An Apology for Two Treatises Concerning Infant Baptism, Treatise · Letter 1 – Letter 2

An Apology for Two Treatises Concerning Infant Baptism · Treatise · Letter 1 – Letter 2

p. 13To all the Elders of the Churches of Chriſt in New-England, and to each in particular, by name to the Paſtor and Teacher of the Church of God at Boſton there theſe preſent.

Reverend Brethren,

VNderſtanding that there is ſome diſquiet in your Churches about Poedobaptiſme, and being moved by ſome that honour you much in the Lord, and deſire your comfortable account at the day of Chriſt, that I would yeeld that a Copy of my Examen of Maſter Marſhall his Sermon of Infant-Baptiſme might be tranſcribed to be ſent to you I have conſented p. 14thereto, and do commend it to your examination in like manner, as you may perceive by the reading of it I did to Maſter Marſhals; not doubting but that you will as in Gods preſence; and accountable to Chriſt Ieſus weigh the thing, remembring that of our Lord Chriſt, Ioh. 7. 24. Iudge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement. To the bleſsing of him who is your God, and our God, your Iudge, and our Iudge I leave you, and the flocke of God over which the Holy Ghoſt hath made you overſeers, and reſt,

From my ſtudy at the Temple in London, May 25. 1645. Your Brother and fellow ſervant in the worke of Chriſt, IOHN TOMBES.

THe accounting of this act a ſhewing of my ſcorne of Maſter Thomas Goodwin, Maſter Vines, and Master Marſhall, I take rather to be the effect of a diſtempered palat, than a right-diſcerning taſte.

After this, ſundry things happened which did induce me to yeeld to the importunity of thoſe that ſollicited earneſtly the publiſhing of my writings for the publike good. I had ſent to Maſter Marſhall after his returne from Scotland, to know what he would do about the motions I made in the Epilogue of my Examen, for the diſcuſſing of the point in difference between him and me. The beſt of the anſwer I received was, that ſith I had now a place for my Miniſtery without baptizing Infants, he expected I would be quiet. About that time I had occaſion to make triall of the Aſſemblies approbation of me. The Examiner told me, that there were many of the Aſſembly that did ſcruple in Conſcience, the giving approbation to me becauſe of my opinion. The Directory had been publiſhed, and an Ordinance of Parliament to make the not uſing it penall. Preparations were to ſend Bills to the King, among which I aſſured my ſelfe that would be one, which if once paſt, it would p. 15be too late to make an afterplea. The Sermons in publique were ſtill as earneſt againſt this tenet as ever. The people of the City much enquired into this matter. A publique diſputation was once allowed about it to which I was earneſtly ſolicited but for weighty reaſons refuſed it. Sundry came to me to requeſt the peruſall of my papers for their ſatisfaction many learned, godly, and prudent perſons, both of them that differed in judgement, as well as thoſe that agreed with me, moved me to have them printed, for the bringing of truth to light. I ſaw not wherein any danger to the State or Church might be created by the printing of them, and which was beyond all to me▪ I was confirmed it was a truth I held, had tried all fit meanes to have it examined, had been guided in the ſearching of it, and preſerved for this buſineſſe by many remarkeable providences, and thereupon after prayer to God by my ſelfe, and with others for his direction, I yeelded to the printing of them, not out of a restleſſe ſpirit to vent my ſelfe, as Maſter Marſhall imagined, nor out of any mind to encreaſe the diviſions and confuſions of the time (then which there is nothing my ſpirit and waies more abhorre) but to vindicate truth, performe my duty to which I was bound by ſolemne Covenant, to do my beſt for the preventing of that ſad evill of removing out of the Miniſtery, and out of Communion, and out of the State alſo them that could not yeeld to Infant-Baptiſme, which is more likely then any thing to encreaſe our diviſions, and make tumults, eſpecially if the relations, and inſtigations of ſome fiery ſpirits prevaile. And in this, I doubt not but I have dealt faithfully to God and to the State, and charitably to other men, without violating any engagement, what ever I ſuffer in mine owne perſon. I muſt confeſſe had I ſeen any inclination in the Aſſembly, or Maſter Marſhall, or other leading-men to examine my writings in a faire Scholaſtike way, and had I had meanes to be able to beare the charges of an impreſſion, and no Lawes likely to be eſtabliſhed to make the holding of my opinion penall, I had reſolved not to publiſh my writings in Engliſh, but in Latine, and therefore I firſt framed my Exercitation in Latine, conceiving the Aſſembly would have apprehended my aime and intention, to be to deale only with Schollars in this matter: but all things falling out croſſe to my expectation, I conceived it was the will of God it ſhould be printed as it was. Thus much for p. 16the juſtifying the publiſhing of my Treatiſes.

The next charge againſt me is my abuſing my Antagoniſts.§. 5. O… the clearing the Author of the two Treatiſes from ſcornfulneſſe in writing them: of my cenſure of M. Thomas Goodwins handling this point, and of all writers about Col…ſ. 2▪ 12. And in this Maſter Geree in his Epiſtle to the Lord Mountague ſpeakes thus.

The Author whom I anſwer, hath uſed his opponents more courſly then was conventent to their worth, and places. But all men count his …leightings of opponents a blemiſh to his worke. Maſter Marſhall in his Defence, Pag. 244. For even thither have ſome ſent your writings, and ſufficiently in them ſhewed your ſcorne of M. Thomas Goodwin, Maſter Vines, and my ſelfe, as our friends do from thence write to us. And Pag. 53. I alleadge all this to ſhew, you ſhould not thus vilifie and ſcorne their (meaning the Ancients) practice and grounds, as if the Century writers, and generally all Proteſtant writers, yea Maſter Marſhals owne friend, if I miſtake not, The…philus Philokyrtaces Lon…ardienſis in his Dies Dominica, when they note the naevi quiſquiliae blemiſhes, and errors of Fathers and Councils did vilifie and ſcorne them: which if it be an uncharitable imputation to them, it is ſo to me, unleſſe it be thought that men cannot conceive bad enough of an Antipaedobaptiſt. Pag. 62. throughout your whole Treatiſe you ſtrive to make an oſtentation of reading, and put abundance of ſcoffes and jeeres upon them who are of contrary mind to you. Pag. 76. You powre out ſuch abundance of ſcorne upon them, who think otherwiſe then you do. I anſwer, 1. That the words interpreted as ſcoffing & ſcorning, and jeering are not ſuch, but uſuall School-expreſſions frequent in Schooles, and in the moſt temperate writings of the moſt moderate men of the ſame profeſſion, towards them that diſſent from them, ſo that I aſſure my ſelfe, had not my Antagoniſts before diſtaſted my worke, and conſequently the Author, they would not have been ſo conſtrued. How ever Maſter Geree ſay all men count my ſleighting opponents a blemiſh to my worke, yet one I am ſure commended my writing for the contrary, that I had diſcovered the weakneſſe of the opponents by ſuch expreſſions, nor did my Father Scudder except againſt thoſe paſſages as offenſive which Maſter Marſhall doth, though more then halfe was read to him, and obſerved by him of purpoſe to avoid offence, afore it was ſent to Maſter Marſhall. 2. That there were many reaſons why Maſter Marſhall ſhould have otherwiſe conceived of me in thoſe expreſſions, as namely my Declaration of p. 17my intention, and petition thereupon in the prologue of the Examen, Part. 1. Sect. 1. my reſpective ſpeeches of Maſter Marſhall in the ſame place, Pag. 2. and Part▪ 2. Sect 7. Pag. 26. and alſo in the Epilogue, Part. 4. Sect. 8. And if Maſter Marſhall had remembred it, when in our friendly conference he had told me, he did not expect ſo high expreſſions from me, which I conceived he meant of my downright cenſuring of his Arguments, not contemning his abilities, and I told him I conceived it neceſſary to do ſo, becauſe he called his Arguments undeniable, and had charged the Anabaptiſts with a bloudy ſentence, I deſired an inſtance of ſuch an expreſſion as was offenſive, which being given by Maſter Marſhall, I left thoſe words out in the printed Book, and would have dealt ſo with any other, had I conceived it would have been ſo conſtrued. I might adde further, that when Maſter Geree came to me the day he publiſhed his▪ Booke, a monethmonth afore Maſter Marſhals Defence came forth, I told him he did not conceive aright of me in that charge in his Epiſtle Dedicatory, and gave him my reaſon, and told him that I might have much wrong by it, and deſired that intimation might be given to Maſter Marſhall thereof. Which whether he did or no I know not, but I ſuppoſed it might have occaſioned Maſter Marſhall if he could not alter his Copy, yet to have added ſomething in the beginning or end of his Book, to have allayed the aſperity of that charge. But what are thoſe paſſage in which I powre out ſuch abundance of ſcorne on. Maſter Vines, Maſter Thomas Goodwin, and Maſter Marſhall? All the paſſage of Maſter Vines thus interpreted is Examen, Part 2. Sect. 6. But how knowes Maſter Vines this? I do not take Maſter Vines for a Prophet, and to inferre this by reaſon, The Anabaptiſt u…geth Matth. 28. 19. againſt paedobaptiſme, Ergo he will urge Rom. 12. 19. againſt Magiſtracy, is in my ſlender apprehenſion a baculo ad angulum. He had ſaid, the Anabaptiſts which urged Matth 28 19. againſt padobaptiſme when we ſhall …e thriven to his full ſtature, will undermine Magiſtracy by Rom. 12. 19. Which words ſeeme to imply, that an Anti-paedobaptiſt is but a young Anti-Magiſtrate, and that the ſame vegetative faculty, that is the ſame reaſon that did nouriſh the one would beget the other. This inference being unreaſonable, yet ſpoken to ſuch an Auditory by a man of ſuch eminency at ſuch a time, and therefore tending to the ſuppreſſion of Truth, and them p. 18that held it, I conceived it neceſſary to blunt the edge of it, without any ſcorne of him, whom I reſpect as my loving neighbour, but for neceſſary defence of truth, in a Schoole expreſſion uſed by many Proteſtant writers, and among others, by Maſter Gataker in his Rejoynder to Can in defence of Maſter Bradſha…, Pag. 113. As for Maſter Thomas Goodwin it is true, Part. 3. Sect. 7. Pag. 68. of my Examen I ſaid thus. I remember Master Thomas Goodwin, who hath handled this matter of Poedobaptiſme, by ſpinning out ſimilitudes and conjectures (fit indeed for the common people that are more taken with reſemblances then ſyllogiſmes) rather then with cloſe Arguments. In this paſſage ſaies Maſter Marſhall, Pag. 143. I ſtept out of the way to reproach Maſter Thomas Goodwin, that I vilifie him as a man who by ſpinning out ſimilitudes, and conjectures deludes his A…ditory with ſuch things rather then with ſatisfactory arguments, that why like Iſhmael my Sword ſhould be againſt every man he cannot tell, that he knowes him to be a learned godly Divine, and an eminent Preacher of the Goſpell of Christ, and his worth not to be blaſted by my ſcornfull ſpeeches, that I have ſet down his Notions otherwiſe then he preached. To all which I anſwer. That paſſage of mine was not to vilifie Maſter Goodwin, but to paſſe a right cenſure on his Sermons, as I did in like manner on Doctor Featlies Treatiſe, Pag. 143. without any vilifying of his learning, becauſe I ſaw the eſteem of them held men in errour. Which is ſo frequent, and juſt a thing, that it was held meet that an Advertiſement ſhould be added to the new Annotations on the Bible, to prevent the danger of ſome paſſages in favour of the Prelacy and Liturgie. Hanc veniam petimuſque damuſque viciſſim. And this fact of mine is moſt injuriouſly conſtrued, as if I did this like an Iſhmael that loved to have my Sword againſt every man, as if I affected contention: then which there could not be a thing more falſly charged on me, though in purſuance of truth I held my ſelfe bound to examine every mans ſayings, which I tell Maſter Marſhall in the Epilogue of my Examen, to be for exact diſquiſition of it. Doctor Twiſſe in his Vindiciae gratiae againſt Arminius often makes digreſſions, and doth vocare ad partes Molinaeus, Piſcator, Lubbertus, Alvarez, &c. He writes againſt Doctor Iackſon, Maſter Cotton, &c. Maſter Gataker againſt Doctor Ames, Voetius, Balmford, Lucius, Gomarus, Maſter Walker &c. doth any man therefore make them like Iſhmael whoſe p. 19Sword is againſt every man? Maſter Marſhall ſaies that I vilifie Maſter Thomas Goodwin as a man who by ſpinning out ſimilitudes and coniectures deludes his Auditors, and then gives him an E… …omium, in which he would have it believed that I charged Maſter Thomas Goodwin as a man wont to do thus, whereas my words … only concerning that matter of Paedobaptiſme, which doth nothing prejudice him in his other workes, of which I have in my Examen, Pag. 163. given an Encomium. And for my cenſure, it was grounded partly on his own expreſſions, that in ſundry points pertaining to that matter we muſt be content with hints, which is all one with conjectures, and partly on the maine principles of his diſpute; which were, that foraſmuch as the promiſes to Beleevers children are indefinite, as Acts 2. 39. Luke 19. 8. God hath ſo caſt the order of his election, that multitudes come out of the loynes of his people, that adminiſtration of the Lords Supper and Baptiſme is to be by a Judgement, that we are to judge any Infant-children of Beleevers to be holy by parcels, though not all in the lumpe, that they are therefore to be accounted holy with a reall ſaving holineſſe, 1 Cor. 7, 14. Matth. 19. 14. and therefore to be baptized according to the rule implyed, Act. 10. 47. Concerning which I ſay ſtill that I expected Arguments, but counted my ſelfe deluded with theſe conjectures, as finding nothing to his purpoſe in any of theſe Texts, which were the maine he alleadged, they neither proving that God had ordered his election ſo as for the moſt part to run through the loynes of Beleevers, nor that we are to judge any of the Infants of Beleevers to be in the Covenant, or Elect by parcels, though not all in the lumpe, nor that Baptiſme is to be adminiſtred by ſuch a conjecturall or uncertaine judgement. But foraſmuch as I have diſputed at large in my Examen, Part. 2. Sect. 10. Part 3. Sect. 3. 4. about the promiſes to Beleevers children, and examined all the Texts forementioned, and ſhewed that we are not to adminiſter Ordinances by our conjecturall judgement, concerning Gods Election, or inward holineſſe, God having not made that the condition of his ſervants applying his Ordinances, which can be infallibly known to none but himſelfe, as Maſter Marſhall rightly in his Sermon of baptizing Infants, Page 3. but according to the certaine judgement of a perſons profeſſion of the faith, I ſhall not examine this thing here at large: only I p. 20thought it neceſſary to ſay thus much, not to vilifie Mr G…odwin, but to ſhew the weakeneſſe of the Cauſe, for which no better proofes could be brought, then ſuch uncertaine gueſſes even by a man ſo able as Maſter Thomas Goodwin, who hath in other things ſhewed his ſufficiency beyond other men. And though I deny not but I might miſtake him in ſome paſſages, or not exactly reci… his words; yet I do not conceive I have miſreported his Sermons, and however, and whenever they ſhall be printed, I hope I ſhall be able to produce the written notes of others to verifie my ſetting down his Notions; yet if I ſhould miſtake paſſages in Sermons not printed, it were excuſable, in compariſon of the uſage I have met with from Doctor Homes, and Maſter Marſhall himſelfe, who in not a few places, yea I may truly ſay all along, do in their framing anſwers to my written ſpeeches, crook my words where they are ſtreight, and they might have diſcerned them ſo to be, had their haſt in publiſhing their anſwers permitted them to ponder my writings. As for inſtance: Maſter Marſhall had averred that the Chriſtian Church hath been in poſſeſſion of Infant-baptiſme for the ſpace of 1500. yeares and upwards, I replyed, that if it were true, yet it is not ſo much as may be ſaid for Epiſcopacy, &c. And after, For antiquity not Apoſtolicall there are plaine teſtimonies of Epiſcopacy, &c. being in uſe before any of the teſtimonies you or any other can produce for baptizing of Infants. Now M. Marſhall in his D…fe…c…, Pag. 7▪ 8. Firſt ſets down my words thus, As much may be ſaid for Epiſcopacy, &c. That there are plaine teſtimonies, for Epiſcopacy &c. before any teſtimonies can be produced for the baptizing of Infants, and then tels me, that the Ancients teſtifie that the baptizing Infants was received in all ages, and from the very Apoſtles as a Divine Inſtitution, no ſuch thing of Epiſcopacy, if I can make it good, I ſhall do a very acceptable ſervice to the Papiſts, Anabaptiſts, and Prelaticall party, if I cannot, I ſhould do well to revoke that bold aſſertron. In which Maſter Marſhall deales not candidly with me, when I had ſaid, if it were tru…, yet it is not ſo much as may be ſaid for Epiſcopacy, (meaning that which he had ſaid) the Church hath been in poſſeſſion of Infant-baptiſme 1500. yeares and upwards, Maſter Marſhall ſets down my words, as if I had ſaid, as much may be ſaid for Epiſcopacy, and in the latter paſſage leaves out the words [Antiqu…ty not Apoſtolicall] and p. 21[being in uſe] and then inſinnates, as if I had aſſerted, that the Ancients ſay as much for the Divine Inſtitution of Epiſcopacy as for Infant-baptiſme. Whereas I only ſpake of the poſſeſſion and being in uſe, nothing of the Divine Inſtitution, and my aſſertion is ſo manifeſt, that even the advertiſement at the end of the New Annot: on the Bible, confeſſeth it a cuſtome very ancient, and neere the Apoſtles time, as Chamier truly acknowledgeth, Lib. 10. c. 6. de Oecumenico Pontifice, Tom. 2. Pag. 353 Mol…n in his Epiſtle to Biſhop Andrewes, (if my memory deceive me not) confeſſed it to have been ab ipſis Apoſtolorum temporibus. And I conceive Maſter Marſhals leaving out in his propoſition of the firſt part, [as n…w ta…ght] which was in mine, and framing it thus, in oppoſition to mine [Infant-baptiſme no late innovation] may occaſion an unwary reader to conceive I had ſimply aſſerted it to be a late innovation. Now this courſe, though it may perhaps not prejudice my writings with thoſe that are able and willing to take paines to compare together writing with writing, yet the greateſt part either through want of leaſure or skill, or through diſaffection to me or mine opinion, or through a ſecure reſting on▪ Maſter Marſhals word neglecting it, it is a great injury to me, and to the Truth, As for Maſter Thomas Goodwins Sermons of Infant-baptiſme, whether my cenſure of them, or Maſter Robert Bayly one of the Scottiſh Commiſſioners charge in his Diſſuaſive, Cha. 6. Pag. 119. do more diſparage them or him, I leave it to Maſter Marſhal's, Maſter Goodwin's and their friends conſideration. It hath been excepted againſt me that I ſay, Pag. 139. of my Examen, which if he can apply to Infants, erit mihi magnus Apollo, which is no worſe then what Maſter Gataker hath animadv. in Luci: Part. 1. Sect. 8. Pag. 22. Inter iuſtum & inſontem qui diſtinctionem iuſtam dederit. erit is mihi magnus Apollo: and that I have ſaid Maſter Goodwin dictated at Bow, which is ſo harmeleſſe an expreſſion, that even the preface to the new Annot: and the advertiſement call their writings, their dictates.

Let us conſider the ſcorns put upon Mr. Marſhall. When I urged Mr. Geree in private conference to inſtance in particulars, wherein I had dealt courſely or ſleighted my opponents, expecting he would have ſhewed me where I had falſified their words, or belyed, or derided their perſons; inſtead of any ſuch matter he p. 22alleadgeth that paſſage, part 3. of my examination, pag. 36. of which Mr. Marſhall, pag. 94 of his defence ſayes, This you caſt away with ſcorne, affirming it to be an eaſie anſwer, becauſe it is eaſie to be anſwered; which poſſibly may be thought to have ſome lepidity (which is ſure but a veniall ſin in one tired, as I was with hewing at ſuch a knotty piece as Mr. Marſhalls Sermon) but how it ſhould be a caſting of ſcorne I ſee not. In the ſame place Mr. Marſhall ſayes, I make my ſelfe merry with the word virtuall, as if the examining the ſenſe of a diſtinction, were making merry with it, pag. 103. He ſayes, I wonder you ſhould ſeeke to caſt an odium upon my expreſſion (as you doe here, and ſeverall other times) by ſaying it is a joyning with Arminius. I anſwer, where I ſaid he joynes with Arminius, I conceive ſtill I ſaid right; not to eaſt an odium upon his expreſſions, but to ſhew the errour of them. And for that particular I charged Mr. Marſhall with, in calling Proſelytes, who ſought juſtification by the works of the law Abrahams ſeed, he joyns with Arminius in his Analyſis, c. 9. ad Rom. and oppoſeth Bayne, it was right. For Arminius ſaith, Ratio eſt à duplice ſemine Abrahami, quorum unum tantum verbo iſto & propoſito comprehendatur. And this double ſeed of Abraham he calls the ſons of promiſe, whom he defines, ſunt illi qui fide in Chriſtum juſtitiam & ſalutem quaerunt, and the children of the fleſh, whom he defines; qui per opera legis juſtittam, & ſalutem conſectantur. (I confeſſe it was in my copy through an eaſie, but not materiall overſight; conſequuntur, yet in the Engliſh I render it, follow: but why this ſhould puzzle Mr. Marſhall I know not) And to this calling ſome Abrahams ſeed, who no otherwiſe were Abrahams ſeed, but in that they profeſſing Judaiſme, ſought righteouſneſſe by the law, Bayne rightly oppoſeth that ſpeech, that thoſe that conceive carnally of the law ſeeking righteouſneſſe by it without ſomething elſe adjoyned, to wit naturall generation; are never called Abrahams ſeed. Yet Mr. Marſhall in his Sermon, and again in his defence, pag. 10. calls thoſe Abrahams ſeed, who are not ſo by naturall generation, or by faith; but are Proſelytes, ſeeking Iuſtification by the works of the Law: Which is the very ground of Arminius his perverting the ninth of the Romans to maintain his opinion of reſpective Predeſtination. As for Maſter Marſhall's vindication of himſelfe, it goes upon this miſtake, as p. 23if I had charged him with agreeing with Arminius in the expounding the ninth to the Romans, and in his opinion of election upon foreſeen faith, whereas I only charged him with joyning with Arminius in this particular, to call the Proſelytes that were Jewes by profeſſion, but ſought righteouſneſſe by the law, Abrahams ſeed; pag. 105. Mr. Marſhall ſayes, that I try all my wits and artifices to ſhake the ſtrength of his ſecond concluſion by ſcornfull ſpeeches, &c. The truth is, I was put to the triall of all my wits to find out the meaning of his ſecond concluſion; but as for the ſtrength of it, it is ſo ſmall, that he that can but ſhew the ambiguity in it, may refute it without much adoe. As for the ſcornfull ſpeeches Mr. Marſhall can find but one, which was the calling of his ſecond concluſion, a Cothurnus; which I never dream't would have been taken for an expreſſion of ſcorne, but a proverbiall phraſe ſignifying an ambiguous ſpeech uſed by David Pareus in his judgement on the 5 Articles ſent to the Synod of Dort, and by others the moſt grave, and ſolid Divines, I ſaid, pag. 54. That Mr. Marſhall did very carnally imagine the Church of God to be like civill corporations, this he calls pag. 121. a ſcornfull puffe, but why he ſhould call it ſo, I am yet to ſeek. pag. 124. he ſayes, that I ſleight and ſcorn that which I know nor how to anſwer, but it would be hard for Mr. Marſhall to verify this in any particular; pag. 133. he calls the uſe of the word Coccyſme very frequent among Schollars, and of the ſame meaning with Crambe uſed by Mr. Marſhall, pag. 256. a ſcornfull expreſſion; and becauſe I ſay, pag. 63. of my Examen, your argument needs a ſwimmer of Delos to bring it out of the deep, this he calls pag. 134. my method to caſt a ſcorn upon an argument, which is only the uſing a proverbiall ſpeech uſed by Spanheimius in his dubia Evangelica, and others concerning a thing that there is need of skill to find it out, pag. 162. 163. in anſwering the argument brought to prove that holineſſe, 1 Cor. 7. 14. is not federall Mr. Marſhall ſayes. All the reply you make to …, pag. 80. is to beſtow a few ſcoffes upon it; that my anſwer is to deny the concluſion, that I ſhew no faultineſſe either in the matter, or the forme of the argument, that the ſcope that I mention is but a meer figment; that I doe as good as ſay that the objectour can make no argument out of it, and that therefore I need make no anſwer. And that in one place I grant the minor, then the p. 24major; and thus you moſt gallantly vapour upon me: and after, I durſt leave all Schollers to judge, whether my anſwer deſerves all this ſcorne; and after, you thought to carry it with more advantage to you by ſcoffing, then by ſolemn refuting; and after. Truly Sir, I am perſwaded all learned men either laugh at, or pity this vanity of your diſputing; and pag. 164 not once ſuſpecting I ſhould have met with an adverſary ſo uningenious to ſay no worſe, who would have ſaid the balking of this queſtion, had been the yeelding of the cauſe. To all this I reply, that my words are miſrecited by Mr. Marſhall. I did not ſay, his anſwer is to deny the concluſion, but thus, I find no anſwer to the argument here, except it be an anſwer to an argument to deny the concluſion. Nor doe I ſay, that the baulking of the queſtion, whether the beleever, when he commits fornication with an infidell, remove the barre in the unbeleeving party, as that the child is (in the beleeving parents right) to be reckoned to belong to the covenant of Grace, and Church of God, had been the yeelding of the Cauſe, which he makes my uningenuity. 2. The paſſages only taxe a defect in Logick in Mr. Marſhall in that place, but doe indeed containe neither matter of ſcorn, nor gallant vapouring. 3. And however learned men pitty or laugh at the vanity of my diſputing, I doubt not to make it appeare; that neither Mr. Marſhall nor Mr. Geree have yet made an anſwer to that argument, which doth overthrow his expoſition of federall holineſſe, that though Mr. Geree ſayes there was ignoratio Elenchi, yet indeed there is no ignoratio Elenchi, the thing being concluded that was to be concluded; and whereas Mr. Marſhall firſt new makes the major, and then denies it, he deales not rightly in putting in words to anothers argument, and yet the major is rather true with his addition, and then Mr. Marſhall puts a minor of his owne; and denies it. But the truth is, the argument ſhould be thus framed: That holineſſe which might be though one of the Parents, were not ſanctified to the other, is not here meant; but faederall holineſſe might be, though one of the Parents were not ſanctified to the other. Ergo, Federall holineſſe is not here meant; or thus, that uncleaneſſe wh…ch doth not agree to all the children of thoſe whoſe Parents are not ſanctified one in or to another is not here meant: but federall uncleaneſſe doth not agree to all the children of thoſe whoſe Parents are not ſanctified one in or to another; Ergo, Federall uncleanneſſe is not p. 25here meant. But theſe things I reſerve till I review the diſpute about the meaning of 1▪ Cor. 7. 14 concerning which I doubt not, but if God ſpare me life and liberty I ſhall make good my argument, and anſwer Mr. Marſhalls exceptions, yea and further ſhew, that if the ſanctification and bolineſſe be taken from the faith of one party, and not from the relation of husband and wife; the Apoſtles reaſon as they expound it, would have ſerved to reſolve two fornicatours whereof one is a beleever, the other remaining in infidelity; that they may live together as well as two married perſons. pag. 10. I ſaid, ſurely this is a ſ…nd ſigne that you are not likely to make good your ground, when you have yeelded ſo much: this he calls pag. 105. an idle ſcoffe, enough in it there is nothing like a ſcoffe. pag. 113. I ſay. But your fe…hing ſuch a compaſſe about, makes me imagine your attempt will prove but a parturiunt montes, the mountai…es bring forth. This Mr Marſhall calls a jeere, and a confident ſcoffe, and I confeſſe this carries the ſhew of a jeere, when the other part of the verſe is …ed; but I left it out of purpoſe, that it might not be ſo taken; conceiving Mr. Marſhall would have conſtrued it (as even grave Scholars uſe it) to ſignify an attempt that is faire in ſhew, but vaine in the iſſue. pag. 122. I ſay of Mr. Marſhall's conſequence which he called undeniable and clear, thus: if you apprehend clear conſequence in it, you may enjoy your conceii; nos non ſumus adeò ſagaces, we are not ſo quick witted; this Mr. Marſhall ſayes, pag. 208. is to ſeek to render an adverſary ridi…ulous, by jeeres and ſcoffes. But the truth is that was not mine intent, but the griefe of my ſpirit when I wrote this, being then rejected by Mr. Marſhall in the buſines of the Temple, being told that it was the Aſſemblies rule not to nominate any to a place in the miniſtery that queſtioned the baptizing of infants, pinched with the ſadneſſe of my condition, and conſidering how the Magiſtrate was incited againſt ſuch as could not ſubſcribe to Mr. Marſhalls judgement, upon his reaſons which he called undeniable, an indignation that men ſhould be undone for not aſſenting to ſo poore proofes, made me after I ſaw my exercitation ſtirred not to uſe that quickneſſe in thoſe expreſſions; which I am perſwaded, had I not done, the point would not have been examined by them to this day: p. 122. Mr Marſhall ſayes, your anſwer is a ſcoffe out of Horace, Amph…ra coepit inſtitui, p. 26&c. which is no ſcoffe, but a ſpeech often in the writings of Scholars, uſed to ſignify, that one fals ſhort of that he ſhould prove. pag. 164. I ſpeak of Mr. Marſhalls diſcourſe about Gods ſealing conditionally to infants, & their after agnizing thus. And therefore this that you make an objection I looke on as a frivolous ſuppoſing a Chimaera, and then diſputing about it. This Mr Marſhalls calls a ſcoffe. But what is more uſuall with Schollars, then to call a fiction a Chimaera, without the imputation of ſcoffing? And theſe are all the ſuppoſed ſcoffes againſt Mr Marſhall, that I find noted by him. Now that it may appeare how unequally Mr Marſhall deales with me, (that I mention no other) that moſt accurate and grave writer Mr Gatak…r in a little thing containing but 60 pages, in a full letter intituled Antitheſis, in anſwer to two Proteſtants godly men, and as eminent as Mr Marſhall; Doctor Ames an Engliſh-man Profeſſor of Divinity at Franiker in Weſtfrieſland, and Gisbert Voetius Profeſſour of Virecht, about Luſory lots: hath theſe paſſages, pag. 6. Sibyllae qod fertur folium: ſed qod niſi ſibylla nobis explicuerit interpretaturum alium credo autore dempto neminem, pag. 16. cum abſurdit as illius detecta a plane jam fuerit & reverà defenſoribus ſuis foreign, pag. 17. quam invovoluta tandem ista? &c, de ſenſu ſi ambigimus, condonabit nobis ſpero, Ameſius; neqe enim hebettoris paulò ingenii qi ſumus iſta facilè aſſeq…imur, pag. 20. verum iſta prout & ſuperiora ploeraque foreign, pag. 21. nam qae ſ…quntur mihi aenigmata ſunt mera, & Sphinge vel Oedipo opus habent, pag. 22. nam qae ſequntur non ſunt nauci, pag. 22. neqè enim perſpicuè loqi amat Ameſius; ſed anguillarum in morem ambiguae locutionis coeno ſua involvere & occultare ſolenne habet, pag. 24. nam in teſtimonii illius, qod plurimum in hac cauſa, ponderis obtinet interpretatione, meras agis praeſtigias; eaqe proponis, qae ſibi invicem adverſantur, &c. pag. 27. verum pronuntiata iſta qae ex hic poſitis tamen profluunt, ſunt ab omni ſenſu humano prorſus aliena. Ita levior deprehenditur ratiuncula iſta, qae pro argumento tamen Achillaeo ac palmario proponitur, qàm ſunt ipſa farfari folia, pag. 31. qàm imbelle … elumbe planè argumentum, & viro tanto prorſus indignum. Ecqis tam vecors ut iſta admittat? pag. 32. qo teneam vultus mutantem Protea modo, pag. 33. vanitatis illos potius incuſet Ameſius, qi tam vana nobis aggeſſerunt, ſeqe etiam qi adverſus iſtud objecta tanqam p. 27adverſus illud oppoſita proponit; tum conſecutionibus è ſuo cerebro confictis elidendis negot…um ſibi fruſtra faceſſit, pag. 34. cum aliorum, tum & Ameſis etiam ipſius dogma futile, pag. 46. qarum ille q…ſdam tanqam cramben toties recoctam reponit, pag▪ 48. affirmatur non probatur, quaſi Pythagoricum illud foreign. ſufficeret. Which paſſages as I conceive no men ever charged with ſcoffing ſo neither doe I conceive juſtly might mine, which ſhew no more ſleighting or contempt of my opponents then his doe.

