Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3

Answ. Their unbelief was the means of their breaking off, but not of their breaking off from that visible Church-station in which they sometimes stood; the visible Church-station in which they stood, is, as Mr. Bl. himself describes it, their station in the Jewish Church visible in the way of Church ordinances, Circumcision, Sacrifices, &c. changed by God; yet, as he himself faith, the Jews stuck thereto, and therefore stood still in their former visible Church-station. Besides, their unbelief was not their breaking off from it. For 1. as Mr. Bl. said before the breaking off was God's act, so was not their unbelief. 2. According to Mr. Bl. breaking off was God's act of punishment, but it was no punishment but a mer • to be broken off from that visible Church station. Nor upon the account of their breaking off from that visible Church station in which they sometimes stood, were they kept out from interest in the Church invisible, but for their unbelief, and their keeping that Church station. However, if they were kept out from interest in the Church invisible, their breaking off is more then depriving of a visible Church state, y • a the same which I assert, a breaking off from the invisible Church.

If there be any mazes in my 8th. and 9th. sections of the first part of my Review, Mr. B. led me into them, whom I was necessitated to follow: Mr. Bs. arguments are answered without confusion, and with so much strength, as neither Mr. Bl. nor Mr. B. are able to refute.

Mr. Bl. asserts contrary to me, that the Christian visible Church and the Jewish are one and the same, 1. because Japheth dwells in Shem’s Tents, which are the Church visible, and this he saith needs no proof. But I require proof that by Shem’s tents are meant, Gen. 9.27. the visible Church Jewish or Christian.

2. Because they are one sheep-fold, Joh. 10.16. and to the objection that it's meant of the invisible Church, because Christ gives notes of those that were indeed his sheep, he saith,

Answ. The Text rather proves the contrary as Mr. Bl. expounds it▪ For if the fold be the visible Church, and the other sheep are not of that visible Church, then there is not one fold or Church of Jews and Gentiles, but some sheep are of one fold▪ or visible Church, and some of another. As for Mr. Bls. arguments, they are of no force. For Christ might well enough in his discourse point out the invisible Church with the demonstrative [ this ] it being usual to point out invisible things by it, as Joh. 6.29, &c. This God is our God : And yet I do not think [ this fold, John 10.16.] notes the invisible Church, but the people or nation of the Jews, as Piscator, Grotius, &c. expound it, or rather the place. For the fold, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , notes not the sheep, and therefore not the Church, but the place or country where or whence they are▪ Nor were deceivers, hirelings, thieves, or wolves, in or of the Church meant Joh. 10.15, 16. though they might get into the place and company of them. Nor is it truly translated by our Translatours [ there shall be one fold, ] though (which I somewhat marvel at) they follow therein the vulgar Latin: For the Tigurine Divines note, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek signifies the flock, not the fold. And Beza excepts against the vulgar for it, and against the Romanists, who would have that one f • ld to be Rome. And Grotius observes that the speech is proverbial, One flock one shepherd, to which he makes Ezek. 37.24. to be like. Now that the one flock is not the mere visible Church, but the invisible, it appears from many things in the Text, that Christ laid down his life for them, that they follow him, hear his voice, his Father and he knows them distinguishingly from others who do not believe because they are not of his sheep, that he gives them eternal life, none can pluck them out of his Fathers hands, v. 14, 15, 16, 26, 27, 28, 29. out of which many Protestant Divines gather absolute election, particular redemption, effectual conversion and perseverance, against Arminians. And Diodati in his annot. on Joh. 10 16. hath it thus. Other sheep] namely, the elect among the Gentiles, who are to be called by the Gospel, and incorporated into the Church with the elect of the Jewish nation. One body, 1 Cor. 12.13. one new man, Ephes. 2.15. are the invisible Church as is shown before. Matth. 8.11. The Kingdom of heaven is the Kingdom of glory. Matth. 21.43. The Kingdom of God is either the Gospel by a metonymy, or the rule of God in their hearts, which was taken from them, that is that people, with whose ancestors it was, though not in those persons from whom it was taken. The visible Church cannot be meant by the Kingdom, for the fruits of the Kingdom are not the fruits of the mere visible Church, they are not bare profession, but real faith, holiness, and obedience, which are fruits of the spirit, not of the Church; or if of any Church, of the invisible, not the mere visible. And though all invisible members bring forth fruit, yet that nation which had invisible members bringing forth fruit in a former age, may in an after age not bring forth fruit, and for that reason the Church invisible may be taken from them, with whom it was in respect of their ancestors.

To what I said, If the Christian Gentiles were graffed into the same visible Church with the Jews, then they should have been circumcised, &c. contrary to the determination Acts 15. Mr. Bl replies,

Answ. That which Mr. Bl. saith of the lameness of a Kingdom under a new way of administration, of Law givers changing their laws, of God's doing so, the identity of a house with a new door, is all granted; but doth not take away the force of my reason, unless he could show that any were graffed or to be graffed into the visible Church Jewish without Circumcision, if he were a male. Doth not Mr. Bl. maintain here in answer to my 4th. argument, that we are partakers of the same outward privileges and ordinances with the Jews, as he expounds Rom. 11.17. which opposeth his speech here of a new way? Doth not Scripture term the Jewish Church or people, the Circumcision, because those that were in that Church, if male, were circumcised? Was not Cornelius taken for unclean, and not of that Church, because uncircumcised? or was he ever in the Jewish Church after his Baptism? God might admit into the Jewish Church another way then by Circumcision; but Mr. Bl. cannot show he or the Jews did so. We are in the same invisible Kingdom of true believers, and elect persons, with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: but I do not yet know by anything Mr. Bl. hath hitherto said, that I am in the same visible Kingdom with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their posterity after the flesh in Israel. Everyone in the visible Kingdom of Israel after the flesh, did partake of the Passover; the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 10 18. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the the sacrifices partakers of the altar? Which intimates that Israel after the flesh did then when he wrote eat of the sacrifices, which Christians did not, and therefore were not adjoined to Israel after the flesh, but in that very place, v 16, 17. distinguished from them. I take Mr. Bls. assertion to infer Jad • ism: and if he or any other be not satisfied by my answer to Mr. Cobbet, I have more reason to impute it to their prejudice, then to defect in my answer.

SECT. LXXVI. My sense of matrimonial holiness▪ 1 Cor. 7.14. is vindicated from Mr. Blake's exceptions, Vindic. Faed. ch. 39. and Mr. Sydenhams Exircit. ch. 7.

MR. Bl. ch. 39. avoucheth, still his sense of federal holiness, 1 Cor. 7.14. I proceed to view what he saith. Sect. 1. he sets down the Apostles resolution and the reason of it rightly, which because it will tend much to the clearing of the sense which I give, I shall here transcribe it. Let him not put her away, let her not leave him, unbelief breaks not the marriage bond, • enders it not a nullity, Religion being not of the substance of marriage. But what he saith, that their scruple and ground of their fear was the condition of their issue, lest that they should not be reckoned with the Saints, but of the fellowship of the unclean Gentiles, is fictitious. For the resolution of it rightly given before by Mr. Bl. himself, shows that their scruple arose not from fear of their children's condition, but the nullity of their marriage, or unlawfulness of continuing in it by reason of the unbelief of the one party; else the Apostle had not made his resolution apposite to the removing their scruple. Yea, Mr. Bls. own speech is against his own conceit, when he saith, Reason is strong for this, for they well knew, as it is with the parent, so it is with the child for Church state and condition, being a privilege communicable and descendable from parent to child. If the parent were without, and of the Gentiles, the child was ever such; and in case they were of the people of God, their children were reckoned so in like manner: Now parents being divided, the one holy, the other unclean, they feared that the issue would follow the worser part, a s • ain would lie upon them, they would be accounted unclean with the unbelieving parent. In a like case it had been so determined, Ezra 10.3. For if they well knew as it is with the parent so it is with the child for Church-state, they knew that the believing parent being a Church member, notwithstanding the yokefellows unbelief, their children were Church members, and so made no scruple of that, nor did Paul, or need he to resolve that scrup • e about their children's condition. Yea, the very form of the Apostles reasoning, else were your children unclean, doth plainly import, that they took the uncleanness of their children as an absurdity deprehended by them, and the contrary out of doubt; as when, 1 Cor. 15.29. the Apostle saith, Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not ? he supposeth they took it for an absurdity, and the contrary out of doubt, that they that are baptized for the dead do it in vain. And though that the parents being divided they might fear that the issue would follow the worser part, a slain would lie upon them, yet that this stain should be in respect of their Church state, could not be, if they well knew, as Mr. Bl. saith, as it is with the parent so it is with the child for Church state, their own state in the Church being manifest and certain. That the case of the Corinthians and those, Ezra 10.3. is not like, is shown in the first part of this Review, sect. 17, 18. and will come into further consideration in that which follows.

What Mr. Bl. adds, That the Apostle tells them, that the unbelieving party doth not (as they fear) defile the issue, but is sanctified as to issue by the believer, is a mere fiction. For the Apostle only tells them they did not defile each other, but were sanctified to each other, by reason of their marriage state, not the faith of one party. And it is as false, that by reason of the parents faith the Apostle tells them the child is not reckoned with the unbelieving parent who is a Gentile, or that by unclean is meant a sinner of the Gentiles, for the child of both parents Gentile believers is still a Gentile; and if unclean be a sinner of the Gentiles, by holy should be meant a Jew by nature, which is a ridiculous conceit of Mr. Bls. as if the parent being a believer, the child were a Jew by nature, and not a sinner of the Gentiles. What he adds, that by believer in that place, 1 Cor. 7.14. is meant a professor of the true faith, is vain, when the word believer is not used in that v. or any v. of that Chapter about that matter, nor in that sense there. If to be sanctified, 1 Cor. 7.14. be not to be set apart for God, as Mr. Bl. determines, then the term sanctified is not used in the common if not only use of the word in Scripture and profane writers, and by him conceived here, as Mr. B. asserts Plain Script. proof, &c. part. 1. ch. 29. p. 81.

In answer to the 2d. sect. of the 39th. ch. of Mr. Bls. vindic faed. I say first, that I do not yield that the Corinthians had any scruple at all about their issue. 2. That my waving the examining of the occasion of the doubt resolved 1 Cor. 17.12, 13, 14. was not because of any strength I found in Mr. Bls. allegations, but because I conceived neither of our opinions any other then a conjecture, and therefore the thing not material, nor in the framing my postscript had I time enough to do what I did after, not out of a mind to quarrel, but to show the invalidity of Mr. Marshals 4 • h. arg. for his interpretation from his conceit of the occasion of the doubt, to have been by reading the fact mentioned Ezr. 10.3. Mr. Bl. here endeavors to confirm his exceptions against my allegation of 1 Cor. 5.9. as the occasion of the doubt resolved 1 Cor. 7.12. Yet replies nothing to my answer to the two first, but to the 3d. saith. If their scruple was concerning conversing with their idolatrous yoke fellows, upon occasion of those words not to keep them company; they must needs scruple their conversing with covetous, and extortioners, husbands or wives upon the same account; and the Apostle being silent in his answer, it is clear they were silent in their letter, and moving no scruple, they had no scruple; when it is impossible for them to scruple one upon those words and not scruple all▪ Here is the wildest of fancies, when he names four evils respective to civil social converse; they should startle at one (respective to their marriage society) and question no more. To which I answer, it is neither impossible nor very unlikely, much less a wild fancy to imagine it of them, that the Corinthians either did not scruple at using their covetous husbands, from 1 Cor. 5.9, 10. though they did their idolatrous, if they did not heed the explanation after added v. 10. but only the precept v. 9. and understood by fornicators idolaters, which they might easily do; or if they did heed the explanation, yet did not conceive the like reason of relinquishing covetous yoke-fellows as idolatrous, which they might well do, finding precepts against marriages with idolaters, none against marriages with them that were only covetous and not idolaters, or they might not put the doubt of any other to the Apostle then the idolatrous, because there were none that had covetous yokefellows who were not idolaters, and they wovld put the case only about that which was the chief cause of their scruple, or because they could easily resolve themselves, that covetousness and extortion from men do not so defile or are so inconsistent with marriage society as idolatry, and going a whoring from God, or they might put the case about the covetous as well as the idolaters, yet the Apostle resolve the one only expressly, because the resolving the one would resolve the other▪ for which and for other reasons which might occur, though not discernible now, they well either startle at one only, or not seek for resolution of anymore, or if they did, yet Paul resolve no more. And this being understood, the Apostle needs not write to them as Mr. Bl. imagines he must, if my conjecture hold, and he took in every part of their scruple, though not what Mr. Bl. conceivs must be their scruple upon my conjecture.

And hereby Mr. Bls. replies of wonder of my thoughts, of the Apostles need of resolving both scruples, of the same evident ground of scruple concerning each, as one are plainly answered without reply to his taunting quips. The rest also is answered concerning B. Howson, Bunney, my Uncle Whately ; for it goes upon this supposition, that if the Corinthians took occasion to doubt, from 1 Cor. 5.9. then they must doubt whether they must live with fornicating yoke-fellows, and the Apostle must resolve them, that if any brother have a wife that is a fornicator let him not put her away, which may not follow it by fornicators they understood only idolaters and so doubted of them only, or chiefly doubted of them, or resolving themselves otherwise propounded the doubt only of them, or the Apostle thought it needful only to resolve concerning them, knowing that they might from his resolution of them be resolved of the rest, especially if the words let him not put her away, be not a prohibition forbidding him to put her away, but as a permission allowing him not to put her away, which hath its likelihood. But of this enough, if not too much about a conjecture not very material. My words in my Postscript page 111. bare not Mr. Bl. in hand of any further answer then hath been given him, my censure of his absurd glosses, dictates, fl • rts incoherent, impertinent passages, little solid nervous disputing is delivered in language meet to express the truth.

If Mr. Calamy and Mr. Vines in their Epistle used not vain crackings of Mr. Marshal, and Mr. Bls. answer to my Letter besides their misrepresentations of my Examen, I never met with any. Were their worth far greater then it is, and mine far less, I shall take liberty however my ingeny be questioned, as freely to censure Mr. Calamy and Mr. Vines, as I did in this, if they shall hereafter by their names and big words disparage the truth as they did in this. Who of my nearest friends have told me to my face, that they have been ashamed of that which I have written in my Apology, whose honesty and judgment Mr. Bl. hath seeen attested under my own hand, I do not yet know, nor by ghess yet imagine. I know I have had censures hard enough of persons afore this controversy arose taken for my friends, and have laid them more to heart then I hope I shall do hereafter, finding upon the Review of this Dispute how unequal they have been, and if that eminently learned man who observed that I had Donum impudentiae, were he who wrote the second Epistle to Mr. Baxter printed at the end of his Confession of his faith, or any other did censure me without well weighing my writings (as I have many reasons to conceive they do) as they are the more unrighteous, so they are deservedly the less regarded by me. It was no impudence in me to publish that men call on me to answer Mr. Bl. or that his writing was commended when others had done it before. The most frivolous treatise that is, if it be against me, yet it wants not some to magnify it, Mr. Hussey's, Mr. Horns, Dr. Savages in Latin and others want not applauders. I discern the spirit of Paedobaptists even in those, whom I had taken to be moderate, judicious, friendly, yet in this point many of them show neither equity to me, nor love to truth, nor judgment in according their opinion of Paedobaptism with their former and later principles and practices. But I shall wait till God awake men, and specially those who have been so forward to reform Discipline and Ceremonies, and have by solemn Covenant vowed to endeavor reformation according to God's Word, that they may see from what they are fain. I go on.

