An Apology for Two Treatises Concerning Infant Baptism, Postscript

An Apology for Two Treatises Concerning Infant Baptism · Postscript

p. 109A Poſtſcript, wherein is a reply to Mr. Blakes anſwer to my letter.

Reader.

BE pleaſed to take notice,§, 1. The occaſion of this poſtſcript. that whereas I ſay p. 21. of this Apology. Molin in his Epiſtle to Biſhop Andr…w… (if my memory deceive me not) confeſſed is to have been … ipſis Apoſtorum temporib…, meeting ſince the printing of that paſſage, with the booke I find that in that Epiſtle he only confeſſed it to have been a ſecule Apoſtolis proximo, but Biſhop Andrewes ſaith, he had put out that which elſwhere he ſaid ab Apoſtolorum ſicul…. Whence my miſtake of memory conceiving he had ſaid it there, which he ſaid elſwhere, but altered it in that Epiſtle. 2. That though I had ſeen moſt of the latter part of Mr. Blakes anſwer to my letter have dayes before, yet I had not the whole booke till Aug. 3. 1646, at which time the tenth ſ…eet of this Apology was printing off; and therefore I cannot give thee ſo large … on it, as I deſired to doe; yet I have thought it … ſay thus much in this ſtreight of time, as not knowing how I may be here… fitted to write any more.

The Book is …hered with a preface of Mr. Calmys and Mr. …, § 2. Of Mr. Calamys and M. Vines their wrong judgement of the diſpute, Mr. Blakes book, and my diſcuſſing the point.in which they ſay. The right of Infants to baptiſme is ear… ſtrongly by … arguments, if leg it … couſe quener can make a … evidence. To which I ſay, that Maſter Marſhals firſt argument is accounted the ſtrongeſt, and that is far from being …, as hath been ſhewed above.

They ſay The … of the Church in all ages in baptizing them is … by ſuch unde… teſtimonies of credible witneſſes, p. 110that he that doth not ſee it may well be called Strabo, that is, goggle eyed.

How true this is the Reader may perceive by the Examen of Maſter Marſhals Sermon, and this Apology. The beſt or rather only witneſſe of ancients for ſuch a practiſe is Auguſt…n concerning whom how litle reaſon there is to count his ſpeech and undiable hath been before declared here, and in the Examen.

They ſay of the Birth-priviledge of Maſter Blake: where thou ſhalt find the queſtion ſo truely ſtated, and ſet upon the right Baſis, and ſo well fortified, that though there hath been a duſt raiſed (by ſome who have a better faculty to raffle and intricate an argument than to wind it off) yet there is not the leaſt wing of it routed. To this I ſay, the ſtate of the queſtion hath ſmall difficulty, litle or no diſagreement between me and Maſter Marſhall, and Maſter Geree, and I thinke the like of others. If by the Baſi… is meant Maſter Blakes obſervation pag. 3. of the Birth-priviledge, A people that enjoy Gods ordinances convey to their iſſue a … to be reputed of a ſociety that is holy, to be numbred amongſt not …ncleane, but holy. This obſervation is ambiguous, it may be true in a ſenſe, that it ſo happens frequently; but if it be meant in this ſenſe, that they convey by their generation of them a right of viſible Church-memberſhip, and title to the initiall ſeale, as it is uſually called it is not true: which onelyonly ſerves for the purpoſe. Now the wings by which that obſervation is fortifyed out of the new Teſtament, (wherein the ſtrength lyes) are Acts 2. 38. 39. Rom. 11. 16, 17. 1 Pet. 2. 9. Gal. 4. 29. Gal. 2. 15. 1 Cor. 7. 14. now for three of theſe to wit 1 Pet. 2. 9. Gal. 4. 29. Gal. 2. 15. they flye of themſelves, the firſt expreſſely being ſpoken of them onelyonly that beleeve, v. 7. the ſecond to wit, being born after the fleſh, cannot be underſtood as importing a priviledge or benefit, it being ſpoken of perſons to the worſer ſenſe, and cauſing a caſting, out of the inheritance: the third is meant not of a Jew alluſively ſo called, but of a Jew by naturall generation, oppoſed to a Gentile, and ſo cannot be ſaid of the children of believing Gentiles; nor can all Maſter Blakes words keep them from running out of the field. The text Acts 2. 39. if it be underſtood (as it muſt) of the promiſe of ſaving graces by Chriſt cannot be verified of any but thoſe that are called, which it being confeſſed to limit the firſt, p. 111branch of the Proppoſition, and the laſt, you, and as many as are afarre off; it is to mee againſt reaſon and truth that it ſhould be left out in the middle, that is, that when it is ſaid the promiſe is to you, and to all that are afarre off being called, it ſhould be aſſerted in that branch that is between, the promiſe is to your children whether called or not. Of Rom. 11. 16, 17. I have ſaid ſufficiently before. Of 1 Cor. 7. 14. ſomewhat alſo before: and intend more in this poſtſcript. If Mr Calamy and Mr. Vines accuſe me of raiſing a duſt, and raffling and intricating an argument (which I imagine they doe becauſe the raiſing of a duſt is Maſter Marſhals phraſe) they are anſwered in this Apology. My entring into the liſts with Mr Marſhall was not out of choice as valuing my ſelf, as they miſtake; but out of neceſſity lead thereto by providence of God. How well I have acquitted my ſelfe may appeare by the bringing of Maſter Marſhall to many conceſſions which overthrow his firſt argument. Whether this anſwer of Maſter Blake be ſinewy for argument, I hope in time to examine. I conceive that to put the queſtion upon the right Baſis, is to examine whether the formall reaſon why the Jewes were circumciſed, were their intereſt in the Covenant? whether there be the ſame Church-ſtate now that was then? whether any command about the Jewes Sacraments now bind us? But I paſſe to Mr Blakes anſwer.

Mr Blake chargeth me with defect and neglect of charity. For the former I doe not take my writing to diſcover it, what I ſhall deprehend I have failed in, I ſhall I hope confeſſe to God, and to Maſter Blake when we meet. My not ſpeaking to Maſter Blake was, becauſe I preſumed Maſter Marſhall had acquainted him with the thing, and the reaſon of printing my Treatiſes as they were is declared above. Why I would not take upon me the place of opponent in the diſpute with my brethren I gave the reaſon, becauſe the argument would preſently lead them to oppoſe; this being al my argument againſt Infant-baptiſm that I could wel urge in diſpute, that it is not appointed by God, and ſo preſently upon one or two ſyllogiſmes they muſt become opponents again, ſith affirmanti incumbit probatio; I ſent not my Exercitation to my opponents becauſe I was adviſed to ſend to the Committee, named in the Prologue of my Examen; the reſt is anſwered in the Apology.

p. 112To the point of antiquity in Ch. 2. I thinke not needfull to adde any more here. To the third chapter ſect. c. Maſter Blake becauſe I ſaid Examen pag. 144. theſe I mention, that you may ſee what ſtuffe Paedobaptiſts do feed the people with, doth the… againſt reaſon, and charity inferre, that I branded therein all the Miniſters of Chriſt that ever held Infant-baptiſme, whereas my ſpeech being indefinite ſhould in ſuch a contingent matter have been interpreted only as equipollent to a particular propoſition, … the words were uſed onelyonly of that Author, and ſuch as delivered like doctrine, with particular exception of Maſter Marſhall, and many others there named. Paſſion I confeſſe was in me ſometimes in writing my examen, a mixt paſſion of griefe, and indignation, that Preachers of the Goſpell ſhould be ſo hard, as then I found, and ſaw likely would be more; to their diſſenting brethren upon ſuch weake reaſons. But ſuch contu…licus conſurer and practiſes as Maſter Blakes ſiniſter conceits p…t upon me I deny.

To the ſecond ſection I anſwer,§. 4. They that deny Infant-baptiſme need not teach that Infants periſh. that I ſtill conceive, they that deny Infant-baptiſme, and grant originall ſinne, are … neceſſitated to ſay that Infants periſh in their birthſ…. It is true as Maſter Blake ſayes, they that will hold a certainty of the ſalvation of ſuch Infants, they muſt maintain a promiſe or covenant to them; but ſuch a covenant I deny to be made as aſſures ſalvation to the Infants of beleevers: and I have proved at large, Examen part. 3. §. 4. there is not ſuch a Covenant. If that Gen. 17. 7. be produceed I have proved that it was particularly ſpoken of Abrahams feed, expounded Rom. 9. 8. not to be meant of his naturall feed, but ſpirituall, and therefore till it be proved that all Infants of believers dying in Infancy, are Abrahams ſpirituall feed; that promiſe will not inferre the certainty of their ſalvation. Therefore, this is my judgement: that God will have us to ſuſpend our judgement of this matter, & to reſt on the Apoſtles determination. Rom. 9. 18. But they that hold that there is no certainty of their ſalvation, are not neceſſitated to hold a certainty of their perdition, for there is a medium between both, a hope though not certain, yet probable, and comfortable, that the children of believers dying in their Infancy are ſaved; taken from ſome generall indefinite promiſes: the favour of God to the parents, and the experience that in all p. 113ages hath been had of his mercifull dealing with the children of his ſervants; all which cannot be ſaid of the Infants of Infidels, though on the other ſide we muſt not ſo exclude the Infants of Infidels, as to affirme that none of them are ſaved. For though the Gentiles were without hope Epheſ. 2. 12. in reſpect of the body of them, yet now and then God called ſome, as Rab… out of the viſible Ch…ch, and therefore we may not determine univerſally that out of the viſible Church there is no ſal…tion at all: but leave this to Gods free-will. It doth not … follow, tha… beathens have equall hopes of ſal…ion with Infants of …. For though they have not hopes from their innocency in themſelves, or certaine intereſt in Chriſt; yet they have more probable hopes of intereſt in Chriſt upon the g…ds …. And thus is that ſection anſwered.

The fourth chapter is about my cenſure of his argument from Gal. § 5. Of my cenſure of Maſter Blakes producing Gal, 4. 29 for the birth priviledge.41▪ 29. as containing very groſſe paſſages. He ace…ſeth me as one that intended not any …, becauſe I bring but one branch of the … in his argument, and yet call it his medium, But …ith I intended not a full anſwer to him but to Maſter Marſhall it was enough that I onelyonly reci…ed that in which was indeed the ſtrength of his argument, which was that birth after the fleſh, aſcribed to ſome now, Gal. 4. 29. imports a priviledge, … Church int…ſt to … the boſ… of the Church of Chriſtians. In ſaying this was very groſſe, I ſayed no more then that which was right: the Apoſtle oppoſing perſons borne after the fleſh, to them that are borne after the ſpirit, to be caſt out, and not to inherit. But ſayes Maſter Bl…ke, you ſhut out the literall ſenſe of birth after the fleſh, both from the hiſtory, and parallel, and bring a… allagericall … in both, when the … in the text is evident. I anſwer, I ſhut not out the literall ſenſe from the hiſtory, but from the parallel; and that i… ſo farre from being contrary to the text, that it is expreſly ſaid, theſe things are foreign …. But he further objects: you make birth after the fleſh, and birth of the ſpirit, two contradiſtinct ſpecies of births, that both cannot be incident … it is the diſtribution of a ſubject … I anſwer, I make them not onelyonly contradiſtinct, but alſo contra…; and I deny that it is a diſtribution … For them p. 114the ſame perſon ſhould be both borne after the fleſh and after the ſpirit. which I would tell Maſter Blake to be very abſurd, but that I would give him no more occaſion to ſay I do inſult, whoop, and jeere, which he unjuſtly chargeth on me. And for that he ſaith, that Iſaack was borne after the fleſh, (though it be true, he was ſo in the two ſenſes Maſter Blake mentions which are nothing to this place of the Apoſtle) it is untrue in the Apoſtles ſenſe, for then he ſhould be the child of the bondmayd; not by promiſe, a perſecutor to be caſt out not to inherit, and a type of legall juſticiaries belonging to the covenant in mount Sinai, for all theſe things are true of him that is borne after the fleſh, Gal. 4, 22, &c. But the Apoſtle doth not ſay, that they are caſt out, but mentions a command of caſting them out. As if Gods dictum were not factum: if they were not caſt out, why doth the Apoſtle alleage that text? But they are in the Church, otherwiſe they could not be caſt out. I anſwer, I deny not but legall inſtitiaries may be in the viſible Church, as Iſhmael in Abrahams houſe; though the Apoſtle make the parallel only in the caſting out that they might not inherit, but if Maſter Blake would gather any thing hence for his purpoſe, he muſt prove that the Apoſtle makes ſome to be in the viſible Church, by vertue of being borne after the fleſh as their prerogative, which is as wide from the Apoſtles meaning, as Eaſt & Weſt. But ſaith Maſter Blake where I pray you, do I make ſuoh Abrahams ſeed? it is no groſſe errour of mine, but a groſſe device or calumny of yours. I anſwer, his words [if there yet remaine in the boſome of the Church children borne after the fleſh, ſo that diſtinction of births (as applied to Abrahams ſeed) ſtill hath place amongſt beleeving Chriſtians]§. 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. ſhew that he applied birth of the fleſh to Abrahams ſeed, elſe why are thoſe words put in [at applied to Abrahams ſeed] but to ſhew a double ſeed of Abraham, one borne after the fleſh, which is all one with the Apoſtle as legall inſtitiaries, another borne after the ſpirit, which is all one as bebeleevers? so that this is Maſter Blakes tergiverſation, not my calumny.

