Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3

argue a people in Covenant, and therefore I am so shy to confess them to belong to visible professors: But those titles are as high as these, and as undeniably implying a Covenant are given to visible professors; those then even according to me are on this account in Covenant with God.

Answ. Mr. Bl. doth but mock the Reader, and abuse me, by speaking of a confession which he doth not show, and by assigning a reason of my not confessing the titles, 1 Pet. 2.9. not to belong to visible professors, which is never given by me, but imagined by himself. As I said before, so I say again, though I hold those who are (as 1 Pet. 2.9. the the terms are used) a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, are in Covenant with God, as having God's Covenant of Evangelical grace made with them; yet I deny that the terms imply a Covenant. And as for the other four terms Mr. Bl▪ alledgeth to prove mere visible professors being in Covenant, he doth in like manner mock his Reader, 1. not telling what Covenant those terms imply, 2. nor how they imply it, 3. nor on whose part they imply it, whether on the persons part thus entitled, or on God's, which is the only thing in question, Whether God have made his Covynant of grace in Gospel times with any non-elect? which sure those terms imply not, since they imply either the act; as Believers and Disciples; or the state, as Saints and Christians, of the persons intitled; not any act of God, covenanting or promising to them Gospel grace. 4. The proof likewise from my confession (if it were so) is as vain: For the terms Christ, holy Angels, only begotten Son of God &c▪ are as high as those 1 Pet. 2.9. yet they do not imply a Covenant by my confession; and therefore I may well deny his inference to be my confession, though I should have yielded that which he saith I confess to be mine.

2. Mr. Bl. argues from some absurdities.

Answ. They that hold, that the Covenant of grace in Gospel times is limited to the elect regenerate, do not think either regeneration our entrance into Covenant, or our keeping of Covenant, or that before regeneration we make no Covenant, or after regeneration we break no Covenant, or that there is no such thing as Covenant breaking; all these are Mr. Bls, fictions, and so is his imputation of making an utter confusion in the Covenant. But this they hold, that God enters none into his Covenant of Evangelical grace but regenerate persons, and that they do all keep Covenant; and that though many before regeneration make Covenant with God, and break that Covenant they make, and so there is Covenant breaking on their part, yet that God keeps the Covenant of Evangelical grace with those he makes it, and that no reg • nerate person doth so break it as to be ever cast out of God's Covenant. And for Mr. Bls. texts, they are impertinent to prove that after regeneration any do break the Covenant of Evangelical grace God hath made. For Psal. 78.10, 37. Levite. 26.25. Isa, 24.25. do speak expressly of breaking the Covenant of the Law made with the people of Israel in mount Sinai, which is another Covenant then the new or Evangelical Covenant, Heb. 8.9, 10. But our question is of the Covenant of grace in Gospel times▪ And Jer. 34.18, 19, 20▪ is ridiculously alleged, since it speaks not of the Covenant Evangelical, but of the particular Covenant which Zedekiah and the Princes of Judah made to let their Hebrew servants go free, which they brake contrary to the Law. Yet to show Mr. Bls. futility in arguing there is no consequence in this reasoning. In men's Covenants there are that enter Covenant and keep it, and others that in like manner do enter into Covenant and not keep it, and so men enter into Covenant with God, and some keep it, and some not, therefore they that hold that God makes his Covenant of Evangelical grace only with the elect regenerate, do confound the Covenant itself and the conditions of it, or the duties required in it, or the entrance into Covenant and our observation of it, or walking up in faithfulness to it. For the distinction remains still between all these, though they be eonjoyned in the same persons, as heat and light are distinct though together in flame, and justification and sanctification though conjoined in the same persons. Yea, since Mr. Bl. holds some that enter into Covenant are steadfast in it, he makes according to his own superficial arguing the same confusion we do, and so falls into the same imagined absurdity.

The 2d. absurdity Mr. Bl. would fasten on the tenet that the Covenant of grace in Gospel times is limited to the elect, is; that then there is no such thing as an hypocrite in the world, as in reference towards God; For an hypocrite is one that personates the man that he is not, an hypocrite respective to religion and in Scripture use of the phrase, is one that pretends for God, and is not God's; now according to this opinion, that only regenerate men are in Covenant, there is no such thing as an hypocrite, no such sin as hypocrisi; where the Gospel is preached, God makes tender of himself in Covenant, and in case none but regenerate persons enter Covenant, then only they take upon them the persons of people in relation to him.

Answ. If Mr. Bl. and other Paedobaptists had any will to deal • onestly, as men that sought to clear truth, and not to pervert read • rs, they would, being so often particularly in my Postscript § 6. admonished, distinguish of being in Covenant by their own a • t of covenanting, and G • ds act of promising. I never den • ed, that in respect of their own act of • ovenanting, mere visible professors may b • said to be in Covenant with God, but denied that in resp • ct of God's act of promising (which alone was in question, since the question being of infants, they cannot be said to be in Covenant with God by their ow • act of covenanting, but only by God's act of promising) any other • hen elect persons are in Covenant with God▪ Now I grant it, that of them to whom the Gospel-covenant is made by God, there is none an hypocrite; but there be hypocrites of those that enter into Covenant with God; that is, of those that promise to be God's and are no • ; to whom, though God tenders himself in Covenant, yet he makes no Covenant or promise to them of Evangelical grace, and therefore notwithstanding this imagined absurdity, yet the position is true, that the Covenant of grace in Gospel times, as made by God to men, is limited to the elect.

The 3d. absurdity is, then no Minister in any Church may baptize any person, for none can now discern inf • llibly whether a person be regenerate, and Mr. Bl. finds Christ giving charge to disciple Nations, and to baptize them, but finds him not giving Commission, that when in the judgment of charity men have cause to conceive them to be disciples, then to baptize them. The Apostles staid not for observation of those signs, that might in a well-grounded chari • y persuade that they were regenerate persons. And these that fix it here, • oo ordinarily make interests the chief ground to carry their charity to a more favorable construction. They that are most like to make a party with them, or drive on interest their way, must be • udged persons meet for baptism; of this in a shor • time we have large experience. Those that gather up Churches, and initiate them by baptism (the way of the Apostles I confess, in case that they would make good that they have to deal with Heathens, and therefore a way of more color then theirs, that set up new Churches, and retain the old baptism) we see what manner of saints are received among them, such that civil persons (respective to sobriety, chastity, or upright dealing with men) cannot without stain of their reputation▪ make their companions.