Next Mr. Bl. speaks somewhat of the occasion of the doubt from Ezra 9.10.

To which I answer, the contrary is to me an undoubted truth, and so it was to Dr. Thomas Goodwin, whose reason with mine should have had some answer from Mr. Bl. As for his syllogism the major is not certain, since the Apostle might give satisfaction on the by, about other things then the cases which they scrupled and wrote to him about. But the minor I do directly deny, and since Mr. Bl. hath brought nothing to prove it, I slight it as a vain dictate.

As for Mr. Bls. refusing to determine peremptorily, that the occasion of the scruple was that, Ezra 9. & 10. it serves my turn to prove that no argument drawn from thence to conclude federal holiness of infants of believers is valid. I have often shown how we can imagine the Corinthians hit upon their scruple, and were affected with it without respect to the fact, Exra 9. & 10. and therefore need not again answer that question. Mr. Bls. not saying that the Israelites and the Corinthians case was wholly the same, tends to show Mr. Marshals mistake, and the defect of his argument.

And for what Mr. Bl. observes that the Christian Corinthians were under the moral Law of Moses and it was not so easy for them to determine that the Command Deut. 7. was judicial, I grant it, and thence infer that notwithstanding the words 1 Cor. 10.15. yet they might not be so understanding in gathering consequences, or discerning the meaning of Scriptures, but that they might conceive otherwise then rational men usually do, contrary to what Mr. Bl. suggests of them sect. 3. Mr. Bl. having censured rather then refuted Dr. Goodwin's opinion of the children's real holiness, 1 Cor. 7.14. He tells me my interpretation is first childish, to tell the Corinthians if their marriage society were adulterous, then their children were bastards, if their marriage were null children were illegitimate, this is too low a way of reasoning, such as every child well knew before the Apostle told them. To which I answer, if it were so easily understood it was the fitter for the Apostles purpose to satisfy the tender consciences of doubting Christians, who are best satisfied with that which is obvious, and easily discernible, especially when the persons are women, and men of ordinary capacities. And therefore this way of arguing shown not childishness in the Apostle but fatherly wisdom, and is a very good reason for my interpretation, not against it, since it is acknowledged that the Apostles arguing as by me framed is right, and serves his purpose.

Secondly, saith Mr. Bl. It is incongruous to bring phrases fully answering the Church state and condition of either parents, believing and unbelieving (which in the Scripture is holy and unclean) and yet to understand them of holiness and uncleanness of another kind of l • gitimation and bastardy, if they may be (as I think they never were) so called is incongruous: That these words fully answer the Church state of parents and the Church state and condition which the children derive from them, is plain in that parallel text Gal. 2.15. Jews by nature, that is holy by birth from believing parents, not sinners of the Gentiles, not unclean by birth from unbelieving ancestors; so Mr. Cartwright on these words, in his answer to the Rhemists. If you will know what this holiness of children new born is, the Apostle telleth you, it is through the Covenant to be a Jew by nature, or birth: and if you will f • rther understand what this uncleanness of children is, the Apostle in the same place telleth you, it is not to be sinners by nature as those which are born of the heathen.

Answ What I said before I say still, without any jeer or disregard to Mr. Cartwright, that the conceit that 1 Cor. 7.14. and Gal. 2.15. are two full parallel Scriptures, is but a dream, there being neither agreement in scope, matter, words or sense between them. Not in scope. For 1 Cor. 7, 12, 13, 14. the Apostles scope is • o resolve a doubt about continuance of married persons in disparity of religion, Gal. 2.15. his scope is to determine by what we are justified, not in matter, for the one speaks of the sanctifying of husband and wife to each other, and the holiness or uncleanness of the children; the other of Jews and Gentiles acding to their different national state, nor is there one word used Gal. 2.15. which is used 1 Cor, 7.14. nor can the sense be agreeing. For Jew by nature cannot be as much as holy 1 Cor. 7.14. because then the children of the Corinthians should be Jews by nature, which was impossible, they being born of Gentile parents, for such were the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 12.2. Nor is Mr. Bls. sense Jew by nature, that is holy by birth from believing parents, anywhere else found in Scripture; Nor doth Jew by nature intimate their Church state, as if he meant it thus; we who are members of the visible Church, or have this privilege to be in the Covenont of grace by nature, in that we are born of believing parents. For they are said to be Jews by nature by reason of their natural descent, without any respect to the faith or unbelief of their parents, even those whose parents were idolaters, as A • az, Manasseh, or any other of that line were Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, and the children of the most holy Proselytes, yet were not Jews by nature: nor were they Jews by nature through the Covenant of grace, they were Jews by nature without respect to the Covenant of grace, for that was always to them who were believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, and the covenant whereby the Jews had privilege was not the Covenant of Evangelical grace, but the Covenant of peculiar national blessinigs, but here the opposition to the Gentiles, and the occasion shows Jews to be taken as a term appropriate to natural Jews by natural descent from Jacob in contradiinstction to Gentiles from other roots. If any ask who are meant by [ we, ] and why here is mentioned [ Jews by nature, ] and why they are opposed to the Gentiles, and they termed sinners, I answer, the words seem plainly to be a part of Paul's speech to Peter, and that by we are meant himself with Peter termed a Jew, v. 14. and other believers of the Circumcision, mentioned v. 12, 13. and the sense is, We though we are Jews by nature, or even we who are Jews by natural birth; and this mentioned, because they had the Law peculiarly given them, as Piscator in his Analysis, Nos quantumvis Judaei sumus, quibus nimirum lex peculiariter a Deo data est. Or as the opposite term [ sinners of the Gentiles ] intimates, knowers and keepers of the Law of Moses, and therefore if any, certainly much more then sinners of the Gentiles ▪ we should seek and expect to be justified by the Law; yet if we know that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Christ, and even we have believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law, it is not equal that we should as Peter did at Antioch, dissemble our liberty in Christ, compel the Gentiles to Judaize or keep the law for righteousness, and so not walk uprightly or rightfoote it according to the truth of the Gospel. Now the Gentiles are termed sinners in the sense, in which, in the ordinary acception among the Jews, it was taken for men that observed not the law, opposed to the righteous, Matth. 9.13. Luke 15.1, 2, 7, 10. & 18.9, 13. and many more places: And in this sense it is taken, v. 17. we ourselves also are sound sinners, that is, we ourselves also are deprehended, convinced, or proved to be profane breakers, or despise • s of the law: which the Gentiles did, and which I think is meant Ephes. 2.1, 2, 3. and that Paul doth not anymore reckon himself with them Ephes. 2.3. then he doth with them that are alive at Christ's coming, opposite to them who are dead in Christ, 1 Thes. 4.17. though he use the first person plural in both; for I see not how that could stand with his speeches of himself, Acts 23, 1. Philip. 3.4▪ 5, 6. and therefore do conceive a conception or an enallage of person, Ephes. 2.3. used often in speeches, whereby a speaker takes that to himself which is proper to others, whether to avoid distaste as if he upbraided them, or to insinuate into their affections, or for such like reason. Out of all which I infer, 1. That [ Jews by nature ] is not put Gal. 2.15. to intimate a birth-privilege of the children of believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, concerning their Ecclesiastical state even in infancy as visible Church members; but it is put to note either the advantage peculiar to the Jewish nation in that the law of Moses was given to them, or rather the greater likelihood and meetness or congruity to seek or claim righteousness by the law then the Gentiles. 2. That he meant not they were Jews by nature through the Covenant of grace. For that were clean opposite to his intention, which was to show that their estate of being Jews by nature did not confer to their justification, which doubtless it would have done if it had been by the Covenant of grace, but to intimate, that the law was given to them, or rather they studious of it, and Zealots for it, and therefore if any, they should be justified by it▪ as Paul in a like place, Phil. 3.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. So that whatever advantage or precedency is intimated by it, it is ascribed to the law, and their observing of it, not to the new Covenant of grace. 3. The deteriority or worse condition of the Gentiles is ascribed to them, not barely in respect of their birth from unbelievers, and so agreeing to their infants, much less as agreeing to infants of unbelieving Jews as well as Gentiles, but in respect of their manners either only or chiefly, and so not competent to infants. And therefore notwithstanding Mr. Bl. thought Gal. 2.15. a fit Text for his Sermon, in which he asserted infants birth-privilege of believing Gentiles, though Mr. Calamy and Mr. Vines crack in their Epistle before Mr. Bls. answer to my Letter, that he hath truly stated the the question, set it upon the right basis, and well fortified it, and Mr. Bl. hath produced somewhat from Mr. Cantwright to color his parallelling 1 Cor. 7.14. with Gal. 2.15. yet I say still, and have such a gift of impudence as to aver, that both Mr. Cartwright was mistaken, and Mr. Calamy and Mr. Vines did vainly crack of Mr. Bls. Birth privilege, and Mr Bl. hath grossly abused Gal. 2.15. as he did also Gal 4.29. and there is no parallelism of 1 Cor. 7.14. and Gal. 2.15. to interpret the one by the other.

3. Saith Mr. Bl.

Answ. The Reader that puts on his reason, will easily see good reason for my denial of each of the minors in each of Mr. Bls. three arguments, and the vanity of Mr. Bls. arguings, laying the stress wholly upon the believing party, which is not expressed in the Text, but only hinte • ; and upon a translation of the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by, which is not denied but may be translated in or to. Will any man of competent reason conceive, that the Apostle being to give reason of his resolution of an important point of cons • ienc • , about which he was by Letter consulted, would so loosely argue as to leave out the chief word from whence he inferred his conclusion, and conclude holiness as resulting from that which is not named, yea though he named the opposite term twice; and express a causality or antecedency by a term that had ordinarily another respect, when there was a proper and usual particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to express it by? And on the other side so precisely name the terms of husband and wife twice, and your children expressly, and yet lay no part of the stress upon the conjugal relation so often and so plainly mentioned? Yea, do we think that the Apostle giving a reason why the husband and wife might live together in disparity of Religion, would lay the whole stress upon that which was merely accidental to their marriage state, to wit, the ones being a believer, and the f • deral holiness of children, without which their mrrriage might be good at first, and they lawfully continue together, and not ascribe it to that conjugal relation, continuing which alone made their living together lawful as their coming together at first? That Chamier did overlash in saying the interpretation of federal holiness was omnium nostrorum, is manifest by the words of Musculus, Melancthon, and Camerarius, c • ted by me in my Exercitation sect. 5. That it was Calvin's and many mo • e Protestants opinion, is a prejudice against our opinion, but should not be with those that determine upon evidence of reason, not the authority of men. Calvin was an excellent man, but we may say of him, Non videt omnia. I follow Mr. Bl. in his next section.

Whereas Mr. Bl saith, I put the Apostles argument into this form, If the unbelieving husband were not sanctified by the wife, then were your children unclean; But they are not unclean, but holy ; Ergo, the unbelieving huusband is sanctified by the wife : Had he dealt fairly with me, he would have rectified the major, and changed [ by ] into [ to, ] the conclusion of the syllogism, and the words next before and all along in that section of my Examen having [to the wife] which I contend for in that section, and pag. 14, 15. of my Exercitation, as the genuine reading, disclaiming [ by the wife, ] and of this advertise Mr. M. p. 97. of the first part of this Review. The rest of the section is spent about the proposition proving this sequel, [If the unbelieving husband be not sanctified in or to the wife, your children were unclean,] and so included in the Apostles consequence. Mr. Bl. would have it to be thus, Answer to my Letter, p. 38. [ All the children of an unbeliever are unclean, unless for generation he or she be sanctified by a believer. ] I conceive this proposition to be included in the Apostles consequence, [All the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other, are unclean;] or [none of the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other are holy.] The point in difference between us, is, whether it be necessary to insert [ of an unbeliever, unless for generation he or she be sanctified by a believer. ] This I deny for these reasons. 1. That is not necessary to be inserted, without which the Apostles conclusion is inferred: But the Apostles conclusion is inferred without Mr. Bls. addition; Ergo. The major is of itself evident. The minor is thus proved. The Apostle in his argument doth not at all mention sanctification for generation, there may be and was sanctification without generation, else no husband and wife could be sanctified one in or to another except children were begotten, and so the Apostle should not resolve the lawfulness of their l • ving together who were barren▪ which is absurd. Nor is it necessary to add [ by a believer, ] since the Apostle hath omitted it, and that as it is very probable of set purpose. Nor is it necessary to add [ unbeliever ] because it is false then even according to Paedobaptists hypotheses. For then it would fo • low, the children of two believers are unclean, and so Isaac and Jacob should be unclean, or out of the Covenant; if this were added all the children of those parents, whereof one is not an unbeliever sanctified for generation by a believer, are unclean.

2. The second reason I form thus. That is not necessary to be added, which would make the Apostles proposition false: But Mr. Bls. addition would make the Apostles proposition false. For it is false, which he makes the Apostles proposition, All the children of an unbeliever are unclean, unless for generation he or she be sanctified by a believer. For whether by uncleanness we understand non-admissibleness into the Church, it is false; for the children of unbelievers bought with money by Abraham, though infants, yet were in Mr. Bls. sense federally holy: and me thinks Mr. Bl. who asserts against Mr. Firmin the baptizability of the infants of the generality of En • lish though the parents be openly profane, and hate godliness, should not deny it: however, the case is clear in the Circumcision of professed infidels children bought with money, Gen. 17.27. And for federal real holiness, I suppose Mr. Bl. will not deny, but that many of them, as Rahab, &c. were in the Covenant of saving grace.

To the first of these, Mr. Bl. 1. saith thus, pag. 338. I pray leave generation out, and see whether there can be any sense in it, unless it be understood; their sanctification will confer no legitimation, without generation; if I say not believer, I must say husband or wi • e that is a believer.

Asw. If generation be left out, and believer, it may be good sense according to my interpretation. An unbelieving husband may be sanctified to his wife, that is, may lawfully use her though she were an unbeliever as his wife, and may continue to live with her, and she with him, though they never had or should have children, else your children which you might beget should be unclean; but this being put, they are legitimate. But according to Mr. Bls. interpretation it is not good sense in the case of the barren; for she or he are not instrumentally sanctified for generation, there being no generation there is no being an instrument for generation, nor sanctification thereto. And an instrument is an efficient, and where there is no effect there is no efficient, nor instrument: And to be sanctified instrumentally must be as an instrument to a principal agent, which in this thing cannot be any other then God; now no instrument of God fails to produce its effect, therefore without actual generation, no wife can be said to be instrumentally sanctified for generation. And for the leaving out the term [ believer ] it is good sense as I expound it without it, and if the Apostle had not conceived it good sense without it, he would not, as he did, have left it out. But I confess it is not good sense according to Mr. Bls. interpretation, who saith (though falsely) p. 334. The stress is wholly laid upon the believing party, as to the holiness of the issue twice over. I confess their sanctification would confer no legitimation actual without actual generation; yet their might be legitimation of issue (which is enough to show the consequence to be good and for the Apostles purpose) without actual generation, the legitimati • n being only upon supposition (as it is usual in such arguments) and so the generati • n only supposed. Doubtless the Apostle resolved the Corinthians of the lawful living together of the barren as well as they that had or should beget, which will • not agree with Mr. Bls. exposition of instrumental sanctification for that is not true but of actual generation past or future, as I have proved.

