Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3

But he saith,

Answ. I have often said, I mean it not of the species, but the individual infants of believers, and I appeal to Mr. B. himself whether he do not say as I say, Plain Scripture, &c. pag 316. in those words: Though yet for my own opinion, I have resolved no further then this, that we are to judge the remission, justification, and salvation of particular infants of true believers mo •• probable, till the contrary appear by them; and for the full certainty, I leave it as to me uncertain. If we have but a probable hope of the salvation of men at age, it is no absurdity, in my apprehension, to say we have but probable hope of their salvation; yet we have a greater degree of probability in our hopes of the salvation of such as have in appearance spent their lives in a holy course, then of infants so dying.

2. Saith he,

Answ. 1. I have often told Mr. B. that to be seemingly, or to our judgment in a state of salvation, is not all one as to be such visibly, and that such may be no visible Church members whose salvation is seeming or probable to our judgment. 2. Though I have but probability of the salvation of the best man in the world, yet I have a certainty of his profession, by which I take him to be a visible Church member, and not by the probability of his salvation; and this I dare do, and I wonder how Mr. B. against the current of all the N. T. dare do otherwise.

3. But, saith he, doth not this contradict what went before? And I wish he do not contradict it again in his proofs. His first proof of the probability, is from some general indefinite promises; but what these promises are, he tells us, Apol. pag. 64. By general and indefinite promises be means such as determine not the kind of good promised, nor the particular person; and therefore are true, if performed to any person in any sort of good; and conditional upon condition of faith and obedience. Answ. 1. If it determine not the kind of good formally nor virtually, nor contain it generically; then how doth it make it probable? 2. And if it neither determine the person, nor give 〈◊〉 ground to determine, how then doth it become probable to that person? 3. And how then can that promise give hopes to the faithful of the salvation of their infants, which is verified, if performed to any person in any sort of good? as if it were but to one infant in a nation in reprieving him a day from damnation? If it intend more then this, then it is not verified or fulfilled in this much; if it intend no more, then how doth it make their salvation probable? 4. And sure the conditional promises which he mentioneth, requiring faith and repentance, are little to the benefit of infants, if these conditions are required of themselves in their infancy. And for his other two grounds of hope, viz. the favor of God to the parents, and experience, they are comfortable helps to second the promise; but of themselves without a word, would give us no ground of Christian hope in such matters as justification and salvation are.

Answ. I perceive no contradiction in my words. 1. By putting in those words [ nor contain it generically ] he intimates as if I had denied the promises I mention to contain generically the good of justification and salvation; whereas I termed the promises expressly general, and cited Psal. 103.17, 18. Psal. 112. • , &c. which mention God's righteousness and blessedness, and so may comprehend eternal righteousness and blessedness, and thereby the justification and salvation of infants becomes probable, though it be not certain, since God's righteousness and blessedness may be conferred in another kind. As if a rich King promise money to a man's children, it's probable he will give them gold, thou • h it be not certain. 2. Though the particular person be not determined, yet since the qualification of the person is expressed to be the generation of the righteous, it is probable that it is meant of each▪ till the contrary appears; as if a man promise to make such a man's children heirs, this is probable of everyone till it appear otherwise, and yet not certain. 3. I have shown how, especially if we consider that favors are wont to be amplified to the most. Though God's intentions are not fulfilled perhaps with so little, yet the words may be verified if no more but temporal blessedness be given. 4. The conditional promises I confess give us but slender hope of infants by themselves; yet with general indefinite promises, declarations of God's favor to his people, and experience, they yield a strong ground of hope of the justification and salvation of infants of believers, though not certain and sure, as Mr. B. would have, but how short he is in proof will appear in that which follows.

SECT. LXXIIII. Mr. Bs. allegations, p. 76, 77, 78. show not a stronger ground of hope of infants salvation, so dying, then mine: His 23 d. Arg. ch. 28. his 25 th. ch. 30. are answered.

HE tells us,

Answ. Mr. B. here, p. 74. in his arguments 2d. and 3d. intimated that he asserted a sure ground for faith concerning the salvation of believers infants so dying, and that to be a promise in the word of the salvation of those within the visible Church; and here he asserts a stronger probability then I mention of the salvation of all the infants of the faithful so dying, and a certainty of the salvation of some, in that God admitteth them visible members of his Church. Yet pag. 78. he dares not say there's a full certainty of the salvation of all believers infants so dying: Yea, pag. 110. he saith, Rom. 9.8. the Apostle pleadeth that salvation is not by the Covenant tied to all Abraham's seed. Out of which I infer, 1. That Mr. B. hath no sure ground for faith, to wit, a promise in the word concerning the salvation of all the infants of believers so dying. For the Apostle pleads, that salvation is not by Covenant tied to all Abraham's seed, and if not to Abraham's, then to none else; and the certainty of the salvation of some is acknowledged by me as well as by him. And sure if the Covenant assure not salvation to all, and neither it nor any other revelation of God tell us salvation belongs to this infant of such a believer or to that, there is no certainty concerning the salvation of this or that particular infant of a believer dying, nor is there a sure ground for faith concerning it, nor is the hope of it certain, and we are to suspend our judgment concerning it, which Mr. B. carp • at so much in me to make me and the truth I hold odious, which is almost all the work he does (for he proves nothing he says in opposition to what I hold) and though his speeches are inconsistent, yet when he sets down his opinion he agrees with me, that he dares not say there's a full certainty of the salvation of all believers infants; nor dare he I think say, that he is certain of any one believer on earth his infant dying, that he is saved. 2. That he hath a stronger probability then I mention of the salvation of all the infants of believers so dying, in that God admitteth them visible members of his Church, is said by him: But 1. he shows not what degree of probability I deny which he asserts: 2. I never opposed the strongest probability Mr. B. asserts, only I declared myself unsatisfied concerning the certainty, which Mr. B. dares not assert: 3. That God hath admi • ted them visible members of his Church Christian, is not yet proved by Mr. B. nor ever will be: 4. If he had, yet this proves the certainty of the salvation of none now existent; for the speeches, Ephes. 5.23, 27. must be understood of the Church which is so visible, that it be also the invisible. Now though it be certain, that some visible Church members are saved▪ yet it is neither certain that all, or any visible Church members or Churches now existent shall be saved, and therefore no more then a probability of the salvation of all or some infants of believers now existent can be inferred, though their visible Church membership were granted. As for the strength of the probability, I stick not to grant it as strong as he would have it, so that he assert not a certainty. And therefore, did not Mr. B. mind to pick a quarrel with me, and to affright people from my doctrine, this Chapter of Mr. B. might have been spared.

Yet Mr. B. adds. And the promises to them are fuller then Mr. T. expresseth, and give us stronger ground of hope. 1. God hath, as I have proved, assured that he will be merciful to them in the general, and that in opposition to the seed of the wicked, on whom he will visit their Fathers sins: Now this giveth a strong ground of hope that he will save them. For if the Judge or King say, I will hang such a traitor, but I will be merciful to such a one, it is an intimation that he meaneth not to hang him. If your friend promise to be good to you and merciful, you dare confidently hope he means not to destroy you.

Answ. This proves not God's promises any fuller then I express, for those I allege not excluding but including in an &c. this, are as full as this, Exod. 20.6. Nor doth this give a stronger ground of hope then I do, who yield as much as Mr. B. infers, though I like not Mr. Bs. instance, which intimates that God should say, I will damn the children of the wicked to the 3d. and 4th. generation, v. 5. and save the children of them that love me to a thousand generations.

He adds. 2. God saith (as I have shown) that the seed of the righteous is blessed. Now is not that a strong ground of hope, that so dying, they shall not be damned? It is not likely that God would call them blessed whom he will damn eternally, after a few days or hours life in a state of infancy, which is capable of little sense of blessedness here.

Answ. What mercy is meant, Exod. 20.6. and what blessedness, Psal 37.26. hath been considered before, and thence it may appear, that a certainty of salvation to all infants of believers, or to any definitely now existent cannot be inferred. Yet I oppose not the inferring thence a strong ground of hope. Nevertheless that God should call them blessed in a sort and yet damn them, is no inconsistency, nor doth it appear much less likely then that he should reprobate Esau afore he was born or had done good or evil, Rom. 9.11, 12, 13.

3.

Answ. Though I yield that there is ground for a strong hope o • the salvation of infants of Christian believers so dying, yet in the text cited there is nothing to that purpose. For 1. that Covenant was made on • lie with the people of Israel, and was a peculiar Covenant with that nation. 2. For the Covenant was of God's being God to them while they owned him, and kept his Commandments and so w • s conditional. So that thi • Covenant is not a Covenant with every believer and his issue, nor did God's promise to be their God assure the salvation of all the Israelites infants so dying, much less the salvation of infants of Christian believers, to whom all the promises in the new Covenant are personal, none that I remember national or domestical as were to the Jews.

4. Saith he, And Paul 1 Thes. 4.13. would not have the faithful mourn for the dead as those that are without hope: now what dead are these? And what hope is it? 1. He saith the dead in general, which will not stand with the exclusion of the whole species of infants. 2. He speaks of those dead for whom they were apt to mourn. And will not parents mourn for their children? And for hope, it is evidently the hope of resurrection to life. For resurrection to damnation is not a thing to be hoped for. This seems plain to me.

Answ. • hough I oppose not a strong hope of the salvation of believers infants so dying, yet to show how vainly he talks of his showing more for it then I do, the reader may take notice, that if the Apostle be interpreted of the hope of the resurrection to life of the dead in general and those they were apt to mourn for, as Mr. Bs. arguing intimates his mind to be, then the Apostle would have them hope for the resurrection to life not only of the infants of believers so dying, but also of their ripe aged children though infidels and profane, yea for their wives, kindred, neighbors, servants; whereas the Apostles speech is plainly meant only of them that are believers, who as they are said v. 1 • . to sleep so v. 14. to sleep in Jesus, whom God will bring with Jesus, v. 16. dead in Christ, that is for Christ▪ • . M. Mede conceivs, applying at peculiarly to the martyrs, or as most 〈◊〉 faith of Christ, such as shall be forever with the Lord, v. 17. From 〈…〉 with many other instances in his writings it may appear how 〈…〉 superficially Mr. B. opens and infers from texts of Scrip • u •

5. Saith Mr. B. David comforteth himself concerning his dead child, because he should go to the child, but the child should not return to him. To say that this was only that he should be buried with it, is to make David too like a Pagan rather then a Christian: However it seems he was confident that he should not be damned: or else he would not say, I shall go to him. And to say David knew his salvation as a Prophet, is a groundless fiction that cannot be proved: Prophets knew not all things, not ordinarily things of another world by such revelation. Therefore what ever ground of hope David had, other faithful parents have the like.

Answ 2. That David in those words 2 Sam. 12.22, 23. did express any ground of hope of the salvation of his child, and that thereby he comforted himself concerning his dead child, is more then I think can be evinced from the text. Rendering a reason of his not fasting any longer, he doth not allege anything concerning the happiness of the child, but the bootlesness of h • s praying and fasting since the childes life could not be recovered. And the whole speech considered, the words import no more then this, can I bring him back again to life? I shall go to him, that is to the state of the dead, as counterfeit Samuel is brought in, saying 1 Sam. 28.19. To morrow thou shalt be with me, that is dead as I am, and as Jacob said Gen. 37.35. He should go down to his son into the grave, or state of the dead. And in these speeches though no more were meant, yet there is nothing that relisheth of Paganism, not so much as other speeches seem to do, Psal. 6.5. Psal. 30.9. Isai. 38.18, 19. Job 14, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14. For though they the express not the expectation of the resurrection or the present estate of happiness, yet it was not because they believed it not, but because it was sufficient to give a reason of his present action, in which he gives first an account of what he did before, he fasted and wept while the child was alive, for he said, who can tell whether God will be gracious to me that the child may live ? In which words if we may argue after Mr. Bs. mode, we may as well say he was too like a Pagan rather then a Christian, since he mentions no prayer for his childes happiness, but his natural life. 2. An account of his not fasting, because God had frustrated the end of his prayer and fasting. And yet in both he shown▪ faith in GOD, in his prayer acknowledging GOD the author of life and death, and in the other the sentence of death passed on himself, and his acquiescence in God's will concerning both. All which he understood as one acquainted with GOD and his word. So that we need not assert that David knew the happiness of his child by special revelation, since he expresseth not anything of it. And if he did, yet he might speak this not as an assured thing, but as probably hoped for, and yet not upon common grounds to all believers, but out of special favor to him (of which he had more then common experience) and God's wont of hearing his prayers. So that yet Mr. B. hath brought no stronger grounds of probability of the salvation of all believers infants so dying, then I have done notwithstanding his cracks. Let's view the rest.

6. Saith he, Again, if there were not far more hope of their salvation, then fear of their damnation; it would never be said, That children are an heritage of the Lord▪ and the fruit of the womb is his reward; And the man blessed that hath his quiver full of them, Psal. 127.3, 4, 5.

Answ. 1. Mr. B. pretended to show a stronger probability of the salvation of the infants of believers then I have done, but wherein do • h he exceed me in his assertion in this place or his proof? Did I ever say there is less hope of their salvation, then fear of their damnation? If I did not, why doth he suggest as if in this conclusion he asserted more then I do? If I have said so, let him show it, or else let him be taken for what he is, a calumniator. 2. For his proof, would any man allege this text to prove more hope of salvation of infants of believers then their damnation, if he had any heed to what he writes? when the text expressly makes the blessedness of the man hath many children to be not at all in this place, in reference to hope of the salvation of the children▪ but in reference to his own safety and protection by his children, who may oppose enemies, and be as arrows or weapons to drive them back, or as helps to right his wrongs, and to embolden him to contend with them in the gate, which was counted a great blessing then, and agreeable to the promises of the legal Covenant, as Deut. 28. Psal. 144.12, 15, &c. may be seen. But this is not meant of infants but of such as were grown up and able to defend their parents, and chiefly if not only of males, nor is the man said to be blessed by reason of the goodliness of them, but the multitude of them, and they are said to be an heritage as the land of Canaan, Psal. 1 • 6.21, 22. and his reward whether for their observing his law, or for other reason, such as for which Nebuchadnezzar was rewarded with Egypt, Ezek. 29.18, 19, 20. or as Psal. 137.8, 9. or as reward taken Catachrestically for any gift. Be it meant of true believers (though no words in the text evince it) yet the children are said to be their heritage and reward not God's heritage, nor is there any intimation of happiness to the child, and therefore not a word intimating more hope o • their salvation then fear of their damnation, but of outward benefit to the parent such as may be common to infidels with believers, and consequently not a word for a strong ground of hope of the salvation of believers infants so dying, much l • ss more then I bring to that purpose.

7. Saith Mr. B.

Answ. There's nothing here endeavored to be proved but what I have also granted, that there is a strong probability that infants of believers so dying are justified and saved, and yet I see no strength in these allegations to prove it. For though the little ones and sucking children were to be present to show an universal humiliation, as did the beasts also, Jonah 3.8. yet the infants did not join in prayer, nor was the end of their presence any special blessing of the Ordinance to them, but the moving GOD to spare the whole people, invaded or in danger of perishing by fami • e, nor were the prayer and fasting standing Church-ordinances, anymore then the Covenanting Deut. • 9. Nehem. 9. but occasional, nor doth this presenting of infants prove them standing Church members anymore then the like Jonah 3.8 proves those infants, or the Ninevites beasts standing Church members. As for Cir • umcision, that infants received Circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith, is nowhere in Scripture affirmed; and how much Paedobaptists are mistaken in their inference of the nature of Sacraments in general, or Circumc • si • n in special, from Rom: 4.11. hath been often shown before Sect. 31, &c. The ends of Circumcising of infants, was to distinguish the Hebrews from other people, and to fore-signify from what people CHRIST was to come, and to engage them to observe the Law of Moses which they were to receive by reason of God's command whether they hoped for their children's salvation, or not, Abraham was to circumcise Ishmael, though he knew he was not a child of the promise, and Isaac Esau, though he were rejected by God. The speech God will not fail his own ordinance where men fail not, is like the Popish Schoolmens conceit, that Sacraments confer grace where no bar is put, and intimates that Circumcision was God's o • dinance to assure at least righteousness of faith to each infant circumcised, which is a false conceit.

8. Saith Mr. B. Why else doth God so oft compare his love to that of a mother or father to the child ? 1 Thes. 2.7. Num. 11, 12. Isa. 49.15. Ps • l. 103.13.