In The fifth chapter Mr Blake complaines, that I take more paines then needs to find out Maſter Marſhals meaning in his ſecond concluſion, and after. And indeed I never ſaw a learned man ſo run himſelfe into a maze needleſly, as you in this diſcourſe do; being at a p. 115ſtand; you ſay, whether Maſter Marſhall meanes a covenant of grace, or outward ordinances, as though theſe two were oppoſite, and priviledge of ordinances were not of grace, or that ſaving grace could be had, in Gods ordinary way, without this priviledge. To acquit my ſelfe of this imputation, I ſay, that it was very neceſſary to take that paines I did, to bring my ſelfe out of that maze which I had not run my ſelfe into; but the confuſedneſſe and ambiguity of Maſter Marſhals expreſſions lead me into. Maſter Marſhall had made this the anteceedent in his firſt argument, The Infants of beleeving parents are faederati, or within the covenant of grace; This I conceived to be the ſame with his ſecond concluſion, though againſt the rule of diſpute he varies the terme [faederati, or within the covenant of grace] into this, [he would have to be accounted his, to belong to him, to his Church and family, and not to the Devils] which I do not take to be equipollent. This neceſſitated me to ſhew the many ſenſes of his words, and to take paines to find out his meaning; elſe I, knew not what to deny, or what to grant. Now, to clear the matter: when it is ſaid, Infants of beleevers are faederati, or in the covenant of grace, this may be underſtood three wayes. 1 They are in the covenant of grace by their owne act of covenanting, becauſe they promiſe the performance of the condition on their part, and this ſenſe is manifeſtly falſe; and yet when Maſter Marſhall ſayes they are to be accounted covenanters, he ſpeakes as if he meant ſo: For what is a covenanter but he that makes a promiſe? 2 They are in the covenant of grace by the adminiſtratours act, becauſe he gives them the ſeale of the covenant; but then the ſecond concluſion ſhould be, they are baptized or to be baptized, now this being the ſame with the antecedent of Maſter Marſhals firſt argument, his argument muſt be thus; Infants of beleevers are baptized, or to be baptized, ergo they are to be baptized, which is meerly to trifle: and yet as I ſhewed above, this is the effect of Maſter Marſhals arguing, who will have his ſecond concluſion, and antecedent underſtood of the outward covenant, as he cals it. 3 They are in the covenant of grace by Gods act of promiſe, and this is that which Maſter Marſhall ſhould have ſaid, if he would have ſpoken plainly without equivocation, God by his promiſe to the Infants of beleevers puts them in the covenant of grace, or he accounts them duplicate page p. 114duplicate page p. 115p. 116in the covenant of grace, becauſe he hath promiſed grace … them, and not have ſaid God would have them accounted his by us, by giving them the outward covenant, as he calls it. Now, if he affirme this, that God hath promiſed grace to Infants of beleevers, this grace is either ſaving grace, or outward ordinances. But ſaith Maſter Blake theſe are not oppoſite, but ſub…dinate. Be it ſo, yet they are diſtinct, and the promiſe of the one is not a promiſe of the other: the promiſe of the Word and Sacraments, is not a promiſe of the Spirit. Now here was the doubt, whether Maſter Marſhall affirme a promiſe of ſaving grace to beleevers Infants, or of outward ordinances. I ſaid neither was true, yet the former was more agreeable to his meaning. To prove this I alleaged, that though ſometimes Maſter Marſhall, Maſter Blake and others ſpake more warily, (in which I dealt candidly with Maſter Blake, reciting his expreſſe words full enough for the purpoſe) yet I ſaid moſt of Mr. Marſhals and others expreſſions, and one expreſſion of Maſter Blake ſpake as if they meant that God had made a covenant, or promiſe of ſaving grace. And to prove it to be their meaning: produced their allegation of theſe textes, Acts 2. 39. Gen. 17. 7. Matt. 19. 14. which are to be underſtood of ſaving grace, and that otherwiſe the ſeale would be put to a blanke, and that Maſter Blake ſaith, God promiſeth to be a God in covenant to his and their ſeed, which people in covenant have alſo a promiſe from him of the Spirit. Now what ſayes Maſter Blake to this, he denyes not that theſe texts ſpeake of a promiſe of ſaving grace, but askes me hows they are meant, whether abſolutely or immediately? and then faſtens upon me an aſſertion that is none of mine, and I beleeve wrongs Maſter Blackwood too. But herein Maſter Blake goes from the buſineſſe, and inſtead of a reſpondent becomes a poſer… proved theſe texts alleaged by them for Infants being in the covenant of grace ſpeake of a promiſe of ſaving grace, and therefore if Maſter Marſhall meane not that the covenant of ſaving grace is made to a beleevers child, theſe texts are alleged to no purpoſe by him. This is no place to anſwer Mr. Blakes unpertinent queſtions; which he propounds to me as ſuppoſing that becauſe I ſaid, the texts are plainely meant of ſaving graces, therefore I had affirmed the Jewes and all their ſeed had an abſolute, promiſe of a ſaving grace: let Maſter Blake tell us p. 117whether in alleaging Gen. 17. 7. Acts 2. 39. for infants of beleevers being in the Covenant, he underſtand not thoſe texts of a promiſe of ſaving grace, which is all I there contend for. As for Mat. 19. 14. it is pl…ly meant of the kingdome of glory; Luk. 18, 16. 17 Mark. 10. 14, 15. And for the ſpeech of ſealing to a blanke, &c. Whether it be true or falſe it was not materiall to my purpoſe; but whether it ſhew that he uſers of it aſſert a promiſe of ſaving grace to beleevers. Mr Blake upon a miſtake, that I had ſet down ſundry things as my aſſertions chargeth … as uſing Bellarmines argument, and ſ…ts down his own anſwer out of Ameſius, beſides the b…ſines who onelyonly alleaged other mens ſpeeches to ſhew their meaning. As for his own ſpeech he endeavours to make it good, which for preſent was not excepted againſt, but onelyonly alleaged to to ſhew that even Mr Blake aſſerts a promiſe of ſaving grace to … of beleevers, for a promiſe of the Spirit is ſuch. But ſaith Mr Blake, Some promiſes … ſuppoſe a condition: ſuch is the promiſe of the Spirit … here I underſtand it, and you may ſee in Chriſts words John 7. 39. in the Apostle …; Epheſ. 1. 13. To which I ſay that it is true of the ſpeciall gifts of the Spirit, or the increaſe, or comforts, or aſſurance of the Spirit; as John 7. 39. Epheſ. 1. 13. they ſuppoſe a condition, but if hee meane it of the regenerating work of the Spirit, (as the words lead me to conceive he meant) then the promiſe of the Spirit hath no condition, as Doctor … proves in many places particularly. The Synod of Dort …d Arl…, &c. part. 3. Sect. 6. and it is cleare, for if God have promiſed regenerating grace upon condition, that condition muſt be performed either by himſelfe or by the perſon to whom it is …iſed; if the condition he to be performed by himſelfe. it is all one with an abſolute promiſe; if by the perſon to whom it is promiſed, then ſomething may be done by a man that may procure Gods grace, and ſo gratia Dei datur ſecundum merita noſtra, which is Palagi…ſme. Now they that ſay the Covenant of grace in reſpect of ſaving graces is made to a beleevers ſeed; muſt either exclude the … promiſe in the Covenant of grace, Heb. 8. 10 of … God … their hearts, without which he is not their God; or elſe hold that promiſe abſolute, & ſo al infants of beleivers … be … ſaved. Yet that this is the common doctrine, … beleevers children have a promiſe of ſaving graces, is manifeſt p. 118in that from hence they aſſert the certainty of their ſalvation if they dye in infancy, not conſidering that if God have made ſuch a promiſe to a beleevers ſeed, it will as well aſſure the ſalvation of a beleevers ſeed in old age as infancy; ſith in old age they are their ſeed, and the promiſe in reſpect of regenerating grace, which brings with it all the reſt, muſt needs be abſolute. And therefore the promiſes Deut. 30. 6. Iſai. 54. 13. and ſuch like muſt be reſtrained to the elect as our Saviour doth; John 6. 45. & Gen. 17. 47. is expounded by Paul, Rom 9. 8. I had ſaid Mr Marſhals words muſt be underſtood as the words of the Directory, the promiſe is made to beleevers and their ſeed; which is to be meant of the promiſe of ſaving grace. Mr Blake conceives the meaning to be of the promiſes mentioned, that they are the grace promiſed, but I perceive he did not or would not underſtand my words: I did not ſpeak of the word [promiſes] in the direction for petition, that Mr Marſhals concluſion muſt interpreted by it; but of the word [promiſe] in that aſſertion in the doctrinall part [the promiſe is made to beleevers and their ſeed] which cannot be interpreted of the thing promiſed; but Gods act of promiſe, which is ſaid to be made, to wit by him: afore the promiſed is obtained. So that this new deviſe will not ſerve the words of the Directory.

I had ſaid. And that in that Covenant (Gen. 17. 7.) ſhould be a promiſe to us beleeving Gentiles (which words Mr Blake leaves out in the repetition) that to our ſeed ſhould be conferred viſible Church-priviledges, &c. is but a dream, &c. to this ſaith M. Bl. This objection riſeth up againſt God himſelfe, rather then any one of your adverſaries. But how this ſhould riſe up againſt God, Mr Blake neither doth nor can ſhew: Mr Blake ſeems to runne to his old ſhift, that God promiſeth Church-priviledges upon condition. If ſo, Cede conditionem. Let Mr Blake ſet down that condition, and I doubt not but either to force him to confeſſe that the reaſon of the preaching the Goſpell to ſome & their being viſible members, is ſomething in man which will be Pelagianiſme, or elſe Gods promiſe is abſolute; and ſo God not keeping it ſhall be guilty of Faith-breaking. Maſter Marſhall, pag. 127. of his Defence accuſeth me that I ſometimes ſay that Gen. 17. 7. was a promiſe peculiar to Abraham, at other times it was at the utmoſt to be extended no further then to Abraham Iſaac and Jacob, to have their poſterity (as born of them) p. 119to belong to the viſible Church. But Maſter Marſhall wrongs me, I have neither of theſe Propoſitions in either of my Treatiſes; what I conceive of it I have ſet down plainly, Exercit. pag. 2. 3. But Maſter Marſhall would have the promiſe, I will be the God of thy ſeed as promiſing viſible Church-memberſhip to belong to the naturall ſeed of every beleever. 1. becauſe the Covenant was made to him for his Faiths ſake. Anſ. if that were the motive, yet it followes not the promiſe belongs to every beleever as Abraham; no more then it followes, the promiſe, Matth. 16. 18, 19. was made to Peter by reaſon of his confeſſion, verſe 16. therefore it was made to every one that confeſſeth as Peter did, 2. How elſe ſhould Proſelytes children have Church-memberſhip. Anſw. Not by vertue of that promiſe, but by vertue of Gods command. Exod. 12. 48 To his third reaſon I have often anſwered and proved, that Deut. 30. 6. Iſai 44. 2, 3. Iſai 59. 21. muſt be meant of the elect, elſe how did God keep that promiſe when he did not circumciſe the heart of Davids and Joſiahs children. Maſter Marſhall pag. 129. puts this upon me; that I ſay God made this promiſe to Abraham Iſaac and Jacob, to be the God of them, and their ſeed. But I doe not remember that I ſay ſo any where, nor that the Scriptures ſayes ſo though I meet with promiſes ſomewhat like it, Gen. 26. 24 Gen. 28. 4. 14. But theſe promiſes ſo farre as they pertain to their naturall ſeed, were peculiar to them; and pertain not to every beleever, and his naturall ſeed. For none of the Gentiles are Abrahams ſeed, but by Faith. From all which I conclude, there is not a promiſe either of ſaving grace or Church-priviledge made to the ſeed of beleevers, and ſo they are not certainly in the Covenant of grace; in reſpect of Gods act of promiſing.

Maſter Blake ſayes, What will you ſay of thoſe that remembred that God was their rocke and the high God their redeemer; yet were not ſtedfaſt in his Covenant: Pſalm. 78. 35. 37. Theſe were a people within Covenant. I ſay this to it, that by his covenant is not meant Gods Covenant or promiſe to them, but their Covenant to God; or rather Gods commands called metonymically his Covenant.

Maſter Blake ſaith, And where I pray you doe you find thoſe words that chriſtianity is hereditary? Theſe are no words of mine but a ſupplement of yours. I anſwer, theſe words are Master p. 120Blakes Birth-previledge, pag. 6. The priviledges which in … or nation are hereditary are conveyed from … to poſterity, the the child of a noble man is noble, ſo the child of a chriſtian is a chriſtian, and this is all one as to ſay chriſtianity is ….

I paſſe by the vindicating of two ſpeeches of mine in this chapter, becauſe I muſt haſten.

To the ſixth chapter I have ſpoken ſo much as is needfull before.

In the ſeventh Maſter Blake accuſeth me for abuſing Maſter Thomas Goodwin, §. 7. Of the Corinthians doubt. 1 Cor. 7 12, 13 14.1 Cor 7:121 Cor 7:13but there is no abuſe all; for my words onelyonly make uſe of Maſter Goodwins expreſſion, which Maſter Blake denies not to have been his, but that he altered it, which may be unwitting to me. But for the thing I ſtill ſay that the Cerinthians doubt was not about their children. For that which is the doubt is to be the concluſion of his argument that reſolves it, but that which the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the Corinthians children, it is plain by the argumentative particles [foreign elſe ware] is a medium of a ſyllogiſm, as Mr Blake page 37. denies not; now … prob… eſt per notiora therefore it was not the thing … doubt. Beſides ver. 15, 16. following pertain to the reſolution of the doubt verſ… 12, 13.

which ſhewes that they are all a continued reſolution of the ſame doubt, without any ſuch immethodicall interpoſition of the reſolution of another doubt; as Mr Blake imagines.

