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
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
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
written for me I sent my own to Master Marshall who received it December 9 1644. About a fortnight after Master Marshall sent me word that he would find a time to speake with me I sent him word that for the returning answer to my writing I would not straiten him but forasmuch as by his rejecting me I missed being nominated to the Temple and I was then brought to great straights I requested that he would declare as occasion should offer it selfe whether he held me fit for the Ministery or not notwithstanding my dissent from him in that point His answer was he desired to know first whether I would keep my opinion to my selfe I returned this answer in writing by my Father Scudder I request you to returne this answer to Master Marshall that whereas I requested him to declare whether he thought me fit for the Ministery or not notwithstanding my dissent aboâ—t Poedobaptism and he demands of me a promise of silence in that point I conceive he is bound by the rules of justice mercy and prudence to do it without requiring that condition and that he hath no reason to be jealous of me considering my carriage in this matter Neverthelesse when I shall understand what promise he would have from me and what is intended to be done by him for the discussing the point and clearing of Truth to which I ought not be wanting and what advantage I may have by his agency for my imployment and maintenance I shall give him a punctuall answer and am resolved for peace sake to yeeld as farre as I may without vâ—â—lating the solemne Covenant I have taken and betraying truth and innocency Decem. 26. This begat the friendly conference mentioned by Master Marshall which was Decem. 30. 1644. in the morning afore the Assembly sate At the very beginning of that Conference Master Marshall having this last written message in his hand reading those words and he demands of me a promise of silence in that point told me that he did not demand of me a promise of silence in that point for that was beyond his line this was his very expression As soon as ever I heard those words I conceived my selfe freed from the snare I most feared of making a promise which as the case might stand I could not keep with a good conscience Then Master Marshall spake to this effect that yet for the satisfaction of those who should enquire of him concerning me he desired to know my intentions Whereupon I dealt freely that I intended not to publish my opinion in the Pulpit if I might be where I should not be put to baptize for I conceived it not likely that there would be a Reformation of that thing in this Age there having been so long a practise of Infant-Baptisme and such a prejudice in men against the opposers of it yet I told him that if any should preach to that people I had charge of that which I conceived to be an errour I did resolve to oppose it there otherwise other mens preaching abroad should be no provocation to me So that it is cleare I made no promise and that intimation of mine intentions which I made was only that I intended not to preach my opinion in that place unlesse provoked there And this any man may perceive was my meaning by Master Marshals owne relation in which the provâ—â— is rightly expressed That if any should preach in my Pulpit for baptizing Infants I tooke my selfe bound in the same place to preach against it otherwise mens preaching or printing abroad should be no provocation to me to wit to preach that opinion in that place And whereas Master Marshall alleadgeth this for his Quietus est he might have remembred that I told him in expresse termes that it Lawes were likely to be enacted to make the deniall of Infant-Baptisme penall I held my selfe bound in conscience to appeare in publique about that matter yea and Master Marshall told me he intended me some animadversions on my Examen whence it may be collected that neither Master Marshall nor my selfe had agreed to lay aside the dispute it selfe It is true Master Marshall did endeavour to possesse me with this That Reformation of Congregations might be without altering the use of Infant-Baptisme To which I answered that though much might be done other wayes yet it would never be right till Christs way of baptizing were restored About two houres after Master Marshall comming to me in the presence of Master Obadiah Sedgwicke repeating the intimation of my intention aforenamed with the proviso told me he would give testimony in my behalfe as I desired Upon this I parted with Master Marshall and Master Sedgewicke walking with me commended my proceeding in that matter and made a notion to me which came to nothing Upon this I went home very chearfull not only because I prized amity with Master Marshall and there was a likely way of my imploiment and maintenance but chiefly because I was freed from that I feared as a snare the promise of silence and there were great hopes that my brethren in the Ministery would not be rigid in ejecting out of the Ministery and Communion those that dissented from them in that point and so separation and mutuall persecution might be prevented which was and is still the great feare that possesseth my spirit and liberty might in time be given for the shining forth of the light in this thing and by degrees Reformation might be perfected which I conceived the only safe and happy way Upon these considerations I acquainted sundry of my near friends with this mercy of God to me and being requested to joyne in keeping a day of Thanksgiving at Anthâ—lâ—â— I 〈◊〉 1. following for publique mercies I made a speciall memento in my booke of speciall passages of my life to blesse God that day for the conference I had with Master Marshall in peace and amity What Master Marshall did after for me I do not well know I beleeve he did as he promised and after a triall of me three Lords-daies at the Temple I was in the end of Ianuary chosen by the Treasurers and and sundry others of the members of both the honourable Societies of the Temples to be their Preacher for a yeare After these things being acquainted with a Law made in New-England and proceedings against those that denied baptizing of Infants I yeelded to the sending of my Examen thither though not so large as it is now printed for the dissertation about a speech of Master Cotton Part. 3. Sect. 3. Pag 42 43. and some other things were added since meerly to occasion the study of this matter more exactly and to allay the vehemency of their spirits and proceedings against those that dissented from them and therewith I sent this short Epistle To all the Elders of the Churches of Christ in New-England and to each in particular by name to the Pastor and Teacher of the Church of God at Boston there
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
had a thought by those words Did not divisions and other miscarriages and persecutions bring the Non-conformists of England as low as the Anabaptists in Germany To accuse those men he names of such miscarriages I honour the memory of Cartwright Brightman Hildersham Parker Dod Bradshaw and the rest of the same stampe as godly learned unblameable and faithfull servants of Christ But I said some there were thaâ— in seeking to remove Episcopacy and ceremonies did by their divisions meaning those of Browne Barrow and others and other miscarriages meaning of the writers of the Books called Martin Mâ—rprelate and the like the miscarriages of Hacket and his companions the Prelates taking hold thereof to accuse them as seditious and to incense the Queen and State against them with perâ—ecâ—tion bring them as low as the Anabaptists in Germany And I said that the like if not the same troubles happened here in England as in Germany meaning not in the degree out in the kind not in the fruit but in the seed which if the prudence of the State here had not timely prevented which could not be so well done in Germany by reason of so many petty free States might have broken out into as great a flame as those combustions in Germany In which my intent was not to discredit Bullinger Slâ—idâ—n Calvin c. noâ— to justifie in the least manner the Anabaptists wicked practices but only to shew that in seeking to reforme an abuse there may happen such miscarriages and divisions by the Devils stirrring up some â—actious and by pocriticall spirits of those that joyne with the seekers of Reformation to breake out into hainous enormities of 〈◊〉 to stop mens mouthes from speaking for and mens eares 〈◊〉 â—â—aring of Truth And therefore all that love the Truth 〈◊〉 they have reason to suppresse those turbulent spirits and 〈◊〉 heed of mens heady advises though for a good end yet they should not yeeld to the Devill so much as to permit him by the clamours against those factious spirits to cheat them of the Truth or to make them lesse but rather morezealous for it And that this was my meaning had my words been either well heeded or candidly construed might have been perceived by them Here I wish Master Geree to consider whether it were agreeable to that friendship he acknowledgeth to have been between us without any violating of it on my part to publish such an unjust charge