Answ. Paedobaptists do usually plead, that infants are in the Covenant of grace, therefore they are to be baptized. The antecedent can be meant of being in the Covenant of grace no otherwise then by God's act of promise, to be the God of a believers seed; therefore they make the being in Covenant by God's act of promise to be a persons God, the rule of baptizing. Now I assert, that God hath not promised to be a God to any man or his seed in respect of Evangelical grace, but the elect. Therefore this absurdity is justly charged on the Paedobaptists, that according to their hypotheses, no Minister can baptize any infant in fait • . Fo • he must • aptize according to them, only those infants that are in Covenant, and whom he knows to be in Covenant; but those infants only are in Covenant who are elect, and no Minister can know which infant is elect, or in Covenant with God, which not, all infants are not, no not of believers, not all Abraham's, or Isaac's, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Therefore according to this rule no Paedobaptist can baptize any infant in faith, and a judgment of charity Mr. M. Mr. Bl. and others agree and that according to truth, is not it we are to baptize by. So that this absurdity doth unavoidably follow on Paedobaptists opinion, which Mr. Bl. endeavors, but in vain, to fasten on us, who do often disclaim baptizing persons upon their being in Covenant with God by his act of promise to be their God, as our rule; and do continually assert our baptizing persons, because disciples by profession, and by reason of their own covenanting to follow Christ (which Mr. Bl. confesseth to be according to Christ's Commission, and the Apostles way in dealing with Heathens) and therefore the absurdity follows not our opinion, but the Paedobaptists, who can baptize no infant by their rule, because they cannot know any infant whom they are to baptize to be in the Covenant of grace. As for Mr. Bls. confession, that our practice is the way of the Apostles in case we would make good that we have to deal with Heathens, I wonder Mr. Bl. a learned man, should require us to make good that which of itself is so manifest. For sure we have to deal with Heathens or with Jews, si • h all the men in the world are either Heathens, that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Nations, or Jews: but me thinks he should not say we have to de • l wi • h Jews, therefore we have to deal with Heathens, and consequently our practice is the way of the Apostles, by Mr. Bls. own confession. To confine the term [ heathens ] only to them that are not Christians in name, is indeed according to the vulgar speech, but besides the Scripture use, which Mr. Bl. me thinks in his writing should have followed. But if Mr. Bl. mean i • in the vulgar sense, it is easy to make it good that no Englishman or his child is a Christian till he be made a disciple by preaching the Gospel▪ since to be a disciple of Chr • st and a Christian are terms of the same sense, Acts. 11.26. Yet in b • ptizing by Christ's commission and the Apostles practice, th • re is no difference made between Jews and Heathens, bo • h are to be baptized upon their believing, Mark. 16.16. neither the one nor the other were, or were to be bap • ized by the Apostles, without their own personal profession of faith. Our way then by Mr. Bls. own confession is the way of the Apostles. His co • fession also is true, that our way is of more color then theirs that set up new Churches, and retain the old baptism, for acknowledging them church members at Bap • ism, and not admitting them as church-members though without scandal, is after their own principles to contradict themselves; and to set up Churches in a congregational way, disclaiming the National and Parochial, and yet to admit infants to Baptism by virtue of Circumcision, and Abraham's covenant and church-gathering, what is it but to dissert that in practice which they plead in dispute, and to make the frame of the national Church Jewish, the rule of the Christ an Church catholic Nor have Presbyterians any color for their reformation of Baptism or the Lord's supper, if they will stick to their allegations of taking a rule for Baptism from Circumcision, or of the Lord's Supper from the Passover; for, to them all sorts whether ignorant or scandalous were admitted; and if we must retain whom the Jewish Church re • ained as visible church-members, there will be no Ecclesiastical juridica • excommunicate • on for moral miscarriages, there being 〈◊〉 • uch among them. As for what Mr. Bl. chargeth the baptized C • urches with, of the unholin • ss of their members▪ though I can say litt • e of those near Mr. Bl. (if there be an) yet I am able to say of some and Mr. Baxter himself hath in print said somewhat of one of the Churches, which might refute this calumny, and I think there are many able to testify of the holy conversation of many of the Churches of baptized persons, however Mr. Baxter imagines they in the end prove wicked. However, we do neither in practice nor opinion maintain such impure Churches of ignorant and vicious persons as Mr. Bl. Vindic. Faed. ch. 47. doth, and Presbyterians commonly do: Nor is it likely, the worst of the baptized Churches should be worse then the ordinary sort of the Paedobaptists Churches of Mr. Bls. way.

Chap 29. Mr. Bl. answers to some objections against his assertion. 1. That regenerate persons only are in New Testament times honored with the name of the people of God, they therefore only are in Covenant▪ To which he answers, 1. That there are terms equivalent, Believers, Saints, Disciples, and Christians, which are given to the unregenerate. To which I reply, that though this argument be not mine, yet it may be said, that the term God's people doth rather imply being in Covenant wi • h God then the other terms. But I think the argument not cogent, since the term [my people] doth not in the force of the word necessarily import a Covenant of God, and men ma • be conceived his people by election, or purchase, without a Covenant, and therefore own it not.

2 lie. Saith he, It is not often that that phrase is found in New Testament Scriptures, with such restriction only to regenerate persons. He denies not Tit. 2.14. is taken for a people separate by grace out of the state of nature: But he is not resolved whether Revel. 21.3. serve to purpose, it being in dispute whether to be fulfilled on earth or in heaven; if on earth, then it sets out a singular glory in the Church through Ordinances in purity, yet with a mixture of close hypocrites. • nd for Christ's personal reign on earth, that he lets go as the opinion of others, of a considerable part of whom he is not very well conceited it seems.

