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
not be in all men out of common infirmity to impute it to me as if I had said into any bogs whereas I said hath led men out of the way in this matter into bâ—gs meaning the opinions that Baptisme succeeds into the place room and use of Circumcision and therefore that the command to circumcise male infants at the eighth day is a command to baptize any infants of beleivers at any time which errours I call bogs as being indeed Anti-evangelicall errours though all the Divines on earth should avouch them yet this I may say without arrogance of Spirit in just and necessary avouching of the truth That reverend and learned Divine Mr Gataker in his answer to Mr George Walkers vindication pag. 133. Sayes thus Howsoever I suppose it no such hainour matter in something to depart from all writers knowne to 〈◊〉 that have gone before us Sure I am that Junius and Tremellius in translating and expounding some passages of Scripture departed from all known Interpreters than had gone before them as in that place Mal. 2. 16. that in all even the best translations ever before ran if thou hate her put her away Pareus Comment in 1 Cor. 1. 12. miror verò hoc loco omnes ferè◠interpretes fictionem statuere I might fill a volume with interpretations different from all foregoing yea what interpreter of note is there who doth not differ from all others and yet it is not counted arrogance Besides if this be not allowed upon cogent reason how shall Scriptures and Truths be cleared How shall we avoyd idolizing of them that goe before us and subjecting our judgments to them And that I spake right it may appeare in that in the principall thing of my exposition of Colos 2 11. 12. to wit that Baptisme is mentioned not to shew that it succeeds Circumcision but because it is one of the means whereby we have communion with Christ and are comple 〈◊〉 in him and therefore Faith is joyned with Baptisme and alleaged to prove it Gal. 3. 25 26 27. not as in Mr Marshall's defence Gal. 5. 25 26. and Rom. 6. 3 4 5. which plainly shewes that here Baptisme is not mentioned to that end Mr Marshall expresseth upon which the misunderstanding of this place was occasioned but to another and therefore it proves not that which Mr Marshall would gather from it if it did it would prove that faith succeeds into the roome place and use of Circumcision as well as Baptisme To this Mr Marshall plainly sayes But is not this the same sense with mine But he after spends a great many words to no purpose as he is wont to doe when he mistakes my reason imagining I had reasoned thus Baptisme is named as one of the meanes whereby we come to be compleat in Christ therefore iâ— dâ—th not succeed in the room of circumcision whereas my reâ—son is tâ—us Baptisme is alleaged as one of the meanes whereby we come to bee compleat in Christ therefore there was another reason besides the succession of it into the place of Circumcision why the Aposâ—â— there meâ—tions it which Mr Marshall denied which reason is good except it were true that every meanes whereby we are compleat in Christ succeeds Circumcision the contrary whereof is confessed by Mr Marshall in acknowledging faith to bee one of the means whereby we are compleat in Christ which yet succeeds not Circumcision many more such mistakes in Doctor Homes Mr. Geree and Mr Marshall I may hereafter shew I thought it best however God deale with me to cleare my selfe in this and to take notice of this concession which with others I may improve to overthrow all Mr Marshall's dispute But it is arrogance to deny that which all reformed Churches reach that our Baptisme succeede into the plane roome and use of the Jewes Circumcision To this I answer 1. I know not that all the reformed Churches teach this I remember not where this Doctrine is determined in the Church of 〈◊〉 publique Doctrinals 2. Master Gataker in his Postcript to Master Woâ—ns Defence saith thus That justification 〈◊〉 remission of 〈◊〉 for my part I deem erroâ—â—us and suppose that elsewhere I have evidently shewed 〈◊〉 so to be how be it Calvin Bâ—â—â— Olevâ—◠〈◊〉 Piscator Parens â—â—sculus Bullinger Fox and divers 〈◊〉 of great 〈◊〉 and name yea whole Synods of ours are 〈◊〉 so to say and yet I never heard this charged for arrogancy on him And for the assertions I impugne that Baptisme comes in the place roome and use of Circumcision and that this may be proved from Colos 2. 11 12. though Master Marshall hold his rod over me saying I can hardly forbeare to tell you it is an argument of an arrogant spirit I feare not yet to call them an iguis 〈…〉 of the way in this matter into begs To conclude my answer to this charge of scoffing I do the lesse marvaile that it is my lot to be thus charged when Mr Geree in his vindiciae paedobâ—ptesâ—â— Pag. 60 67. cals one free speech very necessary of Master Ralph 〈◊〉 a man so approved as by Ordinance of Parliament constituted Master of a House in Cambridge a quipping 〈…〉 of a satyricall spirit against our reverend Divines 〈…〉 checked abhorred not countenanced And I say further that if my memory do not deceive me there are passages in 〈…〉 that carry as much shew of irony as mine do towards a man for age and learning not inferiour to Master Marshall and therefore I suppose my words which are usuall among Scholars might have had a more favourable construction I am bold to make use of Master Gatakers words to Lucius Part. ult Sect. 8. Pag 91. Stomachâ— nimium qâ—m indulget vir Cl superciliumqâ— nim is alte attollit qi tam aegre fert placita suâ— citra uliam vel censoria magistralitatis vel censurae magistralis volam aut vestigium eis formnlis qibus apud in scholis disceptantes nihil est vsitatius negari idq cum negationis rationes adiectas aut videt aut videre si velit qeat Neverthelesse I professe freely that had I dreamed such expressions so usuall in Scholastick disputes would have been so taken I would for avoyding of offence have abstained from them There is another charge against me that sticks deeper then the former and it is this Master Marshall in his Sermon had mentioned the Anabaptists as a dangerous and turbulenâ— sect working a world of mischiefe about Munster and other parts of Germany This relation I conceived to be used not only to Magistrates to make them wary to prevent the like bâ—t also in all sorts of Auditories with much ingemination to make the persons that question the baptizing of Infants odious and unsufferable in a Christian Commonwealth and to stop mens eares against such evidence as may cleare the truth in this matter To this therefore as being an objection in the mouth of all sorts of men against the Antâ—paedobaptists I