against me and so to lay more burdens on my backe after I told him he had not dealt kindly nor rightly with me in his Epistle Dedicatory to a Peere of the Realme in aspersing me whereby I might suffer much and never be heard speak for my self yet never once aske me though he had twice conference with me once a little before his Book was published the other the same day it was put forth whom I meant in those passages I may well take up that speech of Absolom to Hushai Is this thy kindnesse to thy friend Now from that which hath been said it will be easie to answer Master Marshal's Quaeres The Anabaptists in Germany rose up and with fire â—nd Sword pulled down Magistracy Scholes c. did the like if not the same things happen here T is true the Bores 〈◊〉 Countrey people over all Germany did such things and among them were those that they called Anabaptists but these things were done by others then Anabaptists and in some places where it doth not appeare to me that any such were the cause of which was prâ—tended the oppressions of the people by the Princes but in Truth their desire to plunder and spoyle Now though the seekers of the removall of Episcopacy and Ceremonies did not the same things in degree yet they did such seditious things as were of the same kind and tended to them as inciting against the Magistrates such invectives against Schooles as had they not been withstood might have produced the same effects of which you may see passages out of Barrow in Master 〈…〉 Chap. 2 And I pray God we never find by experience that discontented I Presbyterians can act the like things for their Presbytery that Anabaptists did for their Anabaptism Mr Marshall saith what did the Non-conformists ever endeavour to do beyond prayers and teares If M. Marshall mean by non-conformists such as M. Geree describes in his Character I have nothing to accuse them but if he mean by Non-conformists those that â—ought to remove Episcopacy and Ceremonies which was my phrase knowing that in processe of time the terme Non-conformists was contradistinguished to Separatâ—sts some of them used railing against men in place authority witnesse the Libels of Martin Marprelate and such like in too great abundance some of them if Camâ—en relate true in his Anuals of Elizabeth ad Annum 1591. either conspired with or some way animated Hacket upon conceite that he was an extraordinary person raised by God to bring in the Discipline Master Marshall saies what turbulent Sect was ever among them my words were Did not some of them that â—ought to remove Episcopacy and Ceremonies grow a dangerous and turloulent Sect Which words of mine are true in the followers of Browne Barrow c. whom I thinke Mr Marshall will not deny to have been a dangerous and turbulent Sect and they were at first a part of them that sought to remove Episcopacy and Ceremonies He askes what were those divisions and miscarriages which brought them so low 〈◊〉 had said Did not divisions and other miscarriages and persecutions bring the Non-conformists of England as lâ—w as the Anabaptists The divisions I meant were those that were between the Separatists and other Non-conformists the miscarriages I meant were those of Martin Marprelate Barrow Hacket and others which did meite Queene Elizabeth and the Sâ—ate against them to arme the Bishops with their power by which they did persecute them Dr Iohn Burges rejoynder Chap. 2. Sect. 11. Pag. â—5 â—or my part I thinke that the violence of some meaner â—en against those things hath caused the sharper execution of Lawes against some other men of worth Crudelem medicum intemperans ager facit Master Marshall toucheth the story of Hackeâ— and his companions and then saith But what is this to your purpose 〈◊〉 had Hacket to do with the Non-conformists who you know 〈◊〉 fever you read the story abominated him and would have nothing to do with him 〈◊〉 before he 〈◊〉 into those pâ—ankes he plaid in London I answer I have read the story of Hacket in Camdens Annals of Queen Elizabeth ad annum 1591. in Saravia against Beza de diverâ—â—s ministrorum gradibus in Stow and Howe and I do not find by these that the seekers to remove Eâ—iscopacy did abominate him as you say but that Wiggiâ—ton a Minister and others of that party did either conspire with him or otherwise encourage him upon the hope they had that by him the Discipline should be pâ—omoted and I find
many practises like those of Iohn of Leyden at Munster as the pretending of revelations affecting anointing as a King commanding his Prophets Arthington and Coppinger to go into the Citty and preach exciting the people against the Archbishop and Lord Chancelour yea I find Hackeâ—'s end to have been worse in a more horrible manner than that of â—ohn of Leyden nor do I doubt had London been in the same state as Muâ—ster was but the Tragedy would have been as bad in the seeking to remove Episcopacy and Ceremonies as it was in seeking to remove Paedobaptisme And if the Non-conformists did abominate Hackes so did the Anabaptists that followed Mennon the Munster and Batenburgick furies And as for the parallel I brought out of Whitgâ—ft and Hooker I did it not to justifie their charges against the Non-conformists but to shew that they deprehended a likenesse of spirit waies in some of the one as well as the other And my end in the whole was to shew that in seeking to remove a reall errour and abuse faâ—â—ious persons may fall into such miscarriages and yet their miscarriages ought not to hinder the Reformation of the errour or abuse though these things may well be urged for caveats to Magistrates and people to suppresse take heed of the seditious practises of such agents which warning being rightly taken is good and necessary yea perhaps more necessary for these times then I at first imagined and so needs not a delâ—a ur but a right construction Another charge Master Ley and Master Marshall fasten upon me that I wrote my Treatises as a braving Goliah so Master Ley ubâ— supra Master Marshall in his Defence Pag. 2. And came into the field so bravingly and gyantlike Pag. 244. Truly Sir thu smels a little too ranckely thus confidently to challenge all men not contented with Goliah to say give me a man that I may fight with him but to defie a whole host argues a little too much selfe confidence To which I answer If Master Ley or Master Marshall either had allowed me so charitable an opinion as my forepast life and actions might have induced them to have of me or heeded my words in the prologue and Epilogâ—e in my Examen they would never have fastned this charge of a braving Goliah or câ—â—fident challenging or defying a whole host on me â—or my bygone actions they rather speake me a man willing to gratifie others and to serve the common good then to make estentation of my selfe out of selfe confidence There are many that can make report of my labours in the places where God hath disposed of me there are none that can give one instance wherein I have put my selfe forward to shew my parts either in Preaching the publike Sermons in the University or at Pauls or in great meetings in the Countrey or before great men or the Parliament or the Armies out what ever I have done upon any such occasions necessity or conscience have induced me to it And for my writings such as they are setting aside the Examen and Exercitation they carry their plea for them in their forehead Infirmities I have and those many but sure the whole course of my actions are a plea for me against this imputation of a braving challenging vaunting humour yea did not the mindfulnesse of my account in God love to the soules of men and the discharge of my duty lead me into publique actions I should rather embrace that advise beâ—â— qui latuit benè vixit Certainly in this businesse I was so farre from the braving humour that as may be perceived by the relation above necessity engaged me to it not selfe confidence and an humour of ostentation The truth is there were other arguments that I had entered upon before I was engaged in this matter as namely against the mortality of the soule universall grace the Antinomian errours about justification and justifying faith and some since as about the matter and forme of a particular visible Church about the nature of Schisme and Heresie in which I might safely have exercised such abilities as I have if selfe ostentation had been my motive and not have put my finger in this fire durst I desert the Truth But how uncharitably Mater Ley and Master Marshall do construe my action I thinke it will presently appeare to him that shall read the Prologue and Eâ—â—logue of my Examen especially those speeches wherein I declared my intentions to be either to rectifie Master Marshall or to be ractified by him that we might give one another the right hand of fellowship and I pray that the Lord would vouchsafe to frame our spirits to seeke the truth in humility and love which might have given them cause to have conceived otherwise of my disposition then they have done except they judged my speech hypocritical which I am sure would have been beyond their line to do In the Epilogâ—e I tell Master Marshall that I examined his Sermon in the middest of many wants distractions discouragements and temptations which were indeed very many so many that