Answ. Though I grant a strong probality of the salvation of believers infants so dying, yet to show the vanity of Mr. Bs. scriblings, as if he brought more for it then I do, I cannot but observe the slighty dealing of Mr. B. in this point. For first, whereas he alledgeth these texts as if GOD did therein compare his love to that of a mother or father to the child, in the first Paul (not God) compares himself to a nurse; in the second, Moses speaks of himself as if God had put an impossible burden on him, as if he could as a nursing father bears his sucking child, carry all that people to the promised land. In the third, God saith he, would not forget Zion, who had said he had forgotten them, though a mother should forget her sucking child; and Psal. 103.13. the love of God as a father is spoken of them that fear him. So that the two first texts were through heedlessness mis-alleged grossly by him, the other two express God's love only to his obedient and seeking people, mention nothing of his love to their infants. 2. God doth compare his love to a Fathers or Mothers not because he is engaged to believers infants to save them, nor because he hath natural affection as they have, but to show his gracious care and dealing towards his elect children. 3. God's love is no more comp • red to a believing parents love, then to an unbelievers; and therefore if this prove a strong probability of the salvation of a believers infant so dying, it doth prove the salvation of an unbelievers as prob • ble. 4. God's love and care is compared to an Eagles in carrying her young ones, Deut. 32.11, 12. Christ's to an He • , Matth. 23.37. According to Mr. Bs. reasoning, thi • should prove then the strong probability of t • e salvation of Chickens. But I am ashamed that the world should see the nakedness of these magnified reasonings, though I be necessitated to uncover it.

The 9th. from Matth. 19.14. is no more then I have alleged often for those infants; and what Mr. B. here alledgeth to prove this a right of other infants, is answered at large in the second part of this Review, sect. 17.

10. Saith he, We read of some that have been sanctified from the womb, and therefore were in a state of salvation; and Jacob was loved before he was born, and therefore before he had done good or evil was in the like state of salvation.

Answ. Have not I also granted this thing, and that upon the same reasons? Why then doth Mr. B. suggest, to draw par • is hearts from me to him, as if he said more in this then myself? Yet I cannot be very confident of the reason from Jerem 1.15. to which Gal. 1. • 5. is parallel, since the sanctification was to the office of a Prophet, which is appliable to infants so dying.

11. We find promises of salvation to whole households, where it is probable there were infants, Act. 16.34.

Answ. 1. Acts 16.31. is no probability that infants should be meant, since in the next v. it is said, he spake the word to all that were in his house, which is not to be said of infants; and v. 34. he rejoiced with all his house, believing God. 2. If they should, yet this can be no more then a particular promise to him, unless this were true, that God will save every believer and his house▪ And Mr. B. over l • sheth in saying, we find promises of salvation made to whole households ▪ when there is no more but this one.

The 12th. is from 1 Cor. 7.14. and it is built on Mr. Bs. interpretation of [ holy ] as if it noted a separation to God as a peculiar people. But I have fully answered Mr▪ Bs. 29th▪ ch. and have shown his mistake in the first part of this Review, sect. 22, &c. and need to answer no more in this place.

Mr. B. goes on thus. It cannot be said, that these promises are verified according to their sense, if any mercy be given to any infant: Here the persons are determined, that is, all the seed of the faithful; and we have large ground given probably to conclude, that it is eternal mercy that is intended to all that living to age do not again reject it, but that either at age keep Covenant, or die in infancy before they break it. And we have certain ground to conclude, that this salvation belongeth to some infants, and visible Church membership to all the seed of the faithful. And I think this is more then Mr. T. doth acknowledge them.

Answ. It is indeed, finding the argumen • s frivolous which Mr. B. hath brought for the visible Church membership of infants, though I acknowledge salvation belongeth to some infants. It is before shown how the promises may be verified according to the sense of the words if any sort of mercy be given to any children of the faithful: Nor is it true, that in the promises brought by Mr. B. the persons are determined to be all the seed of the faithful, and how the contrary is determined by the Apostle, Rom. 9.7, 8. according to Mr. B. himself, is shown before, and what reason there is to understand Exod. 20.6. of temporal mercies, is shown above; so that here is nothing new to be answered.

He adds,

Answ. I grant the conclusion and argument, but deny that it is at all to the point in question between us, and that any one hath proved that by little ones, Matth. 18.10. are meant infants. Though the contrary be proved concerning Matth. 18.5, 6. in the second part of this Review, sect. 15. where Mr. Bl. and Mr. C. are answered: Yet to show the frovolousness of Mr. Bs. talk, I add 1. that Matth. 18.10. cannot be expounded one of these little infants ; for such a speech would show that then there were more little infants before them: But it appears from v. 2, 4. there was but one set before them. 2. From v. 14, 11. the little ones were such as Christ came to save, and that it was God's will none should perish : But this is true only of the elect and true believers, not simply of infants as such. 3. The words following, v. 15, &c. show they are meant of a sinning brother, ergo, not of infants.

Mr. B. adds. That though he dare not say there is a full certainty of the savation of all believers infants so dying, yet he professeth to think it better grounded then mine, who (he saith) shut them out of the Church. But this I take to be and effect of that antipathy he hath against me, who still chooseth that opinion which is most opposite to me, and prefers it; as p. 141. the opinion of the old and new Socinians, who take away an ordinance, and whom he censures pag. 24. as above obedience, and so God's ; and the opinion of baptizers in infancy and at age too, pag. 143. and professeth he would have nothing to do with me when I offered assistancce to him in another point, as if he were like Maldovat the Jesuit that could have liked an interpretation had it not been Calvin's. But I leave him to the Lord to judge him and me, and do not despair but that he may yet live to see his error, and perhaps wish he had been better advised then so disdainfully to have rejected a friends offer.

He saith, He would urge another argument here from the universality of redemption, Christ dying for all, for every man, for the sins of the whole world, as the Scripture speaketh; but that it would require more time to explain himself in it then he could then spare. However he thinks no man should deny that Christ died for every sort of men, and every age, and so for some infants. To which I reply, Did he ever hear me deny it? And if he did not, why doth he talk of proving it here where he disputes against me? But he is willing to pick what quarrels he can with me. However when he intends to urge this argument, I hope I shall be provided to answer it, if it oppose my thesis. That the Scripture saith Christ died for every man, for the sins of the whole world, is more then I find: If I mistake him not, his Universal redemption he holds is conditional only, which I think to be a fiction, redemption and election in Scripture being absolute in respect of persons, • nd commensurate, redemption being as well from impenitency and unbelief as damnation: Yet were it granted him, that he should thence infer, not the salvation of all, but of believers infants so dying and never performing the condition, is yet a Riddle to me; and I cannot yet imagine it to be any better then a sick-man's dream in Mr. B.

Ch. 28. He urgeth his 23d. arg. from Christ's being head of the visible Church in infancy, that infants may be members; whi • h I deny not: Nor is it the thing in question what they may be, but what they are. But this argument is answered before, sect. 57. And what he saith here out of Irenaeus, proves not what he would infer, That Irenaeus took them for visible Church members, because he saith, Christ by the example of his age sanctifieth them. For everyone sanctified by Christ is not a visible Church member: Mr. B. saith before, pag. 78. we read of some that have been sanctified from the womb, were they visible Church members in the womb? I know no absurdity in it to assert that Christ was head of the Church when an infant, and worshipped as such, and yet no infants should be visible Church members. Mr. Bs. persuasion that they know not God's will that think otherwise then he doth, is but an effect of his fond affection to his own brats. And yet when he himself saith, pag. 62. I confess it is disputable whether Christ were ever a Church member properly, he should not be very confident in asserting Christ in infancy to have been head of the visible Church. And for Irenaeus his speech, it is so false, that were not Mr. B. willing to catch at any shadow for his purpose, he would have concealed it.

Mr. Bs. 29th. ch. and 24th. argument, is answered at large in the first part of this Review, sect. 22, &c.

Ch. 30. He tells us, that his 25 th. arg. is probable at least, that the Scripture doth frequently and plainly tell us of the ceasing of Circumcision; but never speaks one word of the ceasing of infants visible Church membership, therefore we are not to judge that it is ceased. That the antecedent or minor in this argument is false, is proved at large, sect. 50, 51, 52. The consequence is shown to be invalid, in that other things of which the cessation is certain, as the freeing of servants, the dedication of the first born, are ceased, and yet not expressed so much in Scripture as that of Church membership. To this saith Mr. B. The year of Jubile was one of their Sabbaths, and so a type, Col. 2.17. But I reply, Though the year of Jubile were a Sabbath, yet this proves not that freeing servants then is anymore said to be ceased then infants visible Church membership. 2. Sai • h he, The dedication of the first-born was evidently a type of Christ, and the Church under him: Of both these many Scriptures are plain But let it be proved, that the admitting of infants into the visible Church is a mere type, or a mere judicial law proper to the Jewish Commonwealth, anymore then the admitting of men or women into the Church. I reply, 1. Admitting of infants into the visible Church, was no other then by their circumcising or presenting at the Temple; and these are ceased, as proper to the Jewish Church or Commonwealth. 2. A thing may cease though we cannot prove it a mere type, nor a mere judicial law, as the receiving tithes, and paying them; and things may remain though they were t • pes, as mount Zion, the land of Canaan, the people of Israel, wh • ch were types, Heb. 12.22. Gal. 6.6. &c. 3. That the Jewish infant Church membership was not by a law, but by a fact of providence which took in the whole people of the Jews into the Church visible Jewish, and consequently the infants as part of that people; which by the breaking off that people, and taking into the Church only believers, is now ceased, as is shown before, sect 50, 51, 52, 64.

What Mr. B. adds, If all Nations should have become Church members th • y should have been circumcised, and then it had not been peculiar to the Jews; and that Shechemites being circumcised would not have been subje • t to Jacob, and that when in Esther's time the people of the land became Jews, they were not of the Jewish Commonwealth, and under their Civil government; is answered before, sect. 54.

That which he saith, p. 108. That he hath sufficiently proved that infants ought to be admitted visible Church members, hath so little truth, that if the Reader observe it, he shall find sca • ce any of his arguments so much as to conclude the admission of infants into the visible Church, much less to prove it, but that they are visible Church members. Whereby it is evident now (which I could not observe in the Dispute) that Mr. B. did leave the point to be proved, that infants ought to be admitted visible Church members; and prosecuted another point instead of it, that they are visible Church members. But enough is done in answer to that also, which I pray the Lord to bless for the undeceiving of the people of these nations who have been so shamefully misled by Mr. Bs. toy of an ordinance of infants visible Church membership unrepealed, nowhere extant, that were they not either willing to be deceived, o • left to error by God for their want of love to the truth, they could hardly have been deluded by such vain arguing as he hath vented.

SECT. LXXV. My Arguments to prove the engraffing Rom. 11.17. to be into the invisible Church by giving faith, are vindicated from Mr. Bls. exceptions Vind. • aed. chap. 38. and Mr. Sidenham's Exercit. chap. 8, 9.

ALthough Mr. Bls. manner of disputing hath been shown to be such as requires not any full answer, and would learned men compare, as men that sought truth, mine and his writings together, they would perceive the insufficiency of his reply, yet because I perceive some learned men do yet value his writings (without good reason) which oppose mine, I shall add somewhat more to show how short his writings are of weakening anything of mine.

Vindic. • aed. ch. • 8. sect. 1. Having made an analasis of part of Rom. 11. from v. 16. he takes on him to ground several undeniable positions. The third is the root of this tree (viz. the first supreme universal root) is Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not Abraham alone so Ishmaelites would be of the body. Nor Abraham with Isaac alone, so the Edomites from Esau would have been taken in. But the Apostle in this Chapter (from Old Testament authority) excludes both of these, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are therefore jointly the root.

Answ. 1. That Abraham only is the root meant Rom. 11.16, 17, 18. I prove from Rom. 4.11, 12, 16. where Abraham only and no other of the Patriarchs is termed the Father of believers. But to be the root Rom. 11.16, 17, 18. is all one with the Father of believers. That the root notes a Father Mr. Bl yields, that it notes not barely a natural father, is proved in that the Gentiles should not be in that root, if it not • d barely a natural father, and that believers only are branches of that root is proved from the text. 1. In that their standing is by faith. 2. That by unbelief some were broken off, verse. 20. which do plainly prove that they who were branches were believers, who were unbelievers were not branches. 3. That the partaking of the root could be no otherwise then by faith, nor any other way engraffing can be meant is manifest▪ in that the Gentiles (who had no other relation to Abraham as a father then by believing as he did) partake of the root and are engraffed into the Olive. Secondly, To Master Bls. Argument, I answer by denying that the Apostle doth in that Chapter or any other exclude the Ishmaelites or Edomites from the body. Job, and other believing Edomites were in the root and Olive. Yea if it were meant of the visible Church and natural descent, Ishmael and Esau must be of the body who were of Abraham by natural descent and circumcised, and so visible Church members. If Mr. Bl. deny they were in the body, because they were not of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by this reason Isaac and Jacob should be excluded. For they were not from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: they were not from themselves and yet were branches, and consequently they were not the root, but Abraham alone, the root noting such a Father as from whom all branches have descent.

His fifth position is, the fatness of this tree is the glory of ordinances, of which the whole Church partakes. Answ. By ordinances he means outward ordinances, as Baptism, the Lord's Supper, preaching the word, &c. By the whole Church he means the Church visible. For that is his tenet all along, that the olive tree is the Church visible, not the inv • sible. This is then Mr. Bls. position, that when it is said Rom. 11.17. and wast partaker together of the root and fatness of the olive tree, the meaning is, thou Gentile Church or believer art made partaker of outward ordinances of which the whole Church partakes. Now under the whole visible Church he undoubtedly comprehends infants, and sure there is no ordinance of which infants are partakers according to Mr. Bls. tenet but Baptism, so that then the Apostle according to Mr. Bls. exposition, should mean no more by the fatness of the tree, of which the whole Church partakes, but Baptism. Which is of itself so manifestly frivolous an exposition, as that I shall not need of set purpose to refute it. Though, it is true, there is a glory and beauty in the ordinances of the New Testament: Yet first some of them, as the preaching of the Gospel (which is the most glorious) those that are out of the visible Church may partake of, and those wh • ch Mr. Bl. counts within may not partake of, I mean infants and some others. Secondly, that fatness which is meant Rom. 11.17. passeth from the root to the tree, and thence to the branches, and therefore he that is said to be partaker of the fatness of the olive tree, is first said to be partaker of the root, but be the root Abraham or as Mr. Bl. would have it Isaac and Jacob with him ordinances pass not from them. It is true Circumcision was first begun in Abraham, but all the rest of the Jewish ordinances are according to Scripture rather derived from Moses then Abraham, and to say they were partakers of the root, that is of Circumcision (which was the only ordinance Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did partake of) is both false, for they were not circumcised; and being so empty a thing as that it's termed with all the Jewish ordinances, a shadow Col. 2.17. Heb. 10.1. it had no glory then at all. And for Baptism, the Lord's Supper, &c. they passed not from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ; nor were they partakers of them, but were instituted by Christ in the New Testament. Thirdly, the partaking of the root and fatness of the olive tree was by the engraffing and consequent of it. But the engraffing according to Mr. Bl. doth not make them partakers of outward ordinances. For the chief of ordinances, to wit, the preaching of the Gospel, was the instrument of their engraffing, as his own allegation shows pag. 278. from Acts 11.21. and so was antecedent to the engraffing, nor by the engraffing were they partakers of the other outward ordinances. For though the heart were wrought to a professed subjection to the way of God in ordinances (which is Mr. Bls. engraffing) and so engraffed. Yet they might be never partakers of outward ordinances such as Baptism and the Lord's Supper, if either sickness or death prevented the administration or want of an administratour, or the elements, &c. hindered. Fourthly, the fatness of the olive tree makes the partakers fresh and fruitful. But that is not outward ordinances, but the spirit of God, righteousness by faith, &c. of which I shall speak more in vindicating my fourth argument.

Mr. Bl. saith farther, That the holiness Rom. 11.16. is such as is communicable from parent to child, that is, necessarily communicated, as a root communicates to branches. This is so plain, that if it be denied all the Apostles dispute falls.

Answ. It is true, that if the holiness be not communicated from Abraham to all his children by faith, who are believers as he was, the Apostles dispute falls, but the Apostles dispute holds though it be not communicated to every child of every believing father, which is Mr. Bls. conceit, as his following words show. Yea hence is a good argument to prove the holiness not to be meant of mere visible Church membership, nor the root of every parent professing faith, because many of their children are never Christian visible Church members, as experience abundantly proves, and so have not this holiness communicated to them. Yea, Mr. Bl. saith, who knows not that holy fathers have unholy children? regenerate parents have issue unregenerate? I may add, abortives, natural fools, still-born, bred up in Mohammedanism, renegado's, unbaptised, excommunicated, and consequently not visible Church members or federally holy. And it is most false in this holiness of visible Church membership, or as Mr. Bl. calls it federal that the proposition holds, as is the Father so is the child, the Father being without the child is without; the Father being within the child is within in regard of Church estate, Covenant holiness, eo nomine, because a branch of such a root, a child of such a Father ; which Mr. Bl. dictates here, but proves not, and hath been often refuted by me, nor is there anything in Rom. 11.16. for it. Yea Mr. Bls. own interpretation overthrows this position. For if the root be (as his position is) Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ] then it is not every believing Father, and if the root be every believing Father then all the branches of the tree are natural, and they derive their holiness by descent of nature, whereas it is plain from the text (and Mr. Bls. fourth position is to the same purpose) that the Jews only are natural branches, the Gentiles are all engraffed branches.

