containes either the manner or the matter of my Treatises The defence of the matter of them is the chiefest thing and is first in my intention But the clearing of my selfe from some complaints or charges in the manner of handling the whole businesse is so necessary for the removing of prejudices which would prevent reading and entertaining my writings and do undermine my present station that I am constrained first to plead for my selfe before I engage further in the Controversie wherefore I shall answer those charges by themselves apart that so the main question may be discussed by it selfe First Doctor Homes in his Epistle to the Reader hath these words Meane while I could not but lament the untimely birth of Master T. his Exercitation and his unnecessary falling intravell with it after at least sixe able Brethren and above so many daies by nervous disputation had given him so much Cause to doubt of his Tenâ—t or at least a while to suspend it And this hath been by sundry persons objected to me that the publishing my Booke was extreamly unseasonable Two reasons are implyed in Doctor Homes his words to insinuate that it was untimely because it was unnecessary Secondly because it was after such a nervous disputation as he mentions To that of needlesnesse I answer If it were necessary to maintaine Truth though generally opposed when few or none were willing to appeare for it and speciall providence called me out to do it if it were necessary to endeavour the preventing of unjust persecution for holding a Truth to which in Sermons and other waies Law-makers and Magistrates were every where instigated if it were necessary when the people of God were perplexed about a poynt of conscience that pertaines to their continuall practice and disputation in publike was declined to endeavour the bringing of Truth to light if it were necessary for a man to keep the solemne Covenant he hath by oath bound himselfe to though it were to his great hazzard if it were necessary in a time of Reformation for a Minister of the Gospell to do what belonged to him to further it if it be necessary for a Minister of the Gospell to provide for the giving of his account at the day of Jesus Christ then it was necessary for me to fall in travell with my Exercitation and examen for all these ends and ties concurred in the writing and publishing of my Treatises And therefore I am assured that what I did was so necessary that had I not done what I did I should neither have been faithfull to Christ nor to his people nor to the State nor to my own soule I confesse my Book was untimely published in reference to my own preferment and outward peace I saw few or none regarded for clearing of Truth but popular Orators such as relate to great men or are usefull to uphold a Party are the men esteemed I could not expect any other then opposition to my opinion being against such a stream of men But I feared that of our Lord Christ He that is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinfull Generation of him shall the Son of man be ashamed when he shall come in his glory with his holy Angels How nervous the disputation he mentions was I suppose the Doctor knowes not but by report forasmuch as I never perceived him present at it The strength and substance of all the Arguments as well as my memory who was then the respondent could beare them away was faithfully digested by me in my Exercitation which was composed not long after in part upon occasion of that disputation In which disputation I was so farre from finding cause to doubt of my Tenet that I professe sincerely both that disputation and the severall Answers of my learned Antagonists and reverend brethren Doctor Homes and Master Geree and Master Marshall have giuen me lesse cause to doubt of my Tenet especially sith Master Marshall Pag. 116. of his Defence saies it was never asserted by him That the Câ—venant of saving Grace is made to Beleevers and their naturall seed and Pag. 92. The command is the cause of the existence of the duty but the Covenant of Grace is the motive to it and Pag. 182. he grants that the formall reason which is the adequate reason of the Iewes being Circumcised was the command of God the Covenant of Grace or their Church-state he only makes the motive to it and the thing it related to which with many more concessions in his Defence and the others Answers I doubt not but if the Lord vouchiâ—ase me time and liberty to improve to the overthrow of his first and maine Argument and the inference he makes from the Texts of Scripture he brings to confirme it and consequently his whole Cause as he himselfe confesseth in his Sermon Pag. 26. And for giving me cause to suspend my 〈◊〉 if he mean by suspension stifling my doubts in mine own bosome and never imparting them to learned men for resolution it had been in my apprehension extreame imprudence if not stupidity to have let slip the opportunity of making known the reasons of my doubts in this juncture of time in which by Covenant the State was engaged to settle worship Catechizing confession of faith discipline according to Gods Word to each of which this point is of no small moment if he meane by suspending my Tenet the not printing my writings neither am I justly to be blamed therein considering how long I waited and yet never received any resolution and after I say not a moneth only but ten moneths at least waiting for an answer about my motion to Master Marshall in the Epilogue of my Examen it was plainly rejected And though Master Marshall excuseth himselfe by relating that I declared to him that I could and that I intimated to him I would keep the opinion private to my selfe in which either his memory or his apprehension were defective and therefore took no further thought of examining my Treatises yet I suppose it concerned Master Marshall for many reasons to have contrived some course for my satisfaction or the abatement of height of pride and confidence which the perturbation of his mind rather then the true intelligence of my spirit in that businesse made him imagine in my writings As for the unseasonablenesse in politicke respects though I do not take upon me inâ—ight therein yet so farre as my reason is able to discerne it could never have come more seasonably to have a matter of such moment discussed while Reformation and Lawes confirming it were yet in fieri all men knowing that it is too late to speake when the Legislative power hath fully enacted a Law And whereas Master Marshall saies he verily thought I would have 〈◊〉 qâ—iet by down preached kept my opinion to my self and not have any further appeared especially at this time to encrease the flame of 〈…〉 I answer For my quiet sitting
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 thought it necessary to say thus much not to vilifie Mr Gâ—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 reciâ—â— 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 Dâ—feâ—câ— 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 truâ— 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 Antiquâ—ty not Apostolicall and 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 Molâ—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 nâ—w taâ—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 alleadgeth 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
which reason if good it would follow they might have the Lords Supper be ordained Ministers for these are lesse then Chrisâ—s blessing Afore the printing of this Apology I met with and read a book of 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 â—yâ—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 satisfâ—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 Discipâ—â—s which may be done by a part for the whole then are such â— 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 bâ—e taught 〈◊〉 pag. 4. And what a parent can doe over his child in matter of 〈◊〉 duty â— that may the parents of the country the Magistrates require of 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 play-game 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 childâ—â— 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 dâ—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 organâ—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 â—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 sent 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 belâ—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 adultâ—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 â—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 workâ—â— 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
sentence condemning all the infants of beleevers as having nothing to doe with the covenant of Grace his imputing to me as if I held that they all belong actually to 〈◊〉 kingdom of the devill no more promise for them then for children of Turks their actuall standing in the visible kingdome of the devill Pag. 67. A large disquiâ—ition 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 proves not Infant-baptisme Pag. 78. Sect. 15. Of master marshals unjust charge against me as darkning his argument and casting filth in the face of the Assembly Pag. 80. Sect. 16. Of master Marshals untrue charge against me as if I rested on Grotius in setting down the tenent of Antiquiry upon occasion of which the tenent of Antiquity is again examined my judgement of their doctrine vindicated master Marshals new allegations answered and my diligence to find out their tenets manifested Pag 91. Sect. 17. Of my opinion about excommunication Church-government the admission unto all ordinances my former conformity alleaged to allenate mens minds from me and my writings Pag. 9. Sect. 18. Of the vanity of master Leyes 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. Colos 2. 12. Mat. 28. 19. Acts 16. 15. Mat. 19 14. c. Pag. 97. Baptisme and the rite of eating bread and drinking wine at the passeover though old rites among the Iewes yet used to another end and after another rule by christians Pag. 98. The command confessed to be the formall reason of circumcision by mr marshall Circumcision a priviledge proper to the Jewish Church-state Pag. 99. No command about the Jewes Sacraments now in force Pag. 100. Infants not disciples as Mat. 28. 19 is meant Baptizing housholds inferres not infant-baptisme Pag. 101. We have no evidence for judgement of charity concerning infants nor is a judgment of charity to be our rule in administring baptisme Pag. 102. Sect. 19. Of master Hussey his pretended satisfactory answer to my Exercitation Pag. 106. Sect. 20 The Epilogue of this Apology concerning the reason of the enlargeing of it the Authours present estate and future intentions The Contents of the Postscript PAge 109. Sect. 1. The occasion of this Postscript â— Sect. 2. Of M. Calamy and Mr. Vâ—nes their wrong judgement of the dispute mast Blakes book and my discussing the point P. 111. sect 3. Of master Blakes charge of defect of charity and some other imputations Pag. 112. sect 4. They that deny infant-baptisme need not teach that infants perish Pag 113. sect 5. Of my censure of master Blakes producing Gal. 4 29. for the birth-priviledge Pag. 114. sect 6. Of the necessity of my taking pâ—ins in my Examen to find out the meaning of master Marshals second conclusion by reason of the ambiguity of his expressions Pag. 120. sect 7. Of the Corinthians doubt 1 Cor. 7. 12. 13. 14. Pag. 121. sect 8. 1 Cor. 7. 