HAving perused this mild Apology, I conceive that the ingenuity, learning and piety therein contained deserve the Press.  
john Bachiler.   

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 john Geree, Mr Stephen Martial, Mr John Ley, and Mr William Hussey; together with a Postscript by way of reply to Mr Blakes answer to Mr Tombs his letter, and Mr Edmund Calamy, and Mr Richard Vines Preface to it.  
Wherein the principal heads of the Dispute concerning Infant-Baptism are handled, and the insufficiency of the writings opposed to the two Treatises manifested.  
By JOHN TOMBS, B. D.  GAL. 4. 16. 
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?  
LONDON, Printed for Giles Calvert, at the Black Spread-Eagle at the West end of PAUL'S. 1646.   

To the right worshipful my much honoured Auditors, members of the Honourable, House of COMMONS, and Societies of the Temple.  
AFter other means duly but without success tried, for the public good, to wit the vindicating of truth, and consequently for the preventing of the establishment of an error and corruption of the most solemn sacred rite of the Christian profession, and the oppression of them that oppose it, I consented to the publishing of two treatises in December last about Infant-baptisme. It seemed good to sundry persons of note presently to cry down my assertions, and to load me with unjust accusations, which I take to be rather a baffling of the Author, than an answering of his writing. Yet the truth hath gotten so much ground (however some eminent men pretend otherwise) that the Doctrine of the Directory is disavowed by two of the most eminent of my Antagonists, as is showed showed 9 pag. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. of this Apology, the chief argument of my prime Antagonist, is proved to be either nugatory or fallacious, §. 10. pag. 44. 45 46. 47. 48. of this Apology, sundry confessions are drawn from my Antagonists, which in my judgement, and I think in the judgement of any that knows what belongs to disputes, do yield the cause, as those that I mention §. 18. pag 97. 98. 100 101. 102. & §. 5. page 28. of this Apology. And as for the accusations against myself, I should slight them, were it not they had a great influence upon the cause, and therefore have been necessitated to vindicate myself; and therewith the truth in some measure by this Apology. The great prejudice against me in Point of antiquity, I have also in this Apology endeavoured to dispel, specially that from the testimony of Augustin, Serm. 10. de verbis Apostoli, tom. 10. which upon examination I find not to be an historical narration from good records, but a mere hyperbolical speech, Rhetorically asserting a thing by conjecture from present use in a Sermon to the people, §. 15. pag. 81. 82. 83. 84. of this Apology. And for the testimony of Tertullian concerning federal holiness, it is showed to be impertinent, §. 15. pag. 84. 85. That the present Synod or reformed Churches are against me should be no more prejudice against me, than it is against the Synod, and reformed Churches that they oppose the Doctrine of Infant-baptisme, as it was taught by Cyprian, and his council of 66. Bishops, Augustin, and many Synods, and Churches all along till the fifteenth century, and the Augustan confession art 9  
The danger of troubles upon a reformation of this corruption should make men wary how they introduce them; I think they that are bound by Covenant to reform, yet are not bound to do it with procipitation, and without prudence. But however men must take heed how they establish an error and corruption by a Law, and oppress men for holding a truth, lest they kick against the Prick.  
As for my own particular, the hard dealing I have found doth not alienate me from my brethren, nor I hope shall make a schism between us; if it must happen, my endeavour is, that it may be necessary, not voluntary on my part. What hath happened I look upon it, however meant by men, yet as ordered by God for good, to wit the clearing of the truth, the trying and humbling of myself. That I suffer in the repute of men, or my outward peace moves me not. It's not to be expected children should be born without travail, nor truth without suffering; yet to leave so intelligent an Auditory, with so much advantage of the fruit of my labours, is no small grievance. However I have chosen you for depositaries, in whose hands I may leave this Apology; that you may not be strangers to this business, nor forget him who is  
Your real servant in 
 the things of Christ, 
 JOHN TOMBS. From my study at the Temple in London, August 20. 1646.   

The Contents of the Apology.  

PAg. 1. Sect. 1. Of the occasion of writing this Apology.  
Pag. 2. Sect. 2. Of the intention of the Author upon that occasion.  
Sect. 3. Of the necessity and seasonableness of publishing the two treatises about Infant-baptisme.  
Pag. 5. Sect. 4. Of freedom from publishing the two treatises contrary to engagement, with a Declaration of the Authors proceedings therein.  
Pag. 16. Sect. 5. Of the clearing the Author of the two treatises from scornfulness in writing them, of my censure of Mr The: goodwin's handling this point, and of all writers about Coloss. 2. 12.  
Pag. ●8. Of the exposition I give of Colos. 2. 12. confessed to be right by Mr Martial himself.  
Pag. 30. Sect. 6. Of the clearing the Author of the Examen from either justifying the Anabaptists in Germany, or condemning the godly and grave nonconformists in England.  
Pag. 36. Sect. 7. Of the clearing of the Author of the two treatises from vaunting and challenging in the composing and publishing the treatises.  
Pag. 39 Sect. 8. Of the clearing of the Author of the two treatises from sophistry in them, whereby occasion is taken to vindicate the Treatises in many of the chief things contained in them.  
Pag. 40. Sect. 9 Of the meaning of M. Marshals second conclusion, the words in the Directory [the promise is made to believers and their seed] and the doctrine therein delivered, disavowed by M Marshal and M. Geree.  
P. 44. Sect. 10. Of the distinction of inward & outward covenant, & that it can stand M. M. in no stead, but to show his triflting & equivocating in his first argument▪ and two first conclusions, and of master Marshals mistake of my opinion.  
Page 49. sect. 10. Of master Marshals false and most unjust charge that I carry a Socini●● plot through my Examen and Exerutation  
Pag. 53. Sect. 12. Of Mr Marshals unjust charge of my itching after new opinions, and particularly about rebaptisation and receiving the Lords Supper afore baptism.  
Page 55. Sect. 13 Of alleging authors against their mind, particularly master Daniel Roger's master Ball, Chamier, Ar●tiu, and Beza.  
Pag. 60. Sect. 14. Of master Marshals unjust charging Anabaptists with a bloody sentence, condemning all the infants of believers, as having nothing to do with the covenant of Grace, his imputing to me as if I held that they all belong actually to 〈◊〉 kingdom of the devil, no more promise for them, then for children of Turks, their actual standing in the visible kingdom of the devil.  
Pag. 67. A large disquisition of Rome 11. 17. etc. wherein is showed that the engraffing there is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith, and that it proves not Infant-baptisme.  
Pag. 78. Sect. 15. Of master marshal's unjust charge against me as darkening his argument, and casting filth in the face of the Assembly.  
Pag. 80. Sect. 16. Of master Marshals untrue charge against me, as if I rested on Grotius in setting down the tenant of Antiquiry upon occasion of which the tenant of Antiquity is again examined; my judgement of their doctrine vindicated: master Marshals new allegations answered, and my diligence to find out their tenets manifested.  
Pag 91. Sect. 17. Of my opinion about excommunication, Church-government, the admission unto all ordinances, my former conformity alleged to allenate men's minds from me and my writings.  
Pag. 9 Sect. 18. Of the vanity of master Leyes vaunt concerning the deadly wound given to my cause, and the contrary demonstrated by a brief going through the principal points about this argument, as they have hitherto been disputed. As about Acts 2. 39 Rom. 11. 16. Colos. 2. 12. Mat. 28. 19 Acts 16. 15. Mat. 19 14. etc.  
Pag. 97. Baptism and the rite of eating bread and drinking wine at the passover, though old rites among the jews, yet used to another end and after another rule by christians.  
Pag. 98. The command confessed to be the formal reason of circumcision by mr marshal.  
Circumcision a privilege proper to the Jewish Church-state.  
Pag. 99 No command about the Jews Sacraments now in force.  
Pag. 100 Infants not disciples as Mat. 28. 19 is meant.  
Baptising households infers not infant-baptisme.  
Pag. 101. We have no evidence for judgement of charity concerning infants, nor is a judgement of charity to be our rule in administering baptism.  
Pag. 102. Sect. 19 Of master Hussey his pretended satisfactory answer to my Exercitation.  
Pag. 106. Sect. 20 The Epilogue of this Apology concerning the reason of the enlarging of it, the Authors present estate and future intentions.   

The Contents of the Postscript.  
PAge 109. Sect. 1. The occasion of this Postscript.  
●. Sect. 2. Of M. Calamy, and Mr. V●nes. their wrong judgement of the dispute, mast. Blakes book and my discussing the point.  
P. 111. sect. 3. Of master Blakes charge of defect of charity, and some other imputations.  
Pag. 112. sect. 4. They that deny infant-baptisme need not teach that infants perish.  
Pag 113. sect 5. Of my censure of master Blakes producing Gal. 4 29. for the birth-priviledge  
Pag. 114. sect. 6. Of the necessity of my taking p●ins in my Examen to find out the meaning of master Marshals second conclusion by reason of the ambiguity of his expressions.  
Pag. 120. sect. 7. Of the Corinthians doubt, 1 Cor. 7. 12. 13. 14.  
Pag. 121. sect. 8. 1 Cor. 7. 14. is not meant of instrumental sanctification, & federal holiness.  
P. 125. sect. 9 Of mast. Blakes misallegation of Gal. 2. 15. which was the text he chose for his birth-priviledge.  
Pag. 128. sect. 10. That 1 Pet. 2. 9 is meant of the Church invisible.  
Pag. 130. sect. 11. Of precedents for women's receiving the Lords supper.  
P. 131. sect. 12. To say that God hath promised to be the God of every believer and his natural seed is a new Gospel.  
P. 132. sect. 13. Of master rutherfurd's and M. Blakes opinion about holiness of a chosen nation, and mediate Ancestors profession intitling to infantbaptisme, and the Independents advantage in this point.  
Pag. 134. sect. 14. Of the word [nations] matth. 2●. 19 how to be taken.  
Pag. 135. sect. 15. of master Ruthersfurds and master Blakes, and mine opinion concerning the rule to know who are baptizable.  
Pag. 138. sect. 16. About two suppositions a●criby me to master marshal and master Blake in my Examen, page 130.  
Pag. 140. sect. 17. About argument's draw●● from Analogy in positive rites and their invalidity, and the insufficiency of master Blakes rules.  
Pag. 145. sect. 28. That Master Blake hath not proved that infants are disciples from Matth. 18. 5. nor pertinently alleged, Isai. 49, 2●.  
Pag. 147. sect. 19 Of baptising households and 〈◊〉 censure of Mr Blakes speech concerning it.  
Pag. 149. sect. 20. About Matth. 19 14. that by the kingdom of heaven is meant the kingdom of glory.  
Pag. 151. sect. 21. That God seals not to every person that is rightly, baptised, that his covenant of grace belongs only to the elect, that his covenant is effectual, and leaves it not to man's liberty to include or exclude himself.  
Pag. 155. sect 22. Of Mr Blakes unjust crimination of 〈◊〉 as putting the children of believers out of the covenant of Grace, and the Epilogue of this Postscript.    

An Apology for the two Treatises, and Appendix to them concerning Infant-Baptisme, against the unjust Charges, Complaints and Censures of D. Nathanael Homes, M. John Geree, and M. Steven Martial, and M. John Ley.  
DEcember 15, 164●. were published with my consent two Treatises, 
§.  and an Appendix to them concerning Infant-Baptisme. 
1. Of the occasion of writing this Apology.  The writing that could not in nineteen months before obtain a few lines, hath now gained four answers in four months. In January came forth: Treatise of one Thomas Bakewell, in which the Title pretends a brief answer to my twelve doubtful Arguments (as he styles them) against Infant-baptism in my Exercitation about it. This Treatise I think hath honour enough done it that it is named. If any man show me any thing worth the answering in it, it may in time gain a reply, otherwise for me it may take its rest. The next month was published Doctor Homes his Vindication of baptising Believers Infants in some animadversions on my Exercitation and examen. The next month I received from Master john Geree his vindic●ae paedobaptisms in a full answer (as is asserted) to my twelve Arguments in my exercitation, and whatsoever is rational or material in my Answer to Master Marshals Sermon. The next month I received Master Stephen Marshal his defence of Infant-baptisme in answer to my two Treatises and Appendix, in which also I am informed of two pieces at least from New-England in which I am concerned. And unto all, or some of these, Master john Ley in his Epistle to Master john Sal●marsh adds his acclamation in these words. There be divers David's who are ready for a single encounter with that braving Goliath, and some have given his Cause such a wound already, as (though he may play the Mountebank with it and skin it over) will never be cured at the bottom. Thus far they have spoken: I presume they will allow me now liberty to speak for myself, and for the truth.  
My Cause (as Master Ley calls it) contains either the manner, or the matter of my Treatises. 
§.  The defence of the matter of them is the chiefest thing, 
2. Of the intention of the Author upon that occasion.  and is first in my intention. But the clearing of myself from some complaints or charges in the manner of handling the whole business, is so necessary for the removing of prejudices, which would prevent reading and entertaining my writings, and do undermine my present station, that I am constrained, first to plead for myself, before I engage further in the Controversy: wherefore I shall answer those charges by themselves apart that so the main question may be discussed by itself.  
First, Doctor Homes in his Epistle to the Reader hath these words. 
§. 3. Of the necessity and seasonableness of publishing the two Treatises about Infant-Baptisme.  Mean while I could not but lament the untimely birth of Master T. his Exercitation, and his unnecessary falling intravell with it, after at least six able Brethren, and above so many days by nervous disputation had given him so much Cause to doubt of his Tenet, or at least a while to suspend it. And this hath been by sundry persons objected to me, that the publishing my Book was extremely unseasonable. Two reasons are employed in Doctor Homes his words to insinuate that it was untimely, because it was unnecessary. Secondly, because it was after such a nervous disputation as he mentions.  
To that of needlessness I answer. If it were necessary to maintain Truth though generally opposed, when few or none were willing to appear for it, and special providence called me out to do it, if it were necessary to endeavour the preventing of unjust persecution for holding a Truth, to which in Sermons and other ways Lawmakers, and Magistrates were every where instigated, if it were necessary when the people of God were perplexed about a point of conscience that pertains to their continual practice, and disputation in public was declined, to endeavour the bringing of Truth to light, if it were necessary for a man to keep the solemn Covenant he hath by oath bound himself to, though it were to his great hazard, if it were necessary in a time of Reformation for a Minister of the Gospel to do what belonged to him to further it, if it be necessary for a Minister of the Gospel to provide for the giving of his account at the day of Jesus Christ, than it was necessary for me to fall in travel with my Exercitation and examen; for all these ends and ties concurred in the writing and publishing of my Treatises. And therefore I am assured that what I did was so necessary, that had I not done what I did, I should neither have been faithful to Christ, nor to his people, nor to the State, nor to my own soul. I confess my Book was untimely published in reference to my own preferment, and outward peace. I saw few or none regarded for clearing of Truth: but popular Orators, such as relate to great men, or are useful to uphold a Party, are the men esteemed. I could not expect any other then opposition to my opinion, being against such a stream of men. But I feared that of our Lord Christ, He that is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful Generation, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed when he shall come in his glory with his holy Angels. How nervous the disputation he mentions was, I suppose the Doctor knows not but by report, forasmuch as I never perceived him present at it. The strength, and substance of all the Arguments, as well as my memory (who was then the respondent) could bear them away, was faithfully digested by me in my Exercitation, which was composed not long after in part upon occasion of that disputation. In which disputation I was so far from finding cause to doubt of my Tenet, that I profess sincerely both that disputation, and the several Answers of my learned Antagonists, and reverend brethren Doctor Homes, and Master Geree, and Master Martial have given me less cause to doubt of my Tenet, especially sith Master Martial Pag. 116. of his Defence says, it was never asserted by him, That the Covenant of saving Grace is made to Believers and their natural seed, and Pag. 92. The command is the cause of the existence of the duty, but the Covenant of Grace is the motive to it, and Pag. 182. he grants, that the formal reason (which is the adequate reason) of the jews being Circumcised was the command of God, the Covenant of Grace, or their Church-state he only makes the motive to it, and the thing it related to: which with many more concessions in his Defence, and the others Answers I doubt not, but if the Lord vouchi●ase me time and liberty to improve to the overthrow of his first and main Argument, and the inference he makes from the Texts of Scripture he brings to confirm it, and consequently his whole Cause, as he himself confesseth in his Sermon. Pag. 26. And for giving me cause to suspend my 〈◊〉; if he mean by suspension, stifling my doubts in mine own bosom, and never imparting them to learned men for resolution, it had been in my apprehension extreme imprudence, if not stupidity, to have let slip the opportunity of making known the reasons of my doubts in this juncture of time, in which by Covenant the State was engaged to settle worship, Catechising, confession of faith, discipline according to God's Word, to each of which this point is of no small moment: if he mean by suspending my Tenet the not printing my writings, neither am I justly to be blamed therein considering how long I waited and yet never received any resolution, and after I say not, a month only, but ten months at least waiting for an answer about my motion to Master Martial in the Epilogue of my Examen, it was plainly rejected. And though Master Martial excuseth himself by relating that I declared to him, that I could, and that I intimated to him I would keep the opinion private to myself (in which either his memory or his apprehension were defective) and therefore took no further thought of examining my Treatises, yet I suppose it concerned Master Martial for many reasons to have contrived some course for my satisfaction, or the abatement of height of pride, and confidence which the perturbation of his mind, rather than the true intelligence of my spirit in that business made him imagine in my writings. As for the unseasonableness in politic respects (though I do not take upon me in●ight therein) yet so far as my reason is able to discern, it could never have come more seasonably, to have a matter of such moment discussed, while Reformation, and Laws confirming it were yet in fieri, all men knowing, that it is too late to speak, when the Legislative power hath fully enacted a Law. And whereas Master Martial says, he verily thought I would have 〈◊〉 quiet by down, preached, kept my opinion to myself, and not have any further appeared (especially at this time) to increase the flame of 〈…〉, I answer. For my quiet sitting down, and preaching Christ, I can boldly and cheerfully appeal to my Auditors of these Honourable Societies whereof not a few are eminent persons in the Honourable house of Commons. For my app●●ring at this time I have given reasons, which I suppose conscientious men will conceive weighty, yea and preponderating 〈◊〉 divisions that may happen if that of Augustine be true, 〈…〉. Nor do I know that any such divisions or confusions have happened by reason of my Te●●ises, or are likely to happen, but rather the contrary. And if any divisions be now about that opinion they were afore my Treatises were published, and if they increase they are rather to be imputed to the violence of those Preachers, who instigate the Magistrate to ex●●pate such as Heretics, who hold the opinion, then to me, who by practice and profession do hold Communion with them, that differ from me, and abhorse separation from my 〈…〉 this regard. Nor do I doubt but that if it were not for the rigous of many Preachers, a way might be found for Reformation in this matter without such a flame of division and confusion, as Master Martial apprehends. But I wish that as in Germany the rigidness of some men was the destruction of the Protestants there, so it happen not in like manner in England.  
Another objection I meet with is, that I have printed my Treatises contrary to the intimation, 
§. 4. Of freedom from publishing the two Treatises contra●y to engagement, with a Declaration of the Authors proceedings therein.  or (as some allege) promise I made to Master Martial: which Master Martial writing to me thus expresseth▪ Pag. 1, 2. of his Defence. But when after some friendly conference with you, you declared to me, that if you might enjoy liberty to exercise your Ministry in some place, where you should not be put upon the practice of baptising of Infants, you could (yea and intimated to 〈◊〉 that you would) keep this opinion private to yourself, provided only, that of any should preach in your pulpit for the baptising of them, you should take yourself bound in the same place to preach against it; otherwise m●ns preaching or printing abroad should be no provocation to you. And Pag. 244. Master Marshal faith thus. For even to New England have some sent your writings, and sufficiently in them showed your scorn of Master Thomas Goodwin, Master Vines and myself, as our friends do from thence write unto us.  
That I may clearly and fully answer this charge, and the former, and state myself, and proceedings right in the thoughts of men, I think it necessary to make this following Declaration. It happened that in the year 1627. reading the Catechism Lecture at Magdalen Hall in Oxford, and having occasion in one of my Lectures to examine whether there be such a privilege to the children of Believers, that they should be accounted to belong to the Covenant, and Church of God, I found not sufficient ground either from Gen. 17. 7. or from the institution of Circumcision for the affirmative in that question. The substance of my reasons then against the Argument drawn from Circumcision to baptism, I have compacted in that short discourse, which is part. 2, §. 8. Pag. 29. of my Examen, and begins at those words, I dare not assent etc. Which being the chief thing I stand upon. I wonder Master Martial so lightly passeth over calling it a tedious discourse, altering my words, and saying nothing to the reason I bring. Wherefore then, and since I declined the urging of those reasons for it, and wholly rested on 1 Cor. 7. 14. conceiving that those words [but now are they holy] did import that privilege to the children of a Believing Parent. And accordingly practised baptising of Infants upon the warrant of that Text only, as I often told my Auditors at Lemster in Hereford-shire, which some now about the City can witness. It happened after I was necessitated to leave my place through the violence of the King's Party, after much wand'ring up and down with much danger to me and mine I came to the City of Bristol, and there preached for half a year, in which time in dispute with an Antipaedobaptist, I urged that Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. which he answered with so much evidence, as that although I did not fully assent unto him, yet as one that durst not oppose Truth who ever brought it, I resolved with myself to consider that matter more full, and to that end being enfeebled with labour in preaching, and grief by reason of the public losses at that time, and advised by my Physician to remove out of Bristol, understanding the Assembly was to sit in july 1643. I resolved to adventure a journey to London through Wiltshire, to confer with my Brethren of the Assembly, and by the advantage of Books in London to make further search into that point. It pleased God to stop my journey then by that sad, and unexpected overthrow near Devizes, which necessitated me to get away from Bristol by Sea into Pembrokeshire. While I was there I chanced to meet with Vessius his theses de poedobaptismo, and therein reading Cyprians and others of the Ancients Testimonies, I suspected that in point of antiquity the matter was not so clear as I had taken it, but weighing those passages, I conceived that the Ancients held only baptising of Infants in the case of supposed necessity, conceiving that by baptism Grace was given, and that all are to be saved from perishing and after in process of time it became ordinary.  
Wherefore I resolved if ever I came to London, to search further into those two points of the meaning of 1 Cor. 7. 14. and the History of Paedobaptism, and accordingly God having brought my wife and children with much difficulty to me after a second plunder, and by remarkable providence turning the wind against the Ships when they went without us bringing us out of Pembrokshire the day before it was appointed by the King's Forces to send to apprehend me, making the wind serve for a speedy voyage in four days from Milford Haven to the Downs, presently upon the receiving us into the Ship (which I hope I shall ever remember to the praise of our God) being come to London September 22. 1643. I applied myself to inquire into the points forenamed. It happened that whereas I had this prejudice against the interpreting of the holiness of the children 1 Cor. 7. 14. of Legitimation that no learned Protestant had so expounded it, meeting with 〈◊〉 his notes not long before printed at Cambridge, I found him of that opinion, and after him Musculus and Melancthon; and finding that the Sanctification in the forepart of the verse, must be understood of lawful copulation, expressed by Beza thus, Fidelis uxor potest cum infideli marito bona conscientia consuescere, which sense only was suitable to the case resolved by the Apostle whether they might still continue together, I observed that the Apostle speaking of the unbelieving party mentions his unbelief, but when he mentions the Believer, expresseth only the relation of husband and wife, and that the reason of the Apostle to prove their lawful 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 lawful cepulaetion are uncleave, which being expounded of federal uncleanness 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 Brothers plainly, that I doubted there was none. This occasioned the Dispute Doctor Homes speaks 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 yielded that it was to be expounded as Beza expounded it, horum & similium ut supra, as I express 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 baptised, but that our Saviour meant it of their present state I did not grant: and I further yielded that I should not stick at the baptism of an Infant concerning whom I should be certified from God that it was actually regenerate, and believing, meaning no more but this, that such a certificate would warrant me in such a case to baptise, it being all one with a profession of faith, as signs made by a dumb person that he was a Christian would warrant his baptism. This concession being made merely upon a supposition of an extraordinary revelation, first Ma●ter B●●ke, and after him Master Martial have often urged, though they have been often told, 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 between 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 committee 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 satisfy me, who would have been then, and shall be yet satisfied with one convincing argument, that it was Christ's appointment, that the Infants of Believers, because they are borne of Believer are to be baptised. 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 july following, the other three. Which I said in my Examen were delivered to Master Tuckney, but Master Martial tells me he doth deny it, yet I conceive my Father Scudder told me so, who I am sure would speak truth, and when I read that to him he did not correct me in it, and Master Thomas Goodwin still says 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 main 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 Martial calls a tedious discourse, though it contains less than forty lines, and if it had been well answered, might have eased Master Martial of the rest of his labour. Now the Papers before named, I perceived were tossed up and down from one to another, and it seems Master Edward's the Controversy 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 joined with mine, merely 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 seems is like Master Edward's his justice to other men. In this time I attended Master Thomas goodwin's Lectures about that Argument, had the patience to hear Master Edward's 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 hear me, though I meddled not at all with that matter in the Pulpit, and I perceived my maintenance was likely to be withdrawn at the end of the year. Hereupon one of the Assembly my loving friend, understanding that the Honourable Societies of the Temples wanted a Preacher, solicited 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 Martial was one, by whom I was rejected. Presently after which rejection, having occasion of business in the behalf of some godly Pembrokeshire Ministers, with that worthy Gentleman Master john 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 took to lay open my condition to him in a Letter, which begot no other fruit but a little Treatise entitled, Infant's Baptism proved lawful 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 inflexibleness by my former writings, and seeing no likelihood of employment and maintenance for me and mine, except I would gather a separated Church, which I durst not do▪ as not knowing how to justify 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 written for me, I sent my own to Master Martial, who received it December 9 1644. About a fortnight after Master Martial sent me word, that he would find a time to speak with me: I sent him word, that for the returning answer to my writing, I would not straiten him; but forasmuch as by his rejecting me I miss being nominated to the Temple, and I was then brought to great straits, I requested that he would declare as occasion should offer itself, whether he held me fit for the Ministry or not, notwithstanding my dissent from him in that point. His answer was, he desired to know first whether I would keep my opinion to myself. I returned this answer in writing by my Father Scudder. I request you to return this answer to Master Martial, that whereas I requested him to declare whether he thought me fit for the Ministry or not, notwithstanding my dissent abo●t Poedobaptism, and he demands of me a promise of silence in that point, I conceive he is bound by the rules of justice, mercy, and prudence to do it without requiring that condition, and that he hath no reason to be jealous of me considering my carriage in this matter. Nevertheless when I shall understand what promise he would have from me, and what is intended to be done by him for the discussing the point, and clearing of Truth, to which I ought not be wanting, and what advantage I may have by his agency for my employment and maintenance, I shall give him a punctual answer, and am resolved for peace sake to yield as far as I may without ululating the solemn Covenant I have taken, and betraying truth and innocency. Decem. 26. This begat the friendly conference mentioned by Master Martial, which was Decem. 30. 1644. in the morning afore the Assembly sat. At the very beginning of that Conference, Master Martial having this last written message in his hand, & reading those words, [and he demands of me a promise of silence in that point] told me that he did not demand of me a promise of silence in that point; for that was beyond his line: this was his very expression. As soon as ever I heard those words, I conceived myself freed from the snare I most feared of making a promise, which as the case might stand, I could not keep with a good conscience. Then Master Martial spoke to this effect, that yet for the satisfaction of those who should inquire of him concerning me, he desired to know my intentions. Whereupon I dealt freely, that I intended not to publish my opinion in the Pulpit, if I might be where I should not be put to baptise: for I conceived it not likely, that there would be a Reformation of that thing in this Age, there having been so long a practice of Infant-Baptisme, and such a prejudice in men against the opposers of it: yet I told him that if any should preach to that people I had charge of, that which I conceived to be an error, I did resolve to oppose it there, otherwise other men's preaching abroad should be no provocation to me: So that it is clear, I made no promise, and that intimation of mine intentions which I made was only, that I intended not to preach my opinion in that place unless provoked there. And this any man may perceive was my meaning by Master Marshals own relation, in which the prov●● is rightly expressed; That if any should preach in my Pulpit for baptising Infants, I took myself bound in the same place to preach against it, otherwise mens preaching or printing abroad should be no provocation to me; to wit, to preach that opinion in that place. And whereas Master Martial allegeth this for his Quietus est, he might have remembered, that I told him in express terms, that it Laws were likely to be enacted to make the denial of Infant-Baptisme penal, I held myself bound in conscience to appear in public about that matter: yea, and Master Martial told me he intended me some animadversions on my Examen; whence it may be collected, that neither Master Marshal nor myself had agreed to lay aside the dispute itself. It is true, Master Martial did endeavour to possess me with this, That Reformation of Congregations might be without altering the use of Infant-Baptisme. To which I answered, that though much might be done other ways, yet it would never be right, till Christ's way of baptising were restored. About two hours after, Master Martial coming to me, in the presence of Master Obadiah Sedgwicke, repeating the intimation of my intention aforenamed, with the proviso, told me, he would give testimony in my behalf as I desired. Upon this I parted with Master Martial, and Master Sedgewicke walking with me, commended my proceeding in that matter, and made a notion to me, which came to nothing. Upon this I went home very cheerful, not only because I prized amity with Master Martial, and there was a likely way of my employment and maintenance; but chiefly because I was freed from that I feared, as a snare, the promise of silence, and there were great hopes that my brethren in the Ministry would not be rigid in ejecting out of the Ministry and Communion, those that dissented from them in that point, and so separation and mutual persecution might be prevented (which was and is still the great fear that possesseth my spirit) and liberty might in time be given for the shining forth of the light in this thing, and by degrees Reformation might be perfected, which I conceived the only safe and happy way. Upon these considerations I acquainted sundry of my near friends with this mercy of God to me, and being requested to join in keeping a day of Thanksgiving at Anth●l●●, I 〈◊〉 1. following for public mercies, I made a special memento in my book of special passages of my life, to bless God that day for the conference I had with Master Martial in peace and amity: What Master Martial did after for me I do not well know, I believe he did as he promised, and after a trial of me three Lords-days at the Temple, I was in the end of january chosen by the Treasurers, and and sundry others of the members of both the honourable Societies of the Temples to be their Preacher for a year.  
After these things, being acquainted with a Law made in New-England, and proceedings against those that denied baptising of Infants, I yielded to the sending of my Examen thither, though not so large as it is now printed (for the dissertation about a speech of Master Cotton Part. 3. Sect. 3. Pag 42, 43. and some other things were added since) merely to occasion the study of this matter more exactly, and to allay the vehemency of their spirits, and proceedings against those that dissented from them, and therewith I sent this short Epistle.  
To all the Elders of the Churches of Christ in New-England, and to each in particular, by name to the Pastor and Teacher of the Church of God at Boston there these present.  
Reverend Brethren,  
Understanding that there is some disquiet in your Churches about Poedobaptisme, and being moved by some that honour you much in the Lord, and desire your comfortable account at the day of Christ, that I would yield that a Copy of my Examen of Master Martial his Sermon of Infant-Baptisme might be transcribed to be sent to you I have consented thereto, and do commend it to your examination in like manner, as you may perceive by the reading of it I did to Master Marshals; not doubting but that you will as in God's presence; and accountable to Christ jesus weigh the thing, remembering that of our Lord Christ, joh. 7. 24. judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement. To the blessing of him who is your God, and our God, your judge, and our judge I leave you, and the flock of God over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, and rest,  
From my study at the Temple in London, May 25. 1645. Your Brother and fellow servant in the work of Christ, JOHN TOMBS.  
THe accounting of this act a showing of my scorn of Master Thomas Goodwin, Master Vines, and Master Martial, I take rather to be the effect of a distempered palate, than a right-discerning taste.  
After this, sundry things happened which did induce me to yield to the importunity of those that solicited earnestly the publishing of my writings for the public good. I had sent to Master Martial after his return from Scotland, to know what he would do about the motions I made in the Epilogue of my Examen, for the discussing of the point in difference between him and me. The best of the answer I received was, that sith I had now a place for my Ministry without baptising Infants, he expected I would be quiet. About that time I had occasion to make trial of the Assemblies approbation of me. The Examiner told me, that there were many of the Assembly that did scruple in Conscience, the giving approbation to me because of my opinion. The Directory had been published, and an Ordinance of Parliament to make the not using it penal. Preparations were to send Bills to the King, among which I assured myself that would be one, which if once past, it would be too late to make an afterplea. The Sermons in public were still as earnest against this tenet as ever. The people of the City much enquired into this matter. A public disputation was once allowed about it to which I was earnestly solicited but for weighty reasons refused it. Sundry came to me to request the perusal of my papers for their satisfaction many learned, godly, and prudent persons, both of them that differed in judgement, as well as those that agreed with me, moved me to have them printed, for the bringing of truth to light. I saw not wherein any danger to the State or Church might be created by the printing of them, and which was beyond all to me▪ I was confirmed it was a truth I held, had tried all fit means to have it examined, had been guided in the searching of it, and preserved for this business by many remarkable providences, and thereupon after prayer to God by myself, and with others for his direction, I yielded to the printing of them, not out of a restless spirit to vent myself, as Master Martial imagined, nor out of any mind to increase the divisions and confusions of the time (than which there is nothing my spirit and ways more abhor) but to vindicate truth, perform my duty to which I was bound by solemn Covenant, to do my best for the preventing of that sad evil of removing out of the Ministry, and out of Communion, and out of the State also them that could not yield to Infant-Baptisme, which is more likely than any thing to increase our divisions, and make tumults, especially if the relations, and instigations of some fiery spirits prevail. And in this, I doubt not but I have dealt faithfully to God and to the State, and charitably to other men, without violating any engagement, what ever I suffer in mine own person. I must confess had I seen any inclination in the Assembly, or Master Martial, or other leading-men to examine my writings in a fair Scholastike way, and had I had means to be able to bear the charges of an impression, and no Laws likely to be established to make the holding of my opinion penal, I had resolved not to publish my writings in English, but in Latin, and therefore I first framed my Exercitation in Latin, conceiving the Assembly would have apprehended my aim and intention, to be to deal only with Scholars in this matter: but all things falling out cross to my expectation, I conceived it was the will of God it should be printed as it was. Thus much for the justifying the publishing of my Treatises.  
The next charge against me is my abusing my Antagonists. 
§. 5. O● the clearing the Author of the two Treatises from scornfulness in writing them: of my censure of M. Thomas goodwin's handling this point, and of all writers about Col●s. 2▪ 12.  And in this Master Geree in his Epistle to the Lord Montague speaks thus.  
