Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	apostle_n	book_n	church_n	3,849	5	4.2058	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94733	An apology or plea for the Two treatises, and appendix to them concerning infant-baptisme; published Decemb. 15. 1645. Against the unjust charges, complaints, and censures of Doctor Nathanael Homes, Mr Iohn Geree, Mr Stephen Marshall, Mr John Ley, and Mr William Hussey; together with a postscript by way of reply to Mr Blakes answer to Mr Tombes his letter, and Mr Edmund Calamy, and Mr Richard Vines preface to it. Wherein the principall heads of the dispute concerning infant-baptism are handled, and the insufficiency of the writings opposed to the two treatises manifested. / By Iohn Tombes, B.D.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1646 (1646)	Wing T1801; Thomason E352_1; ESTC R201072	143,666	170

of the Supper The quoting of mine owne text were enough I will set down his words as I find them that the Reader may judge whether there be truth in it that I have snatched his word● from their own Defence and whether he did not oppose demonstration of Scripture to ●●●ritt●n tradition The words are thus I say this for the setling of such as are not wilful that 〈◊〉 take the baptism of Infants to be one of the most reverend generall and uncontrouled traditions which the Church ha●h and which I would no losse doubt of then the Creed to be Apostolicall And although I confesse my selfe 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 Bellarm●nes pie probabiliter credi potest and that there is no word in the New Testament to infringe the liberty of the Church in it which if Master Rogers can satisfie himself with he may I professe I dare not so play with my own conscience and I thought this was fit to be told Master Marshall to shew that I was not the only man that questioned whether his proofes for Infant-baptisme were so undeniable as he would have them and that 's enough to shew the unreasonablenes of the violence of his spirit against those that differ from him And for his Quaere why he should not answer me silentio contemptu I presume Master Marshall hath long since done that office of a friend to tell him it is written Rom. 14. 10. Why doest thou set at at naught thy brother I had said not as Mr Marshall repeats it Master Ba●l cuts the sinewes of the argument from Circumcision but me thinkes Mr Balls words cut the sinewes of that argument And so they do plainly 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 kn●w also that you will agree with me Seventhly that the learned Chamier in a large dispute doth confute your interpretation and vindicate my interpretation as the onely true and proper meaning of this text even in that very pla●e where you quote him And therefore I know the reader will agree with mee whether you doe cr●● that you doe but abuse your Authour and Reader both in making a flourish with Chamiers name nothing to the purpose and thereby would m●ke the Reader to conceive Chamier to be of your side when he is point-blanke against you And in the same page First you severall times 〈◊〉 the learned Beza as if he were of your m●nd in the interpretation of this text to construe it of matrimoniall holinesse I confesse the cause depends not upon Beza's judgement but your reputation depends much upon ●●king this good that you should dare to 〈◊〉 Authour as interpreting it for you who interprets it exprofesso against you p. 159. I perswade

in his vindiciae Paedo-baptismi ch 1. sect 3. goes somewhat more distinctly to work yet neither doth he frame a syllogisme from Rom. 11 11. 12. 13. 17. 18. c. nor doe I know how he would have it framed He saith the conclusion to be proved is that the ch●ldren of Christians have the same priviledge with children of Jewes as they were comprehended so under the Covenant with their parents as to be reputed members of the same visible kingdome and to be sealed with them This conclusion I deny if it be understood of the outward priviledge belonging to the Jewish Church in that state it was afore Christs comming To prove it he layes down four Proprositions and deduceth four con●ectaries but how he shews not The third is ambiguous and if he mean by into the place of the Iewes cut off the same Church-state and by partaking of their priviledge● the priviledges belonging to their Church 〈◊〉 as I think he doth it is to denied and so likewise his second and third consectary in that sense Nor doth either Rom. 11. 17. prove it as shall be presently shewed nor is a beleeving Jew a looser by the coming of Christ in regard of his seed sith this was a peculiar priviledge in the time of that Church state which now ceaseth to be a priviledge Christ being come as in like manner the Temple High Priest c. doe which I have more largely discussed Examen part 3. § 11. And for the fourth consectary if it be understood of pristine Church-state I likewise deny it I grant the promise will bee extended to them and their seed but how Not by an outward ordinance or initiall scale as it is called applyed to infants but by the communicating the spirit and word of God to them and their seed as the text he alleageth imports Isai 59. 