But Mr. Bl. adds, the Apostles major is of an unbelieving huusband and a believing wife, and I make the propo •• tion universal, according to the capacity of the subject of all believing wives joined to unbelieving husbands, not with Mr. T. of all husbands and wives. And this is the Apostles included proposition, which must be the basis of so many inferences and refutations, when yet all men's Logic (except what Mr. T. hath learnt) will utterly disclaim it.

Answ. That the Apostles major is not of an unbelieving husband and a believing wife, is manifest by the words in which the term [ believing ] is in both speeches left out. And sure if the Apostle would have ascribed anything to the believer as such, he could as easily have put it in as the term unbeliever, or the terms brother or sister, used v. 12, 15. And though I deny not that the wife, or huusband opposite to the infidel yoke-fellow were believers, yet I have l • arned so much Logic and Divinity, that what attributes do agree materially do not always agree formally in each speech, as though Ishmael was the son of Abraham, yet what is said of him Gal. 4 13, 24, 25, 29, 30, 3 • . is said of him n • t as Abraham's son, but as Hagar's. And so it is here, though the husband or wife were a believer, yet they are not there consid • red as believers, nor the things there spoken of them ascribed to them under that consideration, but under the consideration of husband and wife: and if any disclaim this Logic, he will disclaim such Logic as the holy Scripture useth in these and other places.

I alleged in my Examen part. 3. sect. 8. p. 78. the words of Chamier: tom. 4. paustr. cath. l. 5. c. 10. §. 67. against Augustine's interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.14. o • a ceremonial holiness, as apposite to refute his own of federal. For saith he, that interpretation is ridiculous if these propositions be not true, that all born of those • errants whereof one is not sanctified in the other, are begotten in the time of the woman's monthly courses, Infidel husbands never use their wives but at such time, for so the Apostle is made to speak by Augustine's interpretation. Now the self same I shown to follow on his own interpretation, the words being changed which should be changed in such a retorsion. For then according to it the Apostle should say, All the children born of those parents of whom one is not san • tified in the other, are out of the Covenant of grace, infidel parents never beget of their wives children within the Covenant of grace. Both which are false, and consequently the interpretation of Chamier, whence it is apparent that Chamier made these pr • positions in the Apostles arguing to be included, Those children whereof one parent is not sanc • ified in the other are unclean, none of the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other are holy. I said also in my Antidote pag. 16. that Mr. Bl. confessed these propositions included in the Apostles consequence. Against this Mr. Bl. thus riseth up.

Answ. Chamiers words in the place cited, making the Apostles arguing with Augustine's exposition to include the two propositions before named, do plainly show, that in his Logic the Apostle asserted these propositions, All the children whereof one parent is not sanctified in the other are unclean, none of them are holy ; and Mr. Bl. in his answer to my Letter ch. 7. sect. 2. pag. 36. to my fourth argument against instrumental sanctification thus made, in this form of reasoning this proposition is included; Their children could not be holy without that sanctification, which could not be true of instrumental sanctification and federal holiness, replies never den • ing the proposition to be included, but avers i • true of instrumental sanctification and federal holiness, yea most true, necessarily and universally true: Now he that saith without that sanctification (of one parent in the other) the children could not be holy, saith none of the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other are holy, to which is equipollent all the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other are unclean. And thus it is shown Mr. Bl. where he and Chamier confessed those propositions to be included, which indeed have no monster of absurdities in them, but are the genuine medium of the Apostles argument, and Chamier without any mixture of madness, did acutely discern to be included in the Apostles reasoning, though he heeded not how this very observation overthrows his own interpretation as well as Augustine's.

The rest of this section not answered about the reason I gave why the proposition included in the Apostles sequel is to be conceived without the terms of believer and unbeliever inserted by Mr. Bl. and the illustration of it I shall make no further reply to here, but refer the Reader to what is so largely spoken in vindication of myself in the first part of this Review sect. 21. pag. 170. sect. 36. pag. 249, 250. I proceed to examine Mr. Bls. fifth Sect. of the 29th. Chapter, although there are some things in the sixth Section which perhaps might be more fitly answered first.

Mr. Bl. Sect. 5. having said that I allege, that the Apostles in this text brings a formal argument to prove the marriage society of these yoke-fellows lawful, which in the two former verses he had determined, he then adds.

Answ. It is true it is a bottom I build much on, 1. That the Apostle brings the media or middle terms of two Syllogisms or formal arguments v. 14. to prove the lawfulness of the continuance in marriage society of the believing yoke-fellow with the unbeliever, determined by him v. 12, 13. and that they are not as v. 16. a Rhetorical argument only to move the affe •• ions to embrace what before their judgments were settled in, but a Logical proof of the resolution by setting down the medium out of which a syllogism is to be framed to infer the conclusion. 2. That the Apostle doth not at all resol • e any doubt about their posterity, but takes the state of their posterity as out of doubt with them, and thence infers that which was doubtful to them concerning their own marriage state. Now Mr. Bl denies not the words at first sight seem to carry some calour to understand them so far in my sense as to make them formal, concluding reasons of the Apostles former determination, and confesseth the Apo •• les method and manner of inference indifferently favors either interpretation. B • t that the words are to be analysed and conceived only in • he form I have resolved them, I prove, first by the particles, for, else, but now: all these particles are argumentative. [ For ] in many places, as Rom. 3.20. & 4.15, &c. 1 Corinth. 7.9, 31, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 translated else, or otherwise, or for then are argumentative, as 1 Cor. 5.10. & 15.15, 29. Rom. 11.6. in which places it notes an absurdity consequent, if the antecedent be not granted: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but now, is used also frequently as an argumentative particle, as 1 Corinth. 12.18, 20. Rom. 3.21. Heb. 8.6. & 9.26. there are both these used, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so 1 Corinth. 15.20. And accordingly Pasor in his Lexicon on the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , dici • ur etiam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1 Cor. 15.20. interdum servit assumptioni syllogismi, 1 Cor ▪ • . v. 14 & 15. v. 20. Mr. Cobbet Just. vindic. p • rt. 1. chap. 1. sect. 1. Where the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used in argumentation, as 1 Cor. 5.10. and the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in like sort used, 1 Cor. 12.18, 20. So Rom. 3.2 • . Heb 8.6, & 9.26. & 11.16. Do declare that that sentence (in the la • ter part of 1 Cor. 7.14.) is annexed in way of argumentation to the proposition immediately before. Beza annot. ad 1 Cor. 7.14. particula 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hoc in loco non est temporis adverbium, sed est conjunctio quae adhiberi solet in argumentorum assumptionibus. 2. This is proved from the ma • teer, i • is agreed on that the Apostle determines the doubt of he Corinthians v. 12, 13. and it is apparent that the first part of v. 14. is a reason of his determination. Let us consider the det • rmination v. 12, 13. let him not put her away, let her not leave him. Now this determination may be understood either as a plain prohibition forbi • ding the believer to put away or leave the unbeli • ving yoke-fellow at all, being contented to dwell with the believer. But this sense seems not to me to be the Apostles intent; 1. Because it might then be a hard yoke, that a believer must not put away his wife which will dwell with him though she play the harlot; or it may be understood as a determination of their liberty, Let him not put her away, let her not leave him, that is, there is no necessity that he should put her away, that she should leave him, conscience and duty to God ties them not to do so, and this sense seems most probable to me, though I reject not the other, if some limitation more be added, as thus, let him not put her away, nor she leave him, that is, I forbid them to leave each other barely for the disparity of religion. Now the reasons of this later explication are these. 1. Because the phrase v. 15. let him depart is not an absolute command but a permission, as the words following, a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases, show, and the like is to be said of the resolution v. 17. so let him walk, that is, so he may walk, and that it is the sense, I gather from the instances in the following verses, whereby the Apostle illustrates his determination v. 17. Is any man called being uncircumcised? v 18. let him not become uncircumcised: Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Which speeches do not absolu • ely forbid the drawing up the fore-skin or the cutting it off, there might be cases in which either might be lawful, but leave it at liberty, and so much the words • ollowing also intimate circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping the commandments of God, which expression intimates the i • differency of these, and the non availing to ingratiate us to God, which is not a fit reason for an absolute prohibition, but for a determination concerning the liberty of either.

Then the Apostle v. 20. repeats his determination v. 17. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called ; which (though true of it) is not meant of his • hristian general calling, as if he had said, Let every man abide in Christianity wherein he was called, which the words seem at first r • ading to import; for the words following, v. 21. Art thou called being a servant ? do show, that the term [ calling] v. 20. notes th • state of life antecedent to his being a Christian, which by an elegant • ntanaclasis is termed by the Apostle his calling : And this the Apostle doth not enjoin so as that he forbids any servant to be free; but the meaning i • , as Diodati in his Annot. rightly expounds it, He may abide therein with a safe conscience, and ought not rashly to change it, neither through superstition, nor by doing another any wrong: but if he can do it for any just causes, or through any lawful means, it is then lawful for him to do it. The same is repeated v. 24. and is to be understood, not (as oft preachers do understand it) of a man's trade, or employment only, and as an absolute command, that a man should not leave his i • ployment, trade, or function in which he was bred, as of a tradesman to become a preacher▪ &c. but the calling is any state of life in which the person was found, who was called to be a Christian, as to be circu • cised or uncircu • cised, a servant or freeman, married or unmarried, subject or Magistrate, and so proves that Magistracy or any other state of life is consistent with Christianity. And the Apostles determination is not of necessi • y, as if a Christian might not alter the calling or state of life he was in when he was converted, for then the servant might not become free, nor the unmarried marry; but of liberty, that Christians should not think themsel • es bound by their Christian profession, to forsake these estates, but they might continue in them. And so is the resolution v. 12, 13. to be expounded. 2. This exposition is agree • ble to the occasion of the Apostles determination, which was the Corinthian Christians doubt of the lawfulness of their living together, not of the inconvenience or convenience (for in that they could have best resolved themselves) and so the Apostles resolution is of the lawfulness of living together. 3. This is further confirmed from the reason of his determination, v. 12, 13. in the first part of v. 14. which is apparently set down to meet with the reason of their doubt: they thought that they might not live with the unbeliever, because unholy. The Apostle on the contrary determines though he were unholy in himself, yet he was to his wife as if he had been holy: and the reason is thus, The wife may live with him as her husband, who though an unbeliever, is in respe • t of marriage use as if he were sanctified: But so is the unbelieving husband; Ergo. Which reason cannot be a mere Rhetorical argument to move the affection, for it supposeth the unbeliever continuing such which was their vexation; but an argument to satisfy their consciences: Yet not of their duty that they must live together, for it is heterogeneous to that end, they were not bound to live together by reason of the sanctifiedness of the unbeliever, bu • God's command, which alone makes duty; but of the lawfulness notwithstanding his infidelity, by determining against the ground of their doubt, the unlawfulness of living together with an unsanctified infidel. As for the words following, [ Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy, ] they cannot be the resolution of another doubt: but 1. the forms of expression [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , else or otherwise, and but now, ] do plainly show, that those words do confirm what was said next before, [ the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the husband. ] 2. They show that the thing was certain even to them, that their children were not unclean, and that it was absurd in their conceits that their children should be unclean. Mr. Bl. himself saith, Vindic. Faed. pag. 323. Else implies a certainty, that upon this account of sanctification of the parent, from whom the ground of fear arose, the children are holy; a like certainty, that were it not that they were thus sanctified they were unclean. Which words do plainly set down the two propositions I conceived in the Apostles argument, which Mr. Bl. terms a monster of absurdity ; for [ It is certain that upon this account of sanctification of the parent from whom the ground of fear arose, the children are holy, ] is equipollent to this, [All the children of those parents whereof one is sanctified to the other, are holy;] and [ it is certain, that were it not that they were thus sanctified, they were unclean, ] is equipollent to this, [none of the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other, are clean or holy:] and hereby their fear is confessed to have been about their own living together, and the ground of it the imagined non sanctifiedness of the parent, and that [ else] doth imply a certainty of the children's holiness upon this account of sanctification of the parent ; which evidently shows, that the children's holiness is a consequent of the parents sanctification, and brought to prove it, and not to resolve another doubt of them. Yea, it were ridiculous to resolve a doubt by a doubt, to resolve them their children were holy, because they were holy. Rightly saith Piscator in hi • scholie on the place. The argument is from the effect, to wit a consequent absurdity, and it is after this form, If the unbelieving husband were not sanctified in the wife, their children would be unclean: But they are not unclean, for they are holy; therefore the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife. Whence it is apparent, that the words are not a resolu ••• n of a doubt of their children, for then the children's holiness • would have been the conclusion, whereas it is the assumption, and consequently that the Apostle useth formal arguments, or gives the middle-terms of them, and that he doth not resolve two doubts, but one of the lawfulness of the living together of yokefellows in disparity of Relig • on, and th • t the first argument is taken from that which obviate • the ground of their fear, and the later confirms that argument from a consequent absurdity even in their apprehension, if that were not granted. T • is to be the t • u • Analysis o • the Apostles words, the words of Chamier, Beza, Zegedin in his tables, and many more do show, which I forbear to allege as conceiving it needless. What saith Mr. Bl. to this?

Answ. Though I say 1 Cor. 7.16. is a reason to persuade to the resolution v. 13. yet I do not say it is a reason to conclude the lawfulness of living together, but to persuade them the rather to live together from the possibility or hopefulness of that event, which he urgeth in a Rhetorical way in an interrogation, not in a Logic way as he did v. 14. and yet it may be drawn up Logically thus. They are the rather to live together, it being otherwise determined lawful, whereof one, if they live together, may save the o • her: But so it may be if the brother or sister live with the infidel yokefellow, Ergo. So that by my maintaining that v. 14. [ for ] notes the medium of a formal argument, and that thereby the lawfulness of the believing and infidel yokefellows continuing together in marriage society is concluded, and that [ for, v. 16.] notes a reason of the resolution, v 16. yet it follows not the conclusion inferred v. 16. is the same with that inferred v. 14. nor the reason to be drawn as Mr. Bl. would, nor is there any need I should retract my Analysis of v. 12, 13, 14. nor answer Mr. Bls. objections against 〈◊〉 argument which I neither ascribe to the Apostle, nor is deducible out of any of my grants.

Mr. Bl. adds.

