CHAP. I.

IN M. Harrisons book there is an Epistle prefixt to the Reader, wherein some things deserve and need animadversion. For first he shews his con­fidence of a thing as certain, whereof by his leave, he neither hath nor doth produce certain ground, viz. That the end of the last times, 1 Cor. 10.11. are even at our doort: for, for that prophecy, 2 Thes. 2.8. He that shall deny its accomplishment in part in Luthers daies, and so on, shall not onely be injurious to our worthies, but oppose manifest truth: and how long the complement of it may be delay­ed now, Scriptures discover not so cleerly, as to give ground con­fidently to determine it.

From his assertion he infers a double duty. 1. To depart out of Babylon: which is indeed a duty pertinent to all, since the first discovery of Antichrist: and the more fully Babylon is laid open, and the neerer she is to her fall, the more carefull should we be to depart from her. But his proof from Joh. 4.24. is ill applied, as well as weakly expounded. Sith the scope of that place is not [Page 2]against the traditions of men, but against the pomp and shadows of the law, which had their rise from God, till Heb 9.10. times of Refor­mation. Which being then at hand, Christ told the woman of Samaria: That Christians were to perform worship spirituall without pomp, and in truth without shadows.

His second duty inferd is, to impart to others what knowledge we have received: which is also a Christian duty, so we take heed, that we communicate not our own dreams for the visions of God. To the first of these duties (he saith) so farre as thorow grace he had re­ceived, his spirit hath freely submitted without consulting with flesh and blood, (The too ordinary hinderances to persons living by faith, &c. Wherein while he seems to declare (that I say not boast) great in­tegrity. I fear he doth bewray no small infirmity: for if in that expression of submitting without consulting with flesh and blood, he, (as I conceive he doth) allude to that of Paul, Gal. 1.16. he dangerously misapplyeth that to himself, as a common duty, which was a thing peculiar to the condition of S. Paul himself. Who in that chapter, afferting the authority of his doctrin [...], affirms, that he had it not by the ministery of man, but by immediate re­velation, Gal. 1.11, 12, 15, 16. And so not conferring with flesh and blood: (i.e. with any man to receive instruction from them) He went into Arabia to preach, &c. Now hence for ordinary men, that receive knowledge of truths by means, to avoid consultation with those men, that are their superiours in grace and years, and run on in divulging novell opinions upon their own heads, (a thing too common now adaies) what is it but a plain abuse of S. Pauls peculiar priviledge, who having immediate revelation, was without need of consultation with men, which we are not?

To the second duty mentioned, he makes this book a branch of his abedience, submitting it to the ballance of the Sanctuary, wherein if it be found too light, he desires the reader to inform him. And that is the work that by Gods assistance I shall now perform.

CHAP. II.

MAster Harrisons Answer begins first with exceptions, against foure things premised by me in my vindiciae. The first whereof was, that a thing may have testimony of Scripture for it two waies, implicitly, or expressely: this he freely grants, pag. 1. The second was, that there is great difference between an ordinance it self, and some particular circumstance or subject, to which that ordinance is to be applyed. Touching this second, he affirms there is somewhat in it true, somewhat false: He confesseth that is true, that there is difference between an Ordinance, and some parti­cular circumstance of it: But he denyes that the subject of Baptisme is meerly, or in any Scripture-sence circumstantiall to it. Wherein he hath first foysted in the word meerly, to wrest the sense of my words, to countenance his confutation. Secondly he addes in a Scripture sense circumstantiall, as though this term circumstance were a Scripture phrase, whereas it's a term of art. not used or defined in Scripture, and so his expression of circumstantiall in a Scripture sense is improper, unlearned, and absurd. Then for proof he gives the definition of a circumstance, to be that which doth not of it self destroy, or constitute the substance of that whereof it is a circumstance. But this definition I deny, unlesse he put in his own foysted word meer, or accidentall: a meer circumstance. For who ever doubted to call the person acting in any thing a circum­stance, as well as time and place? nay the person is the first in that old verse, comprising severall circumstances.

Now in Baptisme there be two persons considerable: the per­son administring, and the person to whom the administration is to be applyed. Both these may properly be termed circumstan­ces, considerable in or about the action or Ordinance of Baptisme; Though the nature of the Ordinance be mard without them. And yet I say it is not necessary, that the whole extent of either [Page 4]of these circumstances must be exprest. Anabaptists must ac­knowledge it, touching the person administring; or else Ba­ptisme by women, and men not in office, used by some of them, (wherein they symbolize with Papists in the thing, though not in the ground) must be left by them as an unwritten corruption. And I undertake to prove it in the other. And that I meant a circumstance, in this sense he might easily have perceived. First because I adde, or a subject exegeticè. And secondly because I re­quire for it implicit warrant out of Scripture, where as meer cir­cumstances of time and place require not ground of Scripture: the light of nature and divine prudence, is sufficient to regulate them. And therefore what he hath discourst about circumstances, pag. 2. is false or misapplyed.

I added as for the Ordinance it self, as the setring up of Ba­ptisme as a Sacrament of the Gospel-Covenant, renewed by Christ. It requires expresse warrant in the word, which I set down against Bellarmine maintaining the contrary, lib. de saer. nat. & defin. q. 2. Wherein my meaning is: That Christians might not have made use of water, to signe parties to be initiated into the Christian Church, as circumcision was in use in the Jew­isn Church, without expresse warrant from Scripture. But in deciding the extent of the circumstance of the person or subject to be initiated under the Gospel; there implicit warrant may suf­fice: for of the more weight and importance any thing is, the more cleer warrant are we to expect for it. Now the being of an Ordinance in the Church is of more consequence, then a part of that subject to which it is to be applyed. And therefore his di­scourse about John the Baptist, and pag 2. is here uslesse, as in it self it is to me nonsence. Neither did I adde in vain: That when we have Baptisme appointed as a Gospel Ordinance, to whomso­ever we finde by ground in Scripture, that it doth of right belong, there we may apply it. This I say is not vain, unlesse he can p [...]ove it false, which he therefore indeavours, pag. 3. Where he saith by grounds and principles in Scriptures, I mean such as are taken out of the old Testament. But he might have remembred that of all the six grounds, brought by me to cleer the title of beleevers Infants to Baptisme: onely one of them is fetcht out of the old Testa­ment, the other five are out of the New. Therefore I cannot [Page 5]mean onely, nor chiefly, grounds out of the old Testament: that was therefore but a fetch, to put an ill glosse upon a good position; but I say indeed afterwards, That the Scriptures of the new Te­stament have a sufficieny to direct in Gospel Ordinances, yet not without taking in some grounds and principles from the old Te­stament, which M. Tombes acknowledgeth in the Christian Sab­bath: but for this, M. H. is confident to make me of another minde. But sure his confidence doth exceed his skill. But saith he, this position is so derogatory from the Kingly, and Propheticall office of Christ, pag. 3. But I would know of him whether Christ were not a King and a Prophet to the Jewish, as well as to Christian Churches? And whether that instruction that the Church had by penmen of Scriptures under the old Testement, were not by vertue of Christs mediation, as well as that under the new? And if so, what derogation is it from Christ, to take in some grounds out of the old Testament, sith these former revelations were from him also? And is not Christ a perfect law-giver, if he adde to the Scriptures of the old Testament, so much as Gospel-admini­stration doth require? Doe the Scriptures of the new Testament give sufficient direction about usur [...], incest, &c. without taking in something from the Scriptures of the old? It is therefore suffi­cient to make Christ a perfect Law-giver, and as faithfull as Mo­ses; that he hath added in the Scriptures of the new Testament, whatsoever was needfull to be added, to his own revelations in the Scriptures under the Old. And if he affirm that Christ cannot be accounted a perfect Law giver and Prophet, or faithfull as Moses, Ʋnlesse all commands and Ordinances that concern Christians, be as fully and plainly exprest in Scripture of the new Testament, without any light from the Old, as the Ordinances of the Jews were by Moses: Surely he will be found the accuser of Christ, not I. For, were the pattern of the Gospel as full and plain as that of the Law, I say not, how should the Assembly of Divines be so long in find­ing it? But how should those, (that it may be you more respect) be so backward to give in their modell? Sure it would neither have required much time nor pains, to have given a modell of Leviticall Ordinances, order and Descipline. And therefore let M. Har. take heed, lest by inconsiderate speaking for Christ, he lay down false grounds to condemn him.

For proof of my assertion. That we must take in some ground, from the Scriptures of the old Testament, for our direction in the use of [...]ospel-ordinances. I instance in the Christian Sabbath, where M. Tombes confesseth it. pag. 28. He answers, he findes no such thing in that page of M. Tombes his book. But (I say) it is for want of sight: for doth not M. Tombes distinguish there of Go­spel worships or Ordinances, that some are positive onely, con­sisting in outward rites, and others are in part morall? And in these later, they allow an institution, or command in the old Testament, as obligatory to Christians. Is not this the thing which I affirmed? But now let us see M. Har. plaister: He saith it maketh nothing for the purpose, whether we consider a rule for one day in seven, which is naturall and morall, instituted in paradise. Where first he speaks unscholarly: naturall, instituted in Paradise: for na­turall and instituted worship, are two opposite things; If natu­rall, then it was not instituted: If instituted, then not naturall. The truth is, there is a double morall, 1. Naturâ. 2. Ex insti­tuto. That time be set apart for the Worship of God, is mo­rall by nature; But that such a proportion of time, as one day in seven be consecrated to God, that is morall by institution, being instituted in Paradise, before sin or ceremony. But how could we have known this institution, but by Moses his relation? So then we could not know, that it is an Ordinance of the Gospel, to observe one of seven holy unto the Lord, without that Ministry performed by Moses. Again, it being a Cospel ordinance, that every first day of the week be kept holy to the Lord; I would fain know of M. Harrison, where he can finde direction for the manner of fanctifying this day, without recourse to the old Te­stament? If not, I have proved what I intended, that for dire­ction in some Gospel ordinances, we are to fetch light from the old Pestament.

