is delivered in my Exercitation page 2. and very often in my Exercitation and Examen of his Sermon in which I still make the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. which Circumcision confirmed to be a mixt Covenant containing both spirituall and temporal promises And yet you expresly accuse me of the contrary against my plain words prove your charge onely by Master Marshals suspition expressed in this manner What your meaning is in this expression I cannot tell it hath an untoward look as if the meaning were c. which was unreasonable in him to raise such a jealousie of me for citing onely a passage in that so approved Treatise of Cameron that learned Scot de triplici foedere th. 78. which was also much approved at Heidelberg by the publisher of his works according to an order in a Synod of the French Churches as to be stiled in Cameron's Icon accurratissimae theses and they are now translated into English by Mr. Samuel Bolton and printed at the end of his treatise of the true bounds of Christian freedom with this commendation too precious to be any longer concealed or hid under the shell of an unknown tongue And yet these words were cited by me so warily page 4. of my Exercitation as that I say and if we may believe Mr. Cameron yet Mr. Marshall had so much ingenuity as to say of me in that place page 98. of his Defence It is too grosse a thing to imagine of God and so expresly contrary to the word that untill you own it I will not impute it to you which words you leave out in your allegation against me from Mr. Marshall whether needlesly or fraudulently I leave it to your own conscience to consider SECT. III. Of the third crimination That I deny to the Jewish infants all right to the new Covenant till they become actuall believers from whence occasion is taken to shew the insufficiency of Mr. Gerees shift in expounding the words of the Directory the promise is made to believers and their seed And the insufficiency of Mr. Marshals proof of Connexion between the seal and Covenant from God's institution and Mr. Baylies from the nature of the termes AS for the third accusatio● you bring not a word to prove it yet you often charge sometimes all your adversaries as in chap. 5. pag. 133. sometimes the principall of them among whom I assure my self you reckon me with it as when you say pag. 151. ch. 5. The ground of this reason is granted by the Principal of our adversaries who avow their exclusion of infants from baptisme upon this ground mainely that they believe they are excluded from the Covenant of Grace remission of sins the saving grace of the Spirit till in the years of d●scretion they be brought actually to believe which thing I do expresly deny in my Exercitation pa. 24. with obhorrency from it and Examen page 150. and page 109. I say it were a madnesse to go about to put them out of the Covenant of Grace You are often told in my Examen as page 29 38 110 154. and many more places that I avow exclusion of infants from baptism upon this ground mainly that there is no Institution of it gathered by precept or Apostolical example and therefore it is will-worship As for a command of Circumcision I conceive it is a brogated and so can be no rule now about Baptism and the maintaining that a command of Circumcision sti●l binds us as Mr. Marshall doth in his Sermon page 35 36 37. is the most manifest heresie of any as being condemned in the first Councel by the Apostles Acts 15. 28. 21. 25. Indeed to shew the weaknesse of Mr. Marshalls argument thus framed The infants of believing parents are within the Covenant of Grace therefore they are to partake of the seale of the Covenant which in Mr. Marshals language is all one with baptisme I did say that I did conceive the antecedent of his Enthymeme not true Examen Part 3. Sect. 1. page 39. conceiving that as your practise is so Mr. Marshall intended to defend this conclusion All the infants born of a believer by profession are to be baptized according to ordinary rule and so I expressed my selfe in my Examen Part 3. Sect. 15. Exercit. page 1. and elsewhere and then his antecedent must be thus All the infants born of a believer are within the Covenant of grace or else his argument is manifestly inconcludent if we would prove all infants of believers are to be baptized because some onely are in the Covenant of grace Now I know not how to conceive that Mr. Marshall meant any other then the Covenant of saving grace of which I have given reasons not yet answered by Mr. Marshall in my Examen page 45. and could adde more if it were needful and that the believers infants were in the covenant of saving grace in that God hath made that promise to them And in this sense I denied this proposition All the infants of a believer are within the Covenant of Grace and disproved it so fully in my Examen part 3. Sect. 4. that Mr. Marshall renounceth that proposition in that sense page 116. of his Defence and then betakes himself to this shift to understand it of the outward covenant as he calls it in which sense I have proved in my Apology Sect. 10. his first argument to be meer trifling and his speeches to be full of equivocation or ambiguity which I have also further proved in my Postscript in answer to Mr. Bl●ke Sect. 6. Mr. Geree being inforced to deny that proposition in that sense and being pressed by me with the words of the Directory that the promise is made to believers and their seed he shifted it off in his Vindiciae paedobaptismi page 13. by interpreting the