20. Nor by holding that neither Jewes nor Gentiles now are to have their infants sealed wil follow that there will be two distinctestates in the Christian Churches one of the Jews holy Fathers and children another of the Gentiles who have only personall priviledges none for their seed for neither doth Baptisme belong to the one or the other because they the are seed of beleevers and for regeneration and saving benefits the Lord bestowes to the seed of either as pleaseth him Nor would this conceit of mine set up or keep up a partition wall still contrary to the Apostle Ephes 2. 14. For then a partition wall is kept up when the Gentiles as Gentiles are excluded from accesse to God which is not done by my doctrine they that hold that the command about Circumcision still binds virtually come nearer to the setting up a partition wall in the Apostles ser se I return to Mr Marshall Mr Marshall in his Sermon as I conceived made this the thing he would prove that we and our children are graffed in together this I granted in some sense to be true that God doth usually call and adopt the children with the Fathers but I denyed it to be so perpetually so as that a rule for an outward ordinance may be flamed thence And so farre as I can collect the chiefe medium Master Marshall and Master Geree take hence to prove it is that we Gentiles have the same ingrassing into the true olive which the Jewes formerly had This Master Marshall made the Apostles scope though the truth is it is so farre from being the Apostles scope that it agrees not with his words who makes the ancient Jewes naturall branches not ingraffed and the scope of the Apostle is otherwise as hath been shewed Examen pag. 65. But the thie●e difference is about the ingraffing what that is as I had said The ingraffing to me is meant of the invisible Church by election and faith To this Master Marshall pag. 136. sayes I reply if it be meant of the invisible Church onely and that all who are ingraffed in the Apostles sense whether Jews or Gentiles are only elect ones I will promise you never to plead this Scripture more for any inf●nts and after if you please let us try it out I agree to this motion and determine that the graffing in Rom. 11. 17. c. is meant of the ingraffing into the invisible Church by election and giving faith with this caution that I doe not deny that the same people might or were ingraffed into the visible Church by profession of faith and baptisme but hold that this ingraffing is more then that which is into the visible Church by outward profession and ordinances To prove my determination I thus argue 1. That ingraffing which is Gods act by his sole power is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith For graffing into the invisible Church is as Mr Marshall saith pag. 135. admission into visible membership which if it be by an outward ordinance is the easie act of the administratour if by profession of faith the easie act of the professour But the ingraffing meant Rom. 11. is Gods act from his sole power as is proved from verse 23. where the reason is rendred why the Jewes should be again grassed in is because God is able to graffe them in again Ergo the graffing here is into the invisible Church 2. That ingraffing which is called reconciliation opposite to casting away that is by election and giving faith for no other acts can reconcile but the ingraffing here is called reconciliation opposite to casting away v. 13. as may appeare in that v. 16. is a reason of the clause about the reception of the Jewes v. 15. and the 17 verse is an admonition from the supposition v. 15. that the Jewes were cast away which is called breaking off v. 17. now if breaking off v. 17. be the same with casting away v. 15. then ingraffing is the same with reconciliation Erg● ingraffing is by election and giving of faith 3. The ingraffing must bee meant of that act whereby the branch stand in the tree as a branch this will none deny it being the very terminus of ingraffing as hea● the terminus of Calefaction But that is by giving faith Ergo The minor is proved from v. 20. where it is said by ●mbeleefe they were broken off but thou standest by faith whence I argue That act whereby the branch stands in the tree as a branch must be the giving that meanes whereby the branch thus stands but that is faith v. 20. Erg● the act of ingraffing is by giving of faith 4. That ingraffing is meant v. 17. whereby the wild olive is Copartaker of the root and fatnesse of the olive tree as is asserted there But such is only election and giving of faith Ergo The minor I prove by considering who the root is and what the fatnesse of the olive tree is 1. Negatively the root is not as Master Marshall and Master Blake every beleeving pa●ent For then all the branches should be naturall the child of every beleeving parent is a naturall