My second instance is in excommunication, for which we have expresse warrant: yet some circumstances, as, who may apply it, and to whom, are not so exoresse: but they are colligeable from generall grounds of Scripture. Here M. Harrison saith, pag. 5. He knowes not what I mean by [so expresse] But he might know that I am by this instance making it good, that expresse warrant in Scripture is not requisite in all particular circumstances of Go­spel [Page 7]ordinances, but implicit from generall grounds, may serve in some: herein paralleling excommunication with Baptisme, in the subject or persons to whom they are to be applied. But he saith, be shall easily prove, that Christ hath left direction sufficient for this particular, without sending us to Moses; He should have said with­out sending us to the Scriptures of the old Testament, or rather have exprest neither here, where indeed the question is onely, whether Christs direction for the persons excommunicating, and to be excommunicated be explicit? which if he can easily prove, notwithstanding the difference of men so learned and godly about them, its pity he had not been Prolocutour of the Assembly. But for the persons in whom the authority of convening, examining, judging, admonishing, and excommunicating resides: our Saviour, saith he, hath determined to be, Disciples as Disciples. Why then are women to doe all this, sure they cannot doe this without speak­ing, which is not permitted to them in the Church: yet M. H. will not deny women to be Disciples. For the person to declare it, (saies he) it must be him whom the Chruch shall elect, as he saith ap­pears from, 1 Cor. 5.4, 5. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together, and my spirit with the power of our Lord Je­sus Christ: To deliver such an one to Satan. And now what ex­presse testimony is here for the person declaring? Just none at all, yea indeed that one person declare the sentence in the name of the rest, is an act of order, to which we are led by the light of nature to avoid confusion.

For the persons to be excommunicated he findes, he saith, two sorts. 1. Persons after admonition persisting in scandalous sin; But first he must know that we read of no admonition, appointed to be used to the incestuous person, whence some gather, that some sins are so grosse, that they deserve excommunicanon ipso facto. Second­ly he should remember the difference that is about enumerating scandalous sins, and how that is to be determined by way of col­lection. Secondly he addes such as after pains taken with them, to convince them, persist peremptory, in holding and maintaining Haere­sies Tit. 3.10. [...] i.e. Qui novas sibi eligit opiniones, cum sundamento salutis pugnantes, eas (que) mordicùs defendit. Pasor Graec.: Lexic. Now M. Har. can be content to consult with flesh and blood, when he thinks it makes for him: for he brings a sentence out of Pasor, [Page 8]where, saies he, observe, &c. As though his observations were out of the text, when they are but out of Pasers exposition. I thought he would not have grounded his followers faith, on mans authori­ty. But what are his observations? 1. They must be fundamen­tall errours: but as Zanch. in 4. prae­cep. able men as Pasor distinguish haeresies into such as are fundamentall, and such as are not fundamentall. 2. They must be obstinately asserted. That is, after the first and second admo­nition. 3. They must appear to arise from choise, not weaknes: but this is a weak observation: as though, what were of weaknesse could not be of choice; Whereas many chuse many things out of weaknes, and therefore this was but a poor collection, to exempt from censure the grossest haereticks, Arrians, Antiscripturists, &c. If they hold these damnable Haeresies, unlesse forsooth it appear they doe it out of pravity of heart and affection, they shall not be obnoxious to excommunication. That is, they shall not injoy that remedy to cure their infirmities. Is this sound Divi­nity?

Thus I have cleared my second thing, premised from his ex­ceptions. But I must now a little look back, and take notice of some passages, not only false but foul, that have slipt from M. H. pag. 3. Where he tells us, that the writings of Moses and the Prophets, were as their Covenant was, at least the administrations of their Co­venant, faulty, imperfect at the best, abstracted from the writings and administrations of the new Covenant. Were the writings of Moses and the Prophets faulty and imperfect, without the writings and administrations of the new Testament? Then they were so till the new Testament was written, and the administration of it instituted. And what is this, but to exclude all under the old Te­stament, from compleat means of salvation, and so from salvati­on it self: which how false, horrid, uncharitable, and popish is it? Popish I say, for if this be true, the Saints of the old Testa­ment could not enter into blisse, till Christ were exh bited, and so must be imagined to be in some limbo. Nay how apparantly con­tradictory is his assertion, to many dictates of the holy Ghost? Psal. 19.7. The Law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul. Prov. 30.5. Psal. 12.6. Every word of God is pure. 2 Tim. 3.15, 16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, &c, 2 Pet. 1.21. Pro­phecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men spake as [Page 9]they were moved by the holy Ghost; and can these writings be faulty? Is not this to charge the holy Ghost foolishly? which is no lesse then blasphemy. He saith also, that it could not be said of Moses, thou hast the words of aternall life, as of Christ, Joh. 6.68. I confesse the Lord hath somewhat peculiar above the servant. But were not the Scriptures of the old Testament the words of life, yea of eternall life? what then became of those that had no other means of salvation, or what thinks he of that Spirit of our Saviour Iohn. 5.39? But M. H. urgeth Heb. 8. 8, 9. where finding fault with them he said, behold the daies come saith the Lord, when I will make a new Covenant with the house of Iudah, not according to the Cove­nant, &c. But the Covenant there faulted, is the Covenant of works, the condition whereof, was the Law given on mount Si­nai, which typified the Covenant of works, Gal. 4 24. But had the Jews no other Covenant thinks he, but that? Had they not promises and tipes holding forth Christ? Had not Abraham the Gospel preached to him? Gal. 3 8. Did not Moses know and suffer for Christ? Heb. 11.26. Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches: M. H. should therefore have considered, that not all that was revealed by Moses and the Prophets was faulted, but the Covenant of works only. They had the Cnvenant of grace also, which God promised at the exhibition of Christ, to reveal more clearly, and dispence the grace of it more plentifully: and this M. H. might learn, if he were as willing to receive instru­ction from expositours on such places as this, as he was from Pa­sor, on Tit. 3.10.

My third thing premised, was to take the state of the question as M. Martiall stated it; In which M. H. r. saith, he shall freely joyn issue. Though he saith, that it is a strange fallacy of the times to Bap­tize all infants, and to undertake the defence of Baptizing some onely: Nay, afterwards he saith, I Baptize more then I am able to make good. But the truth is the stating of the question, touching children of believers, is neither a fallacy, nor flowes it from disability, but to distinguish controversies, and facilitate the dispute: for he knowes well enough, that these are distinct disputes, whether children of any believers are to be Baptized? and what profession of faith doth make a man so to be reputed a believer, as to con­vey this priviledge to his children? And the former controversy [Page 10]being ended, this later may have its due place: and therefore what M. H. dictates here about fallacy or disability, is indeed fal­lacious adfaciendum populum.

My fourth thing premised, that I must have liberty to chuse and order mine own weapons. M. Har. count [...]reasonable, and af­ter sets down his purpose and method, to answer me only in his own way, without reference to M. Tombes, whom he hints to have a peculiar way of maintaining his tenent, and then that he will set down the sub­stance of each argument with its confirmation, and so answer it; But I doubt he will be found more fair in promise, then in perform­ance: but to the tryall.

CHAP. III.

MY first ground for Infant-Baptisme was drawn from Gen. 17.7. Deut. 30.6. Act. 2.39. Whence he proposeth the sum of the argument thus; To whom the Gospel Covenant is extend­ed in the Churches of Christians, to them the Sacrament of initi­ation, appointed for that administration of the Covenant, (viz. Bapt sme) doth belong, Act. 10 47. But to Infants of believing parents, the Gospel Covenant is extended in the Churches of Christ, Gen. 17.7. Deut. 30.6. Act. 2.39. This saith M. H. is the sum, and what is further alledged in reference to M. Tombes his asser­tions, that he saith he will leave to M. Tombes to make good. But M. H. should have taken notice of those things brought for con­firmation of this argument, that concern not M. Tombes in parti­cular, but all opponents in generall, as what I deliver at large for the sense of that place, Gen. 17.7. pag 10, 11, 13, 14. Wherein I explain and confirm our sense of childrens being in Covenant with their patents, which he hath unfairly passed by without ta­king notice of: but I will consider his answer which he gives in divers particulars.