Grace The Directory doth in my apprehension plainly appoint the begging for the child the accomplishment of the promise before asserted to Beleevers and their seed and therefore as in the petition it is meant of saving Graces so in the assertion or else the words are so ambiguous as they may be a Cothurnus which were more fit for a Canon of the Counâ—s of Trent then for the Directory of a Protestant Church Besides the same promise is said to be made to Beleevers seed which is made to Beleevers but that they will not dâ—ny to to be meant of the promise of saving Grace therefore neither the other To this Master Marshall Pag. 116 117. of his Defence answers thus 1. He leaves out the words which were for my purpose and of all other promises of the Covenant of Grace which is not right dealing 2. He makes me to conclude from that I cite out of the Directory that if there be not a promise of these saving graces to Infants in vaine are they baptized and the seal is put to a blanke And this consequence he denies but saith nothing to that which was indeed my reason which was this Master Marshal's second conclusion is to be understood as the words in the Directory this Master Marshall grants but the words of the Directory speake of a promise of saving Grace This I prove 1. Because the same promise is said to be made to the Beleevers seed which is made to Beleevers for it were a strange equivocation to understand the same terme in the same proposition in two different senses but the promise made to Beleevers there meant is the promise of saving Grace ergo so is the promise to their seed 2. Because the words speake of the same promise before in the direction concerning Doctrine which they meane after in the direction for petition else there would be a Cathurnus which were absurd but in the petition they mean the promises of saving Grace therefore also in the Doctrine As for that which Master Marshall makes my conclusion from the words of the Directory that in vaine are they baptized the Seale is put to a blanke It is no inference from the words of the Directory but comes in in another period at least fourteene lines after and among other reasons it is a mediâ—m to prove that the second conclusion must be so understood because that is the plea they make for Infant-baptisme and therfore unlesse it be so understood they must revoke that plea. M. Gâ—ree Pag. 13. if I understand him aright makes this the sense of the Directorâ— the promise is made to Beleevers and their seed that is it is to be presumed in charity of all the Infants of Beleevers that they enjoy the inward graces of the promise till they discover the contrary Wherein though he grant that which I contend for that in the Directory the promise is meant of saving Grace yet he hath invented another shift to save the credit of the assertion of Master Marshall and the Directory which he confesseth if it be taken as I conceive it is is so manifestly against Protestant principles and experience that none can hold it But who would ever construe those words The promise is made to Beleevers and their seed that is it is to be presumed in charity of all the Infams of Beleevers that they enjoy the inward graces of the promise till they discover the contrary but he that would make mens words like a nose of waxe to turne them which way he is willing they should be taken would any man construe the words 〈…〉 to Beleevers any otherwise then thus the promise of saving Grace is made by God to Beleevers and must the same phrase in the same proposition in the other part be construed thus the promise is made to the seed of Beleevers that is it is to be presumed by men in charity till they discover the contrary that all the Infants of Beleevers have the inward graces of the Covenant As if the making of a Covenant were all one with a charitable presumption or the seed of Beleevers were all one with Infants or when they are adulti they are not their seed The Apostle Rom. 9. 6 7 8. when he expounded the promise Gen. 17. 7. of the spirituall not the naturall seed did not imagine that the making the promise was mans act of presumption but Gods act and Acts 2. 39. to which and Gen. 17. 7. it's likely the Directory alludes the promise as Master Marshall expounds it is of Christ and his saving benefits and the making of it is meant of Gods act not mans presumption Adde hereunto that the whole series of the direction in the Directory carries the meaning thus For having said that Baptisme is a Seale of the Covenant of Grace of our ingrafting into Christ and of our union with him of remission of sins regeneration adoption and life eternall it followes after that the â—eed and posterity of the faithfull borne within the Church have by their birth interest in the Covenant and right to the Seale of it and to the outward priviledges of the Church c. where the Directory makes a threefold interest First interest in the Covenant Secondly right to the Seale of it Thirdly right to the outward priviledges of the Church the Covenant Seale and outward Priviledges of the Church are put as distinct things and the Covenant they have interest in is the same Covenant of which Baptisme is a Seale as is plaine by the Pronoune it which imports the same thing Now