The Author whom I answer, hath used his opponents more coarsely than was conventent to their worth, and places. But all men count his ●leightings of opponents a blemish to his work. Master Martial in his Defence, Pag. 244. For even thither have some sent your writings, and sufficiently in them showed your scorn of M. Thomas Goodwin, Master Vines, and myself, as our friends do from thence write to us. And Pag. 53. I allege all this to show, you should not thus vilify and scorn their (meaning the Ancients) practise and grounds, as if the Century writers, and generally all Protestant writers, yea Master Marshals own friend, if I mistake not, The●philus Philokyrtaces Lon●ardiensis in his Dies Dominica, when they note the naevi quisquiliae blemishes, and errors of Fathers and Councils did vilify and scorn them: which if it be an uncharitable imputation to them, it is so to me, unless it be thought that men cannot conceive bad enough of an Antipaedobaptist. Pag. 62. throughout your whole Treatise you strive to make an ostentation of reading, and put abundance of scoffs and jeers upon them who are of contrary mind to you. Pag. 76. You pour out such abundance of scorn upon them, who think otherwise then you do. I answer, 1. That the words interpreted as scoffing & scorning, and jeering are not such, but usual School-expressions frequent in Schools, and in the most temperate writings of the most moderate men of the same profession, towards them that descent from them, so that I assure myself, had not my Antagonists before distasted my work, and consequently the Author, they would not have been so construed. How ever Master Geree say all men count my slighting opponents a blemish to my work, yet one I am sure commended my writing for the contrary, that I had discovered the weakness of the opponents by such expressions, nor did my Father Scudder except against those passages as offensive which Master Martial doth, though more then half was read to him, and observed by him of purpose to avoid offence, afore it was sent to Master Martial. 2. That there were many reasons why Master Martial should have otherwise conceived of me in those expressions, as namely my Declaration of my intention, and petition thereupon in the prologue of the Examen, Part. 1. Sect. 1. my respective speeches of Master Martial in the same place, Pag. 2. and Part▪ 2. Sect 7. Pag. 26. and also in the Epilogue, Part. 4. Sect. 8. And if Master Martial had remembered it, when in our friendly conference he had told me, he did not expect so high expressions from me, which I conceived he meant of my downright censuring of his Arguments, not contemning his abilities, and I told him I conceived it necessary to do so, because he called his Arguments undeniable, and had charged the Anabaptists with a bloody sentence, I desired an instance of such an expression as was offensive, which being given by Master Martial, I left those words out in the printed Book, and would have dealt so with any other, had I conceived it would have been so construed. I might add further, that when Master Geree came to me the day he published his▪ Book, a month afore Master Marshal's Defence came forth, I told him he did not conceive aright of me in that charge in his Epistle Dedicatory, and gave him my reason, and told him that I might have much wrong by it, and desired that intimation might be given to Master Martial thereof. Which whether he did or no I know not, but I supposed it might have occasioned Master Martial if he could not alter his Copy, yet to have added something in the beginning or end of his Book, to have allayed the asperity of that charge. But what are those passage in which I pour out such abundance of scorn on. Master Vines, Master Thomas Goodwin, and Master Martial? All the passage of Master Vines thus interpreted is Examen, Part 2. Sect. 6. But how knows Master Vines this? I do not take Master Vines for a Prophet, and to infer this by reason, The Anabaptist urgeth Matth. 28. 19 against paedobaptism, Ergo he will urge Rom. 12. 19 against Magistracy, is in my slender apprehension a baculo ad angulum. He had said, the Anabaptists which urged Matth 28 19 against padobaptisme when we shall ●e thriven to his full stature, will undermine Magistracy by Rom. 12. 19 Which words seem to imply, that an Antipaedobaptist is but a young Anti-Magistrate, and that the same vegetative faculty, that is the same reason that did nourish the one would beget the other. This inference being unreasonable, yet spoken to such an Auditory by a man of such eminency at such a time, and therefore tending to the suppression of Truth, and them that held it, I conceived it necessary to blunt the edge of it, without any scorn of him, whom I respect as my loving neighbour, but for necessary defence of truth, in a School expression used by many Protestant writers, and among others, by Master Gataker in his rejoinder to Can in defence of Master Bradsha●, Pag. 113. As for Master Thomas Goodwin it is true, Part. 3. Sect. 7. Pag. 68 of my Examen I said thus. I remember Master Thomas Goodwin, who hath handled this matter of Poedobaptisme, by spinning out similitudes and conjectures (fit indeed for the common people that are more taken with resemblances than syllogisms) rather then with close Arguments. In this passage says Master Martial, Pag. 143. I stepped out of the way to reproach Master Thomas Goodwin, that I vilify him as a man who by spinning out similitudes, and conjectures deludes his A●ditory with such things rather than with satisfactory arguments, that why like Ishmael my Sword should be against every man he cannot tell, that he knows him to be a learned godly Divine, and an eminent Preacher of the Gospel of Christ, and his worth not to be blasted by my scornful speeches, that I have set down his Notions otherwise then he preached. To all which I answer. That passage of mine was not to vilify Master Goodwin, but to pass a right censure on his Sermons, as I did in like manner on Doctor Featlies' Treatise, Pag. 143. without any vilifying of his learning, because I saw the esteem of them held men in error. Which is so frequent, and just a thing, that it was held meet that an Advertisement should be added to the new Annotations on the Bible, to prevent the danger of some passages in favour of the Prelacy and Liturgy. Hanc veniam petimusque damusque vicissim. And this fact of mine is most injuriously construed, as if I did this like an Ishmael that loved to have my Sword against every man, as if I affected contention: than which there could not be a thing more falsely charged on me, though in pursuance of truth I held myself bound to examine every man's sayings, which I tell Master Martial in the Epilogue of my Examen, to be for exact disquisition of it. Doctor Twisse in his Vindiciae gratiae against Arminius often makes digressions, and doth vocare ad parts Molinaeus, Piscator, Lubbertus, Alvarez, etc. He writes against Doctor jackson, Master Cotton, etc. Master Gataker against Doctor Ames, Voetius, Balmford, Lucius, Gomarus, Master Walker etc. doth any man therefore make them like Ishmael whose Sword is against every man? Master Martial says that I vilify Master Thomas Goodwin as a man who by spinning out similitudes and conjectures deludes his Auditors, and then gives him an Encomium, in which he would have it believed that I charged Master Thomas Goodwin as a man wont to do thus, whereas my words 〈◊〉 only concerning that matter of Paedobaptism, which doth nothing prejudice him in his other works, of which I have in my Examen, Pag. 163. given an Encomium. And for my censure, it was grounded partly on his own expressions, that in sundry points pertaining to that matter we must be content with hints, which is all one with conjectures, and partly on the main principles of his dispute; which were, that forasmuch as the promises to Believers children are indefinite, as Acts 2. 39 Luke 19 8. God hath so cast the order of his election, that multitudes come out of the loins of his people, that administration of the Lords Supper and Baptism is to be by a Judgement, that we are to judge any Infant-childrens of Believers to be holy by parcels, though not all in the lump, that they are therefore to be accounted holy with a real saving holiness, 1 Cor. 7, 14. Matth. 19 14. and therefore to be baptised according to the rule employed, Act. 10. 47. Concerning which I say still that I expected Arguments, but counted myself deluded with these conjectures, as finding nothing to his purpose in any of these Texts, which were the main he alleged, they neither proving that God had ordered his election so as for the most part to run through the loins of Believers, nor that we are to judge any of the Infants of Believers to be in the Covenant, or Elect by parcels, though not all in the lump, nor that Baptism is to be administered by such a conjectural or uncertain judgement. But forasmuch as I have disputed at large in my Examen, Part. 2. Sect. 10. Part 3. Sect. 3. 4. about the promises to Believers children, and examined all the Texts forementioned, and showed that we are not to administer Ordinances by our conjectural judgement, concerning God's Election, or inward holiness, God having not made that the condition of his servants applying his Ordinances, which can be infallibly known to none but himself, as Master Martial rightly in his Sermon of baptising Infants, Page 3. but according to the certain judgement of a persons profession of the faith, I shall not examine this thing here at large: only I thought it necessary to say thus much, not to vilify Mr G●odwin, but to show the weakness of the Cause, for which no better proofs could be brought, than such uncertain guesses even by a man so able as Master Thomas Goodwin, who hath in other things showed his sufficiency beyond other men. And though I deny not but I might mistake him in some passages, or not exactly reci●● his words; yet I do not conceive I have misreported his Sermons, and however, and whenever they shall be printed, I hope I shall be able to produce the written notes of others to verify my setting down his Notions; yet if I should mistake passages in Sermons not printed, it were excusable, in comparison of the usage I have met with from Doctor Homes, and Master Martial himself, who in not a few places, yea I may truly say all along, do in their framing answers to my written speeches, crook my words where they are straight, and they might have discerned them so to be, had their haste in publishing their answers permitted them to ponder my writings. As for instance: Master Martial had averred that the Christian Church hath been in possession of Infant-baptisme for the space of 1500. years and upwards, I replied, that if it were true, yet it is not so much as may be said for Episcopacy, etc. And after, For antiquity not Apostolical there are plain testimonies of Episcopacy, etc. being in use before any of the testimonies you or any other can produce for baptising of Infants. Now M. Martial in his Defence, Pag. 7▪ 8. First sets down my words thus, As much may be said for Episcopacy, etc. That there are plain testimonies, for Episcopacy etc. before any testimonies can be produced for the baptising of Infants, and then tells me, that the Ancients testify that the baptising Infants was received in all ages, and from the very Apostles as a Divine Institution, no such thing of Episcopacy, if I can make it good, I shall do a very acceptable service to the Papists, Anabaptists, and Prelatical party, if I cannot, I should do well to revoke that bold assertron. In which Master Martial deals not candidly with me, when I had said, if it were tru●, yet it is not so much as may be said for Episcopacy, (meaning that which he had said) the Church hath been in possession of Infant-baptisme 1500. years and upwards, Master Martial sets down my words, as if I had said, as much may be said for Episcopacy, and in the latter passage leaves out the words [Antiquity not Apostolical] and [being in use] and then insinnates, as if I had asserted, that the Ancients say as much for the Divine Institution of Episcopacy as for Infant-baptisme. Whereas I only spoke of the possession and being in use, nothing of the Divine Institution, and my assertion is so manifest, that even the advertisement at the end of the New Annot: on the Bible, confesseth it a custom very ancient, and near the Apostles time, as Chamier truly acknowledgeth, Lib. 10. c. 6. de Oecumenico Pontifice, Tom. 2. Pag. 353 Mol●n in his Epistle to Bishop Andrew's, (if my memory deceive me not) confessed it to have been ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus. And I conceive Master Marshals leaving out in his proposition of the first part, [as n●w ta●ght] which was in mine, and framing it thus, in opposition to mine [Infant-baptisme no late innovation] may occasion an unwary reader to conceive I had simply asserted it to be a late innovation. Now this course, though it may perhaps not prejudice my writings with those that are able and willing to take pains to compare together writing with writing, yet the greatest part either through want of leisure or skill, or through disaffection to me or mine opinion, or through a secure resting on▪ Master Marshals word neglecting it, it is a great injury to me, and to the Truth, As for Master Thomas goodwin's Sermons of Infant-baptisme, whether my censure of them, or Master Robert Bayly one of the Scottish Commissioners charge in his Dissuasive, Cham 6. Pag. 119. do more disparage them or him, I leave it to Master Marshal's, Master Goodwin's and their friend's consideration. It hath been excepted against me that I say, Pag. 139. of my Examen, which if he can apply to Infants, erit mihi magnus Apollo, which is no worse then what Master Gataker hath animadv. in Luci: Part. 1. Sect. 8. Pag. 22. Inter iustum & insontem qui distinctionem iustam dederit. erit is mihi magnus Apollo: and that I have said Master Goodwin dictated at Bow, which is so harmless an expression, that even the preface to the new Annot: and the advertisement call their writings, their dictates.  
Let us consider the scorns put upon Mr. Martial. When I urged Mr. Geree in private conference to instance in particulars, wherein I had dealt coursely or slighted my opponents, expecting he would have showed me where I had falsified their words, or belied, or derided their persons; instead of any such matter he allegeth that passage, part 3. of my examination, pag. 36. of which Mr. Martial, pag. 94 of his defence says, This you cast away with scorn, affirming it to be an easy answer, because it is easy to be answered; which possibly may be thought to have some lepidity (which is sure but a venial sin in one tired, as I was with hewing at such a knotty piece as Mr. Marshals Sermon) but how it should be a casting of scorn I see not. In the same place Mr. Martial says, I make myself merry with the word virtual, as if the examining the sense of a distinction, were making merry with it, pag. 103. He says, I wonder you should seek to cast an odium upon my expression (as you do here, and several other times) by saying it is a joining with Arminius. I answer, where I said he joins with Arminius, I conceive still I said right; not to east an odium upon his expressions, but to show the error of them. And for that particular I charged Mr. Martial with, in calling Proselytes, who sought justification by the works of the law Abraham's seed, he joins with Arminius in his Analysis, c. 9 ad Rom. and opposeth Bayne, it was right. For Arminius saith, Ratio est à duplice semine Abrahami, quorum unum tantum verbo isto & proposito comprehendatur. And this double seed of Abraham he calls the sons of promise, whom he defines, sunt illi qui fide in Christum justitiam & salutem quaerunt, and the children of the flesh, whom he defines; qui per opera legis justittam, & salutem consectantur. (I confess it was in my copy through an easy, but not material oversight; consequuntur, yet in the English I render it, follow: but why this should puzzle Mr. Marshal I know not) And to this calling some Abraham's seed, who no otherwise were Abraham's seed, but in that they professing Judaisme, sought righteousness by the law, Bayne rightly opposeth that speech, that those that conceive carnally of the law seeking righteousness by it without something else adjoined, to wit natural generation; are never called Abraham's seed. Yet Mr. Martial in his Sermon, and again in his defence, pag. 10. calls those Abraham's seed, who are not so by natural generation, or by faith; but are Proselytes, seeking justification by the works of the Law: Which is the very ground of Arminius his perverting the ninth of the Romans to maintain his opinion of respective Predestination. As for Master marshal's vindication of himself, it goes upon this mistake, as if I had charged him with agreeing with Arminius in the expounding the ninth to the Romans, and in his opinion of election upon foreseen faith, whereas I only charged him with joining with Arminius in this particular, to call the Proselytes that were Jews by profession, but sought righteousness by the law, Abraham's seed; pag. 105. Mr. Martial says, that I try all my wits and artifices to shake the strength of his second conclusion by scornful speeches, etc. The truth is, I was put to the trial of all my wits to find out the meaning of his second conclusion; but as for the strength of it, it is so small, that he that can but show the ambiguity in it, may refute it without much ado. As for the scornful speeches Mr. Martial can find but one, which was the calling of his second conclusion, a Cothurnus; which I never dreamt would have been taken for an expression of scorn, but a proverbial phrase signifying an ambiguous speech used by David Pareus in his judgement on the 5 Articles sent to the Synod of Dort, and by others the most grave, and solid Divines, I said, pag. 54. That Mr. Martial did very carnally imagine the Church of God to be like civil corporations, this he calls pag. 121. a scornful puff, but why he should call it so, I am yet to seek. pag. 124. he says, that I sleight and scorn that which I know nor how to answer, but it would be hard for Mr. Martial to verify this in any particular; pag. 133. he calls the use of the word Coccysme very frequent among Scholars, and of the same meaning with Crambe used by Mr. Martial, pag. 256. a scornful expression; and because I say, pag. 63. of my Examen, your argument needs a swimmer of Delos to bring it out of the deep, this he calls pag. 134. my method to cast a scorn upon an argument, which is only the using a proverbial speech used by Spanheimius in his dubia Evangelica, and others concerning a thing that there is need of skill to find it out, pag. 162. 163. in answering the argument brought to prove that holiness, 1 Cor. 7. 14. is not federal Mr. Martial says. All the reply you make to 〈◊〉, pag. 80. is to bestow a few scoffs upon it; that my answer is to deny the conclusion, that I show no faultiness either in the matter, or the form of the argument, that the scope that I mention is but a mere figment; that I do as good as say that the objectour can make no argument out of it, and that therefore I need make no answer. And that in one place I grant the minor, than the major; and thus you most gallantly vapour upon me: and after, I durst leave all Scholars to judge, whether my answer deserves all this scorn; and after, you thought to carry it with more advantage to you by scoffing, then by solemn refuting; and after. Truly Sir, I am persuaded all learned men either laugh at, or pity this vanity of your disputing; and pag. 164 not once suspecting I should have met with an adversary so uningenious to say no worse, who would have said the balking of this question, had been the yielding of the cause. To all this I reply, that my words are misrecited by Mr. Martial. I did not say, his answer is to deny the conclusion, but thus, I find no answer to the argument here, except it be an answer to an argument to deny the conclusion. Nor do I say, that the baulking of the question, whether the believer, when he commits fornication with an infidel, remove the bar in the unbelieving party, as that the child is (in the believing parents right) to be reckoned to belong to the covenant of Grace, and Church of God, had been the yielding of the Cause, which he makes my uningenuity. 2. The passages only tax a defect in Logic in Mr. Martial in that place, but do indeed contain neither matter of scorn, nor gallant vapouring. 3. And however learned men pity or laugh at the vanity of my disputing, I doubt not to make it appear; that neither Mr. Marshal nor Mr. Geree have yet made an answer to that argument, which doth overthrow his exposition of federal holiness, that though Mr. Geree says there was ignoratio Elenchi, yet indeed there is no ignoratio Elenchi, the thing being concluded that was to be concluded; and whereas Mr. Martial first new makes the major, and then denies it, he deals not rightly in putting in words to another's argument, and yet the major is rather true with his addition, and then Mr. Martial puts a minor of his own; and denies it. But the truth is, the argument should be thus framed: That holiness which might be though one of the Parents, were not sanctified to the other, is not here meant; but faederal holiness might be, though one of the Parents were not sanctified to the other. Ergo, federal holiness is not here meant; or thus, that uncleanness wh●ch doth not agree to all the children of those whose Parents are not sanctified one in or to another is not here meant: but federal uncleanness doth not agree to all the children of those whose Parents are not sanctified one in or to another; Ergo, federal uncleanness is not here meant. But these things I reserve till I review the dispute about the meaning of 1▪ Cor. 7. 14 concerning which I doubt not, but if God spare me life and liberty I shall make good my argument, and answer Mr. Marshals exceptions, yea and further show, that if the sanctification and holiness be taken from the faith of one party, and not from the relation of husband and wife; the Apostles reason as they expound it, would have served to resolve two fornicatours whereof one is a believer, the other remaining in infidelity; that they may live together as well as two married persons. pag. 10. I said, surely this is a s●●nd sign that you are not likely to make good your ground, when you have yielded so much: this he calls pag. 105. an idle scoff, enough in it there is nothing like a scoff. pag. 113. I say. But your fetching such a compass about, makes me imagine your attempt will prove but a parturiunt montes, the mountains bring forth. This Mr Martial calls a jeer, and a confident scoff, and I confess this carries the show of a jeer, when the other part of the verse is ●●●ed; but I left it out of purpose, that it might not be so taken; conceiving Mr. Martial would have construed it (as even grave Scholars use it) to signify an attempt that is fair in show, but vain in the issue. pag. 122. I say of Mr. marshal's consequence which he called undeniable and clear, thus: if you apprehend clear consequence in it, you may enjoy your conceii; nos non sumus adeò sagaces, we are not so quick witted; this Mr. Martial says, pag. 208. is to seek to render an adversary ridiculous, by jeers and scoffs. But the truth is that was not mine intent, but the grief of my spirit when I wrote this, being then rejected by Mr. Martial in the business of the Temple, being told that it was the Assemblies rule not to nominate any to a place in the ministry that questioned the baptising of infants, pinched with the sadness of my condition, and considering how the Magistrate was incited against such as could not subscribe to Mr. Marshals judgement, upon his reasons which he called undeniable, an indignation that men should be undone for not assenting to so poor proofs, made me after I saw my exercitation stirred not to use that quickness in those expressions; which I am persuaded, had I not done, the point would not have been examined by them to this day: p. 122. Mr Martial says, your answer is a scoff out of Horace, Amph●ra coepit institui, etc. which is no scoff, but a speech often in the writings of Scholars, used to signify, that one falls short of that he should prove. pag. 164. I speak of Mr. Marshals discourse about Gods sealing conditionally to infants, & their after agnizing thus. And therefore this that you make an objection I look on as a frivolous supposing a Chimaera, and then disputing about it. This Mr Marshals calls a scoff. But what is more usual with Scholars, then to call a fiction a Chimaera, without the imputation of scoffing? And these are all the supposed scoffs against Mr Martial, that I find noted by him. Now that it may appear how unequally Mr Martial deals with me, (that I mention no other) that most accurate and grave writer Mr Gatak●r in a little thing containing but 60 pages, in a full letter entitled Antithesis, in answer to two Protestants godly men, and as eminent as Mr Martial; Doctor Ames an Englishman Professor of Divinity at Franiker in Westfriesland, and Gisbert Voetius Professor of Virecht, about Lusory lots: hath these passages, pag. 6. Sibyllae qod fertur folium: sed qod nisi sibylla nobis explicuerit interpretaturum alium credo autore dempto neminem, pag. 16. cum absurdit as illius detecta a plane jam fuerit & reverà defensoribus suis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pag. 17. quam invovoluta tandem ista? &c, de sensu si ambigimus, condonabit nobis spero, Amesius; neqe enim hebettoris paulò ingenii qi sumus ista facilè asseq●imur, pag. 20. verum ista prout & superiora ploeraque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pag. 21. nam qae s●quntur mihi aenigmata sunt mera, & Sphinge vel Oedipo opus habent, pag. 22. nam qae sequntur non sunt nauci, pag. 22. neqè enim perspicuè loqi amat Amesius; sed anguillarum in morem ambiguae locutionis coeno sua involvere & occultare solenne habet, pag. 24. nam in testimonii illius, qod plurimum in hac causa, ponderis obtinet interpretatione, meras agis praestigias; eaqe proponis, qae sibi invicem adversantur, etc. pag. 27. verum pronuntiata ista qae ex hic positis tamen profluunt, sunt ab omni sensu humano prorsus aliena. Ita levior deprehenditur ratiuncula ista, qae pro argumento tamen Achillaeo ac palmario proponitur, qàm sunt ipsa farfari folia, pag. 31. qàm imbelle 〈◊〉 elumbe planè argumentum, & viro tanto prorsus indignum. Ecqis tam vecors ut ista admittat? pag. 32. qo teneam vultus mutantem Protea modo, pag. 33. vanitatis illos potius incuset Amesius, qi tam vana nobis aggesserunt, seqe etiam qi adversus istud objecta tanqam adversus illud opposita proponit; tum consecutionibus è suo cerebro confictis elidendis negot●um sibi frustra facessit, pag. 34. cum aliorum, tum & Amesis etiam ipsius dogma futile, pag. 46. qarum ille q●●sdam tanqam cramben toties recoctam reponit, pag▪ 48. affirmatur non probatur, quasi Pythagoricum illud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. sufficeret. Which passages as I conceive no men ever charged with scoffing so neither do I conceive justly might mine, which show no more slighting or contempt of my opponents then his do.  
But pag. 94. of my Examen I say, the misunderstanding of Colos. 2. 11. 12. hath been the Ignis fatuus, foolish fire, which h●th led men out of the way in this matter into bogs. Upon this Mr Martial pag. 170. thus speaks to me. Truly sir, were these scorns of being led by foolish fire into bogs etc. cast upon myself only, it were nothing; but when they are thus cast in the faces of all Divines, ancient and modern; all Harmonies and Confessions (except only a handful of upstart Anabaptists) as if they were all such simple ones that an ●gnis fatuus, a fools fire might lead them into any bogs; I can hardly forbear to tell you: it is an argument of an arrogant spirit.  
I pity Mr marshal's distemper, that occasioned this passage, to speak of casting scorns in the faces of all Divines ancient and modern, as if all Divines did expound that text, in that misunderstood way I mention; to talk of all Harmonies and Confessions, instead of the Harmony of confessions, which contains not many; and one I am sure it is not against, to wit the English confession: to speak disdainfully of them that are his opponents under the term of upstart Anabaptists to make the using of the term ignis fatuus, to resemble a misunderstanding a scoff; to impute it to me as if I had accused all Divines ancient and modern all Harmonies and Confessions of simplicity: as if a misunderstanding might not be in all men out of common infirmity▪ to impute it to me as if I had said into any bogs, whereas I said, hath led men out of the way in this matter into b●gs meaning the opinions; that Baptism 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 baptise any infants of beleivers at any time; which errors I call bogs, as being indeed anti-evangelical errors: 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. Says thus. Howsoever I suppose it no such hainour matter in something to depart from all writers known 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● interprete 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 avoid idolising of them that go before us, 
Of the exposition I give of Colos 2▪ 12. Confessed to be right by Mr Martial himself.  and subjecting our judgements to them? And that I spoke right, it may appear in that▪ in the principal thing of my exposition of Colos. 2 11. 12. to wit, that Baptism is mentioned not to show 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 joined with Baptism, and alleged to prove it; Gal. 3. 25, 26, 27. (not as in Mr marshal's defence, Gal. 5. 25, 26.) and Rom. 6. 3, 4▪ 5. which plainly shows that here Baptism is not mentioned to that end Mr Martial expresseth, & upon which the misunderstanding of this place was occasioned, but to another; and therefore it proves not that which Mr Martial would gather from it; if it did, it would prove that faith succeeds into the room place, and use of Circumcision as well as Baptism. To this Mr Martial plainly says, 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 do when he mistakes my reason) imagining I had reasoned thus. Baptism is named as one of the means whereby we come to be complete in Christ, therefore i● d●th not succeed in the room of circumcision, whereas my re●son is t●us. Baptism is alleged as one of the means whereby we come to be complete in Christ, therefore there was another reason besides the succession of it into the place of Circumcision, why the Apos●● there me●tions it, which Mr Marshal denied; which reason is good, except it were true, that every means whereby we are complete in Christ, succeeds Circumcision, the contrary whereof is confessed by Mr Martial in acknowledging faith to be one of the means whereby we are complete in Christ, which yet succeeds not Circumcision: many more such mistakes in Doctor Homes, Mr. Geree, and Mr Martial, I may hereafter show; I thought it best however God deal with me to clear myself in this, and to take notice of this concession, which with others I may improve to overthrow all Mr marshal's dispute. But it is arrogance to deny that which all reformed Churches reach, that our Baptism succeed into the plane, room, and use of the Jews 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 〈◊〉 public Doctrinals. 2. Master Gataker in his Postcript to Master Wons Defence, saith thus, That justification 〈◊〉 remission of 〈◊〉, for my part I deem erro●●us, and suppose that elsewhere I have evidently showed 〈◊〉 so to be; how be it Calvin, B●●●, Olev●●, 〈◊〉, Piscator, Parens, ●●sculus, Bullinger, Fox, and divers 〈◊〉 of great 〈◊〉, and name, yea whole Synods of ours are 〈◊〉 so to say, and yet I never heard this charged for arrogancy on him. And for the assertions I impugn, that Baptism comes in the place, room, and use of Circumcision, and that this may be proved from Colos. 2. 11, 12. though Master Martial hold his rod over me, saying, I can hardly forbear to tell you it is an argument of an arrogant spirit, I fear 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 less marvel that it is my lot to be thus charged, when Mr Geree in his vindiciae paedob●ptes●●, Pag. 60, 67. calls 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 satirical 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 show of irony as mine do, towards a man for age, and learning not inferior to Master Martial, and therefore I suppose my words, which are usual 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. Stomach● nimium q●m indulget vir Cl: superciliumq● nimis alte attollit, qi tam aegre fert placita su● citra uliam vel censoria magistralitatis, vel censurae magistralis volam aut vestigium eis formnlis qibus apud in scholis disceptantes nihil est usitatius negari, idq: cum negationis rationes adiectas aut videt aut videre si velit qeat. Nevertheless I profess freely, that had I dreamt such expressions so usual in Scholastic disputes would have been so taken, I would for avoiding of offence have abstained from them.  
There is another charge against me that sticks deeper than the former, 
§. 6. Of the clearing the Author of the Examen from either justifying the Anabaptists in 〈◊〉, or condemning the godly, and grave Nonconformists in England.  and it is this: Master Martial in his Sermon had mentioned the Anabaptists as a dangerous and turbulent sect, working a world of mischief about Munster, and other parts of Germany. This relation I conceived to be used, not only to Magistrates to make them wary to prevent the like, b●t also in all sorts of Auditories, with much ingemination to make the persons that question the baptising of Infants odious, and unsufferable in a Christian Commonwealth, and to stop men's ears against such evidence as may clear the truth in this matter. To this therefore, as being an objection in the mouth of all sorts of men against the Ant●paedobaptists, I thought it best to answer: 1. By granting much of the relation to be true, though perhaps vehemency of opposition ●ath made matters more, or worse than they were, as it is wont to be in such cases. To this Master Martial says, that he is confident I show more good will to the Anabaptists, then intent ill will against those worthy men who have written those stories. I do take with the right hand this charitable opinion in Master Martial of my intentions, and I plainly reply, that the truth is, that I did use those words, neither out of partial good will to the one, nor partial ill will to the other, but out of a desire to remove that prejudice, which hindered men from examining the Truth. As for the men I abhor the wicked practices of the one, yea so much the more I abhor he practices of them that would so solemnly by baptism engage themselves to be Christ Disciples, and yet act such monstrous villainies, as having learned that the more profession a man makes of holiness, the more accursed is his wickedness; and for the other, I bear as much good will to the memory of them, as if they had agreed with me in opinion. I hope I shall never make agreement with me in opinion, the reason or rule of my love, but relation to Jesus Christ, appearing in holiness of life. Master Martial says, that the things are not to be questioned, and that he thinks that I am the first of our Divines who have suspected them to overlash in their relations. To this I say, my words are plain, that much of this is true I make no question, meaning the main of the relations, that the men denied baptising of Infants, and that they broke out into such turbulent practices as are related of them. That which I added though perhaps vehemency of opposition hath made matters more, or worse than they were, as it is wont to be i● such cases, meaning this, of some particular circumstances in some persons, was not because I suspected the overlashing of the Historians, as if they wanted fidelity, but because many things were brought to the public knowledge by the Bishop and Canons of Munster, their partisans who were Papists, and would aggravate all things to the most to make the Lutheran Reformation become odious; as Studley did in the accident of Euoch ap Evan killing his mother and brother, or else by captives or desertors, who for favour or mercy would frame their tales, as they conceived might further their ends and because experience of the uncertainty of the manner of carrying things in our times, hath made me speak warily concerning things past. And to speak plainly, when I consider what Hooker relates out of Guy de Bres of the seeming holiness of the generality of them, their Orthodox confession at first mentioned by Master Martial from Master Dury his knowledge, the proceedings and parts of Bernardus Rotmannus and some others, the things mentioned by my Examen, Part, 2. Sect. 3. the testimonies of Gualther, and Cassander, that the commotions in Germany began from oppression in the State, that Luther wrote to the German Princes against their opressions, the strange spirit of Lutherans ever since, and the woeful tragedies of Germany in this last age, I do count the story of the Anabaptists to contain in it many things, the true reasons of which, and the true knowledge of the circumstances concerning them will not appear till the day of the revelation of the righteous judgement of God. 2. I assigned some possible means of the turbulent carriages, and errors of the Anabaptists, beside their opinion of Antipaedobaptisme. To which Master Martial says, he can hardly guess whether I int●●ded to excuse the Anabaptists in part, or to blame the Reformed Churches for not hearing them, or to hint it as a warning to ourselves. I answer, I did it to show there might be other reasons of those tumults and divisions that the Anabaptists fell into, than the opinion of Antipaedobaptisme; sundry of which, if not all I think happened in their case. Master Martial says, he never read that they sought Reformation in a regular way, or were denied it, before they fell into those furies. How far they sought it I cannot tell, it is plain that Carolostadius and Pelargus and some say Melancthon would have reform it in Saxony, had not Luther's pertinacy in that as well as Consubstantiation, and Images withstood it; and how Baltazar Huebmer sought it at Zurich, and was denied, it, is known. I think the Reformed Churches have been to blame, and so may be our present Reformers, that they have never yielded to reform it in a regular way; and if Anabaptists have never sought it afore me, it hath been its likely, because they saw men's spirits so bend against them, that they thought it in vain, yea they have been rather forced to conceal themselves, it having been accounted criminal, justly deserving excommunication, deprivation, and sometimes death, so much as to question it. And that the Anabaptists have been so cast out and rendered odious as they have been hath been the reason why they have been forced to become a Sect (which I do not justify) and by reason thereof, factious spirits have joined with them, and perverted them with other errors, which perhaps had not happened, had th●y been more tenderly and considerately handled at first. 3. I said, but have not the like▪ of not the same things happened in other matters? Did not the like troubles happen in Queen Elizabeth's days in seeking to remove Episcopacy and ●eremoni●s? To this Master Martial saith, The rest of that Section, is to me extremely scandalous, when I read your odious compar●●●●s between the Non-conformists in Queen Elizabeth's days, and the Anabaptists in Germany; it even grieves me to consider, whether affection to your cause doth carry you And Master Geree not only Pag. 70. of his Vina●●c●● paedobapt●smi, wonders at me that I should compare the troubles of the Non-conformists, and the Anabaptists, and marva●les such an uncharitable and unjust thought should arise in me, that divisions or other miscarriages of the Non-conformists should bring them low in England: And beside all this, Master Geree publisheth a single sheet in print, and it came to my knowledge first by one that carried it about with other news Books, and this Paper he styles the Character of an old Pur●tan 〈◊〉 Nonconformist, and in the end saith thus: R●ader s●ing a passage 〈◊〉 Master Tombs his book against P●dob ●pt●sme, where in he compares the Non-conformists in England, to the Anabaptists in Germany, in regard of their miscarriages and ill success in them endeavours till of late years, I was moved for the vindication of those faithful, and reverend witnesses of Christ▪ to publish this character. In which Mr Geree plainly insinuates, that I acculed those faithful witnesses of Christ, whom he calls elsewhere the grave, godly, learned and unblameable Non-conformists in England. I o answer this objection, I say that I never had a thought by those words Did not divisions and other miscarriages and persecutions, bring the Non-conformists of England as low as the Anabaptists in Germany? To accuse those men he names of such miscarriages. I honour the memory of Cartwright, Brightman, Hildersham Parker, Dod▪ Bradshaw, and the rest of the same stamp as godly, learned, unblameable and faithful servants of Christ. But I said some there were tha● in seeking to remove Episcopacy and ceremonies did by their divisions, meaning those of Browne▪ Barrow, and others, and other miscarriages, meaning of the writers of the Books called Martin M●rprelate, and the like, the miscarriages of Hacket and his companions, the Prelates taking hold thereof to accuse them as seditious▪ and to incense the Queen and State against them with persecution bring them as low as the Anabaptists in Germany. And I said that the like if not the same troubles happened here in England as in Germany, meaning not in the degree, out in the kind, not in the fruit, but in the seed, which if the prudence of the State here had not timely prevented (which could not be so well done in Germany, by reason of so many petty free States) might have broken out into as great a flame as those combustions in Germany. In which my intent was not to discredit Bullinger, Sl●id●n, Calvin, etc. no● to justify in the least manner the Anabaptists wicked practices, but only to show that in seeking to reform an abuse, there may happen such miscarriages▪ and divisions, by the Devils stirring up some factious and by pocriticall spirits of those that join with the seekers of Reformation, to break out into heinous enormities of 〈◊〉 to stop men's mouths from speaking for, and men's ears 〈◊〉 ●●aring of Truth. And therefore all that love the Truth, 〈◊〉 they have reason to suppress those turbulent spirits, and 〈◊〉 heed of men's heady advices though for a good end, yet they should not yield to the Devil so much as to permit him by the clamours against those factious spirits, to cheat them of the Truth, or to make them less, but rather morezealous for it. And that this was my meaning, had my words been either well heeded, or candidly construed, might have been perceived by them. Here I wish Master Geree to consider whether it were agreeable to that friendship he acknowledgeth to have been between us, without any violating of it on my part, to publish such an unjust charge against me, and so to lay more burdens on my back, after I told him he had not dealt kindly nor rightly with me in his Epistle Dedicatory to a Peer of the Realm in aspersing me, whereby I might suffer much and never be heard speak for myself, & yet never once ask me though he had twice conference with me, once a little before his Book was published, the other, the same day it was put forth, whom I meant in those passages. I may well take up that speech of Absolom to Hushai, Is this thy kindness to thy friend? Now from that which hath been said, it will be easy to answer Master Marshal's Quaeres. The Anabaptists in Germany rose up, and with fire ●nd Sword pulled down Magistracy, Scholes, etc. did the like, if not the same things happen here? 'tis true the Boar's 〈◊〉 Country people over all Germany did such things, and among them were those that they called Anabaptists, but these things were done by others than Anabaptists, and in some places where it doth not appear to me that any such were: the cause of which was pr●tended the oppressions of the people by the Princes, but in Truth▪ their desire to plunder, and spoil. Now though the seekers of the removal of Episcopacy, and Ceremonies did not the same things in degree, yet they did such seditious things as were of the same kind, and tended to them, as inciting against the Magistrates; such invectives against Schools, as had they not been withstood, might have produced the same effects, of which you may see passages out of Barrow▪ in Master 〈…〉, Chap. 2▪ And I pray God we never▪ find by experience, that discontented I Presbyterians can act the like things for their Presbytery, that Anabaptists did for their Anabaptism▪ Mr Marshal saith, what did the Non-conformists ever endeavour to do beyond prayers and tears? If M. Martial mean by non-conformists such as M. Geree describes in his Character, I have nothing to accuse them, but if he mean by Non-conformists those that ●ought to remove Episcopacy and Ceremonies (which was my phrase, knowing that in process of time the term Non-conformists was contradistinguished to Separatists) some of them used railing against men in place & authority, witness the Libels of Martin Marprelate, and such like in too great abundance, some of them, if Cam●en relate true in his Anuals of Elizabeth ad Annum 1591. either conspired with, or some way animated Hacket, upon conceit that he was an extraordinary person raised by God to bring in the Discipline. Master Martial says what turbulent Sect was ever among them, my words were, Did not some of them that ●ought to remove Episcopacy and Ceremonies▪ grow a dangerous and turloulent Sect? Which words of mine are true in the followers of Browne, Barrow, etc. whom I think Mr Martial will not deny to have been a dangerous and turbulent Sect, and they were at first a part of them that sought to remove Episcopacy and Ceremonies. He asks, what were those divisions and miscarriages which brought them so low? 〈◊〉 had said, Did not divisions and other miscarriages and persecutions bring the Non-conformists of England as l●w as the Anabaptists? The divisions I meant, were those that were between the Separatists and other Non-conformists, the miscarriages I meant, were those of Martin Marprelate, Barrow, Hacket, and others which did meite Queen Elizabeth and the S●ate against them, to arm the Bishops with their power, by which they did persecute them. Dr john Burges rejoinder, Chap. 2. Sect. 11. Pag. ●5. ●or my part I think that the violence of some meaner ●en against those things, hath caused the sharper execution of Laws against some other men of worth. Crudelem medicum intemperans ager facit. Master Martial toucheth the story of Hacke● and his companions and then saith: But what is this to your purpose 〈◊〉 had Hacket to do with the Non-conformists, who you know (〈◊〉 fever you read the story) abominated him, and would have nothing to do with him 〈◊〉 before he 〈◊〉 into those p●ankes he played in London? I answer, I have read the story of Hacket in Camden's Annals of Queen Elizabeth ad annum 1591. in Saravia against Beza de diver●●s ministrorum gradibus, in Stow and How, and I do not find by these that the seekers to remove Episcopacy did abominate him as you say, but that Wiggi●ton a Minister, and others of that party did either conspire with him, or otherwise encourage him upon the hope they had, that by him the Discipline should be promoted, and I find many practices like those of john of Leyden at Munster, as the pretending of revelations, affecting anointing as a King, commanding his Prophets Arthington and Coppinger to go into the City and preach, exciting the people against the Archbishop and Lord Chancellor yea I find Hacke●'s end to have been worse in a more horrible manner than that of ●ohn of Leyden: nor do I doubt had London been in the same state as Mu●ster was, but the Tragedy would have been as bad in the seeking to remove Episcopacy and Ceremonies, as it was in seeking to remove Paedobaptism. And if the Non-conformists did abominate Hacks, so did the Anabaptists that followed Mennon, the Munster, and Batenburgick, furies. And as for the parallel I brought out of Whitg●ft and Hooker, I did it not to justify their charges against the Non-conformists, but to show that they deprehended a likeness of spirit & ways in some of the one, as well as the other. And my end in the whole was to show, that in seeking to remove a real error, and abuse, fa●●ious persons may fall into such miscarriages, and yet their miscarriages ought not to hinder the Reformation of the error or abuse, though these things may well be urged for caveats to Magistrates and people, to suppress & take heed of the seditious practices of such agents: which warning being rightly taken, is good and necessary, yea perhaps more necessary for these times than I at first imagined, and so needs not a del●a ur, but a right construction.  