First saith he, I know of no Gospel Covenant, but that spoken of, Jer. 31.31. Quoted by the Apostle, Heb. 10.16,17. But first what thinks he of that? Gen. 12.3. In thee shall all the families of the earth be blest. And the places cited by me, doe not they speak of a Gospel Covenant at first? Gen. 17.7. I will be they God, and the God of thy seed: Is not that a Gospel Covenant? No, saith M. H. pag. 8. There is nothing from the 6. to the 15. ver. of Gen. 17. of a Gospel Covenant: but only apromise of Canaan to Abraham and his fleshly seed, and a duty to be circumcised, as a token of that fleshly Co­venant to be submitted to on Abrahams part, and his fleshly seed. But is this confident assertion true? Is not, I will be thy God, a Gosp [...]l-Covenant? Are they not the same words which the Prophet u­seth in expressing the Gospel Covenant? Jer. 31.33. I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Again, is not the Covenant with Abraham? ver. 7. the same with that, ver. 4. of the same, Gen. 17. and that a Gospel Covenant by the verdict of the holy Ghost? Gal. 3.8. As Ames answers Bellarmine disputing just against all Protestants, as M. H. doth against me. Legimus Deum, &c. We read saith Bellar. de sacr. es­sectu, Lib. [...]. cap. 17. Bellarmine, that God when he injoined circumcision to Abraham, did promise onely earthly things, i.e. propagation of poste­rity, and the land of Palestine. And again. Ibid. Ero Deus tuus: I will be thy God, holds forth, saith Bellarmine, onely a promise of peculiar protection. To whom Ames answers, proving from, Matth. 22.32. I am the God of Abraham: And whence our Saviour gathers the resurrection to blisse, that in these words I will be thy God: ther's a Gospel promise, or Christ shuld have argue [...] ut sillily from it. Again, is circumcision only a token of a fleshly Covenant? How doth M. Har. again joyn with Papists against Protestants, nay the worst of Papists? for many Papists acknowledge circumci­sion to be a seal of grace, but Bellarmine denies it of circumcision, Bel. lib. 2. de essecta Sa [...]r cap. 13. and all other Sacraments of the Jews, with whom M. Har. joins, in making circumcision in the institution of it, onely a token of a fleshly Covenant. Is this to come out of Babylon, thus to side with Papists against Protestants in the doctrine of the Sacrament? And how crosse is this to the Apostle, making circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of faith? Rom. 4.11. Yea, how plainly doth the Scriptures hint, that the circumcision of the flesh was the Sacrament, signe or seal of the circumcision of the [Page 12]heart? See Deutronomy 30.6. Rom. 2.28, 29. Col. 2.11.

Again, is nothing in Gen. 17. from ver. 6. to 15. spoken of, but onely a promise of Canaan to Abraham and his fleshly seed? &c. What thinks he of ver. 12, 13. where others then Abrahams fleshly seed were to be circumcised, which had nothing to doe with Canaan? And what saith he of Ismael, to whom its certain, the promise of Canaan did not belong? Its strange M. Har. will let slip such grosse things in a way, that he knowes they will be scanned, and that a man who in shew is so against Popery, should broach so much of it, whether of ignorance or choise, he best knowes. Sure (me thinks) this should startle his followers, to be misled into so apparant breach of their protestation, which is to maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England against all Po­pery: yet here and in other places following, they are taught to speak the language of Rome, against the Protestant doctrine main­tained in the Churches of England. But I proceed: Neither were they, saith M. Har. any otherwaies separated, but externally, and ty­pically. What, was there not still an election among the Jews, that were separated internally as I shewed pag. 11? Were not the Jews separated to be Gods visible Church and kingdom, where­in the invisible Church is contained as wheat and the chaffe? and by their externall separation were they not accounted children, and partakers of all externall Church priviledges, Rom. 9.45. from which aliens were exempt and counted as dogs without? What is more apparant in the face of the Scripture then these things? And is not thus much held forth? Gal. 2.15. For was not a Jew then a name of Religion, answering in that state of the Church to the name Christian now, as appears plainly from Rom. 2.28, 29? And are there not carnall and externall Christi­ans now, as there were Jews then? as I have shewed pag. 14. and you must confesse, unlesse you deny the Christian Church to harbour any hypocrites, or carnall Christians contrary to daily experience, and divers parables of our Saviour recorded, Mat. 13. These things I have proved in my Answer to M. Tombes, pag. 10, 11, 13, 14. And therefo [...] to deny them without answer, and af­firm the contrary without proof, is very beggarly disputing.

Now let us see whether Deut. 30.6. be not a Gospel Covenant. Touching which M. Har. first saith, he never heard any account that a [Page 13]Gospel Covenant. But that may be, because perhaps he accounts reading or consulting learned Divines, consulting with flesh and blood, and so shuns it.

2. He saith, If I had read over the first and second verses, and ob­served the condition, I would have known it to be a branch of the Co­venant made upon mount Sinai. But I tell him more truly, that if he had considered the matter of the promise, he might have seen cleerly, that it is a Gospel promise, because it imports renovati­on by Gods spirit, which Christ works on Christians, under, and by vertue of the Gospel Covenant, Col. 2.10, 11, 12. Yea it im­ports the very same thing with that in Jer. 31.33. which M. H. here confesseth to be a Gospel Covenant. Neither will his argu­ment from the condition hinder, for he should know that there was a double Covenant proposed to the Jews, as is apparant, Gal. 4.17. the one of grace begun to Abraham, the other at mount Sinai 430 years after, and this later is stiled by Divines, faedus subserviens, as he might have learned from M. Tombes, pag. 102. A Covenant subservient to that of grace, by discovering sin and misery, and so need of Christ, to draw or drive us to him. So though God in the beginning speak after the phrase of the Law, that was but to make way for the promise in the Gospel, which he addes in the close above temporary blessings.

But now let us see what he saith to Acts 2.39. He boldly affirms that the promise to children is onely with reference to calling, and so holds forth no more priviledge to a Christians, then to the childe of a Turk. This is boldly asserted, but with little proof, and with how little truth may thus appear:

1. The promise mentioned, must needs relate to some parti­cular promise left upon record in the Word, else Peter had spo­ken out of his own head, which the Apostles neither did nor might doe, Mat. 28.20. Act. 26.22.

2. The articlé [...], the promise, notes some eminent promise, and from the scope of the Sermon, that promise is evi­dent to be a branch of the Covenan [...] of grace.

3. That this promise did in a peculiar manner belong to the Jews, and to their children. That is, they and their children were of those to whom the Covenant did primarily belong, and to the Gentiles secondarily, when God should call them accord­ing [Page 14]to that, Gen. 12.3. So then, the promise belonged to the Jews, and to their children: They and their children were children of the Covenant in act, and in regard of outward right, as it is, Act. 3.25, 26. To them pertained the Adoption and the Cove­nants, Rom. 9.4. And so shall the Gentiles when called, as Zacheus, in joy the priviledges of the children of Abraham. And thus the Apostle laid before them a good ground of comfort, to finde par­don upon repentance, because by their present Church-state, they and their children were children of the Covenant, which God would make good, and upon repentance accept them, so then, here is a priviledge of children quâ children, to be children of the Covenant, (else they are to no purpose, nor with good sense here mentioned) and that can be no other then to be faederati with their parents, which all confesse in some sense to be so under the old Testament, according to which dispensation the Apo­stle there speaks.

But by the way, pag, 7. M. Har. drops us a distinction; The Go­spel Covenant, saith he, may be extended to persons visibly or invisi­bly; and he denies Infants to be visibly within the Covenant. But I answer, if he mean by visibly, knownly, or that which we know to be so by evidence of Scripture, then I say, Infants are known to be within the Gospel Covenant with their parents, which I have proved by those testimonies, that yet speak aloud for all his gag, which was either too short, or too weak: but if by visible, be means that which is known to the eie only: then his positions are false. For why should not any demonstrations to reason, evi­dencing a persons being within Covenant; be as good a ground for Baptisme, as those that are ocular only? As for that which he saith, that Infants before Baptisme, are not of the visible Church by confession of all: Whence he would gather a contradiction in my words, pag 7. Its but a weak fancy, for all but Anabaptists ac­knowledge Infants of Church-members to be of the visible Church in regard of right, and so the seal may be challenged for them, as well as for those grown up that are converted, to whom the Covenant belongs. Baptisme being a seal to confirm that right, which we are supposed to have, in and by the Covenant. And thus I have done with M. Harrisons reply to my first argu­ment.

CHAP. IIII.