14. is not meant of instrumental sanctification federal holines P. 125. sect 9. Of mast Blakes misallegation of Gal. 2. 15. which was the text he chose for his birth-priviledge Pag. 128. sect 10. That 1 Pet. 2. 9. is meant of the Church invisible Pag. 130. sect 11. Of precedents for womens receiving the Lords supper P. 131. sect 12. To say that God hath promised to be the God of every beleever and his naturall seed is a new Gospell P. 132. sect 13. Of master Rutherfurds and M. Blakes opinion about holinesse of a chosen nation and mediate Ancestours profession intitling to infantbaptisme and the Independents advantage in this point Pag. 134. sect 14. Of the word nations matth 2â— 19. how to be taken Pag. 135. sect 15. of master Ruthersfurds and master Blakes and mine opinion concerning the rule to know who are baptizable Pag. 138. sect 16. About two suppositions aâ—criby me to master marshall and master Blake in my Examen page 130. Pag. 140. sect 17. About arguments drawâ—â— from Analogy in positive rites and their invalidity and the insufficiency of master Blakes rules Pag. 145. sect 28. That Master Blake hath not proved that infants are disciples from Matth. 18. 5. nor pertinently alleaged Isai 49 2â— Pag. 147. sect 19. Of baptizing â—ousâ—olds and 〈◊〉 censure of Mr Blakes speech concerning it Pag. 149. sect 20. About Matth. 19 14. that by the kingdome of heaven is meant the kingdome of glory Pag. 151. sect 21. That God seales not to every person that is rightly baptized that his covenant of grace belongs only to the elect that his covenant is effectuall and leaves it not to mans liberty to include or exclude himselfe Pag. 155. sect 22. Of Mr Blakes unjust crimination of 〈◊〉 as putting the children of beleevers out of the covenant of Grace and the Epilogue of this Postscript An Apology for the two Treatises and Appendix to them concerning Infant-Baptisme against the unjust Charges Complaints and Censures of D. Nathanael Homes M. John Geree and M. Steven Marshall and M. John Ley. DEcember 15 164â— were published with my consent two Treatises and an Appendix to them concerning Infant-Baptisme The writing that could not in nineteene moneths before obtaine a few lines hath now gained foure answers in foure moneths In January came forth Treatise of one Thomas Bakewell in which the Title pretends a briefe answer to my twelve doubtfull Arguments as he stiles them against Infant-baptism in my Exercitation about it This Treatise I think hath honour enough done it that it is named If any man shew me any thing worth the answering in it it may in time gain a reply otherwise for me it may take it's rest The next moneth was published Doctor Homes his Vindication of baptizing Beleevers Infants in some animadversions on my Exercitation and examen The next moneth I received from Master Iohn Geree his vindicâ—ae paedobaptisms in a full answer as is asserted to my twelve Arguments in my exercitation and whatsoever is rationall or materiall in my Answer to Master Marshals Sermon The next moneth I received Master Stephen Marshall his defence of Infant-baptisme in answer to my two Treatises and Appendix in which also I am informed of two peices at least from New-England in which I am concerned And unto all or some of these Master Iohn Ley in his Epistle to Master Iohn Salâ—marsh addes his acclamation in these words There be diversâ— Davids who are ready for a single encounter with that braving Goliah and some have given his Cause such a wound already as though he may play the Montebanke with it and skin it over will never be cured at the bottom Thus farre they have spoken I presume they will allow me now liberty to speake for my selfe and for the truth My Cause as Master Ley cals it
down and preaching Christ I can boldly and cheerefully appeale to my Auditors of these Honourable Societies whereof not a few are eminent persons in the Honourable house of Commons For my appâ—â—ring at this time I have given reasons which I suppose conscientious men will conceive weighty yea and preponderating 〈◊〉 divisions that may happen if that of Augustine be true 〈…〉 Nor do I know that any such divisions or confusions have happened by reason of my Teâ—â—ises or are likely to happen but rather the contrary And if any divisions be now about that opinion they were afore my Treatises were published and if they encrease they are rather to be imputed to the violence of those Preachers who instigate the Magistrate to exâ—â—pate such as Heretickes who hold the opinion then to me who by practice and profession do hold Communion with them that differ from me and abhorse separation from my 〈…〉 this regard Nor do I doubt but that if it were not for the rigous of many Preachers a way might be found for Reformation in this matter without such a flame of division and confusion as Master Marshall apprehends But I wish that as in Germany the rigidnesse of some men was the destruction of the Protestants there so it happen not in like manner in England Another objection I meet with is that I have printed my Treatises contrary to the intâ—mation or as some alleage promise I made to Master Marshall which Master Marshall writing to me thus expresseth Pag. 1 2. of his Defence But when after some friendly conference with you you declared to me that if you might enjoy liberty to exercise your Ministâ—ry in some place where you should not be put upon the practice of baptizing of Infants you could yea and intimated to 〈◊〉 that you would keep this opinion privatâ— to your selfe provided only that of any should preach in your pulpit for the baptizing of them you should take your selfe bound in the same place to preach against it otherwise mâ—ns preaching or printing abroad should be no provocation to you And Pag. 244. Master Marshall faith thus For even to New England have some sent your writings and sufficiently in them showed your scorne of Master Thomas Goodwin Master Vines and my selfe as our friends do from thence write unto us That I may clearely and fully answer this charge and the former and state my selfe and proceedings right in the thoughts of men I think it necessary to make this following Declaration It hapned that in the yeare 1627. reading the Catechisme Lecture at Magdalen Hall in Oxford and having occasion in one of my Lectures to examine whether there be such a priviledge to the children of Beleevers that they should be accounted to belong to the Covenant and Church of God I found not sufficient ground either from Gen. 17. 7. or from the institution of Circumcision for the affirmative in that question The substance of my reasons then against the Argument drawn from Circumcision to baptisme I have compacted in that short discourse which is part 2 § 8. Pag. 29. of my Examen and begins at those words I dare not assent c. Which being the chiefe thing I stand upon I wonder Master Marshall so lightly passeth over calling it a tedious discourse altering my words and saying nothing to the reason I bring Wherefore then and since I declined the urging of those reasons for it and wholly rested on 1 Cor. 7. 14. conceiving that those words but now are they holy did import that priviledge to the children of a Beleeving Parent And accordingly practised baptizing of Infants upon the warrant of that Text only as I often told my Auditors at Lemster in Hereford-shire which some now about the City can witnesse It happened after I was necessitated to leave my place through the violence of the Kings Party after much wandring up and down with much danger to me and mine I came to the City of Bristoll and there preached for halfe a yeare in which time in dispute with an Antipaedobaptist I urged that Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. which he answered with so much evidence as that although I did not fully assent unto him yet as one that durst not oppose Truth who ever brought it I resolved with my selfe to consider that matter more full and to that end being enfeebled with labour in preaching and griefe by reason of the publike losses at that time and advised by my Physitian to remove out of Bristoll understanding the Assembly was to sit in Iuly 1643. I resolved to adventure a journey to London through Wiltshire to conferre with my Brethren of the Assembly and by the advantage of Books in London to make further search into that point It pleased God to stop my journey then by that sad and unexpected overthrow neere Devizes which necessitated me to get away from Bristoll by Sea into Pembrokeshire While I was there I chanced to meet with Vessius his theses de poedobaptismo and therin reading Cyprians and others of the Ancients Testimonies I suspected that in point of antiquity the matter was not so cleare as I had taken it but weighing those passages I conceived that the Ancients held only baptizing of Infants in the case of supposed necessity conceiving that by baptisme Grace was given and that all are to be saved from perishing and after in processe of time it became ordinary Wherefore I resolved if ever I came to London to search further into those two points of the meaning of 1 Cor. 7. 14. and the History of Paedobaptisme and accordingly God having brought my wife and children with much difficulty to me after a second plunder and by remarkable providence turning the wind against the Ships when they went without us bringing us out of Pembrokshire the day before it was appointed by the Kings Forces to send to apprehend me making the wind serve for a speedy voyage in foure dayes from Milford Haven to the Downes presently upon the receiving us into the Ship which I hope I shall ever remember to the praise of our God being come to London September 22. 1643. I applied my selfe to enquire into the points forenamed It happened that whereas I had this prejudice against the interpreting of the holinesse of the children 1 Cor. 7. 14. of Legitimation that no learned Protestant had so expounded it meeting with 〈◊〉 his notes not long before printed at Cambridge I found him of that opinion and after him Musculus and Melancthon and finding that the Sanctification in the forepart of the verse must be understood of lawfull copulation expressed by Beza thus Fidelis uxor potest cum infideli marito bona conscientia consuescere which sense only was sutable to the case resolved by the Apostle whether they might still continue together I observed that the Apostle speaking of the unbeleeving party mentions his unbeliefe but when he mentions the Beleever expresseth only the relation of husband and wife and that the reason of