nothing but Gods assistance and the thought of my account to God could as then the case was with me have carried me thorough the worke I said that I knâ—w no reason why Master Marshall should conceive that I had taken the paines to examine his Sermon for any ends crosse to the finding of Truth I tell him plainly my reall mention in this worke is to discover Truth and to do what is mâ—et for me in my calling towards the Reformation of these Churches according to Gods word â—â—ts which we have both bound our selves by solemne Covenant These words should have acquitted me from this charge of braving out of selfe confidence if Master Marshall or Master Ley knew nothing to the contrary as I am sure they did not and I thinke they have no prospective glasse to look into my brest And for the words Mr Marshall saies smell aâ—lutle too rankely of challenging and difying a whole Host had he considered or recited the whole period and not cut off my words in the middest he had seen that my words were not a braving challenge but a faiâ—e and most reasonable motion to have some one Treatise framed by those that had appeared in publike and whose writings or Sermons I had endeavoured to answer that I might know what they would stand to and save my selfe the labour and charge of buying and reading every indigested Pamphlet And after I made another motion in case this was not liked to have a meeting to consult about a way of brotherly and peaceable ventilating this point The rejecting of both these motions by Master Marshall if they make him not inexcusable yet I presume make my preceedings excusable and his so pâ—lpable a misconstruction of my spirit in this matter doth strongly argue that he looked on my writing with a â—loudshot eye however he protest the contrary in his Epistle Dedicatory to the
Assembly And I think he should not shoote very wide from the marke that should imagine that these exceptions against the Author are for want of a cleare answer to the Booke 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
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
of the Supper The quoting of mine owne text were enough I will set down his words as I find them that the Reader may judge whether there be truth in it that I have snatched his wordâ— from their own Defence and whether he did not oppose demonstration of Scripture to â—â—â—rittâ—n tradition The words are thus I say this for the setling of such as are not wilful that 〈◊〉 take the baptism of Infants to be one of the most reverend generall and uncontrouled traditions which the Church haâ—h and which I would no losse doubt of then the Creed to be Apostolicall And although I confesse my selfe yet unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it yet first sithence Circumcision was applied to the Infants the eighth day in the Old Testament Secondly there is no words in the New Testament to infringe the liberty of the Church in it nor speciall reason why we should bereave her of it Thirdly sundry Scriptures affoord some friendly proofes by consequent of it Fourthly the holinesse of the child externall and visible is from their parents who are or ought to be chatechised confessors penitents and Protestants in truth which priviledge only open revolt disables them from therefore I say the Seed being holy and belonging to the Covenant the Lord graciously admits them also to the Seale of it in Baptisme If Master Marshall please he may write backe to his reverend and learned friend that the supposed Anabaptist thinks his plaister too narrow for the sore that he seems to eate his own words that his words help me to shew that he once thought it indeed one of the most reverend generall and uncontroled traditions which the Church hath and which he would no lesse doubt of then the Creed to be Apostolicall which if he meane it of the Creed called the Apostles as it is now Parker in his booke de descensu ad inferos and others have shewed to have been made long after the Apostles dayes and the tale of their meeting to compose it in the exposition on the Creed attributed to Ruffinus or some other to be of no credit And for Scripture Master Rogers findes but friendly proofes somewhat like Bellarmâ—nes pie probabiliter credi potest and that there is no word in the New Testament to infringe the liberty of the Church in it which if Master Rogers can satisfie himself with he may I professe I dare not so play with my own conscience and I thought this was fit to be told Master Marshall to shew that I was not the only man that questioned whether his proofes for Infant-baptisme were so undeniable as he would have them and that 's enough to shew the unreasonablenes of the violence of his spirit against those that differ from him And for his Quaere why he should not answer me silentio contemptu I presume Master Marshall hath long since done that office of a friend to tell him it is written Rom. 14. 10. Why doest thou set at at naught thy brother I had said not as Mr Marshall repeats it Master Baâ—l cuts the sinewes of the argument from Circumcision but me thinkes Mr Balls words cut the sinewes of that argument And so they do plainly For if however Circumcision and Baptisme agree or differ wee must looke to the institution and the agreement is not enough to conclude that Baptisme belongs onely to members in Church-Covenant and their children because it was so in Circumcision without an institution as the new England Elders reason by the same reason however Baptisme and Circumcision agree or differ yet Baptisme will not belong to Infants because Circumcision did so by vertue of proportion without an institution which if Mr Ball or Mr Marshall could shew they needed not trouble us with the Command about Circumcision of male infants to prove Infant-Baptisme which is indeed to maintain that the ceremoniall saw still binds which is plain Judaisme But what sayes Mr Marshall to this If Mr Marshall cut the sinewes of the argument from Circumcision to Baptisme himselfe was very much mistaken in his his own meaning and intention because in the same place he makes them parallell in this and I might have done well to have informed the reader so much I was told there was a very intelligent man that said he was sorry that I had Mr Marshall for my Antagonist as knowing him to be apt to mistake which he conceived would be a vexation to me and indeed I find his words true For whereas I said only Mr Ball 's words cut the sinewes of that argument M. Mar. mistakes it as if I had said Mr Ball intends to cut the sinews of that argument and that then he was mistaken in his own meaning and intentions I confesse it were a very strange thing to charge so understanding a man as Mr Ball with such a mistake of his owne meaning and intention but it is no such strange thing for a learned man to speak that which may be brought to inferre the contrary to that he intended and if this be to abuse men then all arguments by retortion are abuses Bellarmin l. 5 de justificatione c. 7 prop. 3. had said propter incertitudinem propria justitiae periculum inanis gloriae tutissimum est totam fiduciam in sola Dei misericordiae benignitate repouere This King James in his Apologie for the oath of Allegiance brings to prove that he overthrowes thereby all his former dispute about inherent righteousnesse though Bellarmine had put in a speciall caution in the next words to prevent that inference and King James left out that caution in the recitall yet Bishop Andrewes in his Torturae Torti and many other learned men justified King James and that rightly Mr Marshall pag 147. saith thus And I am sure you must agree with me Sixthly that of all these testimonies you have cited out of Chamier there is not one word against my interpretation or for the justification of yours yea and I knâ—w also that you will agree with me Seventhly that the learned Chamier in a large dispute doth confute your interpretation and vindicate my interpretation as the onely true and proper meaning of this text even in that very plaâ—e where you quote him And therefore I know the reader will agree with mee whether you doe crâ—â— that you doe but abuse your Authour and Reader both in making a flourish with Chamiers name nothing to the purpose and thereby would mâ—ke the Reader to conceive Chamier to be of your side when he is point-blanke against you And in the same page First you severall times 〈◊〉 the learned Beza as if he were of your mâ—nd in the interpretation of this text to construe it of matrimoniall holinesse I confesse the cause depends not upon Beza's judgement but your reputation depends much upon â—â—king this good that you should dare to 〈◊〉 Authour as interpreting it for you who interprets it exprofesso against you p. 159. I perswade