Mr. Cuthbert Sidenham in his exercit. ch. 8. takes upon him to demonstrate holiness and Church membership of the children of believing Gentiles from Rom. 11.15, 16, 17. and to answer my arguments ch. 9. Against my opinion of the engraffing into the invisible Church he urgeth, then persons may be broken off from the invisible Church, and takes notice of my answer in my Examen p. 64. but saith nothing to my answer in my Apology p. 76. though he could not but know of it, taking on him to answer my arguments in the next pages before. The rest he brings is from Mr. B. and is answered by me in my Review part. 1. sect. 6. &c. I agree with him in the position, that Abraham is the root meant Rom 11.16. and that he is a root exemplary only, nor do I deny that the Apostles arguing is from a special prerogative to Abraham to whom the promise was given Gen. 17.7. and that the promise did comprehend the elect of his natural seed, and that God had a more special regard to his natural seed in that promise then to other men • natural seed: yet not universally to his seed, nor is it true that the Apostle makes the branches holy Rom. 11.16. by a prerogative of grace grounded on the promise of God made to believing Fathers and their seed▪ which is the same in the New Testament and the Old, as he urgeth out of Dr Willet. For there is not that promise in the New Testament, or old. And therefore the Argument upon this conceit can have no strength in it.

Pag. 71. he lays down this position, We believing Gentiles are engraffed into Abraham's Covenant in the room of the natural branches which were broken off.

Concerning which I say, that though I deny not the believing Gentiles to have interest in Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17.7. that is, God is their God, and they have righteousness by faith as Abraham had: yet the Apostle doth not speak of their engraffing into Abraham's Covenant, that • s Mr. Sidenhams mistake, but into the olive tree, that is as Mr. Bl. the whole body of the Church, which he would have meant of the visible, I of the invisible. Now to Mr. Sidenhams arguments to that position; I yield the conclusion of the first, that believing Gentiles and their children are graffed in, but not all, or any as their children, and that the engraffing is suitable to the breaking off, that is, that as the Jews and their children were broken off from the invisible Church, in which the elect Jews and their children who were elect in former ages were for the greatest part, so the Gentiles believers and their children are graffed in. Yet Mr. Sidenham himself pag. 75. confesseth a very great disproportion, taking it as he doth for engraffing into the visible Church.

For, saith he, there is this difference between the conveyance of privileges of the Jews as natural branches, and the engraffed Gentiles; That the whole body of the Jews good and bad, were called branches; now only believers of the Gentiles, who are called by the Gospel, with their children, are engraffed into that root. Which is enough to show that the Gentiles were not engraffed into the root or tree, as the Jews by natural descent, but by calling of the Gospel, and that the body of the Gentiles or any nation of the Gentiles is not engraffed, but so many as are called. The engraffing of the infant children with their parents into the visible Church by an outward ordinance is but his own dream, and is overthrown by this, that the Church Christian visible is not by descent but calling; not national but Congregational, by voluntary Covenant; nor can the Churches called Independent hold this, which Master Sidenham, and Master Cobbet, and others of their way hold, that the engraffing of the Gentiles into the visible Church is suitable to that of the Jews as being in their stead, but they must hold a national Church, whi • h quite overturns the frame of their Churches, and the Reformation they contend for. To his second argument, the some that were broken off might be parents and children, or parents and not children, or children and not parents; and of these there might be infants broken off without their own sin, or their parents, according to God's good pleasure only. But of this I have said enough in answer to Mr. Geree and Mr. Baxter, in the first part of this Review, sect. 4, 6. The conclusion of the third argument is granted, understood of engraffing into the Church invisible, not into the visible. To the fourth, that [ the fatness of the Olive ] should note privileges and outward advantages such as this, that the child should be visible Church member with the father in the Christian Church, or that any other parent then Abraham should have a seminal virtue to convey such Church privilege or fatness as the root mentioned Rom. 11.17. is a mere fancy; nor is there anything Ephes. 3.6. or anywhere else in Scripture for it.

To the objection, That now believers are only branches, Abraham only the root, and therefore the argument holds not, If the parent be holy so is the child, being understood of other then Abraham and his seed ; he answers, That yet the branches well engraffed become natural branches, and receive as much from the root as those which grew naturally on it, so Gentile believers must have the same privilege, and that there are sprigges which grow out of branches which may be termed immediate roots. But he doth not show that the Apostle or any wise man ever termed greater boughs of trees roots to lesser; neither dare he say, the Apostle meant every believing Father by the root, Rom. 11.16. and therefore all this is impertinent to answer the objection, which was to invalidate the inference concerning the holiness of every believers infant, because the Apostle saith, if the root be holy so are the branches, because Abraham only is the root there. As for Mr. Bls. saying, I value it not, it being without Scripture. It's sufficient for present to show the insufficiency of Mr Bls. and Mr. Ss. proofs. I pass on to vindicate my arguments from their pretended answers.

How the Dispute concerning the proof from Rom. 11.16, 17. for infants of believing Gentiles visible Church membership and Baptism, was brought to this issue, Whether the engraffing Rom. 11.17. into the Olive tree, be meant of joining a person to the invisible Church of the elect by giving faith according to electon, so that none are engraffed but true believers or elect persons as I assert, is shown in the first part of this Review ▪ sect. 1. Mr. Bl. and Mr. Sydenham take on them to answer my arguments.

The first is, That act of engraffing to the Church which is made God's act by his sole power with such an Emphasis as implies it hopeless and impossible without the intervention of his omipotency, is, and can be no other engraffing then into the invisible Church by giving of faith according to election. But such is the engraffing Rom. 11.17. as appears from v. 23. Ergo.

Mr. Sydenham answers, that to argue from God's power to his will, or to election, or from his power in general to the putting it forth absolutely in such a determinate act, is strange, unsound in Divinity, and reason. But this is no answer. For there is no such arguing made by me. My arguing is none of those ways he mentions, but from the ascribing the act to God as done by his sole power, without which it were hopeless and impossible, to prove that it is more then man by his ordinary power can do, which can in this business be no other then the working of faith in the heart. And this the Contraremonstrants thought sound arguing in the conference at the Hague, and so do generally pleaders for irresistable conversion. And Mr. Sydenham makes it like to the resurrection of the dead, from v. • 5. which sure no act of man can perform. But admission to the visible Church may be performed by men, therefore the engraffing cannot be admission into the visible Church, but an higher act of giving faith according to election.

But saith he, It is a work of mighty power to take away the prejudice against Christ, in Jews and Gentiles, to bring to outward confession. To which I reply, it is no such work but may be done by moral suasion of Orators or Preachers, specially backed with the encouragement and commands of Kings and Emperors, as experience hath often shown, therefore this cannot be all which is meant by the engraffing.

But saith he, It will require an act of power to gather them but visibly once again, and bring them into one entire body to make a visible Church, when they are so scattered up and down all nations. To which I reply, 1. The gathering them together into one place, is not engraffing them into the visible Church; for engraffing them imports joining them to others, but this gathering is a making them a distinct body of themselves; the gathering into one place is accidental to their engraffing i • to their own Olive, he engraffing may be without it; and if they go together, it is likely the engraffing will be before that gathering, and therefore that gathering and this engraffing cannot be the same. 2. That gathering may be by the power and favor of Emperors and Kings, as it was by Cyrus his Proclamation heretofore in their return to Jerusalem, and therefore is not this act of engraffing which is ascribed to God by his sole power with such an Emphasis as implies it un • easable but by his omnipotency.

Mr. Bl. saith, that I do vainly make this engraffing to be in their sense▪ no more then baptizing. But 1. whether I wrong my Antagonists, may be perceived from Mr. Ms. words in his Def • nce, p. 135. To what I said, the Jews infants were graffed in by Circumcision; therefore ours are to be engraffed by Baptism. You answer, by demanding whether in good sadness I do think the Apostle here means by grafting in, baptizing, or circumcision, or insition by outward ordinances; for if that were the meaning, then breaking off must be meant of uncircumcising, or unbaptizing. To which I reply, that in good sober sadness I do think that grafting in is admission into visible membership, or visible communion with the Church of Christ; and that the external seal of their visible grafting in was Circumcision, and of ours Baptism. And he disputes against the engraffing into the invisible Chu • ch, therefore he can understand it of no more then baptizing. 2. Nor can Mr. Bl. conformably to his tenet. For if the engraffing be such a • is common to infants and parents, and it be admission into the visible Church of both, and infants are no way else admitted then by baptizing, the engraffing is no other.

But, saith he, We understand a discipling of Gentile nations, working the heart to a professed subjection to the way of God in ordinances tendered, and assent of heart unto all that is there promised, and acknowledge it a work above the power of man, and confess it to be solely in the hand of God, as Gen. 9.27. Acts. 1.21. We do not speak of the bare admission of one that stands entitled, but the working of them to such a title; and if an outward profession be in the power of man's will, yet to bring men or nations to such a profession cordially to embrace the Gospel so far as to assent to the truth of it, is above man, and a work of no such ease.

I reply, 1. If it be not bare admission, but such a work as he saith, then infants are none of the branches engraffed, nor doth the engraffing belong to them, since they have only bare admission into the visible Church by Baptism. 2. If the profession be only from fear, or carnal hopes, this may be wrought by Teachers, Orators, especially the favor and power of Princes concurring, and then it is no act above man's power to engraff. But if the heart be brought to assent cordially, and so to profess Christ in sincerity (as some of Mr. Bls. words seem to mean) then it is by giving faith according to election, and the engraffing into the invisible Church: And so Mr. Bl. while he seems to answer my argument, doth unawares confirm it, through the irrefragable force of the truth. Which might have been further cleared from the Text, Rom. 11.23. where it is said, they also if they abide not in unbelief shall be graffed in, for God is able to graff them in again. Whence it follows, while they abide in unbelief they are not graffed in, when they believe they are; Ergo, God ingraffs by giving faith according to election.

My second argument was from v. 15, 16, 17. where the engraffing is termed reconciliation opposite to casting away.

To this Mr. Sydenham answers, 1. If I mean reconciliation in the strictest sense, as it denotes pardon of sins, and being made friends with God by Christ's atonement and mediatorship, then many absurdities may follow: 1. That the Jews and their rejection was the ground of the Gentiles? reconciliation unto God. 2. That no reconciliation was obtained for the Gentiles before the Jews were broken off. 3. That those which are reconciled and their sins pardoned, may be cast off; for so were the Jews and the Gentiles threatened with the same misery on the same ground.

Answ. 1. If by [ ground ] be meant [ cause, ] I deny that to follow on the exposition of reconciliation in the strictest sense; if by [ ground ] be meant only [ occasion ] I grant it follows, but count it no absurdity, it being the plain d • claration of the Apostle. 2. I grant the second, 〈◊〉 understood of the fullness or body of the Gentiles, and count it no absurdity; after the time of God's separating of Israel to be his people, there were only some proselytes reconciled to God, but no full and ample number, so as to make any numerous Church of themselves. 3. The third I yield as no absurdity, understanding the casting off of the same people, not the same persons, from what their ancestors were, not themselves.

But Mr. S. answers 2 lie. by distinction of reconciliation into ou • ward and inward, and he would have it meant of outward reconciliation, by bringing them in under the means of the Gospel and the outward dispensation, of the Church, which is God's common way to salvation, and is to some effectual to inward grace, unto others only to outward privil • dges.

Answ. 1. This reconciliation would exclude infants, for they are not so reconciled and consequently not engraffed, and so the argument for their engraffing hence is evacuated, if the reconciliation (which is confessed to be the same with the engraffing) be such as agrees not to infants. 2. He doth noth not so much as offer to produce one place of Scripture in which reconciliation is so taken, nor one approved writer so expounding it. 3. Nor can it be expounded so. For it is no reconciliation at all which he describes. In reconciliation there is still taking away enmity, but in the bringing under the means of the Gospel there may be no taking away of enmity, either from them to God, for they may hate him as much, yea more then before; or from God to them, for he may ha • e them as much or more then before. 4. Nor in this place can it be the meaning. For the reconciliation of the world, v. 15. is v. 1 • . the riches of the world, of the Gentiles. But their riches imports something opposite to their fall, diminishing, or detriment; and their fall must be to damnation, for it is v. 11. opposed to salvation, their riches must needs therefore be to salvation, so termed verse. 11.

But, saith he,

Answ. The body of the Gentiles, that is a full ample part of them incomparably greater then the number of the proselytes to the Jewish Church is reconciled, and hath been for many ages to God by election and saving grace.

Mr. Bl. also answers by distinction of reconciliation gradual, either to take in, or hold a people in visible communion; or total, to receive them with an everlasting delight in them. The former he exemplifies out of Exod. 32.10, 11, 12, 13, 14. And thus applies it.

Answ. The casting away v. 15. is the same with the casting away v. 1, 2. which is opposite to God's fore-knowledge v. 2. to the election of grace v. 5. which obtained, and the castaway were hardened or blinded v. 7, 8, 9, 10. which he that understands of any other casting away then from the grace of election, and effectual calling, and the invisible Church seems to me to pervert the Apostles meaning very grossly. Nor do I conceive it any absurdity to say that the Jewish people in Paul's time were broken off or cast away from that election, and state in the invisible Church which they never had in their own persons, but their ancestors had, and they in course had obtained but for their unbelief. As for the reconciliation in all places where he mentions it in his Epistles, he means it of that reconciliation which is by effectual conversion, and justification, through Christ's death, on which follows salvation, Rom. 5.10, 11. 2 Cor. 5.18, 19, 20. Col. 1.22. and not of Mr. Bls. gradual reconciliation, of which he hath not brought one instance for the use of the word in his sense, nor is his example anything like to the business in hand: For it was not a reconciliation so as to bring them to the privileges of a visible Church state, but so to pardon the sin of worshipping the golden Calf, as not utterly to destroy that people, though the sinners fell in the Wilderness: which was only an abatement of punishment, not an estating in privileges as Mr. B. would have it.

But Mr. Bl. to my urging any one to show me in Scripture or any approved Protestant Writer, such use of the word reconciliation as his is, and my alleging Protestant approved Writers for my exposition, thus saith.

1. When Mr. T. pleaseth, he can heap up phrases which are only once used in a select sense in Scripture, and that to uphold his interpretation of holy and unclean, 1 Cor. 7.14. when the context clearly evinces the contrary. But that this is false, and that the text clearly evinceth my interpretation is fully proved in the first part of this Review. Section 22, &c.

Secondly, sai • h he, Master T when he pleases, dare undertake the defense of an opinion held unanimously by all Papists, and as unanimously opposed by Protestants, as in that of Covenant holiness.

But this also is another of Master Bls. calumnies and unbrotherly taunts which he frequently useth instead of answers, and if there had been in him any candour of mind towards me he had been satisfied with my answer in my postscript, Sect. 13. But since he writes against me in a Cynical humor, I pass by his snarlings, and leave the cause to the Lord.

Thirdly, saith he, Gomarus, T • m. 1. p. 111. observes that world is taken in tha • sense, in Rom. 11.12, 15. as in no other Scripture. But I think this is not true, it is taken in the same sense 1 Tim. 3.16. and I think 2 Cor. 5.18, 19. 1 Joh. 2.2.

Fourthly, saith he, if recontiliation in no other place be so used, yet little is gained; seeing as we have seen there are parallel phrases that hold out the same thing to us.

Answ. 1. Those parallel phrases were never yet seen by me. 2. The thing is gained which is here contended for, if reconciliation still signify total reconciliation in the Scripture when it speaks of Gospel reconciliation, and there is no cogent reason to move us to recede from that sense here, and reconciliation be the same with engraffing, surely engraffing is by giving faith according to election, and the Church into which the engraffing is, is the invisible.