But pag. 94. of my Examen I ſay, the miſunderſtanding of Coloſ. 2. 11. 12. hath been the Ignis fatuus, fooliſh fire, which h…th led men out of the way in this matter into bogs. Upon this Mr Marſhall pag. 170. thus ſpeaks to me. Truly ſir, were theſe ſcorns of being led by fooliſh fire into bogs &c. caſt upon my ſelfe only, it were nothing; but when they are thus caſt in the faces of all Divines, ancient and modern; all Harmonies and Confeſſions (except onelyonly a handfull of upſtart Anabaptiſts) as if they were all ſuch ſimple ones that an …gnis fatuus, a fools fire might lead them into any bogs; I can hardly forbeare to tell you: it is an argument of an arrogant ſpirit.

I pitty Mr Marſhall's diſtemper, that occaſioned this paſſage, to ſpeak of caſting ſcornes in the faces of all Divines ancient and modern, as if all Divines did expound that text, in that miſunderſtood way I mention; to talke of all Harmonies and Confeſſions, inſtead of the Harmony of confeſſions, which containes not many; and one I am ſure it is not againſt, to wit the Engliſh confeſſion: to ſpeak diſdainfully of them that are his opponents under the term of upſtart Anabaptiſts to make the uſing of the term ignis fatuus, to reſemble a miſunderſtanding a ſcoffe; to impute it to me as if I had accuſed all Divines ancient and mod…rn all Harmonies and Confeſſions of ſimplicity: as if a miſunderſtanding might not be in all men out of common infirmity▪ to impute it to me as if I had ſaid into any bogs, whereas I ſaid, hath led men out of the way in this matter into b…gs meaning the opinions; that Baptiſme ſucceeds into the place, room▪ and uſe of Circumciſion: and therefore that the command to circumciſe male infants at the eighth day, is a command to baptize any infants of beleivers at any time; which errours I call bogs, as being indeed Anti-evangelicall errours: though all the Divines on earth ſhould avouch them, yet this I may ſay without arrogance of Spirit, in juſt and p. 28neceſſary avouching of the truth. That reverend and learned Divine Mr Gataker in his anſwer to Mr George Walkers vindication, pag. 133. Sayes thus. Howſoever I ſuppoſe it no ſuch hainour matter in ſomething to depart from all writers knowne to … that have gone before us. Sure I am that Junius and Tremellius in tranſlating and expounding ſome paſſages of Scripture, departed from all known Interpreters than had gone before them as in that place, Mal. 2. 16. that in all, even the beſt tranſlations ever before ran; if thou, hate her, put her away▪ Pareus Comment: in 1 Cor. 1. 12. miror verò hoc loco omnes ferè… interpretes fictionem ſtatuere. I might fill a volume with interpretations different from all foregoing; yea, what interpreter of note is there who doth not differ from all others, and yet it is not counted arrogance? Beſides, if this be not allowed upon cogent reaſon, how ſhall Scriptures and Truths be cleared? How ſhall we avoyd idolizing of them that goe before us,Of the expoſition I give of Coloſ 2▪ 12. Confeſſed to be right by Mr Marſhall himſelfe.Col 2:12 and ſubjecting our judgments to them? And that I ſpake right, it may appeare in that▪ in the principall thing of my expoſition of Coloſ. 2 11. 12. to wit, that Baptiſme is mentioned not to ſhew that it ſucceeds Circumciſion, but becauſe it is one of the means whereby we have communion with Chriſt, and are comple … in him, and therefore Faith is joyned with Baptiſme, and alleaged to prove it; Gal. 3. 25, 26, 27. (not as in Mr Marſhall's defence, Gal. 5. 25, 26.) and Rom. 6. 3, 4▪ 5. which plainly ſhewes that here Baptiſme is not mentioned to that end Mr Marſhall expreſſeth, & upon which the miſunderſtanding of this place was occaſioned, but to another; and therefore it proves not that which Mr Marſhall would gather from it; if it did, it would prove that faith ſucceeds into the roome place, and uſe of Circumciſion as well as Baptiſme. To this Mr Marſhall plainly ſayes, But is not this the ſame, ſenſe with mine. But he after ſpends a great many words to no purpoſe (as he is wont to doe when he miſtakes my reaſon) imagining I had reaſoned thus. Baptiſme is named as one of the meanes whereby we come to be compleat in Chriſt, therefore i… d…th not ſucceed in the room of circumciſion, whereas my re…ſon is t…us. Baptiſme is alleaged as one of the meanes whereby we come to bee compleat in Chriſt, therefore there was another reaſon beſides the ſucceſſion of it into the place of Circumciſion, why the Apoſ… there me…tions it, which Mr Marſhall denied; which reaſon is good, p. 29except it were true, that every meanes whereby we are compleat in Chriſt, ſucceeds Circumciſion, the contrary whereof is confeſſed by Mr Marſhall in acknowledging faith to bee one of the means whereby we are compleat in Chriſt, which yet ſucceeds not Circumciſion: many more ſuch miſtakes in Doctor Homes, Mr. Geree, and Mr Marſhall, I may hereafter ſhew; I thought it beſt however God deale with me to cleare my ſelfe in this, and to take notice of this conceſſion, which with others I may improve to overthrow all Mr Marſhall's diſpute. But it is arrogance to deny that which all reformed Churches reach, that our Baptiſme ſucceede into the plane, roome, and uſe of the Jewes Circumciſion.

To this I anſwer: 1. I know not that all the reformed Churches teach this, I remember not where this Doctrine is determined in the Church of … publique Doctrinals. 2. Maſter Gataker in his Poſtcript to Maſter Wo…ns Defence, ſaith thus, That juſtification … remiſſion of …, for my part I deem erro…us, and ſuppoſe that elſewhere I have evidently ſhewed … ſo to be; how be it Calvin, B…, Olev…, …, Piſcator, Parens, …ſculus, Bullinger, Fox, and divers … of great …, and name, yea whole Synods of ours are … ſo to ſay, and yet I never heard this charged for arrogancy on him. And for the aſſertions I impugne, that Baptiſme comes in the place, roome, and uſe of Circumciſion, and that this may be proved from Coloſ. 2. 11, 12. though Maſter Marſhall hold his rod over me, ſaying, I can hardly forbeare to tell you it is an argument of an arrogant ſpirit, I feare not yet to call them an iguis … of the way in this matter into begs. To conclude my anſwer to this charge of ſcoffing, I do the leſſe marvaile that it is my lot to be thus charged, when Mr Geree in his vindiciae paedob…pteſ…, Pag. 60, 67. cals one free ſpeech very neceſſary of Maſter Ralph … a man ſo approved, as by Ordinance of Parliament conſtituted Maſter of a Houſe in Cambridge, a quipping … of a ſatyricall ſpirit againſt our reverend Divines, … checked, abhorred, not countenanced. And I ſay further that if my memory do not deceive me, there are paſſages in …, that carry as much ſhew of irony as mine do, towards a man for age, and learning not inferiour to Maſter Marſhall, and therefore I ſuppoſe my words, which are uſuall among Scholars, might have had a more favourable conſtruction. I am bold to p. 30make uſe of Maſter Gatakers words to Lucius, Part. ult. Sect. 8. Pag, 91. Stomach… nimium q…m indulget vir Cl: ſuperciliumq… nim is alte attollit, qi tam aegre fert placita ſu… citra uliam vel cenſoria magiſtralitatis, vel cenſurae magiſtralis volam aut veſtigium eis formnlis qibus apud in ſcholis diſceptantes nihil eſt vſitatius negari, idq: cum negationis rationes adiectas aut videt aut videre ſi velit qeat. Nevertheleſſe I profeſſe freely, that had I dreamed ſuch expreſſions ſo uſuall in Scholaſtick diſputes would have been ſo taken, I would for avoyding of offence have abſtained from them.

There is another charge againſt me that ſticks deeper then the former,§. 6. Of the clearing the Author of the Examen from either juſtifying the Anabaptiſts in …, or condemning the godly, and grave Nonconformiſts in England. and it is this: Maſter Marſhall in his Sermon had mentioned the Anabaptiſts as a dangerous and turbulen… ſect, working a world of miſchiefe about Munſter, and other parts of Germany. This relation I conceived to be uſed, not only to Magiſtrates to make them wary to prevent the like, b…t alſo in all ſorts of Auditories, with much ingemination to make the perſons that queſtion the baptizing of Infants odious, and unſufferable in a Chriſtian Commonwealth, and to ſtop mens eares againſt ſuch evidence as may cleare the truth in this matter. To this therefore, as being an objection in the mouth of all ſorts of men againſt the Ant…paedobaptiſts, I thought it beſt to anſwer: 1. By granting much of the relation to be true, though perhaps vehemency of oppoſition …ath made matters more, or worſe then they were, as it is wont to be in ſuch caſes. To this Maſter Marſhall ſaies, that he is confident I ſhew more good will to the Anabaptiſts, then intend ill will againſt thoſe worthy men who have written thoſe ſtories. I do take with the right hand this charitable opinion in Maſter Marſhall of my intentions, and I plainly reply, that the truth is, that I did uſe thoſe words, neither out of partiall good will to the one, nor partiall ill will to the other, but out of a deſire to remove that prejudice, which hindered men from examining the Truth. As for the men I abhorre the wicked practiſes of the one, yea ſo much the more I abhorre he practiſes of them that would ſo ſolemnly by baptiſme engage themſelves to be Chriſt Diſciples, and yet act ſuch monſtrous villanies, as having learned that the more profeſſion a man makes of holineſſe, the more accurſed is his wickedneſſe; and for the other, I beare as much good will to the memory of them, as if they had agreed with me in opinion. I hope I p. 31ſhall never make agreement with me in opinion, the reaſon or rule of my love, but relation to Jeſus Chriſt, appearing in holineſſe of life. Maſter Marſhall ſaies, that the things are not to be queſtioned, and that he thinks that I am the firſt of our Divines who have ſuſpected them to overlaſh in their relations. To this I ſay, my words are plaine, that much of this is true I make no queſtion, meaning the maine of the relations, that the men denied baptizing of Infants, and that they brake out into ſuch turbulent practiſes as are related of them. That which I added though perhaps vehemency of oppoſition hath made matters more, or worſe then they were, as it is wont to be i… ſuch caſes, meaning this, of ſome particular circumſtances in ſome perſons, was not becauſe I ſuſpected the overlaſhing of the Hiſtorians, as if they wanted fidelity, but becauſe many things were brought to the publike knowledge by the Biſhop and Canons of Munſter, their partiſans who were Papiſts, and would aggravate all things to the moſt to make the Lutheran Reformation become odious; as Studley did in the accident of Euoch ap Evan killing his mother and brother, or elſe by captives or deſertors, who for favour or mercy would frame their tales, as they conceived might further their ends and becauſe experience of the uncertainty of the manner of carrying things in our times, hath made me ſpeake warily concerning things paſt. And to ſpeake plainly, when I conſider what Hooker relates out of Guy de Bres of the ſeeming holineſſe of the generality of them, their Orthodox confeſſion at firſt mentioned by Maſter Marſhall from Maſter Dury his knowledge, the proceedings and parts of Bernardus Rotmannus and ſome others, the things mentioned by my Examen, Part, 2. Sect. 3. the teſtimonies of Gualter, and Caſſander, that the commotions in Germany began from oppreſſion in the State, that Luther wrot to the Germane Princes againſt their opreſſions, the ſtrange ſpirit of Lutherans ever ſince, and the wofull tragedies of Germany in this laſt age, I do count the ſtory of the Anabaptiſts to containe in it many things, the true reaſons of which, and the true knowledge of the circumſtances concerning them will not appeare till the day of the revelation of the righteous judgement of God. 2. I aſſigned ſome poſſible meanes of the turbulent carriages, and errours of the Anabaptiſts, beſide their opinion of Antipaedobaptiſme. To which Maſter Marſhall ſaies, he can hardly p. 32gueſſe whether I int…ded to excuſe the Anabaptiſts in part, or to blame the Reformed Churches for not hearing them, or to hint it as a warning to our ſelves. I anſwer, I did it to ſhew there might be other reaſons of thoſe tumults and diviſions that the Anabaptiſts fell into, then the opinion of Antipaedobaptiſme; ſundry of which, if not all I think happened in their caſe. Maſter Marſhall ſaies, he never read that they ſought Reformation in a regular way, or were denied it, before they fell into thoſe furies. How farre they ſought it I cannot tell, it is plaine that Caroloſtadius and Pelargus and ſome ſay Melancthon would have reformed it in Saxony, had not Luthers pertinacy in that as well as Conſubſtantiation, and Images withſtood it; and how Baltazar Huebmer ſought it at Zurich, and was denied, it, is known. I thinke the Reformed Churches have been to blame, and ſo may be our preſent Reformers, that they have never yeelded to reforme it in a regular way; and if Anabaptiſts have never ſought it afore me, it hath been it's likely, becauſe they ſaw mens ſpirits ſo bent againſt them, that they thought it in vaine, yea they have beene rather forced to conceale themſelves, it having beene accounted criminall, juſtly deſerving excomunication, deprivation, and ſometimes death, ſo much as to queſtion it. And that the Anabaptiſts have been ſo caſt out and rendered odious as they have been hath been the reaſon why they have been forced to become a Sect (which I do not juſtifie) and by reaſon thereof, factious ſpirits have joyned with them, and perverted them with other errours, which perhaps had not happened, had th…y been more tenderly and conſiderately handled at firſt. 3. I ſaid, but have not the like▪ of not the ſame things happened in other matters? Did not the like troubles happen in Queen Elizabeths daies in ſeeking to remove Epiſcopacy and …eremoni…s? To this Maſter Marſhall ſaith, The reſt of that Section, is to me extreamely ſcandalous, when I read your odious compar…s between the Non-conformiſts in Queene Elizabeths daies, and the Anabaptiſts in Germany; it even grieves me to conſider, whether affection to your cauſe doth carry you And Maſter Geree not only Pag. 70. of his Vina…c… paedobapt…ſmi, wonders at me that I ſhould compare the troubles of the Non-conformiſts, and the Anabaptiſts, and marva…les ſuch an uncharitable and unjuſt thought ſhould ariſe in me, that diviſions or other miſcarriages of the Non-conformiſts p. 33ſhould bring them low in England: And beſide all this, Maſter Geree publiſheth a ſingle ſheet in print, and it came to my knowledge firſt by one that carried it about with other news Books, and this Paper he ſtyles the Character of an old Pur…tan … Non-conformiſt, and in the end ſaith thus: R…ader ſ…ing a paſſage … Maſter Tombes his book againſt P…dob …pt…ſme, where in he compares the Non-conformiſts in England, to the Anabaptiſts in Germany, in regard of their miſcarr…ages and ill ſucceſſe in them endeavours till of late yeares, I was moved for the vind…cation of thoſe faithfull, and reverend witneſſes of Chriſt▪ to publiſh this character. In which Mr Geree plainly inſinuates, that I acculed thoſe faithfull witneſſes of Chriſt, whom he cals elſewhere the grave, godly, learned and unblameable Non-conformiſts in England. I o anſwer this objection, I ſay that I never had a thought by thoſe words Did not diviſions and other miſcarriages and perſecutions, bring the Non-conformiſts of England as low as the Anabaptiſts in Germany? To accuſe thoſe men he names of ſuch miſcarriages. I honour the memory of Cartwright, Brightman, Hilderſham Parker, Dod▪ Bradſhaw, and the reſt of the ſame ſtampe as godly, learned, unblameable and faithfull ſervants of Chriſt. But I ſaid ſome there were tha… in ſeeking to remove Epiſcopacy and ceremonies did by their diviſions, meaning thoſe of Browne▪ Barrow, and others, and other miſcarriages, meaning of the writers of the Books called Martin M…rprelate, and the like, the miſcarriages of Hacket and his companions, the Prelates taking hold thereof to accuſe them as ſeditious▪ and to incenſe the Queen and State againſt them with per…ec…tion bring them as low as the Anabaptiſts in Germany. And I ſaid that the like if not the ſame troubles happened here in England as in Germany, meaning not in the degree, out in the kind, not in the fruit, but in the ſeed, which if the prudence of the State here had not timely prevented (which could not be ſo well done in Germany, by reaſon of ſo many petty free States) might have broken out into as great a flame as thoſe combuſtions in Germany. In which my intent was not to diſcredit Bullinger, Sl…id…n, Calvin, &c. no… to juſtifie in the leaſt manner the Anabaptiſts wicked practices, but only to ſhew that in ſeeking to reforme an abuſe, there may happen ſuch miſcarriages▪ and diviſions, by the Devils ſtirrring up ſome …actious and by pocriticall ſpirits of thoſe that joyne with the p. 34ſeekers of Reformation, to breake out into hainous enormities of … to ſtop mens mouthes from ſpeaking for, and mens eares … …aring of Truth. And therefore all that love the Truth, … they have reaſon to ſuppreſſe thoſe turbulent ſpirits, and … heed of mens heady adviſes though for a good end, yet they ſhould not yeeld to the Devill ſo much as to permit him by the clamours againſt thoſe factious ſpirits, to cheat them of the Truth, or to make them leſſe, but rather morezealous for it. And that this was my meaning, had my words been either well heeded, or candidly conſtrued, might have been perceived by them. Here I wiſh Maſter Geree to conſider whether it were agreeable to that friendſhip he acknowledgeth to have been between us, without any violating of it on my part, to publiſh ſuch an unjuſt charge againſt me, and ſo to lay more burdens on my backe, after I told him he had not dealt kindly nor rightly with me in his Epiſtle Dedicatory to a Peere of the Realme in aſperſing me, whereby I might ſuffer much and never be heard ſpeak for my ſelf, & yet never once aske me though he had twice conference with me, once a little before his Book was publiſhed, the other, the ſame day it was put forth, whom I meant in thoſe paſſages. I may well take up that ſpeech of Abſolom to Huſhai, Is this thy kindneſſe to thy friend ? Now from that which hath been ſaid, it will be eaſie to anſwer Maſter Marſhal's Quaeres. The Anabaptiſts in Germany roſe up, and with fire …nd Sword pulled down Magiſtracy, Scholes, &c. did the like, if not the ſame things happen here? Tis true the Bores … Countrey people over all Germany did ſuch things, and among them were thoſe that they called Anabaptiſts, but theſe things were done by others then Anabaptiſts, and in ſome places where it doth not appeare to me that any ſuch were: the cauſe of which was pr…tended the oppreſſions of the people by the Princes, but in Truth▪ their deſire to plunder, and ſpoyle. Now though the ſeekers of the removall of Epiſcopacy, and Ceremonies did not the ſame things in degree, yet they did ſuch ſeditious things as were of the ſame kind, and tended to them, as inciting againſt the Magiſtrates; ſuch invectives againſt Schooles, as had they not been withſtood, might have produced the ſame effects, of which you may ſee paſſages out of Barrow▪ in Maſter …, Chap. 2▪ And I pray God we never▪ find by experience, that diſcontented I Presbyterians p. 35can act the like things for their Presbytery, that Anabaptiſts did for their Anabaptiſm▪ Mr Marſhall ſaith, what did the Non-conformiſts ever endeavour to do beyond prayers and teares? If M. Marſhall mean by non-conformiſts ſuch as M. Geree deſcribes in his Character, I have nothing to accuſe them, but if he mean by Non-conformiſts thoſe that …ought to remove Epiſcopacy and Ceremonies (which was my phraſe, knowing that in proceſſe of time the terme Non-conformiſts was contradiſtinguiſhed to Separat…ſts) ſome of them uſed railing againſt men in place & authority, witneſſe the Libels of Martin Marprelate, and ſuch like in too great abundance, ſome of them, if Cam…en relate true in his Anuals of Elizabeth ad Annum 1591. either conſpired with, or ſome way animated Hacket, upon conceite that he was an extraordinary perſon raiſed by God to bring in the Diſcipline. Maſter Marſhall ſaies what turbulent Sect was ever among them, my words were, Did not ſome of them that …ought to remove Epiſcopacy and Ceremonies▪ grow a dangerous and turloulent Sect? Which words of mine are true in the followers of Browne, Barrow, &c. whom I thinke Mr Marſhall will not deny to have been a dangerous and turbulent Sect, and they were at firſt a part of them that ſought to remove Epiſcopacy and Ceremonies. He askes, what were thoſe diviſions and miſcarriages which brought them ſo low? … had ſaid, Did not diviſions and other miſcarriages and perſecutions bring the Non-conformiſts of England as l…w as the Anabaptiſts? The diviſions I meant, were thoſe that were between the Separatiſts and other Non-conformiſts, the miſcarriages I meant, were thoſe of Martin Marprelate, Barrow, Hacket, and others which did meite Queene Elizabeth and the S…ate againſt them, to arme the Biſhops with their power, by which they did perſecute them. Dr Iohn Burges rejoynder, Chap. 2. Sect. 11. Pag. …5. …or my part I thinke that the violence of ſome meaner …en againſt thoſe things, hath cauſed the ſharper execution of Lawes againſt ſome other men of worth. Crudelem medicum intemperans ager facit. Maſter Marſhall toucheth the ſtory of Hacke… and his companions and then ſaith: But what is this to your purpoſe … had Hacket to do with the Non-conformiſts, who you know (… fever you read the ſtory) abominated him, and would have nothing to do with him … before he … into thoſe p…ankes he plaid in London? I anſwer, I have read the ſtory of Hacket in Camdens Annals of p. 36Queen Elizabeth ad annum 1591. in Saravia againſt Beza de diver…s miniſtrorum gradibus, in Stow and Howe, and I do not find by theſe that the ſeekers to remove E…iſcopacy did abominate him as you ſay, but that Wiggi…ton a Miniſter, and others of that party did either conſpire with him, or otherwiſe encourage him upon the hope they had, that by him the Diſcipline ſhould be p…omoted, and I find many practiſes like thoſe of Iohn of Leyden at Munſter, as the pretending of revelations, affecting anointing as a King, commanding his Prophets Arthington and Coppinger to go into the Citty and preach, exciting the people againſt the Archbiſhop and Lord Chancelour yea I find Hacke…'s end to have been worſe in a more horrible manner than that of …ohn of Leyden: nor do I doubt had London been in the ſame ſtate as Mu…ſter was, but the Tragedy would have been as bad in the ſeeking to remove Epiſcopacy and Ceremonies, as it was in ſeeking to remove Paedobaptiſme. And if the Non-conformiſts did abominate Hackes, ſo did the Anabaptiſts that followed Mennon, the Munſter, and Batenburgick, furies. And as for the parallel I brought out of Whitg…ft and Hooker, I did it not to juſtifie their charges againſt the Non-conformiſts, but to ſhew that they deprehended a likeneſſe of ſpirit & waies in ſome of the one, as well as the other. And my end in the whole was to ſhew, that in ſeeking to remove a reall errour, and abuſe, fa…ious perſons may fall into ſuch miſcarriages, and yet their miſcarriages ought not to hinder the Reformation of the errour or abuſe, though theſe things may well be urged for caveats to Magiſtrates and people, to ſuppreſſe & take heed of the ſeditious practiſes of ſuch agents: which warning being rightly taken, is good and neceſſary, yea perhaps more neceſſary for theſe times then I at firſt imagined, and ſo needs not a del…a ur, but a right conſtruction.