dying shall bee damned But I thinke if Master Marshals friend could he would have shewed that they argued from federall holinesse of infants of beleeving parents to the capacity of Baptisme this I yet think is a late device no elder then Zuinglius as I said in my Examen And so my hedge is not yet tottering but rather Mr Marshal's hedge whereby hee fenceth Infant-Baptisme either from Antiquity or Scripture is already so broken down that a mean Scholler may goe through it and if any truth-searching Scholler bee satisfied by Mr Marshals writing it is to me an amazement 2. As for that which he saith that Grotius is the strongest stake in my hedge meaning in point of antiquity therein Master Marshall is much deceived For 1. the chiefe stake in my hedge in point of antiquity is the observation upon what ground the Ancients taught Infant-Baptisme which was not Covenant-holines but supposed necessity to save the child from perishing and the supposed power that Baptisme hath to give grace which I gathered from Cyprian Augustin and others but do not remember that I received it from any but by my own observation 2. My hedge was in some sort made in my Exercitation before I ever took notice of any thing in Grotius about paedobaptisme which was about the time I began to frame my Examen upon occasion of Mr Thomas Goodwin his citing his annotation upon Matth. 19. 14. where Grotius is so farre from being a stake in my hedge that Doctor Homes pag. 146. saith that for Grotius his own opinion it is clear and full for Infant-Baptisme upon that 19 of Matthew v. 14. and therefore I suppose his testimony is the lesse to be suspected in this matter I confesse that Grotius put me in mind of that of Gregory Nazianzen which I find in the relation of his life that though his Father were a Greeke Bishop yet he remained unbaptized till being sent to Athens to study being at sea he was in danger of drowning and being perplexed that he was likely to dye being unbaptized he resolved to be baptized when he came to shore Mr Marshall askes how I prove his Father was a Christian when he was born To this I answer that I had thought Mr Marshall had not been ignorant that this instance of Gregory Nazianzen's Father is brought by many Protestant writers against the Papists that deny marriage to the Clergy to prove that then Bishops were married and did use their wives If Mr Marshall please he may read what Chamier panstrat Cathol tom 3. lib. 10. c. 13. § 10. sayes of his father and mother I also found in Grotius the instance of Chrysostome which I confesse I took upon his word as wanting books and time to read so much as was necessary to examine the matter Grotius not directing whence he had it But if that instance do not hold the instance of Hierome is plain whom Erasmus in his life proves out of his own writings to have been born of Christian parents in Pannonia yet was baptized at Rome whither he was sent to be taught the learning of that age The testimony of the Councill of Neocaesarea I did not remember till Grotius put me in mind of it but I trusted not to his quotation only but found the same in O sâ—â—nder his Epit. Eccles Hist Cent. 4. lib. 1. c. 21. at the yeare 311. with this note Non intelligo quid sibi posterior hujus Canonis pars velit As for the words they are so plain that Mr Marshals evasions are but shifts For though it be true that the Canon was only about children in the womb yet the reason of their not baptizing is not either because they were not yet born or suretres could not undertake for them but because in the confession in baptism every ones free choice is shewed Which plainly declares that Councill held that none were to be baptized but such as shewed their own free choice by confession As for Balsamon and Zonaâ—as it is true that I have not read them but taken their testimony from Grotius because the testimony of the Councill of Neocâ—sarea ancienter then the first Nicene was the thing alleaged Balsamon and Zoharas were only gloâ—â—ers yet Mr Marshall sayes nothing to Zonaras and what he brings in answer to Balsamous glosse is nothing to the purpose For neither did Grotius nor I say that Balsamon denied Infant-Baptisme according to his own opinion but that from that canon Balsamon and Zonaras do infer that an infant cannot be baptized because it hath not power to choose the confession of Divine Baptisme which is all one with that which Mr Marshall himselfe saith pag. 31. There is required of him that would professe himselfe a follower of Christ 〈…〉 the last words of the Canon a free election or as Balsamon hath it there is required of everyone in Baptisme his own promise which an infant in its mothers wombe cannot doe And can an infant out of the mothers womb do it so that it is plain even by Mr Marshals own explication of the Canon that that Council held that those were only to be baptized that could make a promise themselves I doubt not but that this Councill allowed Baptisme of infants as Nazianzen did in case of danger of death but I think it is plain that out of that case they allowed not the baptisme of an infant no not though a beleevers infant till the child could make its own confession as appeares from their scrupling the baptizing of the mother converted now with child lest it should be taken to reach to the child in the womb and from the generall reason that every one manifests his own free choice in confession And I am peswaded that this was the true state of Baptisme in those dayes in the Greek and Latin Church that they did baptize all sorts of infants whether of beleevers or unbeleevers in case of danger of death least they should perish for want of it in which case Lay-persons did baptize and Augustine contra epist Parmeniani cap. 13. lib. 2. saith si autem necessitas urgeat aut nullum aut veniale delictum est But otherwise they baptized not ordinarily till they came to years to make their own confession The cases of Nazianzen Augustine and Hierome Constantine the great and others and their solemn baptizing onely at Easter and Whitsuntide which is observed in the Rubrick of the English Liturgy me thinke should abundantly satisfie men concerning this truth I cited likewise Grotius his speech of many of the Greekes who in every age even to this day doe keep the custome of deferring the Baptisme of little ones till they could themselves make a confession of their faith For which words though he cite no Authour yet I presume Grotius who is even by Spanheimius often stiled vir summus would not have said it unlesse he had some ground for it Mr Marshall sayes I might blush for justifying the Anabaptists in saying that the
begin at the removing it And it is easie to conceive that forasmuch as the grosse ignorance of people is much occasioned by their baptizing afore they know that if they were not baptized till they knew christian Religion as it was in the first ages grosse ignorance in christian professours would be almost wholly reformed and for christian walking if baptisme were administred with a solemn abrenunciation profession and promise by the baptized in his own person upon that were baptized I doubt not but it would have more aw on mens consciences then many other means used or devised considering how in the primitive times men differred baptisme for feare they might not enjoy their lusts and they were counted by some as guilty of inexpiable crime that fell away after baptisme and on the other side infant-baptisme is the ground upon which innumerable people ignorant and profane harden themselves as if they were good christians regenerate and should be saved without holinesse of life never owning or considering any profession or promise made for them as theirs There have been other suggestions hinted by Mr Geree but amplified in clancular whisperings concerning my former conformity to ceremonies and Episcopall government which are carried about in private to render me a person suspected and to lessen the credit of my writing the chiefe part of which I have answered in my Sermon intituled Fermentum Pharisaeorum and the time end necessity manner and circumstances in doing what I did being pleas sufficient to acquit me and the things not belonging to the present cause but being fitter for private audience I will trouble the Reader no further with my Apology assuring my selfe that setting aside this opinion of paedobaptisme and common infirmities my life labours doctrine even in the judgement of those that dissent from me and knew me will abundantly answer for me against all clancular whisperings whatsoever And concerning my two treatises8 notwithstanding Mr Ley's censure passed perhaps afore he had compared mine and my Antagonists writings together I may rather say that by my two treatises there is such a wound given already to Infant-baptisme that however men may play the Mountebanks and skin it over it will never be cured at the bottome For in point of antiquity it still stands good which I asserted That Infant-baptisme is not so ancient as is pretended as now taught is a late Innovation that a great number of those that sought reformation in the thirteenth Century opposed infant-baptisme that the doctrine of Anti-paedobaptisme neither undermines Magistracy Ministery Lords day nor any true interest of the infants of beleevers that the argument from the Covenant to the Seale is either a tautology or invalid without a command that the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. was a mixed Covenant having in it not onely promises of spirituall benefits common to all beleevers but also peculiar promises concerning things temporall that Acts 2. 39. being meant of Christ and saving benefits by him as Master Marshall confesseth cannot serve Master Marshals turn to prove his second conclusion which he denies to be meant of the promise of saving grace as if it were made to beleevers and their naturall seed As for Master Marshals paraphrase which he calls argument pag. 129. 