BEfore I passe to the second argument, I shall think it needfull to examine some things published by M. Tombes in his late A­pology, to puzzle this argument drawn from those places that shew children to be confederates with their parents, pag. 40. to 47. Where M. Tombes affirms, that the argument which M. Mar­shall, D. Homes, and M. Geree, being for Baptizing Infants, is either a tautology, or equivocation; The proof he promiseth he e­after, when he shall have liberty to examine their intangled di­scourses. Great words, but how just, I shall shew in my own particular, which will be a clearing of my brethren also. Having pag. 10. produced the place, Gen. 17.7. I will establish my Cove­nant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their gene­rations: for an everlasting Covenant, to be a God unto thee, and thy seed after thee. To finde out the meaning of this place, I in­quire first, what the priviledge is? Secondly, what the extent of it is? For the matter of the priviledge I shew out of Calvin, that the Church was setled in Abrahams family, and the Israelites, (Abrahams posterity) became the house, and sheepfold of God, and had the priviledge of adoption belonging to them in com­mon, Rom. 9.4. To whom pertained the adoption: And so by a birth-priviledge they were severed from others, Gal. 2.15. we who are Jews by nature. But now among those that had this priviledge of common adoption to be reputed children; there were alwaies to be some separated by the secret election of God, made partakers of sanctifying, and saving graces, and so really the children of God; In comparison of whom, the other I sratlites are sometimes spoken of, as no sennes of Abraham, Rom. 9.6, 7. [Page 16]though externally they were the children of the Kingdom, and in reference to the Gentiles are so stiled, Cant. 8.11, 12. So then, the priviledge is, that he would be a God to Abraham, and all the seed, in regard of externall denomination, and internall privi­ledges of a visible Church, and to the elect in regard of spirituall Adoption, grace and glory. After pag. 12. I examining M. Tombes his exammation of M. Marshals second conclusion, which M. Tombes desputes against as though it held forth, that all in­fants of believers, are so in Covenant with their parents, as to have saving graces intayled on them: which I say is not onely against Protestants principles, but believed by M. Tombes himself, not to be M. Marshals meaning from pag. 142. of his examen. And then pag. 13. I plainly and distinctly lay open our meaning, when we say children are in Covenant with their parents: That as it was with the people of Israel by vertue of the Covenant made with Abraham: That the fathers with the children became Gods visible Church, and so intitled to, and enjoyed the visible privi­ledges of adoption, oracles, seals, Rom. 9 4, 5. And the elect a­mong them enjoyed the visible grace, which was to be presumed of all in charity, till they discovered the contrary: So now we conceive that under the Gospel, by vertue of the same Covenant, (into the participation of which Christians are assumed) believers with their freedom [...]ake up the visible Kingdom of Christ, and enjoy outward Church-priviledges; And the elect among them, enjoy those things in truth, which others only have externally, and in profession. And this is to be presumed of all Infants of believers, till they discover the contrary: And thus have they right to the seal of initiation. And in this sense are you to take the passage quoted by you out of the Directory: That the promise is to believers, and to their seed, &c. Thus were my expressions in my vindiciae. Now I referre it to the judgement of the learned, whether M. Tombes had any cause to complain for want of di­stinctnes in expression, or whether he doth deal ingenuously in taking part of my words? (pag. 43. of his Apology) to make them found harsh and absurd, or had cause from my words, to question whether making a Covenant were all one with a charitable presumption; with such like groundles expressions, for want of solid matter of confutation. Neither had be ground to say, that [Page 17]none would expound the words of the Directory as I doe, but he that would make mens words like a nose of wax: if he take my expositi­on whole, as I have laid it down above; not lamely, as he hath unfairly represented it. For I conceive the expressions of the Directory, were used with reference to the expressions of Scri­pture: Now the expressions in Scripture, Gen. 17.7. Rom. 9.4. to whom pertained the Covenants, Act. 3.25. Yea are the chil­dren of the Covenant, must, and usually are expounded, as I have expounded them. And then its no violent, but a charitable, yea a rationall interpretation of the words of the Directory, to give them that sense, which we give to the places of Scripture whence they are drawn. The Covenant that the Jews were under, none deny to be a Covenant of grace, and of a Covenant of grace speak, Rom. 9.4. Act. 3.25. and this Covenant being in these places attributed to visible Churches, all were under the Covenant that is truly stiled a Covenant of grace; But all are not under it in the same sense, nor to enjoy thereby priviledges of the same quality: but some onely externally, and reputatively, and enjoy thereby externall Church-priviledges, a name to be sons, a name to live, Revel. 3.1. and others to enjoy inward gra­ces really. And therefore Infants of believers may be said to be under the Covenant of grace, and yet no necessity to take it in that sense, that it is in regard of saving graces. But in that sense as it would, and must have been taken, if it had been uttered touching children of believing Jews, (when I think none would have stumbled at it) that they are so under that Covenant, that is the Covenant of grace, as to be reputed children, and to be ac­counted of Gods visible Church, entitled to his seals and other externall Church-priviledges. The Argument that M. Tombes urgeth, to prove that the words of the Directory mean, that children are so under the Covenant of grace, as to have a promise of saving grace. pag. 42. of his Apology, are as strong against the true, and necessary interpretation of the Scriptures cited, therefore they be but mistakes. For Gen. 17.7. is meant of naturall seed, not soirituall onely: and then God was in one sense the God of Abra­ham, and in another the God of his seed, at least some of them. M. Tombes confesseth, pag. 76. of his Apology, that the same word is used in divers senses, Rom. 11.17. & Joh. 15.2. so that the taking [Page 18]of one word in divers senses, in one and the same sentence need not so much offend him. And the instruction for doctrine, and the instruction for petition may well be thus accorded. That those to whom the Covenant of grace doth externally belong, for as they are reputed of the visible Church, and to have adopti­on belonging to them, Rom 9.4. and so to have right to the seals, may by the goodnes of God in blessing his Ordinance, be really partakers of the saving graces promised, and so enjoy the highest priviledge of the Covenant of grace, internally and really. But, saith M. Tombes, the whole series of the direction in the Directory carries the meaning thus, to wit, that the Covenant that children are under, is the Covenant of saving grace.

I answer, Its true that the Covenant that belongs to children, is the Covenant of grace, but so is the Covenant mentioned, Rom. 9.4. Act. 3.25. But the query is, in what sense, and in what re­spect they are said to be under this Covenant of grace? that is no otherwise then Jewish children were, all to receive a visible Church estate, to be of Christs visible Kingdom: the elect to par­take of grace indeed. And therefore I see no cause why this part of the doctrine of the Directory should cause disquiet to the Church of God: when the offence may be removed by a fair interpretation: whereto good reason may lead us, and charity binde us. I think with M. Tombes, that it is great honour to ac­knowledge and amend errours that are indeed such. But this is an honour, that I think few will conceive M. Tombes ambitious of, (not with banding his good counsell to others) that shall read his Apology: wherein he shall scarce finde any acknowledgement of errour in the manner of handling his controversy, though I may boldly say, genera singulorum, if not singula generum (for he tells of one in this Apology, pag. 16, that told him his sharpnes was usefull) of such as look into Books, judged him not a little faulty in the manner of prosecution of this controversy with M. Marshal and others.

CHAP. V.

TOuching my second Argument drawn from Rom. 11.11, &c. M. Harrison first complains, that it is confused, not syllogisticall. Its rare for a man of his quality, to complain for want of syllo­gismes, being usually they have the better scope to evade. Then he examines my four principles laid down as the ground of my argument thence.

First, That the Jews did once belong to God as his visible Church. This he grants to be true externally: and that visible im­ports, for what is visible is externall; But why he addes typically I know not: if he mean it that they were not so really, but a sha­dow of visible Churches under the Gospel, its apparantly false, if they were so really, though therein they were a type, weakens not the edge of my principle at all.

Second principle, Though some elect among them, Ver. [...], 6. to 17. (which were but a small remnant) obtained mercy, yet the body in ge­nerall was cut off, and cast out of the honour and relation, to be the people and kingdom of God. This he grants.

Third principle, That the Believing Gentiles are received into the place of the Jews cut of, and so taken into the fellowship of believing Jews, to partake of their priviledges, and to be Gods house and kingdom with them. This pincheth, and here he addes qualifications.

1. That as all the fleshly seed of Abraham were with reference to Canaan, externally the visible kingdom of God: so now all the spirituall seed of Abraham with reference to the new Jerusalem, are spiritually the people of God, and through profession of faith the visible kingdom of God, 1 Pet. 2.4, 5.

But here first to let passe his expression, of visible kingdom with reference to Canaan, and spiritually the people of God, with reference to the new Jerusalem, which are new coined expressi­ons, [Page 20]without warrant out of the Word: as also his misapplication of 1 Pet. 2.5. to the visible kingdom, which expressely note the spirituall house: to passe by these: I say, the verses quoted by me, will make my principle good, for ver. 17. And if some of the branches be broken off: and you being a wilde Olive tree, were graf­fed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fat­nes of the Olive tree, is spoken to the body of the Gentiles, that visibly profest christianity, many of which were but chaffe with the wheat: how can he then say it constrains no more, but that the spirituall seed are by profession the visible kingdom? Sith the chaffe had the same externall Church-state with the wheat: that is, the formall with the spirituall Christian. Its true that the spi­rituall seed by profession of faith become the visible kingdom of God: but is it not as true that among the Gentile, yea and Jew­ish Professours, there were many formalists, yet they also were members of the visible kingdom with the spirituall seed?

His second qualification is, That as the Jews had right to their priviledges by birth, so now all the seed of Abraham, Jews and Gentiles, through faith, have right to their priviledges, not otherwaies. But this is a most false assertion, for priviledges of the seed of Abra­ham are either externall, as to be of Gods visible kingdom, and to have the outward seals, or internall, as remission of sins, and the internall only they have by faith: the externall they have by profession of faith, as he himself confesseth in regard of visible Church-state, here and elsewhere touching Baptisme: now our dispute is about externall priviledges, wherein his assertion is ap­parently, and by his own principles, false.

Fourth principle, That the body of the Jews cast off, shall be graffed in again, and enjoy their pristine honour to be the people of God, and the visible kingdom of Christ, though not solely, yet as fully, nay more gloriously then before, Hos. 1.10, 11. & Hos. 2.23. Rom. 11.25.26. This he grants, but denies the conclusions from it.

The conclusions are,

1. That when the Jews were in their first estate, their chil­dren were comprehended in the Covenant with them. This first he grants, pag. 10. but withsome addition, as they were a fleshly seed, they were in Covenant with their parents: but this is a corrupt ad­dition, [Page 21]for this makes the Covenant a fleshly Covenant only, which is derogatory to it, and the Saints under the old Testa­ment.

2. Conclus. The Jews that obtained mercy kept their station, and so must needs retain their priviledges for them and theirs, ver. 17. That is, that they and their children should continue the visible kingdom of God: Else a Jew should be a loser in his seed, by the coming of Christ: for they that before were within, should after be without, and denuded of that dignity which be­fore they had.

3. Conclus. The believing Gentile succeeds the rejected Jews, and becomes one visible kingdom with the Jews that kept their station, and so must injoy their priviledge, to belong to God with their seed.

4. Conclus. The Jews called, recovering their pristine condi­tion with advantage, the promise will be extended to them, and to their seed, as Isa. 59.20. And so must it be with the seed of Christian Gentiles, else we make a partition wall under the Gospel.