the Apostle to prove their lawfull copulation is an Argument ab absurdo and including this proposition All those children whereof one of the parents is not sanctified to the other by lawfull cepulaetion are ●nclea●e which being expounded of federall uncleanesse were false and is only true of bastardy I concluded that it was the meaning of the Apostle and could be no other Whereupon when in a meeting of Ministers in the City of London the question was propounded what Scripture there was for Infant-baptisme I told my Breth●●n plainly that I doubted there was none This occasioned the Dispute Doctor Homes speakes of which happened about January 1643. Concerning which though some gave out I was satisfied by it others that I was so convinced that I had nothing to say yet the truth is this was all the ground of those reports that having at first stood upon it that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such Matth. 19. 14. was meant only of such like it being urged that then it could not be a reason why they should suffer those children to be brought to Christ I yeelded that it was to be expounded as Beza expounded it horum similium ut supra as I expresse in my Exercitation and further granted that if when Christ saith of these is the Kingdom of God he meant of their present state of regeneration they might be baptized but that our Saviour meant it of their present state I did not grant and I further yeelded that I should not sticke at the baptisme of an Infant concerning whom I should be certified from God that it was actually regenerate and beleeving meaning no more but this that such a certificate would warrant me in such a case to baptize it being all one with a profession of faith as signes made by a dumbe person that he was a Christian would warrant his baptisme This concession being made meerely upon a supposition of an extraordinary revelation first Ma●ter B●●ke and after him Master Marshall have often urged though they have been often tould that a common rule cannot be drawn from an extraordinary case Not long after that Conference my most loving and reverend Father in law Master Henry Scudder fearing the event of this matter after some writing that past betweene us advised me to draw up the reasons of my doubts and he undertook to present them to the Committee chosen as I conceived it to give satisfaction about that point which I conceived might well be by the leave of the Parliament as the appointing the Assembly to give satisfaction about some doubts in taking the Covenant And if the Committee as a Committe could not do it which I suppose they might have done by communicating what after debate was prepared for the Assembly which I presume was certainly it should have been accurately done with examination of what could be objected afore those Articles in the Directory about this matter were passed yet particular members might have done somewhat to satisfie me who would have been then and shall be yet satisfied with one convincing argument that it was Christs appointment that the Infants of Beleevers because they are borne of Beleever are to be baptized According to the advise given in a short space I first drew up the nine first Arguments in my Exercitation which were delivered as I relate in my Examen in February and March 1643. and after in Iuly following the other three Which I said in my Examen were delivered to Master Tuckney but Master Marshall tels me he doth deny it yet I conceive my Father Scudder told me so who I am sure would speake truth and when I read that to him he did not correct me in it and Master Thomas Goodwin still saies he had them after Master Tuckney had perused them Besides these Papers that satisfaction might more compendiously be given me at the motion of my reverend Father in law I set down in one page of a Paper in quarto the maine ground of my doubt and delivered it to him whether he communicated it to any else I know not my end was that satisfaction to me might more easily be procured This short thing I after put in my Examen Part. 2. § 8. as I said above which Master Marshall calls a tedious discourse though it containes lesse then forty lines and if it had been well answered might have eased Master Marshall of the rest of his labour Now the Papers before named I perceived were tossed up and down from one to another and it seemes Master Edwards the Controversie Lecturer at Christ-Church got them and picking out some passages but concealing others that would have cleared them under pretence of refuting them with the writing of another which he joyned with mine meerly abused me in the Pulpit at Christ-Church which I immediately charged him with after his Sermon in the Vestry and he only excused it by telling me he named me not though there were sundry Ministers there that knew he meant me But this it seemes is like Master Edwards his justice to other men In this time I attended Master Thomas Goodwins Lectures about that Argument had the patience to heare Master Edwards his discourse at Christ Church and read many Treatises and Sermons in many of which I found rather invectives than arguments It happened that the Parishioners of Fanchurch became disaffected to me and refused to heare me though I medled not at all with that matter in the Pulpit and I perceived my maintenance was likely to be withdrawn at the end of the yeare Hereupon one of the Assembly my loving friend understanding that the Honourable Societies of the Temples wanted a Preacher sollicited the bringing of me thither But the matter was by the Honourable House of Commons referred to the Assembly who chose a Committee to nominate a Preacher for them of which Committee Master Marshall was one by whom I was rejected