130. of his Defencâ— I think it to bee most absurd in that it makes the promise Acts 2. 39. when applyed to the Fathers to be meant of justification when to the children of outward administrations nor so expounded are the words true there being no such promise That Rom. 11. 16. c. proves not that there is the same Church state in the Churches of the Gentiles that was in the Jewes so as that the Infants of Beleevers should by vertue of naturall generation be reckoned as visible members forasmuch as now the Church is not nationall as it was then nor gathered as God did the Jewish Church by taking the whole nation for his people in one day but now the Church of God is gathered by preaching up and down some in one place and some in another in succession of time That 1 Cor. 7. 14. speakes not of federall holinesse but matrimoniall yea if the reason of the lawfulnesse of the living of two persons together in disparity of Religion be taken from the vertue of faith in the one party not from the relation of husband and wife as Mr Marshals exposition makes it the medium of the Apostle to prove the lawfulnesse of the living of a beleeving wife with an unbeleeving husband will as well prove the lawfulnes of the living of a beleeving forniâ—atrix with an unbeleeving fornicator as may appeare by a syllogisticall analysis of the Apostles argument the major whereof is this according to Mr Marshals exposition That man and woâ—an may lawfully dwell together notwithstanding the unbeleefe of the one party whereof one is sanctified by the faith of the other for begetting of a holy seed this is manifestly the force of the Apostles reason after his exposition Nor is it necessary to insert being husband and wife sith the sanctification is not ascribed by him to the relation of husband and wife but to the faith of the one party as the proper cause of it And by Mr Blake Birth priviledge pag. 11. Holinesse in the text is a fruit or result of faith in the parent Now the assumption the unbeleeving form catour is sanctified by the faith of the â—eleeving whore for the begetting a holy seed Master Marshall denies not but salkes only telling me pag. 163 of his Defence he could name Divines who are no whit inferâ—â—ur to my selfe who conceive that a beleever even then when he commits fornication with an infidell doth so remove the barre in the unbeleeving party as that the child is in the beleeving parents right to be râ—ckoned to belong to the Covenant of Grace and the Church of God which is in his sense to be sanctified and it must needs be granted for 〈◊〉 causa ponitur effectus if the quality of faith be the cause of that sanctification the sanctification followes in one as well as the other The conclusion then followes from Mr Marshals exposition that the beleeving fornicatrix may still live after conversion with her unbeleeving fornicator for they are still sanctified for the begetting of a holy seed and the children so begotten are federally holy it being Gods rule in this case if Mr Marshall say true partus sequitur meliorem partem But this is so absurd a thing that I beleeve Mr Marshall himselfe will when he understands it quit his chiefe hold and the judicious reader explode the exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. of federall holinesse And for the third conclusion of Mr Marshall he hath not yet proved that the rite of Baptisme was appointed by Christ to succeed into the room place and use of circumcision or that a command concerning circumcision should be a command concerning baptisme yea my exposition of Colos 2. 11 12. is
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
they might give them the Lords Supper in which all Christ is communicated and baptisme should not be 〈◊〉 baptisme is the seale of the tender of Christ 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 power of his bloâ—d 〈◊〉 of our Communion or partaking of Christ that is sealed in the other Sacrament pag. 64. It is true adultus must have faith such as it is naturall human before he can be baptized he must be willing by some inclination or other it were barbarous to baptize a grown man à gainst his will which could not be gotten but by some kind of 〈◊〉 though it might be just with man to punish him with death that should refuse as it is with God to punish with eternall death such as despise baptisme Nor do I thinke the principal ground of his new conceit pag. s. will satisfie which is that Matt. 28. 19. is thus to be expounded make all Nations Disciples by baptizing them and teaching whereas he himselfe sundry times reads it better make Disciples of all nations baptizing them and it is vainely alleaged that by is implyed in the participiall expression any more then verse 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be expounded hee met them by saying or Matth. 27. 55. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they followed by ministring unto him and I said justly Examen pag. 127. this conceit is so absurd that I presume none that hath any wit will entertain it though Master Hussey say page 6 I thinke if ever a man were out of his wit it was here but I shall be willing the Assembly judge whether of us two need sayle to Anticyra to purge our braines As for his answer to my book though I conceive it lettice fit for some lips yet in my apprehension it containes a fardell of mistakes in Logick Divinity and sometimes in Grammar but most of all of my meaning and the scope of my words and forâ—e of my reasons which being diligently compared with his book are a sufficient reply to it And therefore though hee conclude with a challenge to me yet he must pardon me if I make more account of my time then to cast it away in refusing such wild notions as he hath vented except I shall have so much spare time as to write a booke to make sport with wishing nevertheless that Master Hussey had some schoole of Divinity as he desires that he might be either better fitted to write or learn to be silent I have been larger in this matter then I intended at this time that I might shew the vanity of Mr Leyes vaunt and however God dispose of me doe my indeavour to cleare the truth in this thing and to prevent persecution of it through the provocation and exasperation of spirit towards Anti-paedobaptists which since these writings have been published hath many wayes discovered it selfe If the Lord spare me life liberty and meanes and it bee found necessary I may either more briefly or more largely rescue my treatises from their hands who have ill handled them and perverted the truth In the mean time this which is already said might serve a judicious Reader to answer the writing of my Antagonists though no more should follow Mr Mar. book it appears from pag. 59. 212. 227. was contrived by divers I beleeve the ablest of the Assembly I wish it were declared whether the Paedobaptists would stick to that work or any other I heare there are more yet to be printed if the aime be to oppresse me with number or to have this evasion that when one is answered yet some other is not answered and so to uphold the errour still which is a way of Jesuites I doubt not but God will defend his truth What hitherto is objected against my two Treatises and Appendix I doubt not but with Gods assistance to answer Afore I could finish this Apology I have tasted the fruits of Mr Marshals and Mr Gerees accusation in a message from the Benchers of both houses of the Temple that though they acknowledge my life and labours among them unreproveable yet by reason of the publishing of my treatises they cannot continue me here It was foretold me that some of the assembly would not give over till they had outed me hence If any of them have disswaded the people from hearing me though they cannot shew that I have preached any other thing then Gospell truth if they use any arts to withdraw the people from me I wish them to consider how they can acquit such actions from the sin of making schisme and stopping the course of the Gospell for their own ends not permitting any to preach the Gospell without concurrence in opinion with them when as Paul rejoiced that Christ was preached though it added affliction to his bonds Phil. 1. 18. what my desire was in the Prologue of my Examen is still that we may give one another the right hand of fellowship and stand fast in one mind in the truth of the Gospell and cleare the truth of God to the people whose eyes are upon us I may call God to witnesse that my ayme in making and publishing my Treatises was the benefit of the Assembly by making knowne to them reasons why the Doctrine of the Directory should be better examined which would be their honour if they disclaim me reject me repay evill for good I hope God will help me to bear it and to love them still and joyn with them in promoting the work of Christ notwithstanding I meet with discouragements where I assured my selfe greatest encouragement To conclude as the case now stands I know not into what corner of the 〈…〉 world God may carry me nor how I may be accommodated to publish any thing more either in this of Infant-baptisme or any other point of sacred knowledge it is not a little comfort to me that I have framed this Apology it shal be my witnesse in time to come that I have sought unity with truth and as I have made it my busines to preserve purity of doctrine so I shal stil though I have neither found recompence nor help considerable from men but rather am likely to meet with a consumption of estate a shortning of my dayes However things succeed I shall request that they that can pray would beg for me that I may doe nothing against the truth but for the truth and for the Churches of Christ that the Pastors and teachers in them may take heed of bending their wits to maintaine what the prime reformers and Churches ordered by them have avouched rather then impartially and throughly to examine their doctrine which as it is a great sin of making other masters then Christ so it is a cause of most mischievous rents and contentions FINIS A Postscript wherein is a reply to Mr. Blakes answer to my letter Reader BE pleased to take notice that whereas I say p. 21. of this Apology Molin in his Epistle to Bishop Andrâ—wâ—â— if my memory deceive me not confessed is