Baptisme is before said to be the Seale of the Covenant of saving Graces therefore the Covenant that the seed of Beleevers have interest in by their birth according to the Directory is the Covenant of saving Graces Which sith Master Marshall dares not assert and Mr Geree saith is manifestly against Protestant principles I wish it were as it ought to be laid to heart and that the Assembly would remember that which they say Pag 30. of the answer to the Remonstrance of the seven dissenting Brethren And it was further declared that even in those things which the Assembly had voted and transmitted to both Houses of Parliament yet we did not so leane to our own understandings nor so prize our vâ—tes but that if these Brethren should hold forth such light unto us as might convince us of an errour we should not only desire the Parliament to give us leave to revise our votes but to revoke them if there should be causâ— Which would indeed bring much honour to the Assembly and knit the hearts of the godly to them whereas through their silence at this time this and some other things in the Directory about baptism passing uncorrected standing confirmed by Law great disquiet to the Church of God and the undoing or molesting of many godly persons may follow when they cannot yeeld without sin to the Doctrine and practise of Baptisme as it is there set downe
from Abraham then it must be that we are elect in Abraham Abraham may say without me yee can doe nothing c. I answer if I made Abraham a root as communicating faith by infusion or impetration mediatory as Christ this would follow but I make Abraham onely a root as he is called the Father of all them that beleeve Rom. 4. 11. not by begetting faith in them but as an exemplary cause of beleeving as I gather from the expression verse 12. that he is a â—ather to them that walk in the steps of our Father Abraham which he had yet being uncircumcised Mr Blake ibid. pag. 31. what made Abraham Isaac and Jacob roots as in nature so holy roots but the Covenant And was not the Covenant made as well with David as with Abraham Isaac and Jacob. I answer I make Abraham onely the root as hee is only the Father of beleeevers exemplarily and that which made him the Father of beleevers was not the Covenant but his exemplary faith as I gather from the words of the Apostle Rom. 4. 16 17 18 19. 21. And this is all the accession of strength I find him opposing to my so manifest weaknesse The rest is answered already Mr Marshall pag. 124. sayes I raise a dust about his argument because I tell him he doth not distinctly expresse what the promise is Acts 2. 39. and I require of him to forme his proofes into an argument as if it were unreasonable to require him to make a syllogisme in mood and figure in a Sermon And yet hee did make diverse in that Sermon as pag. 39 41. But it seems neither then nor since is he willing to tell what promise that is Acts 2. 39 and then conclude syllogistically for then it would plainly appear that that text serves not his purpose who in his second conclusion will not assert that the promise of saving grace is made to the naturall seed of beleevers and yet that text speaks of the promise of Christ and saving Grace by him However I remember this was Doctor Prideaux his manner in Oxford to require the disputant when he urged a text to read it and then to gather his argument from it and this I ever took to be a bringing of light and not raising a dust about an argument And I shall still professe it to be a very irksome thing to me to answer an authour that will not doe so and till Mr Marshall doe it shall censure him as one that takes not the way to clear truth but to darken it with multitude of woâ—ds among which a man shall have much adoe to find the medium and the conclusion Mr Marshall pag. 247. accuseth me of slurring plundering darkning the â—rguments of my adversaries If he had told me wherein he had done me a pleasure that I might know how to amend it but if he mean as his words pag 134. to bring in so many imaginary senses thereby to darken an argument import in that I tell hâ—m his conclusions and speeches may have many senses and desire him to set down what sense he means it is a conceit scarce sober sith it is plaine that distinction and distinct expression is rightly called by Logicians lumen rationis and is the onely way to enlighten not to darken speeches And therefore all that are able in dispute make this their chiefe businesse to distinguish termes or things that differ and then set down their conclusions and frame their arguments and answers which is the thing I would have Mr Marshall doe Nor is my pretending obscurity in Marshall a kind of art to evadâ— what cannot plainly be answered as Mr Geree conceives vind paedobap ch 1. sect 3. but a means to find out the force of the argument that I might give it a plain answer Whereas I had framed the fifth argument in my exercitation thus That which in succeeding ages in which it was in use was in force 1. As a tradition not written 2. Out of imitation of Jewish circumcision 3. Without universall practise 4 Together with the errour of giving infants the Lords Supper and many other humane inventions under the name of Apostolicall traditions that is deservedly doubtfull but such is Infant-baptisme Ergo Mr Marshall pag. 251. 