accomplishing what is my duty in this thing SECT. XIV Of the fourteenth Crimination That I am unwilling to join with any of the Anabaptists Churches and they unwilling to baptize non-non-members FOr he professeth an unwillingnesse to ●oine himself as a member to any of the Anobaptists Churches and I suppose they are unwilling to baptize any who will not joine in Communion with them And for proof of the former you referre the Reader to the letters K K page 112. at which you cite not as they are in my book some words of my Apology page 10. which neither as they are in mine or your book do prove my unwillingnesse to joine my self as a member to any of the Anabaptists Churches For a man may be willing to joine himself as a Member to any of the Anabaptists Churches and yet not dare to ga●her a separated Church not every one who joins as a member with a separated Church being guilty of a schisme which a gatherer of a separated Church may be guilty of Besides a man may not know how to justify at one time the practise of gathering a separated Church or joining with it who may know how to justify it at another time when there is no hope of reformation and men are judged hereticks and excommunicated for holding truth and doing their duty The seven dissenting brethren in the Assembly had subscribed with fourteen more of the ablest of the Assembly to certain considerations to disswade from further gathering of Churches in that present juncture of time to which my words you cite had reference who it may be now would not disswade from gathering Churches But the truth is my not daring to gather a separated Church then was my willingnesse to join with any Churches of Christ and I think as much ill will as you bear to them yet you will not dare to say that none of the Anabaptists Churches are Churches of Christ though I was not willing to be a separating member in any Church but willing to be a conjoined member with all the Churches of Christ in general and each in particular So farre is your allegation from proving what you charge me with that it proves the contrary And for that you say that you suppose the Anabaptists Churches are unwilling to baptize any who will not joine in communion with them if you meane thus they will not baptize any who will not joine in Communion with them as fixed members entring into the Covenant called Church-Covenant and professing the way of discipline called the Congregational way as the only way and separaring from any Church of Christ that is in any other way of discipline for not doing which it seems you conceive them unwilling to admit me to baptisme I have cause to think you are mistaken For having upon occasion of these your words written to an Elder of one of their Churches intreating him to consult with some others and to give me resolution in these questions 1. What joining in Communion do you require without which you will not b●ptize any 2. Whether on my profession of my repentance and ●aith in the Lord Jesue and readinesse to hold communion with all the Churches of Christ in the things of Christ though I do not promise to be a fixed member in any of their Congregations you would admit me to baptisme I received this following answer subscribed by three graduates in schooles godly and learned men in these words That which we require and without which we will not baptize any is a persons manifestation of himselfe to be a believer in Jesus Christ and to desire baptisme according to the revealed will of Christ and in obedience thereunto we do not baptize any into this or that particular congregation but only into that one body in general spoken of 1 Cor. 12. 13. As touching joining in communion we in this case require no more then a manifest readinesse to hold communion with all the Churches of Christ in the things of Christ and accordingly to shew a real willingnesse to have communion with any particular Church of Christ according as the hand of God shall give opportunity and true seasonablenesse of and for the same Thus we judge and practise accordingly Benjamen Cox Henry Jesse Hanserd Knollys I do testifie the substance hereof to be the professed judgement of that congregation whereto I am joined and also that congregation where Mr. Kiffin Patient and Spilsbery are joined who did affirm so much to be their own judgement also The Scripture upon which we so practise is that Acts 8. 37 38. Hanserd Knollys SECT. XV Of the fifteenth Crimination of my allowing frequent rebaptization SEcondly when a man is baptized according to his own minde he allowes him to be oft thereafter rebaptized even so oft as he repents for sin which by the godly is done as the least ought to be done oftener then once And in the margin and the table at the end of your book He allowes a frequent rebaptizing and for proof you referre your Reader to the letters L L page 112. and there you send your Reader back to the letter C supr● Now after you had said but to put the equity of this reproof out of doubt their great Patrons now are come to defend the lawfulnesse of baptisme not onely twice but if ye will ten times yea so oft as you repent for sin which ought to be oftner then once a day So of Anabaptists they become Hemerobaptists and more for proof of this you refer the Reader to the letter C and there you alledge one passage in my Examen page 23. and another passage in my Apology page 53. and a relation of unnamed Eminent Divines It is true that to shew the unreasonable dealing of those that made rebaptization an heresie I did intreate one good argument to prove it unlawful in se for a man that hath been baptized rightly to be baptized againe and to shew the weaknesse of the arguments brought to prove it unlawful in se to rebaptize I breiefly answered the two chief the latter wherof seems to be that upon which the Assembly rested in that they alledge to prove this proposition The Sacrament of baptisme is but once to be administred to any person onely the text Tit. 3. 5. where God is said to save us by the washing of regeneration Advice for confession of faith chap. 28 art 7. And then I added that if there were as good example for Paedobaptisme as that of Acts 19. 5 6. for rebaptizing the controversie concerning Paedobaptisme were at an end with me In which passage I did not assert the proof to be good for rebaptizing but compared with the proof for Paedobaptisme to be better that is more probable then the other and such as if I had had but the like for Paedobaptisme I had not moved any more about it Which I wrote because I knew that very many writers both antient and latter do very probably from expresse