the Apostle to prove their lawfull copulation is an Argument ab absurdo and including this proposition All those children whereof one of the parents is not sanctified to the other by lawfull cepulaetion are â—ncleaâ—e which being expounded of federall uncleanesse were false and is only true of bastardy I concluded that it was the meaning of the Apostle and could be no other Whereupon when in a meeting of Ministers in the City of London the question was propounded what Scripture there was for Infant-baptisme I told my Brethâ—â—n plainly that I doubted there was none This occasioned the Dispute Doctor Homes speakes of which happened about January 1643. Concerning which though some gave out I was satisfied by it others that I was so convinced that I had nothing to say yet the truth is this was all the ground of those reports that having at first stood upon it that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such Matth. 19. 14. was meant only of such like it being urged that then it could not be a reason why they should suffer those children to be brought to Christ I yeelded that it was to be expounded as Beza expounded it horum similium ut supra as I expresse in my Exercitation and further granted that if when Christ saith of these is the Kingdom of God he meant of their present state of regeneration they might be baptized but that our Saviour meant it of their present state I did not grant and I further yeelded that I should not sticke at the baptisme of an Infant concerning whom I should be certified from God that it was actually regenerate and beleeving meaning no more but this that such a certificate would warrant me in such a case to baptize it being all one with a profession of faith as signes made by a dumbe person that he was a Christian would warrant his baptisme This concession being made meerely upon a supposition of an extraordinary revelation first Maâ—ter Bâ—â—ke and after him Master Marshall have often urged though they have been often tould that a common rule cannot be drawn from an extraordinary case Not long after that Conference my most loving and reverend Father in law Master Henry Scudder fearing the event of this matter after some writing that past betweene us advised me to draw up the reasons of my doubts and he undertook to present them to the Committee chosen as I conceived it to give satisfaction about that point which I conceived might well be by the leave of the Parliament as the appointing the Assembly to give satisfaction about some doubts in taking the Covenant And if the Committee as a Committe could not do it which I suppose they might have done by communicating what after debate was prepared for the Assembly which I presume was certainly it should have been accurately done with examination of what could be objected afore those Articles in the Directory about this matter were passed yet particular members might have done somewhat to satisfie me who would have been then and shall be yet satisfied with one convincing argument that it was Christs appointment that the Infants of Beleevers because they are borne of Beleever are to be baptized According to the advise given in a short space I first drew up the nine first Arguments in my Exercitation which were delivered as I relate in my Examen in February and March 1643. and after in Iuly following the other three Which I said in my Examen were delivered to Master Tuckney but Master Marshall tels me he doth deny it yet I conceive my Father Scudder told me so who I am sure would speake truth and when I read that to him he did not correct me in it and Master Thomas Goodwin still saies he had them after Master Tuckney had perused them Besides these Papers that satisfaction might more compendiously be given me at the motion of my reverend Father in law I set down in one page of a Paper in quarto the maine ground of my doubt and delivered it to him whether he communicated it to any else I know not my end was that satisfaction to me might more easily be procured This short thing I after put in my Examen Part. 2. § 8. as I said above which Master Marshall calls a tedious discourse though it containes lesse then forty lines and if it had been well answered might have eased Master Marshall of the rest of his labour Now the Papers before named I perceived were tossed up and down from one to another and it seemes Master Edwards the Controversie Lecturer at Christ-Church got them and picking out some passages but concealing others that would have cleared them under pretence of refuting them with the writing of another which he joyned with mine meerly abused me in the Pulpit at Christ-Church which I immediately charged him with after his Sermon in the Vestry and he only excused it by telling me he named me not though there were sundry Ministers there that knew he meant me But this it seemes is like Master Edwards his justice to other men In this time I attended Master Thomas Goodwins Lectures about that Argument had the patience to heare Master Edwards his discourse at Christ Church and read many Treatises and Sermons in many of which I found rather invectives than arguments It happened that the Parishioners of Fanchurch became disaffected to me and refused to heare me though I medled not at all with that matter in the Pulpit and I perceived my maintenance was likely to be withdrawn at the end of the yeare Hereupon one of the Assembly my loving friend understanding that the Honourable Societies of the Temples wanted a Preacher sollicited the bringing of me thither But the matter was by the Honourable House of Commons referred to the Assembly who chose a Committee to nominate a Preacher for them of which Committee Master Marshall was one by whom I was rejected Presently after which rejection having occasion of businesse in the behalfe of some godly Pembrokeshire Ministers with that worthy Gentleman Master Iohn Wâ—iâ—e Chaire-man of the Committee for plundered Ministers he would needs argue with me about that point of Infant-baptisme and after some dispute he desired to have my answer to his argument in writing Which occasion I tooke to lay open my condition to him in a Letter which begot no other fruit but a little Treatise intituled Infants Baptisme proved lawfull by Scripture Shortly after in August 1644. I met with Master Marshal's Sermon and finding the vehemency of his spirit against Antipaedobaptists and having had experience both of his and Master Whites inflexiblenesse by my former writings and seeing no likelihood of imploiment and maintenance for me and mine except I would gather a separated Church which I durst not do as not knowing how to justifie such a practice I resolved to make a full answer to Master Marshals Sermon and finished it November 11. and having with much difficulty transcribed one Copy and gotten another
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 my 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 moneth 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 uâ—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 â—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 that 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 Bradshaâ— 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 Aâ—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 Sword 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 Eâ—â—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
thought it best to answer 1. By granting much of the relation to be true though perhaps vehemency of opposition â—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 shall 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 iâ— 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 guesse whether I intâ—â—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 thâ—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 â—eremoniâ—s To this Master Marshall saith The rest of that Section is to me extreamely scandalous when I read your odious comparâ—â—â—â—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 Vinaâ—â—câ—â— paedobaptâ—smi wonders at me that I should compare the troubles of the Non-conformists and the Anabaptists and marvaâ—les such an uncharitable and unjust thought should arise in me that divisions or other miscarriages of the Non-conformists should 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 Purâ—tan 〈◊〉 Non-conformist and in the end saith thus Râ—ader sâ—ing a passage 〈◊〉 Master Tombes his book against Pâ—dob â—ptâ—sme where in he compares the Non-conformists in England to the Anabaptists in Germany in regard of their miscarrâ—ages and ill successe in them endeavours till of late yeares I was moved for the vindâ—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
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 There is yet another charge against me that flies higher and comes â—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 impâ—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 setâ—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 carpâ—â—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 ambigâ—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◠〈…〉 Arminiuâ— 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 châ—â—ge is as vaâ—â—e for the quotations are not multitudes 〈◊〉 so many as that praise worthy writer Master Gatâ—â—er 〈◊〉 of them 〈…〉 not for amusing the Reader but for 〈…〉 speakes it of himselfe and I there through mistake of memory put Arâ—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 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 Covâ—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 â—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 moâ—â— 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 sâ—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 Grâ—â—â— was made to them all sith all the Elect persons have the Covenanâ— made to them as the Apostle supposeth Rom. 9. 8. and yet are not actually regenerate 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. knâ—w learned Master P. I thinke he meanes Master William Pemble of Magdalen Hâ—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 as they may be a Cothurnus which were more fit for a Canon of the Counâ—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 dâ—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 mediâ—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. Gâ—ree Pag. 13. if I understand him aright makes this the sense of the Directorâ— 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 that 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 â—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 of 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 vâ—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 causâ— 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
had need to be watched 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 qâ—â—stioned before 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 eaâ—â— 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 currâ—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 â—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 none 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 Master 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 â—â—llius addictuÌ„ jurare in verba â—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 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 〈◊〉 silenâ—io contemptu for why should I not since in that very place of my Sacrament Part. 1. Pag. 78. 79. where I confute thosâ— Schosmaticks he 〈◊〉 my words from their own Defence My words are I confesse my self unconvinced by any demonstration of Scripture for â—â—â—dabaptisme meaning by any positive Text what is that to helpe him except I thought there were no other arguments to â—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 disaâ—ull a Christian Sabbath or women kind not to be partakers