Another charge Master Ley, and Master Martial fasten upon me that I wrote my Treatises as a braving Goliath, 
§. 7. Of t●e clearing of the Author of the two Treatises from vaunting and challenging in the composing and publishing the Treatises.  so Master Ley, ub● supra: Master Martial in his Defence, Pag. 2. And came into the field so bravingly and giantlike. Pag. 244. Truly Sir, thu smells a little too ranckely, thus confidently to challenge all men, not contented with Goliath to say, give me a man that I may fight with him, but to defy a whole host, argues a little too much self confidence: To which I answer If Master Ley, or Master Martial either had allowed me so charitable an opinion, as my forepast life and actions might have induced them to have of me, or heeded my words in the prologue and Epilogue in my Examen, they would never have fastened this charge of a braving Goliath, or confident challenging or defying a whole host on me. ●or my bygone actions, they rather speak me a man willing to gratify others, and to serve the common good, then to make estentation of myself out of self confidence. There are many that can make report of my labours in the places where God hath disposed of me, there are none that can give one instance, wherein I have put myself forward to show my parts either in Preaching the public Sermons in the University, or at Paul's, or in great meetings in the Country▪ or before great men, or the Parliament, or the Armies, out what ever I have done upon any such occasions, necessity or conscience have induced me to it. And for my writings such as they are, setting aside the Examen and Exercitation, they carry their plea for them in their forehead. Infirmities I have, and those many, but sure the whole course of my actions are a plea for me against this imputation of a braving, challenging, vaunting humour: yea did not the mindfulness of my account in God, love to the souls of men, and the discharge of my duty, lead me into public actions, I should rather embrace that advise, be●● qui latuit, benè vixit. Certainly in this business, I was so far from the braving humour, that, as may be perceived by the relation above, necessity engaged me to it, not selfe confidence, and an humour of ostentation. The truth is, there were other arguments that I had entered upon, before I was engaged in this matter, as namely against the mortality of the soul, universal grace, the Antinomian errors about justification, and justifying faith▪ and some since, as about the matter and form of a particular visible Church, about the nature of Schism and Heresy, in which I might safely have exercised such abilities as I have, if self ostentation had been my motive, and not have put my finger in this fire, durst I desert the Truth. But how uncharitably Mater Ley, and Master Martial do construe my action, I think it will presently appear to him that shall read the Prologue, and Epilogue of my Examen, especially those speeches, wherein I declared my intentions to be either to rectify Master Martial, or to be ractified by him, that we might give one another the right hand of fellowship▪ and I pray that the Lord would vouchsafe to frame our spirits to seek the truth in humility and love, which might have given them cause to have conceived otherwise of my disposition, than they have done, except they judged my speech hypocritical, which I am sure would have been beyond their line to do. In the Epilogue I tell Master Martial, that I examined his Sermon in the midst of many wants, distractions, discouragements, and temptations, which were indeed very many, so many that nothing but God's assistance, and the thought of my account to God could, as then the case was with me, have carried me through the work. I said that I kn●w no reason, why Master Martial should conceive, that I had taken the pains to examine his Sermon for any ends cross to the finding of Truth, I tell him plainly, my real mention in this work is to discover Truth, and to do what is m●et for me in my calling, towards the Reformation of these Churches, according to God's word, ●●ts which we have both bound ourselves by solemn Covenant. These words should have acquitted me from this charge of braving out of self confidence, if Master Martial, or Master Ley knew nothing to the contrary, as I am sure they did not, and I think they have no prospective glass to look into my breast. And for the words Mr Martial says, smell a●lutle too rankely of challenging and difying a whole Host, had he considered or recited the whole period, and not cut off my words in the midst, he had seen that my words were not a braving challenge, but a fai●e and most reasonable motion, to have some one Treatise framed by those that had appeared in public, and whose writings or Sermons, I had endeavoured to answer, that I might know what they would stand to, and save myself the labour and charge of buying and reading every indigested Pamphlet: And after I made another motion, in case this was not liked, to have a meeting to consult about a way of brotherly and peaceable ventilating this point. The rejecting of both these motions by Master Martial if they make him not inexcusable, yet I presume make my precedings excusable, and his so palpable a misconstruction of my spirit in this matter, doth strongly argue that he looked on my writing with a ●loudshot eye, however he protest the contrary in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Assembly. And I think he should not shoot very wide from the mark, that should imagine that these exceptions against the Author, are for want of a clear answer to the Book.  
There is yet another charge against me that flies higher, 
§. 8. Of the clearing the Author o● the two Treatises from Sophistry in them, whereby occasion is taken to vindicate the Treatises in many of the chie●e things contained in them.  and comes ●earer to the matter, if it were true, and it is indeed (though they do not call it so) the deceit of Sophistry in my writing, which if it were so, were a damnable sin to pervert the Truth of God by such profane handling. But let us consider what is said: Master Martial Pag. 2. of his Defence, saith thus: wherein I shall not (as you have done) carp at every phrase or expression▪ nor digress into impertinent discourses, thereby to swell up a volume, nor amuse the Reader with multitudes of quotations of Latin and Greek Authors, and then turn them into English; nor frame as many sense of an expression as is possible, and then confute them, and so fight with men of straw, of mine own set●ing up: nor spend a whole sheet of paper together, in confuting what was never intended by my adversary, as the Reader shall clearly perceive you have dealt with me.  
In answer hereto, I say: The first charge is so rank, that unless he mean by carping something else than I conceive, to wit a wanton, unnecessary, quarrelling, or excepting without cause, it is so palpable an untruth, that I wonder he would let it fall from his 〈…〉 he wrote at adventure. I do sometimes (and yet not so frequently as there was occasion) declare the ambiguity and unfitness of some expressions▪ but never without reason our of a carping humour▪ much less carp at every phrase or expression. And for the second, it is true▪ I do make some digressions, and so did Doctor 〈◊〉 White in his 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 Church, Doctor Twiss● 〈…〉 Arminiu●, but these digressions I am 〈◊〉 a real 〈◊〉 pertinent, and necessary to a full discussion of the argument in hand, 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 a volume, but to clear the 〈◊〉▪ The third ch●●ge is as va●●e, for the quotations are not multitudes, 〈◊〉 so many as that praise worthy writer Master Gat●●er 〈◊〉 of them 〈…〉 not for amusing the Reader but for 〈…〉 speaks it of himself, and I there through mistake of memory put [Ar●es] for [Orange] a City near it. And these I thank Doctor Homes for advertising me of: and shall be willing to confess any other oversights, that no reader may be deceived by me: though for the present I know no other. Doctor Homes names some other, yet I conceive wrongfully. As for the framing of as many senses of an expression as is possible, and then confuting them, this I thought had been a virtue in disputing to find out the many senses of an expression, and to confute them. I ever took this good arguing▪ if the conclusion be true, then in this or that sense, but in none of all these it is true, ergo it is not true▪ and that this had not been fight with men of straw, but fight with the strongest enemy that was in the field.  
The last charge is, that I spend a whole sheet of paper in confuting what was never intended by him: 
§. 9 Of the meaning of Master Marshals second conclasion, the words in the Directory. [the promise is made to Believers and their seed] and the Doctrine therein delivered, disavowed by Mr Martial and Mr. Geree.  be it so; yet if the Reader were likely to take it so, it was fit it should be refuted, and himself blamed for speaking no plainer, but leading his Reader and Answerer out of the way, by the ambiguity of his expression. But to examine this charge more fully: He means I assure myself the refuting of this conclusion Exam Part. 3. Sect. 4. from Pag. 48. to 54. (which comes short of a whole sheet) That the Cov●nant 〈◊〉 saving grace in Christ. expressed in Gen. 7. 7. in these words [I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed] is made to believers and their natural ●eede. This saith Master Martial Pag. 116. of his Defence was never asserted by him. For my part, though I conceived still that Master Martial would never stand to this assertion, and I acknowledged in express terms, that sometimes▪ Master Marshal spoke mo●● warily, yet I gave many reasons why in his second conclusion his words were to be so taken, as if he had asserted that, which Master Marshal neither hath▪ nor I think can clearly take off▪ nor did I herein fasten any thing upon him against 〈…〉 as he 〈◊〉 to suspect, Pag. 116. of his Defence, and Master Geree Pag. 13▪ of his Vindiciae paedobaptisms. For the passage be brings out of my Book is not contradictory, s●th I might suppose he held not all the Infants of Believers to be actually▪ regenerate, and yet might suppose he held that the Covenant of saving Gr●●● was made to them all, sith all the Elect persons have the Covenant made to them as the Apostle supposeth, Rom. 9 8. and yet are not actually regenerate. Besides Master Marshal in his answer to the fourth and fifth objection, speaks as if he held the Covenant of Grace conditional▪ and so might hold that all the children of Believers have the Covenant of saving Grace made to them conditionally, though not absolutely. I will add what Doctor Homes Pag. 1. 3. of his Animadversions tells me. Master T. kn●w learned Master P. (I think he means Master William Pemble of Magdalen H●ll in Oxford, a famous worthy writer, whose memory is very precious to me, in whose time Doctor Homes, Master Geree and myself, lived together in that house to the benefit of us all) who would say, can any mere man write much, and not in any thing contradict himself? Why then should it be thought strange that I should conceive Master Martial would contradict that in one place, which he had avouched elsewhere, especially sith I find it frequent for Protestant Divines in this very thing, to unsay in dispute against Arminians about perseverance, what they avow in dispute against Anabaptists: sure I am Master Cottons words which I examine in a digression, mean plainly the Covenant of saving Grace, and therefore he interprets Gen. 17. 7. of the Covenant of saving Grace, and Master Philip's, that the Covenant is made to them because offered, and Master Thomas Goodwin in his Lectures about Infant-baptisme, meant it of the Covenant of saving Grace and therefore limited it so, as that for the most part Election did run through the loins of Believers, and Master Herle at Bow-Church for Master Goodwin on Heb. 8. 10. took upon him to refute Anabaptists from thence, because the Covenant there was made with the house of Judah, and Gal. 3. 14, the blessing of Abraham was to come upon the Gentiles▪ and that was the Covenant of saving Grace. And for my part, I know not how to construe those words of the Directory, That the promise is made to Believers and their seed, any otherwise then of the promise of saving Grace, which I conceived plain by the expression following, make this baptism to the Infant a seal of adoption, remission of sins, regeneration and eternal life, and of all other promises of the Covenant of Grace. The Directory doth in my apprehension plainly appoint the begging for the child the accomplishment of the promise before asserted to Believers 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 Coun●s of Trent, then for the Directory of a Protestant Church. Besides the same promise is said to be made to Believers seed, which is made to Believers, but that they will not deny to to be meant of the promise of saving Grace, therefore neither the other. To this Master Martial 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 vain are they baptised, and the seal▪ is put to a blank. 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 Martial grants, but the words of the Directory speak of a promise of saving Grace. This I prove, 1. Because the same promise is said to be made to the Believers seed, which is made to Believers, for it were a strange equivocation to understand the same term in the same proposition in two different senses, but the promise made to Believers there meant, is the promise of saving Grace, ergo so is the promise to their seed. 2. Because the words speak of the same promise before, in the direction concerning Doctrine, which they mean 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 Martial makes my conclusion from the words of the Directory, that in vain are they baptised, the Seal is put to a blank: It is no inference from the words of the Directory, but comes in in another period, at least fourteen lines after, and among other reasons it is a medium to prove that the second conclusion must be so understood, because that is the plea they make for Infant-baptisme, and therefore unless it be so understood, they must revoke that plea. M. G●ree Pag. 13. (if I understand him aright) makes this the sense of the Director●, the promise is made to Believers and their seed, that is, it is to be presumed in charity of all the Infants of Believers, 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 Martial 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 Believers and their seed; that is, it is to be presumed in charity of all the Infams of Believers, that they enjoy the inward graces of the promise, till they discover the contrary, but he that would make men's words like a nose of wax, to turn them which way he is willing they should be taken? would any man construe the words [〈…〉 to Believers] any otherwise then thus, the promise of saving Grace is made by God to Believers? and must the same phrase in the same proposition in the other part be construed thus [the promise is made to the seed of Believers] that is, it is to be presumed by men in charity till they discover the contrary, that all the Infants of Believers 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 Believers 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 spiritual, not the natural seed, did not imagine, that the making the promise was man's act of presumption, but God's act, and Acts 2. 39 (to which and Gen. 17. 7. its likely the Directory alludes) the promise▪ as Master Martial expounds it, is of Christ and his saving benefits, and the making of it is meant of God's act, not man's presumption. Add hereunto that the whole series of the direction in the Directory carries the meaning thus. For having said, that Baptism is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, of our engrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal, it follows after, that the ●eed and posterity of the faithful borne within the Church, have by their birth interest in the Covenant, and right to the Seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the Church, etc. where the Directory makes a threefold interest: First interest in the Covenant. Secondly, right to the Seal of it. Thirdly, right to the outward privileges of the Church, the Covenant, Seal, and outward Privileges of the Church are put as distinct things, and the Covenant they have interest in, is the same Covenant of which Baptism is a Seal, as is plain by the Pronoune [it] which imports the same thing: Now Baptism is before said to be the Seal of the Covenant of saving Graces, therefore the Covenant that the seed of Believers have interest in by their birth according to the Directory, is the Covenant of saving Graces. Which sith Master Martial 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 lean to our own understandings, nor so prise our v●tes; but that if these Brethren should hold forth such light unto us as might convince us of an error: we should not only desire the Parliament to give us leave to revise our votes, but to revoke them, if there should be caus●. Which would indeed bring much honour to the Assembly, and knit the hearts of the godly to them: whereas through their silence at this time, this and some other things in the Directory about baptism passing uncorrected, & standing confirmed by Law, great disquiet to the Church of God, and the undoing or molesting of many godly persons, may follow when they cannot yield without sin to the Doctrine and practice of Baptism as it is there set down. 
§. 0. Of the distinction of inward and outward Covenant, and that it can stand Master Martial in no stead, but to show his trifling, and equivocating in his first argument, and two first conclusions, and of M. Marshal● mistake of my opinion.  This by the way.  
But Mr. Marshals tells me pag. 100L. of his Defence, you cannot be ignorant how our Divines own the outward administration of the Covenant under the notion of Foedus externum and the spiritual grace of it under the notion of Foedus internum: and that still I restrain the Covenant to the spiritual part only; and would persuade my reader, that they who speak of the Covenant of Grace, must mean 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 confess I have met with that distinction of foedus externum & internum, in some Protestant writers, but not meeting with it in Mr Marshal's Sermon, I had no occasion in my Examen to meddle with it but now I will declare my thoughts of it. I confess that Circumcision is called the Covenant, Gen. 1● 13▪ by a metonymy of the thing signified for the sign, as the text itself expounds it; and I confess that the Apostle Rom. 2. 28. distinguisheth of Circumcision outward in the flesh, and circumcision of the heart: but no where in Scripture do I meet with the distinction of the outward and inward Covenant, nor do 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 mutual or single promise) are either external or internal, 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 external, none internal 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 express it thus. The things covenanted are outward or inward, which is plain and easy to be understood, then to say, the Covenant is outward, or inward. But Mr Martial by the outward Covenant means the outward administration of it, and by the inward Covenant the spiritual grace of it. According to which explication the distinction is not agreeable to Logic rules, nor can stand Mr Martial 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 believing parents are foederati, therefore they must be signati. Now Mr Martial will not have the antecedent understood of the inward Covenant, that is the spiritual grace; he blames me for that, and he himself rejects it in that sense; then the sense must be, the infants of believing parents are foederat●, that is in the outward Covenant of Grace, that is according to Mr Martial in the outward administration of the Covenant. Now what is the outward administration he expresseth pag. 48. of his Sermon, calling Baptism the new administration, and Circumcision the old. This then is Mr Marshal's argument. The infants of believers are in the outward Covenant, that is, in the outward administration, meaning Baptism or Circumcision; this is the antecedent, the consequent or conclusion is, therefore they must be signati; that is, baptised or circumcised. But is not this a mere inept tautology; all one as to prove they must bebaptized, because they must be baptised; all one as to argue, he must have ensem, because he must have gladium; this is Paul's Epistle, because this is Paul's letter. I said equivocating. For by the Covenant Mr Martial makes show of one thing in the first conclusion, but means another in the second. For he had said conclusion the first, The Covenant of Grace for substance hath been always the same, and pag. 10. he shows wherein lies the substance of it; to wit, the spiritual part; now who would not have expected that the second conclusion should be meant of the same Covenant to wit the inward; sith he says, pag. 26. The proving the two first conclusions gains the whole cause, if the Covenant be the same, and children belong to it, than they are to be owned as Covenanters? yea, and his first text to prove the second conclusion, Acts 2. 39 he himself expounds it of Christ and saving benefits by him. But it seems Mr Marshal's heart fails 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 usual expression to say infants are confederates with their believing parents in the Covenant of Grace; and therefore now, the second conclusion, that the children of believers 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 Marshals defence, pag. 92. and elsewhere I suspect there is a farther equivocation in Mr Marshals argument, which Mr Marshal 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 Martial speaks thus; I concluded therefore that by Gods own will, such as enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal, which seems to be the Proposition by which the sequel of Mr Marshals first argument is to be proved, so that he seems to frame the Syllogism entirely thus. They that enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal, but the children of believers enter into Covenant, therefore they ought to receive the seal; 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 baptised, but to have right to be baptised, is not all one with entering into Covenant. Entering into Covenant is some act farther than having of right; for a person may have right to Baptism before he enters into Covenant. Mr Martial should have heedfully distinguished the Covenant of Grace, which is God's 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 entering into Covenant with God, which is the act of the baptised, and cannot be done ordinarily by an infant, who is only passive, and makes no promise at Baptism; and therefore cannot be rightly said to enter into Covenant with God. The want of such distinctness in expression serves for no other purpose but to puzzle a reader, and the very truth is, the argument which Mr Martial, Mr Geree, Doctor Homes, etc. bring from the Covenant to the Seal for the baptising Infants, if it be well sifted, is either a Tautology, or an equivocation; as I may more abundantly show, if ever I have liberty to examine their entangled discourses. Now from hence he may know the reason why I still restrain the Covenant to the spiritual part only, which is, because I love to speak plainly without equivocation, and as the Scripture doth, and why I would persuade the Reader, that they who speak of the Covenant of Grace must meant it thus strictly, because I would have it thought they do not equivocate, but speak plainly. And for bringing arguments to disprove a true visible membership upon a visible profession, whether the inward grace be known or not, I marvel Master Martial should expect this of me, who never denied a true visible membership upon a visible profession, whether the inward Grace be known or not, but in express terms granted it; and therefore Master Martial doth untruly charge me, when he says Pag. 112. This mistake runs through your whole book, that none are to be repu●●● to have a visible right to the Covenant of Grace, but only such as partake of the saving Graces of it. And yet Mr Martial acknowledgeth Pag. 2●3. of his Defence the contrary, when he saith, to all this you assent, and consequently that there is nothing needful according to the Word, but a visible right. But Master Martial adds; and then what will become of all your pleading, That because we cannot know that all Infants of Believers have the inward Grace, we may not therefore baptise them. This Master Martial makes all my pleading, but Master Marshal neither doth nor can show that this is all or any part of my pleading. Master Martial Pag. 222. hath these words: And as for that you add, That Baptism is to be administered, not to them who may have Grace, but to them who have it. Then it seems they are all wrongly baptised who have not inward grace. But how doth this follow from my words, with any show of right deduction? That because I say, it is not enough that Baptism be administered to persons, in that they may have Grace, but it is to be administered to them that have it, that therefore it seems they are all wrongly baptised who have not inward Grace, unless my speech had been, that it is to be administered to none but them that have it, which cannot be drawn from my words, till it be proved that every affirmative proposition is exclusive, which true Logic will disclaim. He that saith, A Coat is not a man's because he may buy it, but because he hath bought it▪ doth not affirm that he only hath a Coat by right that hath bought it, for he may have right to it another way, viz. by legacy My pleading is, because we have no command, we cannot baptise Infants without will-worship according to ordinary rule, sith the command is only to baptise Disciples, or such as profess faith. I grant that if any be a real actual Believer that cannot speak, yet if he profess the Faith by other signs, or God do reveal it for him he may be baptised by the force of Philip's rule, Acts 8 38. and Peter's speech, Acts 10 47. But he that saith, real actual Believers may be baptised, doth not thereby affirm that they only are to be baptised. A proprio primo modo ad proprium secundo modo non valet argumentum. All Crows are black, therefore only Crows are black, is no good argument. Master Martial tells me Pag 95. that he is confident, that I who durst baptise an Infant known to be regenerate, durst not give the other Sacrament to it; because more is required to make them capable of that Sacrament, then is required to make them capable of Baptism: a regenerate Infant I thin● is capable of thus: but besides regeneration, he is sure I will grant, that an examination of a m●ns self, and an ability to discern the Lords Body, is required to 〈…〉 capable of that. To put him out of doubt, I say; upon the same supposition that God should regenerate, and make an infant an actual believer I should as soon give the Lords supper as baptism to it, as conceiving that the same actual faith that makes capable of the one makes capable of the other, and the same supernatural extraordinary power that begets actual faith can beget self examination and discerning the Lords body. And thus I have answered that accusation of spending a whole sheet of paper together in confuting what was never intended by my adversary, and have retorted this point of sophistry as more justly chargeable on himself.  
But Mr Martial hath yet more of sophistry to charge me with, 
11. Of Master Marshal● false and most unjust charge that I carry the Socinian plot through my examen and exercitation.  and thus he speaks pag. 3. of his defence. But first give me leave to observe your destructive artifice. It is the Socinians way to elude all texts of Scripture, which are urged against them, if they have been differently expounded by learned and godly men, ancient or modern: to question all conclusions inferred by consequence from Scriptu●e: to deride the testimonies of any of the Ancients by discovering the nakedness, error, and oversight of those reverend men: and by making themselves merry by turning the Orations, Epistles, or allusions of the Fathers into syllogisms, and by inserting of ergo now and then, to make all their rhetorical passages seem ridiculous. I appeal to the judicious reader, whither this plot be not carried through your Examen and exercitation.  
It is a very sad thing that brethren should thus yield either to their passion, or zeal of God but not according to knowledge▪ so as to paint out their opponents in as ugly a form as they can without cause. Mr Martial appeals to the judisious reader, and I am very willing to accept of the appeal, provided that under the term, Judicious reader, he do not mean one that is resolved to gainsay whatsoever is contrary to the stream of other reformed Churches▪ or the present Synod, or that may endanger his present station, or carried away with prejudice, and passion. He desires le●ve to observe my destructive artifice. If he mean my skill to overthrow his arguments I confess it, it was my business, if he means something else when he names it he may have an answer. He tells me what the Socinians way is, and would have it thought that is my way. For the Socinians way, I have read Mr Cheyvels discourse, but remember not that their way is described as Mr Martial sets it down. I have read very little either in Socinus, or any Socin●●n. In that which I have read I confess I find much shifting and impudence in eluding the scriptures urged against them, Christ●●nus Bermanus Ex●rcit. Theolog. 20. hath collected 38 examples hereof. I find that they make little account of the testimonies of the Ancients, since the first Nicene Council in the point of Christ's Deity, yet they allege those afore the Nicene Council in that point, and sometimes others of the Ancients. But it is more easy for Mr Martial to affirm then to prove any such So●man plot in my Examen or exercitation, though Mr Martial could not but know, that an adversary could hardly show more malice, and do more mischief to a man then by bringing him into suspicion as if he were of a Socinian spirit. He says, it is the Socinian way to ●lude all Texts of scripture which are urged against them if they have been differently expounded by learned and godly men, ancient or modern. The truth is, though Socinians do use this art, yet their proper devise is, so far as I have observed, to elude by new interpretations of their own. But what one Text have I eluded in an, such manner? If there be any, it is either 1 Cor. 7. 14. or Coloss. 2▪ 11, 12. I or the first, though it is true I allege eleven Authors expounding as I do, and might make a further addition, and there was great reason I should do it, because of the prejudice that was against my interpretation, yet that was not it which I rested upon, but the Analysis of the words, which being rightly stated, I found upon reason, to which neither Mr Marshal nor Mr Geree have yet answered, that the sense I gave must needs be right. And it was confessed to me by a learned man of the Assembly, that he thought matrimonial Holiness was not all that was meant there, yet that I had sufficiently overthrown that of federal Holiness▪ Mr Marshal though he have altered my method and form in clearing that text, and so obscured my elucidations of it, yet could find eight arguments there against his opinion. And for the other text it hath been showed before that Mr Martial confesseth my sense to be his sense. The truth is, my expositions of texts are in most of them so 〈◊〉 that Mr Marshal himself doth grant them, though he differ from me in the inferences from them. He says further, it is the Socinians way to question all conclusions inferred by consequence from Scripture. This is the first time that ever I heard them to be charged with this▪ but rather find them by Mr Cheynel and others charged with assenting to nothing but what they could conceive rational. I remember Doctor Chalo●er in his Credo Ecclesiam Catholicam mentions this as the artifice of the Jesuits in France to stop the mouths of Protestants by rejecting consequences, and requiring express texts, which being invented by Veron▪ was called methodus V●roniana, the vanity of which is refuted by Vedelins in a treatise of his. I remember I saw a printed paper taken as it is said from the mouth of Captain Paul Hobson against Infant baptism, wherein was somewhat spoken against consequences, which I disclaim. Yea, I expressly say pag. 110. of my Examen, But I grant, that if you make it good, by good consequence, you may recover all. I confess I do reject the consequence drawn from the command of Circumcision to baptism by reason of analogy, and all such anologies as being vain yet too much postering 〈◊〉, and former writings and Sermons. It is the speech of Mr Rutherf●rd, due right of Presbyteries, Ch. 2. sect. 2. pag. 37. proportions are weak probations. But it is an overlashing to purpose in Mr Marshal to say, that I carry this Socinian plot through my examen and exercitation to question all conclusions inferred by consequence from Scripture. Though Mr Marshal in this matter appears not to be the man I took him to be, yet I hope he is not come to Calumn●are indicter. I presume the Judicious reader will judge, that Mr Marshal is bound to give me satisfaction for wronging my credit, of which he should be more tender, by so deep, & yet so palpable a false accusation. Mr Marshal makes this the Socinian way to deride the testimonies of the Ancients. Of what they do I can say little. But I challenge Mr Martial to give one instance wherein I make myself merely by turning the orations, epistles, or allusions of the Fathers into syllogisms, and by inferting of ergo now and then to make all their rhetorical passages seem ridiculous. As for deriding the testimonies of any of the Ancients by discovering the nakedness, etc. I do it no otherwise then the most approved Protestant writers Rivet, Perkins, Cook, Jannes, Century-writers▪ Chamire, Jewel, Reynolds, etc. yea and many of the Papists themselves, Sixtus S●●●sis, Bellarmine, etc. who usually disclaim some writings of the Ancients as spurious, and many speeches of the most approved as absurd and erroneous: yea, Mr Martial himself in the points of infant Communion, rebaptisation, necessity of Baptism and Communion in his Defence, derides Cyprian and Augustine as much as I do in my Examen in the point of Infant-Baptisme. Mr Martial says my ma●ne faculty lies in the anascenasticall part, but that I bring not satisfying arguments to settle men in that I would have. But Mr Martial might remember my business in my exercitation, and Examen is to discover the nullity of the pleas that are made for Infant-Baptisme, in which if I had done no more but overthrown the proofs that are brought out of Scripture, it had been enough. Whereas I have further showed upon erroneous grounds it was taught of old, and what abuses have followed it: which surely Smect●mnuus, and Dawlphintramis in their pleading against Episcopacy and Liturgy thought sufficient; however in this point Mr Martial censures my exercitation and examen as insufficient. When Smectymnuus had disputed down Episcopacy and Liturgy, they conceived they had done their part, though they referred it to the Synod to consult how to settle Church Government and worship. And why should not my disputing be thought edifying to the Church of God by overthrowing an error and abuse, which will in time be found worse than Episcopacy and Liturgy, though I take not upon me to direct how Baptism is to be reduced to the right way, nevertheless when I am duly required to declare my opinion either about the nullity of Poedobaptisme as it is used, or the way of reducing Baptism to its right use, whether according to conscience or prudence which I doubt not but may be done in time without necessity of separation, turning seekers, or popular tumult, though for the present generation by reason of preingagements, men's spirits are very averse from it,) I shall be willing to do it, as being resolved; notwithstanding the unkind usage I have found, yet to remember my Covenant and account to God. And as I have not hitherto, so neither I hope in God ever shall foster any cryptical Divinity, of which I need be ashamed to bring it into light, or which should justly cause men to be jealous of me as a dangerous person likely to trouble the Church, though unbrother-like Mr Martial pag. 76. endeavours to represent me as if I were one that had need to be watched. He talks not in a letter to me in private, but in print, of my high and scornful spirit, but how justly may appear by this Apology. He tells me, I magisterially tread down under foot the arguments and reasons which others conceive strong. But it will be hard for Mr Martial to show where I tread down any thing magisterially, that is without cogent reasons; and such, as were it not for his mistakes of my reasons, he himself would be forced to subscribe to them.  
As for questioning so boldly some Doctrines which have never been questioned before, 
§. 12. Of M. Marshals unjust charge of me as itching after new opinions, and particularly about rebaptisation and receiving the Lords Supper afore Baptism.  I suppose he means it of that which I said Pag. 23. of my Examen about rebaptisation, which Master Martial says doth clearly discover my itch after new opinions, Pag. 67. of his Defence, and that which I say Pag 85. of my Examen, concerning the question, whether an unbaptized person may in no case ea●● the Lords Supper, this Master Martial Pag. 167. of his Defence, numbers amongst my freaks and outleapes, and says is a spice of my itch after singular opinions. But Master Martial might have observed, that in the former, I gave the reason of what I said, because it goes so curr●n, that rebaptisation is not only an error, but also an Heresy; plainly showing there was a necessity that cried out against the Anabaptists as Heretics, to bring a demonstrative reason to prove it unlawful to baptise again him that had been rightly baptised. For I presume, hat as King james censured Cardinal Peron for making a kind of problematical Martyrs, calling them Martyrs that died in maintenance of a point not certain whether it were de ●ide, so it is as absurd for our Preachers to make problematical Heretics, by declaiming and exciting the Magistrate against those as Heretics, of whom it is uncertain whether they hold an error or no. As for Master Marshal's reasons, they are not convincing to me, nor is the holding rebaptisation such a new opinion as he would make it. And for the other it is no out-leape, but a question that lay in my way by reason of Master Marshals words, and exceeding necessary to be resolved, considering that otherwise those Ministers and people that cannot agree about the validity of Infant-baptisme, or adult-baptisme, supposed not to be rightly done, for want of a right Ministry, or power to give the Spirit, or the manner of its administration, must of necessity separate from Communion in the Lord's Supper for this reason, because none is to be admitted to the Lords Supper till he be rightly baptised: which I profess is to be stood upon in point of prudence for right order; yet if it be stood upon in point of conscience, so as in no case the contrary is to be permitted, it will of necessity make many superstitious perplexities in Ministers, and infer many an unnecessary Schism, this being not a sufficient reason for a refusal of Communion, because a Godly person takes his baptism to be right, though I know the contrary. Nor do I think the thing either such a new opinion or practice. For besides, that it may be doubted whether all the Apostles were baptised, as suppose Matthew (which is as probable for the negative as the affirmative) yet were admitted to the Lords Supper by Christ himself: when Constantine the Great and others did differre their baptism so long, it is not likely they never received the Lords Supper afore their baptism. Nor is it inconsistent with my grants: For what though I grant that Baptism is the way and manner of solemn admission into the Church, meaning the regular way, yet it follows not that none may receive in any case afore baptised. Mr Martial holds Ordinatination by a Presbytery is the regular way of solemn admission into the office of public Preaching, and it may be fit by an Ecclesiastical Canon to order it so; yet I think it will not be denied, but that there may be cases, wherein a person may lawfully be a public Preacher without such ordination. The other grant which Master Martial says is mine, was never expressed by me so rawly as he lays it down. It is not as he puts it down, that nothing is to be dove about the Sacraments, whereof we have not either institution or example: but as Master Martial might have perceived if he had heeded my words, Examen, Pag. 28. Pag. 110. Pag. 152. That no positive worship, or essential, or substantial part of it, is to be done without institution by precept, or Apostolical example, I never denied, that many things pertaining to circumstance and order may be done about the Sacraments without either, and of this kind I conceive Baptising afore eating the Lords Supper to be. As for itch after new opinions, why are not Doctor Twisse, and Master Gataker, and indeed all that clear truth more fully than others, censured in the like manner? I wish if my words would take any impression on him, that Master Martial would forbear thus judging lest he be judged. I think I know myself better than Master Martial, and I told him, my real intention was to discover truth, yea all my ways show me free from this itch after new opinions, though I profess myself an impartial searcher of truth, ●●llius addictum jurare in verba ●agistri, no not to the determinations of the Assembly. May it not with better reason be said, they have an itch after new opinions, who hold that without power to suspend all scandalous persons from the Lords Supper, a man cannot with a good conscience be a Pastor, that without this power the Church of Christ is to be suspended from the Lords Supper many years, etc. And for fleighting of authors, I have answered it already.  
There is yet another Charge, as if I should allege Authors against their mind. 