AN ADDITION TO THE APOLOGY For the two Treatises concerning INFANT-BAPTISME Published December 15. 1645. In which the Author is Vindicated from 21. unjust Criminations in the 92. page of the Book of Mr. ROBERT BAILLIE Minister of Glasgow INTITULED ANABAPTISME And sundry materiall points concerning the Covenant Infants-interest in it and Baptisme by it Baptism by an unbaptized person Dipping Erastianism and Church-Government are argued in a letter now enlarged sent in September 1647. to him by JOHN TOMBES B. D. London Printed by Hen. Hills for Hen. Crips and Lodowick Lloid in Popes-head Alley T. Brewster and G. Moule at the three Bibles at the west end of Pauls 1652. ERRATA EPist. Dedic. Edius reade Edingh page 2. line 23. visible r. invisible p. 3. l. penul needlesly r. heedlesly p. 4 l. 18. obhorrency r. abhorrency p. 5. l. 7. we r. he l. 8 know r. knew p. 6 l. 11 Examination r. Crimination p. 9. l. 20. divert r. derive p. 10. in margin all in r. Allin p. 11. l. 10. baptizeter r. baptizetur p. 12. l. 22 considerately r. considerate p. 13. l. 4. desire r. devise p. 18. l. 6. credible r. incredible l 26. it sufficient r. insufficient l. 33. right r. rite p. 25. l. 3. r. nor Mr. p. 28. margin design r. de Syn. p. 29. l. 32. all r. ill p. 32. l 23. a r. no p. 33. l. 4. refers r. reserves p. 34 l. 19. scoffical r. scoptical p. 36. l. 8. no type r. no less To the Right Honourable Bulstrode Whitlock Serjeant at Law John Lisle Esq Richard Keble Serjeant at Law Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal of England Major Generall Thomas Harrison Edmund Prideaux Esq Atturney General for the State OUt of a love to truth and respect to my Engagement by Solemn Covenant I framed and out of desire to prevent if possible the oppression of men for holding a truth I printed some years since Two Treatises and an Append●x to them and after that an Apology for them with a Postscript which were presented to some of your hands by me Finding that great hatred is against such as dissent from the Assemblies determinations specially in the two points of Baptism Discipline which this writing treats of and those that shelter them from violence and that a great part of the quarrel between England and Scotland is for not establishing Presbyterial Government with rigour which is thus expressed in the Scottish Assemblies Reply to the 〈◊〉 Declaration Edius 22. Julii 1650. Sess. 17. That Jesus Christ be Lord over his own house and that his Ministers keep Courts and exercise Jurisdiction and discipline and all the censures of the Kirk from the lowest to the highest in his name only against all that depart from and do oppose the truth or that walk loosely as doth not become the Gospell and hoping this writing to one of the Chief Presbyterians in Scotland may contribute something to discover the unreasonablenesse of their violent proceedings in their way and some Truths not commonly discerned I have yielded to the publishing thereof in this sad time of a bloody warre raised much from the forementioned hatred Such as it is I humbly present to your Honours in testimony of my thankfulnesse for the favour and pitty to me vouchsafed by some of your Honors in conferring on me others in being eminently instrumental in the quiet settling of me in this place in which after plunderings and many tossings up and down I have had some abiding wherein I still endeavour to be serviceable to the publique and to acquit my self Your Honours humble and devoted Servant JOHN TOMBES Ledbury-Hospitall in Herefordshire Sept. 4. 1650. To the Reverend the Moderator and Commissioners in the next Nationall Assembly of the Church of Scotland or the next Provincial Assembly unto which Glasgow in the Kingdome of Scotland belongs the Complaint of John Tombes Presbyter Humbly sheweth THat in pursuance of the SOLEMNE COVENANT taken by me to endeavour reformation in Gods worship according●● the word of God I published Two Treatises about INFANT-BAPTISME at London December 15. 1645. and an APOLOGY for them in August 1646 ●●d that in the year 1647. a book intituled ANABAPTISME was published at London by ROBERT BAYLY Minister of Glasgow wherein I was wronged by many grievous false accusations concerning which I have as near as I could followed the rule of Christ Ma● 18. 15 16 17. as may be perceived by the close of the letter to Mr. BAYLY himself For after I had advertised him by Mr. Henry S●●dd●r of the injury he had done me I wrote to him July 22. 1647. which letter was delivered to Mr. Samuel Rutherford Sept. 17. 1647. with Directions how to send back And in the year 1649. I wrote a letter to Mr. Rutherford to certify me what became of my writing delivered to him with desire to know what Mr. BAYLY would do to right me yet after so long waiting I find no remorse or righting of me made by the said Mr. ROBERT BAYLY And therefore I do devolve the matter into your hands being taken for the Church to which such complaints should be made according to the rule Mat. 18. 