Answ. Mr. Bls. confession that my analysis and exposition would contain a truth, and that it might pass in the way of a reason, and therefore is opposite to the Apostles purpose, and his exceptions though termed by him material, yet as I shall show, having no weight, and his method and exposition neither agree with the words nor matter, is a very good evidence for me against him. As for his exceptions, they are the same which he brought before, sect. 3. and are answered by me in this section, that it was the fitter for the Apostle to us • if the reason were so easily understood that the Apostle doth not attribute all to the believer, that no reason was so fit to settle them about their special case, as that which evinced, that the marriage state was not made void by the unbelief of the parties, that the Apostles phrases are not uncouth language after my sense, but very agr • eable to such language he useth in the same Chapter; as when v. 20 by an Antana • lasis he terms the civil state of the Christians the calling wherein they are called, and to other expressions, as I show in the first part of this Review, sect. 12, 23, 24, 25, 26 and that the phrases are not suitable to the parents Ecclesiastical capacity; and the Apostles speeches and argument do imply falsehood, and are inconsistent with the terms and matter of them, if expounded and r • solved as Mr. Bl. would.

Mr. Bl. adds.

Answ. There is no mistake in my argument, nor is there any answer at all made by Mr. Bl. to it, which he either wittingly or unwittingly I judge not, certain I am he doth manifestly mistake. He tells me, The Apostle doth not conclude the lawfulness of their marriage society by the federation of their issue, whereby he intimates as if I said he did, and that therein was my mistake: But let my words be viewed Apol. sect. 18. p. 96. Postscript. sect. 7. p. 122. Review part. 1. sect. 22, 36. and it will appear that I frame not the argument so according to the Apostle • ightly onderstood, but as Mr. M. and others interpret him. I said the Apostle concludes the lawfulness of their living together by the sanctification of the husband though an unbeliever to or in the wife, and that the proposition of the Apostle is, They may live together whereof one is sanctified in the other, the assumption is, But the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, Ergo. Now the major with Mr. Ms. and Mr. Bls. exposition hath this sense, They may live together whereof one is sanctified by the faith of the other for the begetting a holy seed, for so they expound the Apostle. But according to them the vnbelieving fornicator is sanctified by the believing fornicatrix for the begetting a holy seed, which is confessed by them. By Mr. Bl. here, when he saith, The issue of Tamar, Jephtha's mother, the Harlot at Gaza were holy federally : and for the major there is no necessity of putting in [ husband and wife ] since as Mr. Bl. saith p, 334. The stress is wholly laid upon the believing party, as to the holiness of the issue, and here, I dare yield, saith he, that any man and woman may live together, notwithstanding any fear of the unholiness of their issue; where one is sanctified by the faith of another to the begetting of an holy seed. Now put all these together. The Apostle argues the believer may live with the unbeliever, because the one is sanctified in the other, and this sanctifying is according to Mr. Ms. and Mr. Bls. exposition for the begetting a holy seed, and this begetting of a holy seed according to Mr. Bl. is ascribed wholly to the faith of the one parent, it's a result or fruit of the parents faith whether married or unmarried, therefore according to Mr. Bls. exposition of the Apostle, • he lawfulness of living together is deduced from th • t which doth as well ag • ee to fornicators as the married, and consequently • he lawfulness of living together in fornication is inferred from the Apostles reason as Mr. Bl. and Mr. M. and others expound it as well as of husband and wife. It is true I would not allow another to leave [ husband and wife ] expressed in the text out of the argument framed by me according to my exposition, which is the Apostles meaning as I conceive, because I lay the whole stress upon those terms, and still contend that no persons are sanctified one in or to another but the husband and wife, and that these are so sanctified, whether one or both or neither are believers. But if I frame the reason according to Mr. Ms. Mr. Bls. and others interpretation of the Apostle, I am to be allowed to leave them out, since by them no stress is laid on the husband and wife or conjugal relation, but the faith of one party. That there was any such fear of non-federation of issue, or supposition of it in the Corinthians if they livid together cannot be evinced from the text, but the contrary is manifest by the arguing from the uncleanness of their children, as an absurdity in their apprehensions, and the holiness of them as a thing known and certain to them, as the particle [ else ] shows: and therefore that the Apostle shows that the feared and supposed non-federation doth not conclude the unlawfulness, is but a fiction, nor doth the Apostle make any such distinction between concluding the lawfulness, and the not concluding the unlawfulness, between which if there be any distinction (which yet I perceive not) yet it is certain that the words v. 12, 13. let him not put her away, let her not leave him, are a positive resolution of the lawfulness of their continuing together in marriage society, and the reason shows v. 14. that the doubt was of the believers conjunction with the unbeliever, because he was an unsanctified person, and consequently the reason of the doubt was not the fear of the non-federation of issue but the unlawfulness of marriage society with an infidel unsanctified: and consequently it is a monstrous addition which Mr. Bl. seems to put either into the conclusion thus, let her not leave him if this be all the fear the non-federation of issue, or in the reason, They may live together whereof one is sanctified by the faith of the other party, so as that there is no fear of the non federation of their issue, there being nothing in the text for this addition. Yet if it were put in it will justify my odious inference as he terms it. For let the major be thus after Mr. Bls. mind, They may live together whereof one is sanctified by the faith of the other, so as there is no fear of non-federation of their issue, the minor is thus expressly after Mr Bls. mind; But the unbelieving fornicatrix is sanctified by the faith of the believing fornicator, so as that there is no fear of non-federation of their issue, Ergo they may live together according to Mr. Bl. and consequently Mr. Bl. blasphemously by his exposition makes the Apostle justify the living together of a believer with an unbeliever in fornication; which is enough to show the falsehood of that exposition, yea and of any other which ascribes the sanctified • ess v. 14. (which is the reason of their lawful living together, v. 12, 13.) to the faith of the one party, and not to the conjugal relation. The rest of Mr. Bls. talk of my willingness to have him waste his time, his falling on my sapless tree, the readiness of his axe, his pains in applying it, is vain and frivolous talk, since the tree still stands after all his hacking and hewing at it, and his axe appears to be very blunt, or else he strikes besides the tree. As for my six years space, Mr. Bl. might have understood that the reason of my not publishing the first part of my Review till 1652. six years after the printing of Apology, was (besides my constant labors and extraordinary public and private employments) from the necessity of my removing my dwelling from the Temple to Bewdley, from Bewley to Ledbury, thence to Lemster, besides my frequent flittings by reason of the wars, travels to regain my plundered goods, difficulty to get my treatise printed, the variety of Antagonists I had to answer, which is yet the reason of my slowness in publishing this part of the Review, and comes from the venomous spirit of such as Mr. Bl. Mr. B. and other Paedobaptists, who would never comply with me in the fair motion in the Epilogue of my Examen to join together in a brotherly way of ventilating the point, but what they can bait me with calumnies tending to discredit me as covetous, arrogant, &c. with multitude of replies, and magnifying them though frivolous, vilifying my writings that men might not read them, and discern the truth, nor Book-sellers be willing to print or sell them, stirring up Parliaments and Rulers to remove those of our way, out of all places which have public salary, that our hands may be weakened; which I may truly call wicked practices, of which too many of them have been guilty, and for which God will judge them. I go on.

Mr. Bl. sect. 6. to my argument against his instrumental sanctification, that barren persons cannot be said to be instrumentally sanctified for producing an holy seed pressed by me in the 1. part of this Review p. 150, 151. sect. 19: saith thus, And I will appeal to any, yea the meanest Christian, whether persons that have children born in wedlock bonds, in such disparity may not have their fears and scruples about them, notwithstanding others in the same condition of marriage are childless, or unable to bring forth children? Whether the seed which came of those marriages Ezra. 10. were not unclean, notwithstanding many so married had no children; Many of the Priests had herein transgressed, and it was but some of them had wives by whom they had children, Ezra 10.44. All which I grant, but there is not a jot in all this which answers my objection▪ that the barren by accident or nature could not be said to be sanctified to produce an holy seed, and yet the reason of the Apostle must be conceived to reach to the proof of the lawfulness of their living together in disparity of religion as well as the fruitful, and therefore the sanctifying must be expounded in another sense then Mr. Bls. which agrees not to their case.

But he adds. And because this is the medium for proof of the Apostles determination, v. 1 • . that they might live together, pag. 152. he will have it to be from a future contingent; but when this is no medium for proof of the Apostles determination, as hath been sufficiently sh • wn it is not, this falls with the other.

Answ. That it hath been sufficiently shewn that the first part of v. 14. is not a medium for proof of the Apostles determination, is said without any color of truth. All the reason I find given is, v. 16. is not a formal reason, ergo, neither v. 14. to which answer hath been given by denying both the antecedent and the consequence, it is a formal reason though not • s Mr. Bl. frames it, and if it were not, yet the term [ for, else, but now ] being argumentative terms, show there is formal reasoning v. 14. v. 14. and the producing an holy seed being a contingent event, if the Apostle should, as Mr. Bls. exposition makes him, prove their lawful living together, because the unbeliever is sanctified instrumentally to produce an holy seed, he should argue from an uncertain event, which Chamier tom. 4. paustr. Cath. lib. 5. chap. 10. sect. 46. disapproved in another case, as I show in my Examen pag. 7 • .

To my argument against instrumental sancti •• cation, that it cannot be meant o • it, since the barren cannot be said to be God's instrument, • or that always effects, and when God sanctifies he specially designs some, whereas this is common to all husbands and wives, and the unbeliever is said to be sanctified, whereas it is the believer according to them who is the instrument of producing a holy seed.

Mr. Bl. saith,

Answ. What is said Ezek. 16.20. was said only of Israelites and those manifest idolaters as well as true believers, and the words do import no more but this, that the Israelites children were born of right to him, that is, to be at his disposal for his service, Levite. 25.42. because he brought them out of Egypt, and therefore it was unjust in them to alienate them from him by offering them to idols, which is not to be said of the Corinthian believers children. Matth. 23.9. is as impertinently alleged, for it speaks not of God's being a Father in respect of natural generation, nor forbids calling any man a father in that respect, but in that manner in which the Jews termed their teachers fathers and themselv • s their children, in respect of absolute subjection of their consciences to their dictates, as Diodati rightly in his annot. This teacheth the believers not to yield that absolute reverence, nor power over their consciences to any living man which belongeth to God only, as ignorant people did use to do to the Pharisees. If a • l natural parents be instruments of God to people the world, yet Mr. Bl. will not say they are instruments to produce a holy seed to peo • le the Church for the • all children and not believers only should b • e feed • ally holy: so t • at all this is merely impertinent. That all believing parents are instruments of God for an holy seed, is said without proof, there being no such promise to them and their seed produced, nor if there were did it follow they were all federally holy in Mr. • ls. sense: But were this g • anted, yet it is no • hing to prove the unbelieving parent to be God's instrument to produce a holy seed, who is said, and not the believer to be sanctified, and that signanter considered as an unbeliever, much less every unbelieving wife though b • rren who hath a believing husband, much less to be specially designed for that end, and therefore the sanctification instrumental which Master Bl. conceives meant 1 Corinth. 7.14. is quite besides the Apostles meaning.

Mr. Bl. goes on thus of me,

Answ. It is true that it seems to me the Apostles proposition hath this in it, that their children born unclean cannot be clean at any time, and I grant that the Apostle speaks of uncle • nness or holiness as a product of their birth or generation, without consideration of anything which after by providence (through the omnipotence and free grace of God) might happen and therefore of illegitimation and legitimation by birth, and not of federal holiness which is no product of birth, and yet that proposition, That which is born of the flesh is flesh▪ Joh▪ 3.6. will hold, though after the person born after the flesh be made spirit or spiritual, there being no contradiction in this, that the person born after the flesh should become spiritual in his qualities, but it is impossible that that which hath been illegitimate in birth, should not be illegitimate in birth, i • be • ng a thing past, and therefore cannot by God be made not a thing past, or not done, for then it should be true that a thing hath been at birth, and hath not been, been and not been, which is a contradiction.

Mr. Bl saith, I farther add, And yet it may be certain that the child of two unbelievers may be federally holy at birth, whether it be understood of election, inherent holiness or outward holiness, if God please to work and declare it, I would Mr T would speak, whether there were ever any such a thing a • the child of two unbelievers, at the instant of their birth, declared of God to be of those whom he took • o be federally holy, and of the number of his Covenant people, let that proposition stand till God by such a miracle confute or contradict it.

Answ. 1. Though I could not speak there was such a thing, yet it is enough for me to show that and how it might be. 2. I doubt not but many a captive woman gotten w • th child by an infidel, and she herself an infidel, hath been delivered in Abraham's house, and those children were in Mr. • ls. sense federally holy at the instant of their birth, for for they were, if males, capable of Circumcision on the eighth day, according to the law, Gen. 17.12, 13. and this is to be federally holy according to Mr. Bls. doctrine, who makes all to be in the Covenant at their birth who are capable by reason of their birth of the sign of the Covenant.

He yet saith. Mr. T. adds, But the issue of them that are not lawfully conjoined as husband and wife cannot be made legitimate by God, because it is contrary to the definition of legitimation, which is a state consequent upon birth by the lawful copulation of lawful husband and wife. This must conclude for his interpretation and against ours, because God by his omnipotence can make our unclean ones holy, and to make his unclean ones holy, is without the verge of omnipotence: If we should put case in Mr. T. his manner, that God should appear in approbation of a man's enjoying a woman out of marriage society, then there were a legitimation of the issue, as he did the marriage of the brothers wife, Deut. 25.5. otherwise against the moral law, Levite. 18.16.

Answ. It concludes for me if it be true (which Mr. Bl. disproves not) that the holiness is meant 1 Cor. 7.14. which cannot be without the sanctification there spoken of, and Mr. Bls. holiness may be without his sanctification, and the proposition is true of no other holiness but that which I assign. If the definition of legitimation be a state of birth from parents generating in lawful marriage, though God should approve of a man's enjoying a woman out of marriage society, there were no legitimation of the issue, and yet the marriage Deut. 25.5. were lawful, and the issue legitimate. I am sorry Mr. Bl. hath tired himself and me with so many impertinent words, which have shaken nothing of my Fabric: I am glad I am so near an end with him, and pass from him to Mr. Sydenham, who in the 7th. ch. of his Exercit. thus speaks,

The scope of the Apostle here is to hold forth some special Gospel privilege annexed to the state: and he frames his argument by no ordinary medium, of the lawfulness of the marriage according to a natural, moral, or positive rule; but a majori, from an eminent advantage they had together in the Gospel. For 1. the unbelieving husband is sanctified in, or to, or by the wife. 2. The children in such a state are holy, as if they had been both believers.

