PRIMS Full-text transcription (HTML)

VINDICIAE VINDICIARƲM: OR, A Vindication of his Vindication of Infant-Baptiſme, from the Exceptions of M. Harriſon, in his Poedo-baptiſme oppugned, and from the Exceptions of M. Tombes, in his chief digreſſions of his late Apology, from the manner to the matter of his Treatiſes.

By Io. Geree M. of Arts, and Preacher of the Word in S. Albanes.

ACTS 2.39.

The promiſe is to you, and to your children.

Quod univerſa tenet Ecclefia, nee concilijs inſtitutum, ſed ſemper retentum eſt; non niſi authoritate Apoſtolicâ traditum rectiſſimè creditur. Aug. lib. 4. contra Don. cap. 24.


Edm. Calamy.

LONDON, Printed by A. M. for Chriſtopher Meredith, at the Signe of the Crane in Pauls Church-yard, 1647.

To the VVorſhipfull the Major and Burgeſſes of St Albanes, with the reſt of my worthy and loving Auditours there, grace and peace.

My loving friends,

WHat S. James ſo long ſince aſſerted, that the experience of our times hath confirmed: Where ſtrife is, there is confuſion, and every evil work, Jam. 3.16. A­mongst other evils to which our diviſions have been the midwife, corrupt opinions have been one moſt eminent, and amongſt them, that which oppoſeth the birth-right of Chriſtian In­fants to the Covenant, and ſeal of initiation, hath been broacht with that confidence, as though the abettours bad hope, that that leaven would leaven the whole lump.

Not long after my coming to you, there was a book ſet forth by an ancient friend of mine, which becauſe it was adorned with much art and reading (things formerly rare to be found in the writers for that o­pinion,) there was almoſt as much triumph in it, as ſometimes by the Philiſtines in their Goliah. And to ſay the truth, the camp of Iſ­rael was not a little moved with it. Whereupon my ſelf (as having more leaſure then many abler) was called upon by divers friends to ſtand up in the defence of truth. And others with my ſelf quickly made it ap­pear, that the Authour in whom there was ſo much triumph, had ra­ther put a better face on, then added any great ſtrength to that errour. For all the arguments brought by him, ſave thoſe that are ordinary in every Anti-paedobaptiſts mouth, were eaſily enough, and utterly quaſht. The vindication of Infant-Baptiſme which I firſt put forth: was part­ly Cataskeuaſticall to confirm the truth, partly Anaskeuaſticall to refell the objections of the adverſary, My learned opponent hath not yet publiſht an anſwer to either, only in an Apology for the manner of his writing, tanquam canis ad Nilum, he hath here and there given a little touch about the matter. But a neighbour Miniſter hath at­tempted the oppugnation of theſe ſix arguments, which I made good for confirmation of Infant-Baptiſme. His exceptions I here refute, together with what M. Tombes hath inſerted materiall in his Apolo­gy. And this Vindication of my former labour, I thought good to pre­ſent to you. That if providence ſhould hereafter otherwaies diſpoſe of me, this may remain as a teſtimony of my thankefulneſſe to God and you. That with you in the time of Englands diſtraction, I found an haven of reſt, with good help to a comfortable ſubſiſtance. And that by it you may be the better guarded against the Sophiſmes of thoſe, that ceaſe not to labour to draw Diſciples after them.

The oppoſition that is made to truth, is to the conſcientious lovers of it, an affliction that is grievous. Therefore to make ſome spirituall uſe of it, is not only a duty we owe to God, but a priviledge, which we our ſelves have need of to ſweeten the bitterneſſe of the croſſe: for a croſſe never ſeems intolerable, after we finde it medicinable. There be two speciall uſes that may and ought to ariſe from the controverſy in hand.

Firſt, to ſee further into the grounds of, and to be more ſetled in the truth. The queſtioning of a good title, though it make it not more firm, yet uſually it renders it more cleer, becauſe the grounds of its fir­mitud, are by ſearch found out and laid open. And ſo hath it been, and ſo ought to be with us of this preſent age, in this ſpirituall title of Chri­ſtian Infants. And if any new grounds or arguments be added to cleer an ancient practiſe; In vain, and unjuſtly is that pretended to diſparage the antiquity of the thing, which is vouchſafed of God as a fruit of the induſtry of his ſervants, whereof the oppoſition of the erro­neous is ſanctified of God to be an occaſion?