As for the occaſion of the ſcruple, ſith neither of our opinion… is any other then a conjecture, I let it paſſe. One paſſage of Mr Blakes in theſe words. And I pray you ſpeake what how you doe beleeve, that the Corinthiane tooke it, for a common received principle; that if a man had as adulterous wife, that his children were legitimate, and not baſtards; ſo it muſt be if you opinion paſſe for a reaſon. I know not how he collects from my words; I ſay that the Corinthians took it for certain that their owne children were holy, that is legitimate; and I ſay the force of the Apoſtles argument lies in this Propoſition, that all the children of thoſe parents, whereof one is not ſanctified to the other, that is, doe not lawfully couple together are unclean, that is illegitimate; and that the Apoſtle ſaith, the unbeleeving husband is ſanctified to the wife, that is, is lawfully uſed by his wife becauſe hee is her husband, as if he had been holy: out of which, all the engines of Mr Blakes wit cannot extort the inference he puts on my opinion.

p. 121In the ſecond ſection Mr Blake ſayes,1 Cor 7. 14. is not meant of inſtrumentall ſanctification and federall holineſſe.1 Cor 7:14 that I heard before Mr Goodwins Lectures of inſtrumentall ſanctification. If it were ſo, yet I profeſſe I did never heed or know it ſo as to take notice of it till I heard Mr Thomas Goodwin uſe the phraſe. Mr Blake to my firſt argument againſt inſtrumentall ſanctification, ſaith; And is not this argument of yours of as great force againſt your interpretation of a matrimoniall, as ours of an inſtrument all ſanctification? I anſwer no: for they that cannot beget children may be ſaid to be ſanctified matrimonially, that is, may lawfully come together; but not inſtrumentally ſo as to beget a holy ſeed, which is Maſter Blakes ſenſe. For they that by age or accidentall inabilities cannot be ſanctified for generation, cannot beget children either by Covenant or legitimate. Mr Blake addes. The ſanctifying by the beleeving party here mentioned, reſpects the iſſue which you confeſſe in grounding a legitimation of iſſue upon it. I grant where there is iſſue, the holineſſe of it depends on the ſanctification; but where there is ſanctification, it is not alwayes ſuppoſed there is iſſue, or that there may be iſſue: to the begetting of which, they are inſtrumentally ſanctified. Mr Blake. This ſanctifying (whether inſtrumentall or matremoniall) hath its influence upon the ſeed; ſuch a brand lying upon all the iſſue, where there is iſſue (be it baſtardy or gentiliſme) were enough to conclude againſt ſuch marriages, one principal end of marriage being poſterity. He ſuppoſeth it ſeems, that uncleanenes is here meant, which is ſuch a brand on the iſſue as is enough to conclude againſt all ſuch marriages. This is very right, but I ſubſume that brand in all the iſſue where there is iſſue; which were enough to conclude againſt all ſuch marriages is baſtardy, not gentiliſm. For baſtardy in the iſſue proves the ſuppoſed marriage not to be right, but gentiliſme in the iſſue concludes nothing againſt the marriage: Ergo, the uncleaneneſſe here is baſtardy, not gentiliſm. And thus he hath unawares given the medium of an argument againſt himſelf. To my ſecond argument for matrimoniall ſanctification, he ſaith. I know you cannot ignorantly, and therefore I feare you wilfully miſtake, the meaning is, you may live together: for all the ſeed you beg at are …oly, infallibly, and neceſſarily holy, as the ſeed of infidels (neither parent beleeving) are neceſſarily & infallibly unclean; ſo that here is a future certainty, and not a contingency; & it is not poſſible to imagine a morefull and … anſwer … p. 122which I ſay I am ſure Mr Blake is miſtaken, whether ignorantly or wilfully, I determine not; for he ſpeakes of certainty of the holineſſe of the children in the latter part of the verſe, whereas the queſtion is whether inſtrumentall ſanctification for the begetting a holy iſſue; of which the ſanctification in the fore part of the verſe is expounded, be contingent or no: and this I am ſure is true, and therefore their lawfull living together for preſent according to Mr Blakes expoſition ſhould be taken from a future contingent, which Chamier truly counted abſurd, though as happy a Logician as he was, he foreſaw not how it ſerved againſt himſelfe. Bernardus non vider omnia.

To my third argument he ſaith. Here you beg the queſtion and reaſon flat againſt the Apoſtle. That ſanctifying which the Apoſtle mentions is areſult of the faith of the beleeving yoke-fellow, the unbeleever is twice ſaid to be ſanctified, but not the beleever; the beleever doth ſanctify, if any ſenſe can be made of the Apoſtles argument. I anſwer. He begs the queſtion, who ſuppoſeth what he ſhould prove: Mr Blake doth not, nor can ſhew I doe ſo; nor doe I reaſon flat againſt the Apoſtle; the Apoſtle no where ſaith the ſinctifying is the reſult of the faith of the beleeving yoke-fellow, if it were ſo, an unbeleeving fornicatour might be ſaid to be ſanctified by his beleeving whore, as well as a husband by his beleeving wife. The unbeleever is ſaid twice to be ſanctified, becauſe the doubt aroſe from his unbeleefe; but the ſaith of the beleever is not at all expreſſed, to ſhew that the faith did not ſanctifie, but the relation. But if it were meant of inſtrumentall ſanctification, it would come from Gods deſignation, not the faith of the one party. For whoſe inſtrument ſhould he be that is ſanctified for begetting a holy ſeed but Gods? now to this nothing is anſwered, and ſo this argument ſtands good againſt Mr Blake.

To my fourth argument he ſaith. Underſtanding the Apoſtle of inſtrumentall ſanctification and of federall holineſſe, the propoſition [their children could not be holy without that ſanctification] is moſt true, neceſſarily and univerſally true, as the iſſue of ſuch a birth, they are federally unclean and unholy; if afterwards by grace they are changed, this is no finit of their birth, of which the queſtion is in this place, but of the Goſpell work in their ſoules, To which I ſay the queſtion is not here what is the fruit of birth, not how the p. 123Propoſition can be true underſtood of federall holineſſe, and inſtrumentall ſanctification. And I ſay it is moſt certainly falſe, for many a child of both unbeleeving parents are federally holy. But ſaith Mr Blake, they are not ſo at their birth. But this is nothing to the purpoſe, ſith the Propoſition hath not thoſe words in it, no… the Apoſtle. The Apoſtles reaſon ſuppoſeth it cannot be at any time. And yet it may bee certaine that the child of two unbeleevers may be federally holy at birth whether it be underſtood of election, inherent holineſſe, or outward holineſſe, if God pleaſe to work and declare it. But the iſſue of them that are not lawfully conjoyned as husband and wife, cannot be made legitimate by God becauſe it is contrary to the definition of legitimation, which is a ſtate conſequent upon birth by the lawfull copulation of lawfull husband and wife.

To my Analyſis of the Apoſtle… argument, Mr Blake ſaith the laſt words, elſe were, &c. may be a m…d…, and a reſolution of another doub… …: but that cannot be, … it is an argument and that is … drawn from the thing in doubt, … à …; and that … which they would not yeeld, but the contrary was certain to them.

Mr Blake miſlikes not my forming the Apoſtles argument, but he excepts againſt the Propoſition I conceive the Apoſtles ſequele p…ſuppoſeth; which is, All the children of thoſe parents whereof the one is not ſa…ctified to the other, are …. To this faith Mr Blake, I appeale to your ſelfe, whether the truth of that ſequel, by you rightly laid down, doe depend upon tha… Propoſition which you draw from them… I anſwer, it doth. Mr Blake. Is the Apoſtle: … Propoſition of parents in generall, … of … beleeving, and another unbeleeving in particular? I anſwer, it is of an unbeleeving husband and a wiſe. And yet the Propoſition muſt be … be of all parents which muſt prove it; as he that will prove, if an Engliſhman be noble he is honourable, muſt prove it by this univerſall or …. All noble men are honourable, and not put in, all Engliſh … noble; for then the antecedent and concluſion would be al…ong: whereas the Propoſition proving muſt be larger then the Propoſition proved; elſe we might conclud…, ex meris …. To … if the unbeleeving …band were not ſanctified p. 124by the wife your children were unclean, is all one with this. All the children of the unbeleeving husband not ſanctified to the wife, are uncleane. Mr Blake ſaith, The truth of the Apoſtles ſequele depends on this Propoſition; All the children of an nobeleever are unclean, unleſſe for generation, he or ſhee be ſanctified by a beleever. I deny it, for the termes for generation by a beleever are added by him, not in the Apoſtle; and ſo he changeth the terms. Yet it is to be noted that though the Apoſtles major be of husband and wife in particular, Mr Blake makes the Propoſition on which it depends of unbeleevers in generall, and ſo by his own practife juſtifies me againſt his owne exception. 2. The Propoſition Mr Blake layes down as upon which the major in the Apoſtle ſyllogiſme depends. All the children of an unbeleever are unclean, unleſſe for generation be or ſhee be ſanct fied by a beleever, is falſe; and ſo is that which he ſaith after. All thoſe that are borne of unbeleeving parents, and one of them not ſanctified in the other, are out of the Covenant of grace, yea the other is falſe too, according to Mr Blakes opinion; unbeleeving parents never beget children by birth-priviledge holy. For children born of infidels brought into Abrahams family had right to circumciſion, and ſo were by birth-priviledge holy in Mr Blakes ſenſe. Mr Blake tels me, the Apoſtles Propoſition according to my interpretation is this. All the children of an unbeleever are baſtards, except in generation he or ſhee be ſanctified by a beleever. But this I deny: I have ſet down the Propoſition according to my interpretation plainly enough already.

My alleaging Chamiers words againſt his opinion was no jeare, but a right way of uſing an authors reaſons againſt another, againſt his own opinion. And that I did rightly, for theſe Propoſitions according to Chamiers explication are included in the Apoſtles reaſon. omnes nati ex tis parentibus quorum al…ur non ſanctificatur in al ero ſunt extra foedus gratiae. Nunquam parentes infideles gignunt liberos intra foedus gratiae fusuros. The adding [futuros] was neceſſary, becauſe their being in the Covenant of grace is after their begetting; if I had ſaid, qui fuerunt nut ſunt intra foedus gratiae, M. Blake would juſtly then have had exception againſt me as not righly ſetting down Chamiers conceit: now thoſe Propoſitions of …hamier are falſe; and conſequently his explication according to p. 125his own grounds. The putting in [aut fornicantes] was, becauſe I would include both explications of the forepart of the verſe, both that of matrimoniall, which I conceive was Beza's and that of inſtrumentall ſanctification. The uſing of the term rid…ca… lam, was no more a jear of Chamier then his uſing of it a jeare of Auguſtin. But my An agoniſts are ſo touchy, that expreſſions that are not ſo much as motes in other mens eyes are beames in mine.

To the exceptions of Maſter Blake. pag. 40.§. 9. Of M Blak…s m…ſallegation of Gal. 2. 15. which was the text he choſe for his birth-priviledge.Gal 2:15 I ſay, though I did not keep his words, yet I keep the effect of them. If he uſe not the term Covenant of grace, yet I ſuppoſe he will not deny he meant that which uſually Divines expreſſe by it in this point, though Maſter Blake thinkes the word Covenant of grace cannot be found in his treatiſe for baptiſm, yet if he pleaſe he may find the word Covenant of free grace, pag. 14. of his birth-priviledge uſed to that purpoſe I aſcribe to him where he ſaith, the holineſſe he maintaines is from the Covmam of free grace to all in the faith, and their ſeed. My explication of … meaning of the Apoſtles words Maſter Blake ſayes is almoſt the ſame with his in terminis. Then I have not wronged the Apoſtle, and it followes the Apoſtle cals himſelfe a Jewe by nature, as tied to keep the law of Moſes. Now I called it a dreame to make Gal, 2. 15. 1 Cor. 9. 14. every way p… allel, they neither agreeing in ſcope, occaſion, words, nor matter, which are diſſimilitudes enough. I grant his ſenſe of the word nature, and that the Apoſtle there ſpeakes of himſelfe and other. Jewes as in reputation more holy then the Gentiles, becauſe of their intereſt in circumciſion and obſervance of Moſes law, but this was proper to the Jewes in that Church-ſtate, who had prerogatives peculiar to them. Maſter Rutherford Due right of Presbyteries. chap. 4. ſect. 5. pag 192. That they had prerogatives above us is cleare, Rom. 3. 1, 2, 3. Rom. 9. 4. But I deny that, a holineſſe of birth flowing from a parent beleeving, and in Covenant is aſſerted, 1 Cor. 7. 14. The term ſin… of the Gentiles is not all one with uncleane, 1 Cor. 7. 14. B…ne chiefe thing he brings that text for, is to prove that our children have a Covenant holineſſe becauſe they are to be comprehended under the firſt member of the diſtinction Jewes by natu…. I wondered at this his collection, but it ſeems Maſter Blake takes the term Jewes not properly p. 126for people ſo called becauſe borns in Judes, or of Jewiſh deſcent, but alluſively as Rom. 2. 28. 29. But Maſter Blaks doth not obſerve that the terme Jewe alluſively taken is a term common to all godly people, or beleevers, whereas here Jew is taken as oppoſite to them that are of the Gentiles; and the denomination of a Jew alluſively taken is not from nature or birth, as here Maſter Blake rightly expounds the word nature, but from faith, as the term ſeed of Abraham, and the Iſrael of God, and the term circumciſion Philip. 3. 3. ſo that Maſter Blakes owne expoſition overthrowes his owne inference. But then ſaith Maſter Blake, our children muſt be under [ſinners of the Gentiles] and ſo they are aliens dogs without hope, &c. Epheſ. 2. 12. I anſwer, our children are of the Gentiles, who were ſinners, and as the Apoſtle ſpea…s Epheſ. 2. 12. at that time that went before their calling ſtrangers from the Covenant of promiſe, &c. But it doth not follow that he that ſaith our children are of the Gentiles, who were once ſtrangers from God, and ſo called ſinners according to their condition then, muſt hold that they … now. The moſt godly beleever now is under the ſecond mother of the diſtinction, being born of Gentile parents, and yet not as the Gentiles were then, ſtranger from Chriſt. Maſter Blake is moſt vaine in ſaying, that by my t… not there were ne more hope of the ſalvation of a Chriſtians Inf… then of Numa, I acknowledge no ſuch matter, nor doth any ſuch thing follow from my words, which are plaine and true; Maſter Blake ſhould, if he would have dealt fairly; have ſhowed … of which words, and how that followes which he obtand … me. When I ſaid the Iewes birth priviledge did not … them to the Covenant of grace, I meant the ſame with the Apoſtle, … yet they had this benefit by their birth that they were among the people of God, had the priviledge of … according to the Church-ſtate then, were to eat the …; come into the court of the Temple, had the law, Chriſt was to come of them, Rom. 9. 4, 5. Rom. 3. … and yet many of them not children of the promiſe. The … of grace being made by God doth promiſe to all and every perſon to whom that Covenant is made, that he ſhall be effectually wrought upon. I ſaid, the common priviledge of cir…ſion belonging to the Jewes, did not ariſe from the Covenant of gr…, recording to the ſubſtance, of it; p. 127but according to the adminiſtration that then was. My meaning was circumciſion was common to them which had no part in the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. neither an intereſt in the Evangelicall, nor houſhold promiſes made to Abraham, as for inſtance Iſmael: and therefor I ſay it did not ariſe from the Covenant of grace, or parents faith as the formal reaſon why Infants were circumciſed, but from Gods command according to that Church-ſtate that then he thought good to appoint. This being clear from Gal. 3 & 4. Maſter Blake interprets it, as if I had ſaid circumciſion was not a ſigne of the ſubſtance of the Covenant, and runs out in a large diſcourſe to prove the contrary; which toucheth not me who have expreſſely granted it Exercit: pag. 3. Examen pag. 39, &c. And it is a meer calumny in Maſter Blake, to to tell me that I cloſe with the Jeſuites, and with high diſdaine ſhake off the doctrine of the Proteſtants. But ſaith Maſter Blake, pag. 43. you ſay in your exercitation, pag. 2. The Covenant made with Abraham is not a p…e Goſpell Covenant, but mixt. In the ſame place I explaine my meaning, and prove it ſo fully, that I wonder that Maſter Marſhall, Maſter Blake and others are not aſhamed to except againſt it. What the Jeſuites ſay in this matter, or what the Proteſtants ſay againſt them, I have not time to examine. The thing, as I deliver it, is plaine according to Scripture: that there were ſome peculiar promiſes made to Abraham, Ge. 17. which are not made to every beleever. To tell us that godlineſſe hath the promiſe of the life that now is, 1 Tim. 4. 8. is nothing to the preſent purpoſe, for it doth not follow therefore that godlineſſe hath the promiſe of the Land of Canaan or that Chriſt ſhould be every godly mans ſeed, &c. Mr Blake ſaith, circumciſion was a fruit of the faith of the parents, but this is falſe; for then all, & none but children of beleevers were to be circumciſed, which is not true: whoſe children ſoever they were, if in Abrahams houſe, if bought with money of any ſtranger, they were to be circumciſed, I had ſaid, circumciſion was a priviledge in that time of the Churches minority, and this the Apoſtle delivers, Gal. 3. & 4. Mr Blake takes it as if I had ſaid, the fruition of the promiſes in ſuch a latitude, were onelyonly a priviledge during the time of the Churches minority, and would have me give ſome Scripture or colour of reaſon for it, which is to impoſe on me the proving of that I affirme p. 128not. I ſaid, he that will prove the birth priviledge of our children from the Jewes, muſt make our caſe as theirs, and ſo bring us under the ceremoniall law. This Maſter Blake puts into a formall propoſition of his owne, a man of ſtraw and then denies it, the reaſon of my words is plaine, circumciſion of Infants was from the paedagogy,, or peculiar Church-ſtate of the Jewes, as may be proved from Gal. 3. 25. Gal. 4. 1, 2, 3. and obliged to the ceremoniall law, Gal. 5. 3. therefore, they that from hence would draw the birth priviledge of our children, muſt make our caſe the ſame with the Jewes, and ſo bring us under the ceremoniall law. The reſt of that ſection is vaine, and not worth a line in anſwer. I ſaid truely, that the interpetation of 1 Cor. 7, 14. of legitimation is no more to be called a ſingular opinion then Maſter Blakes, and that I have proved by alleaging eleven Authors for it, and can do more.