§. 13. Of alleging Authors against their mind, particular Mr Daniel Rogers, M. B●ll, Chamter, Aretius, and Beza.  As first Master Daniel Rogers. I said Master Daniel Rogers in his Treatise of the Sacrament of Baptism, Part. 1. Pag. 79. confessed himself unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it. Master Martial writes to Master Daniel Rogers, he answers in these words: If I were to answer that Anabaptist, I should answer 〈◊〉 silen●io, & contemptu: for why should I not? since in that very place of my Sacrament, Part. 1. Pag. 78. 79. where I confute thos● Schosmaticks, he 〈◊〉 my words from their own Defence: My words are, I confess myself unconvinced by any demonstration of Scripture for ●●●dabaptisme, meaning by any positive Text; what is that to help him? except I thought there were no other arguments to evince it: now what I think of that, my next words show, Pag. 77. line 4, 5, 6, 7. I need 〈◊〉 transcribe them. In a word, this I say, though I know 〈◊〉, yet that is no argument for the non-baptizing of Infants, since so many Scriptures are sufficiently convincing for it. Therefore this want of a 〈◊〉 Text must no more exclude Infants, etc. then the like reason should disannul a Christian Sabbath, or women kind not to be partakers of the Supper: The quoting of mine own 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 settling of such as are not wilful, that 〈◊〉 take the baptism of Infants to be one of the most reverend, general and uncontrolled traditions which the Church ha●h, and which I would no loss doubt of then the Creed to be Apostolical. And although I confess myself yet unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it, yet first since 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 special reason why we should bereave her of it. Thirdly, sundry Scriptures afford some friendly proofs by consequent of it. Fourthly, the holiness of the child (external and visible) is from their parents, who are (or aught to be) chatechised confessors, penitents, and Protestants in truth (which privilege 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 Seal of it in Baptism. 
1 Cor. 7. 14.  If Master Martial please he may write back to his reverend and learned friend, that the supposed Anabaptist thinks his plaster too narrow for the sore, that he seems to eat his own words, that his words help me to show that he once thought it indeed one of the most reverend, general, and uncontroled traditions which the Church hath, and which he would no less doubt of, than the Creed to be Apostolical, which if he mean it of the Creed called the Apostles as it is now, Parker in his book de descensu ad inferos, and others have showed to have been made long after the Apostles days, 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 finds but friendly proofs, 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 satisfy himself with, he may, I profess I dare not so play with my own conscience, and I thought this was fit to be told Master Martial, to show that I was not the only man that questioned, whether his proofs for Infant-baptisme were so undeniable as he would have them; and that's enough to show the unreasonableness 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 Martial hath long since done that office of a friend to tell him it is written Rom. 14. 10. Why dost thou set at at naught thy brother?  
I had said not as Mr Martial repeats it, Master Ba●l cuts the sinews of the argument from Circumcision, but, me thinks Mr Balls words cut the sinews of that argument. And so they do plainly. For if however Circumcision and Baptism agree or differ we must look to the institution, and the agreement is not enough to conclude, that Baptism belongs only 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 Baptism and Circumcision agree or differ: yet Baptism will not belong to Infants, because Circumcision did so by virtue of proportion, without an institution, which if Mr Ball or Mr Martial could show, they needed not trouble us with the Command about Circumcision of male infants, to prove Infant-Baptisme, which is indeed to maintain that the ceremonial saw still binds, which is plain Judaisme. But what says Mr Martial to this? If Mr Marshal cut the sinews of the argument from Circumcision to Baptism, himself was very much mistaken in his his own meaning and intention, because in the same place he makes them parallel 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 Martial 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 sinews 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 confess it were a very strange thing to charge so understanding a man as Mr Ball with such a mistake of his own meaning and intention: but it is no such strange thing for a learned man to speak that which may be brought to infer the contrary to that he intended, and if this be to abuse men, than all arguments by retortion are abuses. Bellarmin l. 5 the justificatione c. 7 prop. 3. had said, propter incertitudinem propria justitiae & periculum inanis gloriae tutissimum est totam fiduciam in sola Dei misericordiae & benignitate repovere. This King James in his Apology for the oath of Allegiance brings to prove that he overthrows thereby all his former dispute about inherent righteousness, though Bellarmine had put in a special caution in the next words to prevent that inference, and King James left out that caution in the recital, yet Bishop Andrew's in his Torturae Torti, and many other learned men justified King James, and that rightly.  
Mr Martial, 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 only 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 me (whether you do cr●●) that you do but abuse your Author 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 pointblank against you. And in the same page. First you several times 〈◊〉 the learned Beza as if he were of your m●nd in the interpretation of this text, to construe it of matrimonial holiness. I confess the cause depends not upon Beza's judgement, but your reputation depends much upon ●●king this good, that you should dare to 〈◊〉 Author as interpreting it for you, who interprets it exprofesso against you. p. 159. I persuade myself you are by this time ashamed of your impertinent quotation, I assure myself if you be not, your friends are p. 157. But Sir why do you thus frequently abuse your Readers with the names of learned men, inserting some one sentence of theirs into your book, and thereby insinuating to your Reader, th● they are of your opinion in the point wherein you cite them? I assure you, it concerns your conscience as well as your cause, to be thus often taken tardy. Mr Geree vindic. Poedobaptism. pag. 22. which you express in Beza's words, but against Beza's mind. pag. 28. And therefore I wonder you should so of 〈◊〉 alle●ge an Author impertinently especially such an one as is punctually and 〈◊〉 against you. To all this I answer. If Mr Martial could have showed that I had either falsified the words or wrested their meaning, he had said something: but to tell me, because I allege the words of authors according to their meaning, to prove the contrary to that they ho●d, therefore I ab●●se them; and inf●● 〈◊〉 ●o the Reader that they art of my mind, or side, when they are point blank against me, or that my allegation is ●●pertinent 〈…〉 is so frivolous a charge, that it deserves no other answer, than Mr. 〈◊〉 own words out of Horace, pag. 294. 〈…〉 ashamed of my impertinent quotations, it is because Mr Martial and Mr Geree have misrepresented them, otherwise those my quotations are every one of them pertinent to the particular point I allege them for, and not yet answered by Mr Geree or Mr Martial. And I confess I cannot but smile at Mr Marshals conceit of me, when he says. And I am sure you must agree with me. Sixthly, that 〈◊〉 all these testimonies you have cited out of Chamier, there is not one word against my interpretation or for the justification of yours; as if I were another Claudi● to subscribe to my own condemnation: which if I do in this thing, he may well beg me for a fool. It is untruly ascribed to me that I cite Beza, as if he were of my mind in the interpretation of 1 Cor. 7. 14. to construe it of matrimonial holiness. For whereas I did distinctly explain first the term sanctified in the forepart of the verse & then the terms unclean & holy in the later (which M. Martial confounding in his defence; & to putting all my arguments together to the number of eight, as he multiplies them, & not sorting them as I did, hath made his answers colourable, but indeed misleads the unwary Reader) and though I knew Beza to disagree from me in expounding the term [holy] which I had expressly set down, pag. 16. of my exercitation; and therefore never intended to abuse the Reader, or to insinuate that he was of my side, in the expounding the latter part of the verse, yet he expounds the first part with me of matrimonial sanctification, and so I said, pag. 73 57, of my Examen, not that Beza did construe it of matrimonial holiness, but matrimonial sanctification; which I should wonder Mr Martial did not consider being so plainly and necessarily distinguished by me, but that distemper of body or mind, or hast to prevent the studying of my book by crying it down (the like whereto may be said of Doctor Homes and Mr Geree) made him compose his answer a●ore he had well studied my book. As for Chamier I did, pag. ●6. expressly say his opinion was for federal holiness. Do federal● illa sanctitate quid decom●verit 〈◊〉 mentem Chemiro Calvino, etc. and yet I need not be ashamed to bring his own words against his own tenet, no more than King James to bring Bellarmine's words against him, or Bishop Morton to bring the Bapists words against them, or Mr Martial himself to bring my words against me, but rather indeed it is most commendable to bring an author's words to refute his own opinion as being a most cogent and pertinent way of disputing. And for Aretius pag. 92. of my Examen, I used this very expression [says rightly in this] intimating that though he agree with M. Martial in his inference from Col. 2. 11. 12. yet those words which I cited, and that rightly, served to overthrow Mr marshal's reason, from whence their inference is gathered. And therefore it concerns Mr marshal's conscience as well as his cause to be thus often taken tardy in false accusations, & insinuations against me. As for that he tells me of Aretius his opinion there and elsewhere, it is indeed a mere impertinency; sith I never denied Aretius to be of his opinion, and therefore if I may use his own phrase, pag. 147. he doth but bombast his book to no purpose.  
And here I cannot but take notice, 
§. 14. Of Master Marshal's unjust charging Anabaptists, with a bloody sentence, concondemning all the Infants of believers as having nothing to do with the Covevenant of Grace; his imputing to me as if I held that they all belong actually to the kingdom of the Devil, no more promise for them then for children of Turks, their actual standing in the visible kingdom of the Devil.  that whereas Master Martial had charged in the first use of his Sermon the Anabaptists with a rash and bloody sentence condemning all the infants of the whole Church of Christ, as having nothing to do with the Covenant of Grace or the seal of it, and then aggravates it as like Hazaels' act, I said, pag. 170. of my Examen, till you produce some testimonies of those you call Anabaptists so determining, I shall take it to be but a false accusation, and a fruit of passion, not of holy zeal. Mr Martial both pag. 5. and pag. 243. of his Defence, saith thus. I compared not their intentions with his, but the fruits of their principles casting all believers children, as much out of the covenant of Grace as they do the children of Turks and Pagans; and this I am sure they do, and yourself join with them who acknowledge no more promise for the children of believers, then for the children of the Turks, and leave them to have their actual standing in the visible kingdom of the Devil.  
In this reply Mr Martial brings no testimony out of the Anabaptists writings to prove them guilty of that rash, and bloody sentence he doth in express terms charge them with; suppose Mr Martial should be able (which I am assured he cannot do) to prove by consequence that by their principles, they condemn all the infants of the whole Church of Christ, as having nothing to do with the Covenant of Grace, or the Seal of it (which were the words of his Sermon pag. 52. though in his defence he alter the words to mince the matter) yet Davenan●● exhorts to brotherly communion, Ch. 12. Gataker vindication against Walker, and many other cry out against it as most unreasonable to accuse men of that sentence which themselves disclaim, because it follows from their principles by remote consequence, much more in downright terms to say, they pass a bloody sentence, and condemn all the infants of believers. If it should follow from their principles, yet M. Martial were not acquitted from rashness, false accusation and passion in those his speeches. I have proved from Mr marshal's principle, pag. 35. of his Sermon that all God's commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as well as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant, and were not accident all to them, that it infers an obligation to all the Mosaical ceremonies, and consequently Judaisme; yet Mr Martial would not think it equal I should charge him with Judaisme, and then make a declamation against him as turned Jew, and preaching Judaisme, and to be abandoned by Christians as going about to make them Jew's. Why then doth Mr Martial deal so with others? I know Mr. Martial pag. 198. of his defence, endeavours to justify his principle: he tells me, that his meaning never was to assert the practice of the ritual part in the least particle, but that there is a general nature, end and use in which they are agree; which is to answer just nothing. For the question was concerning the commands of the Jews whither they bind, and particularly whither the command of circumcising infants bind us virtually; now all the commands are about the practice of the rituals, and if they bind they are still in force: the general nature is contained in the definition, which is aeternae v●ritatis, and expressed in an enunciation, and is not commanded but declared, and so is the general end and use to be known and believed, not to be practised: but commands are orationes non enunciativ●, never of the general nature, but of particular acts. Who did ever talk of a command that a man should be animal rationale, or of a Sacrament that it should be a Seal of the Covenant? 2. Mr. Martial tells us he did not compare the Anabaptists and Hazaels' intentions, but the fruit of their principles. The truth is, Mr Martial did not compare their intentions, nor the fruit of their principles, with Hazaels' act; but their bloud● sentence with his act. As for ●●sting out of the Covenant of Grace, indeed and before God, no promise or error of ours can do it, were our intentions never so malicious, the malice of men cannot nullify the faith of God. As for casting out in their sentence, I conceive it suspends any judgement of them; we can neither say they are in or out: yea, I say again if all be examined, Mr Martial puts them as much out as we, unless Mr Martial understand no more by the Covenant of Grace then Baptism, which though Mr Martial may do in a popular auditory, which cannot discern between chalk and cheese, yet me thinks he should forbear to do it in print, in a treatise dedicated to the Assembly of Divines. But I wonder the less at Mr Marshals rashness in accusing the Anabaptists, when he is not ashamed to tell me thus, pag. 238 of his defence. It is your judgement that all infants, even of believers as well as Pagans, though they may potentially belong to the Kingdom of Christ, yet actually they belong to the Kingdom of the Devil; which I am sure he no where finds in my writings, but to the contrary in divers passages, as exercit. pag. 24. But saith Mr Martial, you acknowledge no more promise for the children of believers, then for the children of Turks. This matter I had disputed at large, part. 2. §. 10 of my Examen, and to mitigate the odium which popular preachers cast on us by this Allegation I had said, so doth the opinion of Cyprian with his 66 Bishops that would have God's grace denied to none: and therefore his opinion puts all the infants of believers in the same condition with Turk's children. To this saith Mr Marshal pag. 85. of his def●●ce, which I have showed, will not follow out of the words of the Epistle. Now that I conceive he means he had formerly showed is pag. 41 in these words, though he lays it down in general terms that none are to be hindered from coming to Christ: yet what he says aught to be understood of the Church, because he speaks of such as God hath cleansed or purified, who were common: which passage I should sooner have expected from a Jesuit then Mr Marshal, to say that Cyprian ought to be understood of the Church, when the words nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei & gratium denegandam, & nulla anima perdenda est; are as express as may be, that he means it of any that are born of mankind, that the grace of God is not to be denied them. And after, omnem omnino hominem ad 〈◊〉 Christi admittendum esse, and the reason he useth is not from a cleansing proper to the Church, but because all men are equal, quando 〈◊〉 Deo semel facti saint, as he that reads the Epistle, will presently perceive I alleged also the words of the Grave confutation of the Brownists published by Mr Rathband, to show not that which Mr Marshal it seems intended, which was to charge all the Anabaptists of putting all the children of believers out of the Covenant of Grace as the Turks children, but to show that the opinion of paedobaptism as some assert it, doth put all the infants of believers into the selfsame condition with the infants of Turks and indian's (which were Mr Marshal's words) by putting all of them alike into the Covenant of Grace. For if they may be lawfully accounted within God's Covenant, if any of their Ancestors in any generation were faithful, and that because of God's promise; Exod. 20. 5. then the children of Turks are lawfully accounted within the Covenant, yea all the infants in the world, for it is not beyond the thousandth generation to Noah. Mr Marshal tells me that he supposeth I do not think those words, Exod 20. 5. were intended to intimate that all the children in the world; who came from Ad●m 〈◊〉 Noa● were intended in the Covenant of Grace, nor that I believe Mr Rathband thought so. What Mr Rath. thought I know not but his words import so much, and if that was not intended, the text was impertinently alleged; and though it is true I do not think with them, yet I might 〈◊〉 allege their words which I approve not, to show this is no such 〈◊〉, which Mr Marshal called 〈◊〉 great mischief, that by the Anti-p●dobaptists opinion, all the children of believers should be put into the some condition with the children of Tarkes; sith the same follows on the 〈…〉 doctrine also. I had also Examen, part. 2. §. 10. set down my opinion freely in 4 Propositions about the parity of condition of the Turks and our infants, and told Mr Martial thus possibly if you open yourself plainly, there will be no difference between us. Mr Marshal in his Defence neither plainly opens himself, wherein he puts the difference, nor sets down my answer justly, but leaves out wholly the the fourth Proposition, or confounds it with the third; and other wise mangles and altars my words in his abridgement, that they are much unlike what I delivered. For instance, pag. 85 he sets down this for my second proposition. That I know no more promise for believers children, then for the children of 〈…〉 whereas my words 〈◊〉 the●e. For the Covenant or Promise of Grace, that is righteousness and life as Christ, though I acknowledge a peculiar promise to Abraham's natural posterity mentioned, Rom. 11. 27. yet I know not that God hath made such a Covenant to any, much less to all the natural believing seed of any believing Gentile; and Propos. 3. I say, they have some promises, though general indefinite and conditional. And I mean by general and indefinite, such as determine not the kind of good promised, nor the particular person; and therefore are true, if performed to any persons in any sort of good. and conditional upon condition of faith and obedience, as, when it is said the generation of the righteous shall be blessed, his righteousness to children's children, to such as keep his Covenant. Ps. 103. 17. 18. Ps. 112. 2. etc. I tell Mr Martial if he can show any more promises than I do, I shall count them a treasure, if not, why doth he endeavour to make me and my opinion odious to the people, as if I put all the children of the whole Church out of the Covenant of Grace, as I do the children of the Turks; and acknowledge no more promise for the one, then for the other: whereas when he hath said as much as he can for them, he can bring no more promise for them then I do, nor dares reject the limitations I restrain them by?  
But says Mr Martial, you leave them to have their actual standing in the visible kingdom of the Devil. I ask whither the children have actual standing in the visible kingdom of the Devil afore they are baptised or not? If he say they have not, then by not baptising, I leave them not in the visible kingdom of the Devil, they are out of the visible kingdom of the Devil, though they be not baptised: if he say they have their actual standing in the visible kingdom of the Devil afore they are baptised, then how is it true which the Protestants disputing against Bellarmin allege against the necessity of baptising infants to salvation, that the children of believers are holy afore baptism. The truth is, I neither leave infants in the Devils, nor Gods visible kingdom: for I conceive they are in neither kingdom visibly till they declare by their profession to whom they belong visibly. Mr Martial used often this expression of belonging to the visible kingdom of the Devil, and I told him Examen pag. 41. I feared he did it ad faciendum populum, to move the people, by affrighting them by a bugbear word, if they keep their children from baptism, than they leave them to have an actual standing in the visible kingdom of the Devil, or to please them by making them believe that by baptism their children are put out of the visible kingdom of the Devil. This I said not judging his heart, but being jealous lest it was so; and I confess I am still suspicious he doth so, because he still useth it after he hath been told it, and it is a mere engine to stir popular affections. For how hath the unbaptized infant an actual standing in the visible kingdom of the Devil; unless it be true that all unbaptized persons have an actual standing in the visible kingdom of the Devil, which is false in the Catechumeni of old, the converted thief on the Cross, Constantine the Great, and many others who were in the visible kingdom of the Christ afore they were baptised. On the other side, thousands of people in America baptised by the Spaniards, had as visible standing in the Devil's kingdom as before. I confess when the baptised professeth the faith of Christ, than baptism is a note of a visible member, and a distinguishing badge between the people of God and the Devil, and so by baptism a person is exhibited a member of the Church, but otherwise I see no reason why an infant that makes no profession of Christ, should be counted after baptism a visible member of the Church more than before. Let a child of a Christian be baptised, and after being an infant, and taken by a Turk, be circumcised, wherein is that child more a visible member of the Church of Christ then a Turks child, or is he not rather a member of the Church of Mahomet, then of Christ? Are the Janissaries any whit the more Christians because they were baptised infants of Christian greeks? Protestant writers are wont to define the visible Church of Christians a number of persons that profess the faith of Christ. So Art. 19 of the Church of England, and all sorts of Protestant writers. Now that which makes the visible Church, makes each member a visible member, and that is profession. Baptism and the Lords Supper; and hearing, are notes as they signify profession, otherwise if a person be baptised, if he should hear or receive the Lords Supper, and did not profess the faith, he should not be a visible member for all that. I confess I have met with some writings which put Baptism into the definition of the Church, as necessary to the being of a visible Church, and the words in the Confession of Faith of the 7 Churches of Anabaptists about London [being baptised into that faith] Artic. 33. are somewhat doubtful, though they seem rather to import that Baptism is necessary to the right order of a Christian Church, then to the being of a Church; and I confess they that hold that members are added to the Church by Baptism and not otherwise, and hold a nullity of Paedo baptism, must needs say the Churches that have no other than Infant-Baptisme, are no true Churches; nor their members Church-members, as Master Marshal says pag. 84. of his Defence; and so voluntary separation necessary. But these points of the necessity of right Baptism, not only to the right order, but also to the being of a visible Church and Church-member, and so voluntary separation barely for the defect of it, I have ever disclaimed; as considering the many errors and ill consequences that would follow thereupon, and though provocations still increase, yet I have in my practice shunned separation from my disenting brethren, and I presume though Mr Martial count right Baptism a necessary duty, yet he will be more advised then to make it essential, either constitutiuè or consecutiuè to the being of a Church or Christian either visible or invisible, for fear of giving too much advantage to Separatists, and Seekers. I suppose in reference to the present point this is the truth, that however every infant is either in the invisible kingdom of God or Satan, that is, elect or reprobate; yet no child till he make profession doth visibly belong either to the one, or to the other. I acknowledge that in the visible Church of the Jews, the infants were reckoned to the Church, and the reason was from the peculiar Church-state of the Jews. For then God took the whole family of Abraham together in one day, and after the whole nation of the Jews, were but one Church or congregation: Acts 7. 28. and accordingly appointed one Tabernacle and Altar, and one high Priest, and solemn feasts for all to meet as and one nation all ●●adge, circumcision; and he erected them into one policy, because he would have one fixed people among, and 〈◊〉 whom the Massiah should come; and therefore he so provided, that their tribes should be distinguished, their inheritance divided, and many 〈…〉 which he did not either than 〈◊〉 appoint to any other people. And this Church-state Circumcision was applied to, so that if Master Martial and Master Geree will conclude from Rom. 11. 17. etc. that we must have our children baptised, 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 Jews (which is the Apostles sense there notwithstanding, that which M. Geree, or Master Martial have said) nor that the Gentile visible Churches are graffed into the visible Church in the place of the Jews: but they must also prove that the Gentiles are taken into the same outward Church state which the Jewes ●ad. But that is most false. For now God gathers not a whole nation together, nor hath appointed one Temple Altar, Priest, etc. 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 Jews 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 Jews, 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 baptising of infants ariseth out of the same Jewish conceit.  
Master Martial had alleged in his Sermon Rom. 
A large disq●●isition of Rom. 11. 17. etc. wherein is showed that the engraffing there is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith, and that it p●ove● not Intant-baptisme.  11. 16. etc. to prove his second conclusion. I complained in my Examen of the obscurity of his inference, showed him how ambiguous his words were. He takes this as if it were done in scorn, 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 Martial 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 believer are in the Covenant of free Grace in Christ, and by verive thereof to be baptised. Master Martial pag. 135. of his Defence denies this, though it seemed plain to me, that this text was brought to prove his second conclusion, which I took to be 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 believer 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 he calls it, as I showed 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 Jews had, pag. 140 The thing to be proved was, our infants have the same privilege 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 show that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true olive which the Jews 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 again at the end of the world, they and their children shall be taken in together, and all by virtue of the Covenant, Ero Deus tuus, etc. 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. Look how the Jews children were graffed in, so are our children, we are taken instead of them who were cast out, and become on visible Kingdom of Christ with the rest of them who kept their station, pag. 140. We as they, were tak●n in; they and their children shall be at the last taken in again, as they were at the first: and therefore we and they making up the same body are taken in upon the same ground, our children with us as well as theirs with them. Which though he calls his argument, and says it hath a plain sense, yet I see so many ambiguities still in his words, his speeches so inform or shapeless, that I know not well whither he would make many syllogisms or one, nor which to call the major, which the minor Proposition or term, or which the medium; and I must profess I find Mr Martial 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 than 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 Abbey, be unwilling to make a syllogism in mood and figure? did not Master Martial make sundry syllogisms in the same Sermon? And would not a short syllogism after a distinct short paraphrase, have better cleared the truth then such a confused heap of words he useth in his alleging, Rom. 11. 16. etc. 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 Paedobaptismi, ch. 1. sect. 3. goes somewhat more distinctly to work, yet neither doth he frame a syllogism from Rom. 11 11. 12. 13. 17. 18. etc. nor do I know how he would have it framed. He saith, the conclusion to be proved is, that the children of Christians have the same privilege with children of Jews, as they were comprehended so under the Covenant with their parents as to be reputed members of the same visible kingdom, and to be sealed with them. This conclusion I deny if it be understood of the outward privilege belonging to the Jewish Church in that state it was afore Christ's coming. To prove it he lays down four Proprositions, and deduceth four con●ectaries, but how he shows not. The third is ambiguous, and if he mean by [into the place of the jews cut off] the same Church-state, and by [partaking of their priviledge●] the privileges 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 showed, nor is a believing Jew a loser by the coming of Christ in regard of his seed, sith this was a peculiar privilege in the time of that Church state, which now ceaseth to be a privilege, Christ being come; as in like manner the Temple, High Priest, etc. do, 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 be extended to them and their seed, but how? Not by an outward ordinance or initial scale, as it is called, applied to infants, but by the communicating the spirit and word of God to them and their seed; as the text he allegeth imports, Isai. 59 20. Nor by holding that neither Jews nor Gentiles now are to have their infants sealed will 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 personal privileges, none for their seed; for neither doth Baptism belong to the one or the other, because they the are seed of believers: and for regeneration and saving benefits, the Lord bestows 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 access 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 Martial.  
Mr Martial 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 denied it to be so perpetually; so as that a rule for an outward ordinance may be flamed thence. And so far as I can collect the chief medium Master Martial and Master Geree take hence to prove it is▪ that we Gentiles have the same ingrassing into the true olive which the Jews formerly had. This Master Martial made the Apostles scope, though the truth is it is so far from being the Apostles scope, that it agrees not with his words, who makes the ancient Jew's natural branches, not ingraffed, and the scope of the Apostle is otherwise, as hath been showed: Examen, pag. 65. But the thie●e difference is about the engraffing what that is, as I had said. The engraffing to me is meant of the invisible Church by election and faith. To this Master Martial pag. 136. says, I reply, if it be meant of the invisible Church only 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 infant's; and after if you please let us try it out.  
I agree to this motion, and determine that the graffing in Rom. 11. 17. etc. is meant of the engraffing into the invisible Church by election and giving faith, with this caution; that I do not deny that the same people might or were ingraffed into the visible Church by profession of faith, and baptism; but hold that this engraffing is more than that which is into the visible Church by outward profession and ordinances. To prove my determination, I thus argue.  
1. That engraffing which is God's act by his sole power, is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith. For graffing into the invisible Church is as Mr Martial saith, pag. 135. admission into visible membership, which if it be by an outward ordinance, is the easy act of the administrator; if by profession of faith, the easy act of the professor. But the engraffing meant Rom. 11. is Gods act from his sole power, as is proved from verse 23. where the reason is rendered why the Jews should be again grass in, is, because God is able to graft them in again; Ergo, the graffing here is into the invisible Church.  
2. That engraffing which is called reconciliation opposite to casting away, that is by election and giving faith; for no other acts can reconcile: but the engraffing here is called reconciliation opposite to casting away v. 13. as may appear in that v. 16. is a reason of the clause about the reception of the Jews, v. 15. and the 17 verse, is an admonition from the supposition, v. 15. that the Jews 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 engraffing is the same with reconciliation; Erg●, engraffing is by election and giving of faith.  
3. The engraffing must be meant of that act whereby the branch stand in the tree as a branch this will none deny, it being the very terminus of engraffing, 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 means whereby the branch thus stands, but that is faith, v. 20. Erg●, the act of engraffing is by giving of faith.  
4. That engraffing is meant v. 17. whereby the wild olive is Copartaker of the root and fatness 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 fatness of the olive tree is. 1. Negatively, the root is not as Master Martial and Master Blake, every believing pa●ent. For then all the branches should be natural; the child of every believing parent is a natural branch from his father: but here the Apostle makes the Gentiles branches and a wild olive graffed in besides nature, and the Jews only natural branches growing from the root, v. 21. 24. Nor is it of any moment which is objected, that other parents are called roots as Jesse, Isai. 11. 1. For here only the root notes such a Father as is holy and from whom the branches are holy; which agrees not to every believing Father. 2. Positively. The root is no other than Abraham. I said twice in my Examen, pag. 68 129. Abraham only is a holy root, or at most Abraham Isaac and jacob; which I said only by concession: that if it were so, yet every godly parent was not a holy root, and therefore it served my turn there, if it were so. This Mr Martial pag. 134. calls; saying, and unsaying. But Mr Martial might have considered that I did in that addition only mention the judgement of others, and not contradicted it there where it was not against my purpose if it were granted; but otherwise, where I express my own judgement, I mention only Abraham as the root, Exercit. pag. 10. Examen, pag. 64, 65. And so do Deodate annot. on v. 16▪ 17. The new Annot. on v. 16. Beza on v. 17. Neque dubium est, quin radicis nomine intelligatur, Abraham credentium pater. Which contains the reason of this opinion. For he must be the root who is a Father both to Jews and Gentiles, who are also branches in this root, the root is said to bear them, v. 18. But we read not this of any other then of Abraham called the Father of the faithful, Rom. 4. 11. and the Gentile believers his seed, Rom. 4. 13. 16. Gal. 3. 29. no where are these things said of Isaac, and jacob. It is said indeed that the Jews are beloved, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Fathers either because of the Covenant made with them, or because of the favour God bore them; as often he is said to reserve a lamp in Judah for David's sake, but this speech hath special respect to the Jews, whereas the benefit of the root, v. 17. 18. is common to Gentiles and Jews. As for the fatness of the olive tree Deodate saith truly, it is the blessing and promise made to Abraham & his seed & so the Apostle expres●eth it, Gal. 3. 14. And it would be too frigid, and washy an exposition to expound it of outward privileges, & ordinances. Yea it were false, for the Gentiles were not partaker of the outward privileges and ordinances of Abraham and the Jews they being taken away. Now these things being put it must needs be, that this engraffing must be by giving faith sith by faith only the Gentiles are partakers of the root Abraham, and the fatness of the olive tree the believing Church, not by natural generation of believing parents, nor by outward administrations. Ergo, the engraffing here into the invisible Church is by election and giving of faith.  
5. From verse 25. If the breaking off the Jews be by blinding, than the engraffing is by giving faith, but the former is true, verse 25. Ergo, the latter.  
6. If reingraffing of the Jews produceth salvation, is by turning them from iniquity, taking away their sins according to God's Covenant, than it is into the invisible Church by giving faith, but the former is true, verse 26, 27. Ergo, the latter.  
7. If the reingraffing be by virtue of God's election and love, his gifts of calling then it is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith, but the former is true v. 28, 29. Ergo, the latter.  
8. If the engraffing both of Jews and Gentiles be the fruit of god's mercy, the breaking off by shutting up in unbelief, than the engraffing is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith, but the former is true, verse 30, 31, 32. Ergo, the latter.  
What should I say more? It is so plain from the whole scope and tenor of the Apostles words, that the engraffing there spoken of is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith, that from the first verse of the chapter to verse 13. there is scarce a verse but speaks of ●●jecting▪ foreknowing, election, grace, hardening, giving a spirit of slumber, darkening the eyes, stumbling, falling or some equipollent term to these, and the Apostle doth plainly signify his intention in all that discourse to be the showing the mystery of God's counsel in elcting, reprobating, blinding, converting one while the Jews, another while the Gentiles; so that I cannot but admire, that Mr Martial should interpret the engraffing of bare admission into visible Church-membership.  
9 Add hereto. The places which I conceive answer to Rom. 11. 17. must be understood of the invisible Church as Eph. 3. 6. 1 Cor. 12, 13. Gal. 3. 14. 26. 28. 29. Lastly for testimonies of interpreters I find but two in Marlorats Cathol. Exposition on Rom. 11. 17. and they have these words. Hyperius. Neque enim hic amplius docet, sed orationem totam ad Gentes convertens sapienter monet, ne propter electionem suam efferantur, aut Judaeos quia rejecti sunt contemnant: maxim quum & Judaeorum plurimi salutem sint adhuc per Evangelium conseq●uturi, Gentes verò iterum possent, si Deo ita visum foret reprobari. Bucer Insitus fuisti illis] Hoc beneficium est quod Gen●ibus per judaeos contigit. Gentes enim per fidem Christi factae sunt semen Abrahae Gal. 3. 29. Ergo, insitae Iudaeis, ut grati sanctis patribus promissa, & fruantur, & spiritu illorum vivant: id quod Apostolus per communionem radicis & pinguedinis significat▪ ut namque filii Dei omnes eadem Dei benevolentia nituntur, ita eorum spiritu aguntur, etiamsi hic donetur grandior post revelatum Christum. Hic verò ex praecipuis locis est ex quibus probatur eodem spiritu verae justitiae donatos fuisse judaeos ante incarnatum Christum. Calvin ad vers. 20. nam erectio Iud●orum, si ob incredulitatem facta est, Gentium insitio per fidem, quid restat nisi ut Dei gratiam recognoscendo inde ad modestiam ac submissi●uem formentur. And this I thought so plain, that I conceived Mr Martial himself so expounded it in his sermon pag. 43. in these words. It being the primary intention of the Covenant of Grace, in its first work, to show what free grace can and will do to miserable nothing, to cut miserable man of from the wild olive, and graft him into the true olive, to take away the heart of stone, to create in them a heart of flesh, etc. which thing he saith nothing to in his Defence, though I alleged it pag. 64. of my Examen, except it be that he meant the words he useth pag. 137 of his Defence▪ alleging that I say, insition (not inc●●on as it is printed in Mr Marshals Defence) may be either into the visible or invisible Church, grassing in, may be either by faith or by profession of faith, and therefore I say the same with him, should be to tell me that he can bring as much from my words for him as I bring from his words for me, which conceit is but vain; for my words are nothing but the opening the distinction of the various kind of engraffing; no assertion in those words what insition is meant, Rom. 11. 17. and for the words Mr Martial allegeth out of my Examen, pag. 65. of which he saith. And truly Sir, in these words to my understanding, you grant not only my interpretation of this place, but even the question controverted betwixt us. I shall show to be a mistake in answering his objection against the interpretation I give of the engraffing into the invisible Church, having first observed that Master Gerees words in his vindic. paedob●aptsmi confirm my interpretation against his own in the Chapter next before, when he saith, Chap. 1. Sect. 4. pag. 19 The holiness there is meant not actual holiness, but potential in regard of God's election. And Mr Blake, pag. 94. we by faith are graffed in for them, Rom. 20. The only objection of weight is, that then some branches of the invisible Church may be broken off, and so election made revocable, and Apostasy from grace maintained: and hereupon Mr Martial accuseth me as symbolising with Arminius, and puts this in the margin of his book, pag. 144. and in the Index: and thereby thinks to cut scores with me for accusing him as symbolising with Arminius, pag. 69. of my Examen.  
To which I answer. 1. That there is a wide difference between Mr Marshal's case and mine. I show that Mr Marshal's tenet agrees with Arminius his tenet, and I quote Arminius his words in the margin; and therein I did justly. For Arminius also understood his speech of outward administrations, to wit the preaching of the Gospel, in the end of his Antiperkins, and both Mr Martial and Arminius agree, that the infants of the wicked for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their parents according to the tenor of God's justice. But I expressly rejected the tenet of Arminius about revocable election, and Apostasy from grace; which if they should follow from my interpretation, I conceiving otherwise, yet were not I to be charged with symbolising with Arminius, as Mr Martial doth in his professed tenet. 2 But I conceived I had prevented this objection, pag. 64. of my Examen, at those words. The meaning is not that some of the branches in the invisible Church may be broken off, but only such as were so in appearance; and I alleged john 15. 2. as an instance of the like expression: showing in that very similitude, that the word branch in Christ is sometimes meant of that which is so in appearance, & sometimes of that which is so in truth; and so in like manner it may be used, Rom. 11. 17. And thus Chamier, ●om. 3. paustrat. Cathol. l. 13. c. 21. answers Bellarmin; urging john. 15. 2. for falling away from faith. But Mr Martial tells me, I profess I understand not how this distinction gives you the least help. I reply, that it plainly avoids the consequence objected against my interpretation; for though the branches in one passage be meant of the branches in appearance, and the breaking off that which was so in appearance, yet, other places, as in the same verse in the engraffing may be meant of true engraffing into the invisible Church in like manner, as it is john 15. 2. But because upon more accurate examination I conceive that is not the genuine answer, I shall therefore let it pass. 3. I say, when the Apostle saith the branches were broken off, he means it of the branches that were truly such, and of the engraffing that was truly such into the invisible Church, but that by the branches are not meant singular persons; but the people, or as M. Mar. speaks p. 137. the body of them were the branches spoken of ●n this place, & M Geree p. 16. Nor is it either the Arminians tenet, or any error to say that the body of a people which were once the elect people of God, and ingraffed into the invisible Church, because the generality or a greater number were such among that people, are broken off from election, and the invisible Church. For a people or nation is not a consistent being, but a fluent being as a river, which is the same river still, though not the same water; and therefore as when Cyrus turned Euphrates from its own channel, he may be said to have turned away the same river Euphrates that was created at first though it were not the same numerical water; so when God rejected the Jews from being his elect, believing people he broke off the same people that were the true branches of Abraham the true root in the invisible Church, and yet no one particular person, who was elect or in the invi●●ble Church by faith broken off, which is the Arminian doctrine. And this I find observed by each of the three Authors alleged before from Marlorat. Hyperius at v. 2●. is thus alleged; speaking. Quemadmodum nunc rejectus est populus judaicus, qui tamen electus fuerat: ita potest adhuc fieri, ut a●●quando rejiciatur populus Gentilis, qui nunc electus est; alioqu singul●s electos de populo judaico, vel de populo Gentili reprobari impossibile planè est. Ad hunc (inquam) modum si quicquid de ruina metuenda electis sequitur, non de singulis electis, sed de populo ex quo descendunt interpreteris, multis te molest●is liberaveris. Calvin ad verse 21. praecipuè verò notandum Pauli sermonem non tam ad singulos homines, quam ad totum Gentium corpus dirigi. Bucer ad verse 22. De Gentibus loquitur universim non de singulis hominbus. And indeed the text leads me to this interpretation. For when it is said, verse 23, 24. that they shall be graffed in, God is able to graft them in again; these which are according to nature; shall be graffed in their own olive; which cannot be understood of the same person, but of the same people.  