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
God because it is contrary to the definition of legitimation which is a state consequent upon birth by the lawfull copulation of lawfull husband and wife To my Analysis of the Apostleâ— argument Mr Blake saith the last words else were c. may be a mâ—dâ—â— and a resolution of another doub◠〈◊〉 but that cannot be 〈◊〉 it is an argument and that is 〈◊〉 drawn from the thing in doubt 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 and that 〈…〉 which they would not yeeld but the contrary was certain to them Mr Blake mislikes not my forming the Apostles argument but he excepts against the Proposition I conceive the Apostles sequele pâ—supposeth which is All the children of those parents whereof the one is not saâ—ctified to the other are 〈…〉 To this faith Mr Blake I appeale to your selfe whether the truth of that sequel by you rightly laid down doe depend upon thaâ— Proposition which you draw from themâ— I answer it doth Mr Blake Is the Apostle 〈◊〉 Proposition of parents in generall 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 beleeving and another unbeleeving in particular I answer it is of an unbeleeving husband and a wise And yet the Proposition must be 〈◊〉 be of all parents which must prove it as he that will prove if an Englishman be noble he is honourable must prove it by this universall or 〈◊〉 All noble men are honourable and not put in all English 〈◊〉 noble for then the antecedent and conclusion would be alâ—ong whereas the Proposition proving must be larger then the Proposition proved else we might concludâ— ex meris 〈◊〉 To 〈◊〉 if the unbeleeving â—â—â—band were not sanctified by the wife your children were unclean is all one with this All the children of the unbeleeving husband not sanctified to the wife are uncleane Mr Blake saith The truth of the Apostles sequele depends on this Proposition All the children of an nobeleever are unclean unlesse for generation he or shee be sanctified by a beleever I deny it for the termes for generation by a beleever are added by him not in the Apostle and so he changeth the terms Yet it is to be noted that though the Apostles major be of husband and wife in particular Mr Blake makes the Proposition on which it depends of unbeleevers in generall and so by his own practife justifies me against his owne exception 2. The Proposition Mr Blake layes down as upon which the major in the Apostle syllogisme depends All the children of an unbeleever are unclean unlesse for generation be or shee be sanct fied by a beleever is false and so is that which he saith after All those that are borne of unbeleeving parents and one of them not sanctified in the other are out of the Covenant of grace yea the other is false too according to Mr Blakes opinion unbeleeving parents never beget children by birth-priviledge holy For children born of infidels brought into Abrahams family had right to circumcision and so were by birth-priviledge holy in Mr Blakes sense Mr Blake tels me the Apostles Proposition according to my interpretation is this All the children of an unbeleever are bastards except in generation he or shee be sanctified by a beleever But this I deny I have set down the Proposition according to my interpretation plainly enough already My alleaging Chamiers words against his opinion was no jeare but a right way of using an authors reasons against another against his own opinion And that I did rightly for these Propositions according to Chamiers explication are included in the Apostles reason omnes nati ex tis parentibus quorum alâ—ur non sanctificatur in al ero sunt extra foedus gratiae Nunquam parentes infideles gignunt liberos intra foedus gratiae fusuros The adding futuros was necessary because their being in the Covenant of grace is after their begetting if I had said qui fuerunt nut sunt intra foedus gratiae M. Blake would justly then have had exception against me as not righly setting down Chamiers conceit now those Propositions of â—hamier are false and consequently his explication according to his own grounds The putting in aut fornicantes was because I would include both explications of the forepart of the verse both that of matrimoniall which I conceive was Beza's and that of instrumentall sanctification The using of the term ridâ—caâ—lam was no more a jear of Chamier then his using of it a jeare of Augustin But my An agonists are so touchy that expressions that are not so much as motes in other mens eyes are beames in mine To the exceptions of Master Blake pag. 40. I say though I did not keep his words yet I keep the effect of them If he use not the term Covenant of grace yet I suppose he will not deny he meant that which usually Divines expresse by it in this point though Master Blake thinkes the word Covenant of grace cannot be found in his treatise for baptism yet if he please he may find the word Covenant of free grace pag. 14. of his birth-priviledge used to that purpose I ascribe to him where he saith the holinesse he maintaines is from the Covmam of free grace to all in the faith and their seed My explication of 〈◊〉 meaning of the Apostles words Master Blake sayes is almost the same with his in terminis Then I have not wronged the Apostle and it followes the Apostle cals himselfe a Jewe by nature as tied to keep the law of Moses Now I called it a dreame to make Gal 2. 15. 1 Cor. 9. 14. every way pâ—â— allel they neither agreeing in scope occasion words nor matter which are dissimilitudes enough I grant his sense of the word nature and that the Apostle there speakes of himselfe and other Jewes as in reputation more holy then the Gentiles because of their interest in circumcision and observance of Moses law but this was proper to the Jewes in that Church-state who had prerogatives peculiar to them Master Rutherford Due right of Presbyteries chap. 4. sect 5. pag 192. That they had prerogatives above us is cleare Rom. 3. 1 2 3. Rom. 9. 4. But I deny that a holinesse of birth flowing from a parent beleeving and in Covenant is asserted 1 Cor. 7. 14. The term sinâ—â—â— of the Gentiles is not all one with uncleane 1 Cor. 7. 14. Bâ—â—â—ne chiefe thing he brings that text for is to prove that our children have a Covenant holinesse because they are to be comprehended under the first member of the distinction Jewes by natuâ—â—â— I wondered at this his collection but it seems Master Blake takes the term Jewes not properly for people so called because borns in Judes or of Jewish descent but allusively as Rom. 2. 28. 29. But Master Blaks doth not observe that the terme Jewe allusively taken is a term common to all godly people or beleevers whereas here Jew is taken as opposite to them that are of the Gentiles and the denomination of a Jew allusively taken is not from nature