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 familiaâ—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 right 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 Irenâ—â—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 Pâ—lagianos and I find not there those words onely 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 monstraverâ—â— pâ—ululum accâ—pitâ— I deny not but that those wordes may be in 〈◊〉 but if Master Marshall had given me more certaine 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 meritâ— remiss c. 5. c. And yet he that reads that Epistle of Cyprian shall find Cyprian onely 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 â— Apostolica traditione qua Ecclesia Christi iâ—situm tenent prâ—ter baptismum participationem Dominicae meâ—sâ— 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 but 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 aâ— 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 onely 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 may judge of this testimony I wil set down the words as I find theÌ„ 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 venâ—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 quâ—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 peccaâ—â—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 vouchsaâ—â—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 Tâ—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 see paedobaptisme proved either of Scripture or primitive Antiquity But for this testimony of Tertullian my stomacke was quickly eased of it as finding not onely 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 onely 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 onely 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 onely are to be baptized by vertue of the Covenant I find that they argued thus from circumcision 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
to have been 〈◊〉 ipsis Apostorum temporibâ—â— meeting since the printing of that passage with the booke I find that in that Epistle he only confessed it to have been a secule Apostolis proximo but Bishop Andrewes saith he had put out that which elswhere he said ab Apostolorum siculâ— Whence my mistake of memory conceiving he had said it there which he said elswhere but altered it in that Epistle 2. That though I had seen most of the latter part of Mr. Blakes answer to my letter have dayes before yet I had not the whole booke till Aug. 3. 1646 at which time the tenth sâ—eet of this Apology was printing off and therefore I cannot give thee so large 〈◊〉 on it as I desired to doe yet I have thought it 〈◊〉 say thus much in this streight of time as not knowing how I may be hereâ—â— fitted to write any more The Book is â—hered with a preface of Mr. Calmys and Mr. 〈◊〉 in which they say The right of Infants to baptisme is earâ—â— strongly by 〈◊〉 arguments if leg it 〈◊〉 couse quener can make a 〈◊〉 evidence To which I say that Master Marshals first argument is accounted the strongest and that is far from being 〈◊〉 as hath been shewed above They say The 〈◊〉 of the Church in all ages in baptizing them is 〈◊〉 by such undeâ—â— testimonies of credible witnesses that he that doth not see it may well be called Strabo that is goggle eyed How true this is the Reader may perceive by the Examen of Master Marshals Sermon and this Apology The best or rather only witnesse of ancients for such a practise is Augustâ—n concerning whom how litle reason there is to count his speech and undiable hath been before declared here and in the Examen They say of the Birth-priviledge of Master Blake where thou shalt find the question so truely stated and set upon the right Basis and so well fortified that though there hath been a dust raised by some who have a better faculty to raffle and intricate an argument than to wind it off yet there is not the least wing of it routed To this I say the state of the question hath small difficulty litle or no disagreement between me and Master Marshall and Master Geree and I thinke the like of others If by the Basiâ— is meant Master Blakes observation pag. 3. of the Birth-priviledge A people that enjoy Gods ordinances convey to their issue a 〈◊〉 to be reputed of a society that is holy to be numbred amongst not â—ncleane but holy This observation is ambiguous it may be true in a sense that it so happens frequently but if it be meant in this sense that they convey by their generation of them a right of visible Church-membership and title to the initiall seale as it is usually called it is not true which onely serves for the purpose Now the wings by which that observation is fortifyed out of the new Testament wherein the strength lyes are Acts 2. 38. 39. Rom. 11. 16 17. 1 Pet. 2. 9. Gal. 4. 29. Gal. 2. 15. 1 Cor. 7. 14. now for three of these to wit 1 Pet. 2. 9. Gal. 4. 29. Gal. 2. 15. they flye of themselves the first expressely being spoken of them onely that beleeve v. 7. the second to wit being born after the flesh cannot be understood as importing a priviledge or benefit it being spoken of persons to the worser sense and causing a casting out of the inheritance the third is meant not of a Jew allusively so called but of a Jew by naturall generation opposed to a Gentile and so cannot be said of the children of believing Gentiles nor can all Master Blakes words keep them from running out of the field The text Acts 2. 39. if it be understood as it must of the promise of saving graces by Christ cannot be verified of any but those that are called which it being confessed to limit the first branch of the Propposition and the last you and as many as are afarre off it is to mee against reason and truth that it should be left out in the middle that is that when it is said the promise is to you and to all that are afarre off being called it should be asserted in that branch that is between the promise is to your children whether called or not Of Rom. 11. 16 17. I have said sufficiently before Of 1 Cor. 7. 14. somewhat also before and intend more in this postscript If Mr Calamy and Mr. Vines accuse me of raising a dust and raffling and intricating an argument which I imagine they doe because the raising of a dust is Master Marshals phrase they are answered in this Apology My entring into the lists with Mr Marshall was not out of choice as valuing my self as they mistake but out of necessity lead thereto by providence of God How well I have acquitted my selfe may appeare by the bringing of Master Marshall to many concessions which overthrow his first argument Whether this answer of Master Blake be sinewy for argument I hope in time to examine I conceive that to put the question upon the right Basis is to examine whether the formall reason why the Jewes were circumcised were their interest in the Covenant whether there be the same Church-state now that was then whether any command about the Jewes Sacraments now bind us But I passe to Mr Blakes answer Mr Blake chargeth me with defect and neglect of charity For the former I doe not take my writing to discover it what I shall deprehend I have failed in I shall I hope confesse to God and to Master Blake when we meet My not speaking to Master Blake was because I presumed Master Marshall had acquainted him with the thing and the reason of printing my Treatises as they were is declared above Why I would not take upon me the place of opponent in the dispute with my brethren I gave the reason because the argument would presently lead them to oppose this being al my argument against Infant-baptism that I could wel urge in dispute that it is not appointed by God and so presently upon one or two syllogismes they must become opponents again sith affirmanti incumbit probatio I sent not my Exercitation to my opponents because I was advised to send to the Committee named in the Prologue of my Examen the rest is answered in the Apology To the point of antiquity in Ch. 2. I thinke not needfull to adde any more here To the third chapter sect c. Master Blake because I said Examen pag. 144. these I mention that you may see what stuffe Paedobaptists do feed the people with doth theâ—â— against reason and charity inferre that I branded therein all the Ministers of Christ that ever held Infant-baptisme whereas my speech being indefinite should in such a contingent matter have been interpreted only as equipollent to a particular proposition 〈◊〉 the words were used onely of that Author and such as delivered
like doctrine with particular exception of Master Marshall and many others there named Passion I confesse was in me sometimes in writing my examen a mixt passion of griefe and indignation that Preachers of the Gospell should be so hard as then I found and saw likely would be more to their dissenting brethren upon such weake reasons But such contuâ—â—licus consurer and practises as Master Blakes sinister conceits pâ—t upon me I deny To the second section I answer that I still conceive they that deny Infant-baptisme and grant originall sinne are 〈◊〉 necessitated to say that Infants perish in their birthsâ—â— It is true as Master Blake sayes they that will hold a certainty of the salvation of such Infants they must maintain a promise or covenant to them but such a covenant I deny to be made as assures salvation to the Infants of beleevers and I have proved at large Examen part 3. § 4. there is not such a Covenant If that Gen. 17. 7. be produceed I have proved that it was particularly spoken of Abrahams feed expounded Rom. 9. 8. not to be meant of his naturall feed but spirituall and therefore till it be proved that all Infants of believers dying in Infancy are Abrahams spirituall feed that promise will not inferre the certainty of their salvation Therefore this is my judgement that God will have us to suspend our judgement of this matter to rest on the Apostles determination Rom. 9. 18. But they that hold that there is no certainty of their salvation are not necessitated to hold a certainty of their perdition for there is a medium between both a hope though not certain yet probable and comfortable that the children of believers dying in their Infancy are saved taken from some generall indefinite promises the favour of God to the parents and the experience that in all ages hath been had of his mercifull dealing with the children of his servants all which cannot be said of the Infants of Infidels though on the other side we must not so exclude the Infants of Infidels as to affirme that none of them are saved For though the Gentiles were without hope Ephes 2. 12. in respect of the body of them yet now and then God called some as Rabâ—â— out of the visible Châ—â—ch and therefore we may not determine universally that out of the visible Church there is no salâ—â—tion at all but leave this to Gods free-will It doth not 〈◊〉 follow thaâ— beathens have equall hopes of salâ—â—â—ion with Infants of 〈…〉 For though they have not hopes from their innocency in themselves or certaine interest in Christ yet they have more probable hopes of interest in Christ upon the gâ—â—â—ds 〈…〉 And thus is that section answered The fourth chapter is about my censure of his argument from Gal. 41 29. as containing very grosse passages He aceâ—seth me as one that intended not any 〈…〉 because I bring but one branch of the 〈◊〉 in his argument and yet call it his medium But â—ith I intended not a full answer to him but to Master Marshall it was enough that I onely reciâ—ed that in which was indeed the strength of his argument which was that birth after the flesh ascribed to some now Gal. 4. 