Answ. His not denying Tit. 2.14. to 〈◊〉 pregnant▪ and being alleged by me as the parallel place to 1 Pet. 2.9. confirms m • restriction of the titles there used • o • he regenerate. And • e thin • s the promises, Revel. 21.3, 4. That God would be their God with them, that he would wipe away all tears from their eyes, there should be no more death, nor crying, nor labor, should be sufficient to prove the people of God there meant to be only the regenerate. And me thinks Matth. 1.21. & 2.6▪ Luke 1.17, 68, 77. & 2.32. & 7.16. Acts 15.14. & 18.10. Rom. 9.25. & 11.1▪ & 15.10▪ 2 Cor. 6.16. Heb. 4, 9▪ & 8.10. 1 Pet. 2.10. Revel. 18.4. the term [ my people or God's people ] should be restrained to the elect.

3 lie. Saith he, My people, or people of God, is us • d more frequently in the N. T. without restriction to the elect regenerate. He alledgeth three places, 2 Cor. 6. • 6. which with him is plain quoted from Levite. 26.16. where it is a national promise, to be understood of God's visible abode in ordinances, being tendered to those that were over bu •• e w •• h Idols, from which he dissuades with this argument, that they were the temple of the Lord, separate of God for his worship and servic • , and the promise is no more then is made good to visible Churches, Revel. 2.1. whereof some members were not regenerate.

Answ. To dwell in them to walk in them, to be their God, and they to be his people, the temple of the living God, 2 Cor 6.16. whom he receives, to whom he is a father, and they his sons and daughters, cannot be meant of any other then the elect: For they only are the temple of God in which he dwells, who have h • s • pirit, 1 Cor. 3 16, 17. & 6.19. (a bare separation by outward cal • ing to his worship & service is not enough) which is the most fo • cible argument to diss • ade fr • m meddling with Idols. However it be Levite. 26.16. here i • is not a national promise, but a promise to particula • persons, separate from the rest of the nation, v. 17. Nor can it be understood of God's visible abode in ordinances, but in persons who were holy; nor is it made to every visible Church, in r • spect of every visible member: Nor is the promise of Christ, walking, Revel. 2.1. so much as this of God's dwelling in them.

The 2d. he alledgeth is Rom. 9.25. which is to be understood no otherwise, where the call of the ten Tribes, from Hos, 1▪ 10. & 2.23. is applied to the call of the Gentiles into a Church state and condition. And to the objection from Rom. 9.23. he saith, God sets up visible • rd • nances, and calls to a Church state as is there prophesied, that he may there work to himself a people of invisible relation, that thereby he may make them vessels of mercy, having a sore prepared them to glory.

Answ. The call, Rom 9.25. is not as Mr. Bl seems to conceive, an outwa • d refusable calling into a visible Church state by visible ordinances; but as v. 7, 8, 11, 24, 26. calling is effectual calling, which gives being to the called, and is never refused, but proper to t • e elect onel • : Which is apparent from v. 24. where he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whom also, which can have reference to • one but vessels of mercy mentioned v. 23▪ who are also sons of the living God, v. 26. Wh • ch being • rged by me • n my Postscript. sect. 10. and not refelled, stands as a firm 〈◊〉 that the people of God there are only elect ones, or as Mr. Bl. speaks, a • eople of invisible relation, vessels of mercy • so • e prepared to glory.

The 3d he all • dgeth is Revel. 18.4. where all professors of faith are included in that exhortation, and so all Ministers are to press it ▪ B • t though it wer • the duty of all, yea of them that were n • t professors of f • ith, to qui • Babylon; yet the invitation is a fruit of God's special care by a voice from heaven, and therefore is more • hen an exhortation to a commoh duty, to wit, a special effectual call, whereby God's people, that is his elect ones; shall be brought out of Babylon as Lot out of Sodom, and is to be conceived of the elect only, not of hypocritical professors of faith. So that Mr. Bl. hath not brought one Text out of the New Testament, in which [ God's people ] is applied to mere visible professors; and yet if these had served his turn, his assertion had been false, as is shown by the number of places wherein [God's people] is limited to the elect.

Another objection is out of Jer. 31.31, 32, 33. which he saith

Answ. The Text joined with Heb 8.6, 7, 8, 9, 10. proves that God makes his new Covenant with none but those who keep it, who are the elect only. I prod • ce it not to prove (as Mr. Bl. suggests of some) that none must be of the called of God into Covenant, for fruition of Church privileges, but those that are regenerate ; nor to prove • hat none shall enter Covenant and transgress it ▪ that the Covenant that now is, is not in any possibility to be transgressed : but to prove, that no • e to whom God makes his new Covenant do break it; which the Author to the Hebrews doth affirm, in that he differences this from the former Covenant, that the former was faulty, or occasioned God to complain that it was broken; but this is such as that to take away occasion of complaint for breach of it, God makes provision by better promises, that it shall not be broken by those to whom it is made. Nor doth it hence follow, as Mr. Bl. speaks (this being the characteristical difference) that as none in New Testament times enter Covenant, but they keep Coven • nt; so none in Old Testament times were in Covenant, but did transgress it: For we do not say as he perverts the position, that none in New Testament times enter Covenant but they keep Covenant ; we know many have by their profession and baptism entered into Covenant, and have no • kept i • : but this we say, that God mak • s with none his new Covenant, whether in New Testament times, or in Old Testament times, but they do keep it; and that this is the characteristi • all difference between the Old and New Covenant (not Old and New Testament times) which are in the Epistle to the Romans and Galatians called the Law and the Promises ; that the one might be and was broken, yet the other is and shall be kept by those to whom it is made, because of God's undertaking to write his Laws in their hearts. As for an outward Covenant made by God distinct from these and yet in force, it is Mr. Bls. figment as Mr. B. hath proved in his Apol. against Mr. Bl. pag. 66, 67, • 03, &c. As for the answers, 1. that the Covenant, Jer. 3 • .31, 31, 33. is not a Covenant • roperly so called, it is refuted before, Sect. 33. as I remember. 2. That it is not the whole of the Covenant. But if it be but a part, it is made only to the elect, the other part whatever it be being made to none other. 3. If the new Covenant be another Covenant, then there must be two distinct Gospel Covenants. But this is said upon • he mi • take refuted Sect. 43. that the Covenant at Mount Sinai with the Jews was the Gospel Covenant. I have again viewed pag. 105, 106, 107. of Mr. Bls. answer to my Letter, and do not find any explication of the promises Jer. 31.31, 32, 33. which may sh • w that the promises there are made to any but the elect; nor do I find an explication of them, whereby to know how he would have them understood, but of the term [ new Covenant ] which he would have understood as if it were meant only of a clearer explication of the old Covenant not well understood before, as Joh. 13.34. the new commandment is a clearer explication then was formerly. But neither is true: For the new commandment Joh. 13.34. is not so called from a new explication, but a new motive, his own example, as the very words show: And the new Covenant is so called, Jer. 31.31, 32, 33. not from a clearer explic • tion, bu • better promises, Heb. 8.6. And I still profess, that I find not that Mr. Bls. answer is quit from enervating the argument for effectual grace and perseverance in it, since he makes the Covenant to be to the non-elect; nor doth he demonstrate, that I cannot bui • d effectual grace and perseverance on that text, making it a distinct Covenant from the first, without the o • erthrow of effectual g • ace and perseverance in Old Testam • nt times. Thus much for answer to those three Chapters of Mr. Bl. he that would see more of Mr. Bls. mistakes about the Covenant, may read Mr. Baxter's Book afore quoted.