brought to writing the question is whether I Pet. 2. 9 prove a birth priviledge of Christians equall to the nation of the fewes I deny it and say the words there are meant of the Church as it is invisible And to prove this 1 I argue from the termes chosen generatior royall priest-hood holy nation peculiar people or a purchased people that is by Christs death Tit. 2. 14. which cannot be affirmed of any other then elect and true beleevers ergo 2 From that which is said of them that were called by God by his power or vertue into his marvailous light and v. 10. that now had obtained mercy which they had not before which cannot be affirmed of any but elect persons and true beleevers ergo 3 It is said v. 7. that these persons did beleeve contradistinguished to them that were disobedient and stumbled at the word to which they were appointed but such are onely the elect ergo 4 v. 5. They are said to be built as living stones on Christ a spirituall house a holy priesthood to offer up spirituall Sacrifice acceptable to God by Jesus Christ which can agree to none but elect persons and true beleevers ergo But the terme nation comprehends Fathers and Children Answ The word nation taken in these passages must be understood restrainedly of a spirituall people as is plaine by considering that the Apostle Gal. 3. 8 sayes this is the Gospell in thee shall all nations be blessed that is beleevers of all nations else the Apostles collection v. 9. were not right And so the word Kinred is used Acts 3. 25. compared with Ephes 3 15. the word houshold Ephes 2. 19. But they may be said to beleeve with a dogmaticall faith Answ Those that do so never come to Christ as living stones nor are built a spirituall house which is proper to them that are made an habitation of God through the spirit Ephes 2. 22. But the calling of a people is spoken of the ten tribes revolted Hos 1. 10. Hos 2. 23. Deut. 32. 21. Answ However it be in the places to which the allusion is it is certaine that here is meant such a calling as is from darkenesse to his marvailous light by his vertues or powers which therefor deserve to be shewed forth and which they do shew forth that are thus called And this is confirmed from Rom. 9. 24. 25. 26. which is manifestly said of them who were called v. 23. vessels of mercy nor is this a denomination a parte prast antigri for it is expressely said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the same whom he called vessels of mercy And I still say that I wonder Master Blake would persist in maintaining so grosse an abuse of this Scripture in which I hardly beleeve any approved writer joynes with him Master Blake had said no particular president for womens receiving the Lords Supper more then for this of Infants baptisme I alleaged 1 Cor. 11. 28. where I said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehends both sexes To this Master Blake sayes ch 9. if arguments from the Grammer use be of force then circumcision of femalâ— may be proved from John 7. 22. I reply the subject matter of the command as well as the Grammer use of the word prove femals to be included Master Coleman an Assembly man and an able linguist in his malè dicis pag. 32. hath these words But that I confesse is something harsh that he should aske me where there is the institution for women to receive the Sacrament when as 1 Cor. 11. 28. is as cleare for women as men Mr Martin Blake in his answer to Master Benjamin Coxe ch 7. sect 4. pag. 82. produceth many places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much quisque any one Matth. 16. 26. Joh. 3. 27. 7. 46. Gal. 6. 1. c. I alleaged for an expresse example of women receiving the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 10. 17. 1. Cor. 12. 13. and this I did in the Pulpit at Gabriel Fench-Church as Mr Blake tels me and I had fit occasion sith 1 Cor. 10. 17. was my text then and that text is expresse without consequence for womens receiving the Lords Supper if we comprehend women as well as men which Master Blake will not deny And yet Mr Marshals allegation to prove women virtually to be circumcised in the males serves not for his purpose I alleaged Acts 10. 7. Master Blake doubts whether it be meant of the Lords Supper and if it b meant so he knoweth not how to avoid the Pepish argument for Communion in one kinde and that this yeelds a proofe onely by conseqvence I answer if women be comprehended under the terme Disciples and breaking bread be meant of the Lords Supper as to me it seems certaine because it was the end of their custoâ—â— meeting on the first day of the weeke and therefore could not be any other breaking bread then the example is expresse without consequence for womens receiving the Lords Supper It Mr Blake know not how to answer the Papists I wish him to read Chamier panstrat Cathol tom 4. de Ench. lib. 9. c. 2. § 34. c. Master Blake would bring Acts 2. 47. for example farre more formall and expresse then mine of Infant-baptisme and he tels me of a syllogisme The Lord added to the Church dayly such as should be saved Infants are saved therefore are to he baptized A strange syllogisme where in the major permiâ—â— is not in the major proposition at all consisting of four termes and so farre as I can gather in secunda figura ex omnibus affirmantibus for the medium saved is the predicate in both premises or else the major is particular and so it consists ex meris particularibus I go on to the 10th chapter I said that it is a new Gospell to affirme that this is one of the promises of the Covenant of grace that God will be the God of beleevers and their seed To this Mr Blake saith A very high charge from that mouth which very lately preached it as a Gospell truth and now being suddenly otherwise perswaded can bring no other arguments then those that are harrowed from Antichristian â—â—â—aries who are confessed sub verters of the Gospell I answer Master Blake cannot prove that I ever preached that Doctrine I scarce thinke I did ever preach it Forasmuch as I conceived that Doctrine directly contradictory to the Apostle Rom. â— 8. ever since in Oxford I examined Arminius his Aâ—dysis of Rom. â— Suddenly I was not perswaded as I shew in my Apology before I knowe not what Antichristian sectaries he means who are confessed subverters of the Gospell from whom I borroâ—ed my arguments I neither had them from Anabaptists â—o called nor Papists Master Blake gives way to his passion in this charge My arguments I have from Scripture from the most learned Protestants as he may see part 3. 54. And though it be an old Gospell that God hath promised to
be the God of Abraham and his seed yet I still averre it to be a new Gospell to say that God hath promised to be the God of beleevers and their seed The Coveâ—â—â—t with Abraham and his seed I find 〈◊〉 17. 7. and the urging of this Covenant I deny not Exod. 32. 13. Deut. 9. 27. Levit 26. 42. Exod. 3. 6. And though I say not that it contained onely the promise of 〈◊〉 but grant it contained the promise of 〈◊〉 by Christ 〈◊〉 1. 17. yet I like not Chaâ—iors saying to call the promise of Canâ—â— an appâ—â—â—â— to the Covenâ—â— sith the Holy Ghost me thinkes speakes otherwise Ps 105. 8. 9. 10. 11. That 〈◊〉 cap. 39. speak not of 〈◊〉 his faederall holinesse hath been shewed before and 〈…〉 which Master Blake cites pag. 57. saying that 〈…〉 biunt expectant baptismum do me thinkes prove that Infants were not ordinarily baptized in his time Nor do I thinke Master Blake can prove the Doctrine of Covenant-holinesse out of Justin martyr Epiphanius Augustin Isidor Pelusiota I had said that I guesse by some words of Master Marshall Mr Blake and Master Rutherfurd that to maintaine the baptizing of all sorts of persons in the Kingdome as foundlings Infants of Papists whores excommunicat persons which is the ordinary practise excepted against by Independents that this assertion was upon the anvil that when a nation shall receive the faith that is a great or eminent part the governours and chiefe cities and representative bodyes shall receive the faith that nation shall in like manner have all their litle ones capable of baptisme and counted visible members of the Church as the posterity of the Jewes were in the time of that Church administration Mr Blake askes me in which of these words I pray you can you find one word of that businesse which you say is on the aâ—vill I answer to let Master Blakes words alone for the present me thinkes Master Rutherfurds sound plainly as much For if notwithstanding the Father and Mother were as wicked as the Jewes who slew the Lord of glory who did obstinately deny Christ the children were holy by the holinesse of the chosen nation which I conceive when the Ancestors are not included must meane the body or generality of the nation then the assertion I set downe as theirs must follow but this I did deliver but as my guesse yet so as that I thought necessary to oppose it and I say it opposeth their owne grounds who derive the title to Infant-baptisme from the Covenant to a beleever and his seed but these are not the seed of beleevers but the seed of them that deny and impugne the faith and from 1 Cor. 7. 14. of which Master Blake himselfe faith pag. 38. of his answer so my letter The truth of the Apostles sequel depends on this proposition All the children of the unbeleever are uncleane that is out of the Covenant in his sense unlâ—esse for generation he or she be sanctifyed by a beleever Which speech of Master Blake I conceive plainly overthrowes Master Blakes position in the birth priviledge pag. 24. c. and Master Rutherfurds in the words before named For if all the children of an unbeleever are uncleane unesse for generation he or she be sanctifyed by a beleever it will not be enough to say the nation is holy or the mediate ancestors were holy sith the Apostles position is of the immediate parents about whose living together the question was and therefore saith else were your children unclean Mr Blakes answer here is a mistake of the force of my reason which was not from the term beleever in 1 Cor. 7. 