Now to the three last conclusions M. Har. answers together, by fained senses which he knows I intend not, only to delude where he cannot answer: for why should he inquire whether I mean by station, place and promise, Canaan and circumcision, and other cere­monies, pag. 11. that were peculiar parts of the Jewish administration? Whereas I have exprest their station, to be with their seed the vi­sible Church or kingdom of Christ, to whom pertaineth the ado­ption, and to whom were committed the oracles of God, Rom. 3.2. and to whom were vouchsafed all other priviledges of visible Church members. And such among them as had the faith th [...]t they profest, injoyed also the spirituall priviledges of remission of sins, and sanctification, &c. but not these only. And that the Jews in part standing still, in part breaking of, and the Gentiles graffing in, is meant of a visible Church-state, to injoy or loose visible priviledges, in becoming or ceasing to be of Gods visible Church, wherein the invisible is comprehended, but not alone meant, may be evidently demonstrated.

1. The broken off onely fell from being members of a visible Church, and lost visible priviledges only, Rom. 11. God hath [Page 22]not cast away his people which he foreknew: for members of the invisible Church cannot fall away, they are built upon the rock, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail: nor can their peculiar priviledges be lost? Such gifts of God are like the seed, 1 Pet. 1.23. Immortall.

2. For the Jews that stood imbracing the profession of Christ: many were but carnall Christians, as appears in that the Church­es received so much disturbance from them, and so kept only outward Church-priviledges, not inward graces.

3. The Gentiles admitted, were good and bad together, ga­thered by the draw-net of the Gospel, who all were of Christs visible kingdom, and admitted to outward Church-priviledges, from which the former were fallen, but not all of them to invisi­ble graces: by all which it appears, how falsely M. Harrison af­firms, that here is nothing spoken or meant of outward birth priviled­ges, and that all is of such priviledges as belong to the spirituall seed. Indeed there be spirituall priviledges belonging to the elect Christian, whether of Jews and Gentiles, and so much the ver­ses quoted by M. H. import, but thats not all, as I have shewed, neither should a Christian Infant only loose shadowes, to be expun­ged out of the visible Church or kingdom of Christ. Sith they that are out of that pale, are visibly without God, and without hope: a sad condition to put Infants into, and to the Parents grievous.

Yet one thing more I must needs touch, and it is pag. 10. If he mean saith M. Harrison, that whereas before they were but externally Gods people and children, now the externall shadowes, viz. Canaan be­ing done away, they were by faith partakers of the substance Christ, and so were the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus: I grant they kept and bettered their station. Here M. Harrison speaks as though the Israelites while Canaan and other shadowes stood, were but externally the people of God, nor were partakers of Christ the substance, which is a most erroneous and hereticall opinion, in­jurious to the Saints of old, contrary to the expresse Word of God, that tells us that Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Christ, John 8.56. And how but by faith? and so did all godly Israelites: What faith was it, but a true, living, justifying faith, whereby those worthies did so great things, and obtained a good report? And [Page 23]had not many of the Jews, yea all that were godly, a justifying faith before Christ was preacht to them by the Apostles? who thereby had not wrought in them a now grace of faith, but the faith they had, was new circumstanced, directed to look to the person of Christ Jesus, as the true Messiah already come, whereas before, they relyed indefinitely on the Messiah promised to come, as is to be seen in Lydia, Act. 16.14. So in Simeon and Anna, Luk. 2. And therefore I shall desire M. Harrison in such points to speak more truly, or more warily, or else to forbear writing books, till he be better grounded in Divinity. And thus I have cleared my second argument.

CHAP. VI.

MAster Tombes, pag. 69. of his Apology saith, I goe upon Rom. 11.11, 12. and somewhat more distinctly then M. Marshall, yet he complains for my want of syllogizing from it. But that (me­thinks) is a needles complaint by a Scholar, when fair mediums for syllogisme are held out: neither doe I think it needfull, so supersticiously to tie a mans self to rules of art, when by reason of variety of mediums, various syllogismes must be made, which if needles, so much time and paper may be spared: yet sith he ex­pects it, I will now satisfy his desire. The conclusion which I say, (and he denies not) to be proved, was, that the children of Christians, have the same priviledge 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 he denies: this I shewed ground for by four cleer principles and conclusions, from that Rom. 11.11. &c. from which I now syllogise thus.

That Church-state. and those outward Church-priviledges [Page 24]which the Jews had by vertue of a pure Gospel-promise, that the Christian Jews retained: but that the Jews and their seed should be Gods visible Church, and injoy cutward Church-priviledges, was a benefit that they had by a pure Gospel-Covenant. Ergo the major is clear from ver. 17. of Rom. 11. whence my second conclusion is proved, that the Jews that obtained mercy kept their station. The minor I prove. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed in their generations, Gen. 17.7. is a pure Gospel-pro­mise. But by vertue of that, the Jews had this Church state: that they and their seed were the visible Church of God, and in­joied outward Church-priviledges. Ergo.

Again thus: What Gospel-priviledge the nation of the Jews had before their rejection, that they shall recover with advantage at their restauration. To have their seed to belong to Gods visible kingdom with them, and injoy outward Church-priviledges: was a Gospel priviledge belonging to the Jews before their fall. Ergo, The major is clear from Rom. 11.25, 26. Hos. 1.10, 11. & 2.23. By which my fourth principle, which is in effect the major here confirmed.

The minor appears: For by being Gods visible kingdom, Christ and all his benefits were off [...]red to them all, and made good to the elect: which ordinarily were among them and none else, and therefore this was a Gospel-priviledge: being it conduced to salvation.

Again thus:

What Church-state, and priviledges belonged to the Christi­an Jews in Pauls time, and shall belong to the body of the Jews when restored, (degrees only excepted.) That belongs to all Christian Gentiles. But to the former belongeth, to have the Co­venant with them and their seed, so that the children belong to the visible kingdom of Christ: Ergo. The major is my third princi­ple, grounded on Rom. 11.17. And thus I have Answered M. Tombes his desire with syllogismes.

Now what saith he to all this? why?

1. If I mean by the Gentiles assumed into the place of the Jews, out of the same Church-state, and by partaking of priviledges, the privi­ledges belonging to the Church-state, it is denyed.

I Answer, I doe mean the same Church-state and Church pri­viledges [Page 25]that are not typicall, and this is plainly-proved by Rom. 11.17. they are in their place in the Olive, and so must injoy at least what they had: neither hath he, nor can he disprove it: for though he hold the ingraffing is more then into the visible Church, yet he denies not that they had thereby a visible Church-state too, pag. 71. Neither saith he, is a believing Jew a loser in his seed by the coming of Christ: Sith this was a peculiar priviledge in the time of that Church-state, which now ceaseth to be a priviledge: which he saith he hath further discust. Examen part 3.6, 11. which I have viewed again, and there finde that as here, so there he barely dictates without proof, which learned men cannot count satisfactory, thus to defalk the Covenant of grace in the extent of it in a thing where nothing typicall is shewed or can be.

For my fourth sectary, if it be understood of pristine Church state he denies it, but he grants, the promise will be extended to them and their seed: as the text imports, Isa. 59.20. Why then say I, he grants that now under the Gospel, children shall be under the promise, (which is but a branch of the Covenant) and what is this, but that which he hath so stiffely denyed, and which we assert as the ground of the seal annext to it. Neither (saith he) will there be two distinct estates, one of the Jews, of holy fathers and children: another of Gentiles who have only personall priviledge, none for their seed; But by his leave this will follow, unlesse he grant that the promise or Covenant is to Christian Gentiles, and their seed too: and if he grant that, whether the seal of initiation will not follow the Co­venant, I leave to be weighed by proofs set down in their places. And unlesse he grant this priviledge to Christian Gentiles, there will follow a partition wall thus far, to make distinct conditions of persons under the Gospel, contrary to Ephes. 2.14. where Christ hath made Jews and Gentiles equall.

From me, M. Tombes proceeds to M. Marshall, pag 7. Where he saith, the chief difference is, whether the ingraffing be into the invisible Church by election and faith, as M. Tombes affirmed. To which M. Marshall replies, that if it be meant of the invisible Church only, and all that are ingraffed in the Apostles sense: whether Jews and Gentiles, are only elect ones. Then will he promise never to plead this Scripture more for Infants.

This motion M. Tombes accepts: but in the repetition that [Page 26]the ingraffing is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith, he leaves out the word onely, wherein the whole emphasis of M. Marshalls offer lyes. He tells us again, that the same people were ingraffed into the visible Church, but the ingraffing is more then that which is into the visible Church by outward profession and Qrdi­nances. But what is this, but what M. Marshall and my self have again and again asserted, that its meant of making all to be of the visible Church that professe, and those to be of the invisible Church that are elect and truly believe? and this is enough to car­ry the cause, that at least the elect Gentiles by ingraffing, obtained the visible Church-state of the broken off: and so they and their chil­dren are in Covenant as the broken off were; And therefore I should not be so liberall in my grant, as M. Marshall to M. Tombes, in this, wherein he is an adversary. M. Tombes brings many ar­guments to prove, that the ingraffing is meant into the invisible Church by election and faith, which I shall examine and disco­ver, if he put in the word [onely] they are too light, if not, they reach not the question, the thing in question: only first I will pre­mise an observation. That it is an usuall thing in Scripture, when it speaks of visible Churches, though it is apparant they did con­sist of good and bad: to give attributes that are to be understood only of the elect, and invisible part: either because of the same profession of goodnes that all make, or synechdochically naming the better part for the whole, thus in the inscriptions of S. Pauls Epistles. All the members of visible Churches are tearmed Saints, and peculiarly, 1 Thes. 1.5. Knowing beloved your election of God. So the seven Churches of Asia, are tearmed golden candlesticks. May we hence truly gather, that there were none in any of the Gentile Churches but Saints, and that all the Angels and mem­bers of the seven Churches of Asia were golden? He of Sardis, and all that had a name to live and were dead, Revel. 3.7? Surely no, but those things are attributed to visible Churches because of the elect among them, yet were not the elect only spoken to, or of: even so many of the expressions from which M. Tombes ar­gues, are peculiar to the elect, not that no non-elect persons had among them a standing in the visible Church, and not in the invisible: but the expressions are used synechdochically, the more noble part put for the whole: but now to the par­ticulars. [Page 27]That the ingraffing is into the invisible Church only.