Mr. Bl. produceth a speech of Ravanelius (which I have not) for his sense. But the words as he produceth th • m seem not to me to have that sense which Mr. Bl. alledgeth them for, but rather my sense, and a passage in the Annotations, and another in Dr. Featley the Author of them on those Epistles. But in neither doth Dr. Featley say by the reconciliation to God Rom. 11.15. is meant bare vouchsafing a visible Church state; and by c • sting away, and breaking off a loss of visible privileges, nor do Peter Martyr or Euc • r say so. And however I find Protestant Writers do expound the engraffing and breaking off in many of their writings of the visible Church, yet those speeches which I alleged out of Mr. Ball and Dr. Ames are full to prove the reconciliation Rom. 11.15. to be saving, and they that understand by breaking off there, more then the loss of visible privileges, may notwithstanding Mr. Bls. censure without any shift in that point be acquitted from Arminianism.

My third arg. was from v. 20. engraffing must be by giving faith, because it is by faith that the branch stands in the tree. To this Mr. S. and Bl. both answer by granting the conclusion, that it is by giving faith. But this faith Mr. S. makes profession of faith, Mr. Bl. a faith of profession.

To which I reply. 1. If it were faith professed by which the branches stand in the tree, yet infants are excluded from being of the branches, for they stand not by faith professed. 2. That it is not profession of faith, or faith barely dogmatical which is meant Rom. 11.20. I prove 1. thus. That standing which is a perseverance unto salvation is not by bare profession of faith, but true justifying faith. But the standing Rom. 11.20. is that stand • ng which is a perseverance unto salvation, ergo. The major is manifest; for it is not a bare profession of faith whereby a man perseveres to salvation, but that which is justifying. The minor is plain from the text. The standing which is opposed to falling in which God shows his severity, is standing by perseverance unto salvation. This I presume will be yielded, direct opposite terms being according to Logic rules to be understood in a direct opposite sense. But the standing Rom. 1 • .20. is opposed to falling in which God shows his severity verse. 2 • . Ergo. 2. The standing which was to be prevented by being not high minded but fearing, and the losing of which was to be feared, is not a bare standing in the visible Church, nor by bare profession of faith, But the loss of the standing was to be feared, and to be prevented by not being high minded but fearing, v. 20. For the loss of standing in the visible Church needs not be so much feared, and a less care would serve turn to prevent it. 3. That standing which would not prevent God's not sparing, is not the standing meant Rom. 11.20. For that would prevent God's not sparing, v. 21. But the standing only in the visible Church by profession of faith, would not prevent God's not sparing, Matt. 7.23. Ergo. 4. That faith and standing are meant here, which in o • her places in that and other Epistles are meant by the Apostle, when he speaks of the same thing. But in those places standing so as to persevere to salvation, and justifying faith are meant, as Rom. 5.2. and 14.4. 2 Cor. 1.24. Ergo. 5. That standing and that faith is not meant of which it may be said the root beareth them not, verse 18. But of them who only stand in the visible Church by a profession of faith, it may be said the root beareth them not. For the roo • is Abraham, and he is a root or father to none but those who have justifying faith, Rom. 4.11, 12. Ergo. 6. By that faith the branches stand which is directly opposite to the unbelief by which others were broken off, verse. 20. But that was unbelief of heart, and not of mouth only, ergo, the faith is in the heart, and not in the mouth only by which the branches stand. 7. That • aith the branches stand by v. 20. by which they are partakers of the root and fatness of the Olive. But that is justifying faith, as shall be shown in the vindication of the next argument, Ergo.

Mr. S. takes upon him to prove it meant of the visible Church by profession of faith by some of Master • s. arguments, which because they are answered already in the first Part of this Review, Sect. 6, &c. I let pass: only whereas he saith, Can any man conceive that they should boast because the branches the Jews were broken from election and true faith, that they might be graffed in by a new act of God • election, and by true and saving faith?

I answer, though they might not thus boast, yet they might boast that God having broken off the Jews, had in their stead engraffed them, by giving saving faith according to his eternal election.

And to what he saith from v. 20, 21, 22, 23. What, are they exhort • d to look least they be cut off from God's election, &c? Will M. T. turn a downright Arminian, that he may have any plea against the baptising of poor infants?

I answer, 1. that I scarce think that scribler did well know what Arminianism was, and that I have sufficiently acquit • ed myself from that which is indeed Arminianism, and better then his magnified Aurthor Mr. B. 2. That • e might with as good reason impeach the Apostle of downright Arminianism, in that he exhorts us to give all diligence that we make our calling and election sure, 2 Pet. 1.10.

Mr. Bl. when he cannot untie this knot, endeavors to cut it asunder by this assertion, after many words which need no answer; That there is no such thing in all Scripture as engraffing into the Church invisible by faith; all engraffing is into the body visible, and therefore by a faith of profession. And yet his three first arguments whereby he would prove this proposi • ion, do conclude no engraffing but into Christ, and consequently neither into the invisible nor visible, which is directly to contradict his own saying, All engraffing is into the body visible. But let's view his proofs about this position con • erning which it pleaseth Mr. Bl. to enter into the lists with me.

1. Saith he,

Answ. • his argument is made by Mr. Bl as if he on purpose meant to refute himself. For 1. he wou • d prove there is no engraffing of elect believers into the invisible Church but into Christ, because he only receives the elect believers; which if true it would follow; First, that elect believers are not engraffed into the visible Church, but only non-elect professors of faith who are hypocrites, and so the visible Church should have no elect ones in it, but all reprobates. Secondly, i • the reason were good there should be no engraffing of prof • ssors of faith into the visible Church contrary to his assertion, that all engraffing is into the body visible. For it is Christ that immediately receives, that is owns or acknowledgeth bare professors of faith as visible Church members, as well as he receives, that is owns and acknowledgeth as his invisible members, them who are engraffed into his invisible body. 3. If we be engraffed by that faith by which Christ dwells in us and we in Christ, Ephes. 3.17. then we are engraffed into the olive by that • aith which is justifying (for by no other • aith doth Christ dwell in us nor we in him, nor is any other meant Ephes. 3.17. as is apparent from the text, the prayer of the Apostle being not for a bare dogmatical faith, which they had already, but justifying, persevering, whereby Christ might dwell in their hearts by his spirit, &c.) and the engraffing is into Christ, and consequently into the invisible Church. But so it is by Mr. Bls. argument, ergo.

2. I answer engraffing is a metaphor and it notes uniting or joining, and this joining is not natural but spiritual or moral, and may be at a remote bodily distance, and without the knowledge of those to whom the person is engraffed, and may be to Christ, and to his invisible body or visible, without any act of the Church visible or invisible which may be termed receiving; yea if Mr. Bs. position be right, Plain Script. proof, &c. part. 1. ch. 27. that a man living alone in America may yet be a member of the visible Church. For he hath that which constituteth him a visible member though there be none to discern it, a man may be engraffed into the Church visible though neither he know any other Church member, nor any other know him, and therefore I deny Mr. Bls. major proposition in his argumen • , if understood (as it must be if it be to the purpose) of that metaphorical engraffing which is Rom. 11.17, &c.

2 Saith he, All ingraffin • is into that which gives sap and juice to the engraffed, as the stock from the root to the syens; now Christ gives sap to the elect believing, not the Church; and therefore it is not into the Church, but into Christ.

Answ. 1. This argument also gainsays Mr. Bls. proposition▪ that all engraffing is into the body visible ; for it is not the body visible that gives sap to the elect believing, or professors of faith, but Christ; and therefore by this argument there is no engraffing into the body visible. 2. Christ only gives sap and juice effectively, Abraham exemplarily; the Church doth it only as a vessel receiving it, as the stock receives it first, then the branch; the veins receive the blood, then the other parts of the body: And if Mr. Bls. major be understoood of any other giving juice, it is denied; if of this, the minor.

3. Saith he, If saving faith engraff the branch into the Church invisible, then the Church invisible is the proper object of such faith; but the Church is no such object of faith, but Christ.

Answ. 1. The same argument holds thus, If profession of faith engraff into the Church visible then the Church visible is the proper object of such profession: But the Church visible is no such object, but Christ; therefore there is no engraffing by profession of faith into the Church visible, contrary to Mr. Bls. tenet. 2. To say the Church invisible is the object of faith, is no more then to say, to believe the Holy Catholic Church is an Article of the Creed, and this I think Mr. Bl. counts no absurdity. 3. The consequence of the major proposition is denied. Fai • h that saves hath the object Christ, and as it respects Christ doth unite or engraff us to him as to our head, and to the invisible Church as his body.

4. Saith he, That supposed engraffing into the invisible Church, is either known to the body invisible, or unwitting; if known, then it is not invisible. They have no light to discern an invisible work if unknown, then there could not be such a dispute about the new engraffing of Gentiles, nor complaint of breaking off of the Jews, all being done by an invisible translation, and so the subject of the question is taken away.

Answ. It was known to some of the invisible, to others not; though it were known yet it might be invisible, they had light to discern an invisible work: Though the work were unknown to some, yet there might be a dispute about the new engraffing of Gentiles, and complaint of breaking off the Jews, as there was Acts 11. though all were done by an invisible translation: So that there is no truth or strength in this rope of sand Mr. Bl. makes, and the subject of the question still remains. There is as much futility in the rest of his dictates. Scheibler saith in his Topics, A not-being cannot be a part dividing ; yet he sai • h, in case any defend that to be which yet is not, in controversies such a division is to be supposed. But how vainly Mr. Bl. hath disputed against an engraffing into the invisible Church, may be discerned and thereby how frivolously 〈◊〉 compares it to a mountain of air. And what he saith, that the access of the Gentiles in the Acts was an engraffing into the Church visible, may be granted, and it may be true that it was into the invisible Church also▪ One new man, Ephes. 2.15. is true only of the invisible Church; for the Gentiles were never one visible Church with the Jews, except some few proselytes of them. That the visible Church communicates sap and juice which is the fatness of the Olive in ordinances, and that saith dogmatical looks upon the Church (meaning the visible) as the partial object, are di • tates, which I need not refute, since there is no proof brought for them. As I concei • e he means them, they are false; so much for the vindication of my third argument.

My fourth argument is from v. 17. thus, That engraffing is meant v. 17. whereby the wild Olive is co-partaker of the root and • atness of the Olive tree: But such is only by giving faith according to election; Ergo. I proved the minor by showing that Abraham is there the root as the Father of the faithful, and the fatness of the Olive not privileges of outward ordinances, but righteousness.

Mr. Sydenham answers it by referring to Mr. Bl. and censuring my answer to him as a poor evasion, which I shall free from this censure in my reply to Mr. Bl. Yet Mr. S. scribles somewhat besides, which I shall reply to. He begins with questions, 1. • ere not the natural branches which were broken off partakers of the fatness of the root? Answ. No. And were they all elected and partakers of saving graces, or outward privileges only? Answ. None of the branches broken off were elected or partakers of saving graces, though some were of outward privileges. And why then should it be thought absurd for the Gentiles by engraffing to p • rtake of the fatness of the root only in outward privileges, seeing it was so with the natural branches, and they all grow on the same root? Answ. The natural branches as natural did not grow on the same root with the engraffed; Abraham was not a natural Father to the engraffed branches, they descended not from him by natural generation, nor did the natural branches which were broken off grow on the same spiritual root with the engraffed. Abraham was indeed the Father of the faithful Gentiles, and they his seed spiritually; but so he was not • o the Jews broken off▪ nor they ever in their own persons in the Olive tree, as it notes the Church of true believers, or in Abraham the root as is meant Rom. 11.17. nor were ever partakers of the fatness of it, but the Gentiles were; nor did the Jews fall from election and saving graces which they had in their own persons, but which they had in course been partakers of if they had believed, which I have cleared more fully in my answer to Mr. Cobbet, in the first part of this Review, sect. 10.

He tells me further, It's improper to call a root an exemplary cause; there is no harmony between them; and example conveyed nothing; here is a conveyance of fatness.

Answ. It is improper to term an exemplary cause a root, for it is a metaphor; but it is no more improper then to term an exemplary cause a Father, as the Apostle doth Abraham the Father of believers, Rom. 4.11, 12. when yet the Text makes him only such by his exemplary believing; and if there were harmony between a Father and • n exemplary cause, though Abraham conveyed not faith or righteousness, but as an example; there is harmony between a root and an exemplary cause, though it convey nothing but as an example: Nor is it unsuitable to good language to say, the engraffed branches are partakers of the fatness or fullness of Abraham as an example. That fatness the Jews had from Abraham which is meant Rom. 11.17. they had not from him as a natural father, nor did God make the Evangelical Covenant with him and his natural seed, nor do the engraffed branches ever become natu • all branches, though they partake of Evangelical benefits as well as the believing Jews, who were natural branches. What Mr. S. adds in answer to my objection, that if it were meant of outward privileges it were false; for the Gentiles were not partakers of the outward privileges of Abraham, that Abraham is a root in the New Testament as well as in the Old, I grant; but deny what he adds, and still stands by virtue of the Covenant to believers and their children : For neither is there such a Covenant, and if there were, yet Abraham could be a root only to his natural seed, not to Gentiles by virtue of that Covenant. And what he adds, that though Old Testament ordinances were taken away with the Jews and that Church-state, yet the root is not taken away; but the New Testament privileges grow on the same root; and our engraffing in gives us to be partakers of the fatness of them, as well as it gave to the Jews the participation of former privileges until they were broken off ; letting pass the vanity of the speeches, that our engraffing gave to the Jews the participation of former privileges, which they had not by our engraffing, but their own propagation from the root, and that the Jews had the privileges till they were broken off, whereas the persons broken off never had the fatness meant Rom. 11.17. all this answer avoids not the objection, but plai • lie grants the argument. For if the Old Testament ordinances and the Jewish Church state were taken away (which all that are against a national Church-frame must aver) then if by fatness be meant outward ordinances and Church state, the Gentiles cannot be said to partake of them, nor they be meant by the fatness, Rom. 11.17. Let's examine what Mr. Bl. saith to this argument.

1. He denies that he ever said every believing parent is the root, a root he makes them, not the root. But by his leave I charge him with nothing but what doth plainly follow from his words. For that is the root according to him which communicates Covenant holiness and Church state, and of whom it is verified if the root be holy so are the branches. But this is said by him in his Vindic. Faed. p. 277. and elsewhere, of every believing parent; therefore if Mr. Bl. avouch his own arguings, he makes every believing parent the root, Rom. 11.16, 17.

What Mr. Bl. speaks, that other parents are roots to their posterity, is granted, and needed not to be proved by Mr. Bl • ut that they being holy persons are holy roots communicating Covenant holiness to their children, is not pr • ved by Mr. Bl. That the Covenant or promise of God made to Abraham, Gen. 15.5. & 17 4, 7. did assure and • o constitute Abraham to be the root of the Church of true believers, is not denied, nor that Circumcision did seal to him the righteousness of faith as a believer and the father of believers, Rom. 4.11, 12. But the form denominating him Father of believers, or root of the Olive, is propagating them by his exemplary faith: Nor was David by his Covenant, or Jesse, or any other believing parent a root or father in the sense Rom. 4.11. & 11.16, 17. Though they were natural roots to their posterity, and builders of the house of Israel, and the Fathers 1 Cor. 10.1. by natural generation; yet none are said to build as Abraham, from whom the fatness, Rom. 11.17. is derived, and not from any other intermediate father. For Abraham had been father though he had had no child by natural generation, Mat. 3.9. descending from him: Nor can it be t • ue, that he is termed the root by reason of natural generation; For then the Gentiles had not been bran • hes and children, and • ll the branches had been natural, contrary to v. 21, 24.

To this saith Mr. Bl.

Answ. They that were engraffed were still branches of the wild Olive, and so are we that are believers of the Gentiles, for that title is by nature and natural descent, Rom. 11.24. which is not changed by grace, though the fruit and sap be changed that is the qualities and actions by engraffing: We that are believers of the Gentiles are not the branches according to nature, for that is plainly meant of the Jews only, Rom. 11.24. when it is said, they that are according to nature shall be graffed in their own Olive. Which shows that the term they that are according to nature i • proper to the Jews: But if every believing parent should be the root, Rom. 11.16, 17. then every Gentile believers child should be a natural branch, contrary to v. 24. for they are all besides nature, and no believing Gentile nor his child is now or hath been a natural branch in the sense the Apostle means, Rom. 11.24.

But Mr. Bls. chief objection is this,

Answ. 1. This objection may be thus retorted, If the engraffing be by a faith of profession only, to derive only outward ordinances, outward privileges, Covenant holiness, visible Church membership, as a fruit of the Covenant from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob the root, then we are i • Covenant in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: They may say without us ye cannot be visible Church members, &c. he that professeth faith in us, shall have outward Church privileges; the privileges we have in the visible Church, we have by profession of faith in the son of Terah. This must necessarily follow, if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob be the root respective to the Covenant and Covenant holiness, as Mr. Bl. asserts. when Mr. Bl. hath freed himself from these absurdities, I shall have somewhat more to answer him. 2. In the mean time my answer in my Apology is, that the absurdities follow not on my opinion, who make not Abraham a roo • as communicating faith by infusion or impetration mediatory as Christ, but as an exemplary cause of believing, in which sense he is styled the father of believers, Rom. 4 11, 12.