17. and do expect to have right done by you to him and me as to a Fellow-Christian Presbyter and Covenanter with you as is meet in such a cause concerning the truth of God and innocency of your Brother And forasmuch as the charge against him and proof may be evidently seen in this letter to him and his and my writings which if you please to take notice of you may easily come by I presume you will not expect my personal appearance before you to pursue this Complaint but of your selves examine the matter as I conceive the rule of Christ binds you besides the engagements towards a Fellow-Covenanter in the sixth article of the Sol●mne League and Covenant and permit your fellow-servant to attend the work of Christ in the place where he is seated who shall pray for your welfare and continue Your brother and Fellow-Servant in Christ JOHN TOMBES London Sept. 24. 1650. To the Reverend Mr. Samuel Rutherfurd Professor at St. Andrews in Scotland SIR ANno 1647. was delivered to you a letter of mine to Mr. Robert Bayly of Glasgow your fellow-Commissioner which you undertook as I am told to send to him and not hearing any thing from Mr. Bayly in answer to it Anno 1649. I sent a letter to you to i●treate a word from you what became of that letter with directions to what place in London your letter might be sent for me of which likewise I have heard nothing Forasmuch as without publishing something a blot indelible may lie on me and which is more on the truth I assert for my sake and that in after ages when Mr. Bayly's book shall be read and those false criminations found therein without any Vindication of mine and I perceive by experience that such false reports as have been vented

in Mr. Edwards his Gangr●n● upon whose credit Honorius Reggius hath blazed them in a Latin writing and in Mr. Bayly's Disswasives have made many men undeservedly odious and such reports vented in pulpits upon their credit have been the bellowes that did blow the fire of warre which hath to the rejoicing of Malignants and grief of godly persons wasted your and our Countrey and Mr. Cotton of N. E. thought meet to print an Apology for himself and the Churches there to vindecate himself from Mr. Bayly's aspersions in one part of his disswasive I have thought it necessary to vindicate my self in this and have sent it to you being one that I conceive cordially affected with the breaches that are among the Godly studious of truth and peace that you may impart this as you may opportunely to some Synod in your Countrey and indeavour as conscience and Covenant I think bind you in the most prudent way you can to take of the injury of Mr Bayly and which is the chief thing I aim at and humbly desire that there may be some Course taken effectually to prevent such injurious misrepresentations of mens tenents and practises in pulpits and presses that so if the Lord shall vouchsafe such a mercy dissenters at last may in a calme and amicable way debate differences to the healing of our breaches which is the prayer and aime of Lemster in Herefordshire Decem. 4. 1651. Your Fellow-Servant and Brother in Christ JOHN TOMBES The Contents Sect. 1. OF the first Crimination That I spoile all infants of all interest in the Covenant of Grace Sect. 2. Of the second Crimination That I make Circumcision to the Jewes a seale only of earthly and temporall priviledges Sect. 3. Of the third Crimination That I 〈◊〉 the Jewish infants all right to the New Covenant 〈◊〉 they become ●●●tuall believers from whence occasion is taken to shew the insufficiency of Mr. Gerees shift in expounding the words of the Directory the promise is made to believers and their seed and the insufficiency of Mr. Marshals proof of Connexion between the seal and the Covenant from Gods institution and Mr. Bailies from the nature of the terms Sect. 4. Of the fourth Crimination That I give a power to unbaptized persons to baptize others Sect. 5. Of the fifth Crimination That I make Apologies for the worst of the Anabaptists Sect. 6. Of the sixth Crimination Inveighing against the first Reformers Sect. 7. Of the seventh Crimination Inveighing against the Assembly at Westminster Sect. 8. Of the eighth Crimination Inveighing against the Church of Scotland Sect. 9. Of the nineth Crimination Inveighing against Mr. Marshall Sect. 10. Of the tenth Crimination Of inveighing against Mr. Thomas Goodwin Sect. 11. Of the eleventh Crimination Of Invectives against others Sect. 12. Of the twelfth Crimination That I esteem baptisme an unnessary rite Sect. 13. Of the thirteenth Crimination That I am carel●sse of my own baptism Sect. 14. Of the fourteenth Crimination That I am unwilling to joine with any of the Anabaptists Churches and they unwilling to baptize non-members Sect. 15. Of the fifteenth Crimination My allowing frequent rebaptization Sect. 16. Of the sixteenth Crimination That I make it lawfull for persons unbaptized to partake of the Lords Supper Sect. 17. Of the seventeenth Crimination That I am a Compleat Erastian wherein reason is given of my doub● that in Scripture no such juridical Excommunication is appointed as is now contended for Sect. 18. Of the eighteenth Crimination That I avow no scand●-lous professor ought to be kept from the Lords Table Sect. 19. Of the nineteenth Crimination of me That I hold no censure of excommunication Sect. 20. Of the twentieth Crimination That I hold Christ hath not appointed any particular government for his Church Sect. 21. Of the one and twentieth Crimination That I hold that the Government of the Church belongs to the Magistrate only Sect. 22. Of my new way and boldnesse Sect. 23. Of my silence concerning DIPPING and of the novelty and insufficiency of SPRINKLING instead of BAPTIZING Sect. 24. The