29. imports a priviledge 〈…〉 Church intâ—â—st to 〈…〉 the bosâ—â— of the Church of Christians In saying this was very grosse I sayed no more then that which was right the Apostle opposing persons borne after the flesh to them that are borne after the spirit to be cast out and not to inherit But sayes Master Blâ—ke you shut out the literall sense of birth after the flesh both from the history and parallel and bring aâ— allagericall 〈◊〉 in both when the 〈◊〉 in the text is evident I answer I shut not out the literall sense from the history but from the parallel and that iâ— so farre from being contrary to the text that it is expresly said these things are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But he further objects you make birth after the flesh and birth of the spirit two contradistinct species of births that both cannot be incident 〈…〉 it is the distribution of a subject 〈…〉 I answer I make them not onely contradistinct but also contraâ—â— and I deny that it is a distribution 〈…〉 For them the same person should be both borne after the flesh and after the spirit which I would tell Master Blake to be very absurd but that I would give him no more occasion to say I do insult whoop and jeere which he unjustly chargeth on me And for that he saith that Isaack was borne after the flesh though it be true he was so in the two senses Master Blake mentions which are nothing to this place of the Apostle it is untrue in the Apostles sense for then he should be the child of the bondmayd not by promise a persecutor to be cast out not to inherit and a type of legall justiciaries belonging to the covenant in mount Sinai for all these things are true of him that is borne after the flesh Gal. 4 22 c. But the Apostle doth not say that they are cast out but mentions a command of casting them out As if Gods dictum were not factum if they were not cast out why doth the Apostle alleage that text But they are in the Church otherwise they could not be cast out I answer I deny not but legall institiaries may be in the visible Church as Ishmael in Abrahams house though the Apostle make the parallel only in the casting out that they might not inherit but if Master Blake would gather any thing hence for his purpose he must prove that the Apostle makes some to be in the visible Church by vertue of being borne after the flesh as their prerogative which is as wide from the Apostles meaning as East West But saith Master Blake where I pray you do I make suoh Abrahams seed it is no grosse errour of mine but a grosse device or calumny of yours I answer his words if there yet remaine in the bosome of the Church children borne after the flesh so that distinction of births as applied to Abrahams seed still hath place amongst beleeving Christians shew that he applied birth of the flesh to Abrahams seed else why are those words put in at applied to Abrahams seed but to shew a double seed of Abraham one borne after the flesh which is all one with the Apostle as legall institiaries another borne after the spirit which is all one as bebeleevers so that this is Master Blakes tergiversation not my calumny In The fifth chapter Mr Blake complaines that I take more paines then needs to find out Master Marshals meaning in his second conclusion and after And indeed I never saw a learned man so run himselfe into a maze needlesly as you in this discourse do being at a stand you say whether Master Marshall meanes a covenant of grace or outward ordinances as though
or birth as here Master Blake rightly expounds the word nature but from faith as the term seed of Abraham and the Israel of God and the term circumcision Philip. 3. 3. so that Master Blakes owne exposition overthrowes his owne inference But then saith Master Blake our children must be under sinners of the Gentiles and so they are aliens dogs without hope c. Ephes 2. 12. I answer our children are of the Gentiles who were sinners and as the Apostle speaâ—â—s Ephes 2. 12. at that time that went before their calling strangers from the Covenant of promise c. But it doth not follow that he that saith our children are of the Gentiles who were once strangers from God and so called sinners according to their condition then must hold that they 〈◊〉 now The most godly beleever now is under the second mother of the distinction being born of Gentile parents and yet not as the Gentiles were then stranger from Christ Master Blake is most vaine in saying that by my tâ—not there were ne more hope of the salvation of a Christians Infâ—â—â— then of Numa I acknowledge no such matter nor doth any such thing follow from my words which are plaine and true Master Blake should if he would have dealt fairly have showed 〈◊〉 of which words and how that followes which he obtand 〈◊〉 me When I said the Iewes birth priviledge did not 〈◊〉 them to the Covenant of grace I meant the same with the Apostle 〈◊〉 yet they had this benefit by their birth that they were among the people of God had the priviledge of 〈◊〉 according to the Church-state then were to eat the 〈◊〉 come into the court of the Temple had the law Christ was to come of them Rom. 9. 4 5. Rom. 3. 〈◊〉 and yet many of them not children of the promise The 〈◊〉 of grace being made by God doth promise to all and every person to whom that Covenant is made that he shall be effectually wrought upon I said the common priviledge of cirâ—â—â—sion belonging to the Jewes did not arise from the Covenant of grâ—â— recording to the substance of it but according to the administration that then was My meaning was circumcision was common to them which had no part in the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. neither an interest in the Evangelicall nor houshold promises made to Abraham as for instance Ismael and therefor I say it did not arise from the Covenant of grace or parents faith as the formal reason why Infants were circumcised but from Gods command according to that Church-state that then he thought good to appoint This being clear from Gal. 3 4. Master Blake interprets it as if I had said circumcision was not a signe of the substance of the Covenant and runs out in a large discourse to prove the contrary which toucheth not me who have expressely granted it Exercit pag. 3. Examen pag. 39 c. And it is a meer calumny in Master Blake to to tell me that I close with the Jesuites and with high disdaine shake off the doctrine of the Protestants But saith Master Blake pag. 43. you say in your exercitation pag. 2. The Covenant made with Abraham is not a pâ—â—e Gospell Covenant but mixt In the same place I explaine my meaning and prove it so fully that I wonder that Master Marshall Master Blake and others are not ashamed to except against it What the Jesuites say in this matter or what the Protestants say against them I have not time to examine The thing as I deliver it is plaine according to Scripture that there were some peculiar promises made to Abraham Ge. 17. which are not made to every beleever To tell us that godlinesse hath the promise of the life that now is 1 Tim. 4. 8. is nothing to the present purpose for it doth not follow therefore that godlinesse hath the promise of the Land of Canaan or that Christ should be every godly mans seed c. Mr Blake saith circumcision was a fruit of the faith of the parents but this is false for then all none but children of beleevers were to be circumcised which is not true whose children soever they were if in Abrahams house if bought with money of any stranger they were to be circumcised I had said circumcision was a priviledge in that time of the Churches minority and this the Apostle delivers Gal. 3. 4. Mr Blake takes it as if I had said the fruition of the promises in such a latitude were onely a priviledge during the time of the Churches minority and would have me give some Scripture or colour of reason for it which is to impose on me the proving of that I affirme not I said he that will prove the birth priviledge of our children from the Jewes must make our case as theirs and so bring us under the ceremoniall law This Master Blake puts into a formall proposition of his owne a man of straw and then denies it the reason of my words is plaine circumcision of Infants was from the paedagogy or peculiar Church-state of the Jewes as may be proved from Gal. 3. 25. Gal. 4. 1 2 3. and obliged to the ceremoniall law Gal. 5. 3. therefore they that from hence would draw the birth priviledge of our children must make our case the same with the Jewes and so bring us under the ceremoniall law The rest of that section is vaine and not worth a line in answer I said truely that the interpetation of 1 Cor. 7 14. of legitimation is no more to be called a singular opinion then Master Blakes and that I have proved by alleaging eleven Authors for it and can do more To the 8th chapter what he sayes of Doctor Wilmot I assent to he was a precious man and my dear friend when Master Blake shall demonstrate to me what passages in my booke of scandals are inexcusable I shall endeavour some way or other to retract them Why I did not alter one or two passages that Doctor Wilmot excepted against I shall be willing to give Master Blake the reason Master Blake is mistaken in that he saith that my friend of the Assembly that delivered my letter to Master Marshal was the man that told me of the Committee of the Assembly and advised me to present the reasons of my doubts to them it was not he but my reverend and deare Father in law And that friend of mine of the Assembly that delivered my letter to Mr Marshall tels me that though he was desirous to have Master Blakes book printed that the point might be disputed yet he did not approve many of his proofes but by his speech with me lately I conceive he did except at sundry of the same things which I did But to the matter of that chapter Letting passe the conference and the occurrence therein which was promised should not be divulged by any hearers nor was there any exact record kept of it the dispute is now
is baptizable because he conceives I hold onely true beleevers before God members of the invisible Church vessels of mercy redeemed ones are the men discipled to be baptized but who are such cannot be known Ergo by my opinion none are to be baptized M. Blake indeavours to gather that to be my opinion out of my words which are brought in obtorto cello against their intent nothing to his purpose I say that Mr Marshals words in this sense are good beleevers of every nation are the peculiar people meant 1 Pet. 2. 9. and this is meant of the invisible Church and that God hath not chosen simply the nation of the Gentiles but a people out of them Revel 5. 7. but doe I thereby expound Matth. 28. 19. as if nations there comprehended only such elect persons and true beleevers or doe I any where say that such only are Disciples and to be baptized Why then doth Mr Blake not onely here but after in another chapter to wit the 14 of his book pag. 95 96. endeavour to fasten so absurdly that upon me when he himselfe twice in this very book p. 24. 50. acknowledgeth that he hath heard it from my own mouth that baptisme is rightly administrâ—â—â—â— every professour of Christ I say pag. 158 of my Examen thâ—â—â—â—nfants being sanctified are beleevers and discipled of Christ but I no where say a sanctified person a beleever and a Disciple to be the same as Mr Blake untruly chargeth me pag. 96. for I doe not make the termes reciprocall Nor is that the advantage which I say the Independents have in this point that the holinesse that is the ground for the administratour to baptize must be reall either indeed or charitably beleeved but this is the advantage I conceive the Independents have that whereas some will have children baptized though the parents be never so wicked if they be a part of a beleeving nation or their mediate Ancestours professed the faith the Independents have advantage against them by their own plea from Gen. 17. 7. 1 Cor. 7. 