SECT. XLVII. Mr. Bls. Vindic. F • ed. Ch. 34. Concerning the stating the question of the Birth-privilege of the issue of • elievers, is examined; and his Objections against my stating it removed.

MR. Bl. ch. 34. complains, that my confusion hath mudded the way, that my mixture brings a cloud upon all ] he might as well say light is darkness. He saith, I undertake a full Comment upon these words of the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. Exercit. pag. 3. in which the Reader will not find this undertaking. He sets down my distinction of Abraham's seed Exercit pag. 3. and then saith, here by the way Mr. T. mistakes himself. 1. In casting Ishmael out of Covenant in that manner, that all the time of his Circumcision he had not title to it, to that end that he might make (were it possible) the Covenant and the Seal distinct of themselves, without any relation one to the other, conceiving some to be sealed that were never in Covenant, and some to be in Covenant that were never sealed. Ishmael was in Covenant, as was Esau at his Circumcision, and his Circumcision doth w • tness i • , Gen. 17.11.

Answ. I do assert, that • he Covenant Gen. 17▪ was not made with Ishmael, for none of the promi • es there did belong to him, and I have further prov • d it f • o • v. 19 • 0, 21. Heb. 11.9, &c. though not to make the Covenant and Seal distinct of themselve • , without any relation one to another ; yet conceiving some were to be circumcised that were never in Covenant, and viceversa. But Mr. Bl. thinks it proved that Ishmael was in Covenant, because he was circumcised, for it is said, Circumcision shall be a token of the Covenant between me and you, Gen. 17.11. To which • said, the Covenant was between God and Abraham and his seed in their generations, v. 7. and this seed is declared exc •• sively of Ishmael to be • saac, v. 2 • . and them that sh • uld be of him, Gen. 21.12. Rom. 9.7, 8. Though every persons Circumcision af • er God's appointment was a token of the Covenant God made, yet not of the Covenant God made between himself and the circumcised: for the covenant of God with Abraham was not to ev • ry circumcise • d stranger, nor to every circumcised child, but between God, and • braham and • is seed in their generations which should be called in • saac, and accordingly the covenant to be kept, v. 1 • . is said to be between God and Abraham and Sarah, and Abraham's seed. • areus come. on Gen. 17.7. Two heads there are of the Covenant, God and Abraham; on Abraham's part also his seed or posterity are comprehended. But the seed is understood according to the limitations of Scripture here, and in other places, Gen. 17.21. & • 1.12. Rom. 9.7, 8. What therefore is here added in their generations▪ extends not the Covenant to Ishmaelites, Idumaeans, and Keturaeans. There is no truth in that which Mr. Bl. adds, men in Covenant were the • dequate subject of Circumcision, and are of Baptism. For the females and the males of the seventh day were in Coven • nt, yet not subjects of Circumcision; many Proselytes and others were the subjects of Circumcision, though not in Covenant. Nor is the reason why either this or that person was to be circumcised, and is now to be baptized his being in Covenant, but the command of God concerning them whether they be in Covenant with God or no▪ in that sense in which Paedobaptists mean when they say infants are in covenant, because of God's covenant made to them without th • ir own covenant, as hath been often proved. The casting out which I observe Apol. 114. of Ishmael doth not sufficiently argue (as Mr. Bl. saith) that Ishmael was once in Covenant, but that he was once in Abraham's house, from whence he was cast out.

2 lie. Saith Mr. Bl.

Answ. I ter • ed Ishmael Abraham's base natural seed, but not to argue him out of covenant, nor b • terming him base did I term him the son of whoredoms, but of an unlawful bed. And though Concubines in Scripture have the name of Wives, and whores are usually called those that are common to more then one, and the sons of Concubines counted le • itimate in respect of inheritances, yet be that should say tha • Concubines were lawful Wives, and their children legitimate before God, must maintain the lawfulness of Concubinate and Polygamy in the P • triarchs, which our Lord Christ's words g • insay, Matth. 19.4, 5, 6.

M. Bl. having recited my words Exercit. pag. 3. concerning the different seed of Abraham, and the different manner of God's promise to be God • o them, he 〈◊〉 after his calumniating manner infers: So that it evidently appears, that he casts out all the natural seed of Abraham ( legitimate or base, as he calls them, inheriting or not inheriting) from any • itle to that Covenant▪ save in domestic and political benefits. Which if true, I should cast ou • Isaac, Jacob, David, Christ Jesus himself from any title to • hat Covenant Gen. 17.7. save in domestic and political benefits: which is so gross a thing, and so manifest a falsehood, that I wonder Mr. Bl. hath the face to write such a thing of me, and to pervert my words so palpably; but that I perceive he cares little how he hazards his own credit, so he may impair mine. I say, that God promiseth he will be a God to Christ, impartin • in him blessing to all nations of the earth, to the spiritual seed of • braham in Evangelical benefits; to the natural seed inheriting in domestic and political benefits. How doth it sufficiently appear hence, that I cast out all the natural seed of Abraham from any title to th • t Covenant, save in domestic and political b • nefits? Doth it follow, that because I assign Ev • ngelical benefits to Abraham's spiritua • seed, I deny any of his natural seed to be his spiritual?

To this loud calu • ny, he adjoyns his own gross p • sition in these words.