Answ. The scope of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7.12, 13, 14. can be no other then the resolving of the doubt in the Corinthians, which Mr. Sydenham truly saith he answered, v. 12, 13. and then gives, v. 14. an argument to prove it. Now therein is no speeial Gospel privilege held forth; For 1. if any privilege be there assigned it is to the unbeliever remaining an unbeliever, for he is said to be sanctified▪ But sure an unbeliever▪ remaining an unbeliever hath no special Gospel privilege; Ergo. 2. The unbeliever is put there, not to show any meliority of condition to himself, but to take away the doubt which was concerning him, as defiling their society: So that the meaning is not, the unbeliever is a gainer by his wife, but the unbeliever brings no damage to her in respect of the thing in doubt concerning the lawfulness of continuing together in marriage use by his unbelief; there is no advantage mentioned to either of them, but a determination that there is not that disadvantage from the one as necessitated to leave the other. Nor is there anything that carries the show of an argument a majori : The Apostle doth no • say, they have an eminent advantage together in the Gospel, therefore much more may live together. Yea, such an argument had been far from being strong, there being no arguments usually weaker then such, if any disparity may be shown they are quickly enervated. And in this thing the proposition would have been false upon which such an argument must turn as its hinge, to wit, They that have an eminent advantage together in the Gospel may much the rather live together. For 1. it would have been from that which is merely extrinsical and accidental to marriage society, Gospel privileges neither establishing nor dissolving marriage society, which is lawful as well among them who have no Gospel privilege as those that have. 2. The proposition were false, for then if the unbelieving whore have Gospel advantage (as I conceive Mr. S. will not deny anymore then other Paedobaptists do) by the believing fornicator, they may live together; so that if the fornicator being a believer beget a holy child on an unbelieving whore, or what ever other Gospel privilege it is the unbeliever hath by the believer, imagine to cast out Devils in Christ's name, though she be not joined to the Church, to prophesy in Christ's name, or to do wonders, by this Gospel privilege they are allowed to live together in fornication: Which are monstrous absurdities following Mr. Ss. conceit.

But he tells us. That the Apostle holds out a Gospel privilege, not common to mere unbelievers in their marriage state is clear ; 1. because the Apostle puts the advantage on the believers side, and there fixeth it; the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, as believing; and so contrarily, the unbelieving wife in the husband: So • eza affirms, that in two special Copies he finds the words thus read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Neither can it hold sense with the former words, but as thus read: And if it had not been the Apostles proper meaning to show the special privilege the believing party hath notwithstanding the unbeliever, he would have • nely said, the husband is sanctified to the wife, and the wife to the husband; that would have been the plainest and least ambiguous expression of such a sentence: And the Apost • e would never have made an argument of four terms▪ when three could only satisfy; for all know, that an argument with four terms is most deceitful and false.

Answ. 1 The reason hath no strength in it, the Apostle puts the advantage on the believers side, Ergo the Apostle holds out a Gospel privilege not common to mere unbelievers in their marriage state. For there may be expr • ssed an advantage on the believers side, as suppose her liberty, her quiet of conscience, &c. and yet the thing from whence it is inferred no Gospel privilege, but a thing common to unbelievers, as in case, a b • liever doubt of the lawful eating of an infidels meat offered to an Idol, and i • be resolved as the Apostle doth 1 Cor. 10.25, 26, 27. from the right God hath to all creatures, here is the advantage on the believers side, the quiet of his conscience, and yet no Gospel privilege held forth but such as is common to unbelievers, the lawful eating of what was sold in the shamble • . 2. Mr. Ss. antecedent, that the Apostle puts the advantage on the believers side, and there fixeth it, is contrary to what he said before, that the argument is from an eminent advanta • e they had together in the Gospel ; for if they had the eminent advantage together, it was no mor • put or fixed on the believers side then on the unbelievers. 3. It is so far from being true that the Apostle puts the advantage on the believers side, that it is true rather on the contrary, if any advantage be expressed it is put on the unbelievers side, for the unbeliever is said to be sanctified not the believer. 4. It is not true that the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband as believing, and that which Mr. Sydenham alledgeth to prove it is of no force. For the reading in two Copies is not sufficient to countervail the multitude of Copies which have it otherwise, it being more likely that the addition of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was made by some Scribe then by the Apostle at first, who v. 13. used 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without it. And for the sense it holds • s good sense without it as it did v. 13. The unbeliever is mentioned not to show a special privilege to the believer, but because the occasion of the doubt was from his infidelity, and therefore that could not be omitted without omitting that in which was the force of the objection, which could not be distinctly satisfied without mentioning it; and by putting it in there are not four terms, as unskilfully Mr. S. intimates, but by omitting it there come to be four terms, the conclusion to be proved being this, The wife may live with her unbelieving husband, and the premises these, That wife may live with her husband who is sanctified to her, But so is the unbelieving husband to his wife, Ergo. But of this the Reader may see more at large the first part of this Review, sect. 14.

2. Saith Mr. S. The Apostle doth use higher terms and phrases in this argument, then is ever used in Scripture to express a mere lawful or common privilege; as to be sanctified in the wife, and the children to be holy; expressions of another dialect then to hold forth a civil or natural, or legal conjunction: being singled out in Scripture, to hold forth the best state of persons in relation to God and his use.

Answ. 1. Were all this true, as it is not, yet Mr. Ss. conclusion is not proved thereby. For though the terms should never express a mere lawful or common privilege, a civil or natural, or legal conjunction, and that they are singled • ut in Scripture to hold forth the b • st sta •• of persons in relation to God and his use; yet it follows not the Apostle holds out by them a Gospel privilege, since they may hold out a Jewish privilege, which is not a Gospel, but r • there a legal privilege, as the term [ holy seed ] doth Ezra 9.2. 2. H • w fi • lie these terms suit to the exposition I give without holding forth a Gospel privilege, may be seen in my Examen part. 3. sect. 8. in the first part of t • is Review, sect. 12, 13, 24, 25, 26.

Mr. S. adds, 1. That the term unclean notes the same it doth Acts 10.14. where Cornelius being a Gentile without the pale of the Jewish Church, is called common and unclean, as all the Gentiles were before they came under the promise, he was no bastard, he was without the Church just in the same phrase with the Apostle here▪ when he saith that children are not unclean, he must needs mean they are not of common use or to be excluded from outward privileges of the Church. 2. That [unclean] is used for legal pollutions and uncleannesses, which made men to be separated from the Congregation, and excommunic • ted from the privilege of ordinances until they were washed and sanctified: Thus in Levite 5.2, 3, 4. ch. 7.19. & 14.7, 8. Isa. • 2.1. Hag 2.13. with many other places, where unclean is opposed to a present suitable capacity for Church privileges.

Answ. 1 In all those places, Levite. 5.2, 3, 4 & 7.19. & 14.7, 8. Hag. 2.13. Isa. 52.1. the uncleanness is not opposed to a Gosp • l privilege, but a legal or Jewish, nor were the unclean out of the Covenant or the people of God even when they were unclean, and therefore if • Cor. 7.14. he should tell them their children were not unclean in that sense, he should not tell them of a Gospel privilege, but a Judaical Legal Mosaical privilege, which had been both false for they were uncircumcised Gentiles, and therefore were unclean in that sense, and vain to tell them of that as a privilege, which was no privilege, but which he counts nothing of 1 Cor. 7.19. 2. Cornelius is not termed unclean as wanting a Gospel privilege, he was in Covenant with God and accepted with him▪ and in the visible Church, since he with his whole house feared God, prayed continually, Acts • 0.2. But he is termed unclean as one not me • by reason of his uncircumcision for a Jew to go into, or eat with Acts 11 3. and therefore if the Apostle should 1 Cor. 7.14. mean it just in the same sense with Acts 10.14. he should tell them their children w • re not unclean, that is, were persons with whom they might ea • and converse which understood of infants were ridiculous • f meant in the • ense God termed Cornelius clean, then it is as unfitly appl • ed to infants, who are not clean as Cornelius, in that fearing God and working righteousness he wa • accepted with him, Acts. 10.34, 35. which is more th • n an ou • wa • d Church privilege and a 〈◊〉 thing then Mr. S. and his • ellow Paedobaptist conceive the Apostle meant 1 Cor. 7.14.

That which Mr. S. brings of the use of the word holy that it ex • resseth the Heb • ew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and that it ever signif • es that which is appropriated to a Divine use, and that it is the 〈◊〉 notion of holiness in the Old and New Testament, and never taken otherwise: and that for proof of it he hath compared a • ove • 00. places in the Old • esta • ent • ccording to the Septuagint, and all the N. T. places where the word is gener • lly taken in Scripture to express a separation of things to God how false or insufficient it is to his purpose, is so a • ply shown in the first part of 〈◊〉 Review sect. 12, • 3, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. that I conceive •• 〈…〉 this time to add anymore. In which place • it may be seen what I grant concerning the word generally taken, and 〈…〉 more places th • n 1 Tim. 4.5. 1 Thes. 4.3, 4, 7. for another use then Mr. S. asserts▪ to be the proper notion of holy in the Old and N. T. that it notes that which is appropriated to Divine use, and is never taken otherwise, to show it to be taken otherwise, as 1 Sam. 21.5. Isai. 13.3. Ezra 9.2, &c. But let's view what he saith to my allegation of 1 Tim. 4.5. 1 Thes. 4.3, 4, 7. for a different use from his sense.

From 1 Tim. 4.5. saith Mr. T. is meant only the lawful use of the creature in opposition to what is to be refused. It is a wonder, but that God leaves men to blindness when they leave truth, how any man of common understanding, finding the word holy and sanctified always used in a religious sense, should fly to this place to make an exception

Answ. I have so far as I thought needful looked into my former writings, and do not find any place where I say as Mr. S. here saith I do, what I yielded at the Dispute at Bewdley, and for what reason is shown in the first part of this Review sect. 27. p. 203. and if Mr. S. took from Mr. B. this which he here so unbrotherly chargeth me with, he might have there found an answer, which should have been taken notice o • , if my answer printed 1652. came to his knowledge afore the publishing his Exercit. 1653. But I never could find in my Antagonists Mr. B. M. • l &c. any such candor as to construe anything that came from me, since this controversy arose between us, in the better part, but I think I may say almost in everything I have done or said that th • y mention, they pervert my words and deeds, and aggravate them in the worser sense, when they might have had a good or at least excusable construction. As for this thing which Mr. S. here makes an instance of God's leaving me to blindness when I left truth, the true state of it is thus. I had said in my Examen part. 3. sect. 8. p. 73, 74▪ That this may be the sense, I gather from the like use of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used 1 Tim. 4.5. where the creature of God is said to be sanctified, that is lawfully used in opposition to that which is to be refused ; so here the unbelieving husband is sanctified, that is lawfully enjoyed as a husband by, or to, or in respect of his wife, whether believer, or unbeliever, in this case there is no difference, and alleged some words of Mr. M. in his Sermon p. 24. to the same purpose. Which when Mr. M. in his Defense p. 155. framed an argument from against me, I shown him his mistake in the first part of this Review sect. 13. p. 115. denying the sanctification 1 Cor. 7.14. to be such a sanctification as that place 1 Tim. 4.5. means, but only make them like thus far, that as 1 Tim. 4.5. it signifies lawfully enjoyed, so here, though in a different manner, and from a different reason or cause. And for the concession in the Dispute at Bewdley ▪ my yielding Mr. Bs. conclusion doth prove that Mr. S. doth here falsely charge me to say that 1 Tim. 4.5. is meant only the lawful use of the creature. Nor is it true that I fled to this place to make an exception against the taking the word holy in a religious sense. For neither did I make use of 1 Tim. 4.5. about the sense of the word holy, but the word sanctified, nor do I conceive the word sanctified used in any other then a religious sense, yea I have often said that [ sanctified ] 1 Cor. 7.14. is taken for religiously sanctified, as 1 Cor. 6.11. as baptized, 1 Cor. 10.2. mother, Mark 3.35. dead, Heb. 11.12. made himself Eunuch, Matth. 19.12. son, Exod. 2.9. and many more places, the words are taken in their proper notion, only they are applied in a limited sense, or in some respect by an impropriety or abuse of speech to those to whom absolutely and in propriety or exactness of speech they do not belong, and therefore this which Mr. S. here suggests of me is but his calumny which he was willing to take up that through my sides he might wound the truth.

But Mr. S. adds.

Answ. What word it is which is meant 1 Tim. 4:5. whether the word of God's power creating them, which the words v. 3. which God hath created for receiving seem to lead to, or the word of God's declaration, whether by our Lord Christ, Mark 7.15. or to Peter, Acts 10.15. or promise of blessing, it is manifest that the Apostle in that place doth not make any distinction between a sanctified and a lawful use, nor doth he say they are created for any to be received but with thanksgiving of them who believe and know the truth ; nor doth he make the creature good or not to be refused but being received with thanksgiving, nor sanctified but by the word of God and prayer: Nor do I find but that interpreters take lawful use and sanctified for the same. So Beza in his Annot. It is made holy, to wit, in respect of us, so as that we may use it with a good conscience▪ as duly received from the hand of God. For other men do enjoy it no otherwise then as thieves and sacriledgious persons goods usurped. And he lawfully useth goods, who acknowledgeth and invocat • th the giver of them after his word. Piscat. anal. He minds which is the lawful and allowed use of meats, to wit, when we receive them with thanksgiving and prayer proceeding from faith▪ Diodati, Dicson, and others speak to like purpose. Nor is there anything here that intimates any gradation from a lawful use v. 3, 4. to a sanctified use v. 5. For v. 3, 4. to the receiving of them thanksgiving is required of them that believe and know the truth, and the creature is not said to be good and nothing to be refused but being taken with thanksgiving, which is the same with sanctified by the word and prayer, v. 5. and v. 5. is a reason of that which is said v. 4. and therefore no gradation or rising higher, as Mr. S. imagines▪ Which I do not produce to show that I conceive no distinction between a lawful use and a holy use of things (which I do acknowledge in the first part of this Review p. 114. and elsewhere) but only to show how insufficiently Mr. S. opposeth me, whom he so severely censures, even in that which I spake rightly enough, and his own blindness made him to judge hardly of me, as left by God to blindness.

Mr. S. saith further,

Answ. It's the property of some persons, like Thersites in Homer, to speak much and to perform little, and so it befalls Mr. S. here. He saith, 1. I allege 1 Thes. 4.3, 4, 7. as the main place for holiness to be used for what is barely civil or lawful, whereas I allege it not as Mr. S. saith, but to show that it is not true which Mr. M. said, that holiness is always taken in a sacred sense, for a separation of persons and things from common to sacred uses. 2. Though I say, Mr. Ms. answer to be but a shift, yet I shall see it demonstrative, if I observe the phrases in the Text, and the nature of sanctification. But if all should be yielded, that 1 Thes. 4.3, 4▪7. holiness were but a part of the new creation, that chastity in heathens is never called sanctification; yet this were but a shift to avoid the proof against Mr. Ms. assertion, that holiness is always taken in a sacred sense for a separation of persons and things from common to sacred uses ; for the chastity of regenerate persons, confessed to be term • d holiness and a part of sanctification, is not taken in a sacred sense for separation from common to sacred uses: But of this more may be seen in the first part of this Review, sect. 12. pag. 108. And as for Mr. Ss. reasoning, it is far from demonstrative, it being indeed against himself. For if v. 1, 2. be an exhortation to please God in general, and v 3. express one part and expression of holiness to abstain from sin, and no other sin be named but fornication, he doth particularly term abstaining from fornication holiness; which is more fu • lie confirmed v. 4. where chastity is termed possessing our vessel in holiness and honor, opposite to possessing our vessel (that is our body) in the lust of concupiscence as the Gentiles, among whom fornication was frequent, and this is v. 7. termed uncleanness, and the opposite to it holiness, that is chastity. And for the other thing, that chastity in itself as in the heathens and natural men is not properly a part of sanctification, and that sanctity is ascribed to the highest things, it is but frivolous. For though it be no part of true sanctification, yet it may be termed holiness, as there be many called God's who are not the true and everliving God, to whom though the term [ God ] do properly belong only, yet Magistrates and Angels are sometimes termed God's without any debasement, and though I would not in my pulpit without distinction term Magistrates, Angels God's, or call an unlawful assembly of Idolaters a Church, yet who knows not the term Elohim, and Ecclesia or Church to be applied to them? So that however Mr. S. prattle of his demonstration and of the weakness of my cause and extraordinary shifts, yet this is but frivolous talk without any performance.