Presently after which rejection having occasion of businesse in the behalfe of some godly Pembrokeshire Ministers with that worthy Gentleman Master Iohn W●i●e Chaire-man of the Committee for plundered Ministers he would needs argue with me about that point of Infant-baptisme and after some dispute he desired to have my answer to his argument in writing Which occasion I tooke to lay open my condition to him in a Letter which begot no other fruit but a little Treatise intituled Infants Baptisme proved lawfull by Scripture Shortly after in August 1644. I met with Master Marshal's Sermon and finding the vehemency of his spirit against Antipaedobaptists and having had experience both of his and Master Whites inflexiblenesse by my former writings and seeing no likelihood of imploiment and maintenance for me and mine except I would gather a separated Church which I durst not do as not knowing how to justifie such a practice I resolved to make a full answer to Master Marshals Sermon and finished it November 11. and having with much difficulty transcribed one Copy and gotten another

This by the way But Mr. Marshalls tells me pag. 1●0 of his Defence you cannot be ignorant how our Divines owne the outward administration of the Covenant under the notion of Foedus externum and the spirituall grace of it under the notion of Foedus internum and that still I restraine the Covenant to the spirituall part onely and would perswade my reader that they who speake of the Covenant of Grace must meane it thus strictly and yet I bring not arguments to disprove a true visible membership upon a visible profession whether the inward saving grace be known or not To this I answer I confesse I have met with that distinction of foedus externum internum in some Protestant writers but not meeting with it in Mr Marshals Sermon I had no occasion in my E●a●en to meddle with it but now I will declare my thoughts of it I confesse that Circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 1● 13 by a me●onymy of the thing signified for the signe as the text it selfe expounds it and I confesse that the Apostle Rom. 2. 28. distinguisheth of Circumcision outward in the flesh and circumcision of the heart but no where in Scripture doe I meet with the distinction of the outward and inward Covenant nor doe I conceive the expression right For if the distinction be only distinctio nominis it should be thus Covenant is taken either properly or improperly by a trope and not Covenant is either outward or inward if the distinction be distinctio rei then there is some common notion of a Covenant thus distributed and so the sense must be some Covenants that is promises for the nature of a Covenant is a mutuall or single promise are either externall or internall and this may be understood either in respect of the making of the promise and so it is not right for all promises in that sense are externall none internall for afore it be declared by some transeunt act it is not a promise but an intention or else it may be understood in respect of the thing promised and it is confessed that God promiseth inward and outward good things and if this were the meaning I should not much except against it though I should like it better to expresse it thus The things covenanted are outward or inward which is plain and easie to be understood then to say the Covenant is outward or inward But Mr Marshall by the outward Covenant means the outward administration of it and by the inward Covenant the spirituall grace of it According to which explication the distinction is not agreeable to Logick rules nor can stand Mr Marshall in any stead but to convince him of trifling and equivocating in his first argument and two first conclusions Trifling I say in his first argument For the first argument was this The infants of beleeving parents are foederati therefore they must be signati Now Mr Marshall will not have the antecedent understood of the inward Covenant that is the spirituall grace he blames me for that and he himselfe rejects it in that sense then the sense must be the infants of beleeving parents are foederat● that is in the outward Covenant of Grace that is according to Mr Marshall in the outward administration of the Covenant Now what is the outward administration he expresseth pag. 48. of his Sermon calling Baptisme the new administration and Circumcision the old This then is Mr Marshals argument The infants of beleevers are in the outward Covenant that is in the outward administration meaning Baptisme or Circumcision this is the antecedent the consequent or conclusion is therefore they must be signati that is baptized or circumcised But is not this a meer inept tautology all one as to prove they must bebaptized because they must be baptized all one as to argue he must have ensem because he must have gladium this is Pauls Epistle because this is Pauls letter I said equivocating For by the Covenant Mr Marshall makes shew of one thing in the first conclusion but meanes another in the second For he had said conclusion the first The Covenant of Grace for substance hath been alwayes the same and pag. 10. he shewes wherein lies the substance of it to wit the spirituall part now who would not have expected that the second conclusion should be meant of the same Covenant to wit the inward sith he sayes pag. 26. The proving the two first conclusions gains the whole cause if the Covenant be the same and children belong to it then they are to be owned as Covenanters yea and his first text to prove the second conclusion Acts 2. 