Thus have I besides my first purpose put into this Apology this large dissertation about Rom. 11. 16, 17. etc. partly because by Mr Gerees conference with me and another, and his words to me; ●indic. paedobap. pag. 17. I commend this Scripture to your serious consideration, for I conceive it gives clear evidence to what I affirm; I perceive this text is his chief hold for Infant-baptism, and in Mr Blakes new answer to my Examen, pag. 69. I find these words; your examination, Rom. 11. 16. hath been under examination, and if there be strength in those exceptions, there is weakness no where.  
Mr Blake in his answer to my letter, pag. 30. saith thus. If the engraffing be by saving faith only, to derive saving grace personally inherent as a fruit of election from Abraham; than it must be that we are elect in Abraham, Abraham may say without me ye can do nothing, etc. 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 only a root as he is called the Father of all them that believe, Rom. 4. 11. not by begetting faith in them, but as an exemplary cause of believing, as I gather from the expression. verse 12. that he is a ●ather to them that walk in the steps of our Father Abraham, which he had yet being uncircumcised.  
Mr Blake ibid. pag. 31. what made Abraham, Isaac and Jacob 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 only the root, as he is only the Father of beleeevers exemplarily, and that which made him the Father of believers 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 weakness. The rest is answered already.  
Mr Martial pag. 124. says, 
§. 15. of M. Marshals unjust charge against me as ●arkning his arguments, and casting fi●th in the face of the Assembly.  I raise a dust about his argument, because I tell him he doth not distinctly express what the promise is, Acts 2. 39 and I require of him to form his proofs into an argument, as if it were unreasonable to require him to make a syllogism in mood and figure in a Sermon. And yet he did make divers 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 than 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 natural seed of believers; 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 profess it to be a very irksome thing to me to answer an author that will not do so, and till Mr Martial do it, shall censure him as one that takes not the way to clear truth, but to darken it with multitude of wo●ds, among which a man shall have much ado to find the medium and the conclusion.  
Mr Martial, pag. 247. accuseth me of slurring, plundering, darkening the arguments of my adversaries. If he had told me wherein he had done me a pleasure, that I might know how to amend it, but if he mean (as his words pag 134. [to bring in so many imaginary senses, thereby to darken an argument] import) in that I tell h●m his conclusions and speeches may have many senses, and desire him to set down what sense he means, it is a conceit scarce sober, sith it is plain that distinction and distinct expression is rightly called by Logicians lumen rationis, and is the only way to enlighten, not to darken speeches. And therefore all that are able in dispute, make this their chief business to distinguish terms, or things that differ; and then set down their conclusions, and frame their arguments and answers, which is the thing I would have Mr Martial do: Nor is my pretending obscurity in Martial a kind of art to evad● what cannot plainly be answered, as Mr Geree conceives, vind. paedobap. ch. 1. sect. 3. but a means to find out the force of the argument, that I might give it a plain answer.  
Whereas I had framed the fifth argument in my exercitation thus. That which in succeeding ages in which it was in use, was in force. 1. As a tradition not written. 2. Out of imitation of Jewish circumcision. 3. Without universal practice. 4 Together with the error of giving infants the Lords Supper; and many other humane inventions under the name of Apostolical traditions that is deservedly doubtful, but such is Infant-baptisme; Ergo, Mr Martial 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 several proof of the several parts of the minor: he repeats my words as if I had made a several argument from each branch, and to make a show of their weakness, puts in another argument and conclusion than 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 says, This kind of arguing is almost as wild as that which the schools call à baculo ad angulum, and the boys in the schools would stamp and hiss at such an inference. I profess if I should in schools repeat my opponents arguments as Mr Martial doth mine, I should allow the boys in the Schools to stamp and hiss at such a practice. Mr Martial pag. 124. hath these words. You still go on in your wont equivocation of the word Covenant of Grace, taking it only of the Covenant of saving grace, not including the external 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 Martial 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 only of the covenant of saving grace? This is like as if a man should be charged with speaking nonsense, because he speaks good reason in right language.  
But I hope by this time the Reader doth understand who hath used sophistry in disputing, I or Master Martial.  
What I said of the Assembly, pag. 27. of my Examen, I did it not to cast filth in their face, as Master Martial construed it; but as a brotherly intimation of my fears and apprehensions to make them cautelous, whose wise and faithful deportment in that great trust reposed in them is of great moment to the whole Christian Church. Of whom I profess 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 jealousy, and for what I said about wasting of time about inconsiderable things comparatively, I suppose I am able to give a sufficient account. 
§ 16. Of Mr Marshals untrue charge against me, as if I rested on Grotius in setting down the tenant of Antiquity upon occasion of which the tenant of Antiquity is again examined, my judgement of their doctrine vindicated, Mr. Marshals new all●gations answered, and my diligence to find out their tenets manifested.  And this I speak merely to awaken them, and to prevent that inconsiderateness through an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 passion, or such like cause usually befalls such meetings, and is the cause of much woe to the Church of God. Be it well or ill taken liberavi animam meam meam, I have freed my own soul.  
There are some other things wherewith Mr Marshal endeavours to render me a suspected person▪ pag. 29. of his defence. I cannot but wonder, why you (who pretend to be familiarly acquainted with the secrets of Antiquity) should have so much correspondency with them who are not likely to help you with any certain intelligence. Hugo Grotius is the strongest stake to support your tottering hedge; and sure I am Grotius was a friend to the Socinians, and it is well known what they think of Baptism. To this I answer, it is untrue that I any where pretend to be familiarly acquainted with the secrets of Antiquity, I say, so far as I can by search find it is thus and thus, but never did take upon me familiar acquaintance with the secrets of Antiquity. It seems Master Marshal had the help of his friend, and so there was a College to answer my Book, yet after he and his friend have done all they could in this point, it doth not yet appear but that I was in the right, to wit that Infant baptism is not so ancient as is pretended. For he hath not yet acquitted the treatise of questions ad Orthodoxos from bastardy; nor hath he answered that which I said that the words and whole scope of Irenaeus, lib. 2, c. 39 show that the place is not meant of Baptism: but with a new device, such as it concerns the author's conscience to look to, when he is told the words and whole scope show that the place is not meant of Baptism; in which I chiefly alleged the words, the answerer says nothing to that, but maimedly sets down my words thus▪ In the last place you labour to prove that it is not meant of Baptism from Iren●●us his scope in that place. And then says that though the scope be so, yet the words prove the question in debate before us. Which is a manifest abusing the reader, never answering the reason I gave from the very words and whole scope, that they could not be understood of the rite of Baptism. And for Origen all that is yet brought cannot acquit the passages alleged from suspicion of being supposititious, considering that Origen is taxed for Pelagianizing, whereas those words are pointblank against them, which being observed by me, the answerer thought it wisdom to say nothing to it. And for the rest of the testimonies Master Marshal brought, I did confess Nazianzen, Cyprian, Augustin, Hierom, Ambrose mention Paedobaptism, but never upon Mr Marshal's ground federal holiness, but upon 〈◊〉 supposed necessity to save the Infant from perishing.  
Master Marshal it seems rests much on Augustine's words, that he saith. Hoc Ecclesia semper habuit, semper tenuit, hoc a majorum fide accepit, hoc usque in finem perseveranter custodit; He puts it therefore in the Title, pag. 55. of his Defence, and pag. 9 quotes for these words Augustin. Serm. 15. de verbis Apost. I have read over that Sermon tom. 10 of his works again and again and find not those words there, nor any to that purpose, I have also read Sermon 14. de verbis Apostoli, which hath the title de Baptism parvulorum adversus P●lagianos, and I find not there those words; only these I find there. Sanctus Cyprianus est quem in manus sumpsi antiquus Episcopus sedis hujus, quid senserit de Baptismo parvulorum, immo quid semper Ecclesiam sensisse monstraver●● p●ululum acc●pit●, I deny not but that those words may be in 〈◊〉 but if Master Martial had given me more certain direction where to find them, I might then perhaps have given a more direct answer. However for these reasons I conceive little cause to be moved with those words. First, because I find not that Augustin took it to be the tenet of the Church from any other ground, than the Epistle of Cyprian, 59 ad Fidum, concerning which he saith that Cyprian hath showed how the Church hath always held it, both in the words above cited tom. 10. Serm. 14. de verbis Apost. & tom. 7. lib. 2. de peccat merit● & remiss. c. 5. etc. And yet he that reads that Epistle of Cyprian shall find Cyprian only declaring the determination of the Council of 66 Bishops there mentioned, but nothing of the Churches always holding it. Secondly, The famous story of the likelihood of cheating Augustine and the rest of the African Bishops with a supposititious Canon of the Nicen Council by three Roman Bishops to confirm Appeals to Rome from Africa in the case of Apiarius doth me thinks show, that Augustin might easily be mistaken about the tenet of the Church. Thirdly, The many speeches in Augustin, as Epist. 118. and elsewhere, and others of the Ancients, about Easter, Lent-fast, Episcopacy, infant Communion and other traditions which are not credited by Protestant, nor some of them by some Popish writers do clear him from arrogance, or impudence that should say there is▪ no great reason to give so much credit to that large assertion of Augustin (if it be his) as Master Marshal and some others seem to give to it. Fourthly Those words of Augustin tom. 7. de peccat: merito & remissione, lib. 10. c. 34. Optime Punici Christiani baptismum nihil aliud quam salutem & sacramentum corporis Christi nihil aliud quam vitam vocant. Unde nisi ex antiquant existimo, & ● Apostolica traditione, qua Ecclesia Christi i●situm tenent pr●ter baptismum, & participationem Dominicae me●s●, non solum non ad regnum Dei sed nec ad salutem, & vitam aeternam posse quenquam hominum pervenire, do me thinks evidence that Augustin sometimes called that the Church's tenet, which he gathered by conjecture from the practice of the African Christians known to him. But it will be said the Pelagians did not deny Infant baptism to have been the practice of the Church. I answer, nor do I deny that it was in Augustine's time the practice of the Latin and Greek Churches to baptise Infants in case of necessity, but that it was so from the beginning, and always in the Church we do not find the Pelagians yielded, yet did they not perhaps question it, either because they were carried away with that erroneous rule that what they saw every where practised, and found not when it began to take that for an Apostolical tradition, or because of the tyranny of the present custom, which Augustine himself somewhere confesseth, that though he misliked, yet liberius improbare non andeo. But saith Master Marshal pag. 55. I cannot but conceive it likely, that Augustine's Ecclesia semper habuit, semper tenuit, should sway as much with the intelligent impartial Reader, as Master Tombs his non semper habuit, non semper tenuit I grant it should and much more, yet the Authorityes, and reasons I bring should be I account sufficient to weigh down Augustine's testimony.  
I had said the determination mentioned by Cyprian Epist. 59 ad Fidum, a● far as I can by search find, is the spring head of Infant baptism. Master Blake in his Answer to my letter, pag. 6. I desire to know what colour of truth you can put upon these words. I answer, the words are true without any colour put upon them, For I did not deny that I found Infant baptism practised before, but that the determination of that council was the spring head, that is as Examen▪ pag. 16. the first determined rule, or Canon, by force of which it hath since continued in a stream, and this is true.  
Having formerly searched for Austin's words so often alleged for the practice of Infant baptism, upon the publishing Master Blakes book I found them, not as Master Marshal quotes it, Serm. 15. de verbis Apostoli, but as Master Blake citys it, Ser. 10. And upon reading of them, the thing that Augustine saith the Church always had, held and keeps, seems not to me to be the practice of Infant baptism, unless by consequence (which in matter of history is not so clear a proof) but the doctrine of original sin in Infants, which Pelagians denied, not the practice of baptising Infants. For the words immediately before are nemo ergo vobis susurret doctrinas alienas. And these words are only a passage in a Sermon ad populum, in which usually there is not such exactness, as in other works; & among those Sermons, which are not out of all question whether genuine. But that the Reader may judge of this testimony, I will set down the words as I find them.  
Nullus hominum in ista quae ex▪ Adam defluit massa mortalium nullus omnino hominum non aegrotus, nullus sine gratia Christi sanatus. Quid de parvulis pueris, si ex Adam aegroti? nam et ipsi portantur ad Ecclesiam. Et si pedibus illuc currere non possunt, alienis pedibus currunt ut sanentur Accommodat illis mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes ut ven●ant, aliorum cor ut credant, aliorum linguam ut fateantur: ut quoniam, quod aegri sunt alio peccante praegravantur, sic cum hi sani sunt, alio pro eis confitente salventur. Nemo ergo vobis susurret doctrinas alienas. Hoc Ecclesia semper habuit, semper tenuit: hoc a majorum fide percepit: hoc usque in finem perseveranter custodit. Quoniam non est opus sanis me dicus sed aegrot antibus. Quid necessarium ergo habuit Infans Christum, si non aegrotat? si sanus est qu●re per eos qui eum diligunt medicum quaerit? Si quando portantur Infants, dicuntur omnino nullum propaginis habere peccatum, & veniunt ad Christum: quare non eis dicitur in Ecclesia, qui eos opportant ad Ecclesiam. Auferte hinc innocentes istos non est opus sanis medicus, sed male habentibus: non venit Christus vocare justos sed pecca●●res? nunquam dictum est sed nec aliquando dicetur. Which last words show that Augustine spoke these things not as an Historian from good records, but as in popular Sermons is wont, out of conjecture from common practice in his time. Certainly the last words Augustin could deliver on no other ground: This testimony than hath a weak basis. And me thinks the testimony of Chamier panstrat: Cathol. tom. 4. lib. 5. c. 15. § 19 Denique hunc morem quis non videt ejus temporis esse, cum vix millesimus quisque baptizabatur non adultus, & in Catechumenis diligenter exercitus might serve to balance Augustine's testimony inconsistent with so many likelihoods to the contrary. Which testimony of Chamier Master Martial might have vouchsafed to have taken notice of, though it was but in the Margin of my Book.  
Nor hath Master Martial or his friend yet it proved baptising of Infants of believers, by reason of federal holiness taught by the Ancients▪ Master Geree puts a passage of T●rtullian de anima, cap. 39 Ex seminis praerogativa procreari sanctos in his frontispiece, and Master Martial conceives me sick of it. I answer, I bless God no truth makes me sick, it would make me well to see paedobaptism proved either of Scripture, or primitive Antiquity. But for this testimony of Tertullian my stomach was quickly eased of it, as finding not only by reading, Delacerda his note on it, but also by considering the occasion and words going before that ex seminis praerogativa imports not federal holiness, but holiness, by reason of the freedom from that unholiness in their procreation, which the infidels children had from the many gross idolatrous superstitions, by which they were defiled, and as it were dedicated to the Devil. And I conceive Hieromes words to Paulinus, Epist. 153. cited by Master Blake in his answer to my letter, pag. 57 expounding thus Tertullian, assereas sanctos dici fidelium filios, quod quasi candidati sunt fidei & nullis idololatriae sordibus polluantur, show that in Tertullian the prerogative of seed, notes only freedom from pollutions of Idolatry, at or before their birth, not covenant holiness, and the word candidatos fides, the same with designatos sanctitatis prove that they were holy in expectation, because in hope and intention believers, and so to be baptised. And though I find Tertullia's words somewhat obscure, as all his writings are; yet in that he calls them designatos sanctitatis (which seems to be meant of baptism) not only ex seminis praerogativa, but also ex institution is disciplina, which Master Marshal himself interprets of their education, pag. 73. of his defence, it seems plain to me, that this place proves that Tertullian makes their Christian education the antecedent to the baptism of believers children in his days: and so this place makes against Master Marshal's tenet not for it.  
It is true, the Ancients do allusively call baptism circumcision. as they do the Lords Table the Altar, the Lords Supper the Sacrifice, the Presbyters Priests, the Deacons Levites; nor do I deny that they say circumcision was a type of baptism, (which Protestant writers grant not) and that they thereupon make baptisus succeed circumcision, and they argue for baptising of Infants from circumcision, this I granted in my exercitation and Examen. But yet I think neither Master Marshal nor his friend can show that they argued thus, the Children of Abraham were circumcised by virtue of the Covenant, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, therefore the children of believers only are to be baptised by virtue of the Covenant I find that they argued thus from circumcision, circumcision was the remedy against original sin, and the male that is not circumcised, shall be cut off from his people, so Baptism is the remedy of original sin, and by reason of it, the unbaptized infant dying, shall be damned. But I think if Master Marshals friend could, he would have showed that they argued from federal holiness of infants of believing parents, to the capacity of Baptism; this I yet think is a late device, no elder than Zuinglius as I said in my Examen. And so my hedge is not yet tottering, but rather Mr Marshal's hedge, whereby he fenceth Infant-Baptisme either from Antiquity or Scripture is already so broken down, that a mean Scholar may go through it; and if any truth-searching Scholar be satisfied by Mr Marshals writing, it is to me an amazement. 2. As for that which he saith, that Grotius is the strongest stake in my hedge, meaning in point of antiquity, therein Master Martial is much deceived. For, 1. the chief stake in my hedge in point of antiquity is the observation upon what ground the Ancients taught Infant-Baptisme, which was not Covenant-holines, but supposed necessity to save the child from perishing; and the supposed power that Baptism hath to give grace, which I gathered from Cyprian, Augustin, and others, but do not remember that I received it from any but by my own observation. 2. My hedge was in some sort made in my Exercitation before I ever took notice of any thing in Grotius about paedobaptism, which was about the time I began to frame my Examen upon occasion of Mr Thomas Goodwin his citing his annotation upon Matth. 19 14. where Grotius is so far from being a stake in my hedge, that Doctor Homes, pag. 146. saith, that for Grotius his own opinion it is clear and full for Infant-Baptisme upon that 19 of Matthew v. 14. and therefore I suppose his testimony is the less to be suspected in this matter. I confess that Grotius put me in mind of that of Gregory Nazianzen, which I find in the relation of his life, that though his Father were a Greek Bishop, yet he remained unbaptised, till being sent to Athens to study; being at sea he was in danger of drowning: and being perplexed, that he was likely to die being unbaptised; he resolved to be baptised when he came to shore. Mr Martial asks how I prove his Father was a Christian when he was born? To this I answer, that I had thought Mr Martial had not been ignorant, that this instance of Gregory Nazianzen's Father is brought by many Protestant writers against the Papists that deny marriage to the Clergy, to prove that then Bishops were married, and did use their wives. If Mr Marshal please, he may read what Chamier panstrat: Cathol. tom. 3. lib. 10. c. 13. §. 10. says of his father and mother.  
I also found in Grotius the instance of chrysostom, which I confess I took upon his word as wanting books and time to read so much as was necessary to examine the matter, Grotius not directing whence he had it. But if that instance do not hold, the instance of Hierome is plain, whom Erasmus in his life proves out of his own writings to have been born of Christian parents in Pannonia, yet was baptised at Rome, whither he was sent to be taught the learning of that age.  
The testimony of the Council of Neocaesarea I did not remember till Grotius put me in mind of it; but I trusted not to his quotation only, but found the same in O s●●nder his Epit. Eccles. Hist. Cent. 4. lib. 1. c. 21. at the year 311. with this note; Non intelligo quid sibi posterior hujus Canonis pars velit. As for the words they are so plain, that Mr Marshal's evasions are but shifts. For though it be true that the Canon was only about children in the womb, yet the reason of their not baptising, is not either because they were not yet born, or suretres could not undertake for them, but because in the confession in baptism, every ones free choice is showed. Which plainly declares that Council held that none were to be baptised, but such as showed their own free choice by confession. As for Balsamon and Zona●as it is true that I have not read them but taken their testimony from Grotius, because the testimony of the Council of Neoc●sarea, ancienter than the first Nicene was the thing alleged, Balsamon and Zoharas were only gloucesters; yet Mr Martial says nothing to Zonaras, and what he brings in answer to Balsamous gloss is nothing to the purpose. For neither did Grotius nor I say that Balsamon denied Infant-Baptisme according to his own opinion, but that from that canon Balsamon and Zonaras, do infer that an infant cannot be baptised because it hath not power to choose the confession of Divine Baptism, which is all one with that which Mr Marshal himself saith, pag. 31. There is required of him that would profess himself a follower of Christ (〈…〉 the last words of the Canon) a free election: or (as Balsamon hath it) there is required of everyone in Baptism his own promise, which an infant in its mother's womb cannot do. And can an infant out of the mother's womb do it? so that it is plain even by Mr Marshals own explication of the Canon, that that Council held that those were only to be baptised, that could make a promise themselves. I doubt not but that this Council allowed Baptism of infants, as Nazianzen did in case of danger of death, but I think it is plain that out of that case they allowed not the baptism of an infant, no not though a believers infant; till the child could make its own confession: as appears from their scrupling the baptising of the mother converted now with child, lest it should be taken to reach to the child in the womb, and from the general reason, that every one manifests his own free choice in confession. And I am perswaded that this was the true state of Baptism in those days, in the Greek and Latin Church▪ that they did baptise all sorts of infants whether of believers or unbelievers, in case of danger of death, lest they should perish for want of it; in which case Lay-people did baptise: and Augustine contra epist. Parmenianis, cap. 13. lib. 2. saith, si autem necessitas urgeat, aut nullum, aut veniale delictum est. But otherwise they baptised not ordinarily, till they came to years to make their own confession. The cases of Nazianzen, Augustine, and Hierome, Constantine the great, and others; and their solemn baptising only at Easter and Whitsuntide, which is observed in the Rubric of the English Liturgy, me think should abundantly satisfy men concerning this truth. I cited likewise Grotius his speech of many of the greeks, who in every age even to this day, do keep the custom of deferring the Baptism of little ones, till they could themselves make a confession of their faith. For which words though he cite no Author, yet I presume Grotius, who is even by Spanheimius, often styled vir summus; would not have said it, unless he had some ground for it. Mr Martial says, I might blush for justifying the Anabaptists, in saying that the Ancients, especially the Greek Church have rejected the baptism of infants for many hundred years; meaning in the first ages after Christ. But as yet, neither Mr Marshal nor his friend have showed me sufficient reason why I should retract it. For what he brings out of Photius and Balsamon, men of much later standing about the later Canons, and Imperial laws of the greeks; and one of the 8 Canons concluded in Carthage against the Pelagians, requiring infants to be baptised: proves not, but that the Greek Church rejected baptising of infants many hundred of years in the first ages; nor doth it overthrow that of Grotius, that many of the greeks (he doth not say the Greek Church) in every age to this day do keep the custom of deferring the baptising of little ones, till they could themselves make a confession of their faith. Yea, the laws brought by Mr Martial rather prove it. For why should laws be made for it, but because many did neglect it? And the story out of Balsamon about captives of Christians, rather shows that some were not baptised, when little ones even among Ch●ristians, because they determine if there were no witnesses to prove their Baptism, though children of Christians; they should be baptised.  
As for Grotius his being a friend to the Socinians, it is nothing to me, who knew not Grotius nor his ways; nor ever pleaded for him. Yet I remember I have read that though he was accused thereof long ago by Ravenspergerus, he was justified by Vossius, and what ever Rivet, Maresius, Laurentius, charge him with, yet his works have a place among the learned, and may be read and made use of cum judicio, at least as the works of Papists, Lutherans, Prelatists, etc. who yet may be tainted with errors. Even Theophilus Philokyriaces, Loncardie usis; if I mistake not Master Marshals friend, doth in the very title page of his Dies Dominica, and in the book make use of Barenius his testimony in his Annals; an author and work as much excepted against ●● Grotius. Nor do I find that in that wherein I made use of Grotius, he hath deceived me; or I or he wronged the truth, or our Reader.  
Mr Martial pag. 54. of his Defence saith, that he perceived I have made great use in this controversy of an Arminian book commonly known by the names of censura censurae Whereas I never read the book or made any use of it, till I read this passage in Mr Marshal's Defence. But since I confess I have read chapter 23 of it, and am by that I find there the more confirmed in that truth, wherein I concur with that Author: though the truth is the chief light I had for antiquity in this matter, was some little reading of my own, and that which I read in Vossius his theses theol: de paedobaptism.  
But because Mr. Martial hath accused me as having correspondency with them who are not likely to help me with any certain intelligence, that it may appear that I used what diligence I could to get most certain intelligence when I applied myself to answer Mr Marshal's Sermon, I presumed to write this ensuing letter, to that famous learned Gentleman, Mr John Selden, of the Inner Temple.  
Clarissime Vir,  
INter theologorum placita haec obtinent, baptismum joannis & Christ's circumcisioni Judaicae succedere, ejusque locum occupare: atque inde paedobaptismi ri●um deduci. Mihi verò cum de paedobaptismi origine, tum de successione baptismi in locum circumcisionis an vera tradant Theologi isti, gravis diu insedit dubitatio Baptismi enim institutum longè aliud esse à circumcisione, & paedobaptismum in Ecclesiis Christianis nonnisi in seculo post Apostolos secundo obtinuisse plurima suadent. Inter alia vero istud urget, quod legerim alicubi (quanquam libris jam spoliatus locum judicare▪ nequeam) baptismi ritum fuisse satis notum ante Joannis Baptistae tempora in admissione Proselytorum aut Discipulorum apud Judaeos, & interrogatio Pharisaeorum non de novitate ritus sed de authoritate baptizantis quaerentium, Joannis Evangelii cap. 1. Co●. 25. idem innuere videtur. Et forsan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, apud eundem cap. 3. Com. 25. ad usurpationem istius ritus spectabat. Paedobaptismum verò ignotum fuisse primaevis Ecclesiarum Christianarum temporibus asserit Ludovicus Vives comment in Augustini de civitate Dei, lib. 1. cap. 27. Quapropter vir ornatissime, super istis apicibus doctrinae successione scilicet baptismi●● lecum circumcisionis, & paedobaptismi origin●, te (cujus periti● in rebus & scriptis Hebraicis & Ecclesiasticis, veritatis amor animique candor satis spectantur, & latè praedicantur) consulendum duxi. Pla●eat itaque claritudini tu● mihi quanquam obscure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tamen, tanquam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, super ●stare animi sententiam tui impertire. Et quoniam sat scio te plurimis iisque gravissimis negotits occupari responsum tuum, se● pluribus, seu pa●cioribus verbis tempore à ●eipso posite expect abit.  
Dignitatis vestrae observantissi●●, JOANNES TOMBS. Londini ●●dibus Recto●is Ecclesiae 〈◊〉 church, 〈…〉 August●●●4. 1644.  
Though the answer was no other than a reference of me to the books I might meet with in Stationer's shops, yet I conceived this advantage I had by it, that what I found in books extant might be the more safely relied on, and that my diligence to discover the truth would be the more apparent, for which I denied myself rest; 
§ 17. Of my opinion about excommunication, Church-government, the admission unto all ordinances, my former conformity, alleged to alienate men's minds from me and my writings.  and without recompense from men, laid out more than my estate could bear.  
But M. Mar. seems ready to catch at any thing that may make me suspected, and so bring my writing out of credit; & p. 78. of his Defence, thus he speaks. I am misinformed by good friends who know & love you very well if yourself incline not this way to baptise any, whether Turks or Heathens, who only would make a profession of their faith in jesus Christ, & then admit them to all other ordinances, & not have them excommunicated à sacris, but only à privato consortio; though their lives should prove scandalous. To which I say, that I deny not, but that in private conference lamenting the sad condition of these nations, that are likely to cut one another's throats about the differences between Presbyterians & Independents; I have said that I doubted whether ever excommunication à sacris, or the Presbyterian or Independent Ecclesiastical government, would be proved to be Jure Divino by Christ's appointment. And I confess that I take it to be but a matter of prudence, whether each congregation have its complete power and order within itself, or that it be ordered in some things by an assembly of select persons out of divers congregations, and whether congregations and pastors be fixed, or unfixed. And I doubt whether the power of the keys, Matth. 16. 19 be any other then doctrinal; whether Matth. 18 15, 16, 17, 18. contain any other direction then about particular injuries between brother and brother, or let him be to thee a heathen and a publican; be any other then shunning familiar converse: whether 1 Cor. 5. 2. the mourning that the incestuous person might be taken away from among them, was any other then upon solemn fasting and prayer by the whole Church of Corinth, out of a holy zeal to God's glory by Anathema curse or imprecation, to imprecate the vengeance of God upon him for the injury he had done to God, and the Christian profession; that he might be taken away from them by God, and whether the delivery to Satan were any other than an act of Apostolical power, or such as like them had power over unclean spirits tending to the taking away his natural life, as Molinaeus in his Vate●. And I conceive the Apostle verse 9, 10, 11, 12. of that chapter; proceeds from that particular occasion to general directions concerning the declining society with them that are vicious: which directions are manifestly concerning arbitrary and voluntary society in civil things, such as in a sort in some case they might afford to infidels, and then concludes. And ye shall put away from among yourselves that wicked one, which as Ainsworth observeth on Deut. 17. 7. are the same words that the Greek useth, Deut. 17. 7. and in like manner, Deut. 22. 21. 22. 24. noting the event of executing judgement by killing, whereby the guilty person and the guilt of his transgression was removed from them. And in reference to the incestuous person if notes the consequent of their mourning that he might be taken away from them, v. ●. not by such a process as is either used in Episcopal Courts, or Presbyterial Consistories; or congregational meetings (though I think this last way comes nearest to it of any of the three) by conventing, trying, hearing w●nesses, and then pronouncing a judicial sentence according to the determination of one or more by plurality of votes, but by a solemn detestation of the fact, mourning for it, and with joint commotion and concurrence of spirit complaining of it to God, and imploring his vengeance to cut him off, and so to vindicate his own name and people. Which I conceive the Lord did then in an extraordinary way, when they had no Christian Magistrate or other power to avenge that injury to God and his people, in that Ch●rch which was endued abundantly with special gifts, 1 Cor. 1. 7. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Cor. 14. Which fact, I for my part doubt how it can be made the foundation of an ordinary mere Ecclesiastical judgement, with jurisdiction as superiors that claim authority without special gift; in the time wherein a Christian Magistrate is ready to execute judgement on such offenders, any more than the fact; Judg. 20. of the whole congregation of Israel, in avenging the fact of the men of Gibeah, when there was no King in Israel, might be drawn into example for an ordi●nary practice when they had Judges, m●ch less how hence may be concluded any such thing, as power of suspension from the Lords supper for every emergent scandal so judged by a congregation, or congregational Presbytery. Nor doth the Church lose by having a Christian Magistrate, if that jurisdiction be wanting; sith I suppose it is better provided for by the constant care of a christian Magistrate, if conscientious in executing judgement: if not, such censures have been seldom executed with conscience, or good effect. And though it be, that many magnify the virtue and benefit of their juridical excommunication yet the best intelligence I have, makes me question whether it hath not been rather an engine of much harm, as being used rather against dissenters in opinion, and opposers of profit, than men openly vicious, managers of that cen●ure generally showing themselves irreconcilable to them that descent from them, but favourable enough to vicious living. Nevertheless I deny not, but that there is a discipline proper to the Church, as namely in case of erroneous doctrine, and superstitious practice, contrary to the christian faith or worship according to the practice. Acts 15. and command, Tit. 3. 10. Rev. ●. 24. 20. and in case of vicious life according to the scriptures, 1 Tim. 5. 20. 2 Thess. 3. 6. 14, 15. 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10, 11. And if any assembly of Ministers and Rulers be set up for the better discovery of such, that a person be not charged with those evils upon uncertain reports; I think it agreeable to Gods will, 1 Tim. 5. 19 And if it happen that any such facts be perpetrated as are like to that of the incestuous person: I doubt not but the whole Church may and aught to disclaim the person so offending, and to exclude him from all brotherly communion, because I conceive so much was done to the incestuous person, as I gather from 2 Cor. 2. 6, 7. yet herein they did not act as Judges that had power of jurisdiction over him, but as Physicians out of charity seeking to cure him. And I suppose in the manner of doing these things, we have not certain precise direction from God's word, but that we are left free by God to order such things though pertaining to christians as christians by alterable rules of prudence. And thus far I have thought good to express myself in this matter, because of Mr Marshals words tending to render me suspected as if I did monstri aliquid alere, nurse some monster.  
As for my opinion about baptising, I have publicly declared when I examined whether to visible Church membership were necessary real sanctity in the judgement of Church-officers, that by profession sufficient to it, I mean a profession of repentance and faith in Christ, which is serious, sober, free, and understanding; but denied that it is necessary there should be a further probation by trying men's spirits, so as to satisfy the particular congregation or Church-officers; that a person be admitted to Church-membership, and the Lords Supper. I confess such trial is requisite in admitting into special function▪ or intimate society; but not to communion in worship. And my opinion is, that as much is required to make capable of baptism, as of the Lords Supper; and that being admitted to the one, if rightly performed, they are not to be debarred of the other, for want of a further trial of their spirits. And though I never said that by rectifying Baptism, all the abuses I mention following padobaptisme would be removed (for I did not make paedobaptism the sole or principal cause of them, that is man's corruption, which will fall into those or the like in some measure, if paedobaptism were removed) yet it is true which I said in my Examen, part. 2. §. 7. the only way to further reformation, is to begin in a regular way at the purging of that Ordinance of Jesus Christ, to wit Baptism. Even as though all ignorance and superstition were not removed by removing Latin Service, yet that was the only regular way to begin at the removing it. And it is easy to conceive, that forasmuch as the gross ignorance of people is much occasioned by their baptising afore they know, that if they were not baptised till they knew christian Religion, as it was in the first ages, gross ignorance in christian professors would be almost wholly reform, and for christian walking, if baptism were administered with a solemn abrenunciation, profession and promise by the baptised in his own person, & upon that were baptised, I doubt not but it would have more awe on men's consciences then many other means used or devised, considering how in the primitive times men differred baptism for fear they might not enjoy their lusts, and they were counted by some as guilty of inexpiable crime that fell away after baptism: and on the other side, infant-baptisme is the ground upon which innumerable people ignorant and profane harden themselves as if they were good christians, regenerate, and should be saved without holiness of life, never owning or considering any profession or promise made for them as theirs.  
There have been other suggestions hinted by Mr Geree, but amplified in clancular whisper concerning my former conformity to ceremonies and Episcopal government, which are carried about in private to render me a person suspected, and to lessen the credit of my writing, the chief part of which I have answered in my Sermon entitled Fermentum Pharisaeorum; and the time, end, necessity, manner, and circumstances in doing what I did, being pleas sufficient to acquit me, and the things not belonging to the present cause, but being fitter for private audience. I will trouble the Reader no further with my Apology, assuring myself that setting aside this opinion of paedobaptism and common infirmities, my life, labours doctrine even in the judgement of those that descent from me, and knew me, will abundantly answer for me against all clancular whisper whatsoever.  