To the 8th chapter,§ 8. That 1 P… 2. 9. is meant of the Church inviſible. what he ſayes of Doctor Wilmot I aſſent to: he was a precious man, and my dear friend; when Maſter Blake ſhall demonſtrate to me what paſſages in my booke of ſcandals are inexcuſable, I ſhall endeavour ſome way or other to retract them. Why I did not alter one or two paſſages, that Doctor Wilmot excepted againſt, I ſhall be willing to give Maſter Blake the reaſon. Maſter Blake is miſtaken in that he ſaith, that my friend of the Aſſembly that delivered my letter to Maſter Marſhal, was the man that told me of the Committee of the Aſſembly, and adviſed me to preſent the reaſons of my doubts to them; it was not he, but my reverend and deare Father in law. And that friend of mine of the Aſſembly, that delivered my letter to Mr Marſhall, tels me that though he was deſirous to have Maſter Blakes book printed, that the point might be diſputed; yet he did not approve many of his proofes: but by his ſpeech with me lately, I conceive he did except at ſundry of the ſame things which I did. But to the matter of that chapter. Letting paſſe the conference, and the occurrence therein, which was promiſed ſhould not be divulged by any hearers, nor was there any exact record kept of it; the diſpute is now brought to writing, the queſtion is whether I Pet. 2. 9 prove a birth priviledge of Chriſtians, equall to the nation of the fewes. I deny it, and ſay the words there are meant of the Church as it is inviſible. And to prove this.

p. 1291 I argue from the termes, choſen generatior, royall prieſt-hood, holy nation, peculiar people, or a purchaſed people, that is by Chriſts death, Tit. 2. 14. which cannot be affirmed of any other then elect and true beleevers, ergo.

2 From that which is ſaid of them that were called by God, by his power or vertue into his marvailous light, and v. 10. that now had obtained mercy which they had not before, which cannot be affirmed of any but elect perſons, and true beleevers ergo.

3 It is ſaid, v. 7. that theſe perſons did beleeve, contradiſtinguiſhed to them that were diſobedient and ſtumbled at the word, to which they were appointed, but ſuch are onelyonly the elect, ergo.

4 v. 5. They are ſaid to be built as living ſtones on Chriſt, a ſpirituall houſe, a holy prieſthood, to offer up ſpirituall Sacrifice acceptable to God by Jeſus Chriſt, which can agree to none but elect perſons, and true beleevers, ergo.

But the terme nation comprehends Fathers and Children. Anſw. The word nation, taken in theſe paſſages muſt be underſtood reſtrainedly of a ſpirituall people, as is plaine by conſidering that the Apoſtle Gal. 3. 8 ſayes this is the Goſpell, in thee ſhall all nations be bleſſed; that is, beleevers of all nations: elſe the Apoſtles collection v. 9. were not right. And ſo the word Kinred is uſed Acts 3. 25. compared with Epheſ. 3 15. the word houſhold, Epheſ. 2. 19. But they may be ſaid to beleeve with a dogmaticall faith. Anſw. Thoſe that do ſo never come to Chriſt as living ſtones; nor are built a ſpirituall houſe, which is proper to them that are made an habitation of God through the ſpirit, Epheſ. 2. 22. But the calling of a people is ſpoken of the ten tribes revolted Hoſ. 1. 10. Hoſ. 2. 23. Deut. 32. 21. Anſw. However it be in the places to which the alluſion is, it is certaine that here is meant ſuch a calling, as is from darkeneſſe to his marvailous light by his vertues or powers; which therefor deſerve to be ſhewed forth, and which they do ſhew forth that are thus called. And this is confirmed from Rom. 9. 24. 25. 26. which is manifeſtly ſaid of them who were called v. 23. veſſels of mercy; nor is this a denomination a parte praſt antigri, for it is expreſſely ſaid foreign were the ſame whom he called veſſels of mercy. And I ſtill ſay that I wonder Maſter Blake would perſiſt in maintaining ſo groſſe an abuſe of this Scripture; in which I hardly beleeve any approved writer joynes with him.

p. 130Maſter Blake had ſaid no particular preſident for womens receiving the Lords Supper, §. 11. Of precedents for womens receiving the Lords Supper.more then for this of Infants. baptiſme. I alleaged 1 Cor. 11. 28. where I ſaid foreign comprehends both ſexes, To this Maſter Blake ſayes ch. 9. if arguments from the Grammer uſe be of force, then circumciſion of femal… may be proved from John 7. 22. I reply, the ſubject matter of the command as well as the Grammer uſe of the word prove femals to be included. Maſter Coleman an Aſſembly man, and an able linguiſt in his malè dicis, pag. 32. hath theſe words. But that I confeſſe is ſomething harſh, that he ſhould aske me where there is the inſtitution for women to receive the Sacrament: when as 1 Cor. 11. 28. is as cleare for women as men. Mr Martin Blake in his anſwer to Maſter Benjamin Coxe ch. 7. ſect. 4. pag. 82. produceth many places where foreign is as much quiſque any one, Matth. 16. 26. Joh. 3. 27. & 7. 46. Gal. 6. 1. &c. I alleaged for an expreſſe example of women receiving the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 10. 17. & 1. Cor. 12. 13. and this I did in the Pulpit at Gabriel Fench-Church, as Mr Blake tels me; and I had fit occaſion ſith 1 Cor. 10. 17. was my text then, and that text is expreſſe without conſequence for womens receiving the Lords Supper, if [we] comprehend women as well as men, which Maſter Blake will not deny. And yet Mr Marſhals allegation to prove women virtually to be circumciſed in the males ſerves not for his purpoſe, I alleaged Acts 10. 7. Maſter Blake doubts whether it be meant of the Lords Supper, and if it b meant ſo he knoweth not how to avoid the Pepiſh argument for Communion in one kinde; and that this yeelds a proofe onelyonly by conſeqvence. I anſwer, if women be comprehended under the terme Diſciples, and breaking bread be meant of the Lords Supper, as to me it ſeems certaine; becauſe it was the end of their cuſto… meeting on the firſt day of the weeke, and therefore could not be any other breaking bread; then the example is expreſſe without conſequence, for womens receiving the Lords Supper. It Mr Blake know not how to anſwer the Papiſts, I wiſh him to read Chamier panstrat. Cathol. tom. 4. de Ench. lib. 9. c. 2. §. 34. &c. Maſter Blake would bring Acts 2. 47. for example farre more formall and expreſſe then mine of Infant-baptiſme, and he tels me of a ſyllogiſme. The Lord added to the Church dayly ſuch as ſhould be p. 131ſaved, Infants are ſaved, therefore are to he baptized. A ſtrange ſyllogiſme, where in the major permi… is not in the major propoſition at all, conſiſting of four termes; and ſo farre as I can gather in ſecunda figura ex omnibus affirmantibus: for the medium [ſaved] is the predicate in both premiſes, or elſe the major is particular, and ſo it conſiſts ex meris particularibus.

I go on to the 10th chapter. I ſaid,§. 12. To ſay that God hath promiſed to be the God of every believer and his uncurall ſeed is a new Goſpell. that it is a new Goſpell to affirme that this is one of the promiſes of the Covenant of grace, that God will be the God of beleevers and their ſeed. To this Mr Blake ſaith. A very high charge from that mouth which very lately, preached it as a Goſpell truth; and now being ſuddenly otherwiſe perſwaded, can bring no other arguments then thoſe that are harrowed from Antichriſtian …aries, who are confeſſed ſub verters of the Goſpell. I anſwer, Maſter Blake cannot prove that I ever preached that Doctrine, I ſcarce thinke I did ever preach it: Foraſmuch as I conceived, that Doctrine directly contradictory to the Apoſtle, Rom. … 8. ever ſince in Oxford I examined Arminius his A…dyſis of Rom. …. Suddenly I was not perſwaded as I ſhew in my Apology before. I knowe not what Antichriſtian ſectaries he means who are confeſſed ſubverters of the Goſpell from whom I borro…ed my arguments; I neither had them from Anabaptiſts, …o called, nor Papiſts: Maſter Blake gives way to his paſſion in this charge. My arguments I have from Scripture, from the moſt learned Proteſtants, as he may ſee part. 3. 54. And though it be an old Goſpell, that God hath promiſed to be the God of Abraham and his ſeed, yet I ſtill averre it to be a new Goſpell, to ſay that God hath promiſed to be the God of beleevers and their ſeed. The Cove…t with Abraham and his ſeed I find … 17. 7. and the urging of this Covenant I deny not Exod. 32. 13. Deut. 9. 27. Levit, 26. 42. Exod. 3. 6. And though I ſay not that it contained onelyonly the promiſe of …, but grant it contained the promiſe of … by Chriſt, … 1. 17. yet I like not Cha…iors ſaying, to call the promiſe of Can… an app… to the Coven…, ſith the Holy Ghoſt me thinkes ſpeakes otherwiſe, Pſ. 105. 8. 9. 10. 11. That … cap. 39. ſpeak not of … his faederall holineſſe hath been ſhewed before; and … which Maſter Blake cites pag. 57. saying that … p. 132biunt & expectant baptiſmum, do me thinkes prove that Infants were not ordinarily baptized in his time. Nor do I thinke Maſter Blake can prove the Doctrine of Covenant-holineſſe, out of Juſtin martyr, Epiphanius, Auguſtin, Iſidor Peluſiota.