14. but from this that by their own expoâ—ition they are unclean who are not borne of a beleever therefore they cannot be holy either by holinesse of remote ancestours or the chosen nation when the immediate pareâ—ts are as wicked as the Jewes who crucified Christ I said the Independents had the advantage in this and I am sure they have against Mr Blake and Mr Rutherfurd and I guesse that the Assembly were sensible of it when they appointed in the Directory the child to be presented by the Father though I conceive that remedy will little or nothing rectify the abuse Mr. Blake saith it were worth enquiry whom I mean by officiating Priests I tel him non-preaching Priests made by the Bishops Mr Blake saith your selfe were well aware that every weapon that you left up against this Protestant doctrine was forged on the Jesuitas aâ—vill and that in the whole conflict you were necessitated to borrow help from the Philisten Artists when you were put upon it to say page 13. This is no undeniable Axiome that what all the Protestant Divines defend against the Papists must be truth undeniable To this I say I am well aware that this is a loud calumny the contrary whereof is manifest by the many and best Protestant Divines I quote all along my Examen and very seldome make use of a Jesuite throughout my Treatise Nor was I put upon that speech I used because I borrowed help from Papists but because Mr Marshall spake of his virtuall consequence as undeniable as if he had been Doctor irrefragabilis and it is necessary when men goe about to bind men to the consent of Divines in some Churches that we freely claime our liberty and not become the servants of men Mr Blake saith I doe not know one Protestant writer that hath declared himselfe in this thing but hath declared himself to be your adversary I answer none of the Antipaedopaptists are my adversaries in this yet some of them are Protestant writers in the point of expounding Gen. 17. 7. which is the chiefe hold for Covenant holinesse Twisse Bayne Ames Downame and many others are for me in the point of expounding 1 Cor. 7. 14. Camerarius Melanchthon Musculus O siander are for me Mr Blake saith but a little before pag. 58. Zuinglius in this hand went right in which Luther his contemporary and opposite in this thing is charged to be defective But saith Mr Blake I and you have entred into Covenant to the extirpation of Popery and I would learn of you by what character or marke it may be now discerned I answer not by this that that is to be accounted Popery which all Protestant Divines oppose the Papists in for then many things would not be counted Popery which are nor any thing to be counted Popery till we knew all Protestant Divines oppose it an endles impossible busines But there is a shorter way then that and it is that is to be counted Popery which is commonly known by that name as the doctrine of the Popes supremacy infallibility the doctrine of the Masse Transubstantiation Bread-worship Crosse-worship Invocation of Saints c. Or if you will have a more fixed way you may take that to be Popery which either the 39 Articles of the Church of England condemn in opposition to
Papists or is renounced in the Scottish negative Covenant or Confession in the yeare 1581 as I remember or what the present Parliament of England in their late Propositions to the King Propos 7. would have Papists abjure Mr Blake saith may we not require one other instance of a Popish truth standing up against an Orthodox errour besides this incontroversie That from Gen. 17. 7. 1 Cor. 7. 14. or any other Scripture Covenant-holines of beleevers infants cannot be proved is as well a Protestant truth as a Popish An Orthodox errour is opposition in â—pposâ—â—â— Be it that we cannot assign any one thing for truth in which Pretestants generally oppose Papists yet my speech is good that that is no undeniable axiome that what all the Protestant Divines defend against the Papists must be truth undeniable He that will not subscribe to this must make the Protestant Divines doctrines against Papists equall to the holy Scripture In the 11th chapter Sect. 1. Mr. Blake subscribes to my interpretation and conclusion but doubts the premises on which I build it to be scarce sound the reason he gives is because I thus expound make Disciples out of all nations whereas the verb is transitive and the noune in the accusative and therefore it is boldnesse in me to change it that in stood of nations I may understand as many or as few as I lâ—st of nations whereas Mr Blake conceivet agreeable to prophecies Psal 2. 8. c. that the whole of the nation is appointed to be discipled and to be baptized and so infants to be comprehended I answer my boldnesse was no other then Beza's annot on Mat. 28. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idest discipulos mihi facite ex omnibus gentibus The new 〈◊〉 on the Bible annot on Matth. 28. 19. â—each Gr. make Disciples of as John 4. 1. all nations not Jewes alone but Gentiles also Acts 10. 34. 35. 47. nor do I any thing contrary to Grammar as the 〈◊〉 in transitive so it is used transitively by me and it hath an accusative case after it to wit the noune confessedly included in the verb that is made from it and which I think none will deny to be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used John 4. 1. and then all nations must either be put by apposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or with the Praeposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I stand not upon it whether be taken but I conceive it more agreeable to the sense and to the language to expresse it in the latter way Bee then the whole of the nation and so infants will not be included I answer it is true nor can they be included For the making Disciples all nations is by teaching them or by preaching the Gospell to them as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is expressed Markes 6. â—â— which no man I think will have the face to deny to bee the same with this not onely Master Marshall himselfe that expresseth it in his Sermon pag. 35. that they should teach the heathen and the Iewes and make them Discicles and then baptize them but Mr Blake subscribes to this my intrepretation by preaching the Gospell to all nations make them Disciples pag. 65. So that Mr Blake must needs exclude infants except he can make them Disciples by teaching or preaching the Gospell to them And for the prophecies he brings I marvaile he is not ashamed to produce Psal 72. 11. Psal 86. 9. to prove that that the whole of the nation even infants must be included Mat. 28. 19. as if it were foretold that the whole of the nations even infants should come and worship before God Pareus in his Commentary on Matth. 28. 19. saith truly tertium mandatum est de baptizandis omnibus gentibus hoc est sacramento baptismi initiâ—â—dis consecrandis omnibus is qui Christo nomen darent In the second fiction of chapter 11. Master Blake saith I had thought no man had equal â— Bellarmin in taking paines to find a knot in a Bull-rush But I have shewed above that Mr Rutherfurd hath made a knot needfull to be untyed I say there can no rule be assigned whereby to know when a nation is a beleeving chosen or discipled nation giving right to baptize infants of that nation when not Mr Blake askes doe you mean rules so cleare and plaine that 〈◊〉 difficulty or case of conscience can occurre that needs enquiry in observation of it I answer no but such rules as are so cleare that a case of conscience may be resolved by them M. Blake acouseth me as not rightly setting down his argâ—â—ent because I set not down the conclusion right I put the conclusion thus and therefore the infants to be baptized whereas I should have added and the nations being discipled then infants as part of the nation are to be baptized To shew the causlesnesse of this exception Mr Blake pag. 20 of his birth-priviledge had said thus The infants of any nation make up a part of the nation and the nation where they came was to bee discipled but set not down his conclusion and therefore I conceiving he meant to infer thence that infants were comprized in those words baptizing them Matth. 28. 19. put down his conclusion thus and therefore the infants to be baptized Mr Blake would have discipled put into the conclusion But I conceive still discipled should not be put in the conclusion and the premises were set down by himselfe and therefore I did him no wrong For his argument in form must be thus They who are part of a discipled nation are to be baptized infants are part of a discipled nation therefore infants are to be baptized any man may see that discipled should not be put in the conclusion sith it is in the medium quod non ingreditur conclusionem Now let his major Proposition stand and I will subsume upon Mr Blakes ground Infidels of growne yeares are part of a discipled nation for they are part of the nation and if the nation be discipled they are part of the discipled nation therefore by Mr Blakes reason Infidels of growne yeares are to be baptized Mr Blake at last pag. 67. sets downe his rule in these words they are baptized by vertue of a priviledge from their parent not from the nation which is plainely to renounce Mr Rutherfurds assertion I confesse if my first argument against the assertion I conceive Mr Rutherfurds may be answered then the 2d will be easily answered as M. Blake truly observes p. 68. In answering my 3d. Mr Blake askes How is it that wicked parents are now brought in this dispute I answer because it was the term Mr Rutherfurd used in his assertion not to shew my allowance of the baptisme of infants of parents not wicked nor out of agreement with Mr Thomas Goodwin in this Mr Blake page 69. indeavours to prove by my tenet there can be no rule set down to know that any man
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