14. as I shewed above In like manner Master Blake chapter 14. page 93. because I said that Infants may by extraordinary power be made Disciples as God made Iohn Baptist leap in his mothers womb and Balaame asse speak inferres against all reason and candor thus You hold this is done by the omnipotent power of God as usually as actuall faith and profession of it is wrought in them as asses are made to speake with mans voice and children in the womb leap for joy at the sensible prefence of one that speakes to their mother These you joyn together so that this is the comfort that you leave to parents when infants beleive make profession of their faith asses speak and infants in the womb know a voyce and rejoyce upon hearing it then their children may be sanctified and dying in infancy saved But what spirit is Mr Blake possessed with that he so unbrotherlike perverts my words to make me odious I say that infants are sanctified by extraordinary power not by ordinary means as hearing the word doe I therefore make this unusual It may be done in every infant of a beleever for ought I say to the contrary But you make it an extraordinary accident when you use this passage both p. 134 158. extraordinary accidents make not an ordinary rule 'T is true I use the passage in both places but do not in either make the extraordinary accident to be an infants sanctification but in the one an infants profession of faith as the very words shew pag. 134. and in the other the extraordinary revelation as is easie to be perceived by him that reads pag. 158. of my examen And thus have I answered with sect 2. ch 11. the fourteenth chapter â—â—so of Mr Blakes book Sect. 3. chap. 11. Mr. Blake â—hargeth me of imposing this supposition on him that he should strongly conceit this that Christ bid the Apostles baptize all nations after the manner that the Iewes did circumcise one nation my meaning was that he conceived that as God appointed the Jewes to circumcise parents professing faith and their infants so he bid the Apostles baptize beleeving parents and their infants I did not intend to charge him with this conceit as if he conceived that Christ bid the Apostles set up circumcision as he seems pag. 73. to imagine but that he conceived they were to baptize all nations Fathers and Infants in like manner as the Jewes circumcised Fathers and their Infants And this I conceive still must bee his meaning not knowing what other Covenant and Covenant-initiating Sacrament he could meane restrained to one nation besides the Covenant Gen. 17. and circumcision appointed to the Jewes But Mr. Blake tels me this was my calumny to say he would have the commission Mat. 28. 19. to be expounded by the precept of circumcision Gen. 17. hee meaâ—t the precept or commission Matth. 10. 6. I answer Mr Blake would have the word nations Matth. 28. 19. to comprehend infants and his reason is because the word nation was so taken when the Covenant and Covenant-initiating Sacrament was restrained to that our nation Now I appeale to any one whether in the commission Matth. 10. 6. yea or in the whole 〈…〉 word nation be taken as restrained to that one natioâ—◠〈…〉 commission was first limited nor is there any mentiâ—◠〈…〉 of Covenant or Covenant-initiating Sacrament in 〈◊〉 whole chapter nor a word that shewes that the word nation in the Apostles commission comprehended infants And therefore I could not divine more fairely then I did what Mr Blakes meaning should be in that obscure expression But saith Mr Blake you are not at the paines to make it appeaâ—â— how the words of Christ were to the Apostles in elligible if the word nation in this enlarged Commission must bee taken in my other sense and latitude then it was in their former limited commission when the Covenant and Covenant-initiating Sacrament was restrained to one nation To this I answer I took paines I think sufficient to shew how it must be understood in my Examen § 13. and therefore I shew how it was intelligible to the Apostles Many interpreters have expounded the word 〈◊〉 that I know of expounded it by Mat. 10. 6. The commission Mar. 16. 15. is the same with Mat. 28. 19. and so expoâ—â—â—â— without running to Mat. 10. 6. The other supposition 〈…〉 â—â—ceived Mr Marshals argument relied on is that the nation 〈…〉 Jewes were discipled when circumcised This Mr Blake saith I put on him but he disclaimes it The truth is I did not put it on Mr Blake but Mr Marshall though the next words speak of Mr Blake but not imputing to him the second but the first supposition As for Mr Mar. I do not find him disclaiming it And for that inference that M. Blake makes from my words as if I conceived low thoughts of Mr Blake and Mr Marshall because I
my conceived parity of reason equity or analogy where I must stay when it will be superstition and will-worship when not when my conscience may be satisfyed when not Master Blake in answer hereto layes downe three rules 1. When parity of reason or analogy doth not institute any peece of worship or the least part of the service of God but onely helpes to a right understanding of the nature use end extent of that which is instituted 2. When in our reasoning from analogy from the right understanding of any inctitution or ordinance 〈◊〉 do not rest soly on the analogy that we find with other commands but have our further reason for confirmation 3. When the analogy holds full proportion in that for which it is brought so that nothing can fairely be brought against the one but may be also concluded against the other To this I answer 1 That never a one of these rules is brought out of Gods word Not the first for there is neither declaration of such a rule nor example to prove that rule The proving of excommunicating of women from Miriams shutting out of the camp Numb 12. 14. is not a Scripture collection but a meer devise of men the argument against nonresidence from Ezek. 44. 8. is good after other arguments but without other proofe is not convincing and it is not in meer positive things but morall The argument of the Apostle 1 Cor. 9. 13. 14. is not from one positive rite to another but from an ordinance of God agreeable to common equity in the old Testament to illustrate an ordinance in the new Testament about a morall duty of righteousnesse The second and third rules are not set downe from any declaration or example in the Scripture 2 I say these rules are very uncertaine For no reason is given why they may not make a new worship who may by their analogy extend it beyond the institution in the new Testament yea it will be alleaged by Papists and others that when they appoint Surplice Purification Organs c. they do not make a new worship but adde circumstances to the ordinances of Christ Yea The second rule overthrowes all For if we may not soly rest on the analogy why at all This is enough to shew that analogy hath no strength that indeed it doth onely illustrate cannot prove what is an argument by analogy but an argument a similt If analogy could prove we might rest soly on it without any other confirmation It is true many desire more arguments but in truth if it be an argument that proves we may rely on it soly though there be no other The third rule likewise is uncertaine and vaine For how shall we knowe when the analogy holds full propoâ—tion when nothing can be fairely brought against the one but may be also concluded on the other when is the proportion full if onely when omnia sunt paria this can never happen in analogies between the rites of Moses and rites of Christ If when there is a parity in many things it will be uncertaine how many parityes will serve turne to make the proportion full what force there is in an analogy when there are more disparities And so for a rule to knowe when a thing is fairly brought whether the rule be to be taken from Logicke or the judgement of the Learned So that these rules are very uncertain 3 It is also uncertaine whether these rules be sufficient whether there be no need of any more For these rules will not exclude proofe of imparity of ministers Infant commuuion c by analogy Or if they do the same aberration from these rules that disproves the analogy for these will be incident to the analogy for Infant-baptisme We may say Infant-communion or imparity in the ministery is no more a new instituted worship then Infant baptisme they that alleage analogy for imparity of the Clergy and Infant-communion rest not soly on it it seems to be brought as fairely with as full proportion in the one as the other So that I conclude not onely with Master Rutherfurd proportions are weake proportions but also that in these positive rites and institutions they are no probations at all but meer illustrations and consequently the argument for Infant-baptisme from the analogy of Infant-circumcision is a meer nullity The rest of the section containes nothing but wrong inferences from my words I distinguish between Evangelicall promises and promises domesticall specially respecting Abrahams family If this distinction may passe then Abrahams family had no Evangelicall promises saith Master Blake you make saith he an opposition between them But what ridiculous arguing is this It 's all one as to say If gifts of grace and nature are distinguished then they that have gifts of grace can have no gifts of nature Those things that are not idem formaliter or realiter may be in eodem subjecto I oppose them he saith but how not as contraries but as disparata which is rather a distinction then an opposition Because I say circumcision signified that Moses Law was to be observed Gal. 5. 3. Master Blake excepts You are it seems of Mr Blackwoods opinion that saith circumcision did not bring any grace to the Jewes but was rather a yoke or a curse Master Blackwood hath or may answer for himself Mr. Blakes inference from my words is a meer cavil And that which he addes that I make frequent use of Bellarmines sophistry is a meer slaunder That circumcision signified the promise of the Land of Canaan I had it not from Bellarmine but if from any rather from Cameron cited by me exercit pag. 4. or rather from Gen. 17. 8. Psal 105. 11. This is enough in answer to that section Sect. 5. ch 11. Master Blake accuseth me as not setting down his argument rightly but the truth is I set not downe the argument as it is in Master Blake but as it was in Master Marshall whose very words I alleadge and that rightly But Master Blake thinkes he formed it to better advantage From Matth. 10. 42. Mar. 9. 41. compared I onely gather to that belong to Christ and to beare the name of Christ and to be a Disciple of Christ is one and the same thing But by his leave if he should meet with a punctuall respondent he would and might deny his proofe For all that he can prove from thence is that the same persons that belong to Christ are disciples of Christ but it is not true alwayes quae eidem subjecto conveniunt sunt eadem formaliter He that should say he that receives my servant receives me he that receives one that belongs to me receives me though he speak both these of the same person yet a servant and one that belongs to him are not all one and the same thing For there are other that belong to him as wife children friends besides servants And indeed to belong to Christ and to be a Disciple of Christ are not one and