39. he himselfe expounds it of Christ and saving benefits by him But it seems Mr Marshal's heart failes him he found that assertion too hot for him though that be the ordinary assertion in the Directory in books and Sermons insomuch that it is an usuall expression to say infants are confederates with their beleeving parents in the Covenant of Grace and therefore now the second conclusion that the children of beleevers belong to the Covenant of Grace must be understood in another sense then as the Covenant of Grace is taken in the first conclusion which is to equivocate Yea further by reading Mr Marshalls defence pag. 92. and elsewhere I suspect there is a farther equivocation in Mr Marshalls argument which Mr Marshall it seems doth not perceive divers expressions being by him taken as the same which are not the same nor to be confounded For pag. 92. Mr Marshall speaks thus I concluded therefore that by Gods own will such as enter into Covenant ought to receive the seale which seems to be the Proposition by which the sequele of Mr Marshalls first argument is to be proved so that he seems to frame the Syllogisme entirely thus They that enter into Covenant ought to receive the seale but the children of beleevers enter into Covenant therefore they ought to receive the seale so that the minor seems to him to be all one with this Proposition the children are foederati which is elsewhere expounded of the outward Covenant or the right to be baptized but to have right to be baptized is not all one with entring into Covenant Entring into Covenant is some act farther then having of right for a person may have right to Baptism before he enters into Covenant Mr Marshall should have heedfully distinguished the Covenant of Grace which is Gods act in his promise of grace and belongs to none but those he hath made that promise to and the outward administration which is the administratours act and not have called it the Covenant and the entring into Covenant with God which is the act of the baptized and cannot be done ordinarily by an infant who is onely passive and makes no promise at Baptisme and therefore cannot be rightly said to enter into Covenant with God The want of such distinctnesse in expression serves for no other purpose but to puzzle a

or birth as here Master Blake rightly expounds the word nature but from faith as the term seed of Abraham and the Israel of God and the term circumcision Philip. 3. 3. so that Master Blakes owne exposition overthrowes his owne inference But then saith Master Blake our children must be under sinners of the Gentiles and so they are aliens dogs without hope c. Ephes 2. 12. I answer our children are of the Gentiles who were sinners and as the Apostle spea●●s Ephes 2. 12. at that time that went before their calling strangers from the Covenant of promise c. But it doth not follow that he that saith our children are of the Gentiles who were once strangers from God and so called sinners according to their condition then must hold that they 〈◊〉 now The most godly beleever now is under the second mother of the distinction being born of Gentile parents and yet not as the Gentiles were then stranger from Christ Master Blake is most vaine in saying that by my t●not there were ne more hope of the salvation of a Christians Inf●●● then of Numa I acknowledge no such matter nor doth any such thing follow from my words which are plaine and true Master Blake should if he would have dealt fairly have showed 〈◊〉 of which words and how that followes which he obtand 〈◊〉 me When I said the Iewes birth priviledge did not 〈◊〉 them to the Covenant of grace I meant the same with the Apostle 〈◊〉 yet they had this benefit by their birth that they were among the people of God had the priviledge of 〈◊〉 according to the Church-state then were to eat the 〈◊〉 come into the court of the Temple had the law Christ was to come of them Rom. 9. 4 5. Rom. 3. 〈◊〉 and yet many of them not children of the promise The 〈◊〉 of grace being made by God doth promise to all and every person to whom that Covenant is made that he shall be effectually wrought upon I said the common priviledge of cir●●●sion belonging to the Jewes did not arise from the Covenant of gr●● recording to the substance of it but according to the administration that then was My meaning was circumcision was common to them which had no part in the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. neither an interest in the Evangelicall nor houshold promises made to Abraham as for instance Ismael and therefor I say it did not arise from the Covenant of grace or parents faith as the formal reason why Infants were circumcised but from Gods command according to that Church-state that then he thought good to appoint This being clear from Gal. 3 4. Master Blake interprets it as if I had said circumcision was not a signe of the substance of the Covenant and runs out in a large discourse to prove the contrary which toucheth