I had ſaid,§. 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. that I gueſſe by ſome words of Maſter Marſhall, Mr Blake and Maſter Rutherfurd, that to maintaine the baptizing of all ſorts of perſons in the Kingdome, as foundlings Infants of Papiſts, whores excommunicat perſons; which is the ordinary practiſe; excepted againſt by Independents, that this aſſertion was upon the anvil: that when a nation ſhall receive the faith, that is a great or eminent part; the governours and chiefe cities and repreſentative bodyes ſhall receive the faith, that nation ſhall in like manner have all their litle ones capable of baptiſme, and counted viſible members of the Church, as the poſterity of the Jewes were in the time of that Church adminiſtration. Mr Blake askes me, in which of theſe words I pray you, can you find one word of that buſineſſe which you ſay is on the a…vill. I anſwer, to let Maſter Blakes words alone for the preſent, me thinkes Maſter Rutherfurds ſound plainly as much; For if notwithſtanding the Father and Mother were as wicked as the Jewes, who ſlew the Lord of glory, who did obſtinately deny Chriſt; the children were holy by the holineſſe of the choſen nation, which I conceive when the Anceſtors are not included, muſt meane the body, or generality of the nation; then the aſſertion I ſet downe as theirs muſt follow: but this I did deliver but as my gueſſe, yet ſo as that I thought neceſſary to oppoſe it; and I ſay, it oppoſeth their owne grounds, who derive the title to Infant-baptiſme from the Covenant, to a beleever and his ſeed; but theſe are not the ſeed of beleevers, but the ſeed of them that deny and impugne the faith; and from 1 Cor. 7. 14. of which Maſter Blake himſelfe faith pag. 38. of his anſwer ſo my letter, The truth of the Apoſtles ſequel depends on this propoſition, All the children of the unbeleever are uncleane, (that is out of the Covenant in his ſenſe) unl…eſſe for generation he or ſhe be ſanctifyed by a beleever. Which ſpeech of Maſter Blake I conceive plainly overthrowes Maſter Blakes poſition in the birth priviledge, pag. 24. &c. and Maſter Rutherfurds in the words before named. For if all the children of an unbeleever are uncleane, uneſſe for generation he or ſhe be ſanctifyed by a beleever, it will not p. 133be enough to ſay the nation is holy, or the mediate anceſtors were holy, ſith the Apoſtles poſition is of the immediate parents, about whoſe living together the queſtion was, and therefore ſaith, elſe were your children unclean. Mr Blakes anſwer here is a miſtake of the force of my reaſon, which was not from the term [beleever] in 1 Cor. 7. 14. but from this that by their own expo…ition, they are unclean who are not borne of a beleever, therefore they cannot be holy either by holineſſe of remote anceſtours or the choſen nation, when the immediate pare…ts are as wicked as the Jewes who crucified Chriſt. I ſaid the Independents had the advantage in this, and I am ſure they have againſt Mr Blake and Mr Rutherfurd, and I gueſſe that the Aſſembly were ſenſible of it, when they appointed in the Directory the child to be preſented by the Father, though I conceive that remedy will little or nothing rectify the abuſe. Mr. Blake ſaith it were worth enquiry whom I mean by officiating Prieſts. I tel him, non-preaching Prieſts made by the Biſhops. Mr Blake ſaith, your ſelfe were well aware, that every weapon that you left up againſt this Proteſtant doctrine was forged on the Jeſuitas a…vill, and that in the whole conflict you were neceſſitated to borrow help from the Philiſten Artiſts, when you were put upon it to ſay page 13. This is no undeniable Axiome, that, what all the Proteſtant Divines defend againſt the Papiſts, muſt be truth undeniable. To this I ſay, I am well aware that this is a loud calumny, the contrary whereof is manifeſt by the many and beſt Proteſtant Divines I quote all along my Examen, and very ſeldome make uſe of a Jeſuite throughout my Treatiſe. Nor was I put upon that ſpeech I uſed, becauſe I borrowed help from Papiſts; but becauſe Mr Marſhall ſpake of his virtuall conſequence as undeniable, as if he had been Doctor irrefragabilis, and it is neceſſary when men goe about to bind men to the conſent of Divines in ſome Churches, that we freely claime our liberty, and not become the ſervants of men. Mr Blake ſaith I doe not know one Proteſtant writer that hath declared himſelfe in this thing, but hath declared himſelf to be your adverſary. I anſwer, none of the Antipaedopaptiſts are my adverſaries in this; yet ſome of them are Proteſtant writers: in the point of expounding Gen. 17. 7. which is the chiefe hold for Covenant holineſſe, Twiſſe, Bayne, Ames, Downame, and many others are for me, in the point of expounding; p. 1341 Cor. 7. 14. Camerarius, Melanchthon, Muſculus, O ſiander, are for me. Mr Blake ſaith but a little before, pag. 58. Zuinglius in this hand went right, in which Luther his contemporary and oppoſite in this thing, is charged to be defective. But ſaith Mr Blake, I and you have entred into Covenant to the extirpation of Popery; and I would learn of you by what character or marke it may be now diſcerned. I anſwer, not by this, that that is to be accounted Popery which all Proteſtant Divines oppoſe the Papiſts in; for then many things would not be counted Popery which are, nor any thing to be counted Popery till we knew all Proteſtant Divines oppoſe it an endles, impoſſible buſines. But there is a ſhorter way then that, and it is that is to be counted Popery which is commonly known by that name, as the doctrine of the Popes ſupremacy infallibility, the doctrine of the Maſſe, Tranſubſtantiation, Bread-worſhip, Croſſe-worſhip, Invocation of Saints, &c. Or if you will have a more fixed way, you may take that to be Popery which either the 39 Articles of the Church of England condemn in oppoſition to Papiſts, or is renounced in the Scottiſh negative Covenant, or Confeſſion in the yeare 1581 as I remember, or what the preſent Parliament of England in their late Propoſitions to the King, Propoſ. 7. would have Papiſts abjure. Mr Blake ſaith, may we not require one other inſtance of a Popiſh truth ſtanding up againſt an Orthodox errour, beſides this incontroverſie? That from Gen. 17. 7. 1 Cor. 7. 14. or any other Scripture Covenant-holines of beleevers infants cannot be proved is as well a Proteſtant truth, as a Popiſh; An Orthodox errour is, oppoſition in …ppoſ… Be it that we cannot aſſign any one thing for truth in which Preteſtants generally oppoſe Papiſts; yet my ſpeech is good, that that is no undeniable axiome, that what all the Proteſtant Divines defend againſt the Papiſts, muſt be truth undeniable. He that will not ſubſcribe to this, muſt make the Proteſtant Divines doctrines againſt Papiſts, equall to the holy Scripture.

In the 11th chapter Sect. §. 14. Of the word [nations] Mat. 28. 19. how to be taken.Matt 28:191. Mr. Blake ſubſcribes to my interpretation, and concluſion, but doubts the premiſes on which I build it to be ſcarce ſound, the reaſon he gives is, becauſe I thus expound make Diſciples out of all nations, whereas the verb is tranſitive, and the noune in the accuſative; and therefore it is boldneſſe in me to change it, that in ſtood of nations I may underſtand as many or as p. 135few as I l…ſt of nations, whereas Mr Blake conceivet agreeable to prophecies, Pſal. 2. 8. &c. that the whole of the nation is appointed to be diſcipled, and to be baptized, and ſo infants to be comprehended. I anſwer, my boldneſſe was no other then Beza's, annot. on Mat. 28. 19. foreign, ideſt diſcipulos mihi facite ex omnibus gentibus. The new … on the Bible annot. on Matth. 28. 19. …each] Gr. make Diſciples of as John 4. 1. all nations] not Jewes alone, but Gentiles alſo; Acts 10. 34. 35. 47. nor do I any thing contrary to Grammar, as the … in tranſitive, ſo it is uſed tranſitively by me, and it hath an accuſative caſe after it, to wit the noune confeſſedly included in the verb that is made from it, and which I think none will deny to be the ſame with foreign uſed John 4. 1. and then all nations muſt either be put by appoſition foreign, or with the Praepoſition foreign, I ſtand not upon it whether be taken but I conceive it more agreeable to the ſenſe, and to the language to expreſſe it in the latter way, Bee then the whole of the nation, and ſo infants will not be included. I anſwer, it is true, nor can they be included. For the making Diſciples all nations is by teaching them, or by preaching the Goſpell to them; as the word foreign, is expreſſed, Markes 6. …. (which no man I think will have the face to deny to bee the ſame with this) not onelyonly Maſter Marſhall himſelfe that expreſſeth it in his Sermon pag. 35. that they ſhould teach the heathen and the Iewes and make them Diſcicles, and then baptize them; but Mr Blake ſubſcribes to this my intrepretation, by preaching the Goſpell to all nations, make them Diſciples. pag. 65. So that Mr Blake muſt needs exclude infants, except he can make them Diſciples by teaching or preaching the Goſpell to them. And for the prophecies he brings, I marvaile he is not aſhamed to produce, Pſal. 72. 11. Pſal. 86. 9. to prove that that the whole of the nation even infants muſt be included,§. 15. Of M. Rutherfurds and Mr Blakes and mine opinion concerning the rule to know who are baptizable. Mat. 28. 19. as if it were foretold that the whole of the nations even infants ſhould come and worſhip before God. Pareus in his Commentary on Matth. 28. 19. ſaith truly, tertium mandatum eſt de baptizandis omnibus gentibus, hoc eſt ſacramento baptiſmi initi…dis & conſecrandis omnibus is qui Chriſto nomen darent.

In the ſecond fiction of chapter 11. Maſter Blake ſaith, I had thought no man had equal … Bellarmin in taking paines to find a p. 136knot in a Bull-ruſh. But I have ſhewed above that Mr Rutherfurd hath made a knot, needfull to be untyed. I ſay, there can no rule be aſſigned whereby to know when a nation is a beleeving, choſen, or diſcipled nation, giving right to baptize infants of that nation when not. Mr Blake askes, doe you mean rules ſo cleare and plaine that … difficulty or caſe of conſcience can occurre; that needs enquiry in obſervation of it. I anſwer no, but ſuch rules as are ſo cleare that a caſe of conſcience may be reſolved by them. M. Blake acouſeth me as not rightly ſetting down his arg…ent, becauſe I ſet not down the concluſion right: I put the concluſion thus; and therefore the infants to be baptized, whereas I ſhould have added: and the nations being diſcipled, then infants as part of the nation are to be baptized: To ſhew the cauſleſneſſe of this exception, Mr Blake pag. 20 of his birth-priviledge had ſaid thus, The infants of any nation make up a part of the nation, and the nation, where they came was to bee diſcipled; but ſet not down his concluſion, and therefore I conceiving he meant to infer thence that infants were comprized in thoſe words, baptizing them, Matth. 28. 19. put down his concluſion thus, and therefore the infants: to be baptized. Mr Blake would have diſcipled put into the concluſion. But I conceive ſtill diſcipled ſhould not be put in the concluſion, and the premiſes were ſet down by himſelfe, and therefore I did him no wrong. For his argument in form muſt be thus. They who are part of a diſcipled nation are to be baptized, infants are part of a diſcipled nation, therefore infants are to be baptized; any man may ſee that diſcipled ſhould not be put in the concluſion, ſith it is in the medium, quod non ingreditur concluſionem. Now let his major Propoſition ſtand, and I will ſubſume upon Mr Blakes ground; Infidels of growne yeares are part of a diſcipled nation, for they are part of the nation; and if the nation be diſcipled, they are part of the diſcipled nation: therefore by Mr Blakes reaſon, Infidels of growne yeares are to be baptized. Mr Blake at laſt pag. 67. ſets downe his rule, in theſe words they are baptized by vertue of a priviledge from their parent, not from the nation: which is plainely to renounce Mr Rutherfurds aſſertion. I confeſſe if my firſt argument againſt the aſſertion I conceive Mr Rutherfurds may be anſwered, then the 2d. will be eaſily anſwered as M. Blake truly obſerves, p. 68. In anſwering my 3d. Mr Blake askes, How is it that wicked p. 137parents are now brought in this diſpute? I anſwer becauſe it was the term Mr Rutherfurd uſed in his aſſertion: not to ſhew my allowance of the baptiſme of infants of parents not wicked, nor out of agreement with Mr Thomas Goodwin in this. Mr Blake page 69. indeavours to prove by my tenet there can be no rule ſet down to know that any man is baptizable, becauſe he conceives I hold onelyonly true beleevers before God, members of the inviſible Church, veſſels of mercy, redeemed ones are the men diſcipled to be baptized; but who are ſuch, cannot be known. Ergo, by my opinion none are to be baptized. M. Blake indeavours to gather that to be my opinion out of my words, which are brought in obtorto cello, againſt their intent, nothing to his purpoſe. I ſay that Mr Marſhals words in this ſenſe are good, beleevers of every nation are the peculiar people meant; 1 Pet. 2. 9. and this is meant of the inviſible Church; and that God hath not choſen ſimply the nation of the Gentiles, but a people out of them: Revel. 5. 7. but doe I thereby expound Matth. 28. 19. as if [nations] there comprehended only ſuch elect perſons and true beleevers? or doe I any where ſay, that ſuch only are Diſciples and to be baptized? Why then doth Mr Blake not onelyonly here, but after in another chapter to wit the 14 of his book pag. 95, 96. endeavour to faſten ſo abſurdly that upon me, when he himſelfe twice in this very book p. 24. 50. acknowledgeth, that he hath heard it from my own mouth, that baptiſme is rightly adminiſtr… every profeſſour of Chriſt. I ſay pag. 158 of my Examen, th… …nfants being ſanctified are beleevers, and diſcipled of Chriſt; but I no where ſay, a ſanctified perſon a beleever, and a Diſciple to be the ſame, as Mr Blake untruly chargeth me, pag. 96. for I doe not make the termes reciprocall. Nor is that the advantage which I ſay the Independents have in this point, that the holineſſe that is the ground for the adminiſtratour to baptize, muſt be reall either indeed or charitably beleeved; but this is the advantage I conceive the Independents have, that whereas ſome will have children baptized though the parents be never ſo wicked: if they be a part of a beleeving nation, or their mediate Anceſtours profeſſed the faith, the Independents have advantage againſt them by their own plea; from Gen. 17. 7. 1 Cor. 7. 14. as I ſhewed above. In like manner Maſter Blake chapter 14. page 93. becauſe I ſaid that Infants may by p. 138extraordinary power be made Diſciples, as God made Iohn Baptiſt leap in his mothers womb, and Balaame aſſe ſpeak, inferres againſt all reaſon and candor, thus. You hold this is done by the omnipotent power of God, as uſually as actuall faith and profeſſion of it is wrought in them; as aſſes are made to ſpeake with mans voice, and children in the womb leap for joy at the ſenſible prefence of one that ſpeakes to their mother. Theſe you joyn together, ſo that this is the comfort that you leave to parents when infants beleive, make profeſſion of their faith, aſſes ſpeak, and infants in the womb know a voyce and rejoyce upon hearing it, then their children may be ſanctified and dying in infancy ſaved. But what ſpirit is Mr Blake poſſeſſed with that he ſo unbrotherlike perverts my words to make me odious? I ſay that infants are ſanctified by extraordinary power, not by ordinary means as hearing the word, doe I therefore make this unuſual? It may be done in every infant of a beleever for ought I ſay to the contrary. But you make it an extraordinary accident when you uſe this paſſage, both p. 134, & 158. extraordinary accidents make not an ordinary rule. 'Tis true I uſe the paſſage in both places, but do not in either make the extraordinary accident to be an infants ſanctification, but in the one an infants profeſſion of faith, as the very words ſhew, pag. 134. and in the other the extraordinary revelation, as is eaſie to be perceived by him that reads, pag. 158. of my examen. And thus have I anſwered with ſect. 2. ch. 11. the fourteenth chapter …ſo of Mr Blakes book.