the same thing To be a Disciple of Christ in all the places in the four Evangelists and Acts of the Apostles signifyes no other then one that professed Christ to be his master and followed his Doctrine as the Disciples of John the Pharisees and others did follow their Doctrine but many belong to Christ yet uncalled all that his Father hath given unto him the Angels that are his Ministers belong to him and yet cannot in the Scripture acception be termed Christs Disciples But I assume saith Master Blake that Infants are of the number of those who as Disciples in Christs account do belong to him Matth. â—â— 5. I said the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes not alwayes an Infant for Iâ—â—rus daughter though twelve yeare old is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Marke 5. 41. 42. and yet that age might be a patterne of humility seldome are children of that age ambitious as the Disciples though they be oft impatient I said further that Matth. 18. 5. is not meant of a little child in age and that 〈◊〉 proved from v. 3. â— 6. But saith Master Blake he is indeed a child in understanding that doth not see that your â—â—â—ference to v. 3. 4. is wholly against you for little child v. 3. 4. is taken for such a one as in age is a little child else the speech would be â—â—ept But Mr Blake should have â—â—â—â—ded my words better I did not parallel the word little child v. 5. with little child v. 3 4 but the phrase one such little child with the phrases v. 3. one that is converted and made as a little child v. 4. one that humbles himselfe as a little child v. 6. one of those little ones that beleeve in him But saith Master Blake Luke 9. 48. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is true it is so Neverthelesse Beza notes thus sed pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hunc puerulum fortassis legendum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hujusmodi puerulum Grotius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut apud Matthaeum quomodo hic Syrus interpretatur Tale est amor omnibus idem That in Matth. 18. 5. a little child must be meant of a little child in affection seems plaine to me by the terme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such a one that it is not limited to that little child the term 1. shews which is as much as quempiam any one And me thinkes the meaning of the words should be thus whosoever should receive such a one as is as meane and low as a little child receiveth me as that which followes makes me conceive For he that is lesse among you that is though he were as meane as a little child shall be great But were it granted that it were meant of a little child in age how doth it follow that such a one is there a Disciple This if any must be the proofe He that is received in christs name is a Disciple A little child may be received in Christs name ergo a little child is a disciple But of this argument I deny the major a person might be received in Christs name who was not a Disciple as those that did miracles in Christs name and yet followed not Christ Luke 9. 49. But if it were so that it could be proved that the terme Disciple is any where given to an Infant which neither Master Blake from Matth. 18. 5. nor Master Marshall from Acts 15. 10. can ever do yet it is certaine that a Disciple Matth. 28. 19. is such a one as is made by preaching the Gospell as is manifest from Mar. 16. 15. John 4. â— And I wonder that those very men that do in effect sometime confesse this is not meant of Infants when they answer the Antipaedobaptists objection from Matth. 28. 19. as Mr Marshall pag. 44 of his Sermon It is said indeed that they taught and baptized and no expresse â—â—ntion of any other that yet they should by such strained and forced inferences go about to draw a command from Matth. 28. 19. for baptizing Infants as if they might be called there Disciples contrary to the constant use of the word throughout the new Testament and their own confessionels where Sect. 6 ch 11. Master Blake blames me for putting his reason from Isai 49. 22 as an argument by it selfe in my exercitation But he might know my exercitation set downe most of the arguments as they were urged in the conference with me And so was the reason from Isai 49. 22. urged in that conference as an argument by it selfe to my best remembrance however it were after disposed in the birth-priviledge But saith Master Blake the question here is not as after your manner you mistake it whether this text proves Infant-baptisme but whether it gives any intimation that Infants in the dayes of the Gospell be any members of the Church-visible or intitled to any priviledges of the Covenant as Christs Disciples I reply The proving of that intimation tended to prove Infant-baptisme and therefore those words were alleaged for Infant-baptisme which was that I said not a whit mistaking the question Now sith Master Blake confesseth that the words must needs be allegoricall why doth he expound the terme sons and daughters of infants and tell us that their carriage of their little ones must be understood no otherwise then of the accesse of the Gentiles with their Infants to the Church of Christ For if the Carriage and noursing v. 23. be allegoricall meant of perswasions exhortations and such like acts Infants could not be thus carried And so Mr Blakes allegationis but an empty sound Ch. 12. Master Blake goes about to justifie his speech that he used in his birth-priviledge pag. 22. that the precedant is an household He that followeth the precedent must baptize housholds This speech I said I marvaile much at it and that it is very absurd that I say no worse of it Master Blake tels me I expresse not the reason of so much marvaile I answer the terme wherefore with the words following expresse this reason plainely sith as I said before in housholds were Infidels if an houshold be the precedent to be followed and he that followeth the precedent must baptize housholds without any other qualification then when he baptizeth the beleeving master he must baptize the unbeleeving servant wife c. for they are of the houshold Master Blake If you had any worse to say I wonder that you had not spoke it your best friends I beleeve will say that you have sufficiently shewed your selfe absurd in language Sure Master Blake knowes that a speech may be worse censured then by terming it very absurd I might have called it sophisticall deceitfull and that had beene worse My best friends can finde no abusive language of any mans person their speeches or arguments I censure in no more absurd language then usually schollers do and particularly Master Gataker doth Doctor
Church many proud men entering therein as Simon Magus Diotrephes c. ergo it must be understood of the Kingdome of glory 2 From this that our Saviour directs the speech Marke 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. to his Disciples who were already in the visible Church therefore the requiring a further condition to the Kingdome of God shewes he meant it of the Kingdome of glory 3 The speech Marke 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. is like Mat. 18. 3 4. but there it is meant of the Kingdome of glory ergo so here Deodate on Matth. 19 14. so farre are you deceived in thinking that children by reason of their weakenesse and contemptible qualitie are unworthy to be presented unto me that contrariwise no body is capable of my Kingdom unles he be first by the spirit of regeneration brought into a spirituall estate to be like a little child in the order of nature The new annot on the Bible on Matth. 19. 14. yee have no reason to blame them for bringing children to me for they may be such as have interest to the Kingdome of heaven as well as others of ripe yeares and unlesse yee be like them ye shall never come there ch 18. 3. But saith Master Blake Christ had never been so much displeased with his Disciples for forbidding them seeing their election and justification was to the Disciples wholly unknown they had a present visible title such as the Apostles ought to have knowne I answer The reason of Christs anger was their hindering him in his designe not the knowledge they had of their present visible title this is but a dreame I added further that Christs action in this was extraordinary and so no ordinary rule for baptizing by the Publike ministery Mr Blake would have me consider how this can stand with that I said before that they that brought the Infants might do it without faith in Christ as the Messiah upon the fame of his miracles and account that he was a Prophet I answer there is no opposition they might conceive him to be but a Prophet not the Messiah and yet Christ might act as an extraordinary Prophet and as the Messiah Mr Blake sayes this act of Christ is no direct precedâ—â— for baptisme but for Church-priviledges of which Infants are capable Marke this speech if but be adversative then Master Blake grants that Infants are capable of Church-priviledges not of baptisme which overthrowes all his dispute but the truth is this thing was done to these Infants not by reason of any 〈◊〉 title they had or to enter them into any outward Church-priviledge but to accomplish by his blessing their interest in the invisible Kingdome of God by election Master Blake in the close of this chapter sayes if it were true that padobaptisme had no more warrant then I conceive yet 〈◊〉 not will-worship but a misapplication of an instituted ordinance to a person But I aske Master Blake whether Infant-Communion were not will worship whether baptizing of bells were not will-worship and yet these are but misapplications of an instituted ordinance to a wrong subject We have the word will-worship but once Col. 2. 23. and if it be taken in the worser sense as Protestant Divines hitherto have done though lately Doctor Hammond at Oxford hath written a booke to prove it to be taken in the better part for a commendable thing as a free-well offering and have made it the sinne of the Pharises Matth. 15. 9. and especially non-conformists who have made every invented ceremony will-worship then much more Infant-baptisme being worship it selfe if it be not instituted must be will worship Chapt. 15. Master Blake examines what I say Examen pag. 164. about Gods sealing Master Marshall spake of Gods sealing the baptized I said God seales not to every one that is baptized but onely to true beleevers For his sealing is the confirming of his promise but God promiseth righteousnesse to none but true beleevers Master Blake answers You acknowledge baptisme to be is its nature a seale of the righteousnesse of faith and to be of God therefore in it God must seale to every baptized person or else you must say they are not baptized I reply I acknowledge baptisme of professours of faith to be of God though they be not true beleevers and I acknowledge baptisme in its nature to be a seale of the covenant of God but not a seale actuall but aptitudinall that is all right baptism is in its nature apt to seale as a garland hung out is to signify wine to be â—old yet actually the one signifies so onely to the intelligent and the other onely to true beleevers And God never seales actually till a person be a beleever I said As for the sealing by God upon condition persons agâ—ize the Covenant it is but a notion the Scripture makes not Gods promise in the Covenant of grace conditionall in that sense For Gods promise is for those he enters into Covenant with that he will put his lawes in their 〈◊〉 and in their mindes will 〈◊〉 them Heb. 10. 16. Master Blake answers If you 〈◊〉 this of the Sacraments as the words beare then according to your opinion none ought to be baptized but 〈◊〉 in whose heart the law in wrote I answer him By Gods sealing I doe not meane every right administration of baptisme for though that be in its nature apt to seale the graces of the Covenant yet actually Gods seales not but when it is administred to a beleever It may be called a right act of the administratour according to Gods appointment but not Gods sealing I call Gods sealing onely when either by his spirit or oath or outward rite he assures his grace as by circumcision to Abraham Rom. 4. 11. he appointed Ismael to be circumcised but did not seale to him righteousnesse by faith The inference Mr Blake makes from my words as if I held none baptizable but those in whose heart Gods law is written hath no colour for I do not make the administratours baptizing or sith they will have it so called sealing to be Gods sealing God appoints the word to be preached to many hypocrites and the preacher that assures them of the promises doth it by Gods appointment yet God doth not assure the promises to them I do not make him onely baptizable to whom God seales but him whom Christ appoints to be baptized whether God seales to him or no. Master Blake urgeth me with Bellarmines argument of the Sacraments be seales of grace they are often false and God should beare witnesse to a lye and tels of the speech of some that have said that this argument is unanswerable unlesse we confesse that the seale of the Sacrament is conditionall I like not to call the Sacrament a conditionall seale for that which seales doth assure and supposeth the condition In my apprehension that which is called conditionall sealing is not sealing but offering or propounding or representing but about this I will not