252. tells me this is a poor argument And yet such arguments have been accounted after other arguments from Scripture of great moment against Papists and Prelates in rejecting of ceremonies But how doth Mr Mar. answer this He denies the major which hath been accounted good in other points And then because I make a severall proofe of the severall parts of the minor he repeats my words as if I had made a severall argument from each branch and to make a shew of their weaknesse puts in another argument and conclusion then mine as like with this inference Ergo we are not bound to observe it Ergo it was not a duty which were none of my conclusions And then sayes This kind of arguing is almost as wild as that which the schooles call à baculo ad angulum and the boyes in the schooles would stamp and hisse at such an inference I professe if I should in schooles repeat my opponents arguments as Mr Marshall doth mine I should allow the boyes in the Schooles to stamp and hisse at such a practise Mr Marshall pag. 124. hath these words You still goe on in your wonted equivocation of the word Covenant of Grace taking it onely of the Covenant of saving grace not including the externall way of administration with it I this I said above I did because I love to speak plainly without equivocation but it seems to Mr Marshall that which I count plain speech without equivocation is equivocating with him But what a ridiculous charge is this It 's equivocation when a word is taken in various senses Is it equivocation in me to take the word covenant of grace onely of the covenant of saving grace This is like as if a man should be charged with speaking nonsense because he speakes good reason in right language But I hope by this time the Reader doth understand who hath used sophistry in disputing I or Master Marshall What I said of the Assembly pag. 27. of my Examen I did it not to cast filth in their face as Master Marshall construed it but as a brotherly intimation of my feares and apprehensions to make them cautelous whose wise and faithfull deportment in that great trust reposed in them is of great moment to the whole Christian Church Of whom I professe I am still jealous out of Love to them that especially in this matter they are not so sensible as they should be of the truth of God and the good of the Church For which jealousie and for what I said about wasting of time about inconsiderable things comparatively I suppose I am able to give a sufficient account And this I speake meerly to awaken them and to prevent that inconsideratenes through an
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
Jewes were but one Church or congregation Acts 7. 28. and accordingly appointed one Tabernacle and Altar and one high Priest and solemne feasts for all to meet as and one nation all â—â—adge circumcision and hee erected them into one policy because he would have one fixed people among and 〈◊〉 whom the Massiah should come and therefoâ—â— he so provided that their tribes should be distinguished their inheritance divided and many 〈…〉 which he did not either then 〈◊〉 appoint to any other people And this Church-state Circumcision was applyed to so that if Master Marshall and Master Geree will conclude from Rom. 11. 17. c. that we must have our children baptized because they had theirs circumcised we being ingraffed into their room they must not only prove that the Gentile-beleevers are grafted into the invisible Church in place of the Jewes which is the Apostles sense there notwithstanding that which M. Geree or Master Marshall have said nor that the Gentile visible Churches are graffed into the visible Church in the place of the Jewes but they must also prove that the Gentiles are taken into the same outward Church state which the Jewes â—ad But that is most false For now God gathers not a whole nation together nor hath appointed one Temple Altar Priest c. as he did to the Jews but he gathers now by preaching some here some there and the visible Church hath now no such policy or outward government as the Jewes had then and therefore there is not the same reason of infants belonging to the visible Church of the Gentiles as they did to the Jewes except one can prove that we are to have the same outward face and constitution of the Church which they had which Papists and others imagining have corrupted the Church and baptizing of infants ariseth out of the same Jewish conceit Master Marshall had alleaged in his Sermon Rom. 11. 16. c. to prove his second conclusion I complained in my Examen of the obscurity of his inference shewed him how ambiguous his words were He takes this as if it were done in scorne and as an artifice to darken an argument but doth not mend the matter in his Defence For 1. pag. 134. whereas I distinguished of graffing in that it may be either by faith or profession of faith or by some outward Ordinance Master Marshall in the repetition leaves out this last member which is not right dealing 2. Whereas I had said The thing that is to be proved is that all the infants of every beleever are in the Covenant of free Grace in Christ and by veriue thereof to be baptised Master Marshall pag. 135. of his Dâ—fence denies this though it seemed plaine to me that this text was brought to prove his second conclusion which I took to bee the same with the antecedent of his Enthymeme or first argument and that I did conceive had this sense that all the infants of every beleever are in the Covenant of free Grace in Christ otherwise his first argument is but nugatory the antecedent and conclusion being the same and he equivocates in his two first conclusions understanding the first conclusion of the covenant of saving Grace in Christ the other of the outward Covenant as hee calls it as I shewed above which serves for no better end then to delude a reader But pag. 135. he saith thus The thing to be proved from this text is that our infants have the same right which the infants of the Jewes had pag. 140 The thing to be proved was our infants have the same priviledge with theirs yet in the same page he thus formeth the conclusion and therefore we and they making up the same body are taken in upon the same ground our children with us as well as theirs with them which last conclusion I do not take to be the same with the former nor any one of them the same with the other or with the antecedent of Mr Mar. second argument or his second conclusion 3. It is yet uncertain to me what is the medium he would prove his conclusion by out of that text In his Defence in three places he calls his confused heap of Dictates his argument to wit