Sect.§. 16. About two ſuppoſitions aſcribed by m… to Mr Marſhal and Mr Blake in my Examen page 130. 3. chap. 11. Mr. Blake …hargeth me of impoſing this ſuppoſition on him, that he ſhould ſtrongly conceit this, that Chriſt bid the Apoſtles baptize all nations after the manner that the Iewes did circumciſe one nation, my meaning was that he conceived that as God appointed the Jewes to circumciſe parents profeſſing faith and their infants; ſo he bid the Apoſtles baptize beleeving parents, and their infants: I did not intend to charge him with this conceit, as if he conceived that Chriſt bid the Apoſtles ſet up circumciſion, as he ſeems pag. 73. to imagine, but that he conceived they were to baptize all nations. Fathers and Infants in like manner as the Jewes circumciſed Fathers and their Infants. And this I conceive ſtill muſt bee his meaning, not knowing what other Covenant, and Covenant-initiating Sacrament he could meane reſtrained to one nation, beſides the Covenant, Gen. 17. and circumciſion p. 139appointed to the Jewes. But Mr. Blake tels me this was my calumny to ſay he would have the commiſſion, Mat. 28. 19. to be expounded by the precept of circumciſion, Gen. 17. hee mea…t the precept or commiſſion; Matth. 10. 6. I anſwer, Mr Blake would have the word nations Matth. 28. 19. to comprehend infants, and his reaſon is, becauſe the word nation was ſo taken, when the Covenant, and Covenant-initiating Sacrament was reſtrained to that our nation. Now I appeale to any one whether in the commiſſion. Matth. 10. 6. yea or in the whole … word nation be taken as reſtrained to that one natio… … commiſſion was firſt limited, nor is there any menti… … of Covenant or Covenant-initiating Sacrament in … whole chapter, nor a word that ſhewes that the word nation in the Apoſtles commiſſion comprehended infants. And therefore I could not divine more fairely then I did what Mr Blakes meaning ſhould be in that obſcure expreſſion. But ſaith Mr Blake you are not at the paines to make it appea… how the words of Chriſt were to the Apoſtles in elligible, if the word nation in this enlarged Commiſſion, muſt bee taken in my other ſenſe, and latitude then it was in their former limited commiſſion when the Covenant and Covenant-initiating Sacrament was reſtrained to one nation. To this I anſwer, I took paines I think ſufficient to ſhew how it muſt be underſtood in my Examen, §. 13. and therefore I ſhew how it was intelligible to the Apoſtles. Many interpreters have expounded the word, … that I know of expounded it by Mat. 10. 6. The commiſſion Mar. 16. 15. is the ſame with Mat. 28. 19. and ſo expo… without running to Mat. 10. 6. The other ſuppoſition … …ceived Mr Marſhals argument relied on is, that the nation … Jewes were diſcipled when circumciſed. This Mr Blake ſaith, I put on him, but he diſclaimes it. The truth is, I did not put it on Mr Blake, but Mr Marſhall; though the next words ſpeak of Mr Blake: but not imputing to him the ſecond, but the firſt ſuppoſition. As for Mr Mar. I do not find him diſclaiming it. And for that inference that M. Blake makes from my words, as if I conceived low thoughts of Mr Blake and Mr Marſhall, becauſe I ſay the conceit that making Diſciples, Mat. 28. 19. is to be done by baptizing them, is ſo abſurd that I preſume none that hath any wit will entertain it, now it is as abſurd to ſay, that the Jewes were diſcipled when they were circumciſed, p. 140and therefore I conceive Mr Blake and Mr Marſhall have not any wit. But for this inference it is a farre fetched thing: I did not conceive the one ſo abſurd as the other, nor doe yet, and therefore I might impute defect of wit to the entertainer of the one conceit, and yet not impute it to Mr Marſhal and Mr Blake, for entertaining another conceit like it. Mr Blake excepts againſt me for ſaying theſe points had ſtrong hold in his mind, that baptiſme ſucceeds into the room, place, and uſe of circumciſion; and that the Covenant of the Goſpell is all one with the Covenant made with Abraham: … uſed thoſe words, that Baptiſme ſo ſucceeds circum… … therefore how could I know it to bee in his mind I anſw… … it by words equipollent which hee uſeth as Birth-priviledge, page 14. what is objected againſt one, concludes againſt both: circumciſion and baptiſme are therefore by the Apoſtle promiſcuouſly taken; there being the ſame principall and maine end of both. And this is evidence enough for what I ſaid. The other Propoſition he denies not to be in his mind.

Sect.§. 17. About arguments drawn from Analogy in poſitive rites and their invalidity: and the inſufficiency of M. Blakes rules. 4. ch. 11. Mr Blake makes a digreſſion concerning arguments drawn from Analogy. And firſt whereas I had allowed for that which is naturall or morall in worſhip, an inſtitution or command in the old Teſtament as obligatory to chriſtians: upon this Mr Blake tels me, there is the ſame reaſon and like liberty in arguing by analogy in poſitive as in morall precepts. To this I reply, if the meaning bee that there is like reaſon of proving morall precepts from the old Teſtament as poſitive rites, it is moſt falſe and contrary to the 7th article of the Church of England, but if it be … …tood of the manner of proofe by analogy or reſembla… then I deny that wee have any liberty at all to argue from analogy or reſemblance, to prove or make a dutie or command in morals or ceremonials, though I grant we may uſe analogy to inforce a duty before proved. For an argument to prove a thing to bee a morall dutie from the old Teſtament, muſt bee by proving the ſame thing, then to have been morall as Maſter Cawdray and Maſter Palmer endeavour to prove one day in ſeven for a Sabbath to bee morall and perpetuall, but an argument from analogy is from one thing to another, as like, for analogy or proportion is betweene, not the ſame but more things as like. As for the Apoſtles arguing, 1 Cor. 9. 9. p. 1411 Tim. 5. 18. the Apoſtle doth not by …are analogy conclude miniſters maintenance, but from the Lords ordinance, 1 Cor. 9. v. 14. which ordinance I take to be that Matth. 10. 10. which ordinanc the Apoſtle confirmes from common equity, which he proves b… diverſe inſtances, from v. 7. to v. 14. ſo that the Apoſtle doth no prove a morall duty by analogy between two different things, bu… from a generall maxime that the labourer is worthy of his reward proved by ſundy inſtances, inferres a particular truth concerning miniſters. The argument 1 Cor. 10. 16. 17. is to prove. that they which profeſſe C…t, may not partake of the things of Idols, from this generall truth that they which joyn in the ſeruice of any God they hold communion with that God, and are one with thoſe that worſhip that God this the Apoſtle proves by inſtances in the Chriſtian, and Jewiſh ſervices. So that this argument is from a generall truth proved by an induction of inſtances. That Matth. 12. 3. 4. is onelyonly an inſtance to prove that ſacrifice muſt give place to mercy: a ceremoniall to a moralll duty; not an argument from meer analogy or reſemblance of things different. But what ever arguing there be in morals, certaine it is that no argument is good from bare analogy in ceremonials, or meer poſitives of the Jewes; to prove, thus it was in ſuch a rite of the Jewes, therefore it muſt be ſo in ſuch a rite of the Chriſtians, there's no example of ſuch arguing in the Scriptures, and therefore I ſaid rightly Examen pag. 29. To me it is a dangerous principle upon which they goe that ſo argue, to wit, that in meer poſitive things (ſuch as circumciſion and baptiſme are) we may frame an addition to Gods worſhip, from analogy, or reſemblance conceived by us betweene two ordinances; whereof one is quite taken away without any inſtitution gathered by precept or Apoſtolicall example. Maſter Blake would knowe who they be that do ſo, I anſwer, Mr Marſhall in his firſt argument, and five firſt concluſions, and virtuall command from circumciſion; Maſter Blake birth-priviledge pag. 15. and generally all that prove Infant-baptiſme, by Infant-circumciſion. For circumciſion and baptiſme, are meer poſitive things; baptizing of Infants is confeſſed not to have expreſſe inſtitution gathered by expreſſe precept, or example in the new Teſt: and that which is alleaged, is either expreſſe, or no precept, or example at all: and if it were to be gathered by conſequence from inſtitution, p. 142or example Apoſtolicall in the new Teſtament, without the helpe of the precept of circumciſion there would be, for as much as it concernes my part, an end of the controverſie: therefore it is clear, they that argue from circumciſion to baptiſme, doe frame an addition to Gods worſhip, from analogy or reſemblance conceived by them, between two ordinances: whereof one is quite taken away, without any inſtitution gathered by precept, or Apoſtolicall example. But ſaith Maſter Blake. It is not barely the analogy between circumciſion and baptiſme, by which we inforce the baptiſme of Infants, but the grounds of both circumciſion and baptiſm. This is ſaid, but when the grounds are required, what are they but the analogy between baptiſme and circumciſion, that they are like; what's the reaſon of the one, is the reaſon of the other: and therefore what is done in the one, is to be done in the other? Now whence is this arguing but barely from the likeneſſe, which makes an argument meerly from analogy. If the argument were drawn from ſome thing proper to baptiſme it were another caſe, but being drawne from circumciſion to baptiſme, it is an argument meerly from analogy. If they reſt not on this, let them lay aſide this argument, and ſticke to precept or Apoſtolicall example in the new Teſtament. To ſhew the danger of this way of arguing, I thus reaſoned Examen pag, 29. For if we may do it in one thing, why not in another? where ſhall we ſtay? They that read the Popiſh expoſitors of their rituals do know, that this principle hath brought in ſurplice, purification of women, &c. that I mention not greater matters. I deſire any Learned man to ſet me downe a rule from Gods word, how farre I may go in my conceived parity of reaſon, equity or analogy, where I muſt ſtay; when it will be ſuperſtition and will-worſhip when not; when my conſcience may be ſatisfyed, when not. Maſter Blake in anſwer hereto, layes downe three rules. 1. When parity of reaſon or analogy, doth not inſtitute any peece of worſhip, or the leaſt part of the ſervice of God but onelyonly helpes to a right underſtanding of the nature, uſe, end, extent of that which is inſtituted. 2. When in our reaſoning from analogy, from the right understanding of any inctitution, or ordinance, … do not reſt ſoly on the analogy that we find with other commands, but have our further reaſon for confirmation. 3. When the analogy holds full proportion in that for which it is brought, ſo that nothing can p. 143fairely be brought againſt the one, but may be alſo concluded againſt the other. To this I anſwer. 1 That never a one of theſe rules is brought out of Gods word. Not the firſt, for there is neither declaration of ſuch a rule, nor example to prove that rule. The proving of excommunicating of women from Miriams ſhutting out of the camp, Numb. 12. 14. is not a Scripture collection, but a meer deviſe of men; the argument againſt nonreſidence from Ezek. 44. 8. is good after other arguments, but without other proofe is not convincing: and it is not in meer poſitive things but morall. The argument of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 9. 13. 14. is not from one poſitive rite to another, but from an ordinance of God agreeable to common equity in the old Teſtament, to illuſtrate an ordinance in the new Teſtament, about a morall duty of righteouſneſſe. The ſecond and third rules are not ſet downe from any declaration or example in the Scripture. 2 I ſay theſe rules are very uncertaine, For no reaſon is given why they may not make a new worſhip, who may by their analogy extend it beyond the inſtitution in the new Teſtament yea, it will be alleaged by Papiſts, and others, that when they appoint Surplice, Purification, Organs, &c. they do not make a new worſhip, but adde circumſtances to the ordinances of Chriſt. Yea, The ſecond rule overthrowes all, For if we may not ſoly reſt on the analogy; why at all? This is enough to ſhew that analogy hath no ſtrength, that indeed it doth onelyonly illuſtrate cannot prove; what is an argument by analogy, but an argument a ſimilt? If analogy could prove, we might reſt ſoly on it, without any other confirmation. It is true, many deſire more arguments, but in truth if it be an argument that proves, we may rely on it ſoly though there be no other. The third rule likewiſe is uncertaine and vaine. For how ſhall we knowe when the analogy holds full propo…tion? when nothing can be fairely brought againſt the one, but may be alſo concluded on the other? when is the proportion full, if onelyonly when omnia ſunt paria; this can never happen in analogies between the rites of Moſes and rites of Chriſt? If when there is a parity in many things, it will be uncertaine how many parityes will ſerve turne to make the proportion full; what force there is in an analogy when there are more diſparities: And ſo for a rule to knowe when a thing is fairly brought, whether the rule be to be taken from Logicke, or the p. 144judgement of the Learned. So that theſe rules are very uncertain. 3 It is alſo uncertaine whether theſe rules be ſufficient, whether there be no need of any more. For theſe rules will not exclude proofe of imparity of miniſters, Infant commuuion, &c by analogy. Or if they do the ſame aberration from theſe rules that diſproves the analogy for theſe; will be incident to the analogy for Infant-baptiſme. We may ſay Infant-communion, or imparity in the miniſtery is no more a new inſtituted worſhip, then Infant baptiſme; they that alleage analogy for imparity of the Clergy, and Infant-communion reſt not ſoly on it: it ſeems to be brought as fairely with as full proportion in the one as the other. So that I conclude, not onelyonly with Maſter Rutherfurd proportions are weake proportions, but alſo that in theſe poſitive rites, and inſtitutions they are no probations at all, but meer illuſtrations, and conſequently the argument for Infant-baptiſme from the analogy of Infant-circumciſion is a meer nullity.