Another charge Maſter Ley, and Maſter Marſhall faſten upon me that I wrote my Treatiſes as a braving Goliah,§. 7. Of t…e clearing of the Author of the two Treatiſes from va…nting and challenging in the compoſing and publiſhing the Treatiſes. ſo Maſter Ley, ub… ſupra: Maſter Marſhall in his Defence, Pag. 2. And came into the field ſo bravingly and gyantlike. Pag. 244. Truly Sir, thu ſmels a little too ranckely, thus confidently to challenge all men, not contented with Goliah to ſay, give me a man that I may fight with him, but to defie a whole host, argues a little too much ſelfe confidence: To which I anſwer If Maſter Ley, or Maſter Marſhall either had allowed me ſo charitable an opinion, as my forepaſt life and actions might have p. 37induced them to have of me, or heeded my words in the prologue and Epilog…e in my Examen, they would never have faſtned this charge of a braving Goliah, or c…fident challenging or defying a whole hoſt on me. …or my bygone actions, they rather ſpeake me a man willing to gratifie others, and to ſerve the common good, then to make eſtentation of my ſelfe out of ſelfe confidence. There are many that can make report of my labours in the places where God hath diſpoſed of me, there are none that can give one inſtance, wherein I have put my ſelfe forward to ſhew my parts either in Preaching the publike Sermons in the Univerſity, or at Pauls, or in great meetings in the Countrey▪ or before great men, or the Parliament, or the Armies, out what ever I have done upon any ſuch occaſions, neceſſity or conſcience have induced me to it. And for my writings ſuch as they are, ſetting aſide the Examen and Exercitation, they carry their plea for them in their forehead. Infirmities I have, and thoſe many, but ſure the whole courſe of my actions are a plea for me againſt this imputation of a braving, challenging, vaunting humour: yea did not the mindfulneſſe of my account in God, love to the ſoules of men, and the diſcharge of my duty, lead me into publique actions, I ſhould rather embrace that adviſe, be… qui latuit, benè vixit. Certainly in this buſineſſe, I was ſo farre from the braving humour, that, as may be perceived by the relation above, neceſſity engaged me to it, not ſelfe confidence, and an humour of oſtentation. The truth is, there were other arguments that I had entered upon, before I was engaged in this matter, as namely againſt the mortality of the ſoule, univerſall grace, the Antinomian errours about juſtification, and juſtifying faith▪ and ſome ſince, as about the matter and forme of a particular viſible Church, about the nature of Schiſme and Hereſie, in which I might ſafely have exerciſed ſuch abilities as I have, if ſelfe oſtentation had been my motive, and not have put my finger in this fire, durſt I deſert the Truth. But how uncharitably Mater Ley, and Maſter Marſhall do conſtrue my action, I thinke it will preſently appeare to him that ſhall read the Prologue, and E…logue of my Examen, eſpecially thoſe ſpeeches, wherein I declared my intentions to be either to rectifie Master Marſhall, or to be ractified by him, that we might give one another the right hand of fellowſhip▪ and I pray that the Lord would vouchſafe to frame our ſpirits to ſeeke the p. 38truth in humility and love, which might have given them cauſe to have conceived otherwiſe of my diſpoſition, then they have done, except they judged my ſpeech hypocritical, which I am ſure would have been beyond their line to do. In the Epilog…e I tell Maſter Marſhall, that I examined his Sermon in the middeſt of many wants, diſtractions, diſcouragements, and temptations, which were indeed very many, ſo many that nothing but Gods aſſiſtance, and the thought of my account to God could, as then the caſe was with me, have carried me thorough the worke. I ſaid that I kn…w no reaſon, why Maſter Marſhall ſhould conceive, that I had taken the paines to examine his Sermon for any ends croſſe to the finding of Truth, I tell him plainly, my reall mention in this worke is to diſcover Truth, and to do what is m…et for me in my calling, towards the Reformation of theſe Churches, according to Gods word, …ts which we have both bound our ſelves by ſolemne Covenant. Theſe words ſhould have acquitted me from this charge of braving out of ſelfe confidence, if Maſter Marſhall, or Maſter Ley knew nothing to the contrary, as I am ſure they did not, and I thinke they have no proſpective glaſſe to look into my breſt. And for the words Mr Marſhall ſaies, ſmell a…lutle too rankely of challenging and difying a whole Hoſt, had he conſidered or recited the whole period, and not cut off my words in the middeſt, he had ſeen that my words were not a braving challenge, but a fai…e and moſt reaſonable motion, to have ſome one Treatiſe framed by thoſe that had appeared in publike, and whoſe writings or Sermons, I had endeavoured to anſwer, that I might know what they would ſtand to, and ſave my ſelfe the labour and charge of buying and reading every indigeſted Pamphlet: And after I made another motion, in caſe this was not liked, to have a meeting to conſult about a way of brotherly and peaceable ventilating this point. The rejecting of both theſe motions by Maſter Marſhall if they make him not inexcuſable, yet I preſume make my preceedings excuſable, and his ſo p…lpable a miſconſtruction of my ſpirit in this matter, doth ſtrongly argue that he looked on my writing with a …loudſhot eye, however he proteſt the contrary in his Epiſtle Dedicatory to the Aſſembly. And I think he ſhould not ſhoote very wide from the marke, that ſhould imagine that theſe exceptions againſt the Author, are for want of a cleare anſwer to the Booke.

p. 39There is yet another charge againſt me that flies higher,§. 8. Of the clearing the Author o… the two Treatiſes from Sophiſtry in them, whereby occaſion is taken to vindicate the Treatiſes in many of the chie…e things contained in them. and comes …earer to the matter, if it were true, and it is indeed (though they do not call it ſo) the deceit of Sophiſtry in my writing, which if it were ſo, were a damnable ſin to pervert the Truth of God by ſuch prophane handling. But let us conſider what is ſaid: Maſter Marſhall Pag. 2. of his Defence, ſaith thus: wherein I ſhall not (as you have done) carpe at every phraſe or expreſſion▪ nor digreſſe into imp…rtinent diſcourſes, thereby to ſwell up a volume, nor amuſe the Reader with multitudes of quotations of Latin and Greeke Authors, and then turne them into Engliſh; nor frame as many ſenſe of an expreſſion as is poſſible, and then confute them, and ſo fight with men of ſtraw, of mine own ſet…ing up: nor ſpend a whole ſheet of paper together, in confuting what was never intended by my adverſary, as the Reader ſhall clearly perceive you have dealt with me.

In anſwer hereto, I ſay: The firſt charge is ſo ranke, that unleſſe he meane by carp…g ſomething elſe then I conceive, to wit a wanton, unneceſſary, quarrelling, or excepting without cauſe, it is ſo palpable an untruth, that I wonder he would let it fall from his … he wrote at adventure. I do ſometimes (and yet not ſo frequently as there was occaſion) declare the ambig…ity and unfitneſſe of ſome expreſſions▪ but never without reaſon our of a carping humour▪ much leſſe carpe at every phraſe or expreſſion. And for the ſecond, it is true▪ I do make ſome digreſſions, and ſo did Doctor … White in his … the … Church, Doctor Twiſſ… … Arminiu…, but theſe digreſſions I am … a reall … pertinent, and neceſſary to a full diſcuſſion of the argument in hand, … to … a volume, but to cleare the … ▪ The third ch…ge is as va…e, for the quotations are not multitudes, … ſo many as that praiſe worthy writer Maſter Gat…er … of them … not for amuſing the Reader but for … p. 40ſpeakes it of himſelfe, and I there through miſtake of memory put [Ar…es] for [Orange] a City neare it. And theſe I thanke Doctor Homes for advertiſing me of: and ſhall be willing to confeſſe any other overſights, that no reader may be deceived by me: though for the preſent I know no other. Doctor Homes names ſome other, yet I conceive wrongfully. As for the framing of as many ſenſes of an expreſſion as is poſſible, and then confuting them, this I thought had been a vertue in diſputing to find out the many ſenſes of an expreſſion, and to confute them. I ever tooke this good arguing▪ if the concluſion be true, then in this or that ſenſe, but in none of all theſe it is true, ergo it is not true▪ and that this had not been fighting with men of ſtraw, but fighting with the ſtrongeſt enemy that was in the field.

The laſt charge is, that I ſpend a whole ſheet of paper in confuting what was never intended by him: §. 9. Of the meaning of Maſter Marſhals ſecond conclaſion, the words in the D…rect… ry. [the promiſe is made to Beleevers and their ſeed] and the Doctrine therein delivered, diſavowed by Mr Marſhall and Mr. Geree.be it ſo; yet if the Reader were likely to take it ſo, it was fit it ſhould be refuted, and himſelfe blamed for ſpeaking no plainer, but leading his Reader and Anſwerer out of the way, by the ambiguity of his expreſſion. But to examine this charge more fully: He meanes I aſſure my ſelfe the refuting of this concluſion Exam Part. 3. Sect. 4. from Pag. 48. to 54. (which comes ſhort of a whole ſheet) That the Cov…nant … ſaving grace in Chriſt. expreſſed in Gen. 7. 7. in theſe words [I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed] is made to beleevers and their naturall …eede. This ſaith Maſter Marſhall Pag. 116. of his Defence was never aſſerted by him. For my part, though I conceived ſtill that Maſter Marſhall would never ſtand to this aſſertion, and I acknowledged in expreſſe termes, that ſometimes▪ Maſter Marſhall ſpake mo… warily, yet I gave many reaſons why in his ſecond concluſion his words were to be ſo taken, as if he had aſſerted that, which Maſter Marſhall neither hath▪ nor I thinke can clearly take off▪ nor did I herein faſten any thing upon him againſt … as he … to ſuſpect, Pag. 116. of his Defence, and Maſter Geree Pag. 13▪ of his Vindiciae paedobaptiſms. For the paſſage be brings out of my Book is not contradictory, ſ…th I might ſuppoſe he held not all the Infants of Beleevers to be actually▪ regenerate, and yet might ſuppoſe he held that the Covenant of ſaving Gr… was made to them all, ſith all the Elect perſons have the Covenan… made to them as the Apoſtle ſuppoſeth, Rom. 9. 8. and yet are not actually p. 41regenerate. Beſides Maſter Marſhall in his anſwer to the fourth and fifth objection, ſpeakes as if he held the Covenant of Grace conditionall▪ and ſo might hold that all the children of Beleevers have the Covenant of ſaving Grace made to them conditionally, though not abſolutely. I will adde what Doctor Homes Pag. 1. 3. of his Animadverſions tels me. Master T. kn…w learned Maſter P. (I thinke he meanes Maſter William Pemble of Magdalen H…ll in Oxford, a famous worthy writer, whoſe memory is very pretious to me, in whoſe time Doctor Homes, Maſter Geree and my ſelfe, lived together in that houſe to the benefit of us all) who would ſay, can any meere man write much, and not in any thing contradict himſelfe? Why then ſhould it be thought ſtrange that I ſhould conceive Maſter Marſhall would contradict that in one place, which he had avouched elſewhere, eſpecially ſith I find it frequent for Proteſtant Divines in this very thing, to unſay in diſpute againſt Arminians about perſeverance, what they avow in diſpute againſt Anabaptiſts: ſure I am Maſter Cottons words which I examine in a digreſſion, meane plainly the Covenant of ſaving Grace, and therefore he interprets Gen. 17. 7. of the Covenant of ſaving Grace, and Maſter Philips, that the Covenant is made to them becauſe offered, and Maſter Thomas Goodwin in his Lectures about Infant-baptiſme, meant it of the Covenant of ſaving Grace and therefore limited it ſo, as that for the moſt part Election did run through the loynes of Beleevers, and Maſter Herle at Bow-Church for Maſter Goodwin on Heb. 8. 10. tooke upon him to refute Anabaptiſts from thence, becauſe the Covenant there was made with the houſe of Judah, and Gal. 3. 14, the bleſſing of Abraham was to come upon the Gentiles▪ and that was the Covenant of ſaving Grace. And for my part, I know not how to conſtrue thoſe words of the Directory, That the promiſe is made to Beleevers and their ſeed, any otherwiſe then of the promiſe of ſaving Grace, which I conceived plaine by the expreſſion following, make this baptiſme to the Infant a ſeale of adoption, remiſſion of ſins, regeneration and eternall life, and of all other promiſes of the Covenant of Grace. The Directory doth in my apprehenſion plainly appoint the begging for the child the accompliſhment of the promiſe before aſſerted to Beleevers and their ſeed, and therefore as in the petition it is meant of ſaving Graces, ſo in the aſſertion, or elſe the words are ſo ambiguous, p. 42as they may be a Cothurnus, which were more fit for a Canon of the Coun…s of Trent, then for the Directory of a Proteſtant Church. Beſides the ſame promiſe is ſaid to be made to Beleevers ſeed, which is made to Beleevers, but that they will not d…ny to to be meant of the promiſe of ſaving Grace, therefore neither the other. To this Maſter Marſhall Pag. 116, 117. of his Defence anſwers thus▪ 1. He leaves out the words which were for my purpoſe [and of all other promiſes of the Covenant of Grace] which is not right dealing: 2. He makes me to conclude from that I cite out of the Directory, that if there be not a promiſe of theſe ſaving graces to Infants, in vaine are they baptized, and the ſeal▪ is put to a blanke. And this conſequence he denies, but ſaith nothing to that which was indeed my reaſon, which was this, Maſter Marſhal's ſecond concluſion is to be underſtood as the words in the Directory, this Maſter Marſhall grants, but the words of the Directory ſpeake of a promiſe of ſaving Grace. This I prove, 1. Becauſe the ſame promiſe is ſaid to be made to the Beleevers ſeed, which is made to Beleevers, for it were a ſtrange equivocation to underſtand the ſame terme in the ſame propoſition in two different ſenſes, but the promiſe made to Beleevers there meant, is the promiſe of ſaving Grace, ergo ſo is the promiſe to their ſeed. 2. Becauſe the words ſpeake of the ſame promiſe before, in the direction concerning Doctrine, which they meane after in the direction for petition, elſe there would be a Cathurnus, which were abſurd, but in the petition they mean the promiſes of ſaving Grace, therefore alſo in the Doctrine. As for that which Maſter Marſhall makes my concluſion from the words of the Directory, that in vaine are they baptized, the Seale is put to a blanke: It is no inference from the words of the Directory, but comes in in another period, at leaſt fourteene lines after, and among other reaſons it is a medi…m to prove that the ſecond concluſion muſt be ſo underſtood, becauſe that is the plea they make for Infant-baptiſme, and therfore unleſſe it be ſo underſtood, they muſt revoke that plea. M. G…ree Pag. 13. (if I underſtand him aright) makes this the ſenſe of the Director…, the promiſe is made to Beleevers and their ſeed, that is, it is to be preſumed in charity of all the Infants of Beleevers, that they enjoy the inward graces of the promiſe till they diſcover the contrary. Wherein, though he grant that which I contend for, p. 43that in the Directory the promiſe is meant of ſaving Grace, yet he hath invented another ſhift to ſave the credit of the aſſertion of Maſter Marſhall and the Directory, which he confeſſeth, if it be taken as I conceive it is, is ſo manifeſtly againſt Proteſtant principles and experience that none can hold it. But who would ever conſtrue thoſe words, The promiſe is made to Beleevers and their ſeed; that is, it is to be preſumed in charity of all the Infams of Beleevers, that they enjoy the inward graces of the promiſe, till they diſcover the contrary, but he that would make mens words like a noſe of waxe, to turne them which way he is willing they ſhould be taken? would any man conſtrue the words [ … to Beleevers] any otherwiſe then thus, the promiſe of ſaving Grace is made by God to Beleevers? and muſt the ſame phraſe in the ſame propoſition in the other part be conſtrued thus [the promiſe is made to the ſeed of Beleevers] that is, it is to be preſumed by men in charity till they diſcover the contrary, that all the Infants of Beleevers have the inward graces of the Covenant. As if the making of a Covenant were all one with a charitable preſumption, or the ſeed of Beleevers were all one with Infants, or when they are adulti they are not their ſeed. The Apoſtle Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8. when he expounded the promiſe, Gen. 17. 7. of the ſpirituall, not the naturall ſeed, did not imagine, that the making the promiſe was mans act of preſumption, but Gods act, and Acts 2. 39. (to which and Gen. 17. 7. it's likely the Directory alludes) the promiſe▪ as Maſter Marſhall expounds it, is of Chriſt and his ſaving benefits, and the making of it is meant of Gods act, not mans preſumption. Adde hereunto that the whole ſeries of the direction in the Directory carries the meaning thus. For having ſaid, that Baptiſme is a Seale of the Covenant of Grace, of our ingrafting into Chriſt, and of our union with him, of remiſſion of ſins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternall, it followes after, that the …eed and poſterity of the faithfull borne within the Church, have by their birth intereſt in the Covenant, and right to the Seale of it, and to the outward priviledges of the Church, &c. where the Directory makes a threefold intereſt: Firſt intereſt in the Covenant. Secondly, right to the Seale of it. Thirdly, right to the outward priviledges of the Church, the Covenant, Seale, and outward Priviledges of the Church are put as diſtinct things, and the Covenant they have intereſt in, is the ſame Covenant p. 44of which Baptiſme is a Seale, as is plaine by the Pronoune [it] which imports the ſame thing: Now Baptiſme is before ſaid to be the Seale of the Covenant of ſaving Graces, therefore the Covenant that the ſeed of Beleevers have intereſt in by their birth according to the Directory, is the Covenant of ſaving Graces. Which ſith Maſter Marſhall dares not aſſert, and Mr Geree ſaith is manifeſtly againſt Proteſtant principles, I wiſh it were as it ought to be laid to heart, and that the Aſſembly would remember that which they ſay Pag 30. of the anſwer to the Remonſtrance of the ſeven diſſenting Brethren. And it was further declared, that even in thoſe things which the Aſſembly had voted, and tranſmitted to both Houſes of Parliament; yet we did not ſo leane to our own underſtandings, nor ſo prize our v…tes; but that if theſe Brethren ſhould hold forth ſuch light unto us as might convince us of an errour: we ſhould not only deſire the Parliament to give us leave to reviſe our votes, but to revoke them, if there ſhould be cauſ…. Which would indeed bring much honour to the Aſſembly, and knit the hearts of the godly to them: whereas through their ſilence at this time, this and ſome other things in the Directory about baptiſm paſſing uncorrected, & ſtanding confirmed by Law, great diſquiet to the Church of God, and the undoing or moleſting of many godly perſons, may follow when they cannot yeeld without ſin to the Doctrine and practiſe of Baptiſme as it is there ſet downe.§. 0. Of the diſtinction of inward and outward Covenant, and that it can ſtand Maſter Marſhall in no ſtead, but to ſhew his tr…f…ing, and equivocating in his firſt argument, and two firſt concluſions, and of M. Marſhal… miſtake of my opinion. This by the way.

But Mr. Marſhalls tells me pag. 1…0. of his Defence, you cannot be ignorant how our Divines owne the outward adminiſtration of the Covenant under the notion of Foedus externum and the ſpirituall grace of it under the notion of Foedus internum: and that ſtill I reſtraine the Covenant to the ſpirituall part onelyonly; and would perſwade my reader, that they who ſpeake of the Covenant of Grace, muſt meane it thus ſtrictly; and yet I bring not arguments to diſprove a true viſible memberſhip upon a viſible profeſſion, whether the inward ſaving grace be known or not. To this I anſwer. I confeſſe I have met with that diſtinction of foedus externum & internum, in ſome Proteſtant writers, but not meeting with it in Mr Marſhals Sermon, I had no occaſion in my E…a…en to meddle with it but now I will declare my thoughts of it. I confeſſe that Circumciſion is called the Covenant, Gen. 1… 13▪ by a me…onymy of the thing ſignified for the ſigne, as the text it ſelfe expounds it; p. 45and I confeſſe that the Apoſtle Rom. 2. 28. diſtinguiſheth of Circumciſion outward in the fleſh, and circumciſion of the heart: but no where in Scripture doe I meet with the diſtinction of the outward and inward Covenant, nor doe I conceive the expreſſion right. For if the diſtinction be only diſtinctio nominis, it ſhould be thus, Covenant is taken either properly or improperly by a trope, and not Covenant is either outward or inward, if the diſtinction be diſtinctio rei: then there is ſome common notion of a Covenant thus diſtributed, and ſo the ſenſe muſt be; ſome Covenants, that is, promiſes (for the nature of a Covenant is a mutuall or ſingle promiſe) are either externall or internall, and this may be underſtood either in reſpect of the making of the promiſe, and ſo it is not right for all promiſes in that ſenſe are externall, none internall for afore it be declared by ſome tranſeunt act it is not a promiſe, but an intention or elſe it may be underſtood in reſpect of the thing promiſed, and it is confeſſed that God promiſeth inward, and outward good things, and if this were the meaning I ſhould not much except againſt it, though I ſhould like it better to expreſſe it thus. The things covenanted are outward or inward, which is plain and eaſie to be underſtood, then to ſay, the Covenant is outward, or inward. But Mr Marſhall by the outward Covenant means the outward adminiſtration of it, and by the inward Covenant the ſpirituall grace of it. According to which explication the diſtinction is not agreeable to Logick rules, nor can ſtand Mr Marſhall in any ſtead, but to convince him of trifling and equivocating in his firſt argument, and two firſt concluſions. Trifling I ſay in his firſt argument. For the firſt argument was this. The infants of beleeving parents are foederati, therefore they muſt be ſignati. Now Mr Marſhall will not have the antecedent underſtood of the inward Covenant, that is the ſpirituall grace; he blames me for that, and he himſelfe rejects it in that ſenſe; then the ſenſe muſt be, the infants of beleeving parents are foederat…, that is in the outward Covenant of Grace, that is according to Mr Marſhall in the outward adminiſtration of the Covenant. Now what is the outward adminiſtration he expreſſeth pag. 48. of his Sermon, calling Baptiſme the new adminiſtration, and Circumciſion the old. This then is Mr Marſhals argument. The infants of beleevers are in the outward Covenant, that is, in the p. 46outward adminiſtration, meaning Baptiſme or Circumciſion; this is the antecedent, the conſequent or concluſion is, therefore they muſt be ſignati; that is, baptized or circumciſed. But is not this a meer inept tautology; all one as to prove they muſt bebaptized, becauſe they muſt be baptized; all one as to argue, he muſt have enſem, becauſe he muſt have gladium; this is Pauls Epiſtle, becauſe this is Pauls letter. I ſaid equivocating. For by the Covenant Mr Marſhall makes ſhew of one thing in the firſt concluſion, but meanes another in the ſecond. For he had ſaid concluſion the firſt, The Covenant of Grace for ſubſtance hath been alwayes the ſame, and pag. 10. he ſhewes wherein lies the ſubſtance of it; to wit, the ſpirituall part; now who would not have expected that the ſecond concluſion ſhould be meant of the ſame Covenant to wit the inward; ſith he ſayes, pag. 26. The proving the two firſt concluſions gains the whole cauſe, if the Covenant be the ſame, and children belong to it, then they are to be owned as Covenanters? yea, and his firſt text to prove the ſecond concluſion, Acts 2. 39. he himſelfe expounds it of Chriſt and ſaving benefits by him. But it ſeems Mr Marſhal's heart failes him, he found that aſſertion too hot for him, though that be the ordinary aſſertion, in the Directory, in books and Sermons, inſomuch that it is an uſuall expreſſion to ſay infants are confederates with their beleeving parents in the Covenant of Grace; and therefore now, the ſecond concluſion, that the children of beleevers belong to the Covenant of Grace, muſt be underſtood in another ſenſe then as the Covenant of Grace is taken in the firſt concluſion, which is to equivocate. Yea further by reading Mr Marſhalls defence, pag. 92. and elſewhere I ſuſpect there is a farther equivocation in Mr Marſhalls argument, which Mr Marſhall it ſeems doth not perceive, divers expreſſions being by him taken as the ſame, which are not the ſame; nor to be confounded. For, pag. 92. Mr Marſhall ſpeaks thus; I concluded therefore that by Gods own will, ſuch as enter into Covenant ought to receive the ſeale, which ſeems to be the Propoſition by which the ſequele of Mr Marſhalls firſt argument is to be proved, ſo that he ſeems to frame the Syllogiſme entirely thus. They that enter into Covenant ought to receive the ſeale, but the children of beleevers enter into Covenant, therefore they ought to receive the ſeale; ſo that the minor ſeems to him to be p. 47all one with this Propoſition: the children are foederati, which is elſewhere expounded of the outward Covenant, or the right to be baptized, but to have right to be baptized, is not all one with entring into Covenant. Entring into Covenant is ſome act farther then having of right; for a perſon may have right to Baptiſm before he enters into Covenant. Mr Marſhall ſhould have heedfully diſtinguiſhed the Covenant of Grace, which is Gods act in his promiſe of grace; and belongs to none but thoſe he hath made that promiſe to, and the outward adminiſtration, which is the adminiſtratours act; and not have called it the Covenant, and the entring into Covenant with God, which is the act of the baptized, and cannot be done ordinarily by an infant, who is onelyonly paſſive, and makes no promiſe at Baptiſme; and therefore cannot be rightly ſaid to enter into Covenant with God. The want of ſuch diſtinctneſſe in expreſſion ſerves for no other purpoſe but to puzzle a reader, and the very truth is, the argument which Mr Marſhall, Mr Geree, Doctor Homes, &c. bring from the Covenant to the Seale for the baptizing Infants, if it be well ſifted, is either a Tautology, or an equivocation; as I may more abundantly ſhew, if ever I have liberty to examine their intangled diſcour…es. Now from hence he may know the reaſon why I ſtill reſt…aine the Covenant to the ſpirituall part only, which is, becauſe I love to ſpeake plainly without equivocation, and as the Scripture doth, and why I would perſwade the Reader, that they who ſpeake of the Covenant of Grace muſt meant it thus ſtrictly, becauſe I would have it thought they do not equivocate, but ſpeake plainly. And for bringing arguments to diſprove a true viſible memberſhip upon a viſible profeſſion, whether the inward grace be known or not, I marvell Maſter Marſhall ſhould expect this of me, who never denied a true viſible memberſhip upon a viſible profeſſion, whether the inward Grace be known or not, but in expreſſe termes granted it; and therefore Maſter Marſhall doth untruely charge me, when he ſaies Pag. 112. This miſtake runs through your whole booke, that none are to be repu… to have a viſible right to the Covenant of Grace, but only ſuch as partake of the ſaving Graces of it. And yet Mr Marſhall acknowledgeth Pag. 2…3. of his Defence the contrary, when he ſaith, to all this you aſſent, and conſequently that there is nothing needfull according to the Word, but a viſible right. But Maſter Marſhall p. 48addes; and then what will become of all your pleading, That becauſe we cannot know that all Infants of Beleevers have the inward Grace, we may not therefore baptize them. This Maſter Marſhall makes all my pleading, but Maſter Marſhall neither doth nor can ſhew that this is all or any part of my pleading. Maſter Marſhall Pag. 222. hath theſe words: And as for that you adde, That Baptiſme is to be adminiſtred, not to them who may have Grace, but to them who have it. Then it ſeemes they are all wrongly baptized who have not inward grace. But how doth this follow from my words, with any ſhew of right deduction? That becauſe I ſay, it is not enough that Baptiſm be adminiſtred to perſons, in that they may have Grace, but it is to be adminiſtred to them that have it, that therefore it ſeemes they are all wrongly baptized who have not inward Grace, unleſſe my ſpeech had been, that it is to be adminiſtred to none but them that have it, which cannot be drawne from my words, till it be proved that every affirmative propoſition is excluſive, which true Logick will diſclaime. He that ſaith, A Coate is not a mans becauſe he may buy it, but becauſe he hath bought it▪ doth not affirme that he only hath a Coate by right that hath bought it, for he may have right to it another way, viz. by legacy My pleading is, becauſe we have no command, we cannot baptize Infants without will-worſhip according to ordinary rule, ſith the command is only to baptize Diſciples, or ſuch as profeſſe faith. I grant that if any be a reall actuall Beleever that cannot ſpeake, yet if he profeſſe the Faith by other ſignes, or God do reveale it for him he may be baptized by the force of Philips rule, Acts 8 38. and Peters ſpeech, Acts 10 47. But he that ſaith, reall actuall Beleevers may be baptized, doth not thereby affirme that they only are to bee baptized. A proprio primo modo ad proprium ſecundo modo non valet argumentum. All Crowes are black, therefore only Crowes are black, is no good argument. Maſter Marſhall tels me Pag 95. that he is confident, that I who durſt baptize an Infant known to be regenerate, durſt not give the other Sacrament to it; becauſe more is required to make them capable of that Sacrament, then is required to make them capable of Baptiſme: a regenerate Infant I thin… is capable of thus: but beſides regeneration, he is ſure I will grant, that an examination of a m…ns ſelfe, and an ability to diſcerne the Lords Body, is required to … capable of that. To put him out of doubt, I ſay; upon the p. 49ſame ſuppoſition that God ſhould regenerate, and make an infant an actuall believer I ſhould as ſoone give the Lords ſupper as baptiſme to it, as conceiving that the ſame actuall faith that makes capable of the one makes capable of the other, and the ſame ſupernaturall extraordinary power that begets actuall faith can beget ſelfe examination and diſcerning the Lords body. And thus I have anſwered that accuſation of ſpending a whole ſheet of paper together in confuting what was never intended by my adverſary, and have retorted this point of ſophiſtry as more juſtly chargeable on himſelfe.