1. Because it is by Gods sole power, Rom. 11.23. I answer, the ground is weak, for no man can give a man power so far to believe as to professe, especially one blinded and hardened of God, but God alone: and was not the visible Church-state of the Jews, when all other Nations were without an act of Gods power only, nor could it be by man? So then also their re­ingraffing, though many come to be members of a visible Church only.

2. He argues, because the ingraffing is called reconciliation, oppo­site to casting away, ver. 15. which is called breaking off, ver. 17. But this also is too weak for the casting away and breaking, being but a losse of what they had, that is, visible priviledges; the reconci­liation might be, and in many Gentiles was but a vouchsafing them a visible Church estate, no longer to be reputed dogs as they had been.

3. He argues from ver. 20. By unbelief they were broken, but thou standest by faith. I answer, The elect, by faith and profession, was both in the invisible and visible Church: the formall, by appear­ance of faith stood in mens esteem, and as members of the visible Church. And to this purpose Calvine, part of whose speech you afterward applaud; Pracipuè notandum Pauli sermonem non tam ad singulos homines quam ad totum Gentium corpus dirigi, in quo mul­ti esse poterant frustra inflat, fidem potius profitentes, quàm ha­bentes.

4. He argues from ver. 17. That ingraffing is meant, whereby the wilde O live is copartner of the root and fatnes of the Olive tree, and then much stir is kept what the root is? But I answer, If the Olive give fatnes, I know no other Olive but he that is the vine, into whom all Christian Gentiles were ingraffed by profession, and the elect of them by faith really also, and hence this expressi­on, ver. 17. in regard of what in profession and shew be­longed to all, and in reality was verified of the better part, the elect.

5. He argues because the breaking off is by blinding, but that is weak, for then ingraffing may be by illumination to profession, which may be without election, Heb. 6.4, 5, 6.

6. He argues because reingraffing brings salvation, but that is to some of the ingraffed, not all, unlesse he thinks at the Jews re­stauration, there shall be none of them formalists and hypo­crites.

7. He argnes because the ingraffing is by vertue of Gods election, his love, his gifts of calling, ver. 30, 31, 32. But I answer the election, love, and gifts being such here, as belong to bodies or nations: it is not such as M. Tombes means, which is election unto salvation by faith; Sith that belongs not to whole bodies or Nations, or not to all of them, and so is attributed in regard of the better part.

8. Lastly, because the ingraffing is the fruit of Gods mercy, and breaking off by shutting up in unbelief. But neither is this last co­gent, sith there is generall mercy to make members of a visible Church, as well as speciall, to make members of the invisible, and their unbelief was not only want of saving faith, but historicall faith to professe, which later if they had had, they had not been broken off, and therefore they that have it are ingraffed into their rooms, to injoy that visible standing, which for want of it they lost. Thus M. Tombes his army of arguments are routed, and it is to be observed, that in all his conclusions he leaves out the word onely, which is the binge of the controversy, for we not only doe not deny, but also positively affirm, that in some the in­graffing was by faith and election into the invisible, as well as by calling and profession of faith into the visible. So M. Marshall, pag. 137. and 138. of his defence; But where M. Marshall inter­pre [...]s it only of bare admission into visible Church-membership, excluding the ingraffing into the invisible, I professe I cannot finde, and therefore believe M. Tombes hath in that imputation wronged him. For the places that M. Tombes makes parallell, 1 Cor. 12.13. Ephes. 3.6. Gal. 3.14, 26 28 29. They are so farre in my apprehension from confirming his opinion, that they ma­nifestly confirm my observation, touching the expressions of Scripture, when they speak of the visible Church, in which there are good and bad; they in regard of the profession of all, and the reality in the elect, speak as though all were elect: but it is by a synechdoche. For let M. Tombes tell me, doth he think all and every particular person Baptized in Corinth, or Galatia; were [Page 29]really ingraffed into the body of Christ, or had put him on? &c. Yet this is spoken of all, in regard this was true in all in professi­on and appearance, and there were some elect among them, of whom it was true really: even so we do, and are to interpret many phrases urged by him in Rom. 11. in this present busi­nesse.

The only objection of weight saith M. Tombes is, that then some branches of the invisible Church are broken off, and so election made revocable, and apostacy from grace maintained. This is an objecti­on of weight indeed, but not the only objection: for there is an­other also as forcible, hinted also by me, pag. 18. where I affirm, that the Apostle speaks not of particular persons, but of the body of the Jews, and the body of the Gentiles that were Christians col­lectively, received into the room of the Jews broken off: and the body of the Gentiles that received Christ by profession, were not all elect, but good and bad drawn together by the draw­net of the Gospel. But how doth he answer the weighty ob­jection?

1. He boldly affirms, That the breaking off, was of the branches that were truly such, and of the ingraffing that was truly such, into the invisible Church. But may we not change the verse and say? —Pictoribus at (que) sophistis, Quidlibet audendi, &c. But he brings an allay, That by the branches are not meant singular persons, but the people, why then the people that were ingraffed into the invisible Church were broken off so yet the invisible Church was prevailed against in his sense: therefore I know not what help this limi­tation will doe him. That which is said of people in a body, must be true in some particulars of that body: so if the body of the people truly ingraffed into the invisible Church were broken off, this must be true in some singular persons. Besides, how ap­parantly crosse is M. Tombes his assertion to the Apostle, Rom. 11.1, 2. Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. God hath not cast away his people that he foreknew. So you see the people that make the [...]nvisible Church are not broken off. What M. Tombes addes afterward touching the body of a people which were once the elect people of God, and ingrassed into the invisible Church, because the genera­lity were such, that it's no errour to say they are broken off from election.

I say first, it is not good sense to say the body of a people is in­grafted into the invisible Church, whereas the invisible Church is comprehended under a visible body, as chaffe under wheat: and to say a Church is broken off from that election which is spe­ciall, and to grace which was once elect, and from being the in­visible Church that was once the invisible Church, is sure a most grand errour. For speciall election to grace and glory, which makes any people of the invisible Church, is a foundation of God that remains sure, against which, the gates of hell cannot pre­vail. The thing which occasioneth M. Tombes his errour, is want of consideration of a distinction, which M. Tombes very well knowes, but thorow eagernes to maintain his tenet (as I conceive) doth not consider. Election is either generall or speci­all: so is reprobation generall, election and reprobation is of bo­dies or societies: and this is only in reference to visible Churches, in which is contained the invisible: thus God is often said to chuse the Nation of the Iews, Deut 4.3 7. & 10.15. That is the body of his people to be his visible Church, in which indeed was con­tained the invisible. Now opposite to this generall election, is generall reprobation, whereby a people are cut off, or cast out of the honour of being Gods visible kingdom, and so without hope to be of the invisible: so then the breaking off of the Iews, was only from this generall election, and their reprobation generall, to cease to be Gods visible people; But now there is a speciall election of singular persons to be the invisible Church, and this is never attributed to a visible body, (unlesse synechdochically) and oft his we deny the broken off to be partakers of, or to fall from. The Apostle, Rom. 11. divides the Church of the Iews into two bodies, one the people that God foreknew, the other opposite: the one were of the invisible, the other of the visible Church or­ly; Those opposite were broken off, the whole body of them, but it is only from what they had, to be visible members, not from what they had not, to wit to be of the invisible: and therefore here his argute simile from the river Euphrates will not serve his turne, for we enquire not here what the Israelites had been, nor have we to doe with the species of Israel, but with these numericall branches broken off; The numericall branches graffed in menti­oned by him: for proof, pag. 77. from ver. 23, 24. were not they [Page 31]graffed, in his opinion, into the invisible Church, and then if in the same sense the numericall branches be broken off, they be broken off from the invisible Church, and then they fell from grace. The Apostle shews not there, that the branches were broken off, from what the species of the people had had in former times, but from what they had at the time of breaking off, and that was on­ly a visible standing in the Church, by vertue of Gods generall ele­ction, which then they lost: and by this distinction of generall and particular election, used by Calvin himself, lib. 3. cap. 21. in­stit. and Perkins on Revel. 2.9. you may see the sense of your au­thours, they speak as you say of the body of Jews and Gentiles, and so the election and reprobation which they speak of is gene­rall, to be or not to be a visible Church, and so alterable: not that speciall election and reprobation which is more immoveable then heaven and earth, of which the question is between you and us. And these words of mine will doe you as little good: that holi­nes, Rom 11.16. is meant of potentiall holines in regard of Gods election, for thereby I only understand Gods purpose revealed, to take the seed of the Iews to be his visible Chur [...] once again, and no other sense can it have, sith the present [...] were so many of them unholy. Thus have I answered M. Tombes his large dissertation, which I again seriously commend unto him; being not a little grieved, to see so much ability and industry cast away, to darken manifest truth in my apprehension.

CHAP. VII.