He adds.

Answ. It is not true, that the same term is used by the Apostle in all his salutations and inscriptions of his Epistles to all the Churches, it is not used in the Epistles to the Galatians and Thessalonians ; and in the titles where it is appropriated to persons, signifies a Saint called, sanctified in Christ Jesus, faithful, which rather note an invisible then a visible Saint: and if they do note a visible Saint, they note one by calling, sanctified in Christ, believer in profession, none of which are to be ascribed to infants of believers as such, nor can be meant 1 Cor. 7.14. where children are termed holy by birth, not by calling; and are not said to be holy in Christ, but in respect of their parents. Whence apparent reason is given, why the term [ holy ] in the titles of the Epistles cannot be translated legitimate in opposition to bastardy, but Saints, or men who are set apart for God by the love of God, and therefore termed beloved of God, Rom. 1.7. and the sanctification of the spirit by the Gospel: and on the other side, why [ holy ] 1 Cor. 7.14. cannot be translated Saints, or visible Saints, not for that frivolous conceit of Mr. S. as if they might not be termed Saints 1 Cor. 7.14. for want of age; whose gross application of a Logic rule, shows he was but a smatterer therein: For if visible saintship had been given to elder persons in respect of grown age, and denied to infants, yet there had been no variation of kind from more or less growth, saintship being not the species or kind of such persons, but humanity. And what he saith, that the word is of the same import in every place of the New Testament, it is so false a speech, and so ill beco • ming him that said, p. 53. he had compared all the places in the New Testament where the word is used, that no other excuse but of heedlessness or forgetfulness can acquit him from deceit. For besides the places alleged, Luke 2.23. 2 Pet. 1.18. &c. and his own distinctions of federal and inherent holiness, together with the holiness intentional meant Rom. 11.16. show it to be false.

What he adds, By the same reason we account grown men holy, we may account infants of believers; for these that make a profession, may have no inward and inherent holiness; and a bare profession is not holiness; we only account them holy by a judicious charity; and we are often deceived, and have cause to repent of our judgments: • nfants may be inwardly sanctified, and God hath taken them into Covenant with their parents, and would have us look on them as separated to himself, which is ground enough to build our charity on, as to esteem them holy, as grown persons. There is no difference but this in it; That concerning the holiness of persons at age, we trust our own judgments; and in judging of infants we trust God's word, who hath comprehended them under the promise with their parents; there hath been as many deceits in the event in our judgment of those of riper years, as in that which is acted through a mixture of faith on infants. And God's promise, though never so indefinite, is a surer ground for hope then my probable judgment; which is the most I can have of the generality of professors of ripe years, is much of it false, as that God hath taken infants into Covenant with their parents, they are comprehended under the promise with their parents, God would have us to look on them as separated to himself, by the same reason we account grown men holy we may account infants of believers, we only account them holy by a judicious charity, and all impertinent, forasmuch as professors of faith are accounted visible Saints not by a judgment of charity, but of certainty from their profession which is visible, and so are qualified for Baptism, not from hopes of real holiness, or faith of Covenant holiness, which do not entitle to Baptism without certainty of profession.

What he adds. That holy is a pure religious word, that in my sense it would be no considerable medium for argumentation, that else were, &c. hath force from the specialness of the privilege to their issue to be in a peculiar state of separation to God, visible Church members with the believing parent, contains nothing but unproved dictates often before refuted. What he adds of cold comfort in my sense, and of strength and sweetness in his, is alike frovolous. For the speech of the Apostle was to be no otherwise consolatory, then so far as it might satisfy their consciences of the lawfulness of their continuing together, which is clearly done by my Analysis and exposition of the Apostle, and not done at all by his way. For what is a privilege of the children which perhaps they shall never have; or if they have, it is nothing to take away the defilement by the infidel for satisfaction of their consciences concerning living together in disparity of Religion? I have done with this scribler: I shall a little examine what some others have said; with as much brevity as the maintenance of the truth will permit, and hasten to an end.

SECT. LXXVII. Mr. William Carters attempt of proving the Christian Sabbath from Heb. 4.7, 9, 10. is shown to be succesless, and so useless for proof of Infant Baptism.

THere is a Treatise entitled, The Covenant of God with Abraham opened by Mr. William Carter, which pretends to clear the duty of Infant Baptism, and in his Epistle to the Reader saith, the root of this matter is the Covenant of God with Abraham; which because of the eminency of the Author, and the publishing it in observance (as is said) of the commands of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Sheriffs of the City of London, rather then for any show of strength in the discourse, I shall examine, that if this Review come to their hands, they also may discern their mistakes. Which I think necessary to be done, because he also (as other Paedobaptists use to do) is not afraid upon his own conjectures (for they are no better) to charge us who baptize not infants as breaking Abraham's Covenant, as small friends to Christ's Kingdom, waving and neglecting the right way of increasing that Kingdom, and of exalting his Throne and power in the world, taking-up ways unnatural, unsafe and false. Let • s then see what he writes.

Afore he meddles with the point of infant Baptism (which he saith is the thing he especially intended in his discourse ) he endeavors to deduce the Christian Sabbath, as it is termed, from Heb. 4. I omit that he saith, p. 3. that Heb. 2.15, 16. the birthright vendible is their privileges in the Church, and worship of the Gospel, and that p. 6. he expound • the holding • ast • he confidence or liberty and the rejoicing of the hope, Heb. 3.6. by holding fast the ordinances and privileges of the Gospel : Which if he mean (as he seems to do) of the o • twar • privileges and worship, it appears that he mistakes, since the birthright not to be sold, and the confidence and rejoicing of hope are greater matters, which no hypocrite may attain to, and are plainly intimated Heb. 12.14, 15. to be the seeing of God, the attaining his grace, and the estate Evangelical mentioned v. 22, 23, 24. which they might sell, though they never had it, by their Apostasy from their profession of Christ, through whom they were in expectation of it, at least in appearance. And in like manner the boldness, liberty, confidence, or r • joycing of their hope, must needs be of something yet attainable, and not to be attained without holding it to the end, v. 6, 14. and which no unbelievers could attain to; which are not true of bare outward Chu • ch privileges and Gospel worship, but of that salvation mentioned Heb. •• . the grace brought in the revelation of Jesus Christ. 1 Pet. 1.13. whereby we are God's house, Heb▪ 3.6. are partakers of Christ, v. 14. But I shall insist somewhat on that he saith p. 8. that by today if ye will hear his voice, in that Psal. 95.7. is meant the Christian Sabbath day, by whi • h he means the day which in the New Testament is termed the Lord's day or first day in the week, which I conceive not right for these reasons. 1. The day, Heb. 4.7. i • a limited or definite day, and that must needs imply this meaning; [This is the day in which if ye hear his voice and harden not your hearts, ye may enter into • ods rest; if ye do not this day, ye will come short.] Which if true, then (as Mr. C. expounds it) though they should hear the voice of Christ, and not harden their hearts on the week day, yet they should not enter into the rest promised, which I think will be counted absurd, and evacuate the hopes by all the week day Lectures. 2. From H • b. 3.13. I thus argue. To day, Heb 3.7. is the same with the space of time which i • called • o day, v. 13. This is so evident in the Text, that everyone that re • ds the • ext will easily perceive it, since it is plain, that the calling it today is meant • f the calling it i • that place v. • . and the words▪ lest any of you be hardened ▪ show it. But [ today, Heb. 2.13▪] is meant of any day▪ o • every day wherein Christians might exhort one another, therefore not restrained to the Lord's day: but either extended to t • e whole space of time they live on earth, or to any opportunity in any day whatsoever, whether week day or Lord's d • y, wherein they might exhort 3. B • comparing these plac • s with 〈◊〉 Cor 6 2 where it is said, [ Now is the accepted time, now 〈◊〉 the d • y of salvation, ] which seem plainly to intimate the same day with that which is meant Heb. 3.7, 13. and that day being manifestly meant of the time wherein the Ambassadors for Christ do beseech men to be reconciled to GOD, 2 Cor. 5.20. it is very probable or rather certain, that today, Heb. 3.7, 13. & 4.7. is not meant particularly the Lord's day or first day of the week, but any day of a man's life wherein the Gospel of Christ is preached, and reconciliation to God offered him; and received by him. Or as Cameron. quaest. in Epist. ad Heb. 3.7. That time which by the Prophets and Apostle is called the last days and fullness of time, which is the time of the Messiah exhibited, not precisely the Lord's day or first day of the week. Let us view Mr. Carters reasons for his conceit.

First, it is evident that it is meant of a day of rest c • ap. 4, 7, 8. for if Joshua had given them rest, namely that rest of which David speaketh, then he would not afterwards have spoken of another day, therefore of a day of rest i • must be meant, else the Apostles argument had not been concluding nor pertinent, because many other days might have afterwards been spoken off, although Joshua had given them all the rest that was ever to be expected.

Answ. It is true that he Author of that Epistle doth rightly gather from the word [ today ] that there was another day of rest yet remaining for the people of God besides the seventh day rest, a • d the rest in the Land o • Canaan which they p • ssessed by Joshua ▪s conduct, yet doth not imply that the day in which the word was spoken was the day of rest. But thus he gathers it, These words were spoken by David many hundreds of years both after God sware in the Wilderne • s they should not enter into his rest who believed not, and after Joshua had settled the posterity of the unbelievers in the land of Canaan, and therefore the rest in the land of Canaan is not that which is meant in David's speech, but there is implied a future day of rest to be attained by believing in JESUS the Messiah. For David if it had been meant of the rest in Canaan would not have spoken to them not to harden their hearts f • r fear of being excluded from God's rest.

Answ. To omit the unfitness of the expression, since the comfort of God's Ordinances and Sabbath is a personal interest enjoyed by faith only, it is not true, that what is said of the rest cannot be meant of what the people of God enjoy in their personal interest by faith only, because of God's oath. For that oath doth not imply that believers shall not enter into the rest, yea the Apostles inference is to the contrary v 1, 6. since some were not to enter in, others were to enter in, and since GOD sware some should not, he promised some should, and chap. 3.18. since some entered not through unbelief, others in whom the word is mixed with faith, ch. 4.2. do enter in. And this is a good argument that the rest mentioned is not the Christian Sabbath day which is the first day of the week, since they that believe not come short of it; it's a consequent upon the holding the boldness, confidence and rejoicing of our hope firm to the end ; it was then in promise to the Hebrews, and remained to the people of God, who were to be warned that they came not short of it; where as the Sabbath days rest was then in p • ssession, not to be expected afterwards, but then in use when this Epistle was written, and yet such as hypocrites, unbelievers, and Apostates did in some sort enjoy as well as sincere persevering believers.

Answ. It is not denied that Psal 95. is a prophesy, nor that it speaks of a rest to be a long time after David's time, even in the times of the New Testament, nor that [ although ] doth imply a distinct rest from the seventh day Sabbath rest, and an opposition of that kind which some Logicians call disparato, though others will not have it called opposition but distinction; yet the words Heb. 4 3. are not as Mr. C. cites them, [ although the seventh days rest was entered into from the beginning of the world ] but [ although the works were 〈◊〉 or finished from the foundation of the world. ] Nevertheless, this doth not prove that either the rest is not a believers personal rest by faith, or that it is of the same kind with a mere weekly Sabbath days rest, but rather the contrary. It is distinguished from the seventh day Sabbaths rest, and so it is also from the rest which the Israelites had by Joshua 's conduct in the land of Canaan, which the Author mentions v. 8. as well as the seventh days rest v. 4. and therefore the seventh days rest opposed to the rest v. 7, 9. doth no more prove the day of rest to be a day of the same kind, as the seventh day Sabbath was then the day of rest in Canaan by Joshuas leading. Yea, since the seventh days rest mentioned Heb. 4.4. is only God's rest, it is apparent the day of rest is of different kind from an ordinary Sabbath days rest. Neither doth the term [ although ] impart any such identity of kind, but that God spake of another rest of his, athough he had rested long ago when his works were finished from the foundation of the world. Yea the words Heb 4.10. He that is entered into his rest hath also ceased from his works as God did from his, (which expresseth the rest for the people of God yet remaining v. 9.) do show that the day of rest is not till a man's works be ceased, which I know not how to understand of any other works then his works of labor and sufferings, which are not till the end of this life; and therefore the sabbatism or day of rest is not here the keeping of a weekly Sabbath, but a day of rest, as is meant Revel. 14.13. which though it be not every days enjoyment, yet it may be a Christians personal test by faith only, that is that rest which by faith only is entered into or obtained. And though it were entered into by all believers from the foundation of the world, yet it was not so conspicuously as when Christ entered into the heavens; However those Hebrews and the believers to come after had not then entered into it. That the Sabbath days rest was in use before, proves against Mr. C. that the rest was not of the same kind, unless in manner of a type or shadow, as one thing like that's resembled by another may in a Catachrestique manner be termed of the same kind with that which resembles.

Mr. C. adds.

Answ. Sabbatism in the notation of the word imports no more then rest: what it imports in the use of it I cannot discern but from this place, since I know not where it is used in the New Testament but here, nor in any other author afore this. Here it appears not to import anymore then rest, since it expresseth but what is expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , v. 8, 10, 11. though I conceive that the matter shows it to be meant of a holy rest, it being th • rest of God's people. But that the word comprehends rest and worship put together, I do not conceive. For the word a • ludes to the Sabbath Gen. 2.2, 3. quo • ed Heb. 4.3, 4. Now God's • est imported not worship, though his appoint • ng us to rest on the Sabbath, and to sanctify it, doth import our worship of him. Nor do I think the coherence of the words Psal. 95.6, 7, 8. doth imply that S • bbatism H • b. 4.9. comprehends the S • bbath and worship put together, or tha • Psal. 95.7. To day if ye will hear his voice, is meant of a day of rest to be celebrated in the house of God in his woe • shi • , since in those words there is not the word Sabbatism, and the Exhortation, To day if ye will hear his voice, doth not app • ar to have been on the weekly Sabbath da • , the Ps • lm being not (as the 94th. Psalm) entitled▪ A Psalm for the Sabbath, and it is more likely that [ today if you will hear his voice ] intimates the day at the end of every seven years in the solemnity of the year of release in the feast of tabernacles, when all Israel was come to appear before the Lord in the place which he should choose, and the Law was to be read before all Israel in their hearing, Deut. 31.10, 11. at which time of the year every year they had gathered in their Corn and Wine, Deut. 16.13. and then they had no harvest, and so it was the fittest time to resem • le the rest remaining • o God's people; yet so far was it from being the weekly Sabbath day, that as Ainsworth notes on Deut. 31.11. The Jewish Doctors say that if the day of the assembling of the people happened to be the Sabbath day, the reading of the Law was put off till after. Yet were it the Sabbath day, it doth not follow, that it is meant of a day of rest to be celebrated in the house of God in his worship, for the weekly Sabbath was not celebrated in the house of God, that is, the Tabernacle or Temple; but in their dwellings, Exod. 16.29. And therefore if the term [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wherefore, Heb. 3.7.] did refer to whose house ye are, v. 6. (though I conceive the inference is made from the words, if we hold fast the confidence and re • oycing of the hope firm unto the end ) yet it proves it not to be a weekly Sabbath of rest to be celebrated in the house of God in his worship. For the weekly Sabbath was not celebrated in God's house, and if it were, each Christian or the Church were not fit to answer God's house in which it was celebrated, since they are not the place where, that made the worship of God accepted as the Tab • rnacle or Temple that is proper to CHRIST and his body, John 2.19. Heb. 8 2. but the persons by whom it is celebrated and who worship God. Lastly, were all this granted, that Heb. 4.7. were meant a day of rest to be celebrated in the house of God in his worship, yet this might be mean • of the rest in heaven often called God's house, where the Elders cast down their crowns before God and worship and praise him, and not the weekly Sabbath.