But Mr Marſhall hath yet more of ſophiſtry to charge me with, 11. Of Maſter Marſhal… falſe and moſt unjuſt charge that I carry the Socinian plot through my examen and exercitation.and thus he ſpeakes pag. 3. of his defence. But firſt give me leave to obſerve your deſtructive artifice. It is the Socinians way to clude all texts of Scripture, which are urged againſt them, if they have been differently expounded by learned and godly men, ancient or moderne: to queſtion all concluſions infer'd by conſequence from Scriptu…e: to deride the teſtimonies of any of the Ancients by diſcovering the nakedneſſe, errour, and overſight of thoſe reverend men: and by making themſelves merry by turning the Orations, Epiſtles, or alluſions of the Fathers into ſyllogiſmes, and by inſerting of ergo now and then, to make all their rhetoricall paſſages ſeeme ridiculous. I appeal to the judicious reader, whither this plot be not carried through your Examen and exercitation.

It is a very ſad thing that brethren ſhould thus yeeld either to their paſſion, or zeale of God but not according to knowledge▪ ſo as to paint out their opponents in as ougly a forme as they can without cauſe. Mr Marſhall appeales to the judisious reader, and I am very willing to accept of the appeale, provided that under the terme, Judicious reader, he do not meane one that is reſolved to gainſay whatſoever is contrary to the ſtreame of other reformed Churches▪ or the preſent Synod, or that may endanger his preſent ſtation, or carried away with prejudice, and paſſion. He deſires le…ve to obſerve my deſtructive artifice. If he meane my skill to overthrow his arguments I confeſſe it, it was my buſineſſe, if he meanes ſomething elſe when he names it he may have an anſwer. He tels me what the Socinians way is, and would have it thought that is my way. For the Socinians way, I have read Mr Cheyuels diſcourſe, but remember not that their way is deſcribed p. 50as Mr Marſhall ſets it downe. I have read very little either in Socinus, or any Socin…n. In that which I have read I confeſſe I finde much ſhifting and impudence in eluding the ſcriptures urged againſt them, Chriſt…nus Bermanus Ex…rcit. Theolog. 20. hath collected 38 examples hereof. I finde that they make little account of the teſtimonies of the Ancients, ſince the firſt Nicene Council in the point of Chriſts Deity, yet they alleage thoſe afore the Nicene Council in that point, and ſometimes others of the Ancients. But it is more eaſy for Mr Marſhall to affirme then to prove any ſuch So…man plot in my Examen or exercitation, though Mr Marſhall could not but know, that an adverſary could hardly ſhew more malice, and do more miſchiefe to a man then by bringing him into ſuſpicion as if he were of a Socinian ſpirit. He ſaies, it is the Socinian way to …lude all Texts of ſcripture which are urged againſt them if they have been differently expounded by learned and godly men, ancient or modern. The truth is, though Socinians do uſe this art, yet their proper deviſe is, ſo farre as I have obſerved, to elude by new interpretations of their owne. But what one Text have I eluded in an, ſuch manner? If there be any, it is either 1 Cor. 7. 14. or Coloſſ. 2▪ 11, 12. I or the firſt, though it is true I alleage eleven Authors expounding as I do, and might make a further addition, and there was great reaſon I ſhould do it, becauſe of the prejudice that was againſt my interpretation, yet that was not it which I reſted upon, but the Analyſis of the words, which being rightly ſtated, I found upon reaſon, to which neither Mr Marſhall nor Mr Geree have yet anſwered, that the ſenſe I gave muſt needs be right. And it was confeſſed to me by a learned man of the Aſſembly, that he thought matrimonial Holines was not all that was meant there, yet that I had ſufficiently overthrowne that of federal Holines▪ Mr Marſhall though he have altered my method and forme in clearing that text, and ſo obſcured my elucidations of it, yet could finde eight arguments there againſt his opinion. And for the other text it hath been ſhewed before that Mr Marſhall confeſſeth my ſenſe to be his ſenſe. The truth is, my expoſitions of texts are in moſt of them ſo … that Mr Marſhal himſelfe doth grant them, though he differ from me in the inferences from them. He ſaies further, it is the Socinians way to queſtion all concluſions inf…rred by p. 51conſequence from Scripture. This is the firſt time that ever I heard them to be charged with this▪ but rather finde them by Mr Cheynel and others charged with aſſenting to nothing but what they could conceive rationall. I remember Docter Chalo…er in his Credo Eccleſiam Catholicam mentions this as the artifice of the Jeſuites in France to ſtop the mouthes of Proteſtants by rejecting conſequences, and requiring expreſſe texts, which being invented by Veron▪ was called methodus V…roniana, the vanity of which is refuted by Vedelins in a treatiſe of his. I remember I ſaw a printed paper taken as it is ſayd from the mouth of Captaine Paul Hobſon againſt Infant baptiſme, wherein was ſomewhat ſpoken againſt conſequences, which I diſclaime. Yea, I expreſly ſay pag. 110. of my Ex…men, But I grant, that if you make it good, by good conſequence, you may recover all. I confeſſe I do reject the conſequence drawne from the command of Circumciſion to baptiſme by reaſon of analogy, and all ſuch anologies as being vaine yet too much poſtering …, and former writings and Sermons. It is the ſpeech of Mr Rutherf…rd, due right of Presbyteries, Ch. 2. ſect. 2. pag. 37. proportions are weake probations. But it is an overlaſhing to purpoſe in Mr Marſhal to ſay, that I carry this Socinian plot through my examen and exercitation to queſtion all concluſions infer'd by conſequence from Scripture. Though Mr Marſhal in this matter appeares not to be the man I tooke him to be, yet I hope he is not come to Calumn…are …d… cter. I preſume the Judicious reader will judge, that Mr Marſhal is bound to give me ſatisfaction for wronging my credit, of which he ſhould be more tender, by ſo deep, & yet ſo palpable a falſe accuſation. Mr Marſhal makes this the Socinian way to deride the teſtimonies of the Ancients. Of what they do I can ſay little. But I challenge Mr Marſhall to give one inſtance wherein I make my ſelfe meerly by turning the orations, epiſtles, or alluſions of the Fathers into ſyllogiſmes, and by inferting of ergo now and then to make all their rhet…ricall paſſages ſeem ridiculous. As for derid…g the teſtimonies of any of the Ancients by diſcovering the …akedneſſe, &c. I do it no otherwiſe then the moſt approved Proteſtant writers Rivet, Perkins, Cooke, Jannes, Century-writers▪ Chamire, Jewel, Reynolds, &c. yea and many of the Papiſts themſelves, Sixtus S…ſis, Bellarmine, &c. who uſually diſclaime ſome writings p. 52of the Ancients as ſpurious, and many ſpeeches of the moſt approved as abſurd and erroneous: yea, Mr Marſhall himſelfe in the points of infant Communion, rebaptization, neceſſity of Baptiſme and Communion in his Defence, derides Cyprian and Auguſtine as much as I doe in my Examen in the point of Infant-Baptiſme. Mr Marſhall ſayes my ma…ne faculty lies in the anaſcenaſticall part, but that I bring not ſatisfying arguments to ſettle men in that I would have. But Mr Marſhall might remember my buſineſſe in my exercitation, and Examen is to diſcover the nullity of the pleas that are made for Infant-Baptiſme, in which if I had done no more but overthrowne the proofes that are brought out of Scripture, it had been enough. Whereas I have further ſhewed upon erroneous grounds it was taught of old, and what abuſes hauehave followed it: which ſurely Smect…mnuus, and Dawlphintramis in their pleading againſt Ep…ſc…pacy and Liturgy thought ſufficient; however in this point Mr Marſhall cenſures my exercitation and examen as inſufficient. When Smectymnuus had diſputed down Epiſcopacy and Liturgy, they conceived they had done their part, though they referred it to the Synod to conſult how to ſetle Church Government and worſhip. And why ſhould not my diſputing be thought edifying to the Church of God by overthrowing an errour and abuſe, which will in time be found worſe then Epiſcopacy and Liturgy, though I take not upon me to direct how Baptiſme is to be reduced to the right way, nevertheleſſe when I am duly required to declare my opinion either about the nullity of Poedobaptiſme as it is uſed, or the way of reducing Baptiſme to its right uſe, whether according to conſcience or prudence which I doubt not but may be done in time without neceſſity of ſeparation, turning ſeekers, or popular tumult, though for the preſent generation by reaſon of preingage-ments, mens ſpirits are very averſe from it,) I ſhall be willing to doe it, as being reſolved; notwithſtanding the unkind uſage I have found, yet to remember my Covenant and account to God. And as I have not hitherto, ſo neither I hope in God ever ſhall foſter any Crypticall Divinity, of which I need be aſhamed to bring it into light, or which ſhould juſtly cauſe men to be jealous of me as a dangerous perſon likely to trouble the Church, though unbrother-like Mr Marſhall pag. 76. endeavours to repreſent me as if I were one that had need to be p. 53watched. He talkes not in a letter to me in private, but in print, of my high and ſcornfull ſpirit, but how juſtly may appeare by this Apology. He tells me, I magiſterially tread down under foot the arguments and reaſons which others conceive ſtrong. But it will be hard for Mr Marſhall to ſhew where I tread down any thing magiſterially, that is without cogent reaſons; and ſuch, as were it not for his miſtakes of my reaſons, he himſelfe would be forced to ſubſcribe to them.

As for queſtioning ſo boldly ſome Doctrines which have never been q…ſtioned before, §. 12. Of M. Marſhals unjuſt charge of me as itching after new opinions, and particularly about rebaptization and receiving the Lords Supper afore Baptiſm.I ſuppoſe he meanes it of that which I ſaid Pag. 23. of my Examen about rebaptization, which Maſter Marſhall ſaies doth clearly diſcover my itch after new opinions, Pag. 67. of his Defence, and that which I ſay Pag 85. of my Examen, concerning the queſtion, whether an unbaptized perſon may in no caſe ea… the Lords Supper, this Maſter Marſhall Pag. 167. of his Defence, numbers amongſt my freakes and out-leapes, and ſaies is a ſpice of my itch after ſingular opinions. But Maſter Marſhall might have obſerved, that in the former, I gave the reaſon of what I ſaid, becauſe it goes ſo curr…n, that rebaptization is not only an errour, but alſo an Hereſie; plainly ſhewing there was a neceſſity that cryed out againſt the Anabaptiſts as Heretikes, to bring a demonſtrative reaſon to prove it unlawfull to baptize againe him that had been rightly baptized. For I preſume, hat as King Iames cenſured Cardinall Peron for making a kind of problematicall Martyrs, calling them Martyres that dyed in maintenance of a point not certain whether it were de …ide, ſo it is as abſurd for our Preachers to make problematicall Hereticks, by declaiming and exciting the Magiſtrate againſt thoſe as Hereticks, of whom it is uncertaine whether they hold an errour or no. As for Maſter Marſhals reaſons, they are not convincing to me, nor is the holding rebaptization ſuch a new opinion as he would make it. And for the other it is no out-leape, but a queſtion that lay in my way by reaſon of Maſter Marſhals words, and exceeding neceſſary to be reſolved, conſidering that otherwiſe thoſe Miniſters and people that cannot agree about the validity of Infant-baptiſme, or adult-baptiſme, ſuppoſed not to be rightly done, for want of a right Miniſtery, or power to give the Spirit, or the manner of it's adminiſtration, muſt of neceſſity ſeparate from Communion in the Lords Supper for this reaſon, becauſe p. 54none is to be admitted to the Lords Supper till he be rightly baptized: which I profeſſe is to be ſtood upon in point of prudence for right order; yet if it be ſtood upon in point of conſcience, ſo as in no caſe the contrary is to be permitted, it will of neceſſity make many ſuperſtitious perplexities in Miniſters, and inferre many an unneceſſary Schiſme, this being not a ſufficient reaſon for a refuſall of Communion, becauſe a Godly perſon takes his baptiſme to be right, though I know the contrary. Nor do I thinke the thing either ſuch a new opinion or practiſe. For beſides, that it may be doubted whether all the Apoſtles were baptized, as ſuppoſe Matthew (which is as probable for the negative as the affirmative) yet were admitted to the Lords Supper by Chriſt himſelfe: when Conſtantine the Great and others did differre their baptiſme ſo long, it is not likely they never received the Lords Supper afore their baptiſme. Nor is it inconſiſtent with my grants: For what though I grant that Baptiſme is the way and manner of ſolemne admiſſion into the Church, meaning the regular way, yet it followes not that none may receive in any caſe afore baptized. Mr Marſhall holds Ordinatination by a Presbytery is the regular way of ſolemne admiſſion into the office of publike Preaching, and it may be fit by an Eccleſiaſticall Canon to order it ſo; yet I thinke it will not be denied, but that there may be caſes, wherein a perſon may lawfully be a publike Preacher without ſuch ordination. The other grant which Maſter Marſhall ſaies is mine, was never expreſſed by me ſo rawly as he laies it downe. It is not as he puts it downe, that nothing is to be doue about the Sacraments, whereof we have not either inſtitution or example: but as Maſter Marſhall might have perceived if he had heeded my words, Examen, Pag. 28. Pag. 110. Pag. 152. That no poſitive worſhip, or eſſentiall, or ſubſtantiall part of it, is to be done without inſtitution by precept, or Apoſtolicall example, I never denied, that many things pertaining to circumſtance and order may be done about the Sacraments without either, and of this kind I conceive Baptizing afore eating the Lords Supper to be. As for itch after new opinions, why are not Doctor Twiſſe, and Maſter Gataker, and indeed all that cleere truth more fully then others, cenſured in the like manner? I wiſh if my words would take any impreſſion on him, that Maſter Marſhall would forbeare thus judging leaſt he be judged. I thinke I know my ſelfe better then p. 55Maſter Marſhall, and I told him, my reall intention was to diſcover truth, yea all my wayes ſhew me free from this itch after new opinions, though I profeſſe my ſelfe an impartiall ſearcher of truth, …llius addictū jurare in verba …agiſtri, no not to the determinations of the Aſſembly. May it not with better reaſon be ſaid, they have an itch after new opinions, who hold that without power to ſuſpend all ſcandalous perſons from the Lords Supper, a man cannot with a good conſcience be a Paſtour, that without this power the Church of Chriſt is to be ſuſpended from the Lords Supper many yeares, &c. And for fleighting of authors, I have anſwered it already.

There is yet another Charge, as if I ſhould alleadge Authors againſt their mind.§. 13. Of alleadging Authors againſt their mind, particular Mr Daniel Rogers, M. B…ll, Chamter, Aretius, and Beza. As firſt Maſter Daniel Rogers. I ſaid Maſter Daniel Rogers in his Treatiſe of the Sacrament of Baptiſme, Part. 1. Pag. 79. confeſſed himſelfe unconvinced by demonſtration of Scripture for it. Maſter Marſhall writes to Maſter Daniel Rogers, he anſwers in theſe words: If I were to anſwer that Anabaptiſt, I ſhould anſwer … ſilen…io, & contemptu: for why ſhould I not? ſince in that very place of my Sacrament, Part. 1. Pag. 78. 79. where I confute thoſ… Schoſmaticks, he … my words from their own Defence: My words are, I confeſſe my ſelf unconvinced by any demonſtration of Scripture for …dabaptiſme, meaning by any poſitive Text; what is that to helpe him? except I thought there were no other arguments to … vince it: now what I thinke of that, my next words ſhew, Pag. 77. line 4, 5, 6, 7. I need … tranſcribe them. In a word, this I ſay, though I know …, yet that is no argument for the non-baptizing of Infants, ſince ſo many Scriptures are ſufficiently convincing for it. Therefore this want of a … Text muſt no more exclude Infants, &c. then the like reaſon ſhould diſa…ull a Chriſtian Sabbath, or women kind not to be partakers of the Supper: The quoting of mine owne text were enough. I will ſet down his words as I find them, that the Reader may judge whether there be truth in it, that I have ſnatched his word… from their own Defence, and whether he did not oppoſe demonſtration of Scripture to …ritt…n tradition. The words are thus: I ſay this for the ſetling of ſuch as are not wilful, that … take the baptiſm of Infants to be one of the moſt reverend, generall and uncontrouled traditions which the Church ha…h, and which I would no loſſe doubt of then the Creed to be Apoſtolicall. And although I confeſſe my ſelfe p. 56yet unconvinced by demonſtration of Scripture for it, yet firſt ſithence Circumciſion was applied to the Infants the eighth day in the Old Teſtament: Secondly there is no words in the New Teſtament to infringe the liberty of the Church in it, nor ſpeciall reaſon why we ſhould bereave her of it. Thirdly, ſundry Scriptures affoord ſome friendly proofes by conſequent of it. Fourthly, the holineſſe of the child (externall and viſible) is from their parents, who are (or ought to be) chatechiſed confeſſors, penitents, and Proteſtants in truth (which priviledge only open revolt diſables them from) therefore I ſay, the Seed being holy, and belonging to the Covenant, the Lord graciouſly admits them alſo to the Seale of it in Baptiſme. 1 Cor. 7. 14.1 Cor 7:14If Maſter Marſhall pleaſe he may write backe to his reverend and learned friend, that the ſuppoſed Anabaptiſt thinks his plaiſter too narrow for the ſore, that he ſeems to eate his own words, that his words help me to ſhew that he once thought it indeed one of the moſt reverend, generall, and uncontroled traditions which the Church hath, and which he would no leſſe doubt of, then the Creed to be Apoſtolicall, which if he meane it of the Creed called the Apoſtles as it is now, Parker in his booke de deſcenſu ad inferos, and others have ſhewed to have been made long after the Apoſtles dayes, and the tale of their meeting to compoſe it, in the expoſition on the Creed, attributed to Ruffinus, or ſome other to be of no credit. And for Scripture, Maſter Rogers findes but friendly proofes, ſomewhat like Bellarm…nes pie & probabiliter credi poteſt, and that there is no word in the New Teſtament to infringe the liberty of the Church in it: which if Maſter Rogers can ſatisfie himſelf with, he may, I profeſſe I dare not ſo play with my own conſcience, and I thought this was fit to be told Maſter Marſhall, to ſhew that I was not the only man that queſtioned, whether his proofes for Infant-baptiſme were ſo undeniable as he would have them; and that's enough to ſhew the unreaſonablenes of the violence of his ſpirit againſt thoſe that differ from him. And for his Quaere why he ſhould not anſwer me, ſilentio & contemptu: I preſume Maſter Marſhall hath long ſince done that office of a friend to tell him it is written Rom. 14. 10. Why doeſt thou ſet at at naught thy brother?

I had ſaid not as Mr Marſhall repeats it, Maſter Ba…l cuts the ſinewes of the argument from Circumciſion, but, me thinkes Mr Balls words cut the ſinewes of that argument. And ſo they do plainly. p. 57For if however Circumciſion and Baptiſme agree or differ wee muſt looke to the inſtitution, and the agreement is not enough to conclude, that Baptiſme belongs onelyonly to members in Church-Covenant, and their children, becauſe it was ſo in Circumciſion without an inſtitution, as the new England Elders reaſon, by the ſame reaſon however Baptiſme and Circumciſion agree or differ: yet Baptiſme will not belong to Infants, becauſe Circumciſion did ſo by vertue of proportion, without an inſtitution, which if Mr Ball or Mr Marſhall could ſhew, they needed not trouble us with the Command about Circumciſion of male infants, to prove Infant-Baptiſme, which is indeed to maintain that the ceremoniall ſaw ſtill binds, which is plain Judaiſme. But what ſayes Mr Marſhall to this? If Mr Marſhall cut the ſinewes of the argument from Circumciſion to Baptiſme, himſelfe was very much miſtaken in his his own meaning and intention, becauſe in the ſame place he makes them parallell in this, and I might have done well to have informed the reader ſo much. I was told, there was a very intelligent man that ſaid he was ſorry that I had Mr Marſhall for my Antagoniſt, as knowing him to be apt to miſtake, which he conceived would be a vexation to me, and indeed I find his words true. For whereas I ſaid only Mr Ball's words, cut the ſinewes of that argument; M. Mar. miſtakes it as if I had ſaid, Mr Ball intends to cut the ſinews of that argument, and that then he was miſtaken in his own meaning and intentions. I confeſſe it were a very ſtrange thing to charge ſo underſtanding a man as Mr Ball with ſuch a miſtake of his owne meaning and intention: but it is no ſuch ſtrange thing for a learned man to ſpeak that which may be brought to inferre the contrary to that he intended, and if this be to abuſe men, then all arguments by retortion are abuſes. Bellarmin l. 5 de juſtificatione c. 7 prop. 3. had ſaid, propter incertitudinem propria juſtitiae & periculum inanis gloriae tutiſſimum eſt totam fiduciam in ſola Dei miſericordiae & benignitate repouere. This King James in his Apologie for the oath of Allegiance brings to prove that he overthrowes thereby all his former diſpute about inherent righteouſneſſe, though Bellarmine had put in a ſpeciall caution in the next words to prevent that inference, and King James left out that caution in the recitall, yet Biſhop Andrewes in his Torturae Torti, and many other learned men juſtified King James, and that rightly.

p. 58Mr Marſhall, pag, 147. ſaith thus. And I am ſure you muſt agree with me. Sixthly, that of all theſe teſtimonies you have cited out of Chamier, there is not one word againſt my interpretation, or for the juſtification of yours; yea and I kn…w alſo that you will agree with me Seventhly that the learned Chamier in a large diſpute doth confute your interpretation and vindicate my interpretation, as the onelyonly true and proper meaning of this text even in that very pla…e, where you quote him. And therefore I know the reader will agree with mee (whether you doe cr…) that you doe but abuſe your Authour and Reader both, in making a flouriſh with Chamiers name nothing to the purpoſe, and thereby would m…ke the Reader to conceive Chamier to be of your ſide, when he is point-blanke againſt you. And in the ſame page. Firſt you ſeverall times … the learned Beza as if he were of your m…nd in the interpretation of this text, to conſtrue it of matrimoniall holineſſe. I confeſſe the cauſe depends not upon Beza's judgement, but your reputation depends much upon … king this good, that you ſhould dare to … Authour as interpreting it for you, who interprets it exprofeſſo againſt you. p. 159. I perſwade my ſelf you are by this time aſhamed of your impertinent quotation, I aſſure my ſelfe if you be not, your friends are p. 157. But Sir why do you thus frequently abuſe your Readers with the names of learned men, inſerting ſome one ſentence of theirs into your booke, and thereby inſinuating to your Reader, th… they are of your opinion in the point wherein you cite them? I aſſure you, it concernes your conſcience as well as your cauſe, to be thus often taken tardy. Mr Geree vindic. Poedobaptiſm. pag. 22. which you expreſſe in Beza's words, but againſt Beza's mind. pag. 28. And therefore I wonder you ſhould ſo of … alle…ge an Author impertinently eſpecially ſuch an one as is punctually and … againſt you. To all this I anſwer. If Mr Marſhall could have ſhewed that I had either falſified the words or wreſted their meaning, he had ſaid ſomething: but to tell me, becauſe I alleage the words of authors according to their meaning, to prove the contrary to that they ho…d, therefore I ab…ſe them; and inf… … …o the Reader that they art of my mind, or ſide, when they are point blanke againſt me, or that my allegation is … pertinent … is ſo frivolous a charge, that it deſerves no other anſwer, then Mr. … own words out of Horace, pag. 294. … aſhamed p. 59of my impertinent quotation…, it is becauſe Mr Marſhall and Mr Geree have miſrepreſented them, otherwiſe thoſe my quotations are every one of them pertinent to the particular point I alleage them for, and not yet anſwered by Mr Geree or Mr Marſhall. And I confeſſe I cannot but ſmile at Mr Marſhalls conceit of me, when he ſayes. And I am ſure you muſt agree with me. Sixthly, that … all theſe teſtimonies you have cited out of Chamier, there is not one word againſt my interpretation or for the juſtification of yours; as if I were another Claudi… to ſubſcribe to my own condemnation: which if I doe in this thing, he may well beg me for a foole. It is untruly aſcribed to me that I cite Beza, as if he were of my mind in the interpretation of 1 Cor. 7. 14. to conſtrue it of matrimoniall holineſſe. For whereas I did diſtinctly explain firſt the term ſanctified in the forepart of the verſe & then the terms unclean & holy in the later (which M. Marſhall confounding in his defence; & to putting all my arguments together to the number of eight, as he multiplies them, & not ſorting them as I did, hath made his anſwers colourable, but indeed miſleads the unwary Reader) and though I knew Beza to diſagree from me in expounding the term [holy] which I had expreſſely ſet down, pag. 16. of my exercitation; and therefore never intended to abuſe the Reader, or to inſinuate that he was of my ſide, in the expounding the latter part of the verſe, yet he expounds the firſt part with me of matrimoniall ſanctification, and ſo I ſaid, pag. 73 57, of my Examen, not that Beza did conſtrue it of matrimoniall holines, but matrimoniall ſanctification; which I ſhould wonder Mr Marſhall did not conſider being ſo plainly and neceſſarily diſtinguiſhed by me, but that diſtemper of body or mind, or haſt to prevent the ſtudying of my book by crying it down (the like whereto may be ſaid of Doctor Homes and Mr Geree) made him compoſe his anſwer a…ore hee had well ſtudied my book. As for Chamier I did, pag. …6. expreſſely ſay his opinion was for federall holineſſe. Do federal… illa ſanctitate quid decom…verit … mentem Chemiro Calvino, &c. and yet I need not be aſhamed to bring his own words againſt his own tenet, no more then King James to bring Bellarmines words againſt him, or Biſhop Morton to bring the Bapiſts words againſt them, or Mr Marſhall himſelfe to bring my words againſt me, but rather indeed it is moſt commendable to bring an authors p. 60words to refute his own opinion as being a moſt cogent and pertinent way of diſputing. And for Aretius pag. 92. of my Examen, I uſed this very expreſſion [ſayes rightly in this] intimating that though he agree with M. Marſhall in his inference from Col. 2. 11. 12. yet thoſe words which I cited, and that rightly, ſerved to overthrow Mr Marſhall's reaſon, from whence their inference is gathered. And therefore it concernes Mr Marſhall's conſcience as well as his cauſe to be thus often taken tardy in falſe accuſations, & inſinuations againſt me. As for that he tells me of Aretius his opinion there and elſewhere, it is indeed a meer impertinency; ſith I never denied Aretius to be of his opinion, and therefore if I may uſe his own phraſe, pag. 147. he doth but bumbaſt his booke to no purpoſe.

And here I cannot but take notice, §. 14. Of Maſter Marſhal's unjuſt charging Anabaptiſts, with a bloody ſentence, concondemning all the Infants of beleevers as having nothing to doe with the Covevenant of Grace; his imputing to me as if I held that they all belong actually to the kingdome of the Devill, no more promiſe for them then for children of Turks, their actuall ſtanding in the viſible kingdome of the Devill.that whereas Maſter Marſhall had charged in the firſt uſe of his Sermon the Anabaptiſts with a raſh and bloudy ſentence condemning all the infants of the whole Church of Chriſt, as having nothing to doe with the Covenant of Grace or the ſeale of it, and then aggravates it as like Hazaels act, I ſaid, pag. 170. of my Examen, till you produce ſome teſtimonies of thoſe you call Anabaptiſts ſo determining, I ſhall take it to be but a falſe accuſation, and a fruit of paſſion, not of holy zeale. Mr Marſhall both pag. 5. and pag. 243. of his Defence, ſaith thus. I compared not their intentions with his, but the fruits of their principles caſting all beleevers children, as much out of the covenant of Grace as they doe the children of Turks and Pagans; and this I am ſure they doe, and your ſelfe joyne with them who acknowledge no more promiſe for the children of beleevers, then for the child…en of the Turkes, and leave them to have their actuall ſtanding in the viſible kingdome of the Devill.