And concerning my two treatises8 
writings 18. Of the vanity of Mr Ley's vaunt concerning the deadly wound given to my cause, and the contrary demonstrated by a brief going through the principal points about this argument, as they have hitherto been disputed. As about Acts 2. 39 Rom. 11. 16. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Colos. 2. 12. Matth. 28. 19 Acts 16, 15. Matth. 19 14. etc.  notwithstanding Mr Ley's censure passed perhaps afore he had compared mine and my Antagonists writings together; I may rather say, that by my two treatises, there is such a wound given already to Infant-baptisme, that however men may play the Mountebanks and skin it over, it will never be cured at the bottom. For in point of antiquity it still stands good which I asserted; That Infant-baptisme is not so ancient as is pretended, as now taught, is a late Innovation; that a great number of those that sought reformation in the thirteenth Century, opposed infant-baptisme; that the doctrine of Antipaedobaptisme neither undermines Magistracy, Ministry, Lord's day, nor any true interest of the infants of believers, that the argument from the Covenant to the Seal, is either a tautology, or invalid without a command, that the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. was a mixed Covenant having in it not only promises of spiritual benefits common to all believers, but also peculiar promises concerning things temporal; that Acts 2. 39 being meant of Christ and saving benefits by him; as Master Martial confesseth cannot serve Master Marshals turn to prove his second conclusion which he denies to be meant of the promise of saving grace, as if it were made to believers and their natural seed. As for Master Marshal's paraphrase, which he calls argument, pag. 129. 130. of his Defence; I think it to be most absurd in that it makes the promise, Acts 2. 39 when applied to the Fathers to be meant of justification, when to the children, of outward administrations; nor so expounded are the words true: there being no such promise. That Rom. 11. 16. etc. proves not that there is the same Church state in the Churches of the Gentiles, that was in the Jews, so as that the Infants of Believers should by virtue of natural generation be reckoned as visible members, forasmuch as now the Church is not national as it was then, nor gathered as God did the Jewish Church by taking the whole nation for his people in one day, but now the Church of God is gathered by preaching up and down, some in one place and some in another in succession of time; That 1 Cor. 7. 14. speaks not of federal holiness, but matrimonial; yea if the reason of the lawfulness of the living of two persons together in disparity of Religion, be taken from the virtue of faith in the one party, not from the relation of husband and wife, as Mr Marshal's exposition makes it, the medium of the Apostle to prove the lawfulness of the living of a believing wife with an unbelieving husband, will as well prove the lawfulness of the living of a believing fornicatrix with an unbelieving fornicator; as may appear by a syllogistical analysis of the Apostles argument: the major whereof is this, according to Mr Marshals exposition. That man and wo●an may lawfully dwell together, notwithstanding the unbelief of the one party whereof one is sanctified by the faith of the other for begetting of a holy seed; this is manifestly the force of the Apostles reason after his exposition. Nor is it necessary to insert [being husband and wife] sith the sanctification is not ascribed by him to the relation of husband and wife, but to the faith of the one party, as the proper cause of it. And by Mr Blake Birth. privilege, pag. 11. Holiness in the text, is a fruit or result of faith in the parent. Now the assumption; the unbelieving form catour is sanctified by the faith of the ●eleeving whore for the begetting a holy seed Master Martial denies not, but salkes only; telling me pag. 163 of his Defence, he could name Divines who are no whit inferior to myself, who conceive that a believer even then when he commits fornication with an infidel, doth so remove the bar in the unbelieving party, as that the child is (in the believing parents right) to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant of Grace, and the Church of God, which is in his sense to be sanctified; and it must needs be granted, for 〈◊〉 causa ponitur effectus, if the quality of faith be the cause of that sanctification, the sanctification follows in one, as well as the other. The conclusion than follows from Mr Marshals exposition, that the believing fornicatrix may still live after conversion, with her unbelieving fornicator; for they are still sanctified for the begetting of a holy seed; and the children so begotten are federally holy, it being God's rule in this case: if Mr Martial say true, partus sequitur meliorem partem. But this is so absurd a thing that I believe Mr Martial himself will when he understands it▪ quit his chief hold, and the judicious reader explode the exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. of federal holiness.  
And for the third conclusion of Mr Martial, he hath not yet proved that the rite of Baptism was appointed by Christ to succeed into the room, place, and use of circumcision; or that a command concerning circumcision, should be a command concerning baptism: yea my exposition of Colos. 2. 11, 12. is acknowledged right by Mr Martial, and consequently his inference overthrown, as I said above. 
Baptism and the rite of eating bread and drinking wine through old ●ites among the jews yet used to another end, and after another rule by Christians.  As for that which I alleged that Baptism was an old rite among the Jews in initiating Proselytes, to show that baptism in exact speech doth not succeed circumcision, but is a continuation of an old rite to an●ther purpose; as in exact speech the Lord doth not succeed the Pas●●over, but is an old rite used at the Paschall supper among the Jews, and continued by Christ to another purpose; Mr Marshal catcheth at as a proof for Infant-baptisme, because then the Proselytes children were baptised: pag. 256. But the answer to it is easy. For though the rite of Baptism was an old use continued by john Baptist and Christ. yet I say it was to another purpose or use; as I show, pag. 89. 90. of my Examen, clean of another nature; as Mr Lightfoot Harmony, part. 1. pag. 138. and was used according to another rule then among the Jews. For they did not baptise Jew's either elder or younger as the same learned men I cited confess, but only the Gentiles because they were unclean; and they were initiated by sacrifice as well as baptism, with many other differences: but john the Baptist and Christ's Disciples baptised Jews as well as Gentiles, without sacrifice.  
As for Mr Marshals fourth conclusion, he confesseth pag. 128. that the formal reason of the jews being circum●●sed was the command, which if true; it is the distinguishing and constituting reason, qua posita ponitur res, 
The command confessed to be the formal reason of circumcision by Mr Martial.  non posita non ponitur; so that the Jews ought to be circumcised because of the command, without a command what ever were their interest in the Covenant or Church-state, they were not to be circumcised. Now this is as much as need be to overthrow Mr Marshals argument, which is to prove that infants are to be baptised precisely by virtue of interest in the Covenant without a command, because as he supposeth the Jews infants were circumcised merely by virtue of the Covenant; for so the analogy or proportion in his reasoning must hold. The Jews infants were in the Covenant, and therefore were to be circumcised; Ergo, it must be so with believers children now in Baptism; where the formal reason is supposed to be the Covenant: but Mr Martial both pag. 92. & pag 182. confesseth the formal reason is the command; and therefore though the Covenant be pu●, yet if the command were not put, circumcision of infant's ●ad been no duty, but a will-worship; and by parity of reason it is so in baptism: infants are not to be baptised barely by virtue of covenant-holiness without a command; which is the main thing I contend for.  
As for the fifth conclusion of Mr Martial, that which I answered continues still, 
Circumcision a privilege proper to the Jewish Church state.  that circumcision though it were a privilege to the jewish Church, as the Ark, tabernacle, high Priest, Temple were, belonging to that national Church-state, to have themselves and infants circumcised; yet it was a privilege proper to that time not now to continue: as the Apostle, Gal. 3. & 4. Heb. 9 & 10. shows, it did not belong to the substance of the Covenant of grace common to Jews and Gentiles; and so neither is it or any thing in the room of it any more a privilege to us now then some house the room of the Temple: some chief Bishop in the room of the High Priest, etc. And therefore I say still, that this argument is indeed of no weight, but among vulgar and non-syllogizing capacities; and that Divines that use it do but flatter the people by it; and that if the reason be good, it overthrows our completeness in Christ, in whom we have Circumcision, Ark, Temple, Priest, all; and as I said in my Exercitation it is the very egg out of which most of the Popish ceremonies were hatched; to wit, because they thought we must have privileges as the Jews, and therefore must have something like that they had.  
Mr Martial, pag. 195. of his Defence, speaketh thus. First for the point of will-worship I shall desire you to prove this conclusion. That all things belonging to christian worship even in the circumstances of it, even the ages and sexes of the persons to whom the ordinances are to be applied, must be expressly set down in the new Testament; if you prove not this, you say nothing to the purpose, for this is our very case. To which I reply. That I owe not M. Marshal such service, as to prove what he shall like another Euristeus enjoin me: I have pag. 11●. pag. 152 of my Examen syllogistically set down my argument to prove Infant-baptisme will-worship, it belongs to him to tell me what he denies in my syllogism, that I may prove it, though I have already done it, and sha●l do more fully when he tells me what he doth deny: but it is a mere shift for him to impose on me the proof of a Proposition I own not, and not tell me what he denies in my own syllogism. This is contrary to the rules of disputation I have been acquainted with; yet if Mr Martial shall declare that he holds the subject of baptism to be but a circumstance, I shall be ready to oppose him therein further; and show that the point in difference is not the bare age or sex, but qualification of persons to be baptised; yea the reason and main use of Baptism.  
As for Mr Marshal's principle for his virtual command I have showed above; 
No command about the jews Sacraments now in force.  that when he should have brought all Protestant Divines averring this maxim, that all the commands and institutions of God about the Sacraments of the Jews; bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant, and were not accidental to them: in stead of this he allegeth another thing, that Protestant Divines make the same general nature, end and use of our Sacraments, and the jews Sacraments, and argue thereupon from one to the other, which is quite beside the business. For the maxim is of commands about the Sacraments, and they are all about the rituals or administrations, and concerning commands about the Sacraments, binding us as the Jews, he produceth not one command binding us, or one Protestant avowing it.  
As for the command, Matth. 28. 19 when I said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to make Disciples, but no where are infants said to be discipled, Mr Martial tells me that some learned critics say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, answers to an hebrew phrase among the Rabbins, 
Infants not Disciples, as Matth. 28. 19 is meant.  of admission of scholars that they may be taught; which though I believe not, yet if it were granted serves not Mr Marshals turn, unless he can show that infants were said by them to be thus admitted-schollars. Then Mr Martial refers me with a blind direction to Spanheimius, whom I have consulted, and I find many absurdities in that learned Authors words dub. Evang. part. 3. dub. 27. This in effect he says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contains not the act the Disciples were to do, but the end of their sending, which I think is so absurd that it needs no other refutation than the mention, and then that they might 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without teaching them; whereas he himself says, non significat solum docere sed & Discipulos facere, so that according to him it includes teaching and somewhat more, and aequipollet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Io: 4. 1. which was by teaching, and the parallel place, Mark 16. 15. is, preach the Gospel to every creature.  
I had said in my Examen, that the speech of baptising Lydia's household, Acts 16. 15. must be understood by other places which when they express the baptising of the household, 
Baptising households infers not infant-baptisme.  they express also the believing or receiving of the word by the whole household, and by the frequent [Mr Martial altars it into sometimes] use of the word, which is to put the house for the people of growth in it. Mr Martial saith, who taught you it must be so interpreted? I answer, Augustin lib. 3. de doct. Christ. c. 26. ubi autem ap●rtius ponu●tur ibi discendum est qummodo in locis intelligantur obscuris: Cha●●ier panstrat, Cathol. tom. 1. lib. 16. c. 6. and all those Divines among which I think Mr Martial is one, that say we must expound one text by comparing it with others that are like. To that I said, that [house] is frequently taken for the grown persons in it; Mr Martial sai●●, it may very well be granted, and hurts not me, unless you can prove it must be so meant. Though I think I proved it must be so meant, yet it is enough to show that Mr Martial cannot prove from the baptising of households an example of baptising an infant, sith, the word house may be taken (as Mr. Mar. saith, may very well be granted) for the grown persons in that house.  
As for Mr Marshals second argument, because there was an equivocation in it▪ and in one sense the major must be denied, in another the minor; and if the major be understood in one sense, the minor in another; there be four terms, and the syllogism is naught. To this Mr Martial makes no reply in a logical form, but tells us in a loose discourse, that forasmuch as there is no infallible ground of certainty, but only of charity, that any grown person to be baptised hath actually the inward grace; and so in charity ●ee are to conceive of believers infants, because Christ said, Mark 10. 14. Of such is the kingdom of God, they are to be baptised So that in his Defence Mr Martial altars his argument which he set down in his Sermon, concluding not from a capacity of inward grace to Baptism as he did then; but from the judgement of charity that they have actually the inward grace, 
We have no evidence for judgement of charity concerning infants, nor is a judgement of charity to be our rule in adminstering Baptism.  which he seems to count sufficient for Baptism. Mr Geree his reasoning is to the same effect: vindic. paedobapt. ch. 1. sect. 7. and is thus form by him into a syllogism, where we have evidence for judgement of charity, that there is the grace of the Covenant, there we may s●e the seal of the Covenant. But we have evidence for the judgement of charity, that in infants of believers there is the grace of the Covenant. Ergo, Of this Syllogism I deny both major & minor. Acts 10. 47. doth not provethe major. For the Apostle there did not baptise upon a judgement of charity of what was latent, but from a certain sense of their magnifying God, and the gift of the holy Ghost; nor was Simon Magus baptised because in the judgement of charity he had the grace of the Covenant, but because he professed the faith, which was certain to Philip. And this was Master Marshals doctrine in his Sermon, pag. 47. where he confesseth that the Apostles charity or charitable conjecture was not the ground of their admitting them to the ordinance, but the profession and confession of the party made according to the word, which they were bound to rest in. And therefore I see not how Mr Martial can count a judgement of charity sufficient for Infant-baptisme, without crossing himself in his first Sermon. For my part I do not think a Minister ought to be ruled in baptising by his own judgement of charity (which is ofttimes very uncharitable to those that deserve best) but by certain knowledge of true sanctification by extraordinary revelation, or of the party's profession of the faith by other means, either of which is sufficient, not both necessary. Nor do I require of infants more assurance then of grown men, but shows of repentance and faith in either. Yet, as when one being required to bring no more than a servants testimony for the grant of a thing, if he bring the master's hand and seal without the servants testimony and the thing be granted; he that grants it doth require no more than the servants testimony: so when I say, if shows of repentance and faith be exhibited I will baptise, and I will baptise upon extraordinary revelation, that an infant is a believer: I do not require more assurance of an infant then of a grown person, when I say, if the infant profess the faith, I will baptise, if God witness for it that it is a believer I will baptise, in neither go I by judgement of charity, but certainty either of revelation or profession, which neither Master Geree nor Master Martial can make good of all the infants of believers. But saith Master Geree there's evidence in charity to judge that the children of believers have the grace of the Covenant. To this I answer, the evidence for judgement of charity is to be taken from a persons own deeds according to the rule, 1 Cor. 13. 7. charity believeth all things, capacity of grace is common to all persons on earth, and therefore is no ground to baptise one more than another. That some infants have been actually partakers of inward grace, as Mat. 19 14. Luke 1. 15. jerem. 1. 5. yields nothing to prove any judgement to be right that it is so in any other, but only that it may be so. Infants of believers are not under the Covenant of Grace or within the external administration of it, by virtue of Gen. 17. 7. Deut. 30. 6. they speak of more than external administration▪ and must be understood of the elect which the Apostle denies to have been ever by God assured to the natural seed, Rom. 9 8. 15. no judgements of charity that the infants of believers are under the Covenant of Grace can be deducted from these texts, the most is conjectural hope that it shall be so, which experience shows to miscarry often, therefore these things yield not a warrant for infant-baptisme. Doctor Homes argues from Matth. 19 14. that baptising did in nature antecede imposition of hands, which is false; nor doth Heb. 
§ 19 Of Master Hassey his pretended satisfactory answer to my exercitation.  6. 2. prove it. Nor is his argument good, Infants had the greater Christ's blessing, therefore they had or might have the less, to wit Baptism; which reason if good, it would follow they might have the Lords Supper, be ordained Ministers: for these are less than Chris●s blessing.  
Afore the printing of this Apology, I met with and read a book of one Mr William Hussey a man unknown to me saving by a former treatise of his which I have seen, and he entitles it satisfaction to Master Tombs his sceptical exercitation: and in his Epistle to the Reader he saith, and here I will turn sceptic with Master Tombs. If I should give him the title of fantastic in requital of the title of sceptic he pin's upon me, I could give better reason for it then he brings for his imposition of that new title on me: but it is enough for me to clear myself. Gel. l. 11. c. 5. noct. Attic. says, the tychonian Philosophers were called Skeptics; that is, seekers and considerers, because they determined nothing, but were always in considering and seeking; but Master Martial thinks me guilty rather of too much selfe-confidence. Yea in this point though I did as I conceived befitting me then, propound my thoughts in the disputation with my brethren in the ministry, and in my Exercitation to the Committee of the Assembly under the term of doubts; yet in my Examen I assert them as positions, and therefore that author doth unworthily entitle my Exercitation sceptical, or me a sceptic: which is in effect if he understood what he says, to accuse me as adhering to nothing as certain in matters of sense, reason, or faith. But concerning the book though he entitle it satisf●action▪ and the licenser says [finding it to be in his judgement solid and judicious] and I am pretty well acquainted with the humour of men, who are ready to cry up any thing as satisfactory, which they affect; yet I believe the Assembly will not conceive his book satisfactory, nor these passages following to be solid and judicious. As that in his Epistle to the Reader he calls Baptism the seal of the proffer of Grace. pag. 3. I answer, that was an especial privilege of the jews that they had their civil laws from God, but what lieth upon a nation as a duty that it may require of all, and cuts off them that refuse! and this is employed in the Commission, when Nations shall covenant to be Disciples, which may be done by a part for the whole, then are such ● are in commission from Christ commanded to baptise and teach the whole nation, such as are in authority may covenant in a national 〈◊〉 for the inferior sort, and justly require all external performances from them, such as baptism and submission to b●e taught 〈◊〉, pag. 4. And what a parent can do over his child in matter of 〈◊〉 duty, ● that may the parents of the country, the Magistrates require of the nations. God requireth it of them, they may put all nations to school to Christ, Now, what if some of them be too young to learn, yet if they be under the discipline of the Master they are Scholars? as may appear in many little children that are set to school to keep them safe, and from wantonness, before they be of capacity to learn, many have a Hornbooke given, more for a play-game then a book, yet are they Scholars, because under the discipline and correction of the Master; is it not therefore great reason, that a Christian should dedicate his child●● to Christ, to be partaker of the blessing and discipline of Christ? pag. 5. And certainly words could not have been invented that could have required the Ministers to baptise all the World, Infants and all, willing or unwilling; so that any would see they might be taught, and submit to the precepts and discipline of Christ, then to express it by the word nation and disciple. pag. 12. Abraham's seed must be divided into equivocal and univocal; equivocal seed Christ, for that he was not like Abraham, he was of Abraham, but ex parte according to the flesh. Rom. 1. 3. He was the promised seed, not the seed unto whom the promise did belong, as the seed of Abraham. pag. 43. That which we argue from receiving of families, and from the Apostles commission to baptise nations is, that nations may make Laws for their whole nations to be baptised; and if the major part of a nation do according to their duty receive baptism, and undertake for the whole nation to submit themselves to become Scholars of Christ, they may justly compel by any penalty to join with them in the external worship of God. This therefore is it which is drawn from the commission directed to the Disciples for the baptising of nations, that nations may act as nations, and families as families; that is, that the more organ●all parts must act for the residue▪ the magistrates for the nation, the master of the family for the residue, the magistrates for the nation, the master of the family for the family; otherwise it cannot be said to be the act of the nation, or of the family, though a post factum may be historically related to overspread a nation that is done without a national consent, to show the universality of a spreading evil: yet, where a duty is charged upon a nation, it cannot be orderly received without a nation ●ll consent. pag. 44. He that keepeth any servant that will not be baptised, is not a good Christian: it is true, all men of discretion ought to consent sent to every duty; baptism 〈…〉 precepts 〈◊〉, it is pactum impositum pag. 40. The parties to be baptised are all nations, withoutany restriction 〈…〉. If they that claim their interest in baptism can undertake for whole nations, the commissioner: must not refuse them: the nation believeth by the magistrate, by whose authority the whole nation is put to school to Christ, pag. 54. Men may require of him that is of years to consent to his baptism. 〈…〉 a sin, and punishing him for it as for adultery formation or any other public offence. pag. 59 If any will bring Turk's children, and Infidels to baptism, and 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of them in the doctrine of the Gospel, I know not but they may: and if 〈◊〉 would 〈◊〉 with their children to Christians, I think it were a very charitable thing so to do: For the promise was ●ever so tied to Abraham's loins, neither for aught I know, to any believers, but to education in the family of Abraham, or any other believing family. pag. 61. They that believe, and they that believe not hear the word, and 〈◊〉 is no 〈◊〉 of the work●● Preach it to 〈◊〉 Infidel, neither 〈◊〉 it any 〈◊〉 of baptism, to baptise an Infidel. pag. 64. And indeed, 〈◊〉 were a very strange thing for the Sacrament of baptism to be tendered to 〈…〉, and approved, declared and 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉; it is true, it may be tendered to men this profess them faith, because man cannot judge them faithful, notwithstanding any profession, and therefore baptise them; but if they could know and judge them faithful, they might give them the Lords Supper, in which all Christ is communicated, and baptism should not be 〈◊〉, baptism is the seal of the tender of Christ, 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 power of his blo●d, 〈◊〉 of our Communion, or partaking of Christ; that is sealed in the other Sacrament. pag. 64. It is true, adultus must have faith, such as it is, natural, human: before he can be baptised, he must be willing by some inclination or other: it were barbarous to baptise a grown man àgainst his will, which could not be gotten but by some kind of 〈◊〉, though it might be just with man to punish him with death that should refuse, as it is with God, to punish with eternal death such as despise baptism. Nor do I think the principal ground of his new conceit pag. s. will satisfy, which is, that Matt. 28. 19 is thus to be expounded, make all Nations Disciples by baptising them, and teaching: whereas he himself sundry times reads it better, make Disciples of all nations baptising them, and it is vainly alleged that [by] is employed in the participial expression, any more than verse 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be expounded he met them by saying, or Matth. 27. 55. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they followed by ministering unto him; and I said justly, Examen pag. 127. this conceit is so absurd, that I presume none that hath any wit will entertain it, though Master Hussey say page 6 I think if ever a man were out of his wit, it was here: but I shall be willing the Assembly judge whether of us two need sail to Anticyra to purge our brains. As for his answer to my book though I conceive it lettuce fit for some lips, yet in my apprehension it contains a farthel of mistakes, in Logic, Divinity; and sometimes in Grammar, but most of all of my meaning, and the scope of my words, and for●e of my reasons, which being diligently compared with his book, are a sufficient reply to it. And therefore though he conclude with a challenge to me, yet he must pardon me if I make more account of my time then to cast it away in refusing such wild notions as he hath vented, except I shall have so much spare time as to write a book to make sport with; wishing nevertheless that Master Hussey had some school of Divinity as he desires, that he might be either better fitted to write, or learn to be silent.  
I have been larger in this matter than I intended at this time, 
§ 20. The Epilogue of this Apology concerning the reason of the enlargement of it, the Author's present estate and future intentions.  that I might show the vanity of Mr Leyes vaunt, and however God dispose of me, do my endeavour to clear the truth in this thing, and to prevent persecution of it through the provocation and exasperation of spirit towards Antipaedobaptists, which since these writings have been published, hath many ways discovered itself. If the Lord spare me life, liberty, and means, and it be found necessary; I may either more briefly or more largely rescue my treatises from their hands, who have ill handled them and perverted the truth. In the mean time this which is already said might serve a judicious Reader to answer the writing of my Antagonists though no more should follow. Mr Mar. book it appears from pag. 59 212. 227. was contrived by divers: I believe the ablest of the Assembly, I wish it were declared whether the Paedobaptists would stick to that work or any other. I hear there are more yet to be printed, if the aim be to oppress me with number, or to have this evasion; that when one is answered, yet some other is not answered; and so to uphold the error still (which is a way of Jesuits) ay doubt not but God will defend his truth. What hitherto is objected against my two Treatises and Appendix, I doubt not but with God's assistance to answer. Afore I could finish this Apology, I have tasted the fruits of Mr Marshals, and Mr Gerees accusation in a message from the Benchers of both houses of the Temple; that though they acknowledge my life and labours among them unreprovable, yet by reason of the publishing of my treatises they cannot continue me here. It was foretold me, that some of the assembly would not give over till they had outed me hence. If any of them have dissuaded the people from hearing me, though they cannot show that I have preached any other thing than Gospel truth; if they use any arts to withdraw the people from me, I wish them to consider how they can acquit such actions from the sin of making schism, and stopping the course of the Gospel for their own ends, not permitting any to preach the Gospel without concurrence in opinion with them, when as Paul rejoiced that Christ was preached; though it added affliction to his bonds, Phil. 1. 18. what my desire was in the Prologue of my Examen, is still, that we may give one another the right hand of fellowship, and stand fast in one mind in the truth of the Gospel, and clear the truth of God to the people whose eyes are upon us. I may call God to witness that my aim in making and publishing my Treatises, was the benefit of the Assembly by making known to them reasons why the Doctrine of the Directory should be better examined, which would be their honour: if they disclaim me, reject me, repay evil for good, I hope God will help me to bear it, and to love them still, and join with them in promoting the work of Christ; notwithstanding I meet with discouragements where I assured myself greatest encouragement.  
To conclude; as the case now stands, I know not into what corner of the 〈…〉 world God may carry me, nor how I may be accommodated to publish any thing more either in this of Infant-baptisme, or any other point of sacred knowledge; it is not a little comfort to me that I have framed this Apology, it shall be my witness in time to come that I have sought unity with truth; and as I have made it my business to preserve purity of doctrine, so I shall still though I have neither found recompense nor help considerable from men, but rather am likely to meet with a consumption of estate, & a shortening of my days. However things succeed, I shall request that they that can pray, would beg for me that I may do nothing against the truth, but for the truth; and for the Churches of Christ, that the Pastors and teachers in them may take heed of bending their wits to maintain what the prime reformers, and Churches ordered by them have avouched, rather than impartially and throughly to examine their doctrine, which as it is a great sin of making other masters than Christ, so it is a cause of most mischievous rents and contentions.  
FINIS.   

A Postscript, wherein is a reply to Mr. Blakes answer to my letter.  
Reader.  
BE pleased to take notice, 
§, 1. The occasion of this postscript.  that whereas I say p. 21. of this Apology. Molin in his Epistle to Bishop Andr●w●● (if my memory deceive me not) confessed is to have been 〈◊〉 ipsis Apostorum temporib●●, meeting since the printing of that passage, with the book I find that in that Epistle he only confessed it to have been a secule Apostolis proximo, but Bishop Andrew's saith, he had put out that which elsewhere he said ab Apostolorum sicul●. Whence my mistake of memory conceiving he had said it there, which he said elsewhere, 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 days before, yet I had not the whole book till Aug. 3. 1646, at which time the tenth s●eet of this Apology was printing off; and therefore I cannot give thee so large 〈◊〉 on it, as I desired to do; yet I have thought it 〈◊〉 say thus much in this straight of time, as not knowing how I may be here●● fitted to write any more.  
The Book is ●hered with a preface of Mr. Calmys and Mr. 〈◊〉, 
§ 2. Of Mr. Calamys and M. Vines their wrong judgement of the dispute, Mr. Blakes book, and my discussing the point.  in which they say. The right of Infants to baptism is ear●● 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 showed above.  
They say The 〈◊〉 of the Church in all ages in baptising them is 〈◊〉 by such unde●● 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 witness of ancients for such a practice is August●n concerning whom how little 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 truly 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, little or no disagreement between me and Master Martial, and Master Geree, and I think the like of others. If by the Basi● 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 numbered amongst not ●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 initial seal, as it is usually called it is not true: which only serves for the purpose. Now the wings by which that observation is fortified out of the new Testament, (wherein the strength lies) 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 fly of themselves, the first expressly being spoken of them only that believe, v. 7. the second to wit, being born after the flesh, cannot be understood as importing a privilege or benefit, it being spoken of persons to the worse 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 natural 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 afar off; it is to me 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 afar 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 intent 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 do because the raising of a dust is Master Marshals phrase) they are answered in this Apology. My entering into the lists with Mr Martial was not out of choice as valuing myself, as they mistake; but out of necessity lead thereto by providence of God. How well I have acquitted myself may appear by the bringing of Master Martial 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 formal reason why the Jews were circumcised, were their interest in the Covenant? whether there be the same Church-state now that was then? whether any command about the Jews Sacraments now bind us? But I pass to Mr Blakes answer.  
Mr Blake chargeth me with defect and neglect of charity. For the former I do not take my writing to discover it, what I shall deprehend I have failed in, I shall I hope confess to God, and to Master Blake when we meet. My not speaking to Master Blake was, because I presumed Master Martial 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 all my argument against Infant-baptism that I could well urge in dispute, that it is not appointed by God, and so presently upon one or two syllogisms 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 think not needful to add 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 stuff Paedobaptists do feed the people with, doth the●● against reason, and charity infer, 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 only of that Author, and such as delivered like doctrine, with particular exception of Master Martial, and many others there named. Passion I confess was in me sometimes in writing my examen, a mixed passion of grief, and indignation, that Preachers of the Gospel should be so hard, as than I found, and saw likely would be more; to their dissenting brethren upon such weak reasons. But such contu●●licus consurer and practices as Master Blakes sinister conceits p●t upon me I deny.  
To the second section I answer, 
§. 4. They that deny Infant-baptisme need not teach that Infants perish.  that I still conceive, they that deny Infant-baptisme, and grant original sin, are 〈◊〉 necessitated to say that Infants perish in their births●●. It is true as Master Blake says, they that will hold a certainty of the salvation of such Infants, they must maintain a promise or covenant to them; but such a covenant I deny to be made as assures salvation to the Infants of believers: and I have proved at large, Examen part. 3. §. 4. there is not such a Covenant. If that Gen. 17. 7. be produceed I have proved that it was particularly spoken of Abraham's seed, expounded Rom. 9 8. not to be meant of his natural feed, but spiritual, and therefore till it be proved that all Infants of believers dying in Infancy, are Abraham's spiritual feed; that promise will not infer the certainty of their salvation. Therefore, this is my judgement: that God will have us to suspend our judgement of this matter, & to rest on the Apostles determination. Rom. 9 18. But they that hold that there is no certainty of their salvation, are not necessitated to hold a certainty of their perdition, for there is a medium between both, a hope though not certain, yet probable, and comfortable, that the children of believers dying in their Infancy are saved; taken from some general indefinite promises: the favour of God to the parents, and the experience that in all ages hath been had of his merciful dealing with the children of his servants; all which cannot be said of the Infants of Infidels, though on the other side we must not so exclude the Infants of Infidels, as to affirm that none of them are saved. For though the Gentiles were without hope Ephes. 2. 12. in respect of the body of them, yet now and then God called some, as Rab●● out of the visible Ch●●ch, and therefore we may not determine universally that out of the visible Church there is no sal●●tion at all: but leave this to God's freewill. It doth not 〈◊〉 follow, tha● beathens have equal hopes of sal●●●ion with Infants of 〈…〉. For though they have not hopes from their innocency in themselves, or certain interest in Christ; yet they have more probable hopes of interest in Christ upon the g●●●ds 〈…〉. And thus is that section answered.  
The fourth chapter is about my censure of his argument from Gal. 
§ 5. Of my censure of Master Blakes producing Gal, 4. 29 for the birth privilege.  41▪ 29. as containing very gross passages. He ace●seth me as one that intended not any 〈…〉, because I bring but one branch of the 〈◊〉 in his argument, and yet call it his medium, But ●ith I intended not a full answer to him but to Master Marshal it was enough that I only recited that in which was indeed the strength of his argument, which was that birth after the flesh, ascribed to some now, Gal. 4. 29. imports a privilege, 〈…〉 Church int●●st to 〈…〉 the bos●● of the Church of Christians. In saying this was very gross, I said no more than that which was right: the Apostle opposing persons borne after the flesh, to them that are borne after the spirit, to be cast out, and not to inherit. But says Master Bl●ke, you shut out the literal sense of birth after the flesh, both from the history, and parallel, and bring a● allagericall 〈◊〉 in both, when the 〈◊〉 in the text is evident. I answer, I shut not out the literal sense from the history, but from the parallel; and that i● so far from being contrary to the text, that it is expressly said, these things are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But he further objects: you make birth after the flesh, and birth of the spirit, two contradistinct species of births, that both cannot be incident 〈…〉 it is the distribution of a subject 〈…〉 I answer, I make them not only contradistinct, but also contra●●; and I deny that it is a distribution 〈…〉 For them the same person should be both borne after the flesh and after the spirit. which I would tell Master Blake to be very absurd, but that I would give him no more occasion to say I do insult, whoop, and jeer, which he unjustly chargeth on me. And for that he saith, that Isaac was borne after the flesh, (though it be true, he was so in the two senses Master Blake mentions which are nothing to this place of the Apostle) it is untrue in the Apostles sense, for than he should be the child of the bondmayd; not by promise, a persecutor to be cast out not to inherit, and a type of legal justiciaries belonging to the covenant in mount Sinai, for all these things are true of him that is borne after the flesh, Gal. 4, 22, etc. But the Apostle doth not say, that they are cast out, but mentions a command of casting them out. As if Gods dictum were not factum: if they were not cast out, why doth the Apostle allege that text? But they are in the Church, otherwise they could not be cast out. I answer, I deny not but legal institiaries may be in the visible Church, as Ishmael in Abraham's house; though the Apostle make the parallel only in the casting out that they might not inherit, but if Master Blake would gather any thing hence for his purpose, he must prove that the Apostle makes some to be in the visible Church, by virtue of being borne after the flesh as their prerogative, which is as wide from the Apostles meaning, as East & West. But saith Master Blake where I pray you, do I make suoh Abraham's seed? it is no gross error of mine, but a gross device or calumny of yours. I answer, his words [if there yet remain in the bosom of the Church children borne after the flesh, so that distinction of births (as applied to Abraham's seed) still hath place amongst believing Christians] 
§. 6. Or the necessity of my taking pains in my Examen to find out the meaning of Mr. Marshals second conclusion by reason of the ambiguity of his expressions.  show that he applied birth of the flesh to Abraham's seed, else why are those words put in [at applied to Abraham's seed] but to show a double seed of Abraham, one borne after the flesh, which is all one with the Apostle as legal institiaries, another borne after the spirit, which is all one as bebeleevers? so that this is Master Blakes tergiversation, not my calumny.  