pag. 134. The Apostles scope was to shew that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true olive which the Jewes formerly had and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out and their taking in at the latter end of the world shall be the same graffing though more gloriously as ours is now and it is apparent that at their first taking in they and their children were taken in at their casting out they and their children were broken off and when they shall be taken in againe at the end of the world they and their children shall be taken in together and all by vertue of the Covenant Ero Deus tuus c. which is the same to us and to them we and they making up the Church of God In the same page in these words Looke how the Jewes children were graffed in so are our children we are taken instead of them who were cast out and becom on visible Kingdom of Christ with the rest of them who kept their station pag. 140. We as they were takâ—n in they and their children shall be at the last taken in again as they were at the first and therefore we and they making up the same body are taken in upon the same ground our children with us as well as theirs with them Which though hee calls his argument and sayes it hath a plaine sense yet I see so many ambiguities still in his words his speeches so informe or shapelesse that I know not well whither he would make many syllogismes or one nor which to call the major which the minor Proposition or terme or which the medium and I must professe I find Mr Marshall still so confused a disputer that I know not to what purpose his manner of writing in this point should tend but to puzzle his reader and weary his respondent And sith he was told of this p. 56. of my Examen and desired to mend it in his next writing yet instead of mending it he puts it off lightly pag. 125. of his Defence a person may suspect it is done on purpose to puzzle rather then to satisfy For why should a man that would clear truth in a point of dispute though in a Sermon ad populum especially when his auditory is such as it was at Westminster Abby be unwilling to make a syllogisme in mood and figure did not Master Marshall make sundry syllogismes in the same Sermon And would not a short syllogisme after a distinct short paraphrase have better cleared the truth then such a confused heap of words he useth in his alleaging Rom. 11. 16. c. And Acts 2. 39. However what reason or excuse he can pretend for not doing it in his Defence I see not Mr Geree
in his vindiciae Paedo-baptismi ch 1. sect 3. goes somewhat more distinctly to work yet neither doth he frame a syllogisme from Rom. 11 11. 12. 13. 17. 18. c. nor doe I know how he would have it framed He saith the conclusion to be proved is that the châ—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 conâ—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 priviledgeâ— 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 thieâ—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 infâ—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 Ergâ— 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 heaâ— the terminus of Calefaction But that is by giving faith Ergo The minor is proved from v. 20. where it is said by â—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. Ergâ— 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 paâ—ent For then all the branches should be naturall the child of every beleeving parent is a naturall
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
these two were opposite and priviledge of ordinances were not of grace or that saving grace could be had in Gods ordinary way without this priviledge To acquit my selfe of this imputation I say that it was very necessary to take that paines I did to bring my selfe out of that maze which I had not run my selfe into but the confusednesse and ambiguity of Master Marshals expressions lead me into Master Marshall had made this the anteceedent in his first argument The Infants of beleeving parents are faederati or within the covenant of grace This I conceived to be the same with his second conclusion though against the rule of dispute he varies the terme faederati or within the covenant of grace into this he would have to be accounted his to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devils which I do not take to be equipollent This necessitated me to shew the many senses of his words and to take paines to find out his meaning else I knew not what to deny or what to grant Now to clear the matter when it is said Infants of beleevers are faederati or in the covenant of grace this may be understood three wayes 1 They are in the covenant of grace by their owne act of covenanting because they promise the performance of the condition on their part and this sense is manifestly false and yet when Master Marshall sayes they are to be accounted covenanters he speakes as if he meant so For what is a covenanter but he that makes a promise 2 They are in the covenant of grace by the administratours act because he gives them the seale of the covenant but then the second conclusion should be they are baptized or to be baptized now this being the same with the antecedent of Master Marshals first argument his argument must be thus Infants of beleevers are baptized or to be baptized ergo they are to be baptized which is meerly to trifle and yet as I shewed above this is the effect of Master Marshals arguing who will have his second conclusion and antecedent understood of the outward covenant as he cals it 3 They are in the covenant of grace by Gods act of promise and this is that which Master Marshall should have said if he would have spoken plainly without equivocation God by his promise to the Infants of beleevers puts them in the covenant of grace or he accounts them in the covenant of grace because he hath promised grace 〈◊〉 them and not have said God would have them accounted his by us by giving them the outward covenant as he