In this reply Mr Marſhall brings no teſtimony out of the Anabaptiſts writings to prove them guilty of that raſh, and bloody ſentence he doth in expreſſe termes charge them with; ſuppoſe Mr Marſhall ſhould be able (which I am aſſured he cannot do) to prove by conſequence that by their principles, they condemne all the infants of the whole Church of Chriſt, as having nothing to doe with the Covenant of Grace, or the Seale of it (which were the words of his Sermon pag. 52. though in his defence he alter the words to mince the matter) yet Davenan… exhorts to brotherly communion, Ch. 12. Gataker vindication againſt Walker, and p. 61many other cry out againſt it as moſt unreaſonable to accuſe men of that ſentence which themſelves diſclaime, becauſe it followes from their principles by remote conſequence, much more in downright termes to ſay, they paſſe a bloody ſentence, and condemn all the infants of beleevers. If it ſhould follow from their principles, yet M. Marſhall were not acquitted from raſhnes, falſe accuſation and paſſion in thoſe his ſpeeches. I have proved from Mr Marſhall's principle, pag. 35. of his Sermon that all Gods commands and inſtitutions about the Sacraments of the Jewes bind us as well as they did them in all things which belong to the ſubſtance of the Covenant, and were not accident all to them, that it inferres an obligation to all the Moſaicall ceremonies, and conſequently Judaiſme; yet Mr Marſhall would not think it equall I ſhould charge him with Judaiſme, and then make a declamation againſt him as turned Jew, and preaching Judaiſme, and to be abandoned by Chriſtians as going about to make them Jewes. Why then doth Mr Marſhall deale ſo with others? I know Mr. Marſhall pag. 198. of his defence, endeavours to juſtifie his principle: he tells me, that his meaning never was to aſſert the practiſe of the rituall part in the leaſt particle, but that there is a generall nature, end and uſe in which they are agree; which is to anſwer juſt nothing. For the queſtion was concerning the commands of the Jewes whither they bind, and particularly whither the command of circumciſing infants bind us virtually; now all the commands are about the practiſe of the rituals, and if they bind they are ſtill in force: the generall nature is conteined in the definition, which is aeternae v… ritatis, and expreſſed in an enunciation, and is not commanded but declared, and ſo is the generall end and uſe to be known and beleeved, not to be practiſed : but commands are orationes non enunciativ…, never of the generall nature, but of particular acts. Who did ever talke of a command that a man ſhould be animal rationale, or of a Sacrament that it ſhould be a Seale of the Covenant? 2. Mr. Marſhall tells us he did not compare the Anabaptiſts and Hazaels intentions, but the fruit of their principles. The truth is, Mr Marſhall did not compare their intentions, nor the fruit of their principles, with Hazaels act; but their bloud… ſentence with his act. As for …ſting out of the Covenant of Grace, indeed and before God, no promiſe or errour of ours can doe it, were our intentions p. 62never ſo malicious, the malice of men cannot nullifie the faith of God. As for caſting out in their ſentence, I conceive it ſuſpends any judgement of them; we can neither ſay they are in or out: yea, I ſay again if all be examined, Mr Marſhall puts them as much out as we, unleſſe Mr Marſhall underſtand no more by the Covenant of Grace then Baptiſme, which though Mr Marſhall may doe in a popular auditory, which cannot diſcern between chalke and cheeſe, yet me thinks he ſhould forbeare to doe it in print, in a treatiſe dedicated to the Aſſembly of Divines. But I wonder the leſſe at Mr Marſhalls raſhneſſe in accuſing the Anabaptiſts, when he is not aſhamed to tell me thus, pag. 238 of his defence. It is your judgement that all infants, even of beleevers as well as Pagans, though they may potentially belong to the Kingdome of Chriſt, yet actually they belong to the Kingdome of the Devill; which I am ſure he no where findes in my writings, but to the contrary in divers paſſages, as exercit. pag. 24. But ſaith Mr Marſhall, you acknowledge no more promiſe for the children of beleevers, then for the children of Turks. This matter I had diſputed at large, part. 2. §. 10 of my Examen, and to mitigate the odium which popular preachers caſt on us by this Allegation I had ſaid, ſo doth the opinion of Cyprian with his 66 Biſhops that would have Gods grace denied to none: and therefore his opinion puts all the infants of beleevers in the ſame condition with Turks children. To this ſaith Mr Marſhal pag. 85. of his def…ce, which I have ſhewed, will not follow out of the words of the Epiſtle. Now that I conceive he means he had formerly ſhewed is pag. 41 in theſe words, though he layes it downe in generall termes that none are to be hindred from comming to Chriſt: yet what he ſayes ought to be underſtood of the Church, becauſe he ſpeakes of ſuch as God hath cleanſed or purified, who were common: which paſſage I ſhould ſooner have expected from a Jeſuit then Mr Marſhal, to ſay that Cyprian ought to be underſtood of the Church, when the words nulli hominum nato miſericordiam Dei & gratium denegandam, & nulla anima perdenda eſt; are as expreſſe as may be, that he means it of any that are born of mankind, that the grace of God is not to be denied them. And after, omnem omnino hominem ad … Chriſti admittendum eſſe, and the reaſon he uſeth is not from a cleanſing proper to the Church, but becauſe all men are equall, quando … p. 63Deo ſemel facti ſaint, as he that reades the Epiſtle, will preſently perceive I alleaged alſo the words of the Grave confutation of the Browniſts publiſhed by Mr Rathband, to ſhew not that which Mr Marſhall it ſeems intended, which was to charge all the Anabaptiſts of putting all the children of beleevers out of the Covenant of Grace as the Turks children, but to ſhew that the opinion of paedobaptiſme as ſome aſſert it, doth put all the infants of beleeve…s into the ſelfe-ſame condition with the infants of Turkes and indians (which were Mr Marſhal…s words) by putting all of them alike into the Covenant of Grace. For if they may be lawfully accounted within Gods Covenant, if any of their Anceſtours in any generation were faithfull, and that becauſe of Gods promiſe; Exod. 20. 5. then the children of Turks are lawfully accounted within the Covenant, yea all the infants in the world, for it is not beyond the thouſandth generation to Noah. Mr Marſhal tells me that hee ſuppoſeth I do not think thoſe words, Exod 20. 5. were intended to intimate that all the children in the world; who came from Ad…m … Noa… were intended in the Covenant of Grace, nor that I beleeve Mr Rathband thought ſo. What Mr Rath. thought I know not but his words import ſo much, and if that was not intended, the text was impertinently alleaged; and though it is true I do not think with them, yet I might … alleage their words which I approve not, to ſhew this is no ſuch …, which Mr Marſhall called … great miſchiefe, that by the Anti-p…dobaptiſts opinion, all the children of beleevers ſhould be put into the ſome condition with the children of Tarkes; ſith the ſame followes on the … doctrine alſo. I had alſo Examen, part. 2. §. 10. ſet down my opinion freely in 4 Propoſitions about the parity of condition of the Turks and our infants, and told Mr Marſhall thus poſſibly if you open your ſelfe plainly, there will be no difference between us. Mr Marſhal in his Defence neither plainly opens himſelfe, wherein he puts the difference, nor ſets down my anſwer juſtly, but leaves out wholly the the fourth Propoſition, or confounds it with the third; and other wiſe mangles and alters my words in his abridgement, that they are much unlike what I delivered. For inſtance, pag. 85 he ſets down this for my ſecond propoſition. That I know no more promiſe for beleevers children, then for the children of … whereas my words … the…e. p. 64For the Covenant or Promiſe of Grace, that is righteouſneſſe and life as Chriſt, though I acknowledge a peculiar promiſe to Abrahams naturall poſterity mentioned, Rom. 11. 27. yet I know not that God hath made ſuch a Covenant to any, much leſſe to all the naturall beleeving ſeed of any beleeving Gentile; and Propoſ. 3. I ſay, they have ſome promiſes, though generall indefinite and conditionall. And I mean by generall and indefinite, ſuch as determine not the kind of good promiſed, nor the particular perſon; and therefore are true, if performed to any perſons in any ſort of good. and conditionall upon condition of faith and obedience, as, when it is ſaid the generation of the righteous ſhall be bleſſed, his righteouſneſſe to childrens children, to ſuch as keep his Covenant. Pſ. 103. 17. 18. Pſ. 112. 2. &c. I tell Mr Marſhall if he can ſhew any more promiſes then I doe, I ſhall count them a treaſure, if not, why doth he endeavour to make me and my opinion odious to the people, as if I put all the children of the whole Church out of the Covenant of Grace, as I doe the children of the Turkes; and acknowledge no more promiſe for the one, then for the other: whereas when he hath ſaid as much as he can for them, he can bring no more promiſe for them then I doe, nor dares reject the limitations I reſtraine them by?

But ſayes Mr Marſhall, you leave them to have their actuall ſtanding in the viſible kingdome of the Devill. I ask whither the children have actuall ſtanding in the viſible kingdome of the Devill afore they are baptized or not? If he ſay they have not, then by not baptizing, I leave them not in the viſible kingdome of the Devill, they are out of the viſible kingdome of the Devill, though they be not baptized: if he ſay they have their actuall ſtanding in the viſible kingdome of the Devill afore they are baptized, then how is it true which the Proteſtants diſputing againſt Bellarmin alleage againſt the neceſſity of baptizing infants to ſalvation, that the children of beleevers are holy afore baptiſme. The truth is, I neither leave infants in the Devills, nor Gods viſible kingdome: for I conceive they are in neither kingdom viſibly till they declare by their profeſſion to whom they belong viſibly. Mr Marſhall uſed often this expreſſion of belonging to the viſible kingdom of the Devill, and I told him Examen pag. 41. I feared he did it ad faciendum populum, to move the people, by affrighting them by a bugbeare p. 65word, if they keep their children from baptiſme, then they leave them to have an actuall ſtanding in the viſible kingdome of the Devill, or to pleaſe them by making them beleeve that by baptiſme their children are put out of the viſible kingdome of the Devill. This I ſaid not judging his heart, but being jealous leaſt it was ſo; and I confeſſe I am ſtill ſuſpicious he doth ſo, becauſe he ſtill uſeth it after he hath been told it, and it is a meer engine to ſtirre popular affections. For how hath the unbaptized infant an actuall ſtanding in the viſible kingdome of the Devill; unleſſe it be true that all unbaptized perſons have an actuall ſtanding in the viſible kingdome of the Devill, which is falſe in the Catechumeni of old, the converted theefe on the Croſſe, Conſtantine the Great, and many others who were in the viſible kingdom of the Chriſt afore they were baptized. On the other ſide, thouſands of people in America baptized by the Spaniards, had as viſible ſtanding in the Devills kingdome as before. I confeſſe when the baptized profeſſeth the faith of Chriſt, then baptiſme is a note of a viſible member, and a diſtinguiſhing badge between the people of God and the Devill, and ſo by baptiſme a perſon is exhibited a member of the Church, but otherwiſe I ſee no reaſon why an infant that makes no profeſſion of Chriſt, ſhould be counted after baptiſme a viſible member of the Church more then before. Let a child of a Chriſtian be baptized, and after being an infant, and taken by a Turke, be circumciſed, wherein is that child more a viſible member of the Church of Chriſt then a Turkes child, or is hee not rather a member of the Church of Mahomet, then of Chriſt? Are the Janizaries any whit the more Chriſtians becauſe they were baptized infants of Chriſtian Greekes? Proteſtant writers are wont to define the viſible Church of Chriſtians a number of perſons that profeſſe the faith of Chriſt. So Art. 19 of the Church of England, and all ſorts of Proteſtant writers. Now that which makes the viſible Church, makes each member a viſible member, and that is profeſſion. Baptiſme and the Lords Supper; and hearing, are notes as they ſignify profeſſion, otherwiſe if a perſon be baptized, if he ſhould heare or receive the Lords Supper, and did not profeſſe the faith, he ſhould not be a viſible member for all that. I confeſſe I have met with ſome writings which put Baptiſme into the definition of the Church, as neceſſary to the being p. 66of a viſible Church, and the words in the Confeſſion of Faith of the 7 Churches of Anabaptiſts about London [being baptized into that faith] Artic. 33. are ſomewhat doubtfull, though they ſeem rather to import that Baptiſme is neceſſary to the right order of a Chriſtian Church, then to the being of a Church; and I confeſſe they that hold that members are added to the Church by Baptiſme and not otherwiſe, and hold a nullity of Paedo baptiſme, muſt needs ſay the Churches that have no other then Infant-Baptiſme, are no true Churches; nor their members Church-members, as Maſter Ma…ſhall ſayes pag. 84. of his Defence; and ſo voluntary ſeparation neceſſary. But theſe points of the neceſſity of right Baptiſme, not onelyonly to the right order, but alſo to the being of a viſible Church and Church-member, and ſo voluntary ſeparation barely for the defect of it, I have ever diſclaimed; as conſidering the many errours and ill conſequences that would follow thereupon, and though provocations ſtill increaſe, yet I have in my practiſe ſhunned ſeparation from my diſenting brethren, and I preſume though Mr Marſhall count right Baptiſme a neceſſary duty, yet he will be more adviſed then to make it eſſentiall, either conſtitutivè or conſecutivè to the being of a Church or Chriſtian either viſible or inviſible, for feare of giving too much advantage to Separatiſts, and Seekers. I ſuppoſe in reference to the preſent point this is the truth, that however every infant is either in the inviſible kingdome of God or Satan, that is, elect or reprobate; yet no child till hee make profeſſion doth viſibly belong either to the one, or to the other. I acknowledge that in the viſible Church of the Jewes, the infants were reckoned to the Church, and the reaſon was from the peculiar Church-ſtate of the Jewes. For then God took the whole family of Abraham together in one day, and after the whole nation of the Jewes, were but one Church or congregation: Acts 7. 28. and accordingly appointed one Tabernacle and Altar, and one high Prieſt, and ſolemne feaſts for all to meet as and one nation all …adge, circumciſion; and hee erected them into one policy, becauſe he would have one fixed people among, and … whom the Maſſiah ſhould come; and therefo… he ſo provided, that their tribes ſhould be diſtinguiſhed, their inheritance divided, and many … which he did not either then … appoint p. 67to any other people. And this Church-ſtate Circumciſion was applyed to, ſo that if Maſter Marſhall and Maſter Geree will conclude from Rom. 11. 17. &c. that we muſt have our children baptized, becauſe they had theirs circumciſed we being ingraffed into their room, they muſt not only prove that the Gentile-beleevers are grafted into the inviſible Church in place of the Jewes (which is the Apoſtles ſenſe there notwithſtanding, that which M. Geree, or Maſter Marſhall have ſaid) nor that the Gentile viſible Churches are graffed into the viſible Church in the place of the Jewes: but they muſt alſo prove that the Gentiles are taken into the ſame outward Church ſtate which the Jewes …ad. But that is moſt falſe. For now God gathers not a whole nation together, nor hath appointed one Temple Altar, Prieſt, &c. as he did to the Jews: but he gathers now by preaching, ſome here, ſome there, and the viſible Church hath now no ſuch policy or outward government as the Jewes had then: and therefore there is not the ſame reaſon of infants belonging to the viſible Church of the Gentiles as they did to the Jewes, except one can prove that we are to have the ſame outward face and conſtitution of the Church which they had, which Papiſts and others imagining have corrupted the Church, and baptizing of infants ariſeth out of the ſame Jewiſh conceit.

Maſter Marſhall had alleaged in his Sermon Rom. A large diſq…iſition of Rom. 11. 17. &c. wherein is ſhewed that the ingraffing there is into the inviſible Church by election and giving faith, and that it p…ove… not Intant-baptiſme.Rom 11:1711. 16. &c. to prove his ſecond concluſion. I complained in my Examen of the obſcurity of his inference, ſhewed him how ambiguous his words were. He takes this as if it were done in ſcorne, and as an artifice to darken an argument, but doth not mend the matter in his Defence. For 1. pag. 134. whereas I diſtinguiſhed of graffing in, that it may be either by faith, or profeſſion of faith; or by ſome outward Ordinance: Maſter Marſhall in the repetition leaves out this laſt member, which is not right dealing. 2. Whereas I had ſaid; The thing that is to be proved is, that all the infants of every beleever are in the Covenant of free Grace in Chriſt, and by veriue thereof to be baptiſed. Maſter Marſhall pag. 135. of his D…fence denies this, though it ſeemed plaine to me, that this text was brought to prove his ſecond concluſion, which I took to bee the ſame with the antecedent of his Enthymeme, or firſt argument; and that I did conceive had this ſenſe, that all the infants of every p. 68beleever are in the Covenant of free Grace in Chriſt, otherwiſe his firſt argument is but nugatory, the antecedent and concluſion being the ſame; and he equivocates in his two firſt concluſions, underſtanding the firſt concluſion of the covenant of ſaving Grace in Chriſt, the other of the outward Covenant as hee calls it, as I ſhewed above: which ſerves for no better end then to delude a reader. But pag. 135. he ſaith thus; The thing to be proved from this text is, that our infants have the ſame right which the infants of the Jewes had, pag. 140 The thing to be proved was, our infants have the ſame priviledge with theirs; yet in the ſame page he thus formeth the concluſion, and therefore we and they making up the ſame body are taken in upon the ſame ground, our children with us, as well as theirs with them: which laſt concluſion I do not take to be the ſame with the former, nor any one of them the ſame, with the other or with the antecedent of Mr Mar. ſecond argument, or his ſecond concluſion, 3. It is yet uncertain to me what is the medium he would prove his concluſion by out of that text. In his Defence in three places he calls his confuſed heap of Dictates his argument to wit, pag. 134. The Apoſtles ſcope was to ſhew that we Gentiles have now the ſame graffing into the true olive which the Jewes formerly had; and our preſent graffing in is anſwerable to their preſent caſting out, and their taking in at the latter end of the world, ſhall be the ſame graffing [though more gloriouſly] as ours is now; and it is apparent that at their firſt taking in, they and their children were taken in, at their caſting out they and their children were broken off; and when they ſhall be taken in againe at the end of the world, they and their children ſhall be taken in together, and all by vertue of the Covenant, Ero Deus tuus, &c. which is the ſame to us, and to them; we and they making up the Church of God. In the ſame page in theſe words. Looke how the Jewes children were graffed in, ſo are our children, we are taken inſtead of them who were caſt out, and becom on viſible Kingdom of Chriſt with the reſt of them who kept their ſtation, pag. 140. We as they, were tak…n in; they and their children ſhall be at the laſt taken in again, as they were at the firſt: and therefore we and they making up the ſame body are taken in upon the ſame ground, our children with us as well as theirs with them. Which though hee calls his argument, and ſayes it hath a plaine ſenſe, yet I ſee ſo p. 69many ambiguities ſtill in his words, his ſpeeches ſo informe or ſhapeleſſe, that I know not well whither he would make many ſyllogiſmes or one, nor which to call the major, which the minor Propoſition or terme, or which the medium; and I muſt profeſſe I find Mr Marſhall ſtill ſo confuſed a diſputer, that I know not to what purpoſe his manner of writing in this point ſhould tend, but to puzzle his reader, and weary his reſpondent. And ſith he was told of this, p. 56. of my Examen, and deſired to mend it in his next writing; yet inſtead of mending it, he puts it off lightly, pag. 125. of his Defence, a perſon may ſuſpect it is done on purpoſe to puzzle, rather then to ſatisfy. For why ſhould a man that would clear truth in a point of diſpute, though in a Sermon ad populum; eſpecially when his auditory is ſuch as it was at Weſtminſter Abby, be unwilling to make a ſyllogiſme in mood and figure? did not Maſter Marſhall make ſundry ſyllogiſmes in the ſame Sermon? And would not a ſhort ſyllogiſme after a diſtinct ſhort paraphraſe, have better cleared the truth then ſuch a confuſed heap of words he uſeth in his alleaging, Rom. 11. 16. &c. And Acts 2. 39. However what reaſon or excuſe he can pretend for not doing it in his Defence, I ſee not.

Mr Geree in his vindiciae Paedo-baptiſmi, ch. 1. ſect. 3. goes ſomewhat more diſtinctly to work, yet neither doth he frame a ſyllogiſme from Rom. 11 11. 12. 13. 17. 18. &c. nor doe I know how he would have it framed. He ſaith, the concluſion to be proved is, that the ch…ldren of Chriſtians have the ſame priviledge with children of Jewes, as they were comprehended ſo under the Covenant with their parents as to be reputed members of the ſame viſible kingdome, and to be ſealed with them. This concluſion I deny if it be underſtood of the outward priviledge belonging to the Jewiſh Church in that ſtate it was afore Chriſts comming. To prove it he layes down four Proproſitions, and deduceth four con…ectaries, but how he ſhews not. The third is ambiguous, and if he mean by [into the place of the Iewes cut off] the ſame Church-ſtate, and by [partaking of their priviledge… ] the priviledges belonging to their Church-… as I think he doth, it is to denied, and ſo likewiſe his ſecond and third conſectary in that ſenſe. Nor doth either Rom. 11. 17. prove it as ſhall be preſently ſhewed, nor is a beleeving Jew a looſer by the coming of Chriſt in regard of his p. 70ſeed, ſith this was a peculiar priviledge in the time of that Church ſtate, which now ceaſeth to be a priviledge, Chriſt being come; as in like manner the Temple, High Prieſt, &c. doe, which I have more largely diſcuſſed Examen, part. 3. §. 11. And for the fourth conſectary, if it be underſtood of priſtine Church-ſtate, I likewiſe deny it. I grant the promiſe will bee extended to them and their ſeed, but how? Not by an outward ordinance or initiall ſcale, as it is called, applyed to infants, but by the communicating the ſpirit and word of God to them and their ſeed; as the text he alleageth imports, Iſai. 59. 20. Nor by holding that neither Jewes nor Gentiles now are to have their infants ſealed wil follow, that there will be two diſtincteſtates in the Chriſtian Churches: one of the Jews holy Fathers and children, another of the Gentiles who have only perſonall priviledges, none for their ſeed; for neither doth Baptiſme belong to the one or the other, becauſe they the are ſeed of beleevers: and for regeneration and ſaving benefits, the Lord beſtowes to the ſeed of either as pleaſeth him. Nor would this conceit of mine ſet up or keep up a partition wall ſtill contrary to the Apoſtle, Epheſ. 2. 14. For then a partition wall is kept up when the Gentiles as Gentiles are excluded from acceſſe to God which is not done by my doctrine, they that hold that the command about Circumciſion ſtill binds virtually, come nearer to the ſetting up a partition wall in the Apoſtles ſer ſe. I return to Mr Marſhall.

Mr Marſhall in his Sermon as I conceived made this the thing he would prove, that we and our children are graffed in together; this I granted in ſome ſenſe to be true, that God doth uſually call and adopt the children with the Fathers, but I denyed it to be ſo perpetually; ſo as that a rule for an outward ordinance may be flamed thence. And ſo farre as I can collect the chiefe medium Maſter Marſhall and Maſter Geree take hence to prove it is▪ that we Gentiles have the ſame ingraſſing into the true olive which the Jewes formerly had. This Maſter Marſhall made the Apoſtles ſcope, though the truth is it is ſo farre from being the Apoſtles ſcope, that it agrees not with his words, who makes the ancient Jewes naturall branches, not ingraffed, and the ſcope of the Apoſtle is otherwiſe, as hath been ſhewed: Examen, pag. 65. But the thie…e difference is about the ingraffing what that is, as I had ſaid. The ingraffing to me is meant of the inviſible Church by election p. 71and faith. To this Maſter Marſhall pag. 136. ſayes, I reply, if it be meant of the inviſible Church onelyonly and that all who are ingraffed in the Apoſtles ſenſe whether Jews or Gentiles are only elect ones, I will promiſe you never to plead this Scripture more for any inf…nts; and after if you pleaſe let us try it out.

I agree to this motion, and determine that the graffing in Rom. 11. 17. &c. is meant of the ingraffing into the inviſible Church by election and giving faith, with this caution; that I doe not deny that the ſame people might or were ingraffed into the viſible Church by profeſſion of faith, and baptiſme; but hold that this ingraffing is more then that which is into the viſible Church by outward profeſſion and ordinances. To prove my determination, I thus argue.

1. That ingraffing which is Gods act by his ſole power, is into the inviſible Church by election and giving faith. For graffing into the inviſible Church is as Mr Marſhall ſaith, pag. 135. admiſſion into viſible memberſhip, which if it be by an outward ordinance, is the eaſie act of the adminiſtratour; if by profeſſion of faith, the eaſie act of the profeſſour. But the ingraffing meant Rom. 11. is Gods act from his ſole power, as is proved from verſe 23. where the reaſon is rendred why the Jewes ſhould be again graſſed in, is, becauſe God is able to graffe them in again; Ergo, the graffing here is into the inviſible Church.

2. That ingraffing which is called reconciliation oppoſite to caſting away, that is by election and giving faith; for no other acts can reconcile: but the ingraffing here is called reconciliation oppoſite to caſting away v. 13. as may appeare in that v. 16. is a reaſon of the clauſe about the reception of the Jewes, v. 15. and the 17 verſe, is an admonition from the ſuppoſition, v. 15. that the Jewes were caſt away: which is called breaking off, v. 17. now if breaking off, v. 17. be the ſame with caſting away, v. 15. then ingraffing is the ſame with reconciliation; Erg…, ingraffing is by election and giving of faith.

3. The ingraffing muſt bee meant of that act whereby the branch ſtand in the tree as a branch this will none deny, it being the very terminus of ingraffing, as hea… the terminus of Calefaction. But that is by giving faith. Ergo, The minor is proved from v. 20. where it is ſaid, by …mbeleefe they were broken off but p. 72thou ſtandeſt by faith, whence I argue. That act whereby the branch ſtands in the tree as a branch, muſt be the giving that meanes whereby the branch thus ſtands, but that is faith, v. 20. Erg…, the act of ingraffing is by giving of faith.

4. That ingraffing is meant v. 17. whereby the wild olive is Copartaker of the root and fatneſſe of the olive tree, as is aſſerted there. But ſuch is only election and giving of faith. Ergo, The minor I prove by conſidering who the root is, and what the fatneſſe of the olive tree is. 1. Negatively, the root is not as Maſter Marſhall and Maſter Blake, every beleeving pa…ent. For then all the branches ſhould be naturall; the child of every beleeving parent is a naturall branch from his father: but here the Apoſtle makes the Gentiles branches and a wild olive graffed in beſides nature, and the Jewes only naturall branches growing from the root, v. 21. 24. Nor is it of any moment which is objected, that other parents are called roots as Jeſſe, Iſai. 11. 1. For here only the root notes ſuch a Father as is holy and from whom the branches are holy; which agrees not to every beleeving Father. 2. Poſitively. The root is no other then Abraham. I ſaid twice in my Examen, pag. 68. 129. Abraham only is a holy root, or at moſt Abraham Iſaac and Iacob; which I ſaid only by conceſſion: that if it were ſo, yet every godly parent was not a holy root, and therefore it ſerved my turn there, if it were ſo. This Mr Marſhall pag. 134. calls; ſaying, and unſaying. But Mr Marſhall might have conſidered that I did in that addition only mention the judgement of others, and not contradicted it there where it was not againſt my purpoſe if it were granted; but otherwiſe, where I expreſſe my owne judgement, I mention only Abraham as the root, Exercit. pag. 10. Examen, pag. 64, 65. And ſoe doe Deodate annot. on v. 16▪ 17. The new Annot. on v. 16. Beza on v. 17. Neque dubium eſt, quin radicis nomine intelligatur, Abraham credentium pater. Which contains the reaſon of this opinion. For he muſt be the root who is a Father both to Jewes and Gentiles, who are alſo branches in this root, the root is ſaid to beare them, v. 18. But we read not this of any other then of Abraham called the Father of the faithfull, Rom. 4. 11. and the Gentile beleevers his ſeed, Rom. 4. 13. 16. Gal. 3. 29. no where are theſe things ſaid of Iſaac, and Iacob. It is ſaid indeed that the Jewes are beloved, p. 73foreign for the Fathers either becauſe of the Covenant made with them, or becauſe of the favour God bare them; as often he is ſaid to reſerve a lamp in Judah for Davids ſake, but this ſpeech hath ſpeciall reſpect to the Jewes, whereas the benefit of the root, v. 17. 18. is common to Gentiles and Jews. As for the fatnes of the olive tree Deodate ſaith truly, it is the bleſſing and promiſe made to Abraham & his ſeed & ſo the Apoſtle expreſ…eth it, Gal. 3. 14. And it would be too frigid, and waſhy an expoſition to expound it of outward priviledges, & ordinances. Yea it were falſe, for the Gentiles were not partaker of the outward priviledges and ordinances of Abraham and the Jewes they being taken away. Now theſe things being put it muſt needs be, that this ingraffing muſt be by giving faith ſith by faith only the Gentiles are partakers of the root Abraham, and the fatneſſe of the olive tree the beleeving Church, not by naturall generation of beleeving parents, nor by outward adminiſtrations. Ergo, the ingraffing here into the inviſible Church is by election and giving of faith.