not me who have expressely granted it Exercit pag. 3. Examen pag. 39 c. And it is a meer calumny in Master Blake to to tell me that I close with the Jesuites and with high disdaine shake off the doctrine of the Protestants But saith Master Blake pag. 43. you say in your exercitation pag. 2. The Covenant made with Abraham is not a p●●e Gospell Covenant but mixt In the same place I explaine my meaning and prove it so fully that I wonder that Master Marshall Master Blake and others are not ashamed to except against it What the Jesuites say in this matter or what the Protestants say against them I have not time to examine The thing as I deliver it is plaine according to Scripture that there were some peculiar promises made to Abraham Ge. 17. which are not made to every beleever To tell us that godlinesse hath the promise of the life that now is 1 Tim. 4. 8. is nothing to the present purpose for it doth not follow therefore that godlinesse hath the promise of the Land of Canaan or that Christ should be every godly mans seed c. Mr Blake saith circumcision was a fruit of the faith of the parents but this is false for then all none but children of beleevers were to be circumcised which is not true whose children soever they were if in Abrahams house if bought with money of any stranger they were to be circumcised I had said circumcision was a priviledge in that time of the Churches minority and this the Apostle delivers Gal. 3. 4. Mr Blake takes it as if I had said the fruition of the promises in such a latitude were onely a priviledge during the time of the Churches minority and would have me give some Scripture or colour of reason for it which is to impose on me the proving of that I affirme not I said he that will prove the birth priviledge of our children from the Jewes must make our case as theirs and so bring us under the ceremoniall law This Master Blake puts into a formall proposition of his owne a man of straw and then denies it the reason of my words is plaine circumcision of Infants was from the paedagogy or peculiar Church-state of the Jewes as may be proved from Gal. 3. 25. Gal. 4. 1 2 3. and obliged to the ceremoniall law Gal. 5. 3. therefore they that from hence would draw the birth priviledge of our children must make our case the same with the Jewes and so bring us under the ceremoniall law The rest of that section is vaine and not worth a line in answer I said truely that the interpetation of 1 Cor. 7 14. of legitimation is no more to be called a singular opinion then Master Blakes and that I have proved by alleaging eleven Authors for it and can do more To the 8th chapter what he sayes of Doctor Wilmot I assent to he was a precious man and my dear friend when Master Blake shall demonstrate to me what passages in my booke of scandals are inexcusable I shall endeavour some way or other to retract them Why I did not alter one or two passages that Doctor Wilmot excepted against I shall be willing to give Master Blake the reason Master Blake is mistaken in that he saith that my friend of the Assembly that delivered my letter to Master Marshal was the man that told me of the Committee of the Assembly and advised me to present the reasons of my doubts to them it was not he but my reverend and deare Father in law And that friend of mine of the Assembly that delivered my letter to Mr Marshall tels me that though he was desirous to have Master Blakes book printed that the point might be disputed yet he did not approve many of his proofes but by his speech with me lately I conceive he did except at sundry of the same things which I did But to the matter of that chapter Letting passe the conference and the occurrence therein which was promised should not be divulged by any hearers nor was there any exact record kept of it the dispute is now

contend Yet in that sense I yeeld it to be a seale actually I yeeld it to be a seale onely to beleevers but I deny that because the Sacrament is in its nature a seale of grace God doth seale alwayes when it is rightly administred The nature of it is to be a seale aptitudinall not actuall and so it is easie to answer Bellarmines argument without crossing my speeches But be the Sacraments s●ales conditionall or absolute actuall or aptitudinall what is this to prove that God seales conditionally in this sense as if God left it to mans liberty to whom he had sealed to agnize or recognize that sealing or to free themselves if they please and so nullify all yet so as to afford them a while the favour and priviledge of being in Covenant with him which Master Marshall I conceived meant by his conditionall sealing and I find not in his answer a deniall of it to be his meaning Master Blake excepts against a speech of mine in which I say That all the Sacraments of the Jewes are abrogated circumstance and substance in whole and in part and askes me Is circumcision of heart abrogated Is all spirituall meat and drinke in Sacraments abrogated Is Christ himselfe abrogated I answer no but withall say these are idle questions as not crossing my speech unlesse he can prove circumcision of the heart spirituall meat and drinke and Christ himselfe to be Sacraments Sect. 2. Master Blake would acquit this speech Gods Covenant of grace is common to elect and reprobates from symbolizing with Arminians by producing the speeches of Pareus and Mr Ball who onely say reprobates are in Covenant with God externally or God externally contracts with them which is another thing Gods Covenant of grace is his promise of grace and of this truly Master Marshall in his defence page 117. multitudes were baptized to whom God yet never gave saving graces and therefore never promised them for had he made a promise he would have performed it Master Blake makes the nature of a Covenant an agreement betweene two parties and sayes a promise or tender without consent is no Covenant How then do children Covenant at baptisme or enter into Covenant who yeeld no consent He saith Gods tender of himselfe to his people is called his Covenant Gen. 17. 