The reſt of the ſection containes nothing but wrong inferences from my words; I diſtinguiſh between Evangelicall promiſes and promiſes domeſticall ſpecially reſpecting Abrahams family, If this diſtinction may paſſe then Abrahams family had no Evangelicall promiſes ſaith Maſter Blake, you make ſaith he, an oppoſition between them. But what ridiculous arguing is this? It's all one as to ſay, If gifts of grace and nature are diſtinguiſhed, then they that have gifts of grace, can have no gifts of nature. Thoſe things that are not idem formaliter, or realiter, may be in eodem ſubjecto. I oppoſe them, he ſaith, but how? not as contraries, but as diſparata, which is rather a diſtinction then an oppoſition. Becauſe I ſay, circumciſion ſignified that Moſes Law was to be obſerved, Gal. 5. 3. Maſter Blake excepts. You are (it ſeems) of Mr Blackwoods opinion, that ſaith, circumciſion did not bring any grace to the Jewes, but was rather a yoke or a curſe. Maſter Blackwood hath or may anſwer for himſelf. Mr. Blakes inference from my words is a meer cavil. And that which he addes, that I make frequent uſe of Bellarmines ſophiſtry is a meer ſlaunder. That circumciſion ſignified the promiſe of the Land of Canaan, I had it not from Bellarmine, but if from any, rather from Cameron cited by me exercit: pag. 4. or rather from Gen. 17. 8. Pſal. 105. 11. This is enough in anſwer to that ſection.

p. 145Sect.§. 16. That Mr Blake hath not proved that Infants are diſciples from Mat. 18. 5. nor pertinently alleaged. Iſai. 49 22.Matt 18:5Isa 49:22 5. ch. 11. Maſter Blake accuſeth me as not ſetting down his argument rightly, but the truth is, I ſet not downe the argument as it is in Maſter Blake, but as it was in Maſter Marſhall, whoſe very words I alleadge, and that rightly. But Maſter Blake thinkes he formed it to better advantage; From Matth. 10. 42. Mar. 9. 41. compared, I onelyonly gather to that belong to Chriſt, and to beare the name of Chriſt, and to be a Diſciple of Chriſt is one and the ſame thing. But by his leave, if he ſhould meet with a punctuall reſpondent, he would and might deny his proofe. For all that he can prove from thence is, that the ſame perſons that belong to Chriſt, are diſciples of Chriſt; but it is not true alwayes, quae eidem ſubjecto conveniunt ſunt eadem formaliter. He that ſhould ſay, he that receives my ſervant receives me; he that receives one that belongs to me receives me; though he ſpeak both theſe of the ſame perſon, yet a ſervant, and one that belongs to him are not all one and the ſame thing: For there are other that belong to him, as wife, children, friends, beſides ſervants. And indeed to belong to Chriſt, and to be a Diſciple of Chriſt, are not one and the ſame thing. To be a Diſciple of Chriſt in all the places in the four Evangeliſts and Acts of the Apoſtles, ſignifyes no other then one that profeſſed Chriſt to be his maſter, and followed his Doctrine, as the Diſciples of John, the Phariſees, and others did follow their Doctrine; but many belong to Chriſt, yet uncalled, all that his Father hath given unto him, the Angels that are his Miniſters belong to him, and yet cannot in the Scripture acception be termed Chriſts Diſciples. But I aſſume ſaith Maſter Blake, that Infants are of the number of thoſe who as Diſciples in Chriſts account do belong to him. Matth. …. 5. I ſaid the word foreign notes not alwayes an Infant, for I…rus daughter, though twelve yeare old is called foreign Marke 5. 41. 42. and yet that age might be a patterne of humility▪ ſeldome are children of that age ambitious as the Diſciples, though they be oft impatient. I ſaid further that Matth. 18. 5. is not meant of a little child in age, and that … proved from v. 3. …. 6. But ſaith Maſter Blake, he is indeed a child in underſtanding that doth not ſee that your …ference to v. 3. 4. is wholly againſt you for little child v. 3. 4. is taken for ſuch a one as in age is a little child, elſe the ſpeech would be …ept. But Mr Blake ſhould have …ded my words better, I did not parallel the word p. 146[little child] v. 5. with [little child] v. 3 4 but the phraſe [one ſuch little child] with the phraſes, v. 3. one that is converted, and made as a little child. v. 4. one that humbles himſelfe as a little child v. 6. one of thoſe little ones that beleeve in him. But ſaith Maſter Blake, Luke 9. 48. it is foreign It is true, it is ſo. Nevertheleſſe Beza notes thus, ſed & pro foreign hunc puerulum, fortaſſis legendum foreign hujuſmodi puerulum: & Grotius foreign id eſt: foreign ut apud Matthaeum, quomodo & hic Syrus interpretatur. Tale eſt: amor omnibus idem. That in Matth. 18. 5. a little child muſt be meant of a little child in affection, ſeems plaine to me by the terme foreign ſuch a one, that it is not limited to that little child, the term 1. ſhews which is as much as quempiam any one. And me thinkes the meaning of the words ſhould be thus, whoſoever ſhould receive ſuch a one as is as meane and low as a little child receiveth me, as that which followes makes me conceive. For he that is leſſe among you, that is, though he were as meane as a little child, ſhall be great. But were it granted that it were meant of a little child in age, how doth it follow that ſuch a one is there a Diſciple? This, if any muſt be the proofe: He that is received in chriſts name, is a Diſciple. A little child may be received in Chriſts name ergo a little child is a diſciple▪ But of this argument, I deny the major; a perſon might be received in Chriſts name, who was not a Diſciple, as thoſe that did miracles in Chriſts name▪ and yet followed not Chriſt, Luke 9. 49. But if it were ſo that it could be proved, that the terme Diſciple is any where given to an Infant, (which neither Maſter Blake from Matth. 18. 5. nor Maſter Marſhall from Acts 15. 10. can ever do) yet it is certaine that a Diſciple Matth. 28. 19. is ſuch a one as is made by preaching the Goſpell, as is manifeſt from Mar. 16. 15. John 4. …. And I wonder that thoſe very men that do in effect ſometime confeſſe this is not meant of Infants, when they anſwer the Antipaedobaptiſts objection from Matth. 28. 19. as Mr Marſhall pag. 44 of his Sermon, It is ſaid indeed, that they taught and baptized, and no expreſſe …ntion of any other, that yet they ſhould by ſuch ſtrained and forced inferences go about to draw a command from Matth. 28. 19. for baptizing Infants, as if they might be called there Diſciples, contrary to the conſtant uſe of the word throughout the new Teſtament, and their own confeſſionelſ p. 147where. Sect. 6 ch. 11. Maſter Blake blames me for putting his reaſon from Iſai 49. 22 as an argument by it ſelfe in my exercitation. But he might know my exercitation ſet downe moſt of the arguments as they were urged in the conference with me, And ſo was the reaſon from Iſai 49. 22. urged in that conference as an argument by it ſelfe, to my beſt remembrance, however it were after diſpoſed in the birth-priviledge. But ſaith Maſter Blake, the queſtion here is not (as after your manner you miſtake it) whether this text proves Infant-baptiſme, but whether it gives any intimation, that Infants in the dayes of the Goſpell be any members of the Church-viſible, or intitled to any priviledges of the Covenant, as Chriſts Diſciples. I reply, The proving of that intimation tended to prove Infant-baptiſme, and therefore thoſe words were alleaged for Infant-baptiſme; which was that I ſaid, not a whit miſtaking the queſtion. Now ſith Maſter Blake confeſſeth that the words muſt needs be allegoricall, why doth he expound the terme ſons and daughters of infants, and tell us that their carriage of their little ones muſt be underſtood no otherwiſe then of the acceſſe of the Gentiles with their Infants to the Church of Chriſt. For if the Carriage, and nourſing v. 23. be allegoricall meant of perſwaſions, exhortations, and ſuch like acts, Infants could not be thus carried And ſo Mr Blakes allegationis but an empty ſound.

Ch. 12.§. 19. of baptizing houſholds & my cenſure of Mr Blakes ſpeech concerning it. Maſter Blake goes about to juſtifie his ſpeech that he uſed in his birth-priviledge, pag. 22. that the precedant is an houſehold. He that followeth the precedent, muſt baptize houſholds. This ſpeech I ſaid, I marvaile much at it, and that it is very abſurd, that I ſay no worſe of it. Maſter Blake tels me. I expreſſe not the reaſon of ſo much marvaile. I anſwer the terme wherefore, with the words following expreſſe this reaſon plainely, ſith as I ſaid before in houſholds were Infidels, if an houſhold be the precedent to be followed; and he that followeth the precedent muſt baptize houſholds without any other qualification; then when he baptizeth the beleeving maſter, he muſt baptize the unbeleeving ſervant, wife, &c. for they are of the houſhold. Maſter Blake. If you had any worſe to ſay, I wonder that you had not ſpoke it, your beſt friends I beleeve will ſay that you have ſufficiently ſhewed your ſelfe abſurd in language. Sure Maſter Blake knowes that a ſpeech may be worſe cenſured then by terming it very abſurd, I might have called p. 148it ſophiſticall, deceitfull, and that had beene worſe. My beſt friends can finde no abuſive language of any mans perſon, their ſpeeches or arguments I cenſure in no more abſurd language then uſually ſchollers do, and particularly Maſter Gataker doth Doctor Ames, and Voetius as I have ſhewed in this Apology above §. 5. Maſter Blake addes, I onelyonly ſay ſome more learned then I, as learned as you have denied my words to be either abſurd or heterodox. Be it ſo; yet affection may blinde their eyes. But let us examine the ſpeech. I reaſoned thus, if the precedent to be followed be a houſhold, then thoſe of the houſhold are to be baptized either becauſe of the houſhold; if this be ſaid, then the Infidell wife is to be baptized becauſe of the houſhold, or becauſe they profeſſe the faith; and then the precedent is not a houſhold, but a profeſſor of faith. To this Maſter Blake, For full anſwer I ſay, that wife and ſervant, as wife and ſervant, are in a capacity for baptiſme: if any wife and ſervant were in thoſe houſholds they were baptized; elſe the Scripture would not have ſaid the whole family was baptized. It is ſufficient that Scripture mentioning baptiſme of whole houſholds, excepts none from a capacity of baptiſme. I reply, in that which he cals a full anſwer, there is no anſwer at all to my reaſon; for he neither denyes my diſtinction to be ſufficient, nor doth he tell us which member he will chooſe in the Dilemma, nor how he will avoid the conſequent upon his choice. And therefore his learned friends, though they were ten times learneder then my ſelfe, yet in this are miſtaken in acquitting either the former ſpeech, of this anſwer, from abſurdity. But let us conſider what he ſayes. It is ſufficient, that Scripture mentioning baptiſme of whole houſholds, excepts none from a capacity of baptiſme. I reply: Is this ſufficient to make the baptizing of houſholds the precedent, that is the pattern by which we may now baptize Infants, becauſe Infants are not excepted? Then neither are Infidels excepted there; nor naturall fooles or idiots of ripe yeares, and ſo are to be the precedent of baptizing. But wife and ſervant as wife and ſervant, are in a capacity for baptiſme. Anſwer. It is not true, that wife and ſervant as wife and ſervant are in a capacity for baptiſme, if […s] betaken with reduplication, and [capacity] of actuall right, but as they are profeſſors of faith. But if it be underſtood that, … wife, that is though wife, and capacity in reſpect of future poſſibility, p. 149then it is true of an Infidell, of any man ſhall we therefore make an Infidell, or a man ſimply the precedent of baptizing? I ſaid there's no reaſon why it ſhould not be laid as well, that baptizing Samaria, Acts 8. 12. the 3000. Acts 2. 42. all Judea Matth. 3. 5; ſhould be the precedent as baptizing of houſholds, Acts 16. True ſaith Maſter Blake, if Semaria be converted, all Judaea is taken for ſome conſiderable numbers out of every part of Judaea. So ſay I, the terme houſhold is taken Acts 16. for thoſe of the houſe that being of growne yeares profeſſed the faith. And ſo there's no precedent there for baptizing an Infant.