calls it Now if he affirme this that God hath promised grace to Infants of beleevers this grace is either saving grace or outward ordinances But saith Master Blake these are not opposite but subâ—â—dinate Be it so yet they are distinct and the promise of the one is not a promise of the other the promise of the Word and Sacraments is not a promise of the Spirit Now here was the doubt whether Master Marshall affirme a promise of saving grace to beleevers Infants or of outward ordinances I said neither was true yet the former was more agreeable to his meaning To prove this I alleaged that though sometimes Master Marshall Master Blake and others spake more warily in which I dealt candidly with Master Blake reciting his expresse words full enough for the purpose yet I said most of Mr. Marshals and others expressions and one expression of Master Blake spake as if they meant that God had made a covenant or promise of saving grace And to prove it to be their meaning produced their allegation of these textes Acts 2. 39. Gen. 17. 7. Matt. 19. 14. which are to be understood of saving grace and that otherwise the seale would be put to a blanke and that Master Blake saith God promiseth to be a God in covenant to his and their seed which people in covenant have also a promise from him of the Spirit Now what sayes Master Blake to this he denyes not that these texts speake of a promise of saving grace but askes me how 's they are meant whether absolutely or immediately and then fastens upon me an assertion that is none of mine and I beleeve wrongs Master Blackwood too But herein Master Blake goes from the businesse and instead of a respondent becomes a poserâ—â— proved these texts alleaged by them for Infants being in the covenant of grace speake of a promise of saving grace and therefore if Master Marshall meane not that the covenant of saving grace is made to a beleevers child these texts are alleged to no purpose by him This is no place to answer Mr. Blakes unpertinent questions which he propounds to me as supposing that because I said the texts are plainely meant of saving graces therefore I had affirmed the Jewes and all their seed had an absolute promise of a saving grace let Master Blake tell us whether in alleaging Gen. 17. 7. Acts 2. 39. for infants of beleevers being in the Covenant he understand not those texts of a promise of saving grace which is all I there contend for As for Mat. 19. 14. it is plâ—â—â—ly meant of the kingdome of glory Luk. 18 16. 17 Mark 10. 14 15. And for the speech of sealing to a blanke c. Whether it be true or false it was not materiall to my purpose but whether it shew that he users of it assert a promise of saving grace to beleevers Mr Blake upon a mistake that I had set down sundry things as my assertions chargeth 〈◊〉 as using Bellarmines argument and sâ—ts down his own answer out of Amesius besides the bâ—sines who onely alleaged other mens speeches to shew their meaning As for his own speech he endeavours to make it good which for present was not excepted against but onely alleaged to to shew that even Mr Blake asserts a promise of saving grace to 〈◊〉 of beleevers for a promise of the Spirit is such But saith Mr Blake Some promises 〈◊〉 suppose a condition such is the promise of the Spirit 〈◊〉 here I understand it and you may see in Christs words John 7. 39. in the Apostle 〈◊〉 Ephes 1. 13. To which I say that it is true of the speciall gifts of the Spirit or the increase or comforts or assurance of the Spirit as John 7. 39. Ephes 1. 13. they suppose a condition but if hee meane it of the regenerating work of the Spirit as the words lead me to conceive he meant then the promise of the Spirit hath no condition as Doctor 〈◊〉 proves in many places particularly The Synod of Dort â—â—d Arlâ— c. part 3. Sect. 6. and it is cleare for if God have promised regenerating grace upon condition that condition must be performed either by himselfe or by the person to whom it is â—â—â—ised if the condition he to be performed by himselfe it is all one with an absolute promise if by the person to whom it is
shewes that they are all a continued resolution of the same doubt without any such immethodicall interposition of the resolution of another doubt as Mr Blake imagines As for the occasion of the scruple sith neither of our opinionâ— is any other then a conjecture I let it passe One passage of Mr Blakes in these words And I pray you speake what how you doe beleeve that the Corinthiane tooke it for a common received principle that if a man had as adulterous wife that his children were legitimate and not bastards so it must be if you opinion passe for a reason I know not how he collects from my words I say that the Corinthians took it for certain that their owne children were holy that is legitimate and I say the force of the Apostles argument lies in this Proposition that all the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other that is doe not lawfully couple together are unclean that is illegitimate and that the Apostle saith the unbeleeving husband is sanctified to the wife that is is lawfully used by his wife because hee is her husband as if he had been holy out of which all the engines of Mr Blakes wit cannot extort the inference he puts on my opinion In the second section Mr Blake sayes that I heard before Mr Goodwins Lectures of instrumentall sanctification If it were so yet I professe I did never heed or know it so as to take notice of it till I heard Mr Thomas Goodwin use the phrase Mr Blake to my first argument against instrumentall sanctification saith And is not this argument of yours of as great force against your interpretation of a matrimoniall as ours of an instrument all sanctification I answer no for they that cannot beget children may be said to be sanctified matrimonially that is may lawfully come together but not instrumentally so as to beget a holy seed which is Master Blakes sense For they that by age or accidentall inabilities