2. A ſecond uſe of the oppoſition of truth ſhould be. That as we hold the right more firmly, ſo we ſhould uſe it more holily, to cut off occaſion from thoſe that ſeek occaſion. Antipadobaptists doe more oppoſe the uſe, by occaſion of the abuſes of Infant-Baptiſme. Were it performed with that holines and ſolemnity, that it ought, it would cary more beau­ty with it, and have leſſe oppoſition againſt it. We ſhould therefore ſtudy by the oppoſition and vindication of truth, to be excited to, and helpt in an holy and honourable uſe of that priviledge for our children. The more the grounds and nature of Infant-Baptiſme are cleared, the bet­ter may we be inabled to uſe it in faith. The more may we be moved to conſider the wofull condition of our Infants, as they are from us, and we from Adam; and ſo humble our ſelves the more, for that corrn­ption, that is inharent in us, and propagated from us. The more may we ſee neceſſity of vertue to flow from Chriſt to ours, to reſtore them to the favour, and Image of God: and ſo to have this ordinance (of which only in infancy they are capable) ſanctified to them, which works not naturally by the deed done, but morally by vertue of Gods bleſſing, which is to be procured by praier. This would not only quicken pa­rents to cry for a bleſſing on this Ordinance to their Infants: but ingage them to chuſe the time of moſt ſolemn Aſſemblies for it, when having the moſt and beſt praiers, they may more comfortably expect the bleſ­ſing of God on it. But I would not exceed the limits of an Epiſtle; Therefore with my daily praiers, that God would bleſſe this and my o­ther labours to you, and glorifie his Word among you. I am

Yours in all Chriſtian affection and ſervice, JO. GEREE.

The Preface.


HAving ſome moneths ſince publiſhed a de­fence of Infant-Baptiſme, by way of an­ſwer to a Divine of note; It not long ſince met with an anſwer from an obſcurer Au­thour: to which I preſently drew a reply; But hearing a rumour of an anſwer in the preſſe by M. Tombes, which was expected to be of greater ſtrength; I withheld my hand from publiſhing my anſwer to the firſt: that I might, if I ſaw cauſe, anſwer both together. But when M. Tombes his book came forth, I found it for the moſt part an apology for the manner of his writing, not a defence of the matter: and that chiefly againſt ex­ceptions taken by M. Marſhall. And for the defence of the matter, that is promis'd, not yet performed. I therefore thought it convenient to forbear the publication of my reply to M. Harriſon no longer: becauſe he is a neighbour, and a great**Leader of the people. Demagogue: leſt by delay of my reply, the Authour (as the diſpoſition of ſuch perſons is) take ad­vantage to harden his proſelytes in errour, and reduce more.


VINDICIAE VINDICIARƲM: OR, A Vindication of his Vindication of Infant-Ba­ptiſme, from the exceptions of Mr Harriſon, in his Poedo-baptiſme oppugned, &c.


Mr Harriſons Epiſtle to his Poedo-baptiſme impug­ned, examined.

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 not2 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.



Wherein the 4. things premiſed, Chap. 1. Sect. 1. of my vindiciae, are vindicated from Mr Harriſons ex­ceptions.

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.

Quis, Quid, Ʋbi, Quibus auxiliſs, Cur, Quomodo, Quando.

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 either4 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 pove 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 cannot5 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 ofoſpel-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 Go­ſpel7 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.〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉i.e. Qui novas ſibi eligit opiniones, cum ſundamento ſalutis pugnantes, eaſquemordicùs 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,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 asaaZanch. 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 as9 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 controverſy10 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. countreaſonable, 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.


Wherein my first ground for Infant-Baptiſme, from Gen. 17.7. Deut. 30.6. Act 2.39. is cleared from M. Harriſons exceptions.

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 Goſpl-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 ſaithaaBellar. 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. bbIbid.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 Sar 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 the12 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 therefoto 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 a13 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〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the promiſe, notes ſome eminent promiſe, and from the ſcope of the Sermon, that promiſe is evi­dent to be a branch of the Covenanof 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 accord­ing14 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.



Wherein the Argument for Infants Baptiſme from their being confederates with their parents, is clear­ed from exceptions taken againſt it by M. Tombes in his Apology, pag 40. 47. and the expreſsion of the directory vindicated.

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, 7.16 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 freedomake 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, that17 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 taking18 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.



Wherein my ſecond Argument for Infant. Baptiſme, from Rom. 11.11, 12, 13, 17, 18. is cleared from M. Har­riſons exceptions.