Conclusion requiring reparation of the wrong done to me by Mr. Bayly To the reverend and worthy Master ROBERT BAYLIE Minister at GLASGOW in SCOTLAND SIR IN your Book intituled ANABAPTISMI you charge me falsly in these following Accusations chap. 4. page 92. you say in these following things he flies as high as any civil and discreet Anabaptist I have met with 1. In spoyling Christian infants not only of Baptisme but of all interest in the Covenant of Grace And in the margine and Table in the end of your book you say He spoyles all infants of all interest in the Covenant of Grace 2. In making Circumcision a seal to the Jews onely of earthly and temporal priviledges 3. In denying to Jewish infants all right to the new Covenant till in their riper years they become actuall believers SECT I. Of the first Crimination that I spoile all Infants of all interest in the Covenant of Grace To prove these accusations which you so expresly charge me with and tend to make your adversary odious which it seems you made your businesse and not to clear truth you referre the Reader to the letters A A page 110. where you cite one passage of my Apology page 64. which doeth directly deny the first accusation and where the passage of Mr. Marshall you alledge for proof of it a most unreasonable way to prove a mans position by his Antagonists conceit of it as that Calvin made God the author of sin because Bellarmin accused him of it is sufficiently answered yea in my Post script to Mr. Blake in the end of my Apology Sect. 22. I charge Master Blake of unjust crimination of me in this and challenge Mr. Marshall Mr. Vines Mr. Calamy and now your self to make good that charge if you can And yet you are not asham●d to say pag. 113. All our adversaries deny to all infants all right in God all interests in his promises and Covenant as much as they do to Turks and Pagans And chap. 4. page 89 90. after you had charged this accusation on others in the close you say This makes them uncertain what to say of infants dying before conversion Some save them all which is contrary to what you say page 133 others incline to the damnation of them all others professe the uncertainty of the thing whether infants before their conversion be within the Kingdome of Satan or that of God And for proof of this last you referre the Reader to the letter K and there you alledge my words in my Apology page 64 66. which speak not at all of the uncertainty of the thing you were speaking of to wit the salvation or damnation of infants dying before conversion but the contrary saying expresly That every infant is either in the visible Kingdome of God or of Satan that is elect or reprobate And for the certainty of the subject I conceive neither you nor I

meerly from Gods institution which is to be the rule of the Churches judging and administrators action and that is not from the right to the chief promises but from profession of faith arising from Gods will not the nature of the terms There is no essential connexion between them constitutive or consecutive neither is one of the definition or essential property to the other and God hath much more plainly put a barre against infant-baptisme then infant-communion not only in that there is neither expresse precept nor example for it in Scripture but also the very in●titution excludes them appointing it only to disciples Mat. 28. 19. putting believing before baptisme Mark 16. 16. in practise requiring it Act. 8. 37. besides the image of it in all ages of the Church requiring profession of faith of some for them even in the baptisme of infants But you shew the nature of the terms in these words This is the sign and seal that the thing signified By your Logick then if the chief promises of the New Testament be to be defined you would define them to be the thing signified by the first Sacrament of the New Testament which were to define ignotum per ignotius and by that which is meerly extrinsecal to it A promise is an action the thing signified by the first Sacrament is not only something to come but also something past as the death burial resurrection of Christ in baptisme Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12. the thing promised is something we are to have the promise is Gods act the first Sacrament the administrators act How inept a definition is such a definition in which the genus doth not praedic●●i in quid on the definitum ●or the whole definition is reciprocal with the definitum besides other defects But it maybe you meant that it is of the nature of the first Sacrament to be a sign and s●ale of the chief promises of the New Testament Were this so you should not rightly argue for then the right to the promises should be derived from the seal not to the seale from the promise if the promise be of the nature of the seale and not e●contra wher●as you say that your reason proceeds from the chief thing signifyed to the first sign But how can you or any make this good that it is the nature of the first Sacrament only for you exclude the second expressely after in these words nor do we 〈◊〉 but of the 〈…〉 to be a signe and seale of the chief promises of the New Testament Is not the second sign as wel a sign and seal of them as the first Besides what is the term seale there but a Metaphor And is it not absurd to make a Metaph●r of the nature of a term which doeth not shew what a thing is but what it is like contrary to the rule of Logicians Scheibler ●op ●a 30. num 126. Definitio non sit ex verbis Metaphoricis Ita Aristot. Top. Lib. 2. cap. 2. Sect 4 K● ker●● Syst. Logi● Lib. 1. Sect. 2. cap. 2. c. Yet how absurdly is a seale of the Covenant made the Genus in the definition of a sacrament being but a Metaphor