Which if true, then God breaks his word if he be not a God in spiritual, and all other bl • ssings comprehended under the phrase, will be a God to thee and thy seed ; to Judas, Ahab, the Pharisees that said Christ ca •• out devils by the help of devils, and so blasphemed the Holy Ghost, the Jews that rejected Christ, in effectual calling, justifying, raising to eternal life, which the Scripture comprehends under that phrase of being a God to a person, Rom. 9.11. Gal. 3.16. Luk. 20.37, 38. He saith, the confirmation of this position, is a matter of ease if any. Which I acknowledge, if by [ confirmation ] be meant such as Mr. Bl. in his dictating and flirting fashion useth to • onfirm things; not distinctly opening terms, nor the meaning of the texts he brings, nor showing by any Logical deduction the pertinency of them to prove his position. But I shall as soon expe •• a new world in the Moon proved as that position, by any true Logical deduction out of Scripture. He talks of my trifling circumstances in my Examen, and foul miscarriage in my stating of the question, even in that whic • was most necessary according to the rule of all Logicians, that in ever consideration of things, distinction of ambiguous terms should be used 〈◊〉 afore any definition, proposition, proof, or answer be made, as Keche • m. syst. Log. l. 1. sect post. c 1. out of Cicero, Boetius, Aristotle, Galen, &c shows; and for endeavoring to bring Mr. M. to state his • wn proposition without ambiguity, that I might know what to de • y or gra • t, which Mr. Bl. terms ineptly my soul miscarriage in my stating of the question, when I stated not a question at all, but only so • ght to find out how Mr, M. meant his 2d. concl. in his Sermon. But Mr. Bl. will have his position limited. An • he speaks thus.

Answ. 1. If he take not in all the natural seed of Abraham, as comprehended in that promise Gen. 17.7. but the seed by promise, then the Covenant Gen. 17.7. was never made to Ishmael, which was signified by circumcision, and consequently though Ishmael was circumcised, yet he was never in covenant, and Mr. Bls position is false, men in Covenan • are the adequate subject of Circumcision. 2. If he understand not by [the children of the promise Rom. 9.8.] the elect or regenerate, then he doth not understand as the Apostle doth, who declares v. 11 that the seed v. 7. who are children of the promise v▪ 8. are such as are by God's calling according to God's purpose of election, v. 11. whom • e loveth, v. 13, hath mercy and compassion on, v. 15. and deserts the contra •• monstrants, as I have often shown in this and other writings. 3. If he understand the seed by promise only of that which God by miracle (according to promise) gave to Abraham by Sarah, when she was past years of child- • earing, then h • asserts the Covenant Gen. 17.7. in the fullest latitude to be made wholly to Isaac, no to Jacob, or any other, for no other but Isaac individually taken was that seed which God by miracle (according to promise) gave to Abraham by Sarah, when she was past years of child bearing.

Mr. Bl. adds, The natural posterity (which was the birth by promise) we only understand; and so the Apostle explains it ▪ Rom. 9.7, 8. neither, &c.

Answ. If Mr. Bl. understand only Gen. 17.7. by [the seed of Abraham] the natural posterity (which was the birth by promise) and that according to Mr. Bls. description in the words immediately precedent is no other then individual Isaac, then he takes in no other then • saac into the Covenant Gen. 17▪7. as meant by Abraham's seed. Now the A • ostle is so far from explaining it so, that the contrary is most true▪ Fo • 1. the Apostle expressly saith, that is they which are the children of the flesh, that is begotten by m • er natural generation of Abraham which is all one with the natural posterity of Ab • aham, thes • are not the children of God, that is those to whom the promise is made Gen. 17.7. as the contradistinction to the children of the promise in the latter part of v▪ 8. shows▪ And that by [ children of the flesh ] are me • nt mere natural posterity appears in that v. 7. which is explained v. 8. the term [ the seed of Abraham ] is put as equipolent to [ children of the flesh, ] which understood any otherwise then thus [ • he seed or children of Abraham by mere n • tural generation] should exclude Isaac also, who was the natural posterity of Abraham, and so the seed of Abraham, but not by mere natural generation. 2. If the Apostle had explained the seed, Gen. 17.7. of the natural posterity only, which was the birth by promise (which according to Mr. Bls. description can be no more then individual Isaac ) then he had said Rom. 9.8. but the child of the promise is counted for the seed, not as he doth in the plural number, the children of the promise, (by whom are meant all elect persons, who are by su • ernatural calling counted by God for the seed of the Gentiles as well as the Jews, as he affirms v. 24.) are counted for the seed to whom the promise Gen. 17.7. is made. But Mr. Bl. • oes on thus.

Answ. • he right reading (as I have before proved) of Rom. 9 4. should be [ whose was the adoption ] and this is meant indeed of the visible body of Israelites in former generations, excluding the pres • nt; nor do I deny it to be so me • nt, Deut. 14.1. but not so as either then or at any time comprizing every particular Jew, but as Mr. Bl. himself rightly explaineth such passages in his answer to my letter pag. 51. (though 〈◊〉 applied to Rom. 9.25, 26.) the denomination being a praestantiori parte, as we call it, a heap of corn, where yet there is a mixture of chaff, and a corn field, where there is a mixture of tares and other weeds; and as the Apostle (writing to the Church of the Thessalonians) saith, knowing brethren your election of God, and yet I suppose you do not believe that each particular man was a vessel of glory. But I go after Mr. Bl.

Answ 1. There are no more born by promise according to Mr. Bls. description but Isaac, and so no more according to him included; not Jacob, mu • h less all the visible body of the Jews. 2. If those that are born by promise only are included, then Ishmael, and the sons of Keturah who were not born by pro • ise, are not in • luded in the Covenant Gen. 17.7. then they were never in Cov • nant, for none were never in that Covenant, who were not included in the promise. 3. The Scripture doth not mention any special command to shut out • shmael out of the Covenant he was once in, but to 〈◊〉 out of Abraham's house • . Nor do I see in what sense Abraham cou • d be said to cast him out of Covenant. Surely not by revoking 〈◊〉 promise, that were little less then blasphemy, to ascribe to Abraham the evacuating of God's word: not by uncircumcising him for 〈◊〉 was any such thing done, though Abraham obeyed God, nor perhaps could be done. What other way he might shut him out of • ovenant I do not understand. 4. If Ishmael were once in the Coven • nt, as it comprehends the promise of Evangelical grace, then • od promised to be his God in respect of regeneration justification, adoption, sanctification and raising up to eternal li • e, and he was in that esta • e, and if h • were shut out again, • hen a man may be in the covenant of Evangelical grace and shut out again, which is contrary to the very end of the new C • venant, as it is expressed Heb. 8.6, 7, 8, 9, 10. and infers falling away from Gospel grace.