In The fifth chapter Mr Blake complains, that I take more pains than needs to find out Master Marshals meaning in his second conclusion, and after. And indeed I never saw a learned man so run himself into a maze needlessly, as you in this discourse do; being at a stand; you say, whether Master Martial means a covenant of grace, or outward ordinances, as though these two were opposite, and privilege of ordinances were not of grace, or that saving grace could be had, in God's ordinary way, without this privilege. To acquit myself of this imputation, I say, that it was very necessary to take that pains I did, to bring myself out of that maze which I had not run myself into; but the confusedness and ambiguity of Master Marshals expressions lead me into. Master Martial had made this the anteceedent in his first argument, The Infants of believing 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 term [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 show the many senses of his words, and to take pains 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 believers are faederati, or in the covenant of grace, this may be understood three ways. 1 They are in the covenant of grace by their own act of covenanting, because they promise the performance of the condition on their part, and this sense is manifestly false; and yet when Master Martial says they are to be accounted covenanters, he speaks 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 seal of the covenant; but then the second conclusion should be, they are baptised or to be baptised, now this being the same with the antecedent of Master Marshals first argument, his argument must be thus; Infants of believers are baptised, or to be baptised, ergo they are to be baptised, which is merely to trifle: and yet as I showed above, this is the effect of Master Marshals arguing, who will have his second conclusion, and antecedent understood of the outward covenant, as he calls it. 3 They are in the covenant of grace by God's act of promise, and this is that which Master Marshal should have said, if he would have spoken plainly without equivocation, God by his promise to the Infants of believers 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 affirm this, that God hath promised grace to Infants of believers, this grace is either saving grace, or outward ordinances. But saith Master Blake these are not opposite, but subordinate. 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 Martial affirm a promise of saving grace to believers Infants, or of outward ordinances. I said neither was true, yet the former was more agreeable to his meaning. To prove this I alleged, that though sometimes Master Martial, Master Blake and others spoke more warily, (in which I dealt candidly with Master Blake, reciting his express words full enough for the purpose) yet I said most of Mr. Marshals and others expressions, and one expression of Master Blake spoke 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 texts, Acts 2. 39 Gen. 17. 7. Matt. 19 14. which are to be understood of saving grace, and that otherwise the seal would be put to a blank, 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 says Master Blake to this, he denies not that these texts speak of a promise of saving grace, but asks me hows they are meant, whether absolutely or immediately? and than fastens upon me an assertion that is none of mine, and I believe wrongs Master Blackwood too. But herein Master Blake goes from the business, and instead of a respondent becomes a poser●● proved these texts alleged by them for Infants being in the covenant of grace speak of a promise of saving grace, and therefore if Master Martial mean not that the covenant of saving grace is made to a believers 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 plainly meant of saving graces, therefore I had affirmed the Jews and all their seed had an absolute, promise of a saving grace: let Master Blake tell us whether in alleging Gen. 17. 7. Acts 2. 39 for infants of believers 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 pl●●●ly meant of the kingdom of glory; Luk. 18, 16. 17 Mark. 10. 14, 15. And for the speech of sealing to a blank, etc. Whether it be true or false it was not material to my purpose; but whether it show that he users of it assert a promise of saving grace to believers. Mr Blake upon a mistake, that I had set down sundry things as my assertions chargeth 〈◊〉 as using Bellarmine's argument, and s●ts down his own answer out of Amesius, besides the business who only alleged other men's speeches to show their meaning. As for his own speech he endeavours to make it good, which for present was not excepted against, but only alleged to to show that even Mr Blake asserts a promise of saving grace to 〈◊〉 of believers, 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 Christ's words John 7. 39 in the Apostle 〈◊〉; Ephes. 1. 13. To which I say that it is true of the special 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 he mean 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 ●●d Arl●, etc. part. 3. Sect. 6. and it is clear, for if God have promised regenerating grace upon condition, that condition must be performed either by himself or by the person to whom it is ●●●ised; if the condition he to be performed by himself. it is all one with an absolute promise; if by the person to whom it is promised, than something may be done by a man that may procure God's grace, and so gratia Dei datur secundum merita nostra, which is Palagi●●sme. Now they that say the Covenant of grace in respect of saving graces is made to a believers seed; must either exclude the 〈◊〉 promise in the Covenant of grace, Heb. 8. 10 of 〈◊〉 God 〈◊〉 their hearts, without which he is not their God; or else hold that promise absolute, & so all infants of beleivers 〈◊〉 be 〈…〉 saved. Yet that this is the common doctrine, 〈◊〉 believers children have a promise of saving graces, is manifest in that from hence they assert the certainty of their salvation if they die in infancy, not considering that if God have made such a promise to a believers seed, it will as well assure the salvation of a believers seed in old age as infancy; sith in old age they are their seed, and the promise in respect of regenerating grace, which brings with it all the rest, must needs be absolute. And therefore the promises Deut. 30. 6. Isai. 54. 13. and such like must be restrained to the elect as our Saviour doth; John 6. 45. & Gen. 17. 47. is expounded by Paul, Rome 9 8. I had said Mr Marshals words must be understood as the words of the Directory, the promise is made to believers and their seed; which is to be meant of the promise of saving grace. Mr Blake conceives the meaning to be of the promises mentioned, that they are the grace promised, but I perceive he did not or would not understand my words: I did not speak of the word [promises] in the direction for petition, that Mr Marshal's conclusion must interpreted by it; but of the word [promise] in that assertion in the doctrinal part [the promise is made to believers and their seed] which cannot be interpreted of the thing promised; but God's act of promise, which is said to be made, to wit by him: afore the promised is obtained. So that this new devise will not serve the words of the Directory.  
I had said. And that in that Covenant (Gen. 17. 7.) should be a promise to us believing Gentiles (which words Mr Blake leaves out in the repetition) that to our seed should be conferred visible Church-priviledges, etc. is but a dream, etc. to this saith M. Bl. This objection riseth up against God himself, rather than any one of your adversaries. But how this should rise up against God, Mr Blake neither doth nor can show: Mr Blake seems to run to his old shift, that God promiseth Church-priviledges upon condition. If so, Cede conditionem. Let Mr Blake set down that condition, and I doubt not but either to force him to confess that the reason of the preaching the Gospel to some & their being visible members, is something in man which will be Pelagianism, or else God's promise is absolute; and so God not keeping it shall be guilty of Faith-breaking. Master Martial, pag. 127. of his Defence accuseth me that I sometimes say that Gen. 17. 7. was a promise peculiar to Abraham, at other times it was at the utmost to be extended no further then to Abraham Isaac and Jacob, to have their posterity (as born of them) to belong to the visible Church. But Master Martial wrongs me, I have neither of these Propositions in either of my Treatises; what I conceive of it I have set down plainly, Exercit. pag. 2. 3. But Master Martial would have the promise, I will be the God of thy seed as promising visible Church-membership to belong to the natural seed of every believer. 1. because the Covenant was made to him for his Faith's sake. Ans. if that were the motive, yet it follows not the promise belongs to every believer as Abraham; no more than it follows, the promise, Matth. 16. 18, 19 was made to Peter by reason of his confession, verse 16. therefore it was made to every one that confesseth as Peter did, 2. How else should Proselytes children have Church-membership. Answ. Not by virtue of that promise, but by virtue of God's command. Exod. 12. 48 To his third reason I have often answered and proved, that Deut. 30. 6. Isai 44. 2, 3. Isai 59 21. must be meant of the elect, else how did God keep that promise when he did not circumcise the heart of david's and Josiahs' children. Master Martial pag. 129. puts this upon me; that I say God made this promise to Abraham Isaac and Jacob, to be the God of them, and their seed. But I do not remember that I say so any where, nor that the Scriptures says so though I meet with promises somewhat like it, Gen. 26. 24 Gen. 28. 4. 14. But these promises so far as they pertain to their natural seed, were peculiar to them; and pertain not to every believer, and his natural seed. For none of the Gentiles are Abraham's seed, but by Faith. From all which I conclude, there is not a promise either of saving grace or Church-priviledge made to the seed of believers, and so they are not certainly in the Covenant of grace; in respect of God's act of promising.  
Master Blake says, What will you say of those that remembered that God was their rock and the high God their redeemer; yet were not steadfast in his Covenant: Psalm. 78. 35. 37. These were a people within Covenant. I say this to it, that by his covenant is not meant God's Covenant or promise to them, but their Covenant to God; or rather Gods commands called metonymically his Covenant.  
Master Blake saith, And where I pray you do you find those words that christianity is hereditary? These are no words of mine but a supplement of yours. I answer, these words are Master Blakes Birth-previledge, pag. 6. The privileges which in 〈◊〉 or nation are hereditary are conveyed from 〈◊〉 to posterity, the the child of a noble man is noble, so the child of a christian is a christian, and this is all one as to say christianity is 〈◊〉.  
I pass by the vindicating of two speeches of mine in this chapter, because I must hasten.  
To the sixth chapter I have spoken so much as is needful before.  
In the seventh Master Blake accuseth me for abusing Master Thomas Goodwin, 
§. 7. Of the Corinthians doubt. 1 Cor. 7 12, 13 14.  but there is no abuse all; for my words only make use of Master goodwin's expression, which Master Blake denies not to have been his, but that he altered it, which may be unwitting to me. But for the thing I still say that the Cerinthians doubt was not about their children. For that which is the doubt is to be the conclusion of his argument that resolves it, but that which the Apostle speaks of the Corinthians children, it is plain by the argumentative particles [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 else beware] is a medium of a syllogism, as Mr Blake page 37. denies not; now 〈◊〉 prob●● est per notiora therefore it was not the thing ●● doubt. Besides ver. 15, 16. following pertain to the resolution of the doubt vers● 12, 13.  
which shows that they are all a continued resolution of the same doubt, without any such immethodical interposition of the resolution of another doubt; as Mr Blake imagines.  
As for the occasion of the scruple, sith neither of our opinions is any other than a conjecture, I let it pass. One passage of Mr Blakes in these words. And I pray you speak what how you do believe, that the Corinthiane took 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 pass for a reason. I know not how he collects from my words; I say that the Corinthians took it for certain that their own 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, do not lawfully couple together are unclean, that is illegitimate; and that the Apostle saith, the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife, that is, is lawfully used by his wife because he 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 says, 
1 Cor 7. 14. is not meant of instrumental sanctification and federal holiness.  that I heard before Mr goodwin's Lectures of instrumental sanctification. If it were so, yet I profess 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 instrumental sanctification, saith; And is not this argument of yours of as great force against your interpretation of a matrimonial, 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 accidental inabilities cannot be sanctified for generation, cannot beget children either by Covenant or legitimate. Mr Blake adds. The sanctifying by the believing party here mentioned, respects the issue which you confess in grounding a legitimation of issue upon it. I grant where there is issue, the holiness of it depends on the sanctification; but where there is sanctification, it is not always supposed there is issue, or that there may be issue: to the begetting of which, they are instrumentally sanctified. Mr Blake. This sanctifying (whether instrumental or matremoniall) hath its influence upon the seed; such a brand lying upon all the issue, where there is issue (be it bastardy or gentilism) were enough to conclude against such marriages, one principal end of marriage being posterity. He supposeth it seems, that uncleanness 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 gentilism in the issue concludes nothing against the marriage: Ergo, the uncleanness here is bastardy, not gentilism. And thus he hath unawares given the medium of an argument against himself. To my second argument for matrimonial sanctification, he saith. I know you cannot ignorantly, and therefore I fear you wilfully mistake, the meaning is, you may live together: for all the seed you beg at are ●oly, infallibly, and necessarily holy, as the seed of infidels (neither parent believing) are necessarily & infallibly unclean; so that here is a future certainty, and not a contingency; & it is not possible to imagine a moreful and 〈◊〉 answer 〈◊〉 which I say I am sure Mr Blake is mistaken, whether ignorantly or wilfully, I determine not; for he speaks of certainty of the holiness of the children in the latter part of the verse, whereas the question is whether instrumental 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 lawful 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 himself. 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 believing yoke-fellow, the unbeliever is twice said to be sanctified, but not the believer; the believer 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 show I do so; nor do I reason flat against the Apostle; the Apostle no where saith the sinctifying is the result of the faith of the believing yoke-fellow, if it were so, an unbelieving fornicator might be said to be sanctified by his believing whore, as well as a husband by his believing wife. The unbeliever is said twice to be sanctified, because the doubt arose from his unbelief; but the saith of the believer is not at all expressed, to show that the faith did not sanctify, but the relation. But if it were meant of instrumental sanctification, it would come from God's 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 instrumental sanctification and of federal holiness, 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 finite of their birth, of which the question is in this place, but of the Gospel's work in their souls, To which I say the question is not here what is the fruit of birth, not how the Proposition can be true understood of federal holiness, and instrumental sanctification. And I say it is most certainly false, for many a child of both unbelieving 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, no● the Apostle. The Apostles reason supposeth it cannot be at any time. And yet it may be certain that the child of two unbelievers may be federally holy at birth whether it be understood of election, inherent holiness, or outward holiness, if God please to work and declare it. But the issue of them that are not lawfully conjoined as husband and wife, cannot be made legitimate by God because it is contrary to the definition of legitimation, which is a state consequent upon birth by the lawful copulation of lawful husband and wife.  
To my Analysis of the Apostles argument, Mr Blake saith the last words, else were, etc. may be a m●d●●, and a resolution of another doubt 〈◊〉: but that cannot be, 〈◊〉 it is an argument and that is 〈◊〉 drawn from the thing in doubt, 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉; and that 〈…〉 which they would not yield, 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 sequel p●supposeth; which is, All the children of those parents whereof the one is not sanctified to the other, are 〈…〉. To this faith Mr Blake, I appeal to yourself, whether the truth of that sequel, by you rightly laid down, do depend upon tha● Proposition which you draw from them● I answer, it doth. Mr Blake. Is the Apostle: 〈◊〉 Proposition of parents in general, 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 believing, and another unbelieving in particular? I answer, it is of an unbelieving 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 universal or 〈◊〉. All noble men are honourable, and not put in, all English 〈◊〉 noble; for then the antecedent and conclusion would be al●ong: whereas the Proposition proving must be larger than the Proposition proved; else we might conclude, ex meris 〈◊〉. To 〈◊〉 if the unbelieving ●●●band were not sanctified by the wife your children were unclean, is all one with this. All the children of the unbelieving husband not sanctified to the wife, are unclean. Mr Blake saith, The truth of the Apostles sequel depends on this Proposition; All the children of an nobeleever are unclean, unless for generation, he or she be sanctified by a believer. I deny it, for the terms for generation by a believer 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 unbelievers in general, and so by his own practife justifies me against his own exception. 2. The Proposition Mr Blake lays down as upon which the major in the Apostle syllogism depends. All the children of an unbeliever are unclean, unless for generation be or she be sanct fied by a believer, is false; and so is that which he saith after. All those that are borne of unbelieving 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; unbelieving parents never beget children by birth-priviledge holy. For children born of infidels brought into Abraham's family had right to circumcision, and so were by birth-priviledge holy in Mr Blakes sense. Mr Blake tells me, the Apostles Proposition according to my interpretation is this. All the children of an unbeliever are bastards, except in generation he or she be sanctified by a believer. But this I deny: I have set down the Proposition according to my interpretation plainly enough already.  
My alleging Chamiers words against his opinion was no jeer, but a right way of using an author's 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 al●ur non sanctificatur in all 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 rightly setting down Chamiers conceit: now those Propositions of ●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 matrimonial, which I conceive was Beza's and that of instrumental sanctification. The using of the term rid●ca●lam, was no more a jeer of Chamier then his using of it a jeer of Augustin. But my An agonists are so touchy, that expressions that are not so much as motes in other men's eyes are beams in mine.  
To the exceptions of Master Blake. pag. 40. 
§. 9 Of M Blak●s misallegation of Gal. 2. 15. which was the text he chose for his birth-priviledge.  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 express by it in this point, though Master Blake thinks 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 holiness he maintains is from the Coumam of free grace to all in the faith, and their seed. My explication of 〈◊〉 meaning of the Apostles words Master Blake says is almost the same with his in terminis. Then I have not wronged the Apostle, and it follows the Apostle calls himself a jew by nature, as tied to keep the law of Moses. Now I called it a dream to make Gal, 2. 15. 1 Cor. 9 14. every way p●● 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 speaks of himself and other. Jew's as in reputation more holy than the Gentiles, because of their interest in circumcision and observance of Moses law, but this was proper to the Jews 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 clear, Rom. 3. 1, 2, 3. Rom. 9 4. But I deny that, a holiness of birth flowing from a parent believing, and in Covenant is asserted, 1 Cor. 7. 14. The term sin●●● of the Gentiles is not all one with unclean, 1 Cor. 7. 14. B●●●ne chief thing he brings that text for, is to prove that our children have a Covenant holiness because they are to be comprehended under the first member of the distinction Jew's by natu●●●. I wondered at this his collection, but it seems Master Blake takes the term Jew's 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 term Jewe allusively taken is a term common to all godly people, or believers, 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 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 own exposition overthrows his own inference. But than saith Master Blake, our children must be under [sinners of the Gentiles] and so they are aliens dogs without hope, etc. 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, etc. 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 believer 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 vain 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 plain and true; Master Blake should, if he would have dealt fairly; have showed 〈◊〉 of which words, and how that follows which he obtand 〈◊〉 me. When I said the jews birth privilege 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 privilege 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 privilege of cir●●●sion belonging to the Jews, 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 household promises made to Abraham, as for instance Ishmael: and therefore I say it did not arise from the Covenant of grace, or parent's 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 sign of the substance of the Covenant, and runs out in a large discourse to prove the contrary; which toucheth not me who have expressly granted it Exercit: pag. 3. Examen pag. 39, etc. And it is a mere calumny in Master Blake, to to tell me that I close with the Jesuits, and with high disdain 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 Gospel Covenant, but mixed. In the same place I explain my meaning, and prove it so fully, that I wonder that Master Martial, Master Blake and others are not ashamed to except against it. What the Jesuits say in this matter, or what the Protestants say against them, I have not time to examine. The thing, as I deliver it, is plain according to Scripture: that there were some peculiar promises made to Abraham, Goe 17. which are not made to every believer. To tell us that godliness 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 godliness hath the promise of the Land of Canaan or that Christ should be every godly man's seed, etc. Mr Blake saith, circumcision was a fruit of the faith of the parents, but this is false; for then all, & none but children of believers were to be circumcised, which is not true: whose children soever they were, if in Abraham's house, if bought with money of any stranger, they were to be circumcised, I had said, circumcision was a privilege in that time of the Church's 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 only a privilege during the time of the Church's 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 affirm not. I said, he that will prove the birth privilege of our children from the Jews, must make our case as theirs, and so bring us under the ceremonial law. This Master Blake puts into a formal proposition of his own, a man of straw and then denies it, the reason of my words is plain, circumcision of Infants was from the pedagogy,, or peculiar Church-state of the Jews, as may be proved from Gal. 3. 25. Gal. 4. 1, 2, 3. and obliged to the ceremonial law, Gal. 5. 3. therefore, they that from hence would draw the birth privilege of our children, must make our case the same with the Jews, and so bring us under the ceremonial law. The rest of that section is vain, and not worth a line in answer. I said truly, that the interpetation of 1 Cor. 7, 14. of legitimation is no more to be called a singular opinion than Master Blakes, and that I have proved by alleging eleven Authors for it, and can do more.  
To the 8th chapter, 
§ 8. That 1 P● 2. 9 is meant of the Church invisible.  what he says 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 book 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 dear Father in law. And that friend of mine of the Assembly, that delivered my letter to Mr Martial, tells 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 proofs: 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 pass 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 brought to writing, the question is whether I Pet. 2. 9 prove a birth privilege of Christians, equal to the nation of the fewes. I deny it, and say the words there are meant of the Church as it is invisible. And to prove this.  
1 I argue from the terms, chosen generatior, royal priesthood, holy nation, peculiar people, or a purchased people, that is by Christ's death, Tit. 2. 14. which cannot be affirmed of any other then elect and true believers, ergo.  
2 From that which is said of them that were called by God, by his power or virtue into his marvelous light, and v. 10. that now had obtained mercy which they had not before, which cannot be affirmed of any but elect persons, and true believers ergo.  
3 It is said, v. 7. that these persons did believe, contradistinguished to them that were disobedient and stumbled at the word, to which they were appointed, but such are only the elect, ergo.  
4 v. 5. They are said to be built as living stones on Christ, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual Sacrifice acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, which can agree to none but elect persons, and true believers, ergo.  
But the term nation comprehends Fathers and Children. Answ. The word nation, taken in these passages must be understood restrainedly of a spiritual people, as is plain by considering that the Apostle Gal. 3. 8 says this is the Gospel, in thee shall all nations be blessed; that is, believers of all nations: else the Apostles collection v. 9 were not right. And so the word Kindred is used Acts 3. 25. compared with Ephes. 3 15. the word household, Ephes. 2. 19 But they may be said to believe with a dogmatic faith. Answ. Those that do so never come to Christ as living stones; nor are built a spiritual house, which is proper to them that are made an habitation of God through the spirit, Ephes. 2. 22. But the calling of a people is spoken of the ten tribes revolted Hos. 1. 10. Hos. 2. 23. Deut. 32. 21. Answ. However it be in the places to which the allusion is, it is certain that here is meant such a calling, as is from darkness to his marvelous light by his virtues or powers; which therefore deserve to be showed forth, and which they do show forth that are thus called. And this is confirmed from Rom. 9 24. 25. 26. which is manifestly said of them who were called v. 23. vessels of mercy; nor is this a denomination a part prast antigri, for it is expressly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the same whom he called vessels of mercy. And I still say that I wonder Master Blake would persist in maintaining so gross an abuse of this Scripture; in which I hardly believe any approved writer joins with him.  
Master Blake had said no particular precedent for women's receiving the Lords Supper, 
§. 11. Of precedents for women's receiving the Lords Supper.  more than for this of Infants. baptism. I alleged 1 Cor. 11. 28. where I said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehends both sexes, To this Master Blake says ch. 9 if arguments from the Grammar use be of force, than circumcision of female may be proved from John 7. 22. I reply, the subject matter of the command as well as the Grammar use of the word prove females to be included. Master Coleman an Assembly man, and an able linguist in his malè dicis, pag. 32. hath these words. But that I confess is something harsh, that he should ask me where there is the institution for women to receive the Sacrament: when as 1 Cor. 11. 28. is as clear for women as men. Mr Martin Blake in his answer to Master Benjamin Cox ch. 7. sect. 4. pag. 82. produceth many places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much quisque any one, Matth. 16. 26. Joh. 3. 27. & 7. 46. Gal. 6. 1. etc. I alleged for an express example of women receiving the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. 10. 17. & 1. Cor. 12. 13. and this I did in the Pulpit at Gabriel Fench-Church, as Mr Blake tells me; and I had fit occasion sith 1 Cor. 10. 17. was my text then, and that text is express without consequence for women's receiving the Lords Supper, if [we] comprehend women as well as men, which Master Blake will not deny. And yet Mr Marshals allegation to prove women virtually to be circumcised in the males serves not for his purpose, I alleged Acts 10. 7. Master Blake doubts whether it be meant of the Lords Supper, and if it b meant so he knoweth not how to avoid the Pepish argument for Communion in one kind; and that this yields a proof only by conseqvence. I answer, if women be comprehended under the term Disciples, and breaking bread be meant of the Lords Supper, as to me it seems certain; because it was the end of their custo●● meeting on the first day of the week, and therefore could not be any other breaking bread; then the example is express without consequence, for women's receiving the Lords Supper. It Mr Blake know not how to answer the Papists, I wish him to read Chamier panstrat. Cathol. tom. 4. de Ench. lib. 9 c. 2. §. 34. etc. Master Blake would bring Acts 2. 47. for example far more formal and express than mine of Infant-baptisme, and he tells me of a syllogism. The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved, Infants are saved, therefore are to he baptised. A strange syllogism, where in the major permi●● is not in the major proposition at all, consisting of four terms; and so far as I can gather in secunda figura ex omnibus affirmantibus: for the medium [saved] is the predicate in both premises, or else the major is particular, and so it consists ex meris particularibus.  
I go on to the 10th chapter. I said, 
§. 12. To say that God hath promised to be the God of every believer and his uncurall seed is a new Gospel.  that it is a new Gospel to affirm that this is one of the promises of the Covenant of grace, that God will be the God of believers and their seed. To this Mr Blake saith. A very high charge from that mouth which very lately, preached it as a Gospel's truth; and now being suddenly otherwise persuaded, can bring no other arguments than those that are harrowed from Antichristian ●●●aries, who are confessed sub verters of the Gospel. I answer, Master Blake cannot prove that I ever preached that Doctrine, I scarce think I did ever preach it: Forasmuch as I conceived, that Doctrine directly contradictory to the Apostle, Rom. ● 8. ever since in Oxford I examined Arminius his A●dysis of Rom. ●. Suddenly I was not persuaded as I show in my Apology before. I know not what Antichristian sectaries he means who are confessed subverters of the Gospel from whom I borrowed my arguments; I neither had them from Anabaptists, ●o called, nor Papists: Master Blake gives way to his passion in this charge. My arguments I have from Scripture, from the most learned Protestants, as he may see part. 3. 54. And though it be an old Gospel, that God hath promised to be the God of Abraham and his seed, yet I still aver it to be a new Gospel, to say that God hath promised to be the God of believers and their seed. The Cove●●●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 only the promise of 〈◊〉, but grant it contained the promise of 〈◊〉 by Christ, 〈◊〉 1. 17. yet I like not Cha●iors saying, to call the promise of Can●● an app●●●● to the Coven●●, sith the Holy Ghost me thinks speaks otherwise, Ps. 105. 8. 9 10. 11. That 〈◊〉 cap. 39 speak not of 〈◊〉 his faederal holiness hath been showed before; and 〈…〉 which Master Blake citys pag. 57 saying that 〈…〉 biunt & expectant baptismum, do me thinks prove that Infants were not ordinarily baptised in his time. Nor do I think Master Blake can prove the Doctrine of covenant-holiness, out of Justin martyr, Epiphanius, Augustin, Isidor Pelusiota.  
I had said, 
§. 13. Or Mr Ruthersurds & Mr Blakes opinion about holiness of a chosen nation, & mediate An cestors profession intitling to Infant-baptisine, & the Independents advantage in this point.  that I guess by some words of Master Martial, Mr Blake and Master Rutherfurd, that to maintain the baptising of all sorts of persons in the Kingdom, as foundlings Infants of Papists, whores excommunicate persons; which is the ordinary practice; 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 governor's and chief cities and representative bodies shall receive the faith, that nation shall in like manner have all their little ones capable of baptism, and counted visible members of the Church, as the posterity of the Jews were in the time of that Church administration. Mr Blake asks me, in which of these words I pray you, can you find one word of that business which you say is on the anvil. I answer, to let Master Blakes words alone for the present, me thinks Master rutherfurd's sound plainly as much; For if notwithstanding the Father and Mother were as wicked as the Jews, who slew the Lord of glory, who did obstinately deny Christ; the children were holy by the holiness of the chosen nation, which I conceive when the Ancestors are not included, must mean the body, or generality of the nation; then the assertion I set down as theirs must follow: but this I did deliver but as my guess, yet so as that I thought necessary to oppose it; and I say, it opposeth their own grounds, who derive the title to Infant-baptisme from the Covenant, to a believer and his seed; but these are not the seed of believers, but the seed of them that deny and impugn the faith; and from 1 Cor. 7. 14. of which Master Blake himself faith pag. 38. of his answer so my letter, The truth of the Apostles sequel depends on this proposition, All the children of the unbeliever are unclean, (that is out of the Covenant in his sense) unl●esse for generation he or she be sanctified by a believer. Which speech of Master Blake I conceive plainly overthrows Master Blakes position in the birth privilege, pag. 24. etc. and Master rutherfurd's in the words before named. For if all the children of an unbeliever are unclean, unesse for generation he or she be sanctified by a believer, 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 [believer] in 1 Cor. 7. 14. but from this that by their own expo●ition, they are unclean who are not borne of a believer, therefore they cannot be holy either by holiness of remote ancestors or the chosen nation, when the immediate parents' are as wicked as the Jews 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 guess 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 tell him, non-preaching Priests made by the Bishops. Mr Blake saith, yourself were well aware, that every weapon that you left up against this Protestant doctrine was forged on the Jesuitas anvil, 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 Axiom, 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 seldom make use of a Jesuit throughout my Treatise. Nor was I put upon that speech I used, because I borrowed help from Papists; but because Mr Martial spoke of his virtual consequence as undeniable, as if he had been Doctor irrefragabilis, and it is necessary when men go about to bind men to the consent of Divines in some Churches, that we freely claim our liberty, and not become the servants of men. Mr Blake saith I do not know one Protestant writer that hath declared himself 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 chief hold for Covenant holiness, 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 entered into Covenant to the extirpation of Popery; and I would learn of you by what character or mark 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 endless, impossible business. But there is a shorter way than that, and it is that is to be counted Popery which is commonly known by that name, as the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy infallibility, the doctrine of the Mass, Transubstantiation, Bread-worship, Crosse-worship, Invocation of Saints, etc. Or if you will have a more fixed way, you may take that to be Popery which either the 39 Articles of the Church of England condemn in opposition to Papists, or is renounced in the Scottish negative Covenant, or Confession in the year 1581. as I remember, or what the present Parliament of England in their late Propositions to the King, Propos. 7. would have Papists abjure. Mr Blake saith, may we not require one other instance of a Popish truth standing up against an Orthodox error, besides this incontroversie? That from Gen. 17. 7. 1 Cor. 7. 14. or any other Scripture Covenant-holines of believers infants cannot be proved is as well a Protestant truth, as a Popish; An Orthodox error is, opposition in ●ppos●●● Be it that we cannot assign any one thing for truth in which protestants generally oppose Papists; yet my speech is good, that that is no undeniable axiom, that what all the Protestant Divines defend against the Papists, must be truth undeniable. He that will not subscribe to this, must make the Protestant Divines doctrines against Papists, equal to the holy Scripture.  
In the 11th chapter Sect. 
§. 14. Of the word [nations] Mat. 28. 19 how to be taken.  1. Mr. Blake subscribes to my interpretation, and conclusion, but doubts the premises on which I build it to be scarce sound, the reason he gives is, because I thus expound make Disciples out of all nations, whereas the verb is transitive, and the noun in the accusative; and therefore it is boldness in me to change it, that in stood of nations I may understand as many or as few as I l●st of nations, whereas Mr Blake conceivet agreeable to prophecies, Psal. 2. 8. etc. that the whole of the nation is appointed to be discipled, and to be baptised, and so infants to be comprehended. I answer, my boldness was no other than Beza's, annot. on Mat. 28. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, idest discipulos mihi facite ex omnibus gentibus. The new 〈◊〉 on the Bible annot. on Matth. 28. 19 ●each] Gr. make Disciples of as John 4. 1. all nations] not Jew's alone, but Gentiles also; Acts 10. 34. 35. 47. nor do I any thing contrary to Grammar, as the 〈◊〉 in transitive, so it is used transitively by me, and it hath an accusative case after it, to wit the noun confessedly included in the verb that is made from it, and which I think none will deny to be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used John 4. 1. and then all nations must either be put by apposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or with the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I stand not upon it whether be taken but I conceive it more agreeable to the sense, and to the language to express it in the latter way, Be then the whole of the nation, and so infants will not be included. I answer, it is true, nor can they be included. For the making Disciples all nations is by teaching them, or by preaching the Gospel to them; as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is expressed, Marks 6. ●●. (which no man I think will have the face to deny to be the same with this) not only Master Martial himself that expresseth it in his Sermon pag. 35. that they should teach the heathen and the jews and make them Discicles, and then baptise them; but Mr Blake subscribes to this my intrepretation, by preaching the Gospel to all nations, make them Disciples. pag. 65. So that Mr Blake must needs exclude infants, except he can make them Disciples by teaching or preaching the Gospel to them. And for the prophecies he brings, I marvel he is not ashamed to produce, Psal. 72. 11. Psal. 86. 9 to prove that that the whole of the nation even infants must be included, 
§. 15. Of M. rutherfurd's and Mr Blakes and mine opinion concerning the rule to know who are baptizable.  Mat. 28. 19 as if it were foretold that the whole of the nations even infants should come and worship before God. Pareus in his Commentary on Matth. 28. 19 saith truly, tertium mandatum est de baptizandis omnibus gentibus, hoc est sacramento baptismi initi●●dis & consecrandis omnibus is qui Christo nomen darent.  
In the second fiction of chapter 11. Master Blake saith, I had thought no man had equal ● Bellarmin in taking pains to find a knot in a Bulrush. But I have showed above that Mr Rutherfurd hath made a knot, needful to be untied. I say, there can no rule be assigned whereby to know when a nation is a believing, chosen, or discipled nation, giving right to baptise infants of that nation when not. Mr Blake asks, do you mean rules so clear and plain that 〈◊〉 difficulty or case of conscience can occur; that needs enquiry in observation of it. I answer no, but such rules as are so clear that a case of conscience may be resolved by them. M. Blake acouseth me as not rightly setting down his argument, because I set not down the conclusion right: I put the conclusion thus; and therefore the infants to be baptised, whereas I should have added: and the nations being discipled, than infants as part of the nation are to be baptised: To show the causlesnesse of this exception, Mr Blake pag. 20 of his birth-priviledge had said thus, The infants of any nation make up a part of the nation, and the nation, where they came was to be discipled; but set not down his conclusion, and therefore I conceiving he meant to infer thence that infants were comprised in those words, baptising them, Matth. 28. 19 put down his conclusion thus, and therefore the infants: to be baptised. Mr Blake would have discipled put into the conclusion. But I conceive still discipled should not be put in the conclusion, and the premises were set down by himself, and therefore I did him no wrong. For his argument in form must be thus. They who are part of a discipled nation are to be baptised, infants are part of a discipled nation, therefore infants are to be baptised; any man may see that discipled should not be put in the conclusion, sith it is in the medium, quod non ingreditur conclusionem. Now let his major Proposition stand, and I will subsume upon Mr Blakes ground; Infidels of grown years are part of a discipled nation, for they are part of the nation; and if the nation be discipled, they are part of the discipled nation: therefore by Mr Blakes reason, Infidels of grown years are to be baptised. Mr Blake at last pag. 67. sets down his rule, in these words they are baptised by virtue of a privilege from their parent, not from the nation: which is plainly to renounce Mr rutherfurd's assertion. I confess if my first argument against the assertion I conceive Mr rutherfurd's may be answered, than the 2d. will be easily answered as M. Blake truly observes, p. 68 In answering my 3d. Mr Blake asks, How is it that wicked parents are now brought in this dispute? I answer because it was the term Mr Rutherfurd used in his assertion: not to show my allowance of the baptism of infants of parents not wicked, nor out of agreement with Mr Thomas Goodwin in this. Mr Blake page 69. endeavours to prove by my tenet there can be no rule set down to know that any man is baptizable, because he conceives I hold only true believers before God, members of the invisible Church, vessels of mercy, redeemed ones are the men discipled to be baptised; but who are such, cannot be known. Ergo, by my opinion none are to be baptised. M. Blake endeavours to gather that to be my opinion out of my words, which are brought in obtorto cello, against their intent, nothing to his purpose. I say that Mr Marshal's words in this sense are good, believers of every nation are the peculiar people meant; 1 Pet. 2. 9 and this is meant of the invisible Church; and that God hath not chosen simply the nation of the Gentiles, but a people out of them: Revel. 5. 7. but do I thereby expound Matth. 28. 19 as if [nations] there comprehended only such elect persons and true believers? or do I any where say, that such only are Disciples and to be baptised? Why then doth Mr Blake not only here, but after in another chapter to wit the 14 of his book pag. 95, 96. endeavour to fasten so absurdly that upon me, when he himself twice in this very book p. 24. 50. acknowledgeth, that he hath heard it from my own mouth, that baptism is rightly administr●●●● every professor of Christ. I say pag. 158 of my Examen, th●●●●nfants being sanctified are believers, and discipled of Christ; but I no where say, a sanctified person a believer, and a Disciple to be the same, as Mr Blake untruly chargeth me, pag. 96. for I do not make the terms reciprocal. Nor is that the advantage which I say the Independents have in this point, that the holiness that is the ground for the administrator to baptise, must be real either indeed or charitably believed; but this is the advantage I conceive the Independents have, that whereas some will have children baptised though the parents be never so wicked: if they be a part of a believing nation, or their mediate Ancestors professed the faith, the Independents have advantage against them by their own plea; from Gen. 17. 7. 1 Cor. 7. 14. as I showed above. In like manner Master Blake chapter 14. page 93. because I said that Infants may by extraordinary power be made Disciples, as God made john Baptist leap in his mother's womb, and Balaame ass speak, infers against all reason and candour, thus. You hold this is done by the omnipotent power of God, as usually as actual faith and profession of it is wrought in them; as asses are made to speak with man's voice, and children in the womb leap for joy at the sensible presence of one that speaks to their mother. These you join together, so that this is the comfort that you leave to parents when infants believe, make profession of their faith, asses speak, and infants in the womb know a voice and rejoice upon hearing it, than their children may be sanctified and dying in infancy saved. But what spirit is Mr Blake possessed with that he so unbrotherlike perverts my words to make me odious? I say that infants are sanctified by extraordinary power, not by ordinary means as hearing the word, do I therefore make this unusual? It may be done in every infant of a believer for aught I say to the contrary. But you make it an extraordinary accident when you use this passage, both p. 134, & 158. extraordinary accidents make not an ordinary rule. 'Tis true I use the passage in both places, but do not in either make the extraordinary accident to be an infant's sanctification, but in the one an infant's profession of faith, as the very words show, pag. 134. and in the other the extraordinary revelation, as is easy to be perceived by him that reads, pag. 158. of my examen. And thus have I answered with sect. 2. ch. 11. the fourteenth chapter ●●so of Mr Blakes book.  
Sect. 