Answ. 1. The coherence be • ween Heb. 4.9▪ and v. 10. doth rather intimate that [ he that is entered into his rest, v. 10.] is a term common to all the people of God mentioned v. 9. and the exhortation v. 11. doth also import, t • at the person that enters into his rest v. 10 is meant every believer. Nor is any one of Mr. Cs. reasons convincing of the contrary. For 1. let the translation be mended as Mr. C. would have it, yet it may be true of every believer, that he also hath ceased from his wor • s▪ as God did from his own works. 2. Seeing then, v. 14. may point out to what is said, Heb 3. • , 2, 3. 3. If Heb 4 10. cannot be meant of ceasing from sin, yet it may be from lab • rious works and sufferings as Revel. 14.13. and such rest may be 〈◊〉 with refreshing, and looking upon them as good. 4. That v. 10. should be taken for a proof of v 9. is not necessary; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being not always causal or rati • nal, yet if it were, it might be thus, The rest of the people of God in heaven sha • l be a Sabbatism like God's; for such of them as shall enter into their rest, shall cease, or have ceased from their sufferings and painful works, as God did from his in the beginning. 5. What he saith, that Christ were not Lord of the Sabbath, as he saith Mark 2.28. Luke 6.5. unless he had entered into his rest, or as p. 75. he could not be Lord of the Sabbath, unless he also had a rest which he entered into as God did into his, i • without proof, and is false; since Christ speaks of his being Lord of the Sabbath at that time afore he entered into his rest; and doth imply that which some would call blasphemy, that Christ as God had not been Lord of the Sabbath unless he had entered into his rest as man. But were it granted, that Christ by reason of his entering into his rest as man, was Lord of the Sabbath, doth that prove that Heb. 4.10. is meant of Christ's entering into his rest? or is it not rather a baculo ad angulum ? But were it granted that Heb. 4.10. were meant of Christ's entering into heaven, yet the rest before mentioned is rather thereby confirmed to be meant of rest in heaven with Christ, then rest on earth on a weekly Sabbath, since the argument is strong thus, Christ is passed into his rest in the heavens, therefore there is a rest remaining for the people of God there; but hath no strength thus, Christ is entered into the heavens to rest, therefore there remains to the people of God a weekly day of rest on earth. Lastly, this very reason quite overthrows Mr. Cs. building. For he would ground the week day Sabbath upon Christ's entering into his rest, and this day he would have to be the first day of the week, and the reason for inferring a week day Sabbath upon Christ's entering into his rest is taken from the rest of God after the first creation, whereby the 7th. day Sabbath was sanctified: Now if there be the like reason of keeping a week day Sabbath because of Christ's rest, as there was of keeping the 7th. day Sabbbath because of God's rest, then it will not be the first day of the week which must be the Sabbath, for that was not the day of his entering into his rest, but another day, to wit, the fifth day of the week, as may be gathered from Acts 1.3. Mr. C. himself, p. 76. though he say that it is very probable that the ascension day was on the first day of the week, yet confesseth it not to be clear ; and the reason of the probability from Act. 1. by the computation of the forty days from his resurrection, and the mention of a Sabbath days journey, from Mount Olivet to Jerusalem, occasioned (as is likely) from their making that journey then upon that day, v. 12. is so slender, that I know not that ever any learned man did conceive so with him; and the computation of forty days from his resurrection, being on the first day of the week (though the day of the resurrection contrary to the common computation should be excluded) will not fix the Ascension day on the first day of the week, but two days at least short of it. And for the mention of a Sabbath days journey, Act. 1.12. it is clear from the words that it was only to show the distance of the place from Jerusalem, not to show that day to have been the Sabbath day. I list not to trouble myself about the reason of using that expression rather then another, it being not material. Yet were it granted it had been on the Sabbath day, it had not been the first day of the week, for that is not termed in Scripture, certainly not in the Acts of the Apostles, the Sabbath day. What Mr. C. adds. But albeit his rest was not completed till he passed into the heavens, yet he first entered into it at his resurrection▪ which being upon the first day of the week, there needeth no more to fix the command of the Sabbath on that day, doth overthrow his arguing from Heb. 4.7, 9, 10, 14. whence he would deduce the Christian Sabbath because of Christ's entering into his rest at his passing into the heavens. Which hurts not others, as Mr. Cawdrey, Sabb. Rediv. part 4. sect. 23. who confesseth the words Heb. 4.10. not to be spoken of Christ, though he allude to them. I have insisted on this point by the way, because Mr. C. makes use of it for infant Baptism, but to how little purpose the sequel will show.

Mr. C. for proof of infant Baptism, p. 20. lays down this position, that what the Lord confirmed by oath to Abraham, he confirmed it to us, even to all believers after Christ to the worlds end ; which I grant if understood of spiritual Evangelical promises which accompany salvation, but not if meant of those peculiar blessings and privileges which were promised to Abraham's natural seed. Yet in his proof of that position I conceive sundry things not right which are vented by him, as p. 28. that the voice of Christ meant Heb. 3.7. is an inviting us to celebrate his day of rest in his house in the worship of the Gospel, which he means of a weekly Sabbath, and a particular Congregation, and outward worship, as sundry passages following show; and this he makes a part of the Gospel, p. 31. and the believer that neglects it comes short of the promise of entering into God's rest, and is a departing from the living God, Heb. • .12. in tanto, though not in toto. In which speeches as there is much mistake, and wrong interpretation of the Text, which speaks not of such a week day rest, or the house of God in the second capacity as he terms it, or of entrance into his rest as his house in that capacity, so that speech is very dangerous, Now this entrance into his rest as his house in this second capacity, is that which the Apostle chiefly speaketh to here, when he saith, Take heed brethren of an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. And that in case the people of his pasture, and sheep of his hand, even his own children, will not hear his voice, but forsake his worship, refusing his offer in this Gospel rest as they did in Canaan rest, he will also swear against them as he did against these, that they shall not enter into his rest. Which if true, then they that are not convinced of the weekly Christian Sabbath, as many godly and learned Divines in foreign parts, and in these Nations are not, those who do not on that day join in the public and solemn worship, as prayer, preaching, breaking bread, and that too in a particular gathered Congregation, as Se • kers, and many other persons, whereof we cannot but judge many of them to be godly, these are chiefly meant by the Apostle as those that have an evil heart of unbelief, depart from the living God, God will swear they shall not enter into his rest. Nor will the limitation in tanto help to free his speech from those horrid consequences, which it is liable to, if it be true▪ which he saith, that the Apostle chiefly speaketh to that entrance in his rest as his house in the second capacity, Heb. 3.12. and to expound God's swearing that they should not en • er into his rest in that sense, if they did not hear his voice inviting to keep the Sabbath, makes the speech inept thus, If ye will not keep the Sabbath, I swear ye shall not keep the Sabbath. Nor do I conceive what he saith, p. 34. is right, that Christ gave his Saints the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Matth. 16.18. and from that gift to Peter the Saints do claim their Church power, each according to their place and station in the Church; for they have it as Peters, that is, as stones in that building, or if you will, as confessors, which makes them to be stones in the house of God : For neither by the Keys is meant all Church power, nor are the Keys given to the Saints, much less to them as stones or confessors, though such things are supposed oft times, but not proved▪ But I hasten to the view of what follows, being the chief thing Mr. C. infers his infant Baptism from.

SECT. LXXVIII. Mr. Carters exposition of Gen. 22.16, 17, 18. as if God promised to make every believer a blessing, so as to cast ordinarily elect children on elect parents, is refuted.

THat which is Mr. Cs. basis for his fabric of Infant-Baptism, is from the Covenant of God with Abraham, Gen, 22.16, 17, 18. which he saith contains four things.

Answ. The sum of this I conceive to be, that God promising to Abraham he should be a blessing, Gen. 12, 2. that in him all the families of the earth, Gen. 12.3. all the nations of the earth, Gen. 18.18. shall be blessed, in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, Gen. 22.18. did promise that every believer should be a blessing in his generation in spiritual things to his family and neighbourhood, and thereby God ha • h limited himself to cast ordinarily elect children on elect parents, and the lot of the Saints in neighbourhoods and places together, and not by equal numbers in each part of the world alike. Which exposition is many ways faulty, and the conclusion inferred from it either false or uncertain, and yet if it were true and certain, would not yield a sufficient reason for infant baptism, as will be shown in the sequel.

The first thing I except against this Exposition, that when it is said Gen. 12.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he takes it for granted, it is to be understood actively, as if the meaning were that Abraham should be a blessing to others, whereas (as Pareus in his Com saith) it may be an amplification of the things going before, thou shalt be altogether and very blessed: in which sense we use often the abstract for the contract, as a man very honest is called honesty. Yea the LXX render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and thou shalt be blessed. Piscat. schol. Vel, esto in benediction • , hoc est benedictus. Diodati annot. Blessed every way: as if all blessings were gathered together in thee, or a pattern of a complete blessing.

2. That he takes i • as i • what is said must be applicable to all believers, that they shall be blessings in their generations. But this is not proved from the text, which only speaks of Abraham being a blessing, and though it is true Heb. 6.14. the promise of bless • ng to Abraham is made a promise of which all believers are heyrs, v. 17. yet is it plain from many passages in that Chapter v 9, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19. that it is meant that they are heirs of the promise of blessing to themselves in enjoying salvation as Abraham did, not of imparting blessing to others.

3. That he takes it as if it must follow, that if

Mr. C. himself denies not to be included in this promise, that of Abraham and his seed the Lord CHRIST should come, but saith, if it be restrained only to this then it will follow that all those of the Line of CHRIST were blessings to the World as well as he.

To which I reply, 1. if the sense given be included as he grants, then his sense is not necessary, nor can anything be proved by it. 2. Though the speech in the sense given be restrained, yet the absurdity follows not, since the being a blessing by begetting Christ is not so invested in any as in Abraham, who is made the first Trustee as it were, of this blessing by the Covenant, or Charter granted to him. 4. I except that in the promise, In thee, or in thy seed shall all the families or Nations of the earth be blessed. Mr. Carter conceives thee and thy seed to comprehend every believer: Whereas the Apostle expounds Acts 3.25. [ in thy seed ] of Christ only, and [ in thee] Galath. 3.8, 9. of Abraham only, with whom as the pattern o • believing and being blessed, they which be of the faith are blessed. I deny not that by Abraham's seed believers are meant Gen. 17.7. and Gen. 15.5. and that the Apostle Rom. 4.18. Gal. 3.29. and elsewhere so expounds it; But nowhere do I find the promises Gen. 1 • .3 & 18.18. & 22.18. expounded so as that in thy seed should no • e every believer, and the sense in which Mr. Carter takes it, as if in every believer all the families of the earth should be blessed, it is derogatory from Abraham's peculiar privilege one way understood, another from Christ's, and not much short of blasphemy. 5. That he makes families and nations of the earth to be different in the promises mentioned, as appears by his words [ and that chiefly and in the first place to their families; and not only so, but also to nations ] whereas the holy Ghost makes no such difference. For as the same promise which is expressed by families, Gen. 12.3. is expressed by nations, Gen. 18.18. so in the New Testament the promise Gen. 12.3. where the word is rendered families, is expressed Gal. 3.8. by nations and the term which is Gen. 22.18. all the nations of the earth is Acts 3.25. all the kindreds or families of the earth, as Mr. C. would have it. 6. Mr. C. seems by families to whom believers should be a blessing, children, as when he saith, God will ordinarily cast children elect upon elect parents, and by nations neighbourhoods, as when he saith, the lot of the Saints in neighbourhoods and places together, whereas families in the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whether rendered by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the LXX Gen. 12.3. that is, tribes, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Acts 3.25. notes more then posterity or households, even whole tribes, and kindreds that draw their line from one great Ancestour, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 notes a whole people of one language, though in their dwellings so remote as to have no intercourse one with another. I will not trouble myself to inquire what difference there is between the words in Hebrew and Greek which are translated families, tribes, kindreds, nations: This I am sure they contain greater and more ample numbers of men then those who live together under one roof or one town, and if from thence the extent of the Covenant be inferred to posterity of believers and their neighbors, and so the seal of the Covenant (as Mr. C. doth) because believers are promised to be a blessing to posterity and neighbors, it will follow from the terms families and nations, that they are blessings to whole parishes, towns, cities and nations, and they are to be baptized and parochial, city, national Churches to be set up again, against which Mr. C. with his brethren have so much hitherto contended. 7. By Mr. Cs. exposition whereas the promises are that all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in a believer, this is brought to so narrow a compass, as that it is restrained to posterity and neighbourhood. 8. The manner how in believers their posterity is said to be blessed, and he a blessing to them is expressed to be, in that God casts elect children upon elect paients, which I know not well how to understand. It seems to bear a sense if not the same yet very near that in which we are said to be chosen in Christ, Ephes. 1.3, 4. which Mr. C. alledgeth to this purpose, and 1 Cor. 1.30. We are of God in him, who is made to us of God wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, which were near blasphemy. Which to avoid it concerned Mr. C. to have more clearly and distinctly expressed himself.

What he saith [ that the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 12.2, 3. respecteth families and posterity; else he had said all the believers, or all the people of the earth, not all the families of the earth shall be blessed ] shows his oversight in not observing that it is Gal. 3.8. all the nations of the earth, which is equivalent to all the people of the earth, and yet v. 9. by all the nations of the earth, are meant no more then they that are of faith. And when he saith, that the Apostle Acts 3.25. could not have said to the Jews, ye are the children of the Covenant, had it not respected the children of the people of God, he heeded not that they are said as well to be children of the Prophets, and therefore the sense is not that they were descended from the Covenant or Prophets by natural generation, but ye are they to whose Ancestors the Covenant was at first given, and the Prophets sent, which are not common things to all the children of the people of God or true believers, the Gentile believers children are not children of the Covenant and Prophets in the sense there meant, but proper to the Jews.