Mr. Bl. proceeds thus.

Answ. 1. The terms head or root of the Covenant, are not Scripture expressions. I find Gal. 3.16. that to Abraham and his seed were the promises made, and Rom. 11.16. If the root be holy so are the branches, v. 18. thou bearest not the root, • ut the root thee ; but this root is I conceive, no other then Abraham, who is • ot termed either head or root of the Covenant singly or jointly, but of the olive or branches in respect of their propagation from him partly as a natural father, and a spiritual father in respect of Is • aelite believers, an • partly as a spiritual father only in respect of Gentile believers. But if any be to be termed the head and root of the Covenant, I think it is most fit to give that title to Christ, the surety and mediator, Heb. 7.22. & 8.6. to whom the promises were made, Gal. 3.16, 17. 2. When God is styled the God of Abraham, I • saac, and Jacob, that it is to exclude all Abraham's seed of any other line, and to say that God cast off Esau and his posterity from the Covenant, is more then the Apostle saith, or is according to truth. For the Apostle doth only say, that therefore the Oracle was delivered concerning Esau and Jacob, and the words of the Prophet concerning Jacob and Esau are alleged, that he might show that God confined not his Covenant to Abraham's natural posterity, nor included them all; not to show that he cast off or excluded all Abraham's seed of any other line then • saac and Jacob from the Covenant. For then Jo • , Jethro, and all other Proselytes of Abraham's seed by Keturah, of Esau • s posterity had been excluded from the Covenant of grace in Christ, which is contrary to Scripture; and in like sort, all the Gentile from Ishmael, Keturah, Esau, • ad been excluded from being called Christian believers. For none are called by God who are excluded out of the Covenant of grace. 3. That the natural seed of Jacob is included in that Covenant. Gen. 17.7. in the full latitude and ex • ent of it, as it comprehends a promise of Evangelical grace, is so far from being the Apostles determination, tha • he resolves in the contrary in those words Rom. 9.6. All are not Israel, that are of Israel.

Secondly, saith Mr. Bl.

Answ. I do not remember that I did anywhere say that Paedobaptists said, that covenant Gen. 17.7. w • entered with Abraham as a natural • ather, but the Author of the little Treatise entitled Infants Baptism proved lawful by Scripture, asserted the Covenant was made with Abraham as a believer ; to which I replied▪ that as it was Evangelical it was not made with Abraham simply as a believer, for then it had been made to every believer as to Abraham, but with Abraham as the Father of believers, and with his seed as believers as he was. But that ever any Paedo • aptist did afore Mr. Bl▪ assert that the Covenant Gen. 17.7. as it was a Covenant of Evangelical grace, was entered by God with him as a professor of the faith, accepting the Covenant taking God for his God, accepting it for himself and for his seed, his natural posterity, I do not reme • ber. If they should, yet I take it to be false, and without likelihood of truth. For if the Covenant of Evangelical grace were made with Abraham under that formal consideration, then God had promised Evangelical grace, justication, adoption, to him as a professor of faith only, so that if it were supposed he had been an hopocrite, yet he should have been justified, adopted in that he was a professor of faith, or else it is to be conceived justification and adoption were not to Abraham by this Covenant, contrary to Gal. 3.16, 17, 18. nor hath it any likelihood of truth, that God would single out so exemplary a believer as Abraham was, Rom. 4.18, 19. and enter so solemn a Covenant with him barely as a professor of faith, which was competent to an hypocrite. Nor do I well know in what sense God entered the Covenant with him as • professor of the faith accepting the Covenant for himself and his s • ed. For God's entering the Covenant is no other then his making of it: But God did not make it on this condition that Abraham should accept it f • r him and his seed, but as knowing Abraham's integrity, b • way of testification of his love and grace to him being so eminent and tried a believer afore this C • venant was made with him. Nor is it true that all that profess the faith hold in the like tenure, are in Covenant, and have the Coven • nt ; not vested in their own persons, but enlarged to their posterity, there being none in the Covenant Gen. 17.7. but Abraham and his seed, of whom no mere professor of faith, much le • s his seed, except elect or true believer is either. Nor was the Covenant ever made to Abraham's or Israel's mere natural posterity as it is Evangelical; much less enlarged to the posterity natural of every professor of faith.

Thirdly, saith Mr. Bl.

Answ. That by [ salvation Luk. 19.9. Heb. 2.3. Rom. 11.26.] is not meant outward privileges, in which salvation upon God's terms may be obtained, hath been shown before Sect. 44. And though I grant that salvation is said to be of the Jews, in that from them was the doctrine of salvation, yet I see no necessity to expound the term [ salvation ] metonymically, as if by [ salvation ] were meant barely the doctrine of salvation, but the sense may be truly conceived thus, salvation, remission of sins, justification, adoption, eternal life, is of the Jews, as instruments by preaching the Gospel of converting, and so saving men. But that God when he promised Gen. 17.7. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed (as this promise is Evangelical) meant this, all the professors of faith and their seed shall enjoy those privileges, in which salvation upon God's terms may be obtained, is proved false. 1. In that the writers of the New Testament never so explain it, but where the promise is mentioned as Evangelical, they declare it imports a further thing proper to the elect and true believers. 2 That they never by Abraham's seed as Evangelically understood, mean any other then elect persons and true believers: both which are proved largely before Sect. 28. 3. That in this sense the promise were not made good, for God doth not make good to every professor of faith that he shall have • hose privileges, as to be baptized, be in Church-communion, have the the Lord's supper, have a Pastor to preach the Gospel, much less to everyone of his natural seed, as frequent experience shows. 4. By this exposition nothing is assured to the infant of a believer, or to a professor of faith, which is not also to an unbelievers child, yea to an unbeliever, who as well as they have title to saving grace, and justification to eternal life, upon terms and conditions in the Gospel of God, held out of God to his people.