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,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,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 tht 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 hath22 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? And23 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.


Wherein the Argument for Infant-Baptiſme, from Rom. 11.11, 12. &c. is cleared from M. Tombes his exception, in his Apology, pag. 69-77.

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-priviledges24 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 offred 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 pri­viledges25 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 that26 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. 27That 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 inter­pres 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; were29 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 atqueſophiſtis, 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 thenviſible 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 they31 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.


Wherein my fourth Argument for Infant Baptiſme frons Cor. 7.14. is cleared from M. Harriſons exceptions.

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 be­cauſe32 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,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that may and doh 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,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 childe33 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 ajjune 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 he34 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 new35 argument is overthrown without denying baſtards to be faederally holy, where I ſhould not have M. Tombes an adverſary.


Wherein my fourth argument is made good for Infant­Baptiſme, from Col. 2.11, 12.

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 the36 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 Ba­ptiſe37 Jews, till by their doctrine they were brought under the new adminiſtration. Thus it appears what a feeble anſwerer M. H. is ſtill found.


Wherein my fifth Argument for Infant-Baptiſme, be­cauſe the grace of the new Teſtament is not leſſe then un­der the Old.

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 un­queſtionable38 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.


Wherein my laſt Argument for Infant-Baptiſme from the judgement of charity, is cleared from M. Harriſons exceptions.

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 childe40 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 but41 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 the42 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.


PAge 4. line 28. dele and. p. 9. l. 8. for spirit, r. ſpeech. p. 11. l. 5 for at, r. 〈◊〉. l. 24. dele and. p. 12. l. 21. for and, r. under. p. 15, l. 10. for being, r. bring from the Covenant. p. 16. l. 2. for Cant. 8.11, 12. r. Mat. 8.11, 12. l. 24. for freedom, r. ſeed. p 18. l. 5. for for, r. ſo. p. 20. l. 9. for conſtrains, r. contains. p. 26. l. 18. for Queſtion. r. Quaeſitum.

About this transcription

TextVindiciæ vindiciarum: or, A vindication of his Vindication of infant-baptisme, from the exceptions of M. Harrison, in his Pœdo-baptisme oppugned, and from the exceptions of Mr. Tombes, in his chief digressions of his late Apology, from the manner to the matter of his treatises. By Io. Geree M. of Arts, and Preacher of the Word in S. Albanes. Imprimatur, Edm. Calamy.
AuthorGeree, John, 1601?-1649..
Extent Approx. 113 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 25 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.
SeriesEarly English books online.
Additional notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A85949)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 113910)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 58:E363[13])

About the source text

Bibliographic informationVindiciæ vindiciarum: or, A vindication of his Vindication of infant-baptisme, from the exceptions of M. Harrison, in his Pœdo-baptisme oppugned, and from the exceptions of Mr. Tombes, in his chief digressions of his late Apology, from the manner to the matter of his treatises. By Io. Geree M. of Arts, and Preacher of the Word in S. Albanes. Imprimatur, Edm. Calamy. Geree, John, 1601?-1649.. [6], 42 p. Printed by A.M. for Christopher Meredith, at the signe of the Crane in Pauls Church-yard,London, :1647 [i.e. 1646]. (A defense of his: Vindiciæ pædo-baptismi.) (A reply to "Infant baptism God's ordinance" by Michael Harrison and to "Two treatises and an appendix to them concerning infant-baptisme" by John Tombes.) (Thomason received his copy in 1646. Thomason annotation: "Nouemb: 27 1646". The 7 in imprint date crossed out.) (G1 was printed as the conjugate of the unsigned leaf after A2.) (Reproduction of the original in the British Library.)
  • Harrison, Michael, -- Minister at Potters-Pury. -- Infant baptism God's ordinance -- Early works to 1800.
  • Tombes, John, 1603?-1676. -- Two treatises and an appendix to them concerning infant-baptisme -- Early works to 1800.
  • Geree, John, 1601?-1649. -- Vindiciæ pædo-baptismi -- Early works to 1800.
  • Tombes, John, 1603?-1676. -- Apology.
  • Infant baptism -- Early works to 1800.

Editorial statement

About the encoding

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial principles

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database ( The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

Publication information

  • Text Creation Partnership,
ImprintAnn Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2013-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 2).
  • DLPS A85949
  • STC Wing G604
  • STC Thomason E363_13
  • STC ESTC R201234
  • EEBO-CITATION 99861765
  • PROQUEST 99861765
  • VID 113910

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.