and books and Sermons stuffed with collections of duties and priviledges about the Sacraments from a meer Metaphor A thing I am assured worthy Lamentation when I consider the trouble it hath brought to many consciences and disquiet in the Church But were it granted that the term signe or seal were of the nature of the first Sacrament how doth it appear that it is the nature of the Sacrament to signifie Gods promise to us rather then our promise to God Though I deny not but baptisme signifies and in a sense seales Gods promises to us as may be seen in my former writings yet so farre as I am able to discern the chief and primary use is to signifie our profession and promise to God and therefore it is required as our act and duty and therein we are said to put on Christ And why then should we not rather say that it is the nature of baptisme to be a sign or seale of our profession and then we have a better argument from the nature as you speak from the use as I would speak of the first Sacrament to prove that infants are not to be baptized then that they are The trueth is Sacraments are not signes natural but positive and so have no nature to sign or seale but by institution and therefore there 's no connexion or right between the Covenant and seal as they speak from the nature of the tenns but by Gods institution And therefore Mr. Marshall did more considerately ascribe it to Gods will then you do to 〈◊〉 it from the nature of the terms you miscarry as much in that which followes when you say The reason proceeds not from every thing signified to every sign but from the chief thing signified to the first sign yet before you expressed the nature of the terms thus The one is the sign the other the thing signified and you give no reason why there should be more connexion between the chief things signified and the first sign then the not chief things signified and the second nor do I know by what rule you proceed in making some promises of the New Testament chief and some not It follows Some of the blessings which Circumcision diaseal belonged to Melchizedeck to Lo● to Job and others who were not so farre as we reade circumcised but the main promise sealed by Circumcision In thy seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed The Messias comming of the posterity of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the Covenant of Grace as it was administred under the figure of the Ceremoniall Law did belong to the people of Israel alone ●nd to the proselytes who joined themselves to their body You intimate truly that the reason of circumcising infants was not taken from the common right of believers to the Covenant of Grace but from the end God had in signifying Christ to come of Abraham which is a good evidence that baptizing infants now hath not the same reason that circumcising of infants had then and so all your argument from the analogy between Infant-baptisme and Infant-Circumcision from the like reason of both falls to the g●ound But sure the main promise of the New Testament did belong to 〈◊〉 Lot and Job as much as to believers now and if righteousnesse by faith be sealed by circumcision as you expressely teach page 141. from Rom. 4. 11. then the main promise sealed by Circumcision belonged to Melchizeck Lot and Job and so if there be such a connexion between the chief promise and the first seale they should have been circumcised as well as the Jewes and it is as strange to me how you can make the promise of the Messias comming from Abraham belonging to proselytes more then to them But this is enough to give a taste of your

a word of exception against any man much lesse of invectivenesse against the Assembly at Westminster only it contains the expression of my belief that the ablest of the Assembly contrived Mr. Marshalls book and my wish that it were declared whether the Paedobaptists would stick to it or any other work which I conceive a reasonable wish finding the Proteus-like inconstancy of Paedobaptists in many points of the dispute between us particularly in the chief argument from circumcision and the covenant Gen. 17. to infant-baptism one forming the argument one way another another way one deriving the connexion between the Covenant and initial seal from the nature of the terms another from Gods will one ascribing an interest in the outward Covenant only to all infants of believers another ascribing an interest to them in the inward Covenant also according to charitable presumption another conditionally another asserting the Covenant of Grace to belong to them for the most part one grounding infant-baptisme on the judgement of charity another denying that sufficient and requiring a judgement of faith one stating the question concerning all infants of believers another concerning some only one interpreting 1 Cor. 7. 14. of federal holinesse another of real holinesse one waving the argument from succession of baptisme to circumcision another avouching it with many other differences which tend to the wearying of a disputant and the e●ud●●g of a Reader that desires to find truth and to spend time in examining what is fixed not to lose it in disputing against that which one will own but it m●y be most will disclaim What the Assembly have done in this matter doth not yet answer this wish What is said in the Direstory it may be well doubted whether Assembly-men now hold by that which hath pa●●ed between me and Mr. Marshal and Mr. Geree about the proposition the promise is made to believers and their seed what is said in their ●dvice concerning a confession of faith Ch. 28. Art 4. is so farre from satisfying that it is yet a riddle to me how infant-baptisme can be drawn from Ge● 17. 7 9. with Gal. 3. 