7. 9. But he doth not rightly call that a tender which was more then a tender to wit a promise Then he objects against himselfe that if Gods Covenant be such as he will not breake Jerem. 31. 32. and he hath promised to put his lawes in their inward parts then they all to whom he makes Covenant must be elect I answer saith he if we take the words exactly as in the letter of the prophecy they run then all ministery is beaten downe and all edification ceases But this is litem lite resolvere The Contraremon strantes when they urge this place for effectuall grace understand the words exactly But how will Master Blake understand them I have looked over almost two leaves in answer to this in Master Blake and cannot tell how he will understand them nor finde I that he gives any direct answer to the objection but wanders in impertinences Nor knowe I how he can answer the objection without evervating the argument for effectuall grace and perseverance in it And the not teaching one another there spoken of is meant of that obscure teaching which was under the Law Sect. 3. He intimates that I have misreported Master Marshall but Master Marshall hath not himselfe denyed the sense I conceived of his conditionall sealing by God to Infants the words are plaine enough in his Sermon pag. 49. where he talkes of Gods Covenant and sealing and Christs suretiship more like Corvinus or the Arminans then the Scripture or Contraremonstrants Master Blake accuseth me of joyning with Independents and that they will have none Church members but elect and I no Church but that which is invisible But I beleeve he wrongs both me and them me I am sure for I alwayes teach a visible profession sufficient for Chuch-membership though I deny that every visible professour is in the Covenant of grace and when they will have reall saints Church members they meane not onely such as are so before God but such as are so in the judgement of the Church Though I thinke they are more rigid then they should be in their tenet yet I thinke Master Blake wrongs them in this imputation Ch. 16. I told Mr Marshall that his speech of Anabaptists as condemning infants as out of the state of grace condemning all the infants of the whole Church of Christ as having nothing to doe with the Covenant of Grace till proved by some of their testimonies I should take to be but a false accusation Mr Blake tel●me Master Marshall for a testimony needs look no further then th●●op of your leafe where you say infant-baptisme is a corruption of the ordinance of baptisme If infants be not only held from baptisme but their baptisme is also a corruption of that ordinance and there is no such thing as Covenant-holinesse to give them any ti●le or interest then they are out of covenant strangers to the promises of God and so the doom Eph. 2. 12. lyes heavy upon them How frivolous a justification is this of an expresse and deep accusation of men of a rash and bloody sentence as condemning all the infants of the whole Church of Christ as having nothing to do with the covenant of grace me thinks a man that would accuse so expressely so many persons and those christian brethren not to be contemned of so deep so passion-provoking a charge enough to stirre up Magistrates and parents to expell and destroy such men should produce better evidence for such a crimination then such a farre fetcht consequence as Mr Blake here brings to make it good is neither my name nor peace more tenderly regarded by Master Blake then upon such light inference to accuse me so deeply I had said to Mr Marshall that if the covenant of grace bee rightly understood Mr Marshall excludes infants as much from the covenant of grace as I doe As for Mr Blake not only page 14 of his Birth-priviledge but also page 23 of his answer to my letter he expressely maintaines that the birth-right he maintaines as a fruit from the covenant of free-grace to all in the faith and their seed only entitles to outward priviledges How doth this stand with that which he asserts chap. 3. sect 2. of his answer to my letter page 13. that infants of beleevers have salvation if they dye in their infancy by vertue of the Covenant For if the Covenant onely entitle to outward priviledges how doth it entitle to salvation So that to speak plainly Mr Blake doth but play fast and loose sometimes asserting a certainty of salvation from the covenant sometimes onely a right to outward priviledges and yet he and Mr Marshall stick not to declaim