To this Mr. Bl. in his flirting fashion replies thus, A root not by communication, but example; an engraffing not to have anything communicated from the root, but to imitate it, is such a Catachresis as may well make all Rhetoric • shamed of it; and if the Sun ever saw a more notable piece of non sense, I am to seek what sense is. A root is too low in the earth to have its examples followed, and a syens sucks in juice, but knows not how to imitate.

Answ. 1. Mr. Bl. grossly abuseth me by insinuating as if I mentioned a root not by communication, but example: and engraffing not to have anything from the roo • , but to imitate it: But this I said, that Abraham is not termed the root as communicating faith by infusion, or imp • ration mediatory as Christ, but as an exemplary cause of believing, and the engraffing I make to be God's act of giving faith after Abraham's example, whereby righ • eousness is communicated from Abraham as the precedent or pattern, according to which God gives both, though the branches do not themselves imitate Abraham. Now this is no more non-sense then to term him a father without any other begetting or communicating then as an exemplary cause, which the Apostle doth, Rom. 4.11, 12. and (as I show in the first part of this Review, Sect. 2. pag. 1 • .) Dr. Willet, Diodati, Pareus, do so expound the root and father of the faithful ; so that if there be non-sense, these learned men with the Apostle are to be charged with it, as well as myself, which may redound more to Mr. Bls. then to the shame of Rhetoric. And if a root be too low in the earth to be as an example, so is a fathers begetting too hidden a thing to be our example, yet Abraham's believing and justification may be God's example according to which he gives faith and righteousness. 2. When Mr. Bl. makes Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the root as communicating Ordinances, visible Church membership, &c. I would know how he makes them communicating roots of these to believing Gentiles infants. Sure not by natural generation, for neither mediately nor immediately are they roots to them that way: not by teaching or example, for they are not things imitable, nor are they to them teachers, or visible examples: not by communicating to them the Covenant, that is, God's act. What way soever he make them the root according to his opinion there will be as much non-sense and shame to Rhetoric, and less truth in his explication then in mine. What he adds, that whatsoever kind of root I make it, yet it is a communicative root, verse. 17. I grant it in the sense expressed, not of communication by infusion or mediatory impetration, but as an • dea.

And what he saith further, that the term Father and root are not full synonyma's, yet in the main they agree ; is as much as I need to show that it is no more non-sense to term him a root who communicates sap only as a pattern, then it is to term him a Father who begets only as an example.

And whereas he saith, both metaphors aptly set forth what the branches as from a root, the children as from a Father receive, namely their title to the Covenant from him; and therefore as to Abraham, so to all Israel pertained the Covenants and the Adoption, Rom, 9.4, 5. And so to all that are become children and branches with them. I grant the metaphors set forth what the branches and children receive from the root and father: But that the thing received is title to the Covenant in Mr. Bls. sense, that is to be partakers of outward ordinances (which is more truly non-sense then my expression of a root by exemplarity, or that to Abraham and so to all Israel pertained the Covenants and adoption, Rom. 9.4, 5. or that to the engraffed branches or Gentile children of Abraham, belonged the Covenants and adoption and other p • iviledges which are there appropriated to Israel after the fl • sh, though not imparted to all) there alleged, is denied. Title to the Covenant of grace is not communicated to Gentile believers any otherwise, then in that they are made Abraham's seed by faith, and this is communicated to them no otherwise from Abraham then as an example, and therefore he is a root no other way • hen I assign, if there be any other way it is more then yet Mr. Bl. hath shown.

Yet he adds, the title Father is yet extended to a greater Latitude, as he doth impart to his issue (as before) so he is a pat • ern and example as even natural parents are likewise according as Rom. 4. • 2. ( quoted by Mr. T.) is set forth, yet that place is too palpably abused.

Answ. Though Fathers be examples and patterns to their children in their actions, yet not all nor only parents are such, nor is Abraham called a Father there because he was a good pattern only, but because he as the A • chtype or primitive pattern begat Jews and Gentile believers as his seed to faith, nor in this or anything have I abused the Apostle.

Mr. Bl. tells me.

Answ. I abhor it to abuse the Apostle so palpably as Mr. Bl. doth here. For it appears not only from the main drift of the Apostle in the whole Chapter precedent, specially v. 9, 10. but also from the very words v. 11. that righteousness might be imputed • o them also, that the Apostle speaks of that faith only which is justifying, which is believing with the heart, Rom. 10 10. And therefore those speeches are palpably false, that the steps of the faith of the Father Abraham is the doctrine of faith which Abraham believed (which may be by a Teacher that neither believes nor professeth) or the profession of faith which he made (which a Judas or Simon Magus might have, and so should have righteousness imputed to them as Abraham had) that all professed Jews or Christians walk in the steps of that faith, that Abraham is Father of those uncircumcised believers who had not that faith that justifies. As for Mr. Bls. reason, it is against himself; for Abraham's profession could no more be seen to be imitated in the Apostles days then his faith as justifying: both might be known by God's word, and be followed as a pattern, though I conceive the Apostle makes those to walk in the steps of Abraham's faith, who do believe as he did, though they never saw or heard of Abraham's b • lieving, as he may be said to write after a Copy who writes the same, though he never saw the Copy.

He adds,

Answ. 1. If Abel, Enoch, Noah, be set out as examples of believing with a faith justifying, Heb. 11.4, 5, 6, 7. by which Noah became heir of the righteousness which is by faith, then it is not true which Mr. Bl. • aith a little before, that Abraham could be exemplary as a pattern to be followed only in that which is external. 2. Many before and after did believe as Abraham, and they are examples to us, Pleb. 6.12. Yet we find not any whose faith was remarkably tried and approved as Abraham's, and therefore none deno • inated the Fat • er of believers besides him. 3. It is granted the promise or Covenant was the object of Abraham's faith, and that it did assure that he should be the Father of believers both of Jews and Gentiles; yet the reason of the denomination of Father of believers is made only his eminent faith, and the form denominating him is 〈◊〉 relation to them, the foundation of which was his begetting believers exemplarily▪ 4. Rom. 4.11. It is neither said Abraham closed with God in Covenant, nor that he accepted the seal of the Covenant, nor is there in that v. any mention of the Covenant, or of the seal of the Covenant, but • . 16▪ the Apostles having termed Abraham the Father of us all, v. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. he sets out his faith as most eminent, and that as the reason of his Fatherhood.

Mr. Bl. to what I said, the fatness of the Olive tree, Diodati said truly, is the blessing and promise made to Abraham and to his seed, and so the Apostle expresseth, Gal. 3.14. saith. This we grant, and privilege of ordinances contained this blessing and this promise; we know the Gospel to be the power of God to salvation. To which I reply, The blessing, Gal. 3.14. is j • stification, v. 8, 9. and the promise is of the spirit through faith, which a man may be without, though he have the outward • riviledge of ordinances, and therefore are not contained in it: Nor is the Gospel the power of God to salvation without faith; and therefore if the engraffing be only into the visible Church▪ and a person have only the privilege of ordinances, he may be without the blessing and promise made to Abraham and to his seed, Gal. 3.14. which is granted by Mr. Bl. to be the fatness meant Rom. 11.17. and therefore the fatness is more then outward privileges and ordinances, and I said truly it is too washy and frigid an exposition which doth so expound it, and this washes away the dust Mr. Bl. casts on Rom. 11.17.

But he argues thus.

Answ. The major is not true, if universal: and Mr. Bls. reason proves it. For the Gentiles when engraffed, were not made equals and co partners in many things wherein the Jews before exceeded the Gentiles. All those things mentioned Rom 9.4, 5. were prerogatives of the Jews never imparted to the Gentile believers, yea that privilege mentioned Rom. 3.1. the committing the Oracles of God, the Christian Gentiles were never made equals and co partners with the Jews in, God did never give oracles and answers to the Christian Gentiles, nor the Tables of the Covenant, and the Book of the Law to be kept, as he did to the Jews. But that wherein the Jews and Gentiles were made equals and co partners, was justification by faith, and union with Christ by his spirit, as Ephes. 3.6. Gal. 3.28, 29, &c. and therefore this argument is rightly retorted thus on Mr. Bl. That wherein the Gentiles engraffed were equals and copartners with the Jews is the fatness meant Rom. 11.17. But this is not the privileges of Ordinances, but justification and oneness in Christ, ergo that is the fatness meant Rom. 11.17.

To what I said, that the Gentiles were not partakers of the outward privileges and ordinances of Abraham and the Jews, they being take • away, he saith, if that of the Apostle be true, that the Gospel was preached to Abraham, Gal. 3.8. then this cannot be false. If the Rock and Manna in the Wilderness be the same, as that on which w • seed, 1 Cor. 10.2. the outward privileges of that people may well the 〈◊〉 the same with ours.

Answ. 1. If the outward privileges and ordinances of Abraham and the Jews be the same with ours, then not only the preaching the Gospel, but also Circumcision, the Passover, the Temple, High Priest, sacrifices, &c. must be the same to us as to them. 2. Though the Gospel be preached to us which was preached to them, yet not in the same manner; it was preached to them • s future, to us as accomplished; nor by the same ordinances, not by the slaying the Paschal Lamb, the High Priests going into the most Holy place with blood once a year, &c. 3. No • is it true that the Rock and Manna in the wilderness is the same as that on which we seed, 1 Cor. 10.3, 4. though it be true the same Christ or spiritual meat and drink was signified by the Manna they ate, and the water out of the Rock which they drank, which is signified by the Bread and Wine we receive in the Lord's Supper: But this doth not show the same outward privileges of the Jews and us, but the same spiritual benefits signified to them which are to us.

He next tells me, I have taken pains for my own full refutation; for if Abraham be the root, then the natural posterity of Abraham must of necessity be the natural branches which were cut off : which he endeavors to prove from Rom. 9.2, 3. & 11.1, 14. though the conclusion be not denied, but oft asserted by me; and then brings in Paul thus disputing, Paul's kinsmen after the flesh were the Church visible, not invisible: But Paul's kindred according to the flesh were the branches cut off; Ergo, the Church visible not invisible was cut off: Which conclusion doth not contradict anything I assert, who never made the Church invisible cut off, but some branches broken off from the Church invisible which was formerly in that people. So that Mr. Bl. hitherto hath m • de no answer to my arguments, but talk • d at random quite besides the matter urged in them.

My 5th. argument was▪ If the breaking off the Jews were by blinding, then the engraffing was by giving faith; but the former is true, v. 25. Ergo, the later.

To this Mr. S. saith, There is not the s • me reason, seeing • e takes i • of giving saving faith; their blinding was judicial, a punishment for their unbelieving rejecting of the Gospel, though they had not saving faith to embrace the Gospel; the giving of faith is not on such terms; neither is saving faith so absolutely antecedent to make a man a member of the visible Church, as blinding to God's final rejection.

Answ. He sai • h there is not the same reason, but shows not why if the breaking off be by blinding, the engraffing should not be by giving a saving faith. Sure according to all the Logic I ever learned it is as clear an a • gument as can be in this case, that where opposite effects are put, the one effect being from one cause, the other should be from the opposite cause It is true, I take the enlightening opposite to blinding to be the giving saving faith : yet do not think the blinding v. 25. to have been judicial a punishment for their unbelieving, rejecting of the Gospel, but as it is v. 32. the vety shutting up in unbelief, the antecedent to unbelief▪ consequent on reprobation opposite to election, as v. 7, 8, 9, 10. do plainly show, not consequent to unbelief. What he means by the giving of faith is not on such terms, I cannot readily divine; the speech seems to me to be either non-sense, there being no terms forementioned that I can perceive to which it may be referred, or else it is impertinent to the answering the objection, and so as that which follows. For though the giving of saving faith be not on such terms as Mr. S. means, or that it be not so absolutely antecedent to make a man a member of the visible Church as blinding is to God's final rejection, doth it follow, that if the breaking off be by blinding, v. 25. the engraffing is not by giving faith, v. 24? But Mr. S. adds.

2. Blindness came but in part on Israel; it fell only on the mere visible members, not the invisible and elect: therefore the ingraffi • g must be only of visible members into the visible Church, v. 7. The election hath obtained it, but the rest were blinded.

Answ. There is no show of consequence that I know in it, that if blindness fall not on the elect, therefore engraffing is not of the elect only; the argument is plain on the contrary even from verse. 7. alleged by him, the rest to wit the non-elect were blinded, therefore the engraffed who obtained were only the elect, and their obtaining the engraffing was by such enlightening as wrought saving faith in them.

Mr. Bl grants the conclusion, that the engraffing is by giving faith, but a faith of profession into a Church state, as he answered to the 3 d. arg. To which I reply, 1. If it were giving of such a faith, yet infants would be excluded, since they are not so engraffed. 2. The engraffing notes more then admission by an outward ordinance. 3. I proved from the Text v. 7, 8, 10. that the blinding was of those who are not elect; and therefore the enlightening by which the election obtains, or the Gentiles are engraffed is that, as Dr. Ames saith Antisynod. animadv. in art. 1. c. 16. whereby they obtain faith and salvation from election. And I used these words, If the blinding be the effect of reprobation, and the breaking off be by blinding, then the engraffing is by inli • htening, and that enlightening is according to election, and so is all one with giving of faith, by which I mean justifying or saving faith.

At this passage Mr. Bl. lays about him thus,

Answ. 1. I did only use this expression [if the blinding be the effect of reprobation] which causeth all this insulting, which doth not positively assert it, only Mr. Bl. gathers it from the assumption which he supposeth I would have put, which is not very candid dealing. 2. The assumption he sets down thus, then his assumption can be no other, but that blindness is the effect of reprobation : But herein he doth grossly abuse me. For I did not say, if blindness be the effect of reprobation, but if blinding be the effect of reprobation, between which there is a great difference. For blindness is man's sin, but blinding is God's act, ascribed to God v. 8. when it is said, God hath given them a spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see. And Job. 12.40. He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart. And this act being no other then the certain permission of sin, is commonly made by Protestants an effect and means executing the decree of reprobation, which is no other then blinding. Potav. synt. l. 4. c. 10. Reprobation is effectus est permissio lapsus. Ames. med. Theol. l. 1. c. 25. §. Tertius reprobationis actus est intentio dirigendi media illa, quibus justitia possit in reprobas manifestari. Media hujus generis maxim propria sunt permissio peccati, derelictio in peccato, Rom. 9 18. 2 Thes. 2.11, 12. Calvin Instit. l. 3. c. 23. §. 1. unde (from Rom. 9.18.) sequitur absconditum Dei consilium obdu ationis esse causam. Yea, § 4. he saith, Cujus rei (defectionis Angelorum) causa non potest alia adduci quam reprobatio, quae in arcano Dei consilio abscondita est▪ Vide Andr. Rivet. sum. contro. tr • ct. 4. q. 6, 7. And Piscat▪ observe. 9. e Rom. 9.10, 11, 12, 13. Erram igitur qui putant praedestinationem pendere a praevisis operibus, vel a praevisa fide, vel incredulitate. Imo haec omnia praedestinationis effecta sunt: quomodo igitur possunt statui praedestinationis causae? So that if I had taught (as Mr. Bl. misreports me) that God's reprobation causeth blindness; yet I had Authors worthy the name of adversaries to the Arminians so saying: Nor have I done any such high dis service to the anti-Arminians as in the Table at the • nd of his Book he chargeth me with. 3. If Mr. Bl. had not minded to pick a quarrel, he might have interpreted (as indeed I meant) the term effect not strictly or rigourously, as Scheibler speaks, but in the sense in which Logicians call the Eclipse of the Moon, the effect of the inter position of the Earth between it and the Sun, though it be rather a consequent, then an effect; after which manner I explained the term cause in the same Book; Review, part 1. sect. 35. p. 238. 4. Let the word [ effect ] be left out, and let the word [ consequent ] be put in, my argumen hath the same force; and therefore this was in Mr. Bl. a mere wrangling exception.