MY fourth Argument ran thus. Saints under the Gospel, have right to Baptisme. Children of believers are Saints. Ergo, &c. Here M. H. puts in again his distinction of visible and invisible Saints: But this I put by as before, by informing him, that known is as much as visible, and therefore what a man may challenge be­cause [Page 32]he is visibly so qualified he may challenge, if his qualificati­on be known any other way; And therefore is a Saint judged to have right to Baptisme as a visible Saint, because by something discerneable to sense, he is known to be a Saint, and then if by evidence from the Word any be known to be Saints, they may be Baptized: but that Infants are, by 1 Cor. 7.14. So unlesse M. Har­risons answer to the minor, be more solid then his denyall of the major, he must miscarry.

First, M. H. affirms, that the holinesse ascribed to children, can­not be meant of faeder all holinesse: as the Nation of the Jews were holy, Gods visible Church having right to Church-priviledges as I expound it. Let us hear his reasons.

1. Because the wise is said to be sanctified to, or by the husband, as well as the children: the word in the Originall is the same: Now he thinks I will not call the unbelieving wife a Saint.

I answer, The unbelieving wife is not said to be sanctified ab­solutely, but in or to the believing husband, that is, (as he con­fesseth) as meats which are not made holy in themselves, but to the believer, and therefore cannot be called holy. But the children are said not to be sanctified to another, but to be holy, that is in themselves, as our Divine answers Bellarmine, lib. 1. de Bapt. cap 4. With whom how often doe you symbolize? But you say, the word in the Originall is the same, but that is plainly false, for the one is a verb with a proposition, [...], that may and do [...]h signifie an act on the unbeliever, in reference to another: the other is an Adjective, a concrete word that imports a quality inhaerent in the party, [...], So we want both truth and skill in this assertion, that the Originall word is the same. And so is the assertion following false also, that we must admit many such, as the Infidel wife in our Nationall Church: for we neither must, nor doe admit any, but those that professe faith in Christ, no more then M. Harrison.

His second reason is, because the unbelieving husband can by gene­ration conveigh no more to his children, then to his unbelieving wise. But this is just to beg the question, which we affirm, he barely denies: we give reason. The Covenant is with fathers and seed, not with the husband and his wife: and by vertue of that Cove­nant, the father that begetteth, conveigheth more to his childe [Page 33]then to his wife. But saith he, let us seriously consider, doth a be­liever beget a childe as a believer, or as a man? if as a man, then that is born of the flesh is flesh: &c.

I answer, Did a Jew beget a childe as a Jew, or as a man? not as a Iew: for then only Iews could beget children? Yet did a Iew I hope by vertue of Gods Covenant, conveigh to his childe Church-priviledges: his childe was a Iew by birth, Gal. 2.15. So may a childe by vertue of Gods Covenant, be reputed a Chri­stian by birth, in regard of Church-priviledges. But more close­ly: A man corrupt doth beget children as a man, or as a corrupt man: not as a corrupt man, for then he could not have begotten children had he stood innocent: but if as a man, whence is his childe corrupt? The answer must be, by vertue of the Covenant of works, under which Adam stood in Paradise as the head of mankinde, for breach of which every naturall branch of Adam is now born corrupt, Rom. 5.12. So though a believer beget a childe as a man, nay more as one of the corrupt issue of Adam, and so considered, the issue is corrupt: yet, as the believer is under another Covenant, that imparts priviledges to him and his seed: his seed may injoy that priviledge which the Covenant contains, and so may be reputed holy, belonging to the people of God, which an Infidels childe is not.

Next, M. H. gives us aj [...]june interpretation of his own, with­out proof: to wit, That the children are holy to the believing party, as all other dispensations of Gods providence are. Whereas here the children are not said to be holy to the parent, but absolutely, that is, in themselves. And according to Rom. 8. which he quoteth for proof or illustration: things unclean, even the sins of the called according to Gods purpose, are turned to good to humble them, and fit them for more grace, and therefore this is too low a sense, and reacheth not the Apostles meaning. Thus hath he deserted M. Tombes, who backt his opinion with some probability, that he did errare cum ratione: and without any answer to any of our reasons: he hath rejected our exposition, and proposed one of his own, which he hath left to shift for it self without proof. Doth this become the considence M. Harrison hath of his ability, to defend his tenet against any opponent? Touching this place, M. Tombes in his Apology addes not much, but only one crank he [Page 34]hath, with which if every man were as well pleased as himself, they would without doubt explode as he saith, the exposition of 1 Cor. 7.14. of faederall holines: but let us try the validity of it. If the reason, (saith he) p. 96. of the lawfulnes of two persons living to­gether in disparity of religion, be taken from the vertue of faith in the one party, not from the relation of husband and wife, as M. Marshalls exposition makes it, The medium of the Apostle to prove the lawfulnes of the living of a believing wife, with an unbelieving husband, will as well prove the lawfulnes of the living of a believing fornicatrix, with an unbelieving fornicator. I answer, if all the reason of the lawfulnes of a believing wife with an unbelieving husband, were from the faith of the believer, there were some strength in this consequence: but that we make not all the reason, for the scruple was in the Corinthians, whether notwithstanding their lawfull marriage, they might lawfully live together: yes saith the Apostle, the un­believer (in the use of marriage) for so it must be understood, is san­ctified to the believer: else, &c. so that marriage is the ground­work, which satisfied not their consciences, for so were they, Ezra 9. & 10. Yet was the holy seed polluted, but now saith the Apostle, the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer, &c. So then the parties that may lawfully live together on this ground, are sup­posed to be man and wife. And his major proposition must be: That man and wife may lawfully dwell together: whereof one is sanctified to the other, and so his fornicators will be excluded, not concluded. He saith, it is not necessary to insert, being husband and wife: sith the sanctification is not ascribed by him to the relation be­tween them, but to the faith of the one. But I answer, this is no good ground, for though the marriage be no cause of this sanctification, yet it is a ground supposed to make the Apostles resolution true, and on that ground it is made. There's two things required, to satisfie spirituall conscience in the use of a thing. First that it be lawfull in it self. Secondly that it be holy to us. The former is common to heathens and Christians, (in morall things) The last is the peculiar of believers: if either be wanting, conscience is de­filed, and will be disquieted. Now the sanctification here to qui­et their consciences, is an addition to the law of marriage, com­mon with them to heathens, and so we ought not to sever the la­ter from the former, which the Apostle supposed. So this new [Page 35]argument is overthrown without denying bastards to be faederally holy, where I should not have M. Tombes an adversary.

CHAP. VIII.

MY fourth argument for Infant-Baptisme was. To whom cir­cumcision doth agree, Baptisme doth agree: circumcision doth agree to Infants. Ergo. The major is proved, because Ba­ptisme doth succeed circumcision in the same place, state, and sig­nification in the new administration, that circumcision had in the old, Col. 2.11, 12. Here M. Harrison first denies, that circumcision and Baptisme do seal the same Covenant. I answer, circumcision was a seal of the Covenant made with Abraham, and that is the same made with us Christians, or else how can we by faith be made children of Abraham? And how could the Prophet argue from the Covenant made with Abraham, that Christians are justi­fied by faith, not the works of the law, as he doth, Gal. 3.16, 17. unlesse we had the same Covenant? and of our Covenant Baptis­me is the seal. 2. He denies circumcision to be the seal of remission of sin. But doth not the Apostle say, that circumcision was the seal of the righteousnes of faith, and that implies remission of sins, as he plainly shews in bringing, as proofs of justification by faith; Psal. 32.1. Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven, Rom. 4 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. M. H. answers, it was to Abraham the seal of the righteous­nes of faith, but that was peculiar to him. Wherein again, whether of ignorance or of choise, (ipse viderit) he jumps with Bellarmine a­gainst Protestant Divines, Bel. lib. 1. de sacr. in grem. cap. 17. But as our Divines answer Bellarmine thus, he enervates the Apostles argument from Abrahams example to us, which is not argumen­tative in any thing peculiar to Abraham. Secondly I would know of M. Har. if circumcision did not seal righteousnes of faith, except to Abraham, what it did seal to proselytes? Title to Cana­an they had none: seal a blanke it must not: therefore it sealed the [Page 36]righteousnes of faith. Again there being in a Sacrament an out­ward signe and an inward grace, and that under the old Testa­ment as well as the new, (as Protestants maintain against Papists) I would know of him whether the circumcision of the heart, Deut. 30.6. Rom. 2.29. Col. 2.11. were not the grace answer­ing the signe in circumcision? and whether that did not import the putting away the filth of nature by justification, and regenera­tion? and so included remission of sins? M. H. proceeds, If I mean, that as circumcision was a Sacrament of the old Testament, Baptisme of the new, &c. I answer, I mean as I say: Baptisme was the Sa­crament of initiation under the New, as circumcision under the Old: and therefore as the one was set to all (seleable) within Co­venant: so the other. Yet will it not hence follow, that children must therefore have the Lords Supper, because that is the Sacra­ment of growth.

To the place, Col. 2.11, 12. M. H. saith it doth no more prove Baptisme to succeed circumcision, then Noahs Ark, or the red Sea. But he might have seen my answer to M. Tombes, that there is not the same reason of these, for circumcision was an Ordinance in ordinary use, of the same nature, vertue and state that Baptisme, in being the Jews Sacrament of initiation, and so is more proper­ly said to be succeeded by Baptisme. But M. H. saith, that the A­postle speaks of circumcision, to shew the Colossians that they were com­pleat in Christ by regeneration, &c. I answer, that's true, but that's not all: the Apostle shews they needed not the elements of the world, whereof circumcision was one: and why? not only because they had spirituall circumcision, but had it sealed by Baptisme; So Baptisme is in the same state, and supplies the use of circumci­sion, to seal and apply Christ to justification and regeneration: and this is a manifest proof of my collection, from Col. 2.11, 12. and more to the purpose then M. H. hath or can answer.