against Anabaptists for not assuring salvation to the deceasing infants of beleevers from that covenant which Mr Marshall will not assert pag. 116. as it is a Covenant of saving grace to be made to beleevers and their naturall seed and Mr Blake saith onely entitles to outward priviledges But we say saith Master Blake that all infants and men of yeers for ought that we can find from any Scripture grounds are utterly lost that want all right of Baptisme He might say they are in danger to be lost by reason of originall corruption not for want of right to Baptisme but to say they are utterly lost is more then Mr Blake hath ground to affirme I have often shewed that a right to baptism is from the command of Christ not from such covenant holinesse as Mr Blake asserts salvation comes from Gods election and Christs redemption It is a meer slander and a groundlesse crimination wherewith Mr Blake chargeth me that the position he produceth out of my book or any other he can produce doth inferre that all the infants of the whole Church of Christ have nothing to doe with the Covenant of grace I challenge him with Mr Marshall and Mr Blakes seconds Mr Calamy and Mr Vines if they can to make that charge good or else let Mr Blake and Mr Marshall retract it As for Mr Blakes conclusion I conceive his Protâ—station makes him deservedly the object of pitty his motions carry a sting in the tayl to wit a false accusation from which I doubt not but I have acquitted my selfe by this writing The elogy the worthy member of the house of Commons bestowes on me and the unrighteous censure of my learned namelesse acquaintance I value not books as meats relish differently with different palates pro captu lectoris habent sua fata libelli This apollogy will state me and my writing better in their thoughts if they can will understand the truth If not the same spirit that hath enabled me to beare greater burthens I trust will enable me to bear these hard censures I hope that I shall not be wanting to the overthrow of any errors according to my ability paedobaptisme I am more assured then ever is a great corruption founded as now it is taught on very great errours and of any service I suppose I can doe to God it is one of the chiefe which I ought to apply my selfe to that it may be cleared to be an errour I bear as much love and reverence to M. Blake as ever he is not despised by me though his errours be freely censured I aimed not either in the former or in this latter writing at any grievance to him and should be sorry this controversie should make a separation between us though I find by experience much estrangednes in many of my former acquaintance from me And for encountring with Mr Blake for the truths sake I held my selfe necessitated to it by reason of Mr Vines and M. Calamy their former and latter as I still conceive inconsiderate plaudite FINIS Errata PAge 2. line 24. above read about p. 30. l. 10. sticks r. strikes p. 33. l. 1. And r. But. p. 40. l. 22. Gen. 7. r. Gen. 17. p. 50. l. 4. Bermaâ—aus r. Beâ—mannus l. 5. 20. r. 2. p. 51. l. 3. meerly r. merry l. 36. Iannes 1. Iames. l. 13. r. upon what p. 53. l. 20. r. that they who l. 21. to r. doe p. 57. l. 13. Marshall r. Ball. p. 59. l. 24. 57. r. 75. p. 67. l. 27. artificer r. artifice mind r. mend p. 70. l 12 r. will be l. 15. r. are the. p. 72. l. 29. r. examen p. 42. 64. 65. p. 75. l. 16 dele And M. Blake c. p. 77. l. 14. which r. this p. 80. l. 20. r. inconsideretenes which p. 84. l. 33. dele it p. 85. l. 1. r. either out p. 97. l. 25. 256. r. 170. l. 37. 128. l. 182. p. 98. l. 30. r. hoâ—se in p. 1 co l. 12 them 1. Infants p. 101. l. 15. see r. set l. 31. dele first p. 102. l. 36. cuts r. cut p. 118. l. 20. r. the thing p. 129. l 5. r. that they p. 140. l. 25. r. positive rites as morall precepts p. 142. l. â— dele it p. 145. l. 1. margine 16. r. 18. p. 148. l. 32. p. 149. l. 2. precedent r. subject §. 1. Of the occasion of writing this Apology §. 2. Of the intention of the Author upon that occasion §. 3. Of the necessity and seasonablenes of publishing the two Treatises about Infant-Baptisme §. 4. Of freedome from publishing the two Treatises contraâ—y to engagement with a Declaration of the Authors proceedings therein §. 5. Oâ— 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 Colâ—s 2 12. Of the exposition I give of Colos 2 12. Confessed to be right by Mr Marshall himselfe §. 6. Of the clearing the Author of the Examen from either justifying the Anabaptists in 〈◊〉 or condemning the godly and grave Nonconformists in England §. 7. Of tâ—e clearing of the Author of the two Treatises from vaâ—nting and challenging in the composing and publishing the Treatises §. 8. Of the clearing the Author oâ— the two Treatises from Sophistry in them whereby occasion is taken to vindicate the Treatises in many of the chieâ—e things contained in them §. 9. Of the meaning of Master Marshals second conclasion the words in the Dâ—rectâ—ry the promise is made to Beleevers and their seed and the Doctrine therein delivered disavowed by Mr Marshall and Mr. Geree §. 0. Of the distinction of inward and outward Covenant and that it can stand Master Marshall in no stead but to shew his trâ—fâ—ing and equivocating in his first argument and two first conclusions and of M. Marshalâ— mistake of my opinion 11. Of Master Marshalâ— false and most unjust charge that I carry the Socinian plot through my examen and exercitation §. 12. Of M. Marshals unjust charge of me as itching after new opinions and particularly about rebaptization and receiving the Lords Supper afore Baptism §. 13. Of alleadging Authors against their mind particular Mr Daniel Rogers M. Bâ—ll Chamter Aretius and Beza 1 Cor. 7. 14. §. 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 A large disqâ—â—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 pâ—oveâ— not Intant-baptisme §. 15. of M. Marshals unjust charge against me as â—arkning his arguments and casting fiâ—th in the face of the Assembly § 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 allâ—gations answered and my diligence to find out their tenets manifested § 17. Of my opinion about excommunication Church-government the admission unto all ordinances my former conformity alleaged to alienate mens minds from me and my writings § 18. Of the vanity of Mr Ley's vaunt concerning the deadly wound given to my cause and the contrary demonstrated by a briefe going through the principall points about this argument as they have hitherto been disputed As about Acts 2. 39. Rom. 11. 16. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Colos 2. 12. Matth. 28. 19. Acts 16 15. Matth. 19. 14. c. Baptisme and the rite of eating bread and drinking wine through old â—ites among the Iewes yet used to another end and after another rule by Christians The command confessed to be the formal reason of circumcision by Mr Marshall Circumcision a priviledge proper to the Jewish Church state No command about the Iewes Sacraments now in force Infants not Disciples as Matth. 28. 19. is meant Baptizing housholds inferres not infant-baptisme We have no evidence for judgement of charity concerning infants nor is a judgement of charity to be our rule in adminstering Baptisme § 19. Of Master Hassey his pretended satisfactory answer to my exerciâ—ation § 20. The Epilogue of this Apology concerning the reason of the enlargement of it the Authors present estate and future intentions § 1. The occasion of this postscript § 2. Of Mr. Calamys and M. Vines their wrong judgement of the dispute Mr. Blakes book and my discussing the point §. 4. They that deny Infant-baptisme need not teach that Infants perish § 5. Of my censure of Master Blakes producing Gal 4. 29 for the birth priviledge §. 6. Or the necessity of my taking paines in my Examen to find out the meaning of Mr. Marshals second conclusion by reason of the ambigâ—ity of his expressions §. 7. Of the Corinthians doubt 1 Cor. 7 12 13 14. 1 Cor 7. 14. is not meant of instrumentall sanctification and federall holinesse §. 9. Of M Blakâ—s mâ—sallegation of Gal. 2. 15. which was the text he chose for his birth-priviledge § 8. That 1 Pâ— 2. 9. is meant of the Church invisible §. 11. Of precedents for womens receiving the Lords Supper §. 12. To say that God hath promised to be the God of every believer and his uncurall seed is a new Gospell §. 13. Or Mr Ruthersurds Mr Blakes opinion about holinesse of a chosen nation mediate An cestors profession intitling to Infant-baptisine the Independents advantage in this point §. 14. Of the word nations Mat. 28. 19. how to be taken §. 15. Of M. Rutherfurds and Mr Blakes and mine opinion concerning the rule to know who are baptizable §. 16. About two suppositions ascribed by mâ— to Mr Marshal and Mr Blake in my Examen page 130. §. 17. About arguments drawn from Analogy in positive rites and their invalidity and the insufficiency of M. Blakes rules §. 16. That Mr Blake hath not proved that Infants are disciples from Mat. 18. 5. nor pertinently alleaged Isai 49 22. §. 19. of baptizing housholds my censure of Mr Blakes speech concerning it §. 20. About Mat. 19 14. that by the Kingdome of heaven is meant the Kingdome of glory §. 21. That God seales not to every person that is rightly baptized that his Covenant of grace belongs onely to the elect that his Covenant is effectuall and leaves it not to mans liberty to include or exclude himself Of Mr Blakes unjust crimmination of me as putting the children of beleevers out of the covenant of grace and the epilogue of this postscript
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 thereto 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 be 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 the justifying the publishing of my Treatises The next charge against me is my abusing my Antagonists 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 â—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 Theâ—philus Philokyrtaces Lonâ—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