Nor is the proposition true which Mr. C. would gather from the Covenant to Abraham. For, 1. God hath plainly discovered his mind Rom. 9.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 24, 25. that he chooseth at his pleasure children of unbelievers as well as believers, and of the posterity of believers, either none or which he will, arbitrarily and by no ordinary or certain rule, but as a potter doth with his clay, ac • ording to his sovereignty, not out of special grace to the children of his elect for the parents sake, and accordingly the saints praise him for their redemption out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, Rev. 5.9. without respect to their Ancestors.

2. Our Lord Christ foretold Matt 10.34, 35. that he came to divide a man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law, and a man's enemies should be they of his own house. And in the families of the most godly, how few were found elect may appear by the posterity of David, Josiah, Jehoshaphat, • li, Samuel, Abraham himself, with many more. As for our own experience in our own times it is so uncertain, that no good estimate can be made thereupon, concerning God's ordinary way. Perhaps in some families it falls out, that the posterity, and neighbors, and servants are godly, but many complaints of degenerating, of backsliding, show it as often to be otherwise.

I wish it were true which Mr. C. writes, though I find no proof of it,

That which is said Psal. 105.8. though it prove the perpetuity of God's Covenant with Abraham, yet proves not the sense Mr. C. gives of the Covenant. Nor doth that Luk. 19.9. yield any clearness to i • , For salvation came to Zacchaeus his house in respect of his person, and if it did to others in his house, yet it is not said by virtue of the Covenant to Abraham as Mr. C. imagines, and what Mr. C. saith about Acts 16.31. that it was spoken because of this promise to Abraham is his own gloss without any hint from the text, and would infer this proposition, that by virtue of God's promise to Abraham upon the faith of an housekeeper his house should be saved, which is contrary to constant experience of believing masters, husbands, parents having unbelieving servants, wives, children.

I grant Abraham to be the holy root, Rom. 11.16. and that v. 28. the Jews as touching the election are beloved for the Fathers sake and that they shall be graffed in again because the gu •• t once given to them, God will not repent of, and though I say not the Church bringeth forth children to Abraham, yet I yield Jerusalem which is above the Evangelical Covenant doth, and that the children of promise, or of the free-woman are Abraham's seed▪ all believers even of the Gentiles, but this is so far from proving the blessing upon families and kindreds, and God's ordering in such manner his election, as Mr. C. devised, and would have perpetual from Psal. 105.8. that it rather proves the contrary. For the breaking off the Jews, and the engraffing the Gentiles, not of the families or kindred of the root Abraham but a wild Olive by nature, proves the blessing not to be to families, nor election so ordered, as that to a thousand generations, to all generations even to the worlds • nd, God ordinarily casts elect children upon elect parents. Nor doth the citing of Isa. 59.20. which is Rom. 11.26, 27. with the inference thereupon, prove that God entails his blessing upon families from generation to generation ; but that God hath such a special love to the family of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that after a long breaking off that nation shall be restored again and re-engraffed for the Fathers sake, which is there made the peculiar privilege of Israel after the flesh. But there is not a word in the Apostle, Rom. 11. that shows that privilege to have been enjoyed by believing Gentiles since their being graffed into the same root and Olive tree from whence the Jews were broken off. Nor is it true. For God hath removed his Candlestick from many places where there were famous Churches, a • d from many kindreds, families, and people, where there were formerly godly company and society; so that now the progeny are become profane, and Apostates, and the Churches replenished with plants out of families in which a little while since Popery, profaneness, and viciousness did abound. No • do 1 Cor. 7.14. Acts 2.38. make anything for Mr. Cs. purpose, as shall appear in the sequel. Nor doth the application of Circumcis • on to the child, or Abraham's title of Father of all them that believe, prove the Covenant with Abraham in Mr. Cs. sense: Nor is it true, the application of Circumcision to the child is a necessary and essential part of that Ordinance. For that is not an essential part of an Ordina • ce without which it might be: But the Ordinance of Circumcision might be, and perhaps was at first without application to a child, if thereby be meant an infant; however, if none but parents were circumcised, as when the Circumcision was Josh. 5. it had been the Ordinance of Circumcision nevertheless: when only one proselyte a • age was circumcised it was the Ordinance. Ergo.

As for what Mr. C. answers to the objection from experience, it is indeed a pulling down of what he had spent so much time to build up. For if God's blessing do not take effect through men's sin, or defect of using means, then the promise is not to families and kindreds in that absolute manner Mr. C. before described it, then the promise is to the quality and diligence of the persons, not to the relation; then is the promise as well to any other so qualified and diligent, as to the parent; then is it false which he said before, pag. 38. that the success was not from example and other means, but a special word of blessing the promise to Abraham. Finally, if that be true which he hath pag. 35. (which is false printed) G 2. that although God's promise be to carry his election so, as to cast elect children upon elect parents, yet he reserveth to himself, and also useth in this a liberty, namely, ever and anon to be still breaking of 〈…〉 grafting in others into this holy root ; then what he said before, p. 7. F 3. that God hath thus far limited himself, and discovered his mind and purpose, that he will ordinarily cast elect children upon elect parents, is false: For what God reserveth to himself, and useth a liberty in, he hath not limited himself so far; and if he ever and anon useth this liberty, to be still breaking of • some, and grafting in others, then he doth not ordinarily cast elect children upon elect parents▪ for what is otherwise ever and anon and still, is not so ordinarily, much less still in being to a thousand generations, to all generations, even to the worlds end, as he said pag. 33. G. So that Mr. Cs. discourse from his own words is found hitherto to contain mistakes, uncertainty, and in the main, inconsistency with itself. Let's view whether in the rest there be anything worthy of a Lord Mayors imprimatur.

A third thing Mr. C. observes as contained in the Lord's promise unto Abraham, is,

Answ. 1. Why Mr. C. makes that the 3d. thing in God's promise Gen. 22.17, 18. which is the 2d. and puts that as the 2d. thing which is after the rest v. 18. and so the 4th. I see no reason, but only that he foresaw that otherwise there had been no color for this which he here infers, that by thus blessing and making believers blessings God would multiply his seed, Gen. 22.16. But the right order of the promises shows this conceit to be only Mr. Cs. fancy. For in that the promise v. 18. is put last, it is shown thereby that it is a distinct promise, and that it doth not express the manner how God would multiply Abraham's seed, as Mr. C. conceives. 2. It is true Gen. 15.5. is a Gospel promise to believing Gentiles, Rom. 4.18. but not in Mr. Cs. sense, that the increase of the number of believing Gentiles, should be by means of God's blessing believers so as to make them blessings as Abraham's seed, in that God would cast ordinarily elect children o • elect parents, and the lot of the Saints in neighbourhoods and places together : But in this sense, that Abraham should have an innumerable company of children, or his seed among the Gentiles by faith, who should be blessed with faithful •• raham, Gal. 3.9. in their own persons, but no mention is there of their being a blessing to others. 3. That the Church of Christ should fill the world, Dan. 2.35, 44. that the Kingdom of Heaven as a grain of mustard seed, or leaven, Matth. 13.31, 32, 33. shall fill or season the world ▪ is granted; but that it is meant in those places to be done in Mr. Cs. way, is denied: I do conceive it to have been meant of the Apostles preaching, as me thinks Christ's words, Matth. 24.14. do import. 4 That the promise of being heir of the world was to Abraham and his seed believing Gentiles, is granted; but that his or their being heir of the world did import any such blessing as Mr. C. imagines, as if God would ordinarily cast elect children on elect parents, or that any such thing is intimated by the Apostle v. 16, 17, 18. is denied: Nor do I yet find any interpreter afore Mr. C. who hath so expounded the prom • se.

In the opening of the 4th. promise, that the seed of Abraham should possess the gates of their enemies, though his exposition be granted, I see not what advantage it gives him for proof of infant Baptism, and therefore let it pass; only I take notice, that when p. 43. he makes the multiplying of the seed of Abraham, and the conquest of the world to be a spiritual work to be effected by the sword of the spirit the word of God, it follows, that it is to be done by preachers rather then by parents, and consequently not in that way Mr. C. imagines, but in the way which Christ took, by sending his Apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. What he saith p. 45. of the meaning of Gen. 9.26. hath been shown before to be uncertain, and to be proved false by the History of the Church, in that in Africa the posterity of Cham were in the Church of Christ as well as Shem’s and Japhets posterity; and how Abraham's seed shall fill the world at last and rule over it, is so doubtful, as that I conceive no certainty can be thence deduced. The conceit of the four Kings Gen. 14. as if their people became afterwards the four Monarchies ▪ is such a fancy, as a waking man that knows the distance between Rome, Greece, and Canaan, and the voyage they must take by sea, and other circumstances which the story Gen. 14. and other Histories suggest, will take only for a dream. Mr. Cs. gloss, p. 50. on the words of Christ, Mark 10.15. Who soever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child▪ that is, as a child receiveth it, shall not enter therein ; whether he mean i • of the visible Church or Kingdom of glory, it cannot be true. For let the way of entering the Kingdom of God be by birth, or Baptism, or any other way, yet a true believer by faith and profession may enter into the Kingdom of God in a way different from that a little child receives it in who hath no understanding of Christ: And though both be passive in the first work on their souls, yet believers of age are not merely p • ssive as little children who have no understanding at all of Christ. But for the true meaning of Christ, I need say no more but refer the Reader to Christ's words, Matth. 18.4. whence the meaning appears to be, that no person not endued with that qualification of self-humbling, of which a little child is a fit emblem, Psal. 131.2. shall become an inheritor of glory. Nor is there any proof made by Mr. C. of his dictate, that because Christ would that little children also should be members of his Kingdom, therefore hath he made it one branch of the Gospel of this Kingdom, that the families of the righteous shall be blessed. His reason he gives, p. 51. is no reason; for God might have gone further then ordinarily▪ to cast elect children upon elect parents, even to have done so universally and perpetually, and yet we might no more have been sons of God by natural generation, and as much by nature born children of wrath as now we are conceived. Though God had not so far, as Mr. C. imagines, confined his choice to families, kindreds, and nations, his elect had not been destitute of means of education, since God could have provided Catechists, Preachers, and others to that end, in other families, kindreds, and na • ions: Sure in some ages of the Church there was so little provision made to that end in families, kindreds, and nations, that it appears that almost all the means of education was from Monasteries in Scotland and Ireland, by the Histories that remain, as may be seen by Seldens Epistle before the Histories collected by Twisden, Ushers relation of the Irish Religion, and elsewhere. If it were the most natural and ready way to multiply the spiritual seed for the increase of God's Kingdom, by making believers a blessing to families and nations, as Mr. C. saith p. 52. sure God by sending Apostles, and not using Kings and Masters of families for that end, omitted the readiest and most natural way; and I see not why it should be judged the best way to propagate the Gospel, to gather Churches out of Parishes, and set Pastors over them, or to send itinerant preachers, but to reduce all Churches to family and national Churches, and to make Kings and Masters of families Elders and Rulers over them. Nor do I find that either God so casts the lot of his Saints together ▪ as Mr. C. imagines, or that by that means the gifts of God's people are improved, and light increased ; but by raising up holy Teachers and Pastors, and associating of the Saints from their several dwellings into a well ordered assembly. If as Mr. C. saith p. 55. the Israelites destroyed the Canaanites not by common rules of righteousness among men, but by special revelation and command from God ; then either they did it not by the promise Gen. 22.17. or that promise did not assure them of the possession of Canaan by common rules of justice, as Mr. C. conceives. That the people of God in the times of the N. T. may not make war against Antichrist or Babylon and their party as an Anathema, but upon a natural and civil account, for the just liberties opposed and invaded by them, may be well doubted, considering sundry passages which are Rev. 17.16, 17. & 18.6, 24. That the dominion which the Saints shall at last obtain, shall need no force either to get or maintain it; but it shall naturally fall upon them, as from other causes, so also by reason of the • r number, according to the law of nature, and common rules of righteousness, is not proved from Isa. 2.3. and how much it may tend to denying the lawfulness of Christians fighting in wars, especially if the chief or only cause be to preserve the Godly from oppressions in Religion, is to be consid • red. And that power is naturally devolved upon the Saints because of their numbers, (as p. 60. is intimated,) seems to me an unsafe speech, as resting on this position, That power is naturally devolved on the greatest number. It is enough that I have only by the way noted these things, that what men preach and print may be better considered: I pass on to the examining of Mr. Cs. application.

SECT. LXXIX. Neither did Circumcision seal Mr. Cs. additional Promise, nor was Abraham thence termed Father of Believers.

THe first thing Mr. C. observes is, that

The next is, that

Answ. There are these things to be proved: 1. That Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant made to Abraham Gen. 17. 2. That Circumcision was a seal of this promise of God, of making believers blessings to families and nations in order to the multiplying the seed, and increase of the Kingdom of Christ. 3. That the application of this seal to infants is part of the seal. 4. That thereby was signified and confirmed that promise of such blessing. But the proof is of other things, 1. that the application of Circumcision to the infant is part of the token of the Covenant. 2. The application of that ordinance to the child, had in it a signification and confirmation of something in the Covenant; For neither is it all one to be a token and to be a seal of the Covenant, there being other tokens then seals; and sign and token being the same, though distinguished Rom. 4.11. they are unfitly confounded by Mr. C. nor is it all one to signify something in the Covenant, and to signify this thing in the Covenant, that God would make believers blessings in Mr. Cs. sense. Not doth either of Mr. Cs. middle terms prove either of his conclusions. For the child's not being circumcised had been a breach of the Covenant, as being a breach of the command of God enjoined then, though circumcising the child had been no part of the token of the Covenant, and the Lord might have said, this is my Covenant that the man child be circumcised, that is, this is my command in my Covenant, if the application of that ordinance to the child, had not in it a signification and confirmation of something in the Covenant. But allowing that Circumcision is called the Covenant by a metonimy of the thing signified for the sign, and that it signified something in the Covenant being applied to infants, yet not one of Mr. Carters propositions is proved thereby; For 1. it may be a sign and not a seal. 2. It might be a seal of the Covenant Gen. 17. yet not of that promise Gen. 22.18. which is in another Covenant, not in that Gen. 17. 3. If it were a seal of that promise Gen. 22.18. yet not in Mr. Cs. new devised sense. 4. • o omit the ineptness or non sense of the speech, the application of this seal to infants is part of the seal. For what doth he mean by the application of this seal to infants but only Circumcision, and he before called Circumcision the seal which he meant; so that his speech can have no other construction then this, Circumcision of infants is part of Circumcision, which is inept or non-sense, I say further that the speech is not true. For if it be a part it is either essential or integral, I know no other sort of parts it can be meant of; But it it is not a part essential, for then without application to infants there should be no seal, and so a Proselyte had not the seal though he were Circumcised, unless he had an infant manchild and he circumcised, nor integral, for the Circumcision of a Proselyte was entire Circumcision or seal (as they speak) without his manchilds Circumcision.