5. From verſe 25. If the breaking off the Jewes be by blinding, then the ingraffing is by giving faith, but the former is true, verſe 25. Ergo, the latter.

6. If reingraffing of the Jewes produceth ſalvation, is by turning them from iniquity, taking away their ſins according to Gods Covenant, then it is into the inviſible Church by giving faith, but the former is true, verſe 26, 27. Ergo, the latter.

7. If the reingraffing be by vertue of Gods election and love, his gifts of calling then it is into the inviſible Church by election and giving faith, but the former is true v. 28, 29. Ergo, the latter.

8. If the ingraffing both of Jewes and Gentiles be the fruit of gods mercy, the breaking off by ſhutting up in unbeleefe, then the ingraffing is into the inviſible Church by election and giving faith, but the former is true, verſe 30, 31, 32. Ergo, the latter.

What ſhould I ſay more? It is ſo plaine from the whole ſcope and tenour of the Apoſtles words, that the ingraffing there ſpoken of is into the inviſible Church by election and giving faith, that from the firſt verſe of the chapter to verſe 13. there is ſcarce a verſe but ſpeaks of …jecting▪ foreknowing, election, grace, hardning, giving a ſpirit of ſlumber, d…kning the eyes, ſtumbling, falling or ſome equipollent terme to theſe, and the Apoſtle doth p. 74plainly ſignify his intention in all that diſcourſe to be the ſhewing the myſtery of Gods counſell in elcting, reprobating, blinding, converting one while the Jewes, another while the Gentiles; ſo that I cannot but admire, that Mr Marſhall ſhould interpret the ingraffing of bare admiſſion into viſible Church-memberſhip.

9. Adde hereto. The places which I conceive anſwer to Rom. 11. 17. muſt be underſtood of the inviſible Church as Eph. 3. 6. 1 Cor. 12, 13. Gal. 3. 14. 26. 28. 29. Laſtly for teſtimonies of interpreters I find but two in Marlorats Cathol. Expoſition on Rom. 11. 17. and they have theſe words. Hyperius. Neque enim hic amplius docet, ſed orationem totam ad Gentes convertens ſapienter monet, ne propter electionem ſuam efferantur, aut Judaeos quia rejecti ſunt contemnant: maxime quum & Judaeorum plurimi ſalutem ſint adhuc per Evangelium conſeq…uturi, Gentes verò iterum poſſent, ſi Deo ita viſum foret reprobari. Bucer Inſitus fuiſti illis] Hoc beneficium eſt quod Gen…ibus per Iudaeos contigit. Gentes enim per fidem Chriſti factae ſunt ſemen Abrahae Gal. 3. 29. Ergo, inſitae Iudaeis, ut grati ſanctis patribus promiſſa, & fruantur, & ſpiritu illorum vivant: id quod Apoſtolus per communionem radicis & pinguedinis ſignificat▪ ut namque filii Dei omnes eadem Dei benevolentia nituntur, ita eorum ſpiritu aguntur, etiamſi hic donetur grandior poſt revelatum Chriſtum. Hic verò ex praecipuis locis eſt ex quibus probatur eodem ſpiritu verae juſtitiae donatos fuiſſe Iudaeos ante incarnatum Chriſtum. Calvin ad verſ. 20. nam erectio Iud…orum, ſi ob incredulitatem facta eſt, Gentium inſitio per fidem, quid reſtat niſi ut Dei gratiam recognoſcendo inde ad modeſtiam ac ſubmiſſi…uem formentur. And this I thought ſo plain, that I conceived Mr Marſhall himſelfe ſo expounded it in his ſermon pag. 43. in theſe words. It being the primary intention of the Covenant of Grace, in it's firſt work, to ſhew what free grace can and will doe to miſerable nothing, to cut miſerable man of from the wild olive, and graffe him into the true olive, to take away the heart of ſtone, to create in them a heart of fleſh, &c. which thing hee ſaith nothing to in his Defence, though I alleaged it pag. 64. of my Examen, except it be that he meant the words he uſeth pag. 137 of his Defence▪ alleaging that I ſay, inſition (not inc…on as it is printed in Mr Marſhalls Defence) may be either into the viſible or inviſible Church, graſſing in, may be either by faith or by profeſſion of p. 75faith, and therefore I ſay the ſame with him, ſhould be to tell me that he can bring as much from my words for him as I bring from his words for me, which conceit is but vain; for my words are nothing but the opening the diſtinction of the various kind of ingraffing; no aſſertion in thoſe words what inſition is meant, Rom. 11. 17. and for the words Mr Marſhall alleageth out of my Examen, pag. 65. of which he ſaith. And truly Sir, in theſe words to my underſtanding, you grant not only my interpretation of this place, but even the queſtion controverted betwixt us. I ſhall ſhew to be a miſtake in anſwering his objection againſt the interpretation I give of the ingraffing into the inviſible Church, having firſt obſerved that Maſter Gerees words in his vindic. paedob…aptſmi confirme my interpretation againſt his owne in the Chapter next before, when he ſaith, Chap. 1. Sect. 4. pag. 19. The holines there is meant not actuall holineſſe, but potentiall in regard of Gods election. And Mr Blake, pag. 94. we by faith are graffed in for them, Rom. 20. The onelyonly objection of waight is, that then ſome branches of the inviſible Church may be broken off, and ſo election made revocable, and Apoſ…aſy from grace maintained: and hereupon Mr Marſhall accuſeth me as ſymbolizing with Arminius, and puts this in the margine of his book, pag. 144. and in the Index: and thereby thinks to cut ſcores with me for accuſing him as ſymbolizing with Arminius, pag. 69. of my Examen.

To which I anſwer. 1. That there is a wide difference between Mr Ma…ſhals caſe and mine. I ſhew that Mr Marſhals tenet agrees with Arminius his tenet, and I quote Arminius his words in the margine; and therein I did juſtly. For Arminius alſo underſtood his ſpeech of outward adminiſtrations, to wit the preaching of the Goſpell, in the end of his Anti-perkins, and both Mr Marſhall and Arminius agree, that the infants of the wicked for theſe outward diſpenſations are comprehended in their parents according to the tenour of Gods juſtice. But I expreſſely rejected the tenet of Arminius about revocable election, and Apoſtaſy from grace; which if they ſhould follow from my interpretation, I conceiving otherwiſe, yet were not I to be charged with ſymbolizing with Arminius, as Mr Marſhall doth in his profeſſed tenet. 2 But I conceived I had prevented this objection, pag. 64. of my Examen, at thoſe words. The meaning is not that ſome of the p. 76bra…ches in the inviſible Church may be broken off, but only ſuch as were ſo in appearance; and I alleaged Iohn 15. 2. as an inſtance of the like expreſſion: ſhewing in that very ſimilitude, that the word branch in Chriſt is ſometimes meant of that which is ſo in appearance, & ſometimes of that which is ſo in truth; and ſo in like manner it may be uſed, Rom. 11. 17. And thus Chamier, …om. 3. pauſtrat. Cathol. l. 13. c. 21. anſwers Bellarmin; urging Iohn. 15. 2. for falling away from faith. But Mr Marſhall tells me, I profeſſe I underſtand not how this diſtinction gives you the leaſt help. I reply, that it plainly avoyds the conſequence objected againſt my interpretation; for though the branches in one paſſage be meant of the branches in appearance, and the breaking off that which was ſo in appearance, yet, other places, as in the ſame verſe in the ingraffing may be meant of true ingraffing into the inviſible Church in like manner, as it is Iohn 15. 2. But becauſe upon more accurate examination I conceive that is not the genuine anſwer, I ſhall therefore let it paſſe. 3. I ſay, when the Apoſtle ſaith the branches were broken off, he meanes it of the branches that were truly ſuch, and of the ingraffing that was truly ſuch into the inviſible Church, but that by the branches are not meant ſingular perſons; but the people, or as M. Mar. ſpeaks p. 137. the body of them were the branches ſpoken of …n this place, & M Geree p. 16. Nor is it either the Arminians tenet, or any errour to ſay that the body of a people which were once the elect people of God, and ingraffed into the inviſible Church, becauſe the generality or a greater number were ſuch among that people, are broken off from election, and the inviſible Church. For a people or nation is not a conſiſtent being, but a fluent being as a river, which is the ſame river ſtill, though not the ſame water; and therefore as when Cyrus turned Euphrates from it's own channell, hee may bee ſaid to have turned away the ſame river Euphrates that was created at firſt though it were not the ſame numericall water; ſo when God rejected the Jews from being his elect, beleeving people he broke off the ſame people that were the true branches of Abraham the true root in the inviſible Church, and yet no one particular perſon, who was elect or in the invi…ble Church by faith broken off, which is the Arminian doctrine. And this I find obſerved by each of the three Authours alleaged before from Marlorat. Hyperius at v. 2…. is thus p. 77alleaged; ſpeaking. Quemadmodum nunc rejectus eſt populus Iudaicus, qui tamen electus fuerat: ita poteſt adhuc fieri, ut a…quando rejiciatur populus Gentilis, qui nunc electus eſt; alioqu ſingul…s electos de populo Iudaico, vel de populo Gentili reprobari impoſſibile planè eſt. Ad hunc (inquam) modum ſi quicquid de ruina metuenda electis ſequitur, non de ſingulis electis, ſed de populo ex quo deſcendunt interpreteris, multis te moleſt…is liberaveris. Calvin ad verſe 21. praecipuè verò notandum Pauli ſermonem non tam ad ſingulos homines, quàm ad totum Gentium corpus dirigi. Bucer ad verſe 22. De Gentibus loquitur univerſim non de ſingulis hominbus. And indeed the text leads me to this interpretation. For when it is ſaid, verſe 23, 24. that they ſhall be graffed in, God is able to graffe them in again; theſe which are according to nature; ſhall be graffed in their own olive; which cannot be underſtood of the ſame perſon, but of the ſame people.

Thus have I beſides my firſt purpoſe put into this Apology this large diſſertation about Rom. 11. 16, 17. &c. partly becauſe by Mr Gerees conference with me and another, and his words to me; …indic. paedobap. pag. 17. I commend this Scripture to your ſerious conſideration, for I conceive it gives clear evidence to what I affirm; I perceive this text is his chiefe hold for Infant-baptiſm, and in Mr Blakes new anſwer to my Examen, pag. 69. I find theſe words; your examination, Rom. 11. 16. hath been under examination, and if there be ſtrength in thoſe exceptions, there is weakneſſe no where.

Mr Blake in his anſwer to my letter, pag. 30. ſaith thus. If the ingraffing bee by ſaving faith onelyonly, to derive ſaving grace perſonally inherent as a fruit of election from Abraham; then it muſt be that we are elect in Abraham, Abraham may ſay without me yee can doe nothing, &c. I anſwer, if I made Abraham a root as communicating faith by infuſion, or impetration mediatory as Chriſt, this would follow; but I make Abraham onelyonly a root as he is called the Father of all them that beleeve, Rom. 4. 11. not by begetting faith in them, but as an exemplary cauſe of beleeving, as I gather from the expreſſion. verſe 12. that he is a …ather to them that walk in the ſteps of our Father Abraham, which he had yet being uncircumciſed.

Mr Blake ibid. pag. 31. what made Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob p. 78roots (as in nature, ſo holy roots) but the Covenant? And was not the Covenant made as well with David, as with Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob. I anſwer, I make Abraham onelyonly the root, as hee is only the Father of beleeevers exemplarily, and that which made him the Father of beleevers was not the Covenant, but his exemplary faith, as I gather from the words of the Apoſtle, Rom. 4. 16, 17, 18, 19. 21. And this is all the acceſſion of ſtrength I find him oppoſing to my ſo manifeſt weakneſſe. The reſt is anſwered already.

Mr Marſhall pag. 124. ſayes,§. 15. of M. Marſhals unjuſt charge againſt me as …arkning his arguments, and caſting fi…th in the face of the Aſſembly. I raiſe a duſt about his argument, becauſe I tell him he doth not diſtinctly expreſſe what the promiſe is, Acts 2. 39. and I require of him to forme his proofes into an argument, as if it were unreaſonable to require him to make a ſyllogiſme in mood and figure in a Sermon. And yet hee did make diverſe in that Sermon, as pag. 39, 41. But it ſeems neither then nor ſince is he willing to tell what promiſe that is, Acts 2. 39 and then conclude ſyllogiſtically; for then it would plainly appear that that text ſerves not his purpoſe, who in his ſecond concluſion will not aſſert that the promiſe of ſaving grace is made to the naturall ſeed of beleevers; and yet that text ſpeaks of the promiſe of Chriſt, and ſaving Grace by him. However I remember this was Doctor Prideaux his manner in Oxford, to require the diſputant when he urged a text to read it, and then to gather his argument from it; and this I ever took to be a bringing of light, and not raiſing a duſt about an argument. And I ſhall ſtill profeſſe it to be a very irkſome thing to me to anſwer an authour that will not doe ſo, and till Mr Marſhall doe it, ſhall cenſure him as one that takes not the way to clear truth, but to darken it with multitude of wo…ds, among which a man ſhall have much adoe to find the medium and the concluſion.

Mr Marſhall, pag. 247. accuſeth me of ſlurring, plundering, darkning the …rguments of my adverſaries. If he had told me wherein he had done me a pleaſure, that I might know how to amend it, but if he mean (as his words pag 134. [to bring in ſo many imaginary ſenſes, thereby to darken an argument] import) in that I tell h…m his concluſions and ſpeeches may have many ſenſes, and deſire him to ſet down what ſenſe he means, it is a conceit ſcarce ſober, ſith it is plaine that diſtinction and diſtinct expreſſion is p. 79rightly called by Logicians lumen rationis, and is the onelyonly way to enlighten, not to darken ſpeeches. And therefore all that are able in diſpute, make this their chiefe buſineſſe to diſtinguiſh termes, or things that differ; and then ſet down their concluſions, and frame their arguments and anſwers, which is the thing I would have Mr Marſhall doe: Nor is my pretending obſcurity in Marſhall a kind of art to evad… what cannot plainly be anſwered, as Mr Geree conceives, vind. paedobap. ch. 1. ſect. 3. but a means to find out the force of the argument, that I might give it a plain anſwer.

Whereas I had framed the fifth argument in my exercitation thus. That which in ſucceeding ages in which it was in uſe, was in force. 1. As a tradition not written. 2. Out of imitation of Jewiſh circumciſion. 3. Without univerſall practiſe. 4 Together with the errour of giving infants the Lords Supper; and many other humane inventions under the name of Apoſtolicall traditions that is deſervedly doubtfull, but ſuch is Infant-baptiſme; Ergo, Mr Marſhall pag. 251. 252. tells me, this is a poor argument. And yet ſuch arguments have been accounted after other arguments from Scripture of great moment againſt Papiſts and Prelates, in rejecting of ceremonies. But how doth Mr Mar. anſwer this? He denies the major, which hath been accounted good in other points. And then becauſe I make a ſeverall proofe of the ſeverall parts of the minor: he repeats my words as if I had made a ſeverall argument from each branch, and to make a ſhew of their weakneſſe, puts in another argument and concluſion then mine, as like, with this inference. Ergo, we are not bound to obſerve it, Ergo, it was not a duty, which were none of my concluſions. And then ſayes, This kind of arguing is almoſt as wild as that which the ſchooles call à baculo ad angulum, and the boyes in the ſchooles would ſtamp and hiſſe at ſuch an inference. I profeſſe if I ſhould in ſchooles repeat my opponents arguments as Mr Marſhall doth mine, I ſhould allow the boyes in the Schooles to ſtamp and hiſſe at ſuch a practiſe. Mr Marſhall pag. 124. hath theſe words. You ſtill goe on in your wonted equivocation of the word Covenant of Grace, taking it onelyonly of the Covenant of ſaving grace, not including the externall way of adminiſtration with it. I this I ſaid above I did becauſe I love to ſpeak plainly without equivocation, but it ſeems to Mr Marſhall that which I count plain ſpeech without equivocation, p. 80is equivocating with him. But what a ridiculous charge is this? It's equivocation when a word is taken in various ſenſes. Is it equivocation in me to take the word covenant of grace onelyonly of the covenant of ſaving grace? This is like as if a man ſhould be charged with ſpeaking nonſenſe, becauſe he ſpeakes good reaſon in right language.

But I hope by this time the Reader doth underſtand who hath uſed ſophiſtry in diſputing, I or Maſter Marſhall.

What I ſaid of the Aſſembly, pag. 27. of my Examen, I did it not to caſt filth in their face, as Maſter Marſhall conſtrued it; but as a brotherly intimation of my feares and apprehenſions to make them cautelous, whoſe wiſe and faithfull deportment in that great truſt repoſed in them is of great moment to the whole Chriſtian Church. Of whom I profeſſe I am ſtill jealous out of Love to them, that eſpecially in this matter they are not ſo ſenſible as they ſhould be of the truth of God, and the good of the Church. For which jealouſie, and for what I ſaid about waſting of time about inconſiderable things comparatively, I ſuppoſe I am able to give a ſufficient account.§ 16. Of Mr Marſhals untrue charge againſt me, as if I reſted on Grotius in ſetting down the tenent of Antiquity upon occaſion of which the tenent of Antiquity is again examined, my judgment of their doctrine vindicated, Mr. Marſhals new all…gations anſwered, and my diligence to find out their tenets manifeſted. And this I ſpeake meerly to awaken them, and to prevent that inconſideratenes through an foreign paſſion, or ſuch like cauſe uſually befals ſuch meetings, and is the cauſe of much woe to the Church of God. Be it well or ill taken liberavi animam meam meam, I have freed my owne ſoule.

There are ſome other things wherewith Mr Marſhal endeavors to render me a ſuſpected perſon▪ pag. 29. of his defence. I cannot but wonder, why you (who pretend to be familiarly acquainted with the ſecrets of Antiquity) ſhould have ſo much correſpondency with them who are not likely to helpe you with any certaine intelligence. Hugo Grotius is the ſtrongeſt ſtake to ſupport your tottering hedge; and ſure I am Grotius was a friend to the Socinians, and it is well knowne what they thinke of Baptiſme. To this I anſwer, it is untrue that I any where pretend to be familia…ly acquainted with the ſecrets of Antiquity, I ſay, ſo farre as I can by ſearch find it is thus and thus, but never did take upon me familiar acquaintance with the ſecrets of Antiquity. It ſeemes Maſter Marſhal had the helpe of his friend, and ſo there was a Colledge to anſwer my Booke, yet after he and his friend have done all they could in this point, it doth not yet appeare but that I was in the p. 81right, to wit that Infant baptiſme is not ſo ancient as is pretended. For he hath not yet acquitted the treatiſe of queſtions ad Orthodoxos from baſtardy; nor hath he anſwered that which I ſaid that the words and whole ſcope of Irenaeus, lib. 2, c. 39. ſhew that the place is not meant of Baptiſme: but with a new device, ſuch as it concernes the authors conſcience to looke to, when he is told the words and whole ſcope ſhew that the place is not meant of Baptiſme; in which I chiefely alleaged the words, the anſwerer ſaies nothing to that, but maimedly ſets downe my words thus▪ In the laſt place you labour to prove that it is not meant of Baptiſme from Iren…us his ſcope in that place. And then ſayes that though the ſcope be ſo, yet the words prove the queſtion in debate before us. Which is a manifeſt abuſing the reader, never anſwering the reaſon I gave from the very words and whole ſcope, that they could not be underſtood of the rite of Baptiſme. And for Origen all that is yet brought cannot acquit the paſſages alleaged from ſuſpicion of being ſuppoſititious, conſidering that Origen is taxed for Pelagianizing, whereas thoſe words are point-blanke againſt them, which being obſerved by me, the anſwerer thought it wiſedome to ſay nothing to it. And for the reſt of the teſtimonies Maſter Marſhall brought, I did confeſſe Nazianzen, Cyprian, Auguſtin, Hierom, Ambroſe mention Paedobaptiſme, but never upon Mr Marſhal's ground federal holines, but upon … ſuppoſed neceſſity to ſave the Infant from periſhing.

Maſter Marſhall it ſeems reſts much on Auguſtines words, that he ſaith. Hoc Eccleſia ſemper habuit, ſemper tenuit, hoc a majorum fide accepit, hoc uſque in finem perſeveranter cuſtodit; He puts it therefore in the Title, pag. 55. of his Defence, and pag. 9. quotes for theſe wordes Auguſtin. Serm. 15. de verbis Apoſt. I have read over that Sermon tom. 10 of his workes againe and againe and find not thoſe wordes there, nor any to that purpoſe, I have alſo read Sermon 14. de verbis Apoſtoli, which hath the title de Baptiſme parvulorum adverſus P…lagianos, and I find not there thoſe words; onelyonly theſe I find there. Sanctus Cyprianus eſt quem in manus ſumpſi antiquus Epiſcopus ſedis hujus, quid ſenſerit de Baptiſmo parvulorum, immo quid ſemper Eccleſiam ſenſiſſe monſtraver… p…ululum acc…pit…, I deny not but that thoſe wordes may be in … but if Maſter Marſhall had given me more p. 82certaine direction where to find them, I might then perhaps have given a more direct anſwer. However for theſe reaſons I conceive litle cauſe to be moved with thoſe words. Firſt, becauſe I find not that Auguſtin tooke it to be the tenet of the Church from any other ground, then the Epiſtle of Cyprian, 59. ad Fidum, concerning which he ſaith that Cyprian hath ſhewed how the Church hath alwayes held it, both in the words above cited tom. 10. Serm. 14. de verbis Apoſt. & tom. 7. lib. 2. de peccat merit… & remiſſ. c. 5. &c. And yet he that reads that Epiſtle of Cyprian ſhall find Cyprian onelyonly declaring the determination of the Councill of 66 Biſhops there mentioned, but nothing of the Churches alwayes holding it. Secondly, The famous ſtory of the likelihood of cheating Auguſtine and the reſt of the African Biſhops with a ſuppoſititious Canon of the Nicen Council by three Roman Biſhops to confirme Appeales to Rome from Africa in the caſe of Apiarius doth me thinkes ſhew, that Auguſtin might eaſily be miſtaken about the tenet of the Church. Thirdly, The many ſpeeches in Auguſtin, as Epiſt. 118. and elſwhere, and others of the Ancients, about Eaſter, Lent-faſt, Epiſcopacy, infant Communion and other traditions which are not credited by Proteſtant, nor ſome of them by ſome Popiſh writers doe cleare him from arrogance, or impudence that ſhould ſay there is▪ no great reaſon to give ſo much credit to that large aſſertion of Auguſtin (if it be his) as Maſter Marſhal and ſome others ſeem to give to it. Fourthly Thoſe words of Auguſtin tom. 7. de peccat: merito & remiſſione, lib. 10. c. 34. Optime Punici Chriſtiani baptiſmum nihil aliud quam ſalutem & ſacramentum corporis Chriſti nihil aliud quam vitam vocant. Unde niſi ex antiquant exiſtimo, &… Apoſtolica traditione, qua Eccleſia Chriſti i…ſitum tenent pr… ter baptiſmum, & participationem Dominicae me…ſ…, non ſolum non ad regnum Dei ſed nec ad ſalutem, & vitam aeternam poſſe quenquam hominum pervenire, do me thinkes evidence that Augustin ſometimes called that the Churches tenet, which he gathered by conjecture from the practice of the African Chriſtians knowne to him. But it will be ſaid the Pelagians did not deny Infant baptiſme to have been the practiſe of the Church. I anſwer, nor do I deny that it was in Auguſtines time the practiſe of the Latin and Greek Churches to baptize Infants in caſe of neceſſity, p. 83but that it was ſo from the beginning, and alwayes in the Church we do not find the Pelagians yeelded, yet did they not perhaps queſtion it, either becauſe they were carried away with that erroneous rule that what they ſaw every where practiſed, and found not when it began to take that for an Apoſtolicall tradition, or becauſe of the tyranny of the preſent cuſtome, which Auguſtine himſelfe ſomewhere confeſſeth, that though he miſliked, yet liberius improbare non andeo. But ſaith Maſter Marſhal pag. 55. I cannot but conceive it likely, that Auguſtines Eccleſia ſemper habuit, ſemper tenuit, ſhould ſway as much with the intelligent impartial Reader, as Master Tombes his non ſemper habuit, non ſemper tenuit I grant it ſhould and much more, yet the Authorityes, and reaſons I bring ſhould be I account ſufficient to weigh downe Auguſtines teſtimony.

I had ſaid the determination mentioned by Cyprian Epiſt. 59. ad Fidum, a… farre as I can by ſearch find, is the ſpring head of Infant baptiſme. Maſter Blake in his Anſwer to my letter, pag. 6. I deſire to know what colour of truth you can put upon theſe words. I anſwer, the words are true without any colour put upon them, For I did not deny that I found Infant baptiſme practiſed before, but that the determination of that council was the ſpring head, that is as Examen▪ pag. 16. the firſt determined rule, or Canon, by force of which it hath ſince continued in a ſtreame, and this is true.

Having formerly ſearched for Auſtines words ſo often alleaged for the practiſe of Infant baptiſme, upon the publiſhing Maſter Blakes booke I found them, not as Maſter Marſhal quotes it, Serm. 15. de verbis Apoſtoli, but as Maſter Blake cites it, Ser. 10. And upon reading of them, the thing that Auguſtine ſaith the Church alwayes had, held and keeps, ſeems not to me to be the practiſe of Infant baptiſme, unleſſe by conſequence (which in matter of hiſtory is not ſo cleare a proofe) but the doctrine of originall ſin in Infants, which Pelagians denyed, not the practiſe of baptizing Infants. For the words immediately before are nemo ergo vobis ſuſurret doctrinas alienas. And theſe words are onelyonly a paſſage in a Sermon ad populum, in which uſually there is not ſuch exactnes, as in other workes; & among thoſe Sermons, which are not out of all queſtion whether genuine. But that the Reader p. 84may judge of this teſtimony, I wil ſet down the words as I find thē.

Nullus hominum in iſta quae ex▪ Adam defluit maſſa mortalium nullus omnino hominum non aegrotus, nullus ſine gratia Chriſti ſanatus. Quid de parvulis pueris, ſi ex Adam aegroti? nam et ipſi portantur ad Eccleſiam. Et ſi pedibus illuc currere non poſſunt, alienis pedibus currunt ut ſanentur Accommodat illis mater Eccleſia aliorum pedes ut ven…ant, aliorum cor ut credant, aliorum linguam ut fateantur: ut quoniam, quod aegri ſunt alio peccante praegravantur, ſic cum hi ſani ſunt, alio pro eis confitente ſalventur. Nemo ergo vobis ſuſurret doctrinas alienas. Hoc Eccleſia ſemper habuit, ſemper tenuit: hoc a majorum fide percepit: hoc uſque in finem perſeveranter custodit. Quoniam non eſt opus ſanis me dicus ſed aegrot antibus. Quid neceſſarium ergo habuit Infans Chriſtum, ſi non aegrotat? ſi ſanus eſt qu…re per eos qui eum diligunt medicum quaerit? Si quando portantur Infantes, dicuntur omnino nullum propaginis habere peccatum, & veniunt ad Chriſtum: quare non eis dicitur in Eccleſia, qui eos opportant ad Eccleſiam. Auferte hinc innocentes iſtos non eſt opus ſanis medicus, ſed male habentibus: non venit Chriſtus vocare juſtos ſed pecca…res? nunquam dictum eſt ſed nec aliquando dicetur. Which laſt words ſhew that Auguſtine ſpake theſe things not as an Hiſtorian from good records, but as in popular Sermons is wont, out of conjecture from common practiſe in his time. Certainly the laſt words Auguſtin could deliver on no other ground: This teſtimony then hath a weake baſis. And me thinkes the teſtimony of Chamier panſtrat: Cathol. tom. 4. lib. 5. c. 15. § 19. Denique hunc morem quis non videt ejus temporis eſſe, cum vix milleſimus quiſque baptizabatur non adultus, & in Catechumenis diligenter exercitus might ſerve to ballance Auguſtines teſtimony inconſiſtent with ſo many likelihoods to the contrary. Which teſtimony of Chamier Maſter Marſhall might have vouchſa…d to have taken notice of, though it was but in the Margin of my Booke.