Mr. Bl. adds,

Answ. 1. That more may be squeezed out, is proved in my Exam. part 3. sect. 3. in this par • of the Review sect. 30.31, &c. And if no more be m • ant by them, these things w • ll follow. 1. That they mean by the Covenant of grace, a covenant of outward privileges, of viable C • urch-membership. Baptism, the Lord's Supper, to every believer by prof • ssion, though a Gentile, and his natural seed, under the pretence of the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. which pretended outward Covenant of outward privileges is a mere counterfeit, neither Gen, 17.7. nor anywhere else to be found in the holy Scripture. 2. They do most grossly abuse the text, Gen. 17.7. for proving such a Covenant, quite besides the expositions given of it throughout the New Testament, as is proved in this Part of the Revew, sect. 28. and quite besides the expositions even of the reformed Divines, though Paedobaptists, in their commentaries on the N. T. and writings against Arminians. 3. They do mock Readers most palpably▪ 1. in telling them the Covenant of grace cen • ains the promise of remission of sins, &c. is for substance the same in all ages, and say it belongs to all the infants of believers, that they are in it, that is that Covenant of grace, they are confederate with parents, as the words of the Directory, Mr, M. and others cited by me, Exam part. 3 sect. 3 show; and yet deny this Covenant of saving grace is made to them all, but upon such conditions as upon which it is made to unbelievers children, yea, to every man in the world. 2. In that they when they make the Sacraments to be seals of the Covenant of grace, and attempt to prove it from Rom. 4.11. which mentions only a seal of the righteousness of faith ▪ they make them seals of the righteousne • s of faith, and say infants are in the Covenant, and the seal must follow the Covenant, and yet nevertheless deny all the infants they baptize by virtue of being in the Covenant (of which Baptism is a seal) to be in that Covenant of which Baptism is a seal; but say they are in a mere imaginary Covenant, which they call an outward Covenant, of which Baptism is no seal, but rather according to their conceits, the thing itself covenanted or promised. 3. They mock parents, by telling them in wr • tings and sermons, that they are to be comforted concerning their children, that if they be believers their children are saved by virtue of the promise Gen. 17.7. that they are bound to believe it; and yet when they are pressed with the Apostles determination. Rom. 9.6 7, 8. and other arguments, they deny that they understand it of the • ovenant of saving grace, which alone can infer salvation) infallibly and absolutely to confer grace ; but either they make it only conditional if they repent and believe, which no man is sure any infant doth; or they say in the judgment of charity (which is fallible, and is no object of faith) we are to take them to be in Covenant and to b • saved, or else they say (which is now the common shif • ) they are in the outward Covenant, which is a figment, and of which they cannot say but that a person may be in it and not saved. 4. That since it is commonly conceived by readers and hearers that they mean that which Mr. M. Mr G. Mr. Bl. &c. do disclaim, Paedobaptists are bound to • each the people at their baby sprinklings, and at other ti • es when they avouch the infants of believers and of mere visible professors of faith to be in the Covenant of grace, Gen • 17 7. and thereupon derive their title to Baptism that they mean but as Mr. M. Mr. Bl. say, that they may acquit themselves from deceiving the people, and being judged impostors.

2. It is no marvel that the 3d. Section of the 3d. Part of my Examen is irksome to Mr. Bl. to read, since it doth so fully lay open the fallacy of Paedobap • ists in their speeches concerning the • nfants of believers being in Covenant. Not did I set down the position I conceived Mr. Ms. 2d.. concl. any otherwise then in fair candid way, giving my reasons thereof; and not as Mr. Bl. faith, per force imposing anything on him. And for Mr. M. it is shown above §. 30. that Mr. M. in his Defense hath rather hidd • n then explained the m • aning of his 2d Conclusion. As for M. Bl. [did acknowledge, Exam. p. 46. that he spake most warily, and therefore was far from obtruding upon him. But yet Mr. Bl. for want of other exceptions against me, chargeth me with wronging him in a passag • in my Apology, pag. 156. where I say, How doth this stand with tha • which he asserts, ch. 3. sect. 2. of his answer to my Letter, pag. 13. That infants of believers have salvation, if they die in their infancy, by ver • ue of the Covenant? These words, he saith, were none of his, and that I could not but know it, when I published them; and that the meaning was not his, I knew also, seeing he ex • ressed it in these words, That they are in the ordinary way of God's dispensation saveable. • o w • ich I reply. The assertio • I co • ceived his, I gathered from those words in the place cited by me, That Scrirture therefore, 1 Cor. 7.14 in this controversy is still brought in by our Divines, as evidently holding out a Covenant holiness, and consequently salvation of infants. And truly I must confess▪ I thought his words so plain, that I never dreamed he would have denied it to be his meaning, conceiving he alleged the Protestant Divines as con • onant to his own opinion; and that if salvation of Infants be inferred consequently from covenant holiness (which Mr. Bl. asserts from 1 Cor. 7.14.) then it is Mr. Bls. meaning, that infants of believers have salvation in their infancy, if they die in their infancy, by virtue of the Covenant, and that he asserts a certainty of salvation from the Covenant. That which he saith. I knew that the meaning I impute to him was not his because of the words he sets down, and therefore a calumny tending to make a brother odious, is I am sure false, and a calumny which I never expect to have fairly answered by him, nor almost anything else he is charged with by me to have dealt foully in his opposing • e about this point. The words he mentions were in the period before th • s. This Papists deny, as not knowing how to avoid the salvation of infants, but that they are in the ordinary way of God's dispensation saveable, when they are thus admitted within the verge of God's promise. Which being spoken of the Papists, I did not conceive so likely to explain the speech of the period following, as that other a little before, Protestants affirm that infants without actual admission to Baptism are saved The main argument wherewith Protestants assert it, is the Covenant▪ in which with the parents, infants are included: and I conceived [ are saved ] is as much as are actually saved. Nor am I yet so well indoctrinated by Mr. Bl. as not to think it had been non-sense (which I would not impute to Mr. Bl. ) to expound salvation of infants, by saveab • eness in the ordinary way of God's dispensation. Nor did I Imagine that by M • . Bl. muc • less by Protestant Divines, a saveableness only in God's ordinary way of dispensation, should be made the consequent of Covenant holiness, but a certainty of salvation. For the Covenant or prumise do • h not assure only • possibility, but a certainty; yea, possibilities are not the things which men ever assure, they are antecedent to Covenants and promises, but certain events; an • to imagine God's Covenant to assure only a possibility, a saveableness, and not a certainty of salvation, is to make God to promise • nothing, b • t what is without such a Covenant, which is to make it a blank. And if the Covenant holiness infer only a conditional salvation, it infers no more salvation then damnation: yea, if infants have no more by their Covenant holiness then a saveableness in God's ordinary way of dispensation, then they have only a saveableness if they be baptized, hear th • Gospel preached, believe it, profess it (which is the ordinary way whereby God dispenseth salvation.) But if this were Mr. Bls. meaning, he ha • made Baptism &c. a necessary condition of their salvation, and so he had tied their salvation with the Papists to Baptism, or rather been more rigid then they, durior pater infantum Augustino, requiring the hearing the word, actual faith, and profession of them to salvation. So that I hope by this time Mr. Bl. will forgive me this wrong, in setting down his opinion better then he meant it, and that he will let fa • l hi • suit against me for this thing: And if so, I will forgive him for his next insinuation of my setting up a man of straw and then beating it down (though it be indeed the common saying of Paedobap • ists, who usually say, the Covenant of grace sealed by Baptism, (which is that of justification) is made to believers and their seed, the promise is to them and their children, A •• s 2.39. which is meant by them of remission of sins) and for his frivolous charge of my using the arguments of Jesuits, and making use of Protestants names, when I do bring not only the names, but the very words and arguments of the most approved Protestant writers in great number, and produce one Papist, Estius alone, no Jesuit, but, though a Papist, of the better sort; and do, and may safely protest, that some of those Mr. Bl. chargeth me with I did not read; and for one, what I read in him came not into my mind when I wrote that Examen of Mr. Ms. sermon. So that what Mr. Bl. doth so often insinuate, as tending to make me suspected as if my arguments against Infant Baptism were borrowed from Papists even then when I avouch Protestants, is a most unworthy calumny, though I still say I am glad when I find truth, that I meet with i • in any Authors, whether Protestants or Papists, and think it not the worse for their owning it.