§. 16. About two suppositions ascribed by m● to Mr Marshal and Mr Blake in my Examen page 130.  3. chap. 11. Mr. Blake ●hargeth me of imposing this supposition on him, that he should strongly conceit this, that Christ bid the Apostles baptise all nations after the manner that the jews did circumcise one nation, my meaning was that he conceived that as God appointed the Jews to circumcise parents professing faith and their infants; so he bid the Apostles baptise believing parents, and their infants: I did not intend to charge him with this conceit, as if he conceived that Christ bid the Apostles set up circumcision, as he seems pag. 73. to imagine, but that he conceived they were to baptise all nations. Fathers and Infants in like manner as the Jews circumcised Fathers and their Infants. And this I conceive still must be his meaning, not knowing what other Covenant, and Covenant-initiating Sacrament he could mean restrained to one nation, besides the Covenant, Gen. 17. and circumcision appointed to the Jews. But Mr. Blake tells me this was my calumny to say he would have the commission, Mat. 28. 19 to be expounded by the precept of circumcision, Gen. 17. he mea●t the precept or commission; Matth. 10. 6. I answer, Mr Blake would have the word nations Matth. 28. 19 to comprehend infants, and his reason is, because the word nation was so taken, when the Covenant, and Covenant-initiating Sacrament was restrained to that our nation. Now I appeal to any one whether in the commission. Matth. 10. 6. yea or in the whole 〈…〉 word nation be taken as restrained to that one nation's 〈…〉 commission was first limited, nor is there any mention 〈…〉 of Covenant or Covenant-initiating Sacrament in 〈◊〉 whole chapter, nor a word that shows that the word nation in the Apostles commission comprehended infants. And therefore I could not divine more fairly than I did what Mr Blakes meaning should be in that obscure expression. But saith Mr Blake you are not at the pains to make it appea●● how the words of Christ were to the Apostles in elligible, if the word nation in this enlarged Commission, must be taken in my other sense, and latitude than it was in their former limited commission when the Covenant and Covenant-initiating Sacrament was restrained to one nation. To this I answer, I took pains I think sufficient to show how it must be understood in my Examen, §. 13. and therefore I show how it was intelligible to the Apostles. Many interpreters have expounded the word, 〈◊〉 that I know of expounded it by Mat. 10. 6. The commission Mar. 16. 15. is the same with Mat. 28. 19 and so expo●●●● without running to Mat. 10. 6. The other supposition 〈…〉 ●●ceived Mr Marshals argument relied on is, that the nation 〈…〉 Jews were discipled when circumcised. This Mr Blake saith, I put on him, but he disclaims it. The truth is, I did not put it on Mr Blake, but Mr Martial; though the next words speak of Mr Blake: but not imputing to him the second, but the first supposition. As for Mr Mar. I do not find him disclaiming it. And for that inference that M. Blake makes from my words, as if I conceived low thoughts of Mr Blake and Mr Martial, because I say the conceit that making Disciples, Mat. 28. 19 is to be done by baptising them, is so absurd that I presume none that hath any wit will entertain it, now it is as absurd to say, that the Jews were discipled when they were circumcised, and therefore I conceive Mr Blake and Mr Martial have not any wit. But for this inference it is a far fetched thing: I did not conceive the one so absurd as the other, nor do yet, and therefore I might impute defect of wit to the entertainer of the one conceit, and yet not impute it to Mr Marshal and Mr Blake, for entertaining another conceit like it. Mr Blake excepts against me for saying these points had strong hold in his mind, that baptism succeeds into the room, place, and use of circumcision; and that the Covenant of the Gospel is all one with the Covenant made with Abraham: 〈…〉 used those words, that Baptism so succeeds circum●● 〈◊〉 therefore how could I know it to be in his mind I answer 〈◊〉 it by words equipollent which he useth as Birth-priviledge, page 14. what is objected against one, concludes against both: circumcision and baptism are therefore by the Apostle promiscuously taken; there being the same principal and main end of both. And this is evidence enough for what I said. The other Proposition he denies not to be in his mind.  
Sect. 
§. 17. About arguments drawn from Analogy in positive rites and their invalidity: and the insufficiency of M. Blakes rules.  4. ch. 11. Mr Blake makes a digression concerning arguments drawn from Analogy. And first whereas I had allowed for that which is natural or moral in worship, an institution or command in the old Testament as obligatory to christians: upon this Mr Blake tells me, there is the same reason and like liberty in arguing by analogy in positive as in moral precepts. To this I reply, if the meaning be that there is like reason of proving moral precepts from the old Testament as positive rites, it is most false and contrary to the 7th article of the Church of England, but if it be 〈◊〉 ●●tood of the manner of proof by analogy or resemblant than I deny that we have any liberty at all to argue from analogy or resemblance, to prove or make a duty or command in morals or ceremonials, though I grant we may use analogy to enforce a duty before proved. For an argument to prove a thing to be a moral duty from the old Testament, must be by proving the same thing, then to have been moral as Master Cawdray and Master Palmer endeavour to prove one day in seven for a Sabbath to be moral and perpetual, but an argument from analogy is from one thing to another, as like, for analogy or proportion is between, not the same but more things as like. As for the Apostles arguing, 1 Cor. 9 9 1 Tim. 5. 18. the Apostle doth not by ●are analogy conclude ministers maintenance, but from the Lords ordinance, 1 Cor. 9 v. 14. which ordinance I take to be that Matth. 10. 10. which ordinanc the Apostle confirms from common equity, which he proves b● divers instances, from v. 7. to v. 14. so that the Apostle doth no prove a moral duty by analogy between two different things, bu● from a general maxim that the labourer is worthy of his reward proved by sundry instances, infers a particular truth concerning ministers. The argument 1 Cor. 10. 16. 17. is to prove. that they which profess C●●t, may not partake of the things of Idols, from this general truth that they which join in the service of any God they hold communion with that God, and are one with those that worship that God this the Apostle proves by instances in the Christian, and Jewish services. So that this argument is from a general truth proved by an induction of instances. That Matth. 12. 3. 4. is only an instance to prove that sacrifice must give place to mercy: a ceremonial to a moralll duty; not an argument from mere analogy or resemblance of things different. But what ever arguing there be in morals, certain it is that no argument is good from bare analogy in ceremonials, or mere positives of the Jews; to prove, thus it was in such a rite of the Jews, therefore it must be so in such a rite of the Christians, there's no example of such arguing in the Scriptures, and therefore I said rightly Examen pag. 29. To me it is a dangerous principle upon which they go that so argue, to wit, that in mere positive things (such as circumcision and baptism are) we may frame an addition to God's worship, from analogy, or resemblance conceived by us between two ordinances; whereof one is quite taken away without any institution gathered by precept or Apostolical example. Master Blake would know who they be that do so, I answer, Mr Martial in his first argument, and five first conclusions, and virtual command from circumcision; Master Blake birth-priviledge pag. 15. and generally all that prove Infant-baptisme, by Infant-circumcision. For circumcision and baptism, are mere positive things; baptising of Infants is confessed not to have express institution gathered by express precept, or example in the new Test: and that which is alleged, is either express, or no precept, or example at all: and if it were to be gathered by consequence from institution, or example Apostolical in the new Testament, without the help of the precept of circumcision there would be, for as much as it concerns my part, an end of the controversy: therefore it is clear, they that argue from circumcision to baptism, do frame an addition to God's worship, from analogy or resemblance conceived by them, between two ordinances: whereof one is quite taken away, without any institution gathered by precept, or Apostolical example. But saith Master Blake. It is not barely the analogy between circumcision and baptism, by which we enforce the baptism of Infants, but the grounds of both circumcision and baptism. This is said, but when the grounds are required, what are they but the analogy between baptism and circumcision, that they are like; what's the reason of the one, is the reason of the other: and therefore what is done in the one, is to be done in the other? Now whence is this arguing but barely from the likeness, which makes an argument merely from analogy. If the argument were drawn from some thing proper to baptism it were another case, but being drawn from circumcision to baptism, it is an argument merely from analogy. If they rest not on this, let them lay aside this argument, and stick to precept or Apostolical example in the new Testament. To show the danger of this way of arguing, I thus reasoned Examen pag, 29. For if we may do it in one thing, why not in another? where shall we stay? They that read the Popish expositors of their rituals do know, that this principle hath brought in surplice, purification of women, etc. that I mention not greater matters. I desire any Learned man to set me down a rule from God's word, how far I may go in my conceived parity of reason, equity or analogy, where I must stay; when it will be superstition and will-worship when not; when my conscience may be satisfied, when not. Master Blake in answer hereto, lays down three rules. 1. When parity of reason or analogy, doth not institute any piece of worship, or the least part of the service of God but only helps to a right understanding of the nature, use, end, extent of that which is instituted. 2. When in our reasoning from analogy, from the right understanding of any inctitution, or ordinance, 〈◊〉 do not rest solely on the analogy that we find with other commands, but have our further reason for confirmation. 3. When the analogy holds full proportion in that for which it is brought, so that nothing can fairly be brought against the one, but may be also concluded against the other. To this I answer. 1 That never a one of these rules is brought out of God's word. Not the first, for there is neither declaration of such a rule, nor example to prove that rule. The proving of excommunicating of women from Miriams' shutting out of the camp, Numb. 12. 14. is not a Scripture collection, but a mere devise of men; the argument against nonresidence from Ezek. 44. 8. is good after other arguments, but without other proof is not convincing: and it is not in mere positive things but moral. The argument of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 9 13. 14. is not from one positive rite to another, but from an ordinance of God agreeable to common equity in the old Testament, to illustrate an ordinance in the new Testament, about a moral duty of righteousness. The second and third rules are not set down from any declaration or example in the Scripture. 2 I say these rules are very uncertain, For no reason is given why they may not make a new worship, who may by their analogy extend it beyond the institution in the new Testament yea, it will be alleged by Papists, and others, that when they appoint Surplice, Purification, Organs, etc. they do not make a new worship, but add circumstances to the ordinances of Christ. Yea, The second rule overthrows all, For if we may not solely rest on the analogy; why at all? This is enough to show that analogy hath no strength, that indeed it doth only illustrate cannot prove; what is an argument by analogy, but an argument a similt? If analogy could prove, we might rest solely on it, without any other confirmation. It is true, many desire more arguments, but in truth if it be an argument that proves, we may rely on it solely though there be no other. The third rule likewise is uncertain and vain. For how shall we know when the analogy holds full proportion? when nothing can be fairly brought against the one, but may be also concluded on the other? when is the proportion full, if only when omnia sunt paria; this can never happen in analogies between the rites of Moses and rites of Christ? If when there is a parity in many things, it will be uncertain how many parityes will serve turn to make the proportion full; what force there is in an analogy when there are more disparities: And so for a rule to know when a thing is fairly brought, whether the rule be to be taken from Logic, or the judgement of the Learned. So that these rules are very uncertain. 3 It is also uncertain whether these rules be sufficient, whether there be no need of any more. For these rules will not exclude proof of imparity of ministers, Infant commwion, &c by analogy. Or if they do the same aberration from these rules that disproves the analogy for these; will be incident to the analogy for Infant-baptisme. We may say Infant-communion, or imparity in the ministry is no more a new instituted worship, than Infant baptism; they that allege analogy for imparity of the Clergy, and Infant-communion rest not solely on it: it seems to be brought as fairly with as full proportion in the one as the other. So that I conclude, not only with Master Rutherfurd proportions are weak proportions, but also that in these positive rites, and institutions they are no probations at all, but mere illustrations, and consequently the argument for Infant-baptisme from the analogy of Infant-circumcision is a mere nullity.  
The rest of the section contains nothing but wrong inferences from my words; I distinguish between Evangelicall promises and promises domestical specially respecting Abraham's family, If this distinction may pass then Abraham's family had no Evangelicall promises saith Master Blake, you make saith he, an opposition between them. But what ridiculous arguing is this? It's all one as to say, If gifts of grace and nature are distinguished, than they that have gifts of grace, can have no gifts of nature. Those things that are not idem formaliter, or realiter, may be in eodem subjecto. I oppose them, he saith, but how? not as contraries, but as disparata, which is rather a distinction then an opposition. Because I say, circumcision signified that Moses Law was to be observed, Gal. 5. 3. Master Blake excepts. You are (it seems) of Mr Blackwoods' opinion, that saith, circumcision did not bring any grace to the Jews, but was rather a yoke or a curse. Master Blackwood hath or may answer for himself. Mr. Blakes inference from my words is a mere cavil. And that which he adds, that I make frequent use of Bellarmine's sophistry is a mere slander. That circumcision signified the promise of the Land of Canaan, I had it not from Bellarmine, but if from any, rather from Cameron cited by me exercit: pag. 4. or rather from Gen. 17. 8. Psal. 105. 11. This is enough in answer to that section.  
Sect. 
§. 16. That Mr Blake hath not proved that Infants are disciples from Mat. 18. 5. nor pertinently alleged. Isai. 49 22.  5. ch. 11. Master Blake accuseth me as not setting down his argument rightly, but the truth is, I set not down the argument as it is in Master Blake, but as it was in Master Martial, whose very words I allege, and that rightly. But Master Blake thinks he form it to better advantage; From Matth. 10. 42. Mar. 9 41. compared, I only gather to that belong to Christ, and to bear the name of Christ, and to be a Disciple of Christ is one and the same thing. But by his leave, if he should meet with a punctual respondent, he would and might deny his proof. For all that he can prove from thence is, that the same persons that belong to Christ, are disciples of Christ; but it is not true always, quae eidem subjecto conveniunt sunt eadem formaliter. He that should say, he that receives my servant receives me; he that receives one that belongs to me receives me; though he speak both these of the same person, yet a servant, and one that belongs to him are not all one and the same thing: For there are other that belong to him, as wife, children, friends, besides servants. And indeed to belong to Christ, and to be a Disciple of Christ, are not one and the same thing. To be a Disciple of Christ in all the places in the four Evangelists and Acts of the Apostles, signify no other than one that professed Christ to be his master, and followed his Doctrine, as the Disciples of John, the Pharisees, and others did follow their Doctrine; but many belong to Christ, yet uncalled, all that his Father hath given unto him, the Angels that are his Ministers belong to him, and yet cannot in the Scripture acception be termed Christ's Disciples. But I assume saith Master Blake, that Infants are of the number of those who as Disciples in Christ's account do belong to him. Matth. ●●. 5. I said the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes not always an Infant, for I●●rus daughter, though twelve year old is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 5. 41. 42. and yet that age might be a pattern of humility▪ seldom are children of that age ambitious as the Disciples, though they be oft impatient. I said further that Matth. 18. 5. is not meant of a little child in age, and that 〈◊〉 proved from v. 3. ●. 6. But saith Master Blake, he is indeed a child in understanding that doth not see that your ●●●ference to v. 3. 4. is wholly against you for little child v. 3. 4. is taken for such a one as in age is a little child, else the speech would be ●●ept. But Mr Blake should have ●●●●ded my words better, I did not parallel the word [little child] v. 5. with [little child] v. 3 4 but the phrase [one such little child] with the phrases, v. 3. one that is converted, and made as a little child. v. 4. one that humbles himself as a little child v. 6. one of those little ones that believe in him. But saith Master Blake, Luke 9 48. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is true, it is so. Nevertheless Beza notes thus, sed & pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hunc puerulum, fortassis legendum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hujusmodi puerulum: & Grotius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut apud Matthaeum, quomodo & hic Syrus interpretatur. Tale est: amor omnibus idem. That in Matth. 18. 5. a little child must be meant of a little child in affection, seems plain to me by the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such a one, that it is not limited to that little child, the term 1. shows which is as much as quempiam any one. And me thinks the meaning of the words should be thus, whosoever should receive such a one as is as mean and low as a little child receiveth me, as that which follows makes me conceive. For he that is less among you, that is, though he were as mean as a little child, shall be great. But were it granted that it were meant of a little child in age, how doth it follow that such a one is there a Disciple? This, if any must be the proof: He that is received in christs name, is a Disciple. A little child may be received in Christ's name ergo a little child is a disciple▪ But of this argument, I deny the major; a person might be received in Christ's name, who was not a Disciple, as those that did miracles in Christ's name▪ and yet followed not Christ, Luke 9 49. But if it were so that it could be proved, that the term Disciple is any where given to an Infant, (which neither Master Blake from Matth. 18. 5. nor Master Marshal from Acts 15. 10. can ever do) yet it is certain that a Disciple Matth. 28. 19 is such a one as is made by preaching the Gospel, as is manifest from Mar. 16. 15. John 4. ●. And I wonder that those very men that do in effect sometime confess this is not meant of Infants, when they answer the Antipaedobaptists objection from Matth. 28. 19 as Mr Martial pag. 44 of his Sermon, It is said indeed, that they taught and baptised, and no express ●●ntion of any other, that yet they should by such strained and forced inferences go about to draw a command from Matth. 28. 19 for baptising Infants, as if they might be called there Disciples, contrary to the constant use of the word throughout the new Testament, and their own confessionels where. Sect. 6 ch. 11. Master Blake blames me for putting his reason from Isai 49. 22 as an argument by itself in my exercitation. But he might know my exercitation set down most of the arguments as they were urged in the conference with me, And so was the reason from Isai 49. 22. urged in that conference as an argument by itself, to my best remembrance, however it were after disposed in the birth-priviledge. But saith Master Blake, the question here is not (as after your manner you mistake it) whether this text proves Infant-baptisme, but whether it gives any intimation, that Infants in the days of the Gospel be any members of the Church-visible, or entitled to any privileges of the Covenant, as Christ's Disciples. I reply, The proving of that intimation tended to prove Infant-baptisme, and therefore those words were alleged for Infant-baptisme; which was that I said, not a whit mistaking the question. Now sith Master Blake confesseth that the words must needs be allegorical, why doth he expound the term sons and daughters of infants, and tell us that their carriage of their little ones must be understood no otherwise then of the access of the Gentiles with their Infants to the Church of Christ. For if the Carriage, and nursing v. 23. be allegorical meant of persuasions, exhortations, and such like acts, Infants could not be thus carried And so Mr Blakes allegationis but an empty sound.  
Ch. 12. 
§. 19 of baptising households & my censure of Mr Blakes speech concerning it.  Master Blake goes about to justify his speech that he used in his birth-priviledge, pag. 22. that the precedant is an household. He that followeth the precedent, must baptise households. This speech I said, I marvel much at it, and that it is very absurd, that I say no worse of it. Master Blake tells me. I express not the reason of so much marvel. I answer the term wherefore, with the words following express this reason plainly, sith as I said before in households were Infidels, if an household be the precedent to be followed; and he that followeth the precedent must baptise households without any other qualification; then when he baptizeth the believing master, he must baptise the unbelieving servant, wife, etc. for they are of the household. Master Blake. If you had any worse to say, I wonder that you had not spoke it, your best friends I believe will say that you have sufficiently showed yourself absurd in language. Sure Master Blake knows that a speech may be worse censured then by terming it very absurd, I might have called it sophistical, deceitful, and that had been worse. My best friends can find no abusive language of any man's person, their speeches or arguments I censure in no more absurd language then usually scholars do, and particularly Master Gataker doth Doctor Ames, and Voetius as I have showed in this Apology above §. 5. Master Blake adds, I only say some more learned than I, as learned as you have denied my words to be either absurd or heterodox. Be it so; yet affection may blind their eyes. But let us examine the speech. I reasoned thus, if the precedent to be followed be a household, than those of the household are to be baptised either because of the household; if this be said, than the Infidel wife is to be baptised because of the household, or because they profess the faith; and then the precedent is not a household, but a professor of faith. To this Master Blake, For full answer I say, that wife and servant, as wife and servant, are in a capacity for baptism: if any wife and servant were in those households they were baptised; else the Scripture would not have said the whole family was baptised. It is sufficient that Scripture mentioning baptism of whole households, excepts none from a capacity of baptism. I reply, in that which he calls a full answer, there is no answer at all to my reason; for he neither denies my distinction to be sufficient, nor doth he tell us which member he will choose in the Dilemma, nor how he will avoid the consequent upon his choice. And therefore his learned friends, though they were ten times learneder than myself, yet in this are mistaken in acquitting either the former speech, of this answer, from absurdity. But let us consider what he says. It is sufficient, that Scripture mentioning baptism of whole households, excepts none from a capacity of baptism. I reply: Is this sufficient to make the baptising of households the precedent, that is the pattern by which we may now baptise Infants, because Infants are not excepted? Then neither are Infidels excepted there; nor natural fools or idiots of ripe years, and so are to be the precedent of baptising. But wife and servant as wife and servant, are in a capacity for baptism. Answer. It is not true, that wife and servant as wife and servant are in a capacity for baptism, if [●s] betaken with reduplication, and [capacity] of actual right, but as they are professors of faith. But if it be understood that, 〈◊〉 wife, that is though wife, and capacity in respect of future possibility, than it is true of an Infidel, of any man shall we therefore make an Infidel, or a man simply the precedent of baptising? I said there's no reason why it should not be laid as well, that baptising Samaria, Acts 8. 12. the 3000. Acts 2. 42. all Judea Matth. 3. 5; should be the precedent as baptising of households, Acts 16. True saith Master Blake, if Semaria be converted, all Judaea is taken for some considerable numbers out of every part of Judaea. So say I, the term household is taken Acts 16. for those of the house that being of grown years professed the faith. And so there's no precedent there for baptising an Infant.  
Chapt. 13. 
§. 20. About Mat. 19 14. that by the Kingdom of heaven is meant the Kingdom of glory.  Mr Blake passing over all that I say to Mr Marshals second argument, till pag. 145. concerning it tells me, that I might have given Mr Marshal leave to explain his own argument. And And I tell Mr Blake that so I did, and then did my part to show what was faulty in it, so effectually that I conceive in his Defence he hath quitted it, and put another in its room, as weak as it; as I showed above. But Mr Blake thinks it is sufficient to make the argument good, that infants of believers have an access in Gods ordinary way of dispensation, whilst infants: Here is a new phraseology, which serves for nothing but to puzzle; there is no face of an argument in it, and therefore I let it pass. To show, how uncertain the argument is from from Matth. 19 14. for infant-baptisme I produced Pis●a●ors reasons to prove that it is not clear they were infants that were brought to Christ. These reasons I did not stick to, and so need not own what is contradictory to my exposition of Matth. 18. 5. before. The second exception I took to the argument from Matth. 19 14. I delivered only doubtfully, and yet I conceived Mr Marshals reason not cogent, for somewhat that Christ meant to reach by that Emblem of a little child could not be well resembled by a sheep, for though meekness might, yet not d●ciblenesse: I might have added that the similitude or Emblem of a sheep, had not so much decorum in it. But I stick not to that exposition of not including those infants, as conceiving not from Mr Marshals or Mr Blakes reason, but from the circumstances of the thing, that Christ intended some extraordinary blessing to them, and declaration concerning them. As for Mr Blakes gloss he puts upon me, I disclaimed it; It is his own mistake, not my conceit: that those infants, or infants of believers in infancy have no interest in Christ, but are without Covenant of promise, without God, without hope. But for that I said; thirdly, that there is no certainty, only conjecture that they were infants of believers, I avow it. Mr Blake avers a certainty beyond conjecture, because Christ was minister of the circumcision, Rom. 15. 8. sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Mat. 15. 24. carried himself otherwise to the Canaanitish woman in behalf of her daughter, verse 22. 23. If these had had no other interest, Christ would have been as facile to others as to them. I reply, Christ was minister of the circumcision, was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, yet cured the servant of the Centurion, the Samaritan leper, the daughter of the Syrophenician. He carried himself strangely at first to that woman, to provoke her faith, and he pleaded against her not that she was not a believer, but that she was a Canaanite; if this reason prove any thing it is, that the children's parents were Jews, but that proves not they were believers; few of them believing on Christ, john 1. 11. Against the fourth thing I say of those children that were brought to Christ, that the speech [of such is the kingdom of heaven] is meant of the kingdom of glory, and that this is not common to all infants of believers; Mr Blake excepts that it is meant of the visible Church, and and of all infants of believers as such: now on this hinge turns the fifth exception also, and so the answer to the whole argument I determine the Kingdom of heaven to be meant of the Kingdom of glory, and I thus prove it.  
1 The Kingdom of God must be understood Mark 10. 14, as it is verse 15. and Lu. 18. 16. as verse 17 and Matth. 19 14. as it is in both those, this I prove, because our Saviour from their estate infers a likeness to them in others for the same estate; but Mark 10. 15, Luke 18. 17. can be understood of no other than the Kingdom of glory, the proposition being false, being understood of the visible Church; many proud men entering therein▪ as Simon Magus, Diotrephes, etc. ergo it must be understood of the Kingdom of glory.  
2 From this that our Saviour directs the speech Mark 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. to his Disciples who were already in the visible Church, therefore the requiring a further condition to the Kingdom of God shows he meant it of the Kingdom of glory.  
3 The speech Mark 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. is like Mat. 18. 3, 4. but there it is meant of the Kingdom of glory, ergo so here.  
Deodate on Matth. 19 14. so far are you deceived in thinking that children, by reason of their weakness and contemptible quality; are unworthy to be presented unto me: that chose no body is capable of my Kingdom unless he be first by the spirit of regeneration brought into a spiritual estate to be like a little child in the order of nature. The new annot: on the Bible on Matth. 19 14. ye have no reason to blame them for bringing children to me; for they may be such as have interest to the Kingdom of heaven, as well as others of ripe years: and, unless ye 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 known. I answer, The reason of Christ's anger was their hindering him in his design, not the knowledge they had of their present visible title: this is but a dream.  
I added further, that Christ's action in this was extraordinary, and so no ordinary rule for baptising by the Public ministry. 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 says, this act of Christ is no direct preced●● for baptism, but for Church-priviledges of which Infants are capable. Mark this speech, if [but] be adversative, than Master Blake grants that Infants are capable of Church-priviledges, not of baptism, which overthrows 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 Kingdom of God by election.  
Master Blake in the close of this chapter says, if it were true, that padobaptisme had no more warrant than I conceive, yet 〈◊〉 not will-worship, but a misapplication of an instituted ordinance to a person. But I ask Master Blake, whether Infant-Communion were not will worship? whether baptising 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 worse sense, as Protestant Divines hitherto have done (though lately Doctor Hammond at Oxford hath written a book to prove it to be taken in the better part for a commendable thing as a free-well offering) and have made it the sin of the pharisees Matth. 15. 9 and especially non-conformists, who have made every invented ceremony will-worship, then much more Infant-baptisme being worship itself, if it be not instituted, must be will worship.  
Chapt. 15. Master Blake examines what I say, 
§. 21. That God seals not to every person that is rightly baptised, that his Covenant of grace belongs only to the elect, that his Covenant is effectual, and leaves it not to man's liberty to include or exclude himself.  Examen pag. 164. about Gods sealing. Master Martial spoke of Gods sealing the baptised; I said, God seals not to every one that is baptised, but only to true believers: For his sealing, is the confirming of his promise; but God promiseth righteousness to none but true believers. Master Blake answers. You acknowledge baptism to be is its nature a seal of the righteousness of faith, and to be of God, therefore in it God must seal to every baptised person, or else you must say they are not baptised. I reply: I acknowledge baptism of professors of faith to be of God, though they be not true believers: and I acknowledge baptism in its nature to be a seal of the covenant of God, but not a seal actual, but aptitudinall; that is, all right baptism is in its nature apt to seal, as a garland hung out is to signify wine to be ●old, yet actually the one signifies so only to the intelligent, and the other only to true believers. And God never seals actually till a person be a believer. I said; As for the sealing by God upon condition persons ag●ize the Covenant, it is but a notion; the Scripture makes not God's promise in the Covenant of grace conditional in that sense. For God's promise is for those he enters into Covenant with, that he will put his laws in their 〈◊〉 and in their minds will 〈◊〉 them, Heb. 10. 16. Master Blake answers. If you 〈◊〉 this of the Sacraments as the words bear, then according to your opinion none ought to be baptised, but 〈◊〉 in whose heart the law in wrote. I answer him, By Gods sealing I do not mean every right administration of baptism; for though that be in its nature apt to seal the graces of the Covenant, yet actually Gods seals not but when it is administered to a believer. It may be called a right act of the administrator according to God's appointment, but not Gods sealing. I call Gods sealing only when either by his spirit or oath, or outward rite, he assures his grace, as by circumcision to Abraham, Rom. 4. 11. he appointed Ishmael to be circumcised, but did not seal to him righteousness by faith. The inference Mr Blake makes from my words, as if I held none baptizable, but those in whose heart God's law is written, hath no colour, for I do not make the administratours baptising, 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 God's appointment, yet God doth not assure the promises to them. I do not make him only baptizable to whom God seals, but him whom Christ appoints to be baptised, whether God seals to him or no. Master Blake urgeth me with Bellarmine's argument; of the Sacraments be seals of grace, they are often false, and God should bear witness to a lie, and tells of the speech of some that have said, that this argument is unanswerable; unless we confess that the seal of the Sacrament is conditional. I like not to call the Sacrament a conditional seal, for that which seals doth assure, and supposeth the condition: In my apprehension, that which is called conditional sealing is not sealing but offering, or propounding, or representing: but about this I will not contend. Yet in that sense I yield it to be a seal actually, I yield it to be a seal only to believers, but I deny that because the Sacrament is in its nature a seal of grace, God doth seal always when it is rightly administered. The nature of it is to be a seal aptitudinall, not actual; and so it is easy to answer Bellarmine's argument, without crossing my speeches. But be the Sacraments s●ales conditional or absolute, actual or aptitudinall, what is this to prove that God seals conditionally in this sense, as if God left it to man's 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 privilege of being in Covenant with him, which Master Martial I conceived meant by his conditional sealing, and I find not in his answer a denial of it to be his meaning. Master Blake excepts against a speech of mine, in which I say, That all the Sacraments of the Jews are abrogated circumstance, and substance in whole and in part: and asks me. Is circumcision of heart abrogated? Is all spiritual meat and drink in Sacraments abrogated? Is Christ himself abrogated? I answer, no: but withal say, these are idle questions as not crossing my speech, unless he can prove circumcision of the heart, spiritual meat and drink, and Christ himself to be Sacraments.  
Sect. 2. Master Blake would acquit this speech, God's Covenant of grace is common to elect and reprobates from symbolising with Arminians, by producing the speeches of Pareus, and Mr Ball who only say reprobates are in Covenant with God externally, or God externally contracts with them, which is another thing. God's Covenant of grace, is his promise of grace; and of this truly, Master Martial in his defence page 117. multitudes were baptised, 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 between two parties, and says, a promise or tender without consent, is no Covenant. How then do children Covenant at baptism, or enter into Covenant who yield no consent? He saith, God's tender of himself to his people is called his Covenant. Gen. 17. 7. 9 But he doth not rightly call that a tender, which was more than a tender to wit a promise. Then he objects against himself, that if God's Covenant be such as he will not break, Jerem. 31. 32. and he hath promised to put his laws in their inward parts, than 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. than all ministry is beaten down, and all edification ceases. But this is litem lite resolvere. The Contraremon strantes when they urge this place for effectual 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 find I that he gives any direct answer to the objection, but wanders in impertinences. Nor know I how he can answer the objection without evervating the argument for effectual 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 Martial, but Master Martial hath not himself denied the sense I conceived of his conditional sealing by God to Infants, the words are plain enough in his Sermon, pag. 49. where he talks of God's Covenant, and sealing, and Christ's suretyship, more like Corvinus, or the Arminans, than the Scripture or Contraremonstrants. Master Blake accuseth me of joining with Independents, and that they will have none Church members, but elect, and I no Church but that which is invisible. But I believe he wrongs both me and them; me I am sure, for I always teach a visible profession sufficient for Chuch-membership, though I deny that every visible professor is in the Covenant of grace; and when they will have real saints Church members, they mean not only such as are so before God, but such as are so in the judgement of the Church Though I think they are more rigid than they should be in their tenet, yet I think Master Blake wrongs them in this imputation.  
Ch. 16. 
Of Mr Blakes unjust crimmination of me as putting the children of believers out of the covenant of grace, and the epilogue of this postscript.  I told Mr Martial 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 do 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 Martial for a testimony needs look no further than throop of your leaf, where you say infant-baptisme is a corruption of the ordinance of baptism; If infants be not only held from baptism, but their baptism is also a corruption of that ordinance, and there is no such thing as covenant-holiness to give them any ti●le or interest, than they are out of covenant, strangers to the promises of God, and so the doom Eph. 2. 12. lies heavy upon them. How frivolous a justification is this of an express 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 expressly so many persons, and those christian brethren not to be contemned of so deep, so passion-provoking a charge enough to stir up Magistrates and parents to expel and destroy such men, should produce better evidence for such a crimination, than such a far fetched 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 Martial that if the covenant of grace be rightly understood, Mr Martial excludes infants as much from the covenant of grace as I do. As for Mr Blake not only page 14 of his Birth-priviledge, but also page 23 of his answer to my letter, he expressly maintains that the birthright he maintains as a fruit from the covenant of freegrace to all in the faith, and their seed only entitles to outward privileges. How doth this stand with that which he asserts chap. 3. sect. 2. of his answer to my letter, page 13. that infants of believers have salvation if they die in their infancy, by virtue of the Covenant? For if the Covenant only entitle to outward privileges 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 only a right to outward privileges; and yet he and Mr Martial stick not to declaim against Anabaptists, for not assuring salvation to the deceasing infants of believers from that covenant which Mr Martial will not assert, pag. 116. as it is a Covenant of saving grace to be made to believers and their natural seed, and Mr Blake saith, only entitles to outward privileges. But we say, saith Master Blake that all infants and men of years for aught that we can find from any Scripture grounds are utterly lost that want all right of Baptism. He might say they are in danger to be lost by reason of original corruption, not for want of right to Baptism; but to say they are utterly lost is more than Mr Blake hath ground to affirm. I have often showed that a right to baptism is from the command of Christ, not from such covenant holiness as Mr Blake asserts: salvation comes from God's election and Christ's redemption. It is a mere slander, and a groundless crimination, wherewith Mr Blake chargeth me, that the position he produceth out of my book, or any other he can produce doth infer, that all the infants of the whole Church of Christ have nothing to do with the Covenant of grace. I challenge him, with Mr Martial and Mr Blakes seconds Mr Calamy and Mr Vines, if they can to make that charge good; or else let Mr Blake and Mr Martial retract it. As for Mr Blakes conclusion, I conceive his Protestation makes him deservedly the object of pity, his motions carry a sting in the tail, to wit a false accusation, from which I doubt not but I have acquitted myself by this writing. The elegy the worthy member of the house of Commons bestows on me, and the unrighteous censure of my learned nameless acquaintance I value not; books as meats relish differently with different palates, pro captu lectoris habent sua fata libelli: This apology will state me, and my writing better in their thoughts▪ if they can & will understand the truth. If not, the same spirit that hath enabled me to bear greater burdens, I trust will enable me to bear these hard censures. I hope that I shall not be wanting to the overthrow of any errors, according to my ability; paedobaptism I am more assured then ever is a great corruption, founded as now it is taught on very great errors, and of any service I suppose I can do to God it is one of the chief which I ought to apply myself to, that it may be cleared to be an error. I bear as much love and reverence to M. Blake as ever, he is not despised by me though his errors be freely censured. I aimed not either in the former or in this latter writing at any grievance to him, and should be sorry this controversy should make a separation between us▪ though I find by experience much estrangednes in many of my former acquaintance from me. And for encountering with Mr Blake for the truth's sake I held myself necessitated to it by reason of Mr Vines and M. Calamy their former, and latter, as I still conceive, inconsiderate plaudite.  
FINIS.   

Errata.  
PAge 2. line 24. above, read about. p. 30. l. 10. sticks, r. strikes. p. 33. l. 1. And, r. But. p. 40. l. 22. Gen. 7. r. Gen. 17. p. 50. l. 4. Berma●aus, r. Be●mannus. l. 5. 20. r. 2. p. 51. l. 3. merely, r. merry. l. 36. jannes', 1. james. l. 13. r. upon what. p. 53. l. 20. r. that they who. l. 21. to, r. do. p. 57 l. 13. Martial, r. Ball. p. 59 l. 24. 57 r. 75. p. 67. l. 27. artificer, r. artifice. mind, r. mend. p. 70. l 12 r. will be. l. 15. r. are the. p. 72. l. 29. r. examen. p. 42. 64. 65. p. 75. l. 16 deal And M. Blake. etc. p. 77. l. 14. which, r. this. p. 80. l. 20. r. inconsideretenes which. p. 84. l. 33. deal it. p. 85. l. 1. r. either out. p. 97. l. 25. 256. r. 170. l. 37. 128. l. 182. p. 98. l. 30. r. ho●se in. p. 1 co. l. 12 them, 1. Infants. p. 101. l. 15. see, r. set. l. 31. deal first. p. 102. l. 36. cuts, r. cut. p. 118. l. 20. r. the thing. p. 129. l 5. r. that they. p. 140. l. 25. r. positive rites as moral precepts. p. 142. l. ●. deal it. p. 145. l. 1. margin. 16. r. 18. p. 148. l. 32. p. 149. l. 2. precedent, r. subject.