Chapt. 13.§. 20. About Mat. 19 14. that by the Kingdome of heaven is meant the Kingdome of glory.Matt 19:14 Mr Blake paſſing over all that I ſay to Mr Marſhals ſecond argument, till pag. 145. concerning it tels me, that I might have given Mr Marſhal leave to explain his own argument. And And I tell Mr Blake that ſo I did, and then did my part to ſhew what was faulty in it, ſo effectually that I conceive in his Defence he hath quitted it, and put another in its room, as weak as it; as I ſhewed above. But Mr Blake thinkes it is ſufficient to make the argument good, that infants of beleevers have an acceſſe in Gods ordinary way of diſpenſation, whilſt infants: Here is a new phraſeology, which ſerves for nothing but to puzzle; there is no face of an argument in it, and therefore I let it paſſe. To ſhew, how uncertaine the argument is from from Matth. 19. 14. for infant-baptiſme I produced Piſ…a…ors reaſons to prove that it is not cleare they were infants that were brought to Chriſt. Theſe reaſons I did not ſtick to, and ſo need not own what is contradictory to my expoſition of Matth. 18. 5. before. The ſecond exception I took to the argument from Matth. 19. 14. I delivered onelyonly doubtfully, and yet I conceived Mr Marſhals reaſon not cogent, for ſomewhat that Chriſt meant to reach by that Embleme of a little child could not be well reſembled by a ſheep, for though meekneſſe might, yet not d…cibleneſſe: I might have added that the ſimilitude or Embleme of a ſheep, had not ſo much decorum in it. But I ſtick not to that expoſition of not including thoſe infants, as conceiving not from Mr Marſhals or Mr Blakes reaſon, but from the circumſtances of the thing, that Chriſt intended ſome extraordinary bleſſing to them, and declaration concerning them. As for Mr Blakes gloſſe he puts upon me, I diſclaimed it; It is his owne miſtake, not my conceit: that thoſe infants, or infants of beleevers in p. 150infancy have no intereſt in Chriſt, but are without Covenant of promiſe, without God, without hope. But for that I ſaid; thirdly, that there is no certainty, onelyonly conjecture that they were infants of beleevers, I avow it. Mr Blake averres a certainty beyond conjecture, becauſe Chriſt was miniſter of the circumciſion, Rom. 15. 8. ſent to the loſt ſheep of the houſe of Iſrael, Mat. 15. 24. carried himſelfe otherwiſe to the Canaanitiſh woman in behalfe of her daughter, verſe 22. 23. If theſe had had no other intereſt, Chriſt would have been as facile to others as to them. I reply, Chriſt was miniſter of the ci…mciſion, was ſent to the loſt ſheep of the houſe of Iſrael, yet cured the ſervant of the Centurion, the Samaritan leper, the daughter of the Syrophenician. He carried himſelfe ſtrangely at firſt to that woman, to provoke her faith, and he pleaded againſt her not that ſhee was not a beleever, but that ſhee was a Canaanite; if this reaſon prove any thing it is, that the childrens parents were Jewes, but that proves not they were beleevers; few of them beleeving on Chriſt, Iohn 1. 11. Againſt the fourth thing I ſay of thoſe children that were brought to Chriſt, that the ſpeech [of ſuch is the kingdome of heaven] is meant of the kingdome of glory, and that this is not common to all infants of beleevers; Mr Blake excepts that it is meant of the viſible Church, and and of all infants of beleevers as ſuch: now on this hinge turns the fifth exception alſo, and ſo the anſwer to the whole argument I determine the Kingdome of heaven to be meant of the Kingdome of glory, and I thus prove it.

1 The Kingdome of God muſt be underſtood Marke 10. 14, as it is verſe 15. and Lu. 18. 16. as verſe 17 and Matth. 19. 14. as it is in both thoſe, this I prove, becauſe our Saviour from their eſtate inferres a likeneſſe to them in others for the ſame eſtate; but Marke 10. 15, Luke 18. 17. can be underſtood of no other then the Kingdome of glory, the propoſition being falſe, being underſtood of the viſible Church; many proud men entering therein▪ as Simon Magus, Diotrephes, &c. ergo it muſt be underſtood of the Kingdome of glory.

2 From this that our Saviour directs the ſpeech Marke 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. to his Diſciples who were already in the viſible Church, therefore the requiring a further condition to the Kingdome of God ſhewes he meant it of the Kingdome of glory.

p. 1513 The ſpeech Marke 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. is like Mat. 18. 3, 4. but there it is meant of the Kingdome of glory, ergo ſo here.

Deodate on Matth. 19 14. ſo farre are you deceived in thinking that children, by reaſon of their weakeneſſe and contemptible qualitie; are unworthy to be preſented unto me: that contrariwiſe no body is capable of my Kingdom unles he be firſt by the ſpirit of regeneration brought into a ſpirituall eſtate to be like a little child in the order of nature. The new annot: on the Bible on Matth. 19. 14. yee have no reaſon to blame them for bringing children to me; for they may be ſuch as have intereſt to the Kingdome of heaven, as well as others of ripe yeares: and, unleſſe yee be like them, ye ſhall never come there, ch. 18. 3.

But ſaith Maſter Blake, Chriſt had never been ſo much diſpleaſed with his Diſciples for forbidding them, ſeeing their election and juſtification was to the Diſciples wholly unknown, they had a preſent viſible title, ſuch as the Apoſtles ought to have knowne. I anſwer, The reaſon of Chriſts anger was their hindering him in his deſigne, not the knowledge they had of their preſent viſible title: this is but a dreame.

I added further, that Chriſts action in this was extraordinary, and ſo no ordinary rule for baptizing by the Publike miniſtery. Mr Blake would have me conſider how this can ſtand with that I ſaid before, that they that brought the Infants might do it without faith in Chriſt, as the Meſſiah upon the fame of his miracles, and account that he was a Prophet. I anſwer, there is no oppoſition, they might conceive him to be but a Prophet, not the Meſſiah: and yet Chriſt might act as an extraordinary Prophet, and as the Meſſiah, Mr Blake ſayes, this act of Chriſt is no direct preced… for baptiſme, but for Church-priviledges of which Infants are capable. Marke this ſpeech, if [but] be adverſative, then Maſter Blake grants that Infants are capable of Church-priviledges, not of baptiſme, which overthrowes all his diſpute; but the truth is, this thing was done to theſe Infants, not by reaſon of any … title they had, or to enter them into any outward Church-priviledge, but to accompliſh by his bleſſing, their intereſt in the inviſible Kingdome of God by election.

Maſter Blake in the cloſe of this chapter ſayes, if it were true, that padobaptiſme had no more warrant then I conceive, yet … p. 152not will-worſhip, but a miſapplication of an inſtituted ordinance to a perſon. But I aske Maſter Blake, whether Infant-Communion were not will worſhip? whether baptizing of bells were not will-worſhip? and yet theſe are but miſapplications of an inſtituted ordinance to a wrong ſubject. We have the word will-worſhip but once, Col. 2. 23. and if it be taken in the worſer ſenſe, as Proteſtant Divines hitherto have done (though lately Doctor Hammond at Oxford hath written a booke to prove it to be taken in the better part for a commendable thing as a free-well offering) and have made it the ſinne of the Phariſes Matth. 15. 9. and eſpecially non-conformiſts, who have made every invented ceremony will-worſhip, then much more Infant-baptiſme being worſhip it ſelfe, if it be not inſtituted, muſt be will worſhip.

Chapt. 15. Maſter Blake examines what I ſay,§. 21. That God ſeales not to every perſon that is rightly baptized, that his Covenant of grace belongs onelyonly to the elect, that his Covenant is effectuall, and leaves it not to mans liberty to include or exclude himſelf. Examen pag. 164. about Gods ſealing. Maſter Marſhall ſpake of Gods ſealing the baptized; I ſaid, God ſeales not to every one that is baptized, but onelyonly to true beleevers: For his ſealing, is the confirming of his promiſe; but God promiſeth righteouſneſſe to none but true beleevers. Maſter Blake anſwers. You acknowledge baptiſme to be is its nature a ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of faith, and to be of God, therefore in it God muſt ſeale to every baptized perſon, or elſe you muſt ſay they are not baptized. I reply: I acknowledge baptiſme of profeſſours of faith to be of God, though they be not true beleevers: and I acknowledge baptiſme in its nature to be a ſeale of the covenant of God, but not a ſeale actuall, but aptitudinall; that is, all right baptiſm is in its nature apt to ſeale, as a garland hung out is to ſignify wine to be …old, yet actually the one ſignifies ſo onelyonly to the intelligent, and the other onelyonly to true beleevers. And God never ſeales actually till a perſon be a beleever. I ſaid; As for the ſealing by God upon condition perſons ag…ize the Covenant, it is but a notion; the Scripture makes not Gods promiſe in the Covenant of grace conditionall in that ſenſe. For Gods promiſe is for thoſe he enters into Covenant with, that he will put his lawes in their … and in their mindes will … them, Heb. 10. 16. Maſter Blake anſwers. If you … this of the Sacraments as the words beare, then according to your opinion none ought to be baptized, but … in whoſe heart the law in wrote. I anſwer him, By Gods ſealing I doe not meane every right adminiſtration of baptiſme; for though that be in its nature apt to ſeale p. 153the graces of the Covenant, yet actually Gods ſeales not but when it is adminiſtred to a beleever. It may be called a right act of the adminiſtratour according to Gods appointment, but not Gods ſealing. I call Gods ſealing onelyonly when either by his ſpirit or oath, or outward rite, he aſſures his grace, as by circumciſion to Abraham, Rom. 4. 11. he appointed Iſmael to be circumciſed, but did not ſeale to him righteouſneſſe by faith. The inference Mr Blake makes from my words, as if I held none baptizable, but thoſe in whoſe heart Gods law is written, hath no colour, for I do not make the adminiſtratours baptizing, or, ſith they will have it ſo called, ſealing,, to be Gods ſealing. God appoints the word to be preached to many hypocrites, and the preacher that aſſures them of the promiſes doth it by Gods appointment, yet God doth not aſſure the promiſes to them. I do not make him onelyonly baptizable to whom God ſeales, but him whom Chriſt appoints to be baptized, whether God ſeales to him or no. Maſter Blake urgeth me with Bellarmines argument; of the Sacraments be ſeales of grace, they are often falſe, and God ſhould beare witneſſe to a lye, and tels of the ſpeech of ſome that have ſaid, that this argument is unanſwerable; unleſſe we confeſſe that the ſeale of the Sacrament is conditionall. I like not to call the Sacrament a conditionall ſeale, for that which ſeales doth aſſure, and ſuppoſeth the condition: In my apprehenſion, that which is called conditionall ſealing is not ſealing but offering, or propounding, or repreſenting: but about this I will not contend. Yet in that ſenſe I yeeld it to be a ſeale actually, I yeeld it to be a ſeale onelyonly 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 p. 154a 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 onelyonly 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 p. 155meant 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 onelyonly 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.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. 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 p. 156is 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly a right to outward priviledges; and yet he and Mr Marſhall ſtick not to declaim againſt Anabaptists, for not aſſuring ſalvation to the deceaſing infants of beleevers from that covenant which Mr Marſhall will not aſſert, pag. 116. as it is a Covenant of ſaving grace to be made to beleevers and their naturall ſeed, and Mr Blake ſaith, onelyonly entitles to outward priviledges. But we ſay, ſaith Maſter Blake that all infants and men of yeers for ought that we can find from any Scripture grounds are utterly loſt that want all right of Baptiſme. He might ſay they are in danger to be loſt by reaſon of originall corruption, not for want of right to Baptiſme; but to ſay they are utterly loſt is more then Mr Blake hath ground to affirme. I have often ſhewed that a right to baptiſm is from the command of Chriſt, not from ſuch covenant holineſſe as Mr Blake aſſerts: ſalvation comes from Gods election and Chriſts redemption. It is a meer ſlander, and a groundleſſe crimination, wherewith Mr Blake chargeth me, that the poſition he produceth out of my book, or any other he can produce doth inferre, that all the infants of the whole Church of Chriſt have nothing to doe with the Covenant of grace. I challenge him, with Mr Marſhall and Mr Blakes ſeconds Mr Calamy and Mr Vines, if they can to make that charge good; or elſe let Mr Blake and Mr Marſhall retract it. As for Mr Blakes concluſion, I conceive his Prot…ſtation makes him deſervedly the object of pitty, his motions carry a ſting in the p. 157tayl, to wit a falſe accuſation, from which I doubt not but I have acquitted my ſelfe by this writing. The elogy the worthy member of the houſe of Commons beſtowes on me, and the unrighteous cenſure of my learned nameleſſe acquaintance I value not; books as meats reliſh differently with different palates, pro captu lectoris habent ſua fata libelli: This apollogy will ſtate me, and my writing better in their thoughts▪ if they can & will underſtand the truth. If not, the ſame ſpirit that hath enabled me to beare greater burthens, I truſt will enable me to bear theſe hard cenſures. I hope that I ſhall not be wanting to the overthrow of any errors, according to my ability; paedobaptiſme I am more aſſured then ever is a great corruption, founded as now it is taught on very great errours, and of any ſervice I ſuppoſe I can doe to God it is one of the chiefe which I ought to apply my ſelfe to, that it may be cleared to be an errour. I bear as much love and reverence to M. Blake as ever, he is not deſpiſed by me though his errours be freely cenſured. I aimed not either in the former or in this latter writing at any grievance to him, and ſhould be ſorry this controverſie ſhould make a ſeparation between us▪ though I find by experience much eſtrangednes in many of my former acquaintance from me. And for encountring with Mr Blake for the truths ſake I held my ſelfe necesſitated to it by reaſon of Mr Vines and M. Calamy their former, and latter, as I ſtill conceive, inconſiderate plaudite.

FINIS.

p. 158Errata.

PAge 2. line 24. above, read about. p. 30. l. 10. ſticks, r. ſtrikes. p. 33. l. 1. And, r. But. p. 40. l. 22. Gen. 7. r. Gen. 17. p. 50. l. 4. Berma…aus, r. Be…mannus. l. 5. 20. r. 2. p. 51. l. 3. meerly, r. merry. l. 36. Iannes, 1. Iames. l. 13. r. upon what. p. 53. l. 20. r. that they who. l. 21. to, r. doe. p. 57. l. 13. Marſhall, r. Ball. p. 59. l. 24. 57. r. 75. p. 67. l. 27. artificer, r. artifice. mind, r. mend. p. 70. l 12 r. will be. l. 15. r. are the. p. 72. l. 29. r. examen. p. 42. 64. 65. p. 75. l. 16 dele And M. Blake. &c. p. 77. l. 14. which, r. this. p. 80. l. 20. r. inconſideretenes which. p. 84. l. 33. dele it. p. 85. l. 1. r. either out. p. 97. l. 25. 256. r. 170. l. 37. 128. l. 182. p. 98. l. 30. r. ho…ſe in. p. 1 co. l. 12 them, 1. Infants. p. 101. l. 15. ſee, r. ſet. l. 31. dele firſt. p. 102. l. 36. cuts, r. cut. p. 118. l. 20. r. the thing. p. 129. l 5. r. that they. p. 140. l. 25. r. poſitive rites as morall precepts. p. 142. l. …. dele it. p. 145. l. 1. margine. 16. r. 18. p. 148. l. 32. p. 149. l. 2. precedent, r. ſubject.

End of the text · John Tombes, An Apology for Two Treatises Concerning Infant Baptism (1646)