Let's view what he saith in answer thereto. He saith,

Answ. In all this there's not a word that takes away the force of the argument; if that word [ effect ] had been left out, as it was left out in the first framing of it, and [ consequent ] had been put in, though the argument had been as strong if that word had been used, or, as it was in the first framing, neither used. He accuseth me of blasphemy▪ here as asserting blindness to be the effect of reprobation, that I lay all upon God, no hand but God's in men's destruction; that I make Contraremonstrants to affirm an absolute reprobation without any merit of sin; and that I explain absolute reprobation gathered by them from Rom. 11.8, 10. in this sense, of all which charges there is not one true; so that here is nothing but a fardel o • manifest calumnies. And as for what he alledgeth, that breaking off is not by blinding, because blindness was their guilt, and casting off their just sentence, and the guilt and punishment are not one, it doth no whit infringe my argument. For these may well stand together, that God's reprobation is executed by blinding, and yet blindness their guilt, and upon their unbelief or blindness God breaks them off by a just sentence; as on the other side, election is the cause of God's enlightening, whereby the engraffed branches believe, and through fai • h they are by God's act of grace engraffed into the invisible Church of true believers: And in this manner the rule of opposites holds evidently, although election and reprobation in the work of salvation and damnation do not per omnia quadrare, nor there be any such absolute reprobation as leads to destruction without any merit of sin. Which kind of absolute rep • obation I never asserted, nor ascribed to Contraremonstrants, who only make reprobation absolute, in that the reason why God in his eternal decree or purpose did choose one to life and not another, is not the foreseen belief and obedience of one, or the foreseen unbelief or disobedience of the other, but his own will, Rom. 9.11, 12, 13, 18. Nor do I make sin in proper or strict acception the effect of God's act; I never said, blindness is the effect of God's reprobation, as Mr. Bl. misreports me, nor that God doth by any positive influx work it in man as an efficient; but I said, blinding was the effect of reprobation in a larger sense, as effect is taken for a consequent, and that it was by blinding, which doth not at all gainsay the sayings of those learned Writers alleged by Mr. Bl. And if God's severity in not sparing the natural branches were explicitly no more then what Christ threatened, Matth. 21.43. yet my argument holds good. For the taking away of God's Kingdom is not only the taking away of the preaching of the Gospel, but also the being of the Church of true believers among them as heretofore; and so the breaking off was by blinding, and the engraffing into the invisible Church of true believers by giving of faith according to election, which was to be proved.

My 6th. arg. was, If reingraffing of the Jews produceth salvation, is by turning them from iniquity, taking away their sins according to God's Covenant, then it is into the invisible Church by giving faith; But the former is true v. 26, 27. Ergo, the later.

Mr. S. saith,

Answ. 'It is a fair answer, but such as hath nothing to weaken the argument, there being neither of the premises denied, but the minor granted expressly, that the virtues of the promises shall take effect on the Jews even to the salvation of all of them, which if true, then none are engraffed but elect persons, and their engraffing into the invisible Church, now the engraffing of the Gentiles, was the same with the re-engraffing of the Jews, if then the Jews re engraffing were into the invisible Church according to election, so is the engraffing of the Gentiles. What he saith, yet they shall be engraffed as a visible Church, and this fullness shall be to them as a visible Church, taking [ as ] reduplicatively cannot be true, for then every visible Church should have all in it saved, and for the reasons he brings to prove, they are answered before, the fathers are nor mentioned as roots, but Abraham, who is a root not of the visible Church a • such, but of the invisible of true believers, and they are engraffed as the other were broken off from the invisible Church.

Mr. Bl. saith,

Answ. This then is the meaning of Rom. 11.26. All Israel shall be saved, that is, they shall be in a visible Church state partakers of saving (outward) ordinances under Gospel dispensations. But can Mr. Bl. or any sober man think this to be the meaning, they shall be saved, that is, they shall be in such an estate in which they may be damned, and in which many are damned? or that God where he mentions the effect of his his great Covenant of the Gospel, means no more but such an estate? Is this all or any part of the new Covenant Heb. 8 10, &c. Heb. 10.16, 17. to have a mere visible Church state? I did always think the Covenant of Grace had promised the spirit of Christ, th • t the Ministry thereof was of the spirit, 2 Cor 3.6, 8. of righteousness, v. 9. not of a mere visible Church state. And sure if we look to the place whence these words are quoted (as Mr. • l saith) Isai. 59.20. Jerem. 31.34. there is an express promise of the spirits continuance upon them, which is sure much beyond a visible Church state. As for what he brings out of Scripture, it is shamefully wrested. For Joh. 4.22. a mere visible Church state is not termed salvation, but whether by it be meant by a metonymy, the doctrine of salvation▪ or the author of salvation Christ himself, it is certainly another thing then a mere visible Church state, yea in that sense the speech were absurd to term a mere visible Church state salvation, and false to say tha • the visible Church state was of the Jews. And for the other text • ebb 2.3. it doth not term the fruition of outward Ordinances under Gospel d • spensations great salvation, but the great benefit purchased by Christ termed eternal salvation, Heb. 5.9. declared and offered in the Gospel. Diodati annot. on Heb. 2. • . So great] namely everlasting redemption, revealed and communicated by the Gospel, and impl • citely opposed by the Apostle to the temporal deliverance out of Egypt, for the contemning of which the Israelites were punished in the wilderness. And though the new Annot. and Diodati paraphrase Rom. 11.26. by [ put into the way of salvation ] yet they do not restrain this to a mere visible Church state; yea both add, that by [ all Israel ] may be understood the Israel of God, Gal. 6.16. of Jews and Gentiles, which is the invisible Church. And Di • son thus parap • razeth the words, And so all Israel, that is, the multitude of Jews comprehending the body of the people dispersed shall be converted. And Piscator in his Scholie, The fullness of Israel shall be saved, to wit being effectually called by the preaching of the Gospel, and justified by faith in Christ. But what is said of all Israel, is not to be extended to each, but to be understood of the greatest part, from which the denomination is wont to be made.

Mr. Bl adds,

Answ. 1▪ Were this the meaning, yet infants should be excluded, who are not thus turned. 2. That such a partial turning cannot be meant, is manifest, in that the term is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ungodlinesses, that is, all sorts of ungodliness from Jacob, that is, as Piscator in his scholie, by pardoning or remitting and justifying by faith, and this to be done by the redeemer which shall come out of Zion who so turns from iniquity as to bless them whom he turns, Acts. 3.26. which doth not agree to Mr. Bls. partial turning. More rightly Di • son thus paraphraseth the words. He foretelleth that so it should be, that the true redeemer should free his nation from the guilt and servitude of sin, the iniquities of that people being pardoned; and that it should be, that he would receive them into the Covenant of grace to the full abolishing of sin.

But, saith Mr. Bl.

Answ. A partial pardon quoad hoc of some particular sin, and releasing only of some particular evil, cannot be meant Rom. 11.26, 27. since it is a taking away of their sins, by the agency of the redeemer that comes out of Zion, and according to God's Covenant to them ; which 1. the same with that, Jer. 31 33. Heb. 8.12. & 10.16, 17. in which eternal redemp • ion and inheritance are assured, Heb. 9.12▪ 15. I grant it shall be a nationa • pardon, understanding by nation the greatest or chiefest part of the nation, but different from the pardon obtained by Moses, Exod. 32. or prom • sed, 2 Chron. 7.14.

To what I said in answer to Mr. Geree, that I thought at the Jews restauration there shall be some of them formalists and hypocrites, but none of the re-engraffed, Mr. Bl. replies, The re-engraffing here is in their stead that fell away by multitudes, and therefore were hypocri • es and formalists, and the engraffed such as might fall, which is not spiritual Israel, but carnal. But the Text doth not say, the Jews shall be re-engraffed in their shed that sell away by multitudes ▪ but only that the Gentiles be graffed into the Olive instead of the Jews broken off, v. 17. and the Jews shall be re-engraffed when the fullness of the Gentiles shall come in, and both be engraffed together, not the one broken off to make room for the other, as in the calling of the Gentiles, v. 19. Yet were it so as Mr. Bl. saith, how doth it follow, the re-engraffing here is in their stead that fell away by multitudes, Ergo the re-engraffed were some of them formalists and hypocrites? I conceive it follows rather on the contrary, those that fell away were hypocrites, therefore they that are engraffed in their stead are living branches, or sincere believers. As for what he said before about the falling away of the engraffed, is answered before.

But Mr. Bl. yet adds,

Answ. This blindness is no way removed but by giving of faith, as is proved before; and therefore this proves for me, the engraffing to be giving faith according to election, and all the engraffed to be elect.

Yet once more saith Mr. Bl.

Answ. Though that were no mystery, yet it was a mystery, that God shou • d contrive it so that Israel God's people formerly should now be blind, and the Gentiles see, and when their fullness is come in, then all Israel should be saved, who were then broken off. And this salvation is to be national, and yet spiritual, there being a national effectual conversion to God, although all of the nation be not converted, as well as there is a national return from captivity, and yet not all return. The words being quoted from • sai. 59.20. Jer. 31.34. there being no reason to the contrary they should • be applied personally here, as • hey are Heb. 8.12. & 10. • 6, 17. I shall close up the vindication of this argument with the words of Dr. Owen of perseverance Ch. 7. §. 24. The force then of this promise, Isa. 59. • 0. and the influence it hath into the establishment of the truth we have in hand, the perpetual abiding of the spirit with the Saints, will not be evaded and turned aside, by affirming, that it is made to the whole people of Israel. For bes • des, that the spirit of the Lord could not be said to be in the ungodly rejected part of them, nor his word in their mouth, there is not the least in text and context, to intimate such an extent of this promise as to the object of it, and 'tis very weakly attempted to be proved from Paul's accommodation, and interpretation of the v▪ fore going in Rom. 11.26. For it is most evident, and indisputable to any one, who shall but once cast an eye upon that place, that the Apostle accommodates and applies these words to none, but only those who shall be saved, being turned away from ungodliness to Christ, which are only the seed before described. And those he calls all Israel; either in the spiritual sense of the word, as taken for the chosen Israel of God, or else indefini • ely for that nation, upon the account of those plentiful fruits, which the Gospel shall find amongst them, when they shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days.

My seventh argument was, If the re-engraffing be by virtue of God's election and love, his gifts of calling▪ then it is into the invisible Church, by election and giving of faith; But the former is true v. 28, 2 • Ergo, the latter. Mr. S. answers, 1.

Answ. It follows not of believing Gentiles and their natural seed, for this is spoken peculiarly of the Jews. Nor doth it follow of all the natural seed of Abraham, the contrary is determined Rom. 9.6; 7, 8. nor of any at all times, as in the time of their great Apostasy. Much less doth it hence follow, as it hath been pleaded for Paedobaptism, that because God loved the Jews for the fathers sake, therefore we are to take in the parcels, all the infants of enchurched believers, to be elect and in the Covenant of Grace, and thereupon to baptize them, this to my apprehension hath not a shadow of consequence.

But saith Mr. S. 2. It's granted that the calling of the Jews shall be according to God's election and first love; and that God's election shall more fully take hold of the Jews at their recalling, then of any nation: but yet still the argument is of no force to prove that their re-engraffing and so ours is only or firstly into the invisible Church; for they are elected as well to be a visible Church, as to be partakers of inward graces; and their re-engraffing must be specially and firstly into the visible Church from which they were broken off, or else there will be no correspondence between their rejection and re-engraffing.

Answ. Yet the arg. is of force to prove it is into the invisible Church, so as none are re-engraffed but the elect and partakers of inward graces, though it were granted that their re-engraffing be specially and firstly into the visible Church: Yea, Mr. Ss reason is against himself, for if their re-engraffing be not firstly and specially into the invisible Church by faith, there will be no correspondence between their re-engraffing and rejection, which was firstly and specially from the invisible Church by unbelief.

Mr. Bl. answers thus. His election, love, and gifts of calling, did at the first put them into a visible Church state and condition, Deut. 7.7, 8. And the same love, election, and gifts of calling, now they are broken off, doth re-engraff them; if this argument hold, it was an invisible Church that was brought out of the land of Egypt.

Answ. According to Mr. Bl. the Apostle should mean that the election and love, Rom. 11.28. are meant of such election and love as may be to them that perish, and such a calling and gifts as may be lost, for such the election into a mere visible Church state and condition, and calling, and love, and gifts are, which Mr. Bl. p. 302. will have to be the meaning of the Apostle here. But this is not meant here, 1. because that election, love, gifts and calling are here meant, as are from the Covenant of the Redeemer, v 26, 27. and whereby all Israel shall be saved ; this is manifest from the connection, the words v. 28, 29. being a confirmation of the proposition all Israel shall be saved, v. 26. from the Covenant to turn away impieties from Jacob, and to take away their sins, for this reason, because they are beloved according to the election and calling of God ▪ which are unchangeable. But such salvation, election, love, gifts and calling never happen to them that perish, the Covenant, turning away from impieties, and taking away sins, belong only to them who are eternally saved; therefore they are not an election, love, gifts, and calling which put into a mere visible Church state and condition.

2. Such gifts and calling of God are not here meant which are revocable, or of which God repents; for to be without repentance is to be without revocation, or change: But the gifts and calling which are into a me • visible Church state, are revocable and with repentance, as both the Scripture and experience shows, therefore they are not here meant.

3. That calling and election are meant here which are ascribed to God in the passages where there is speech of God's election and calling of persons before in the 8th. 9th. and 11th. chapters; for it is manifest▪ that the dispute about election and calling of the Jews and Gentiles, ch. 9, 10, 11. arose from the words of the Apostle, Rom. 8.28, 29, &c. But the election and calling in all the passages signifies such an election and calling as is to eternal life and righteousness, as is manifest from Rom. 8.28, 30, 33. Rom. 9.7, 11, 24, 25, 26. Rom. 11.5, 7. Therefore not an election or calling into a mere visible Church state.

4. That calling and election is meant here, which is usually, if not always, meant by the Apostles in their writings. For it's likely Paul would speak here in the sense in which the word is commonly used, there being no cogent reason to the contrary. But the words election and calling in the Apostles writings are taken usually, it not always, for election and calling to righteousness and eternal life, as may appear by these places, 1 Cor. 1.2, 9, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29. & 7.15, 18, 20. Ephes. 1.4, 18. & 4.1, 4. Gal. 1.6, 15. & 5.8, 13. Phil. 3.14. Col. 3.12, 15. 1 Thes. 1.4 & 2.12. & 5.24. 2 Thes. 1.11. & 2.11, 14. 1 Tim. 5.21. & 6.12. 2 Tim. 1.9. & 2.10. Tit. 1.1. Heb. 3.1. & 9.15. James 2.5. 1 Pet. 1.1, 15. & 2.9 & 5.10. 2 Pet. 1.3, 10. Jude •• Revel. 17.14. Therefore the meaning is in like manner, Rom. 11.28, 29.

That which Mr. Bl. alledgeth from Deut. 7.6, 7. doth not weaken this. For though it prove that which is not denied, that there is an election of a people to a visible Church state; yet it proves not such an election and love to be meant Rom. 11.28. nor by my argument doth it with any color of reason follow, that the Church brought out of Egypt was the invisible Church, because they are said to be chosen, Deut. 7.6, 7. anymore then because Judas is said to be chosen by Christ, John 6.70. therefore election, Rom. 11.28. is into a mere visible Church state or Apostleship.

But Mr. Bl. after his calumny of my dis service to the Anti Arminians ▪ wiped away before, tells us that the Apostle there delivers an universal proposition, and ap • lies it to such election, love, and gifts that belongs to bodies or nations▪ yet it is a truth that equally holds, when it is applied to election to salvation, and with just warranty is applied by Divines to that purpose.

Answ. It is not true that the Apostle delivers, Rom. 11.29. an universal proposition concerning any election, love, calling▪ gifts, for then It would be false, there be many gifts and callings of God which are not without repentance in the Apostles sense; but a proposition of the gifts and calling which are to salvation, according to that love and election which are to everlasting salvation according to the Covenant mentioned v. 26.27. and therefore those Divines who understand it of election, love, gifts and calling to a mere visible Church state and condition, have no warranty to apply it to prove that election and perseverance which the Text, if they speak true, speaks not of; and the argmuent from thence for that purpose is utterly enervated by that interpretation, since the assumption is by it made confessedly false, if the argument be thus framed, That decree is immutable, and that gift and calling of God do certainly continue which the Apostle saith are without repentance. But the Apostle saith the decree of election to eternal life, and the gift of taking away sins▪ and the calling which is inward are without repentance. Ergo. As for Pareus his forming it as from the less to the greater, it is, as for the most part such arguments are, liable to many exceptions; and in this matter hath no strength; for then it would follow, that if God's gift and calling to visible Church state is without repentance, calling to the office of a Presbyter, which is more, is without repentance. I deny not but Commentators do speak some of them as Mr. Bl. alledgeth, and some doubtfully of which election and calling to understand it, and some speak disjunctively as if it were meant of either; and someone while means it of the one, and another while of the other. But it is not worth while to search into or set down their words. It is sufficient that I have demonstrated that i • must be meant of such election, love, gifts and cal • ing as are to saving holiness, and righteousness, and eternal life. Yet those which I alleged as writing against the Arminians, and understanding it of the decree of election un • o life and perseverance in saving grace, Mr. Bl. denies not that I have • ightly cited them, only he will not have Ames so peremptory as I am, by reason of some words of his, from which Mr. Bl. doth most falsely infer thus, [ so that it appears according to him that they spake truth in the denial of this to be meant of the unchangeable decree of eternal election, ] which they who read Ames his words in his Coronis, art. 5. cap. 4. may easily discern. I add to though • e I cited in the first part of this Review, sect. 2. pag. • 5. Dr. Owen, of perseverance, c. 2. §. 7. &c. Dr. Kendal, of redemption, ch. 8. pag. • 20, &c. The reason why some will not have it meant of election and effectual calli • g to salvation is their mistake, that particular persons may not be said to fall away from such ele •• ion and cal • ing. For though it be true, that the particular persons never fall away from their personal election and calling, yet they may fall away from that election and calling to eternal life which they in their ancestor • had; which sense I have shown to be agreeable to the Apostles meaning, in the first part of this Review, sect. 3. And Dr. Twisse in his Vind. Grat. l. 3. err. 8. sect. 3. acknowledgeth that when the Apostle saith, Rom. 11.23. they shall be graffed in, he means it not of those individuals in their persons, but their posterity.