cannot be sanctified for generation cannot beget children either by Covenant or legitimate Mr Blake addes The sanctifying by the beleeving party here mentioned respects the issue which you confesse in grounding a legitimation of issue upon it I grant where there is issue the holinesse of it depends on the sanctification but where there is sanctification it is not alwayes supposed there is issue or that there may be issue to the begetting of which they are instrumentally sanctified Mr Blake This sanctifying whether instrumentall or matremoniall hath its influence upon the seed such a brand lying upon all the issue where there is issue be it bastardy or gentilisme were enough to conclude against such marriages one principal end of marriage being posterity He supposeth it seems that uncleanenes is here meant which is such a brand on the issue as is enough to conclude against all such marriages This is very right but I subsume that brand in all the issue where there is issue which were enough to conclude against all such marriages is bastardy not gentilism For bastardy in the issue proves the supposed marriage not to be right but gentilisme in the issue concludes nothing against the marriage Ergo the uncleanenesse here is bastardy not gentilism And thus he hath unawares given the medium of an argument against himself To my second argument for matrimoniall sanctification he saith I know you cannot ignorantly and therefore I feare you wilfully mistake the meaning is you may live together for all the seed you beg at are â—oly infallibly and necessarily holy as the seed of infidels neither parent beleeving are necessarily infallibly unclean so that here is a future certainty and not a contingency it is not possible to imagine a morefull and 〈◊〉 answer 〈◊〉 which I say I am sure Mr Blake is mistaken whether ignorantly or wilfully I determine not for he speakes of certainty of the holinesse of the children in the latter part of the verse whereas the question is whether instrumentall sanctification for the begetting a holy issue of which the sanctification in the fore part of the verse is expounded be contingent or no and this I am sure is true and therefore their lawfull living together for present according to Mr Blakes exposition should be taken from a future contingent which Chamier truly counted absurd though as happy a Logician as he was he foresaw not how it served against himselfe Bernardus non vider omnia To my third argument he saith Here you beg the question and reason flat against the Apostle That sanctifying which the Apostle mentions is aresult of the faith of the beleeving yoke-fellow the unbeleever is twice said to be sanctified but not the beleever the beleever doth sanctify if any sense can be made of the Apostles argument I answer He begs the question who supposeth what he should prove Mr Blake doth not nor can shew I doe so nor doe I reason flat against the Apostle the Apostle no where saith the sinctifying is the result of the faith of the beleeving yoke-fellow if it were so an unbeleeving fornicatour might be said to be sanctified by his beleeving whore as well as a husband by his beleeving wife The unbeleever is said twice to be sanctified because the doubt arose from his unbeleefe but the saith of the beleever is not at all expressed to shew that the faith did not sanctifie but the relation But if it were meant of instrumentall sanctification it would come from Gods designation not the faith of the one party For whose instrument should he be that is sanctified for begetting a holy seed but Gods now to this nothing is answered and so this argument stands good against Mr Blake To my fourth argument he saith Understanding the Apostle of instrumentall sanctification and of federall holinesse the proposition their children could not be holy without that sanctification is most true necessarily and universally true as the issue of such a birth they are federally unclean and unholy if afterwards by grace they are changed this is no finit of their birth of which the question is in this place but of the Gospell work in their soules To which I say the question is not here what is the fruit of birth not how the Proposition can be true understood of federall holinesse and instrumentall sanctification And I say it is most certainly false for many a child of both unbeleeving parents are federally holy But saith Mr Blake they are not so at their birth But this is nothing to the purpose sith the Proposition hath not those words in it noâ— the Apostle The Apostles reason supposeth it cannot be at any time And yet it may bee certaine that the child of two unbeleevers may be federally holy at birth whether it be understood of election inherent holinesse or outward holinesse if God please to work and declare it But the issue of them that are not lawfully conjoyned as husband and wife cannot be made legitimate by
Church many proud men entering therein as Simon Magus Diotrephes c. ergo it must be understood of the Kingdome of glory 2 From this that our Saviour directs the speech Marke 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. to his Disciples who were already in the visible Church therefore the requiring a further condition to the Kingdome of God shewes he meant it of the Kingdome of glory 3 The speech Marke 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. is like Mat. 18. 3 4. but there it is meant of the Kingdome of glory ergo so here Deodate on Matth. 19 14. so farre are you deceived in thinking that children by reason of their weakenesse and contemptible qualitie are unworthy to be presented unto me that contrariwise no body is capable of my Kingdom unles he be first by the spirit of regeneration brought into a spirituall estate to be like a little child in the order of nature The new annot on the Bible on Matth. 19. 14. yee have no reason to blame them for bringing children to me for they may be such as have interest to the Kingdome of heaven as well as others of ripe yeares and unlesse yee be like them ye shall never come there ch 18. 