9 14. which I remember not alledged by any Paedobaptists since I entered on the dispute save what I heard from Mr. Herl● now the Prolo●utor which I mention in my Apology page 41. which he did with so little evidence for his purpose as I supposed it had been his own peculiar conceit not the Assemblies argument And for the rest of the texts if the Assembly can say any more the● Mr. Marsh●ll and others have said for deducing of Paedobaptisme out of them it were fit it should be known if not I for my part count my self as much unsatisfyed by the Assemblies alledging impertinent texts as by a private mars doing the same This I declare to give the reason of that speech of mine in my Apology As for the Assembly though I have expressed my jealousie of some defects in them and perhaps shall not agree with them in all their determinations yet I have cast no filth in their faces as Mr. 〈◊〉 injuriously accused me even for my good will to them but have 〈◊〉 and spoken respectively of them as Ex●men page 1. studying what I could to prevent those blemishes in their proceedings and determinations which will in time more appear then yet they do and am induced to believe that there are so many of them therein that know me so well as that they would be loath to disclaim me whatever they do of my opinion And though Mr. 〈◊〉 in his Suspension Suspende page 21. saith Mr. 〈…〉 is approved by the Ass●mbly and so takes his book to be approved by them and you count my words of that book to be an invective against the Asse●●ly yet I do not take it to be approved by the Ass●m●ly till they declare it to be so though I have reason to conceive that divers of the ablest of the Assembly especially in some part of learning had their hand in it SECT. VIII Of the eighth Crimination inveighing against the Church of Scotland THe Church of Scotland For proofe of this you refene the Reader to the letters F F page 112. in which you cite one passage of my Apology page 93. which doth not so much as mention any Church much lesse the Church of Scotland but onely the mannagers of the censure of juridical excommunication whom however the Pap●st Prelates use to speak I think you use not to call the Church of Scotland nor do I Nor is there a word of invectivenesse aginst any in those wordes but only a declaration what I question upon my best intelligence which had lesse reference to Scotland then to other parts of the world SECT. IX Of the nineth Crimination inveighing against Mr. Marshal MAster MARSHAL For proofe hereof you referre your Reader to the letters G G page 112. and there you cite two passages out of my APOLOGY one of which page 57. is this I find the words of an intelligent man true concerning Mr. Marshal that he was apt to mistake and in the other page 69. I say that I find him still a confused disputer which indeed containes some complaint of Mr. Marshal much lesse then I had cause but not any invective which I take to be an oration against a man to make him odious such as T●llies Philippicks against Antonius and Demosthenes against Philip and Nazia●zen against Julian SECT. X. Of the tenth Crimination of inveighing against Mr. Tho. Goodwin MAster Goodwin For proofe hereof you referre the Reader to the letters H H page 112. And there you cite two shreds of a large passage concerning an accusation of Mr. Marshal in which he chargeth me as vilifying Mr. Thomas Goodwin which charge I there answer and then use some words which are not invective but a declaration what I conceived of his discourse which if it may not be allowed in dispute the best writers among us will be condemned Dr. Twisse Mr. Gataker and your brethren Mr. Rutherfurd Mr. Gillespy your self and who not your own words in the first part of your Dissuasive page 119. do come neerer to an invective against Mr. Thomas Goodwin then any words in my Apology or Examen the former of which the licenser although Mr. Goodwins tender friend yet judged mil● SECT. XI Of the eleventh Crimination of invectives against others ANd others For proof of this you referre the Reader to H H 2. page 112. where you cite two passages of my Apology the one containing no accusation no nor so much as a complaint against any one but onely a mention of my experiment which I wish the case of Doctor Twisse that I instance in no other had not verified the other passage is no invective against any but meerly an applying of Mr. Ley's words to my Treatise which he had avowed of my Antagonists writings Sir I suppose it would better have suited with charity I living the last summer at the

it happen that any such facts be perpe●rated as are like to that of the incestuous person I doubt not but the whole Church may and ought to disclaime the person so offending and to exclude him from all brotherly Communion because I conceive so much was done to the incestuous person as I gather from 2 Cor. 2. 