But Mr. Bl. argues thus. The Fathers for whose sake they are beloved are the ancient Fathers from whom after the flesh they did proceed, specially Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the word is for the Fathers: Then election must needs be understood of an external grace of the Covenant, whereby God chose this nation to himself, according to that of Moses, Deut. 7.6. unless we are elect in Abraham to salvation and not in Christ. And Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are our mediators of reconciliation: and when the Apostle saith, We are • ccepted in the beloved, Ephes. 1.6. it is to be understood of acceptation in Abraham: and we are to conclude our prayers, not in and through Christ but Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; we are not for their sakes beloved to salvation.

Answ. 1. That the election, Deut. 7.6. must be understood of an external grace of the Covenant, needs bettr proof then Mr. Bl. brings. For God may be said to choose a nation, and yet not choose everyone of the nation, it being usual, as Mr Cobbet observes, Just. vindic. part 2. ch. 2. that things said of a people collectively are meant of the greater or better part distributively. 2. The absurdities will press Mr. Bl. as well as me. For if, as Mr. Bl. saith, the election and love be to a mere visible Church state and condition, we may say by the same reason which he useth, We are elected in Abraham to Church state, and not in Christ; he is our mediator of reconciliation; we are accepted in Abraham the beloved; we are to conclude our prayers not in and through Christ, but Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which are absurd: We are not beloved for their sakes in the sense in which we are beloved in Christ, to visible Church state, anymore then to salvation. 3. Though we are not for their sakes or for them beloved to salvation, yet the Jews are. 4. We are elect in Christ as the first-born among many brethren, Rom. 8.29. as the head of many members, as the mediator, the second Adam, by whom the life we are elected to is conveyed, in which sense we are said to be accepted or favored, he is the mediator of reconciliation by his blood, we conclude our prayers in and through him as the High Priest of our profession: But they that say, the Jews are beloved to salvation for the fathers sakes, or for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, need not, nor do mean it in these senses; but thus, they are beloved to salvation by reason of God's Covenant to them, Exod. 32.13. Levite. 26.42. their fidelity to him, Nehem. 9.8. so that Abraham was called the friend of God, James 2.23. which are no whit derogatory to the prerogative of Christ, in whom alone we are elected, reconciled, favored, heard, as the only begotten son of God, and the alone mediator between God and man.

What Mr. Bl. desires me to consider that Moses interceded for the whole body of Israel, Exod. 32.13. and that God promiseth to remember the whole nation under suffering, Levite. 26.42. is nothing for Mr. Bls. purpose. For if it were granted, that Moses interceded for the whole nation, yet it follows not, that God's promise was to every individual of that nation, Levite. 26.42. And if it were, yet it follows not that it must be so Rom. 11.26, 27, 28, 29. Nor if it were granted (though the contrary is to me more probable) doth it follow, that the election, love, gifts, calling, cannot be to salvation, but must be into a mere visible Church state and condition, or, as Mr. Bl. terms it, external grace of the Covenant, since there is no absurdity, that I know of to conceive, that at the calling of the Jews every individual Jew shall be a true believer, and saved. Nor doth my opinion impute any error to Moses or Paul, but Mr. Bl. doth in this as in other things, egregiously triffle as one that writes without heed of what he saith.

My 8th. argument is this. If the engraffing both of Jews and Gentiles be the fruit of God's mercy, the breaking off by shutting up in unbelief, then the engraffing is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith: But the former is true, verse. 30, 31, 32. Ergo, the later.

Mr. S. rather flights then answers this argument. For he takes no notice of that part of the medium, [the breaking off by shutting up in unbelief,] which shows what mercy it was by which they were engraffed, to wit, converting and reconciling mercy proper to the elect, as the very opposition of the terms shows. v. 32. they were before shut up in unbelief by severity, now by mercy they are brought to faith and favor, but tells me, this proposition is unsound on which the argument is built, what ever is a fruit of God's mercy is from election and engraffing into the invisible Church, because that health, &c. are fruits of God's mercy. But • t is not true, the proposition on which the argument is built is as he •• ith, but thus; That mercy which doth take away the shutting up in unbelief, is converting reconciling mercy from election, whose effect is the engraffing into the visible Church by giving saving faith, ergo, if the engraffing, &c. And this Mr. S. hath not disproved, nor do I think can be disproved.

Mr. Bl. saith, He hath answered this before, and only desires me to give him a Comment on Hos, 1.6, 9.

But first if he have answered this before, then his answer is also refelled, and it is shown that the mercy here is more then the privilege of a visible Church state. 2. Mr. Bls. desire I shall not re • use to yield to, when I find any argument drawn by him from Hos. 1.6, 9. to make void my argument from Rom. 11.30, 31, 32.

But to my additional confirmation of my arguments in my Apology p. 73. that the whole scope and series of the Chapter and the frequent mention from v. 1. to 13. of terms importing election, reprobation and their consequents, with the Apostles exclamation v. 33. do fully show the engraffing to be into the invisible Church, by election and giving faith; Mr. Bl. replies thus.

Mr. T. might do well to tell us what engraffing is by election: I take that to be an immanent act in God, which is terminated in himself, and not on the creature; such expressions do not suit with Mr. T. his high pretendings to scholastical learning.

Answ. Where and when I made high pretendings to scholastical learning, if Mr. Bl. had informed me it might have done me good to humble me for such folly, but this dealing of Mr. Bl. by • uips to mis-represent me as an arrogant man, hath no better appearance then a show of a malevolent mind in him towards me. I hope I have so much scholastical learning as to vindicate my own writings, from his and others Cavils, and sure I am that what • ver my learning be, Master Bl. hath shown more of a surcostical bitter spirit in his writings against me, then of scholastical learning, in which how much he is defective, I had rather Mr. B and such birds as are of the same feather should tell him then myself. As for this exception it's so frivolous, as that it deserves not a reply.

I did not say the engraffing is by election alone but by election and giving faith, which sometimes I do express suitably to Ephes. 1.4. thus [by giving faith according to election] and even in the first part of this Review, pag. 14. where I repeat this very thing, and do often tell what the engraffing is which is by election, to wit effectual calling, converting, reconciling, giving saving faith, so that Mr. Bl. were he not disposed to quarrel, might have omitted this exception. As for that he takes election to be an immanent act in GOD, so do I, and conceive that the will or counsel of God Acts 13.36. is an immanent act in God, and yet it is said that David having served his generation by the will or counsel of God fell asleep, and though election as the will of God be not in another subject then himself, yet it is terminated on the creature as the object, it being one of those acts of God that are ad extra though not extra, which me thinks Mr. Bl. should understand, if age and disuse have not worn out his Logic and Theologick notions.

Mr. Blake saith of me, To have made up his argument he should have taken in by way of assumption; The Jews in their fall from Church-fellowship, cannot be said to be rejected, hardened, given to a spirit of slumber, or that their eyes are darkened, or that they have stumbled; And that for their call into Church-fellowship, neither election or grace shall have any hand in it: This must be his reasoning if there be any show of reason in his heap of words, and then all men will admire Mr. • . while he is in his admiration of Mr. M. I shall say no more but that he is very weak both in Divinity and Logic, that cannot presently upon the first • ight discover the weakness, and return a satisfying answer to this flourish of words.

Answ. The words were as few as the matter would bear, without any flourish at all. The assumption would not have been as Mr. Bl. makes it, but thus, that the Jews by bare fall from visible Church fellowship, cannot be said to be rejected, hardened, given to a spirit of slumber, or that their eyes are darkened, or that they have stumbled. (For a person may fall from visible Churchfellowship only by excommunication, putting out of the Synagogue, and yet be neither rejected by God, nor hardened, nor given to a spirit of slumber, or his eyes darkened, or he stumble, as in the case of the man born blind, Joh. 9.34, 35.) and that the election and grace mentioned Rom. 11.5, 7. are meant there or in any part of the Apostles discourse of these thing • , Rom. 8, 9, 11. ch. of election into mere visible Churchfellowship, or grace that extends to no more then outward privileges of Church state is not likely. And if any do take this reasoning to be weak, I must needs say that I or he are stark blind in Divinity and Logic, and omitting my admiration of Mr. M. who I think after his edition of his Defense gave over the dispute, I admire not that Mr. Bl. (who • e superficialness I perceive plainly enough) but that any man that accurately studies Rom. 11. should interpret the engraffing there meant of the bringing of persons into a mere visible Church state by a dogmatical faith, or outward ordinance without giving saving faith according to God's election.

Mr. Bl. proceeding to vindicate Mr G. recites the words of the first part of this Review pag. 14. and then saith, It is well that Mr. T. yields so much, and being n • w embarked in this business, if he did not not plus consulere • amae quam conscientiae, he would yield more, and freely confess that the mercy here is no other, nor no more then that which is general, and that the faith here is historical and not saving; I am sure there is enough to convince but it is God alone that must persuade.

Answ. If Mr Bl. had never known me, this censure might have been the more excusable, but his many criminations and censures, and misreports of me in his preface to his Book of the Covenant and throughout his Book do fully assure me he hath an evil eye towards me, and that he is indisposed to put any fair construction on what I do or write. Of which malignity in him I know no reason, but my opposing his da • ling of infant perfusion, for sprinkling it seems he owns not, and baptism he useth not. As for what he here saith o • me, if this reply of mine acquit me not, I have no remedy but to appeal to my witness in heaven. I do again protest, that I see no reason to convince me of that Mr. Bl. here saith, but abundant reason to the contrary, if Mr. Bl. or any other shall detect my error, I am willing to be convinced and persuaded; but such fli • ting, quipping answers as Mr. Bl. makes, I shall hereafter pass by as the froth and some of an angry satyrist, not the dispute of a scholastique.

He saith of me, His reason to assert it to be meant of saving faith, is worthy of consideration, being opposed to their former hardening, &c. And is there not a hardening that reaches so high to hold men from so much as faith historical 〈◊〉 dogmatical, as well as there is an hardening to hold men from that which is saving?

Answ. There is, but no hardening meant Rom. 9. or 11. which doth not deprive of saving faith together with historical, and consequently the showing mercy opposite must be not a giving an historical fai • h only, but also a saving faith.

Mr. Bl. adds, The va • l is (as the Apostle tells us) on the heart of the Jews to this day, when Moses is read 2 Cor. 13.15. And does not this veil so far blind their eyes that they see not so much as with faith historical? That which the Jews to this time want, is that from which they fell, let Mr. T. take that into consideration; But to this day they want even a faith historical, had they kept faith in Christ so far as an assent in their whole nation, so that they had past in name and dignity for Christians, and had yet wanted among them that faith that was saving, then there had been color for what Mr. T. saith. But their being as it is, and as it is here affirmed, I cannot but wonder at the veil before Mr. T. his eyes, that what is thus clear, should be thus held from him.

Answ. I shall forbear wondering hereafter, forasmuch as I discern the reason of Mr. Bls. wrangling, prejudice out of his affection to his brat termed Birth-privilege, makes him imagine a veil over mine eyes, which is indeed over his own. What color or proof rather is for my saying is shown before. My argument is no whit infringed though the state of the Jews were such as that they wanted both historical and saving faith, hardening being opposed to giving saving faith, and no person said to be hardened but he that wants saving faith, and he that wants being hardened though he should have historical, so that if hardening be a privation of both, yet it hath its denomination only from the privation of saving faith. And for Mr Bls. reason he would have me consider, first the conclusion of it is not to the present point. For if the Jews might not be said to fall from a saving faith, yet their unbelief mentioned Rom. 11.30. might be and was a privation not only of historical faith but also a saving (else Mr. Bl. must say they had a saving faith though not historical, which is a palpable absurdity, for then a person may have a saving faith and not an historical, and the unbelieving Jews had a saving faith) and consequently the showing mercy must be not only a conferring an historical faith, but also a saving. 2. The ma • or is not true universally taken. All that which the Jews to this time want is that from which they fell ; For they want their Temple, sac • ifi • es, Priesthood, &c. and yet they fell not from them. Third the argument is thus retorted, That which the Jews to this time want, is that from which they fell, let Mr. Bl. take that into considera • ion. But to this day they want even a saving faith, Ergo, they fell from a saving faith. Such ill hap hath Mr. Bls. arguing: yet as one whose fingers did itch to be dealing with me he scribbles further.

Whereas I alleged Ephes. 2.12. to prove the unbelief of the Gentiles in times past mentioned Rom 11.30. was not only a privation of historical, but also of saving faith, Mr. Bl. puts these frivolous questions to me, Were they not without a dogmatical • aith? Were they not aliens and strangers so much as from the Commonwealth of Israel?

To which I answer, they were; and ask him, Whether they were not without a saving faith? And if so the showing mercy is opposed to the no • giving a saving faith, and Mr. Bls. position most absurd, that the faith here (to wit Rom 11.20 where alone the word faith is used in that Chapter) is historical and not saving.

Mr. Bl. adds,

Answ. Though I find no emendation of it in Mr. Bls. Table of Errata, yet I do conceive [regenerate] is printed for [unregenerate] otherwise the speech were more grossly false then I shall imagine Mr. Bl. would thus deliver. And it being so, I conceive no abuse of it to have applied it to mere visible professors of Christianity among the Gentiles, if the words were added to it which Mr. Bl. would have joined. For they were Gentiles in the flesh, aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, without Christ, without God, without hope. Nevertheless I know not what this makes to infringe my inference from Ephes. 2.12. to prove the unbelief Rom. 11.30. to have been a privation of saving faith.

Master Bl. denies not this sense of the words, that the Ephesians in their infidelity were without Christ, without God, without hope, respective to saving fruition and acceptable communion with him, and sure they that were thus were without saving faith, except Mr. Bl. imagine they had a saving faith, who had not so much as an historical: Nor is it denied the same state to be described Rom. 11.30. which is described Ephes. 2.12. and therefore my inference stands notwithstanding this passage of Mr. Bl.

He further saith, And for his observation, that it occasioned the Apostles exclamation, O altitudo! O the depth, &c. v. 33. Sure the goodness of God bringing the Gentiles who were dogs, Matth. 15.26. unto the glory of children, and the severity of God in casting out the children of the Kingdom, Matth. 8.12. might well occasion this exclamation in the Apostle, as he had called to behold the goodness and severity of God, on them which fell severity, but towards the Gentiles goodness He might well cry out upon the greatest turn of providence that ever the world saw (which in ages past had been hid, and the Angels desired to look into) O the depth ! &c.

Answ. True: but was this goodness or severity in respect of a mere visible Church state? or was it not also in respect of their state in the invisible Church? Sure the thing had not been so admirable, if it had not been in respect of the later as well as the former; and Writers and Preachers usually apply it to silence the objection against absolute election and reprobation concerning their everlasting state, as if it imported unmercifulness and injustice incompetent to God; and it seems so like the passage, Rom. 9.19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. that me thinks if Mr. Bl. did compare them, he should judge both places meant of the same thing: and which i • an irrefragable argument, it is clear Rom. 11.33. hath reference to what he said before, v. 11, 12. which is manifestly meant of their estate of salvation and reprobation, and therefore must be so meant v. 33.

What Mr. Bl. adds concerning my speech about Mr. G. and the Assembly, is through mistake, as if I had censured Mr. G. as like Plautus his miles gloriosus in his disposition; whereas I censured him only in respect of those words there used, which was right however in other things he were without gall, from which nevertheless that in his writings against me he was not altogether free, is shown in my Apology, sect. 6. And for Mr. Bls. conceit, that where one degree of boasting is ascribed to Mr. G. one hundred will be ascribed to me by them that read our writings▪ it is not unlikely, if they see through Mr. Bls. spectacles, which make things seem black that are white, and make small • illocks seem hills: But I find cause to make it part of my Litany, From the unrighteous and hard censures of Mr. Bl. Mr. B. and others of my Antagonists, good Lord deliver me.