3. But saith Master Blake Christ had never been so much displeased with his Disciples for forbidding them seeing their election and justification was to the Disciples wholly unknown they had a present visible title such as the Apostles ought to have knowne I answer The reason of Christs anger was their hindering him in his designe not the knowledge they had of their present visible title this is but a dreame I added further that Christs action in this was extraordinary and so no ordinary rule for baptizing by the Publike ministery Mr Blake would have me consider how this can stand with that I said before that they that brought the Infants might do it without faith in Christ as the Messiah upon the fame of his miracles and account that he was a Prophet I answer there is no opposition they might conceive him to be but a Prophet not the Messiah and yet Christ might act as an extraordinary Prophet and as the Messiah Mr Blake sayes this act of Christ is no direct precedâ—â— for baptisme but for Church-priviledges of which Infants are capable Marke this speech if but be adversative then Master Blake grants that Infants are capable of Church-priviledges not of baptisme which overthrowes all his dispute but the truth is this thing was done to these Infants not by reason of any 〈◊〉 title they had or to enter them into any outward Church-priviledge but to accomplish by his blessing their interest in the invisible Kingdome of God by election Master Blake in the close of this chapter sayes if it were true that padobaptisme had no more warrant then I conceive yet 〈◊〉 not will-worship but a misapplication of an instituted ordinance to a person But I aske Master Blake whether Infant-Communion were not will worship whether baptizing of bells were not will-worship and yet these are but misapplications of an instituted ordinance to a wrong subject We have the word will-worship but once Col. 2. 23. and if it be taken in the worser sense as Protestant Divines hitherto have done though lately Doctor Hammond at Oxford hath written a booke to prove it to be taken in the better part for a commendable thing as a free-well offering and have made it the sinne of the Pharises Matth. 15. 9. and especially non-conformists who have made every invented ceremony will-worship then much more Infant-baptisme being worship it selfe if it be not instituted must be will worship Chapt. 15. Master Blake examines what I say Examen pag. 164. about Gods sealing Master Marshall spake of Gods sealing the baptized I said God seales not to every one that is baptized but onely to true beleevers For his sealing is the confirming of his promise but God promiseth righteousnesse to none but true beleevers Master Blake answers You acknowledge baptisme to be is its nature a seale of the righteousnesse of faith and to be of God therefore in it God must seale to every baptized person or else you must say they are not baptized I reply I acknowledge baptisme of professours of faith to be of God though they be not true beleevers and I acknowledge baptisme in its nature to be a seale of the covenant of God but not a seale actuall but aptitudinall that is all right baptism is in its nature apt to seale as a garland hung out is to signify wine to be â—old yet actually the one signifies so onely to the intelligent and the other onely to true beleevers And God never seales actually till a person be a beleever I said As for the sealing by God upon condition persons agâ—ize the Covenant it is but a notion the Scripture makes not Gods promise in the Covenant of grace conditionall in that sense For Gods promise is for those he enters into Covenant with that he will put his lawes in their 〈◊〉 and in their mindes will 〈◊〉 them Heb. 10. 16. Master Blake answers If you 〈◊〉 this of the Sacraments as the words beare then according to your opinion none ought to be baptized but 〈◊〉 in whose heart the law in wrote I answer him By Gods sealing I doe not meane every right administration of baptisme for though that be in its nature apt to seale the graces of the Covenant yet actually Gods seales not but when it is administred to a beleever It may be called a right act of the administratour according to Gods appointment but not Gods sealing I call Gods sealing onely when either by his spirit or oath or outward rite he assures his grace as by circumcision to Abraham Rom. 4. 11. he appointed Ismael to be circumcised but did not seale to him righteousnesse by faith The inference Mr Blake makes from my words as if I held none baptizable but those in whose heart Gods law is written hath no colour for I do not make the administratours baptizing or sith they will have it so called sealing to be Gods sealing God appoints the word to be preached to many hypocrites and the preacher that assures them of the promises doth it by Gods appointment yet God doth not assure the promises to them I do not make him onely baptizable to whom God seales but him whom Christ appoints to be baptized whether God seales to him or no. Master Blake urgeth me with Bellarmines argument of the Sacraments be seales of grace they are often false and God should beare witnesse to a lye and tels of the speech of some that have said that this argument is unanswerable unlesse we confesse that the seale of the Sacrament is conditionall I like not to call the Sacrament a conditionall seale for that which seales doth assure and supposeth the condition In my apprehension that which is called conditionall sealing is not sealing but offering or propounding or representing but about this I will not
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 sâ—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 telâ—me Master Marshall for a testimony needs look no further then thâ—â—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 tiâ—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