Nor hath Maſter Marſhall or his friend yet it proved baptizing of Infants of beleevers, by reaſon of federall holineſſe taught by the Ancients▪ Maſter Geree puts a paſſage of T…rtullian de anima, cap. 39. Ex ſeminis praerogativa procreari ſanctos in his frontiſpeece, and Maſter Marſhall conceives me ſick of it. I anſwer, I bleſſe God no truth makes me ſicke, it would make me well to p. 85ſee paedobaptiſme proved either of Scripture, or primitive Antiquity. But for this teſtimony of Tertullian my ſtomacke was quickly eaſed of it, as finding not onelyonly by reading, Delacerda his note on it, but alſo by conſidering the occaſion and words going before that ex ſeminis praerogativa imports not federal holines, but holineſſe, by reaſon of the freedom from that unholineſſe in their procreation, which the infidels children had from the many groſſe idolatrous ſuperſtitions, by which they were defiled, and as it were dedicated to the Devill. And I conceive Hieromes words to Paulinus, Epiſt. 153. cited by Maſter Blake in his anſwer to my letter, pag. 57. expounding thus Tertullian, aſſereas ſanctos dici fidelium filios, quod quaſi candidati ſunt fidei & nullis idololatriae ſordibus polluantur, ſhew that in Tertullian the praerogative of ſeed, notes onelyonly freedome from pollutions of Idolatry, at or before their birth, not covenant holineſſe, and the word candidatos fides, the ſame with deſignatos ſanctitatis prove that they were holy in expectation, becauſe in hope and intention believers, and ſo to be baptized. And though I find Tertullians words ſome-what obſcure, as all his writings are; yet in that he cals them deſignatos ſanctitatis (which ſeems to be meant of baptiſme) not onelyonly ex ſeminis praerogativa, but alſo ex inſtitution is diſciplina, which Maſter Marſhall himſelfe interprets of their education, pag. 73. of his defence, it ſeems plaine to me, that this place proves that Tertullian makes their Chriſtian education the antecedent to the baptiſme of beleevers children in his daies: and ſo this place makes againſt Maſter Marſhals tenet not for it.

It is true, the Ancients doe alluſively call baptiſme circumciſion. as they do the Lords Table the Altar, the Lords Supper the Sacrifice, the Presbyters Prieſts, the Deacons Levites; nor do I deny that they ſay circumciſion was a type of baptiſme, (which Proteſtant writers grant not) and that they thereupon make baptiſus ſucceed circumciſion, and they argue for baptizing of Infants from circumciſion, this I granted in my exercitation and Examen. But yet I thinke neither Maſter Marſhall nor his friend can ſhew that they argued thus, the Children of Abraham were circumciſed by vertue of the Covenant, I will be thy God and the God of thy ſeed, therefore the children of beleevers onelyonly are to be baptized by vertue of the Covenant I find that they argued thus from p. 86circumciſion, circumciſion was the remedy againſt originall ſinne, and the male that is not circumciſed, ſhall be cut off from his people, ſo Baptiſme is the remedy of originall ſin, and by reaſon of it, the unbaptized infant dying, ſhall bee damned. But I thinke if Maſter Marſhals friend could, he would have ſhewed that they argued from federall holineſſe of infants of beleeving parents, to the capacity of Baptiſme; this I yet think is a late device, no elder then Zuinglius as I ſaid in my Examen. And ſo my hedge is not yet tottering, but rather Mr Marſhal's hedge, whereby hee fenceth Infant-Baptiſme either from Antiquity or Scripture is already ſo broken down, that a mean Scholler may goe through it; and if any truth-ſearching Scholler bee ſatisfied by Mr Marſhals writing, it is to me an amazement. 2. As for that which he ſaith, that Grotius is the ſtrongeſt ſtake in my hedge, meaning in point of antiquity, therein Maſter Marſhall is much deceived. For, 1. the chiefe ſtake in my hedge in point of antiquity is the obſervation upon what ground the Ancients taught Infant-Baptiſme, which was not Covenant-holines, but ſuppoſed neceſſity to ſave the child from periſhing; and the ſuppoſed power that Baptiſme hath to give grace, which I gathered from Cyprian, Auguſtin, and others, but do not remember that I received it from any but by my own obſervation. 2. My hedge was in ſome ſort made in my Exercitation before I ever took notice of any thing in Grotius about paedobaptiſme, which was about the time I began to frame my Examen upon occaſion of Mr Thomas Goodwin his citing his annotation upon Matth. 19. 14. where Grotius is ſo farre from being a ſtake in my hedge, that Doctor Homes, pag. 146. ſaith, that for Grotius his own opinion it is clear and full for Infant-Baptiſme upon that 19 of Matthew v. 14. and therefore I ſuppoſe his teſtimony is the leſſe to be ſuſpected in this matter. I confeſſe that Grotius put me in mind of that of Gregory Nazianzen, which I find in the relation of his life, that though his Father were a Greeke Biſhop, yet he remained unbaptized, till being ſent to Athens to ſtudy; being at ſea he was in danger of drowning: and being perplexed, that he was likely to dye being unbaptized; he reſolved to be baptized when he came to ſhore. Mr Marſhall askes how I prove his Father was a Chriſtian when he was born? To this I anſwer, that I had thought Mr Marſhall had not been ignorant, that this inſtance of Gregory p. 87Nazianzen's Father is brought by many Proteſtant writers againſt the Papiſts that deny marriage to the Clergy, to prove that then Biſhops were married, and did uſe their wives. If Mr Marſhall pleaſe, he may read what Chamier panſtrat: Cathol. tom. 3. lib. 10. c. 13. §. 10. ſayes of his father and mother.

I alſo found in Grotius the inſtance of Chryſoſtome, which I confeſſe I took upon his word as wanting books and time to read ſo much as was neceſſary to examine the matter, Grotius not directing whence he had it. But if that inſtance do not hold, the inſtance of Hierome is plain, whom Eraſmus in his life proves out of his own writings to have been born of Chriſtian parents in Pannonia, yet was baptized at Rome, whither he was ſent to be taught the learning of that age.

The teſtimony of the Councill of Neocaeſarea I did not remember till Grotius put me in mind of it; but I truſted not to his quotation only, but found the ſame in O ſ…nder his Epit. Eccleſ. Hiſt. Cent. 4. lib. 1. c. 21. at the yeare 311. with this note; Non intelligo quid ſibi poſterior hujus Canonis pars velit. As for the words they are ſo plain, that Mr Marſhals evaſions are but ſhifts. For though it be true that the Canon was only about children in the womb, yet the reaſon of their not baptizing, is not either becauſe they were not yet born, or ſuretres could not undertake for them, but becauſe in the confeſſion in baptiſm, every ones free choice is ſhewed. Which plainly declares that Councill held that none were to be baptized, but ſuch as ſhewed their own free choice by confeſſion. As for Balſamon and Zona…as it is true that I have not read them but taken their teſtimony from Grotius, becauſe the teſtimony of the Councill of Neoc…ſarea, ancienter then the firſt Nicene was the thing alleaged, Balſamon and Zoharas were only glo…ers; yet Mr Marſhall ſayes nothing to Zonaras, and what he brings in anſwer to Balſamous gloſſe is nothing to the purpoſe. For neither did Grotius nor I ſay that Balſamon denied Infant-Baptiſme according to his own opinion, but that from that canon Balſamon and Zonaras, do infer that an infant cannot be baptized becauſe it hath not power to chooſe the confeſſion of Divine Baptiſme, which is all one with that which Mr Marſhall himſelfe ſaith, pag. 31. There is required of him that would profeſſe himſelfe a follower of Chriſt (… the laſt words of the Canon) a free election: p. 88or (as Balſamon hath it) there is required of everyone in Baptiſme his own promiſe, which an infant in its mothers wombe cannot doe. And can an infant out of the mothers womb do it? ſo that it is plain even by Mr Marſhals own explication of the Canon, that that Council held that thoſe were only to be baptized, that could make a promiſe themſelves. I doubt not but that this Councill allowed Baptiſme of infants, as Nazianzen did in caſe of danger of death, but I think it is plain that out of that caſe they allowed not the baptiſme of an infant, no not though a beleevers infant; till the child could make its own confeſſion: as appeares from their ſcrupling the baptizing of the mother converted now with child, leſt it ſhould be taken to reach to the child in the womb, and from the generall reaſon, that every one manifeſts his own free choice in confeſſion. And I am peſwaded that this was the true ſtate of Baptiſme in thoſe dayes, in the Greek and Latin Church▪ that they did baptize all ſorts of infants whether of beleevers or unbeleevers, in caſe of danger of death, leaſt they ſhould periſh for want of it; in which caſe Lay-perſons did baptize: and Auguſtine contra epiſt. Parmeniani, cap. 13. lib. 2. ſaith, ſi autem neceſſitas urgeat, aut nullum, aut veniale delictum eſt. But otherwiſe they baptized not ordinarily, till they came to years to make their own confeſſion. The caſes of Nazianzen, Auguſtine, and Hierome, Conſtantine the great, and others; and their ſolemn baptizing onelyonly at Eaſter and Whitſuntide, which is obſerved in the Rubrick of the Engliſh Liturgy, me thinke ſhould abundantly ſatisfie men concerning this truth. I cited likewiſe Grotius his ſpeech of many of the Greekes, who in every age even to this day, doe keep the cuſtome of deferring the Baptiſme of little ones, till they could themſelves make a confeſſion of their faith. For which words though he cite no Authour, yet I preſume Grotius, who is even by Spanheimius, often ſtiled vir ſummus; would not have ſaid it, unleſſe he had ſome ground for it. Mr Marſhall ſayes, I might bluſh for juſtifying the Anabaptiſts, in ſaying that the Ancients, eſpecially the Greeke Church have rejected the baptiſme of infants for many hundred yeares; meaning in the firſt ages after Chriſt. But as yet, neither Mr Marſhall nor his friend have ſhewed me ſufficient reaſon why I ſhould retract it. For what he brings out of Photius and Balſamon, men of much later ſtanding about the later p. 89Canons, and Imperiall lawes of the Greekes; and one of the 8 Canons concluded in Carthage againſt the Pelagians, requiring infants to be baptized: proves not, but that the Greeke Church rejected baptizing of infants many hundred of years in the firſt ages; nor doth it overthrow that of Grotius, that many of the Greekes (he doth not ſay the Greeke Church) in every age to this day doe keep the cuſtome of deferring the baptizing of little ones, till they could themſelves make a confeſſion of their faith. Yea, the lawes brought by Mr Marſhall rather prove it. For why ſhould lawes be made for it, but becauſe many did neglect it? And the ſtory out of Balſamon about captives of Chriſtians, rather ſhewes that ſome were not baptized, when little ones even among Ch…riſtians, becauſe they determine if there were no witneſſes to prove their Baptiſme, though children of Chriſtians; they ſhould bee baptized.

As for Grotius his being a friend to the Socinians, it is nothing to me, who knew not Grotius nor his wayes; nor ever pleaded for him. Yet I remember I have read that though he was accuſed thereof long agoe by Ravenſpergerus, hee was juſtified by Voſſius, and what ever Rivet, Mareſius, Laurentius, charge him with, yet his works have a place among the learned, and may be read and made uſe of cum judicio, at leaſt as the works of Papiſts, Lutherans, Prelatiſts, &c. who yet may be tainted with errours. Even Theophilus Philokyriaces, Loncardie uſis; if I miſtake not Maſter Marſhals friend, doth in the very title page of his Dies Dominica, and in the book make uſe of Barenius his teſtimony in his Annals; an authour and work as much excepted againſt … Grotius. Nor doe I find that in that wherein I made uſe of Grotius, he hath deceived me; or I or he wronged the truth, or our Reader.

Mr Marſhall pag. 54. of his Defence ſaith, that he perceived I have made great uſe in this controverſy of an Arminian booke commonly known by the names of cenſura cenſurae Whereas I never read the book or made any uſe of it, till I read this paſſage in Mr Marſhals Defence. But ſince I confeſſe I have read chapter 23 of it, and am by that I find there the more confirmed in that truth, wherein I concurre with that Authour: though the truth is the chiefe light I had for antiquity in this matter, was ſome little reading of my own, and that which I read in Voſſius his theſes theol: de paedobaptiſme.

p. 90But becauſe Mr. Marſhall hath accuſed me as having correſpondencie with them who are not likely to help me with any certain intelligence, that it may appeare that I uſed what diligence I could to get moſt certain intelligence when I applyed my ſelfe to anſwer Mr Marſhals Sermon, I preſumed to write this enſuing letter, to that famous learned Gentleman, Mr John Selden, of the Inner Temple.

Clariſſime Vir,

INter theologorum placita haec obtinent, baptiſmum Ioannis & Chriſts circumciſioni Judaicae ſuccedere, ejuſ que locum occupare: at que inde paedobaptiſmi ri…um deduci. Mihi verò cum de paedobaptiſmi origine, tum de ſucceſſione baptiſmi in locum circumciſionis an vera tradant Theologi iſti, gravis diu inſedit dubitatio Baptiſmi enim inſtitutum longè aliud eſſe à circumciſione, & paedobaptiſmum in Eccleſiis Chriſtianis nonniſi in ſeculo poſt Apoſtolos ſecundo obtinuiſſe plurima ſuadent. Inter alia vero iſtud urget, quod legerim alicubi (quanquam libris jam ſpoliatus locum judicare▪ nequeam) baptiſmi ritum fuiſſe ſatis notum ante Joannis Baptiſtae tempora in admiſſione Proſelytorum aut Diſcipulorum apud Judaeos, & interrogatio Phariſaeorum non de novitate ritus ſed de authoritate baptizantis quaerentium, Joannis Evangelii cap. 1. Co…. 25. idem innuere videtur. Et forſan foreign, apud eundem cap. 3. Com. 25. ad uſurpationem iſtius ritus ſpectabat. Paedobaptiſmum verò ignotum fuiſſe primaevis Eccleſiarum Chriſtianarum temporibus aſſerit Ludovicus Vives comment in Auguſtini de civitate Dei, lib. 1. cap. 27. Quapropter vir ornatiſſime, ſuper iſtis apicibus doctrinae ſucceſſione ſcilicet baptiſmi… lecum circumciſionis, & paedobaptiſmi origin…, te (cujus periti… in rebus & ſcriptis Hebraicis & Eccleſiaſticis, veritatis amor animique candor ſatis ſpectantur, & latè praedicantur) conſulendum duxi. Pla…eat itaque claritudini tu… mihi quanquam obſcure foreign tamen, tanquam foreign, ſuper …ſtare animi ſententiam tui impertire. Et quoniam ſat ſcio te plurimis iiſque graviſſimis negotits occupari reſponſum tuum, ſe… pluribus, ſeu pa…cioribus verbis tempore à …eipſo poſite expect abit.

Dignitatis veſtrae obſervantiſſi…, JOANNES TOMBES. Londini …dibus Recto…is Eccleſiae … church, … Auguſt… …4. 1644.

p. 91Though the anſwer was no other then a reference of me to the books I might meet with in Stationers ſhops, yet I conceived this advantage I had by it, that what I found in books extant might be the more ſafely relyed on, and that my diligence to diſcover the truth would be the more apparent, for which I denied my ſelfe reſt;§ 17. Of my opinion about excommunication, Church-government, the admiſſion unto all ordinances, my former conformity, alleaged to alienate mens minds from me and my writings. and without recompenſe from men, layd out more then my eſtate could beare.

But M. Mar. ſeems ready to catch at any thing that may make me ſuſpected, and ſo bring my writing out of credit; & p. 78. of his Defence, thus he ſpeaks. I am miſinformed by good friends who know & love you very well if your ſelf incline not this way to baptize any, whether Turks or Heathens, who onelyonly would make a profeſſion of their faith in Ieſus Chriſt, & then admit them to al other ordinances, & not have them excommunicated à ſacris, but onelyonly à privato conſortio; though their lives ſhould prove ſcandalous. To which I ſay, that I deny not, but that in private conferēce lamenting the ſad condition of theſe nations, that are likely to cut one anothers throats about the differences between Presbyterians & Independents; I have ſaid that I doubted whether ever excommunication à ſacris, or the Presbyterian or Independent Eccleſiaſticall government, would be proved to be Jure Divino by Chriſts appointment. And I confeſſe that I take it to be but a matter of prudence, whether each congregation have it's compleat power and order within it ſelfe, or that it bee ordered in ſome things by an aſſembly of ſelect perſons out of divers congregations, and whether congregations and paſtours be fixed, or unfixed. And I doubt whether the power of the keyes, Matth. 16. 19. be any other then doctrinall; whether Matth. 18 15, 16, 17, 18. contain any other direction then about particular injuries between brother and brother, or let him be to thee a heathen and a publican; be any other then ſhunning familiar converſe: whether 1 Cor. 5. 2. the mourning that the inceſtuous perſon might be taken away from among them, was any other then upon ſolemn faſting and prayer by the whole Church of Corinth, out of a holy zeale to Gods glory by Anathema curſe or imprecation, to imprecate the vengeance of God upon him for the injury hee had done to God, and the Chriſtian profeſſion; that he might be taken away from them by God, and whether the delivery to Satan were any other then an act of Apoſtolicall power, or ſuch as like them p. 92had power over unclean ſpirits tending to the taking away his naturall life, as Molinaeus in his Vate…. And I conceive the Apoſtle verſe 9, 10, 11, 12. of that chapter; proceeds from that particular occaſion to generall directions concerning the d…lining ſociety with them that are vitious: which directions are manifeſtly concerning arbitrary and voluntary ſociety in civill things, ſuch as in a ſort in ſome caſe they might afford to infidels, and then concludes. And ye ſhall put away from among your ſelves that wicked one, which as Ainſworth obſerveth on Deut. 17. 7. are the ſame words that the Greeke uſeth, Deut. 17. 7. and in like manner, Deut. 22. 21. 22. 24. noting the event of executing judgement by killing, whereby the guilty perſon and the guilt of his tranſgreſſion was removed from them. And in reference to the inceſtuous perſon if notes the conſequent of their mourning that he might be taken away from them, v. …. not by ſuch a proceſſe as is either uſed in Epiſcopall Courts, or Presbyteriall Conſiſtories; or Congregationall meetings (though I think this laſt way comes neareſt to it of any of the three) by conventing, trying, hearing w… neſſes, and then pronouncing a judiciall ſentence according to the determination of one or more by plurality of votes, but by a ſolemn deteſtation of the fact, mourning for it, and with joint commotion and concurrence of ſpirit complaining of it to God, and imploring his vengeance to cut him off, and ſo to vindicate his own name and people. Which I conceive the Lord did then in an extraordinary way, when they had no Chriſtian Magiſtrate or other power to avenge that injury to God and his people, in that Ch…rch which was endued abundantly with ſpeciall gifts, 1 Cor. 1. 7. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Cor. 14. Which fact, I for my part doubt how it can be made the foundation of an ordinary meer Eccleſiaſticall judgement, with juriſdiction as ſuperiours that claime authority without ſpeciall gift; in the time wherein a Chriſtian Magiſtrate is ready to execute judgement on ſuch offendors, any more then the fact; Judg. 20. of the whole congregation of Iſrael, in avenging the fact of the men of Gibeah, when there was no King in Iſrael, might be drawn into example for an ordi…nary practiſe when they had Judges, m…ch leſſe how hence may be concluded any ſuch thing, as power of ſuſpenſion from the Lords ſupper for every emergent ſcandall ſo judged by a congregation, or congregationall p. 93Presbytery. Nor doth the Church looſe by having a Chriſtian Magiſtrate, if that juriſdiction be wanting; ſith I ſuppoſe it is better provided for by the conſtant care of a chriſtian Magiſtrate, if conſcientious in executing judgement: if not, ſuch cenſures have been ſeldome executed with conſcience, or good effect. And though it be, that many magnifie the vertue and benefite of their juridical excommunication yet the beſt intelligence I have, makes me queſtion whether it hath not been rather an engine of much harme, as being uſed rather againſt diſſenters in opinion, and oppoſers of profit, then men openly vitious, mannagers of that cen…ure generally ſhewing themſelves irreconcileable to them that diſſent from them, but favourable enough to vitious living. Nevertheleſſe I deny not, but that there is a diſcipline proper to the Church, as namely in caſe of erroneous doctrine, and ſuperſtitious pra…tiſe, contrary to the chriſtian faith or worſhip according to the practiſe. Acts 15. and command, Tit. 3. 10. Rev. …. 24. 20. and in caſe of vitious life according to the ſcriptures, 1 Tim. 5. 20. 2 Theſſ. 3. 6. 14, 15. 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10, 11. And if any aſſembly of Miniſters and Rulers bee ſet up for the better diſcovery of ſuch, that a perſon be not charged with thoſe evills upon uncertain reports; I think it agreeable to Gods will, 1 Tim. 5. 19. And if it happen that any ſuch facts be perpetrated as are like to that of the inceſtuous perſon: I doubt not but the whole Church may and ought to diſclaime the perſon ſo offending, and to exclude him from all brotherly communion, becauſe I conceive ſo much was done to the inceſtuous perſon, as I gather from 2 Cor. 2. 6, 7. yet herein they did not act as Judges that had power of juriſdiction over him, but as Phyſicians out of charity ſeeking to cure him. And I ſuppoſe in the manner of doing theſe things, we have not certain preciſe direction from Gods word, but that we are left free by God to order ſuch things though pertaining to chriſtians as chriſtians by alterable rules of prudence. And thus farre I have thought good to expreſſe my ſelfe in this matter, becauſe of Mr Marſhals words tending to render me ſuſpected as if I did monſtri aliquid alere, nourſe ſome monſter.

As for my opinion about baptizing, I have publiquely declared when I examined whether to viſible Church memberſhip were neceſſary reall ſanctity in the judgement of Church-officers, that p. 94by profeſſion ſufficient to it, I mean a profeſſion of repentance and faith in Chriſt, which is ſerious, ſober, free, and underſtanding; but denied that it is neceſſary there ſhould be a further probation by trying mens ſpirits, ſo as to ſatisfie the particular congregation or Church-officers; that a perſon be admitted to Church-memberſhip, and the Lords Supper. I confeſſe ſuch triall is requiſite in admitting into ſpeciall function▪ or intimate ſociety; but not to communion in worſhip. And my opinion is, that as much is required to make capable of baptiſme, as of the Lords Supper; and that being admitted to the one, if rightly performed, they are not to be debarred of the other, for want of a further triall of their ſpirits. And though I never ſaid that by rectifying Baptiſme, all the abuſes I mention following padobaptiſme would be removed (for I did not make paedobaptiſme the ſole or principall cauſe of them, that is mans corruption, which will fall into thoſe or the like in ſome meaſure, if paedobaptiſme were removed) yet it is true which I ſaid in my Examen, part. 2. §. 7. the onelyonly way to further reformation, is to begin in a regular way at the purging of that Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt, to wit Baptiſme. Even as though all ignorance and ſuperſtition were not removed by removing Latin Service, yet that was the onelyonly regular way to begin at the removing it. And it is eaſie to conceive, that foraſmuch as the groſſe ignorance of people is much occaſioned by their baptizing afore they know, that if they were not baptized till they knew chriſtian Religion, as it was in the firſt ages, groſſe ignorance in chriſtian profeſſours would be almoſt wholly reformed, and for chriſtian walking, if baptiſme were adminiſtred with a ſolemn abrenunciation, profeſſion and promiſe by the baptized in his own perſon, & upon that were baptized, I doubt not but it would have more aw on mens conſciences then many other means uſed or deviſed, conſidering how in the primitive times men differred baptiſme for feare they might not enjoy their luſts, and they were counted by ſome as guilty of inexpiable crime that fell away after baptiſme: and on the other ſide, infant-baptiſme is the ground upon which innumerable people ignorant and profane harden themſelves as if they were good chriſtians, regenerate, and ſhould be ſaved without holineſſe of life, never owning or conſidering any profeſſion or promiſe made for them as theirs.

p. 95There have been other ſuggeſtions hinted by Mr Geree, but amplified in clancular whiſperings concerning my former conformity to ceremonies and Epiſcopall government, which are carried about in private to render me a perſon ſuſpected, and to leſſen the credit of my writing, the chiefe part of which I have anſwered in my Sermon intituled Fermentum Phariſaeorum; and the time, end, neceſſity, manner, and circumſtances in doing what I did, being pleas ſufficient to acquit me, and the things not belonging to the preſent cauſe, but being fitter for private audience. I will trouble the Reader no further with my Apology, aſſuring my ſelfe that ſetting aſide this opinion of paedobaptiſme and common infirmities, my life, labours doctrine even in the judgement of thoſe that diſſent from me, and knew me, will abundantly anſwer for me againſt all clancular whiſperings whatſoever.

And concerning my two treatiſes8§ 18. Of the vanity of Mr Ley's vaunt concerning the deadly wound given to my cauſe, and the contrary demonſtrated by a briefe going through the principall points about this argument, as they have hitherto been diſputed. As about Acts 2. 39. Rom. 11. 16. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Coloſ. 2. 12. Matth. 28. 19. Acts 16, 15. Matth. 19. 14. &c.Acts 2:39Rom 11:161 Cor 7:14Col 2:12Matt 28:19Acts 16:15Matt 19:14 notwithſtanding Mr Ley's cenſure paſſed perhaps afore he had compared mine and my Antagoniſts writings together; I may rather ſay, that by my two treatiſes, there is ſuch a wound given already to Infant-baptiſme, that however men may play the Mountebanks and skin it over, it will never be cured at the bottome. For in point of antiquity it ſtill ſtands good which I aſſerted; That Infant-baptiſme is not ſo ancient as is pretended, as now taught, is a late Innovation; that a great number of thoſe that ſought reformation in the thirteenth Century, oppoſed infant-baptiſme; that the doctrine of Anti-paedobaptiſme neither undermines Magiſtracy, Miniſtery, Lords day, nor any true intereſt of the infants of beleevers, that the argument from the Covenant to the Seale, is either a tautology, or invalid without a command, that the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. was a mixed Covenant having in it not onelyonly promiſes of ſpirituall benefits common to all beleevers, but alſo peculiar promiſes concerning things temporall; that Acts 2. 39. being meant of Chriſt and ſaving benefits by him; as Maſter Marſhall confeſſeth cannot ſerve Maſter Marſhals turn to prove his ſecond concluſion which he denies to be meant of the promiſe of ſaving grace, as if it were made to beleevers and their naturall ſeed. As for Maſter Marſhals paraphraſe, which he calls argument, pag. 129. 130. of his Defenc…; I think it to bee moſt abſurd in that it makes the promiſe, Acts 2. 39. when applyed to the Fathers to p. 96be meant of juſtification, when to the children, of outward adminiſtrations; nor ſo expounded are the words true: there being no ſuch promiſe. That Rom. 11. 16. &c. proves not that there is the ſame Church ſtate in the Churches of the Gentiles, that was in the Jewes, ſo as that the Infants of Beleevers ſhould by vertue of naturall generation be reckoned as viſible members, foraſmuch as now the Church is not nationall as it was then, nor gathered as God did the Jewiſh Church by taking the whole nation for his people in one day, but now the Church of God is gathered by preaching up and down, ſome in one place and ſome in another in ſucceſſion of time; That 1 Cor. 7. 14. ſpeakes not of federall holineſſe, but matrimoniall; yea if the reaſon of the lawfulneſſe of the living of two perſons together in diſparity of Religion, be taken from the vertue of faith in the one party, not from the relation of husband and wife, as Mr Marſhals expoſition makes it, the medium of the Apoſtle to prove the lawfulneſſe of the living of a beleeving wife with an unbeleeving husband, will as well prove the lawfulnes of the living of a beleeving forni…atrix with an unbeleeving fornicator; as may appeare by a ſyllogiſticall analyſis of the Apoſtles argument: the major whereof is this, according to Mr Marſhals expoſition. That man and wo…an may lawfully dwell together, notwithſtanding the unbeleefe of the one party whereof one is ſanctified by the faith of the other for begetting of a holy ſeed; this is manifeſtly the force of the Apoſtles reaſon after his expoſition. Nor is it neceſſary to inſert [being husband and wife] ſith the ſanctification is not aſcribed by him to the relation of husband and wife, but to the faith of the one party, as the proper cauſe of it. And by Mr Blake Birth. priviledge, pag. 11. Holineſſe in the text, is a fruit or reſult of faith in the parent. Now the aſſumption; the unbeleeving form catour is ſanctified by the faith of the …eleeving whore for the begetting a holy ſeed Maſter Marſhall denies not, but salkes only; telling me pag. 163 of his Defence, he could name Divines who are no whit infer…ur to my ſelfe, who conceive that a beleever even then when he commits fornication with an infidell, doth ſo remove the barre in the unbeleeving party, as that the child is (in the beleeving parents right) to be r…ckoned to belong to the Covenant of Grace, and the Church of God, which is in his ſenſe to be ſanctified; and it muſt needs be granted, for … cauſa p. 97ponitur effectus, if the quality of faith be the cauſe of that ſanctification, the ſanctification followes in one, as well as the other. The concluſion then followes from Mr Marſhals expoſition, that the beleeving fornicatrix may ſtill live after converſion, with her unbeleeving fornicator; for they are ſtill ſanctified for the begetting of a holy ſeed; and the children ſo begotten are federally holy, it being Gods rule in this caſe: if Mr Marſhall ſay true, partus ſequitur meliorem partem. But this is ſo abſurd a thing that I beleeve Mr Marſhall himſelfe will when he underſtands it▪ quit his chiefe hold, and the judicious reader explode the expoſition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. of federall holineſſe.