What I said of the Assembly shown no more boldness then was mere, It is too apparent by the dealing with Mr. Coleman, myself, and others, that the stream of voices in the Assembly went to establish all after the Scottish mode, without a through examination of what was alleged to the contrary, except what was objected were backed by a very considerable party in Parliament, or Army, or City of London. It is no more boldness in me to assault such an Assembly, then it was in a particular dissenting brother. My weapons I ass • ult them with▪ are such as the Holy Scriptures yield, and my interpretations such as my adversaries themselves give, and my arguments and answers are the very same which they use in other disputes against Prelates and Arminians; and with th • se weapons which M. Bl. disdainfully like a Goliath, terms reeds or bulrushes, I am no more afraid to assault the Assembly of Divine at Westminster, then to assault Bakewel, Hussey, and such like scriblers.

To my 9th argument from parallel places, Mr. Bl. tells me, Mr. Hudson, pag. 132. hath not only affirmed, but proved, that the Text 1 Cor. 12.13. is meant of the Church as visible.

Answ. I have viewed the place, and find Mr. Hudson speaking thus in answer to the objection: But this is meant of the invisible company of believers he saith, it is true, but it is spoken of them as visible. So that Mr. Hudson affirms the same with me, that 1 Cor. 12.13. must be understood of the invisible Church, yet in respect of that which is there said of them, something is spoken of them as visible.

To my allegation of Ephes. 3.6. that the Gentiles were made fellow-heirs of the same body, and co-partakers of the promise of God in the Gospel ; not by an outward ordinance, but by giving of faith according to election: Ergo, the engraffing Rom. 11.17. parallel to it, is not by an outward ordinance, b • t by giving faith according to election: Mr. Bl. thus in his flirting fashion answers, Oh that Mr. T. spake truth; then (as the Apostle saith of Israel at their restauration, all Israel shall be saved, Rom. 11.26.) All England in statu quo, should be saved in the sense that Mr. T. would understand salvation, whether we be by descent Britons, Saxons, or Normans, we are Gentiles, and consequently by his Divinity partakers of the Gospel by faith according to election.

Answ. Not so, unless by Gentiles were meant every Gentile, which a free • h man in the University would correct Mr. Bl. in, who knows an indefinite proposition not to be equipollent to an universal incontingent matter. It is said, Acts 11.18. th • n hath God given to the Gentiles repentance unto life ; yet it follows nor, he hath done so to every Gentile. Mr. Bl. adds. Sure I am this Text is meant of Gospel glory in ordinance dispensed by the Apostles ministry. Answ. Sure I am, that to be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers together of his promise in Christ by the Gospel, imports more then a mere visible Church state, even an estate of righteousness, union with Christ, and inheritance of eternal life: And I doubt not but many of his Auditors would correct Mr. Bl. if he taught otherwise at any Lecture of Christians of ordinary understanding.

Yet he he saith further,

Answ. The glory and promises meant Rom. 9 4, 5. did never belong to the Gentile believers in the Christian Church, nor do the believing Jews still enjoy that glory with the Gentiles, though both make one new man, yet not the mere visible Church is that one man, or body, but the Church invisible reconciled to God by Christ's death, as the Text itself shows, Ephes. 2.15, 16, 17, 18, 19.

Mr. Bl▪ tells me,

Answ. I have proved before it is more then the giving of an historical faith, however this concession in the close serves my purpose. For if this be the engraffing, then they only that thus do assent and make profession, are engraffed: But infants do not thus assent and make profession; Ergo, they are not engraffed, and consequently the Text Rom. 11.16, 17. alleged by the Assembly, Mr. G. Mr. M. &c. for admission of infants with parents as with the Jews, is brought obtorto collo plainly against the meaning of it.

What Mr. Bl. adds, that Gal. 3.14, 26, 28, 29. there is an engraffing into Christ mentioned, but none into the Church, is as vain as the rest, there being no engraffing into Christ by faith, but it is also into the Church invisible, who is Christ mystical, 1 Cor. 12.12 The Scriptures I have produced are proved to be meant of the Church invisible, because the things said in those Scriptures are such as agree to none other; and they appear to be parallel by the indentity of the matter, all expressing the state of Gentile believers upon their effectual cal • ing. It is Mr. Bls. false charge, that the Reader will hereafter find me reasoning with my full strength against the force of all arguments a pari: This calumny is re • elled in the 2d. part of this Review, sect. 3.

As for my 10th. argument, whether the faith in the testimonies cited be meant of justifying, and the election to eternal life, needs no other decision then the very words, which I took from Marlorat without searching into the Authors own books because I had them not of my own, and I saw it needless to look further. If the words be ambiguous, the Authors intended to deceive; if elsewhere they speak against me, they gainsay themselves: neither of which Mr. Bl. should charge them with, if he regarded their credit.

In Mr. Bls. arguments, sect. 3. the first is answered before in vindicating my 4th. argument. I deny the major of the 2d. which is answered in the 2d. part of this Review, sect. 6. pag. 66, 67. In the 3d. the minor is false, that the privilege of engraffing is the privilege of every member of the visible Church : in that which is added to prove it to be the privilege of ordinances, if the major be universal, it is false; besides, the argument may be retorted. In the 4th. I deny the major, and have often answered the inference [that then I must maintain falling away from true faith] that by my exposition the falling away of particular persons from the true justifying faith they had in their own persons, is not maintained; but the falling away of the people of one age from that which their predecessors in a former age had. In the 5th. if the minor be meant of a casting only out of a visible Church state, it is denied; nor is it proved, Matth 21 43. For the Kingdom of God not only notes the outward Church state, but also the rule of Christ in their hearts, and protection of them by his spirit. In the 6th. the conclusion is granted. That which Mr. Bl. saith, that the body of believing Jews and Christian Gentiles, called by the Apostle one new man, Ephes. 2.15. are capable of no other engraffing then that which is visible, and the body of them entitled new, as the Jews before, only to privileges of ordinances, is not true. Nor is it true, that in my speech recited by him pag. 312. is taken for granted, 1. that the whole visible body of Christian nations are truly engraffed into the Church invisible, i • by whole body be meant all the parts, o • every part. 2. Nor is it true, that it is taken for granted by me, that in after ages the same body, though not the same persons, may be cast off, and yet no particular person rejected, without this explication, that no particular person who was an elect person or true believer, is rejected.

But against this 2d. imagined grant of mine, Mr. Bl. thus argues.

Answ. Speak out man, let me know the worst you can say, I expect no favor from you having found neither charity nor equity in your writings against me. The assertion is such as will endure your strongest battery, what you say here is merre wrangling, like a Sophister perverting my words when they are truly repeated, though thy are very plain. The Argument is quite from the matter. The Conclusion is, that the Church cut off is not the invis • ble Church but visible, which is not contradictory to my asserti • n; who never asserted that the Church cut of • was the invisible Church, but often asserted the contrary, always making the Olive tree the invisible Church to abide the same, though some branches were broken off, others were engraffed, as in the first part of this Review Section 9. page 83. with this explication page 66. yet not as a rock that abides the same, but as a river which is in flux, and I often deny in express terms, as pag. 22, 74. that my meaning was that the Church of God is broken off from the invisible Church; but this I say, that the Nation of the Jews, of which the body or most part in some ages were in the invisible Church as branches in the Olive in a continued succession, in the time of the Apostle that people, to wit the most part of that nation were broken off from the invisible Church or Olive tree, in which that people in the individual persons of a former age did stand. Which thing having been so often and so plainly expressed by me in that book which Mr. Bl. takes on him to answer, it is an extremely shameful abuse he offers me in going about to refute that as my assertion which is disclaimed by me. Now this being premised and the term [ this Church ] (as it should be) being changed into [this people or nation] that is a great or the greatest part of them, I answer they are broken off from the invisible Church, in that the numerical persons that made up the invisible Church in a former age being dead, the successors degenerated from their faith, and were neither visible professors nor invisible believers in Christ: which not believing was their own act from their own will, yet consequent on God's act of rep • obation, and the breaking off, to wit the deprivation of them from the membership and privileges of his invisible Church, was God's act of punitive justice for their unbelieving. And thus the similitude of Cyrus his turning Euphrates, serves my purpose, to show how I am free from holding Arminian Apostasy, the same people like that river being turned from their old channel, though not the same persons; not as Mr. Bl. falsely chargeth me, that in my expression the Church is changed from the invisible body of Christ, to a visible company of bare professors, or that the Church had changed her own channel. Nor do I grant the question, or confess that the Church is visible that God breaks off, and whatsoever it had been, now it hath no more then a visible interest; so that a visible Church falls off, and Gentiles are engraffed into that which is visible ; but what I say is of the Jewish people, who had not so much as a visible interest when God brake them off, or they fell off, and the Gentiles are engraffed into the invisible Church in their stead. Nor need I show an invisible nation broken off, it being neither true that I spake of an invisible nation, nor that a visible nation cannot be cut off from the Church invisible, but these are Mr. Bls. dotages for want of heeding mine and his own words (as I conceive) through hast to insert something against me in that book ere it was printed. Which is so far from being enough to answer me, that a • Solomon said of him that answered a matter afore he heard it, so it may be said o • Mr. Bl. answering me afore he had studied my writings, he hath said enough to show his folly and to work his shame. My candour p. 23. is ordinary where there is the like cause: I conceive the election of bodies, societies, or nations, in the sense I have often given, may be as well into the invisible Church of true believers, as into the visible Church of true professors, and that the election of the Gentiles, by which they were engraffed, was into the invisible Church of true believers. Of Calvin's and B • cers words I shall say no more having not • he books. Mr. Bl. p. 314. adds.

Mr. G. syllogistically concluding that the seed of Christians by a pure Gospel Covenant should enjoy outward Church privileges, Mr. T. sect. 4. replies, that it is not either formally or equivalently the thing to be proved, which is, that the Christian Jews and their seed were in infancy to be baptized. But by his favor, he that concludes the whole; concludes the parts of the whole. Outward Church-privileges is the whole, baptism is a part of the whole; concluding Church privileges he concludes baptism, as he that can conclude Mr. T. is at Lempster or Sudbury, concludes also that his head and shoulders are. And if any privilege be concluded, then baptism is concluded, which is the leading one among Church-privileges.

Answ. Omitting Mr. Bls. snarling at my dwellings in Lemster and Ledbury (for so he means) I observe how well he pleads for Mr. G. who would have him conclude, that the seed of Christians by a pure Gospel Covenant should enjoy in infancy outward Church-privileges as a whole, and consequently Baptism as a part. Which if it were Mr. Gs. arguing, he should by the same reason have concluded their enjoying the Lord's Supper, and Church office. Nor is the other plea much better: For some privilege may be concluded, as laying on hands for a sign of prayer as Christ did, and yet not baptism. For though baptism be the leading privilege after a person is brought to the faith, yet afore a person is a believer, if there be any leading Church-privilege competent to infants, it must be laying on of hands, the Scripture giving no hint of any other.

The distinction I give in the first part of my Review, sect. 4. p. 28. is handsome, being set down as it is by me there, though Mr. Bl. carp at it, for those privileges which Mr. G. terms Gospel privileges, and I term so in answer to him as keeping his term, I may say of them (if they may be so called, and not rather legal.)

Mr. Bs. words, the breaking off from the Church is an unavoidable consequence of the revoking of the gift of Church membership, and the repealing of the ordinance: therefore where there is no breaking off from the Church, there is no such revoking or repealing ; do justify the title of the 6th. sect. of the first part of my Review. That the breaking off Rom. 11.17. was not by repeal of an ordinance concerning infants visible Church membership as Mr. B. conceive, which Mr. Bl. opposeth with me. And his first reason, the deserving cause of that breaking off is unbelief▪ now unbelief is not in infants, much less proper to infants, serves to prove that the infants of unbelievers are not broken off, for unbelief is not in them, and that infants of believers are not graffed in. For as the deserving cause of breaking off i • unbelief which is not in infants, so the means of grafting in by the rule of opposites is faith, which is not in infants. And when in his 2d. reason he saith, this breaking off was of the general body of the Church of the Jews, that is the major part. Now infants were not the generality, they made not up the major part of that body, this serves to answer what Mr. Bl. before p. 307. and elsewhere would infer, that if the Gentiles or the body of them be elect then all must be so, whereas the body according to himself may stand for the major part or generality, which he denies infants to be, and therefore the body and gen • rality may be engraffed and not infants.

Mr. Bls. exceptions against my distinctions of breaking off because breaking off implied a former union are vain, for there may be a breaking off from that union which they had not in their own persons, specially when the breaking off is of a people, nor is it usual to term th • se acts privations of habits which take not away habits that were, but might have been, as when we are said to be redeemed, delivered from hell, to be cast out into outer darkness, Matth. 8.12. though never in heaven. But were not this right but non-sense, yet Mr. • ls exceptions against the distinctions is frivolous. For in those distinctions I do not set down the ways of breaking off that were actually, but such as are imaginable, which is necessary when we go about to argue by a disjunctive syllogism, as all Logicians know.

Yet what Mr. Bl. saith, excommunication is not the breaking off meant Rom. 11.17, 20. For that is the act of the Church on some particular member; But this here is the act of God, which is by taking away the Kingdom, by removing their Candlestick, departing with his presence, is right, if understood of the subtracting of the presence of his spirit, as well as his word. Which is to be conceived, for the word was offered and preached to them when they were broken off, and therefore they were not broken off barely by subtracting that. Besides the engraffing is not by bare outward ordinances, for they were vouchsafed even to the broken off, and consequently the f • tness of the Olive is not the bare privilege of outward Ordinances. And if it be not the Churches act, but God's by which there is engraffing, then infants are not engraffed, who have no act of God to engraff them, but only that of the Church or administratour of Baptism.

Mr. Bls. talk of the Ordinance of infants visible Church membership, begun in the great Charter of heaven, and continued, is but vapouring; Mr. Bl. mis recites Mr. Bs antecedent which was not as he repeats it, That the Jews were cast off for unbelief, but that none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief, which I denied, and Mr. Bls. exceptions is frivolous. But the text assigns unbelief, Mr. T. assigns no other cause, then that must stand. To which I reply, and so it doth by my answer, and yet I do assign another cause, God's act of executing his decree of reprobation.

To what I said, that the unbelief being positive Rom. 10.21. if none were broken off but unbelievers here meant, no infants no not of infidels that never heard of Christ were broken off, he saith we easily yield his conclusion, if he frame it in a syllogism; that the infants of infidels that never heard of Christ were never broken off. They could never be broken off that were never taken in, A branch of a bramble was never broken off from a vine or olive. Answ. 1. They may be said to be broken off who were never taken in in their own persons, sure the abortives and still-born were never taken into the visible Church of the Jews, and yet if other infants were broken off so were they, and if they were broken off though they were never taken in in their own persons but their ancestors, then the infants of infidel Edomites might be said to be broken off, who were in Esau, Isaac, and Abraham taken in: But they were not positive unbelievers, therefore other then positive unbelievers are broken off, which opposeth Mr. B. 2. If infants of infidel Edomites be not broken off, then according to Mr. B. the ordinance of visible Church membership is not in respect of them revoked and repealed, and consequently they are visible Church members according to the tenor of Mr. Bs. arguing. 3. If God will not punish the children for the fathers sins (as Mr. B. sai • h) much less for a strangers, then he would not break off the unbelieving Jews infant children, then they are visible Church members if Mr. Bs. arg. hold. 4. Mr. Bls. reason is answered before, by showing how there may be privations of habits not in being; And if his reason were good, and unbelieving Jews infant could not be broken off, for that it was never in the visible Church Christian, and is the branch of a bramble. To my words, that the breaking off is not revoking of an ordinance about visible church membership, but the execution of the decree of reprobation in excluding them from the invisible Church, M. Bl. replies 1. By demand; Is there any such decree as to cast out of the Church invisible? I am sure that chapter hath no such thing. Answ. There is a decree of breaking off from the Church invisible, and that decree is plainly expressed in that chapter, v. 7, 8, 9, 10. For what comes to pass in time that God decrees. But they were broken off in time from the invisible Church of believers, v. 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17, 19, 22. 2 lie. Saith he, I demand did they continue in the Church visible, when upon execution of such a decree they were cast out of the Church invisible? or was their station in the visible Church lost, and that of the invisible Church never gained, and therefore they were not broken off from it. Answ.