6 7. So that my doubt was not of suspension for any but for every emergent scandal for which the Assembly were so earnest with the Parliament Many scandals there are in abuse of liberty in things indifferent in sins of evil councel and example which may happen through strength of temptation by infirmity in men not habitually vicio●s which are not of that hainous nature as to deserve keeping from the Lords Table Nor doth the Scripture either prescribe such a thing to be done or give power to do it I like not Doctor Ames his determination lib. 4. de conscientiac 29. num 7. Proprium adaequatum ob●e●●um hu●●s censurae est scandalum datum ●fratre which I imagine was the cause of the Assembly's mistake upon which they petitioned SECT. XIX Of the nineteenth Crimination of me that I hold no censure of Fexcommunication YOu further charge me as avowing also that there is no such thing as any censure of Excommunicatior and for proof you referre your Reader to the letters O O where is cited one or two passages of my Apology page 91. in neither of which do I avow any thing but my doubt which is of 5. things whereof one is whether ever Excommunication a sacris that is as I after expresse my self ●uridical forensica ●●horitative Excommunication by some officers or the whole congregation as superiou●s that have jurisdiction without special gift as the Apostles had would be proved to be ●ure divino by Christs appointment And I confesse I have still the same doubt notwithstanding what I have read in Mr. Rutherford Mr. Gillespy or any other And I should be willing to be resolved how citing to appear by power of office keeping Courts or Assemblies requiring persons yea of all sorts and qualities to answer as before Judges examining witnesses hearing causes passing sentence inflicting so great a punishment as Excommunication without liberty of Appeale if by a national Assembly of Elders on ministers and people even the chiefest not as Arbitrators to whom the parties referre the matter but as Ecclesiastical Officers to whose judgement they must stand whether they will or no will be acquitted from that dominion condemned Lu. 22. 25 26. Mat. 20. 26. Mar. 10. 42 43 1 Pet. 5. 2 3. as the Assertors of the Presbyterian discipline expound the texts against the Prelates what dominion more like the heathen the Prelates take upon them then such an Assembly and whether the Prelates against whom you pleade may not acquit their Prelacy which they claime from the dominion you charge them with out of these texts of Scripture as well as you But in this I do not avow there is no such thing as any censure of Excommunitation as you accuse me yea I do expressely grant a social medicinal Excommunication by the whole Church from all brotherly communion with the whole and by each member from arbitrary communion with himself provided they do not rashly or unjustly exclude And this I gather from 1 Cor. 5. 9 10 11. 2 Thess. 3. 6 14 15. and other places as in my Apology page 93. may be seen And I think the Congregational way in this nearer to the use of Excommunication in Scripture then the Presbyterian though I think they misse in two things 1. That they make it an act of superiority and jurisdiction or as they speak of the power of the keyes in the whole Church over the person censured 2. They ascribe this power only to that particular congregation of which the offender is a fixed member which I conceive common to any other Church or brother in another Congregation and is in effect nothing else but the non-communion which they ascribe to one Church towards another Nor do I conceive what other Excommunication Christians could in the primitive times exercise or did exercise one towards another when Victor Bishop of Rome would have excommunicated Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus or the Western the Eastern Church about Easter or Stephanus of Rome Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarca in Cappadocia holding with Cyprian about rebaptization of persons baptized by heretiques then this non-communion And for the texts Mat. 16. 19. Mat. 18. 16 17 18. I am not yet moved from the interpretation I gave in my Apology page 91. but rather conceive that I can prove it true notwithstanding what I have read hitherto to the contrary SECT. XX Of the twentieth Crimination that I hold Christ hath not appointed any particular government for his Church YOu say further That Christ hath not appointed any particular government for his Church and for proof hereof you referre the Reader to the letters P P at which you cite two passages of my Apology page 91. 93. of which neither sayes the thing you charge me with the former onely making two things according to my conceit prudencial to wit the Independency or Dependency and the fixednesse or moveablenesse of Pastors and Congregations In the other I acknowledged a discipline proper to the Church and shewed what it was And therefore you do manifestly wrong me in saying I avow a particular governmen● when my words expressely yield the contrary onely I said I suppose the manner of doing the thing is left to prudence that is by whom when in what order evils committed should be examined the persons charged admonished avoided which I think you will not deny Surely you will be hard put to it to prove out of Scripture the particularities of your or any other discipline To tell you my minde yet more plainly the word government comes from the Greeke {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} now {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} saith Suidas he that guides ●●ship by steering it Being applied to men I conceive government is either by counsel directing admonishing reproving in words or actions as by shewing favour or dislike in lookes embracing or shunning company c. giving example c. or by giving lawes and inflicting punishments or giving rewards I conceive Christ hath not left a particular government for his Church the latter way but referres that unto himself but in the former way he hath in the hands of some Officers whom he hath made as Stewards in his house whose government consists chiefely in declaring the will of Christ convincing gain-sayers ordaining Pastors to teach and declaring ●alse teachers to be shunned and such like offices but for the juridical government mentioned before I find it not appointed them by Christ I like H●●romes expression on Tit. 1. That the Churches co●muni presbyt●r●●●● consilie cura solicitudine not imperio guvernabantur and I like Salmasi●● his observation in his