And for the third concluſion of Mr Marſhall, he hath not yet proved that the rite of Baptiſme was appointed by Chriſt to ſucceed into the room, place, and uſe of circumciſion; or that a command concerning circumciſion, ſhould be a command concerning baptiſme: yea my expoſition of Coloſ. 2. 11, 12. is acknowledged right by Mr Marſhall, and conſequently his inference overthrowne, as I ſaid above.Baptiſme and the rite of eating bread and drinking wine through old …ites among the Iewes yet uſed to another end, and after another rule by Chriſtians. As for that which I alleaged that Baptiſme was an old rite among the Jewes in initiating Proſelytes, to ſhew that baptiſme in exact ſpeech doth not ſucceed circumciſion, but is a continuation of an old rite to an…ther purpoſe; as in exact ſpeech the Lord doth not ſucced the Paſ…over, but is an old rite uſed at the Paſchall ſupper among the Jewes, and contin…ed by Chriſt to another purpoſe; Mr Marſhal catcheth at as a proof for Infant-baptiſme, becauſe then the Proſelytes children were baptized: pag. 256. But the anſwer to it is eaſie. For though the rite of Baptiſme was an old uſe continued by Iohn Baptiſt and Chriſt. yet I ſay it was to another purpoſe or uſe; as I ſhew, pag. 89. 90. of my Examen, clean of another nature; as Mr Lightfoot Harmony, part. 1. pag. 138. and was uſed according to another rule then among the Jewes. For they did not baptize Jewes either elder or younger as the ſame learned men I cited confeſſe, but onelyonly the Gentiles becauſe they were uncleane; and they were initiated by ſacrifice as well as baptiſme, with many other differences: but Iohn the Baptiſt and Chriſts Diſciples baptized Jews as well as Gentiles, without ſacrifice.

As for Mr Marſhals fourth concluſion, he confeſſeth pag. 128. that the formall reaſon of the Iewes being circum…ſed was the command, p. 98which if true; it is the diſtinguiſhing and conſtituting reaſon, qua poſita ponitur res, The command confeſſed to be the formal reaſon of circumciſion by Mr Marſhall.non poſita non ponitur; ſo that the Jewes ought to be circumciſed becauſe of the command, without a command what ever were their intereſt in the Covenant or Church-ſtate, they were not to be circumciſed. Now this is as much as need be to overthrow Mr Marſhals argument, which is to prove that infants are to be baptized preciſely by vertue of intereſt in the Covenant without a command, becauſe as hee ſuppoſeth the Jewes infants were circumciſed meerly by vertue of the Covenant; for ſo the analogy or proportion in his reaſoning muſt hold. The Jews infants were in the Covenant, and therefore were to be circumciſed; Ergo, it muſt be ſo with beleevers children now in Baptiſme; where the formall reaſon is ſuppoſed to be the Covenant: but Mr Marſhall both pag. 92. & pag 182. confeſſeth the formall reaſon is the command; and therefore though the Covenant be pu…, yet if the command were not put, circumciſion of infants …ad been no duty, but a will-worſhip; and by parity of reaſon it is ſo in baptiſme: infants are not to be baptized barely by vertue of Covenant-holineſſe without a command; which is the main thing I contend for.

As for the fifth concluſion of Mr Marſhall, that which I anſwered continues ſtill,Circumciſion a priviledge proper to the Jewiſh Church ſtate. that circumc…ſion though it were a priviledge to the Iewiſh Church, as the Arke, …abernacle, high Prieſt, Temple were, b…longing to that nationall Church-ſtate, to have themſelves and infants circumciſed; yet it was a priviledge proper to that time not now to continue: as the Apoſtle, Gal. 3. & 4. Heb. 9. & 10. ſhewes, it did not belong to the ſubſtance of the Covenant of grace common to Jewes and Gentiles; and ſo neither is it or any thing in the room of it any more a priviledge to us now then ſome houſe the room of the Temple: ſome chief Biſhop in the room of the High Prieſt, &c. And therefore I ſay ſtill, that this argument is indeed of no weight, but among vulgar and non-ſyllogizing capacities; and that Divines that uſe it do but flatter the people by it; and that if the reaſon be good, it overthrowes our compleatneſſe in Chriſt, in whom we have Circumciſion, Arke, Temple, Prieſt, all; and as I ſaid in my Exercitation it is the very egge out of which moſt of the Popiſh …eremonies were hatched; to wit, becauſe they thought wee muſt have priviledges as the Jewes, p. 99and therefore muſt have ſomething like that they had.

Mr Marſhall, pag. 195. of his Defence, ſpeaketh thus. Firſt for the point of will-worſhip I ſhall deſire you to prove this concluſion. That all things belonging to chriſtian worſhip even in the circumſtances of it, even the ages and ſexes of the perſons to whom the ordinances are to be applyed, muſt be expreſſely ſet downe in the new Teſtament; if you prove not this, you ſay nothing to the purpoſe, for this is our very caſe. To which I reply. That I owe not M. Marſhall ſuch ſervice, as to prove what he ſhall like another Euryſtheus injoyn me: I have pag. 11…. pag. 152 of my Examen ſyllogiſtically ſet down my argument to prove Infant-baptiſme will-worſhip, it belongs to him to tell me what he denies in my ſyllogiſme, that I may prove it, though I have already done it, and ſha…l doe more fully when he tells me what he doth deny: but it is a meer ſhift for him to impoſe on me the proofe of a Propoſition I owne not, and not tell me what he denies in my own ſyllogiſme. This is contrary to the rules of diſputation I have been acquainted with; yet if Mr Marſhall ſhall declare that he holds the ſubject of baptiſme to be but a circumſtance, I ſhall be ready to oppoſe him therein further; and ſhew that the point in difference is not the bare age or ſexe, but qualification of perſons to be baptized; yea the reaſon and main uſe of Baptiſme.

As for Mr Marſhals principle for his virtuall command I have ſhewed above;No command about the Iewes Sacraments now in force. that when he ſhould have brought all Proteſtant Divines averring this maxime, that all the commands and inſtitutions of God about the Sacraments of the Jewes; bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the ſubſtance of the Covenant, and were not accidentall to them: in ſtead of this he alleageth another thing, that Proteſtant Divines make the ſame generall nature, end and uſe of our Sacraments, and the Iewes Sacraments, and argue thereupon from one to the other, which is quite beſide the buſineſſe. For the maxime is of commands about the Sacraments, and they are all about the rituals or adminiſtrations, and concerning commands about the Sacraments, binding us as the Jewes, he produceth not one command binding us, or one Proteſtant avowing it.

As for the command, Matth. 28. 19. when I ſaid, foreign ſignifies to make Diſciples, but no where are infants ſaid to be diſcipled, p. 100Mr Marſhall tels me that ſome learned criticks ſay that foreign, anſwers to an hebrew phraſe among the Rabbins, Infants not Diſciples, as Matth. 28. 19. is meant.Matt 28:19of admiſſion of ſchollers that they may be taught; which though I beleeve not, yet if it were granted ſerves not Mr Marſhals turn, unleſſe he can ſhew that infants were ſaid by them to be thus admitted-ſchollars. Then Mr Marſhall referres me with a blind direction to Spanheimius, whom I have conſulted, and I find many abſurdities in that learned Authours words dub. Evang. part. 3. dub. 27. This in effect he ſayes that foreign containes not the act the Diſciples were to doe, but the end of their ſending, which I think is ſo abſurd that it needs no other refutation then the mention, and then that they might foreign without teaching them; whereas he himſelfe ſayes, non ſignificat ſolum docere ſed & Diſcipulos facere, ſo that according to him it includes teaching and ſomewhat more, and aequipollet foreign Io: 4. 1. which was by teaching, and the parallell place, Mark 16. 15. is, preach the Goſpell to every creature.

I had ſaid in my Examen, that the ſpeech of baptizing Lydia's houſhold, Acts 16. 15. muſt be underſtood by other places which when they expreſſe the baptizing of the houſhold,Baptizing houſholds inferres not infant-baptiſme. they expreſſe alſo the beleeving or receiving of the word by the whole houſhold, and by the frequent [Mr Marſhall alters it into ſometimes] uſe of the word, which is to put the houſe for the people of growth in it. Mr Marſhall ſaith, who taught you it muſt be ſo interpreted? I anſwer, Auguſtin lib. 3. de doct. Chriſt. c. 26. ubi autem ap…rtius ponu…tur ibi diſcendum eſt qummodo in locis intelligantur obſcuris: Cha…ier panſtrat, Cathol. tom. 1. lib. 16. c. 6. and all thoſe Divines among which I think Mr Marſhall is one, that ſay we muſt expound one text by comparing it with others that are like. To that I ſaid, that [houſe] is frequently taken for the grown perſons in it; Mr Marſhall ſai…, it may very well be granted, and hurts not me, unleſſe you can prove it muſt be ſo meant. Though I think I proved it muſt be ſo meant, yet it is enough to ſhew that Mr Marſhall cannot prove from the baptizing of houſholds an example of baptizing an infant, ſith, the word houſe may be taken (as Mr. Mar. ſaith, may very wel be granted) for the grown perſons in that houſe.

As for Mr Marſhals ſecond argument, becauſe there was an equivocation in it▪ and in one ſenſe the major muſt be denied, in another the minor; and if the major be underſtood in one ſenſe, the p. 101minor in another; there bee foure termes, and the ſyllogiſme is naught. To this Mr Marſhall makes no reply in a logicall form, but tells us in a looſe diſcourſe, that foraſmuch as there is no infallible ground of certainty, but onelyonly of charity, that any growne perſon to be baptized hath actually the inward grace; and ſo in charity …ee are to conceive of beleevers infants, becauſe Chriſt ſaid, Mark 10. 14. Of ſuch is the kingdome of God, they are to be baptized So that in his Defence Mr Marſhall alters his argument which he ſet down in his Sermon, concluding not from a capacity of inward grace to Baptiſme as he did then; but from the judgement of charity that they have actually the inward grace,We have no evidence for judgement of charity concerning infants, nor is a judgement of charity to be our rule in adminſtering Baptiſme. which he ſeems to count ſufficient for Baptiſme. Mr Geree his reaſoning is to the ſame effect: vindic. paedobapt. ch. 1. ſect. 7. and is thus formed by him into a ſyllogiſm, where we have evidence for judgement of charity, that there is the grace of the Covenant, there we may ſ…e the ſeal of the Covenant. But we have evidence for the judgement of charity, that in infants of beleevers there is the grace of the Covenant. Ergo, Of this Syllogiſm I deny both major & minor. Acts 10. 47. doth not provethe major. For the Apoſtle there did not baptize upon a judgment of charity of what was latent, but from a certaine ſenſe of their magnifying God, and the gift of the holy Ghoſt; nor was Simon Magus baptized becauſe in the judgement of charity hee had the grace of the Covenant, but becauſe he profeſſed the faith, which was certain to Philip. And this was Maſter Marſhals doctrine in his Sermon, pag. 47. where he confeſſeth that the Apoſtles charity or charitable conjecture was not the ground of their admitting them to the ordinance, but the profeſſion and confeſſion of the party made according to the word, which they were bound to reſt in. And therefore I ſee not how Mr Marſhall can count a judgement of charity ſufficient for Infant-baptiſme, without croſſing himſelfe in his firſt Sermon. For my part I doe not think a Miniſter ought to be ruled in baptizing by his own judgement of charity (which is ofttimes very uncharitable to thoſe that deſerve beſt) but by certain knowledge of true ſanctification by extraordinary revelation, or of the parties profeſſion of the faith by other meanes, either of which is ſufficient, not both neceſſary. Nor do I require of infants more aſſurance then of grown men, but ſhewes of repentance and faith in either. Yet, as when one being required p. 102to bring no more then a ſervants teſtimony for the grant of a thing, if he bring the maſters hand and ſeale without the ſervants teſtimony and the thing be granted; he that grants it doth require no more then the ſervants teſtimony: ſo when I ſay, if ſhewes of repentance and faith be exhibited I will baptize, and I will baptize upon extraordinary revelation, that an infant is a beleever: I doe not require more aſſurance of an infant then of a growne perſon, when I ſay, if the infant profeſſe the faith, I will baptize, if God witneſſe for it that it is a beleever I will baptize, in neither goe I by judgement of charity, but certainty either of revelation or profeſſion, which neither Master Geree nor Maſter Marſhall can make good of all the infants of beleevers. But ſaith Maſter Geree there's evidence in charity to judge that the children of beleevers have the grace of the Covenant. To this I anſwer, the evidence for judgement of charity is to be taken from a perſons own deeds according to the rule, 1 Cor. 13. 7. charity beleeveth all things, capacity of grace is common to all perſons on earth, and therefore is no ground to baptize one more then another. That ſome infants have been actually partakers of inward grace, as Mat. 19. 14. Luke 1. 15. Ierem. 1. 5. yeelds nothing to prove any judgement to be right that it is ſo in any other, but onelyonly that it may be ſo. Infants of beleevers are not under the Covenant of Grace or within the externall adminiſtration of it, by vertue of Gen. 17. 7. Deut. 30. 6. they ſpeak of more then externall adminiſtration▪ and muſt be underſtood of the elect which the Apoſtle denies to have bin ever by God aſſured to the natural ſeed, Rom. 9. 8. 15. no judgements of charity that the infants of beleevers are under the Covenant of Grace can be deducted from theſe texts, the moſt is conjecturall hope that it ſhall be ſo, which experience ſhewes to miſcarry often, therefore theſe things yeeld not a warrant for infantbaptiſme. Doctor Homes argues from Matth. 19. 14. that baptizing did in nature antecede impoſition of hands, which is falſe; nor doth Heb. § 19. Of Maſter Haſſey his pretended ſatisfactory anſwer to my exerci…ation.6. 2. prove it. Nor is his argument good, Infants had the greater Chriſts bleſſing, therefore they had or might have the leſſe, to wit Baptiſme; which reaſon if good, it would follow they might have the Lords Supper, be ordained Miniſters: for theſe are leſſe then Chriſ…s bleſſing.

Afore the printing of this Apology, I met with and read a book p. 103of one Mr William Huſſey a man unknown to me ſaving by a former treatiſe of his which I have ſeen, and he intitles it ſatisfaction to Maſter Tombes his ſcepticall exercitation: and in his Epiſtle to the Reader he ſaith, and here I will turn ſceptique with Maſter Tombes. If I ſhould give him the title of fantaſticke in requitall of the title of ſcepticke he pins upon me, I could give better reaſon for it then he brings for his impoſition of that new title on me: but it is enough for me to clear my ſelf. Gel. l. 11. c. 5. noct. Attic. ſayes, the …y…honian Philoſophers were called Sceptickes; that is, ſeekers and conſiderers, becauſe they determined nothing, but were alwayes in conſidering and ſeeking; but Maſter Marſhall thinks me guilty rather of too much ſelfe-confidence. Yea in this point though I did as I conceived befitting me then, propound my thoughts in the diſputation with my brethren in the miniſtery, and in my Exercitation to the Committee of the Aſſembly under the term of doubts; yet in my Examen I aſſert them as poſitions, and therefore that authour doth unworthily intitle my Exercitation ſcepticall, or me a ſcepticke: which is in effect if he underſtood what he ſayes, to accuſe me as adhering to nothing as certain in matters of ſenſe, reaſon, or faith. But concerning the book though he intitle it ſatisf…action▪ and the licenſer ſayes [finding it to be in his judgement ſolid and judicious] and I am pretty well acquainted with the humour of men, who are ready to cry up any thing as ſatisfactory, which they affect; yet I beleive the Aſſembly will not conceive his book ſatisfactory, nor theſe paſſages following to be ſolid and judicious. As that in his Epiſtle to the Reader he calls Baptiſme the ſeale of the proffer of Grace. pag. 3. I anſwer, that was an eſpeciall priviledge of the Iewes that they had their civill lawes from God, but what lieth upon a nation as a duty that it may require of all, and cuts off them that refuſe! and this is implyed in the Commiſſion, when Nations ſhall covenant to be Diſcip…s, which may be done by a part for the whole, then are ſuch … are in commiſſion from Chriſt commanded to baptize and teach the whole nation, ſuch as are in authority may covenant in a nationall … for the inferiour ſort, and juſtly require all externall performances from them, ſuch as baptiſme and ſubmiſſion to b…e taught …, pag. 4. And what a parent can doe over his child in matter of … duty, … that may the parents of the country, the Magiſtrates require p. 104of the nations. God requireth it of them, they may put all nations to ſchoole to Chriſt, Now, what if ſome of them be too young to learne, yet if they be under the diſcipline of the Maſter they are Schollers? as may appeare in many litle children that are ſet to ſchoole to keepe them ſafe, and from wantoneſſe, before they be of capacity to learne, many have a Hornbooke given, more for a playgame then a booke, yet are they Schollers, becauſe under the diſcipline and correction of the Maſter; is it not therefore great reaſon, that a Chriſtian ſhould dedicate his child… to Chriſt, to be partaker of the bleſſing and diſcipline of Chriſt? pag. 5. And certainly words could not have been invented that could have required the Miniſters to baptize all the World, Infants and all, willing or unwilling; ſo that any would ſee they might be taught, and ſubmit to the precepts and diſcipline of Chriſt, then to expreſſe it by the word nation and d…ſciple. pag. 12. Abrahams ſeed muſt be divided into equivocall and univocall; equivocall ſeed Chriſt, for that he was not like Abraham, he was of Abraham, but ex parte according to the fleſh. Rom. 1. 3. He was the promiſed ſeed, not the ſeed unto whom the promiſe did belong, as the ſeed of Abraham. pag. 43. That which we argue from receiving of families, and from the Apoſtles commiſſion to baptize nations is, that nations may make Lawes for their whole nations to be baptized; and if the major part of a nation do according to their duty receive baptiſme, and undertake for the whole nation to ſubmit themſelves to become Schollers of Chriſt, they may juſtly compell by any penalty to joyne with them in the externall worſhip of God. This therefore is it which is drawn from the commiſſion directed to the Diſciples for the baptizing of nations, that nations may act as nations, and families as families; that is, that the more organ…all parts muſt act for the reſidue▪ the magiſtrates for the nation, the maſter of the family for the reſidue, the magiſtrates for the nation, the maſter of the family for the family; otherwiſe it cannot be ſaid to be the act of the nation, or of the family, though a poſt factum may be hiſtorically related to overſpread a nation that is done without a nationall conſent, to ſhew the univerſality of a ſpreading evill: yet, where a duty is charged upon a nation, it cannot be orderly received without a nation …ll conſent. pag. 44. He that keepeth any ſervant that will not be baptized, is not a good Chriſtian: it is true, all men of diſcretion ought to conſent p. 105ſent to every duty; baptiſme … precepts …, it is pactum impoſitum pag. 40. The parties to be baptized are all nations, withoutany reſtriction …. If they that claime their intereſt in baptiſme can undertake for whole nations, the commiſſioner: muſt not refuſe them: the nation bel…eveth by the magiſtrate, by whoſe authority the whole nation is put to ſchoole to Chriſt, pag. 54. Men may require of him that is of years to conſent to his baptiſme. … a ſinne, and puniſhing him for it as for adult…ry formation or any other publique offence. pag. 59. If any will bring Turkes children, and Infidels to baptiſme, and … the … of them in the doctrine of the Goſpel, I know not but they may: and if … would … with their children to Chriſtians, I thinke it were a very charitable thing ſo to do: For the promiſe was …ever ſo tyed to Abrahams loyns, neither for ought I know, to any beleevers, but to education in the family of Abraham, or any other beleeving family. pag. 61. They that beleeve, and they that beleeve not heare the word, and … is no … of the work… Preach it to … Infidel, neither … it any … of baptiſme, to baptize an Infidel. pag. 64. And indeed, … were a very ſtrange thing for the Sacrament of baptiſme to be tendered to …, and approved, declared and … to be …; it is true, it may be tendered to men this profeſſe them faith, becauſe man cannot judge them faithfull, notwithſtanding any profeſſion, and therefore baptize them; but if they could know and judge them faithfull, they might give them the Lords Supper, in which all Chriſt is communicated, and baptiſme ſhould not be …, baptiſme is the ſeale of the tender of Chriſt, … of the … power of his blo…d, … of our Communion, or partaking of Chriſt; that is ſealed in the other Sacrament. pag. 64. It is true, adultus muſt have faith, ſuch as it is, naturall, human: before he can be baptized, he muſt be willing by ſome inclination or other: it were barbarous to baptize a grown man àgainſt his will, which could not be gotten but by ſome kind of …, though it might be juſt with man to puniſh him with death that ſhould refuſe, as it is with God, to puniſh with eternall death ſuch as deſpiſe baptiſme. Nor do I thinke the principal ground of his new conceit pag. s. will ſatisfie, which is, that Matt. 28. 19. is thus to be expounded, make all Nations Diſciples by baptizing them, and p. 106teaching: whereas he himſelfe ſundry times reads it better, make Diſciples of all nations baptizing them, and it is vainely alleaged that [by] is implyed in the participiall expreſſion, any more then verſe 9. foreign muſt be expounded hee met them by ſaying, or Matth. 27. 55. foreign they followed by miniſtring unto him; and I ſaid juſtly, Examen pag. 127. this conceit is ſo abſurd, that I preſume none that hath any wit will entertain it, though Maſter Huſſey ſay page 6 I thinke if ever a man were out of his wit, it was here: but I ſhall be willing the Aſſembly judge whether of us two need ſayle to Anticyra to purge our braines. As for his anſwer to my book though I conceive it lettice fit for ſome lips, yet in my apprehenſion it containes a fardell of miſtakes, in Logick, Divinity; and ſometimes in Grammar, but moſt of all of my meaning, and the ſcope of my words, and for…e of my reaſons, which being diligently compared with his book, are a ſufficient reply to it. And therefore though hee conclude with a challenge to me, yet he muſt pardon me if I make more account of my time then to caſt it away in refuſing ſuch wild notions as he hath vented, except I ſhall have ſo much ſpare time as to write a booke to make ſport with; wiſhing nevertheleſſ that Maſter Huſſey had ſome ſchoole of Divinity as he deſires, that he might be either better fitted to write, or learn to be ſilent.

I have been larger in this matter then I intended at this time,§ 20. The Epilogue of this Apology concerning the reaſon of the enlargement of it, the Authors preſent eſtate and future intentions. that I might ſhew the vanity of Mr Leyes vaunt, and however God diſpoſe of me, doe my indeavour to cleare the truth in this thing, and to prevent perſecution of it through the provocation and exaſperation of ſpirit towards Anti-paedobaptiſts, which ſince theſe writings have been publiſhed, hath many wayes diſcovered it ſelfe. If the Lord ſpare me life, liberty, and meanes, and it bee found neceſſary; I may either more briefly or more largely reſcue my treatiſes from their hands, who have ill handled them and perverted the truth. In the mean time this which is already ſaid might ſerve a judicious Reader to anſwer the writing of my Antagoniſts though no more ſhould follow. Mr Mar. book it appears from pag. 59. 212. 227. was contrived by divers: I beleeve the ableſt of the Aſſembly, I wiſh it were declared whether the Paedobaptiſts would ſtick to that work or any other. I heare there are more yet to be printed, if the aime be to oppreſſe me with number, p. 107or to have this evaſion; that when one is anſwered, yet ſome other is not anſwered; and ſo to uphold the errour ſtill (which is a way of Jeſuites) I doubt not but God will defend his truth. What hitherto is objected againſt my two Treatiſes and Appendix, I doubt not but with Gods aſſiſtance to anſwer. Afore I could finiſh this Apology, I have taſted the fruits of Mr Marſhals, and Mr Gerees accuſation in a meſſage from the Benchers of both houſes of the Temple; that though they acknowledge my life and labours among them unreproveable, yet by reaſon of the publiſhing of my treatiſes they cannot continue me here. It was foretold me, that ſome of the aſſembly would not give over till they had outed me hence. If any of them have diſſwaded the people from hearing me, though they cannot ſhew that I have preached any other thing then Goſpell truth; if they uſe any arts to withdraw the people from me, I wiſh them to conſider how they can acquit ſuch actions from the ſin of making ſchiſme, and ſtopping the courſe of the Goſpell for their own ends, not permitting any to preach the Goſpell without concurrence in opinion with them, when as Paul rejoiced that Chriſt was preached; though it added affliction to his bonds, Phil. 1. 18. what my deſire was in the Prologue of my Examen, is ſtill, that we may give one another the right hand of fellowſhip, and ſtand faſt in one mind in the truth of the Goſpell, and cleare the truth of God to the people whoſe eyes are upon us. I may call God to witneſſe that my ayme in making and publiſhing my Treatiſes, was the benefit of the Aſſembly by making knowne to them reaſons why the Doctrine of the Directory ſhould be better examined, which would be their honour: if they diſclaim me, reject me, repay evill for good, I hope God will help me to bear it, and to love them ſtill, and joyn with them in promoting the work of Chriſt; notwithſtanding I meet with diſcouragements where I aſſured my ſelfe greateſt encouragement.

To conclude; as the caſe now ſtands, I know not into what corner of the … world God may carry me, nor how I may be accommodated to publiſh any thing more either in this of Infantbaptiſme, or any other point of ſacred knowledge; it is not a little comfort to me that I have framed this Apology, it ſhal be my witneſſe in time to come that I have ſought unity with truth; and as I have made it my buſines to preſerve purity of doctrine, ſo I ſhal ſtil p. 108though I have neither found recompence nor help conſiderable from men, but rather am likely to meet with a conſumption of eſtate, & a ſhortning of my dayes. However things ſucceed, I ſhall requeſt that they that can pray, would beg for me that I may doe nothing againſt the truth, but for the truth; and for the Churches of Chriſt, that the Paſtors and teachers in them may take heed of bending their wits to maintaine what the prime reformers, and Churches ordered by them have avouched, rather then impartially and throughly to examine their doctrine, which as it is a great ſin of making other maſters then Chriſt, ſo it is a cauſe of moſt miſchievous rents and contentions.

FINIS.