For that proof of yours, that circumcision and Baptisme were not to be applied to the same subject, because John the Baptist would not Ba­ptise those that were circumcised without further qualification. I have answered already to M. Tombes in pag. 10. It was because Baptis­me is a seal in a new administration: and so parties to be Baptised, were to be under the new administration, as well as in Covenant. And therefore neither Iohn the Baptist, nor the Apostles, did Ba­ptise [Page 37]Jews, till by their doctrine they were brought under the new administration. Thus it appears what a feeble answerer M. H. is still found.

CHAP. IX.

MY fifth argument was framed thus. If Children of Christian parents be excluded from the Covenant and seal of initiation, whereby their separation from the world is manifested: then are the priviledges under the new Testament, lesse then under the old: But this is not to be affirmed. Ergo. M. H. returns answer by a long fetch about, premising three things. 1. That the Covenant made with the fleshly seed, as such, under the old Testament was meerly fleshly, &c. But I answer, there's no such Covenant extent: no distinct Covenant with the fleshly seed distinct from the spirituall. His misinterpretation of Gen. 17. from ver. 7. to 15. for that pur­pose I have convinced of vanity in clearing my first argument. There was a Covenant indeed that had divers priviledges given to Abraham, and continued to a visible Church of his seed, where­in were parties of different condition: Some carnall, some spiri­tuall. Now to the carnall, though spirituall things were repre­sented and offered, yet they only partook of carnall and externall priviledges: but the elect partook of the spirituall priviledges also. And so is it now in the visible Churches of Christians, where are wheat and chaffe, carnall and spirituall Christians.

M. H. premiseth. 2. That the Covenant made with Abraham, and renewed with Christ in the Gospel, was never made with any flesh­ly seed, its wholly spirituall: the signe and sanction spirituall &c. apper­taining only to a spirituall seed, &c. But this is a manifest untruth in part, and in part misapplied: for is Baptisme any more a spirituall seal then circumcision? Have all that are Baptised put on Christ really, or many in profession only? Are all Baptised (yea in an un­questionable [Page 38]way) spirituall ones? What was Simon Magus? Are there not yet in visible Churches such a distinction of Christians and Baptisme, as there was of Jews and circumcision, Rom. 2.38, 29? Do not Simon Magus and daily experience shew it? True it is, that those that are not by profession only, but really by faith Children of Abraham, they are spirituall, &c. but this is but the invisible Church under the visible, now, as it was in Judaisme. M. H. himself sets Baptisme to men, because they professe, not because they beleeve, as the title of his book shews, and how oft is profession without faith?

M. H. premiseth, 3. That the Gospel-Covenant is more glori­ous, &c.

Then M. H. answers, If he mean by priviledges, fleshly, &c. which, [if] is but to make way for an evasion. He knows I mean not a fleshly, but an externall priviledge to be of the visible kingdom of Christ, of which he that is not, is without: and in an ordinary way without God, and without hope in the world, Ephes. 2.12. Of which to denude our children, and to make their condition as hopeles as Turks, is a great discomfort, and a straitning the grace of the Covenant: for tell me when a Jewish childe did die; was there no more hope of him then of a Canaanites childe? See 1 Sam. 12.23. and whence that hope but from the Covenant with the seed? Gen. 17.7. Deut. 30.6. And is that a carnall priviledge that gives hope of salvation? So then M. H. by denying Infants to be within Covenant, defalkes or curtails the spirituall priviledges of the Covenant: and then his answer is demonstrated to be false.

CHAP. X.

MY sixth argument was thus. Where we have evidence for judgement of charity, that there is the grace of the Cove­nant: there we may set to the seal of the Covenant.

That we have for Infants. Ergo. The minor I make good by three positions.

1. Children are capable of the grace of the Covenant.

2. Some are actually partakers of it.

3. Because the children of believers are externally under the Covenant of grace.

Here M. Harrison answers not punctually, but in four parti­culars.

1. The judgement of charity must be guided by a rule, and he knows none, but Mat. 7.20. By their fruits you shall know them. It seems he hath forgotten 1 Cor. 13.5, 6.7. where he might have read many more rules of charity. It believeth all things, hopeth all things: that is, wherein there is any fair ground, and that I have shewed for the grace of the Covenant to be in Infants.

But saith M. Harrison, The spirit bloweth where it listeth, Joh. 3.8. Where it is not limited to children of believers, more then unbelie­vers. Answ. The spirit bloweth where it listeth, doth it there­fore blow no more in the ministery of the Gospel, then in Philo­sophicall lectures? No more in the Church then out of it? You will not say it; for the spirit that is free, hath limited it self by promise, to blow ordinarily more in one exercise then another, in one society then another, and so to one seed then another, Deut. 30.6. Isa. 59.21. M. H. saith, Simon Magus did appear a belie­ver: but that hinders not my assertion, viz. that profession is only a ground for judgement of charity, not certainty, as appeared in Simon Magus, who by his profession in charity, was judged to have what he had not.

For his second demanding proof, That the children brought to Christ were of believing parents. Why else were they brought to Christ? would they offer their children to Christ, that did not themselves believe in him?

That which M. H. saith thirdly, Touching Christs omnisciency, is besides the point. Sith we in admitting to ordinances, proceed not upon judgement of certainty, but charity.

M. Harrison addes Fourthly, that though children had grace actu­ally, (which saith he, why children of believers should have more then of unbelievers, I know not, nor I am perswaded doth M. Geree) why then there's no more hope of a Christians childe [Page 40]dying in innocency, then of a Turks, which I have shewed both false and dismall to parents: yet because they cannot act it by action or profession, its no ground of administration of Baptisme: wherein,

1. He differs from M. Tombes.

2. From the truth: for what is the reall ground of claim to seals, but being within Covenant, or having the grace to be sealed? Which if it come to my knowledge any way by fruits, or testimony of Gods Word; Who can forbid water to those that have received the holy Ghost as well as we? Act. 10.47. As the Apostle argues from evidence of the grace of the Covenant there.

And thus I have cleared the sixth argument from M. Har­rison, who in this last answer doth so needlesly inculcate the hopelesnesse of Christian Infants (for grace and glory are con­nex) that if he have no more comfortable divinity, I shall not envy, but wonder at, and pity the multiplicity of his fol­lowers.

M. Tombes takes notice of this sixth argument, pag. 101. and 102. And there denies both the major and the minor: And de­nyes Act. 10.47. to be a proof of the major, which I have al­ready made good to M. Harrison. The Sacrament is a seal of the Covenant and the grace of it. Baptisme is not to seal profession of faith, but the righteousnes of faith properly: and therefore I conceive the true ground why Baptisme was ad­ministred on profession of faith, because that profession was an evidence of the righteousnesse of faith: and being in the Covenant, which it is not in judgement of certainty, but cha­rity: as Simon Magus his case cleareth. If then by any o­ther evidence we have cause to judge in charity, that there is grace, and that they are within the Covenant: this gives ti­tle to the seal, because it contains the ground, why professi­on of faith gives claim to the seal. M. Tombes makes Gods revelation of true sanctification a ground for Baptisme, for this, he hath neither precept nor example in Scripture, for Judas might dee, all that they Act. 10.47. are said to doe. The ground of his assertion therefore I think must be, because true sancti­fication is that whereof profession is an evidence, and that but [Page 41]conjecturall or charitable, not certain, and such an evidence from other grounds of Scriptures, Why should it not be of the same validity?

For M. Tombes his denyall of my minor, he affirms:

1. That the judgement of charity is to be taken from a mans own actions, because the Apostle saith, charity believeth all things, 1 Cor. 13.7. But how these words prove his assertion (which I deny) I know not, but have shewed in answer to M. Har­rison, rule for charity in this point from the following words, hopeth all things. The ground of this judgement of charity, I draw not from any one of my three grounds, mentioned in the laying down my argument: but from all three toge­ther; Which M. Tombes saith, can onely produce conjecturall hope, which often miscarryeth: and so much they doe amount to, and that is the thing that I assert, for the judgement of charity is but a conjecturall hope, being opposed to demon­strative certainty.

Thus I have done with M. Harrison, whose book hath gi­ven me fit occasion, without digressing from the present mat­ter, to answer all those passages in M. Tombes his Apology for the manner of his treatise, where he takes occasion large­ly and materially to defend the matter of it: For his boasts what he hath done in this controversy, without answering our reasons to the contrary; I hope none will be moved with them, till they have tryed them, by comparing wri­ting with writing, and reason with reason, and then I fear not the issue. Now that he doth make shew of more then he performeth: I will content my self to shew in one par­ticular which is the first: and of no small consequence, it is in his Epistle Dedicatory, and that to Parliament-men the Au­thorizers of the Directory. To whom he saith, that the truth hath gotten so much ground, that the doctrine of the Di­rectory is disavowed by two of his most eminent Antago­nists: for which he hath (that I know) no other ground, then because we interpret the Directory according to the minde of the compilers; And not as M. Tombes would have it, mistaking the words as (I conceive) to be understood in that sense, which (I believe) he himself conceives was not in the [Page 42]intention of the compilers. Sure I am, that many of the Assembly have assured me in private, that they intended the expressions questioned by M. Tombes, in no other sense then I expound them. Now I will not say— Crimine ab uno, Om­nia discite— By one crimination judge of all. But the carri­age in this I hope will make all more wary in giving cre­dence to his other confident assertions. O that the Lord would pity us under this saddest exercise of division of judge­ments, and make us of one minde, one heart, one lan­guage, or make this sharp affliction as usefull to humble and mortifie, as it is in sense bit­ter to a peaceable spirit. Amen.

Soli Deo gloria.