Mr. Bl a • ter his false accusations of me, and limitations of his own tenet, speaks thus.

Answ. The Reader hath a supposition indeed, but such a one, as if he examine it, he will be more to seek concerning Mr. Bls. mind, then if he had omitted it. But I sh • ll as fairly as the ambiguity of his expr • ssions will permit, search out his meaning. There are no fewer then nine Propositions thrust together in these words of his, That all that is necessarily included in God's entrance of Covenant with a people, engaging to be their God, and taking them for his people; is here by this grand Charter of Heaven made over to Abraham, and his natural issue by Isaac and Jacob. In which, 1. he asserts the promise Gen 17.7. to be the grand Charter of Heaven : And I grant it to be so in the sense in which the Apostle means, it, Gal. 3.16, 17, 18 Rom. 4.16. and elsewhere, to wit▪ as it is a promise of regeneration, justification, eternal life, which I call Evangelical grace. 2. He speaks of God's entrance of Covenant with a people, engaging to be their God, and taking them for his people, and of things necessarily encluded in this entrance of • ovenant. But there are many ambiguities in these expr • ssions The term entrance into Covenant is ambiguous: He may be said to enter into Covenant who offers it, or who makes and concludes it. The term people of God is ambiguous; it may be meant either of his people by special right, as the ten Tribes were when they fell off to idolatry; or his people by outward profession only, or his people by effectual saving calling. The terms engaging to be their God, and taking them for his people, may be understood in respect of temporary protection, advancement, rule, &c. or righteousness and eternal life. The word people may note either singular persons, or the collective body of a Nation which may not include every sing • lar person. He supposeth things necessarily included in God's entrance of Covenant with a people: But I am not yet convinced that any things are necessarily included in God's entrance of Covenant with a people engaging to be the • r God, and taking them f • r his people; but that all things therein included are arbitrary, or of his free-will. And if there be any things necessarily included, sure they are not privileges of Ordinances, I mean initial and after Seals, visible Church-membership of Infants; for God entered into Covenant wit • Abraham long b • fore, and never promised those things; so he did with Noah ; and with Adam. And that which agreeably to the Scripture was promised Gen 17.7. was to the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob, peculiar protection, provision, rule, 1 Sam. 12.12. by giving Laws to them, appointing them Judges, directing t • em by Oracles in war and peace, &c. To the spiritual seed of Abraham the promise was of Christ, righteousness, adoption, and the inheritance of eternal life; not those petty things which Mr Bl. doth frivolously imagine to have been contained in that grand Charter of Heaven, as he calls it, which is the thing that Mr. Bl. would fain squeeze out of that text, though there be not the least color in all the holy Scripture for it. His second Proposition is, that All Isaac's and Jacob's posterity are branches of this root by nature simply considered ; which if he understand of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, as a natural root, propagating them by natural generation, I grant it; if he mean it of a Covenant root, as he calls it, as deriving from them Evangelical grace by the Covenant Gen. 17.7. I deny it. His 3d. is, and they are holy branches by virtue of this Covenant ; which if he mean they were holy in respect of God's special rule, setting up his Tabernacle among them and such like prerogatives as are mentioned Rom. 9.4, 5. I grant it: But if he mean it of holiness according to election of grace, as Rom. 11.16. is meant, it is not true. His 4th. is, that this Covenant necessarily implies privilege of Ordinances, the fruition of God's Oracles: which if he mean in this sense • , that God's worship should be among them, that the Laws of God, and his Word should be to the collective body of Israel, I grant it; but if he mean it of visible church-membership of infants, initial and after Seals, which is the thing he aims at,) I deny it. The 5th. that privilege of Ordinances, and fruition of God's Oracles, are God's Covenant draughts, hath the same answer. The 6th. and 7th. that without this privileges of Ordinances and fruition of God's Oracles, no people are in Covenant, but all are strangers ; if it be meant of the Covenant of Evangelical grace, and of particular persons, the Propositions are manifestly false; for then no infants dying afore they have an initial Seal, hear the Word, &c. should be in Covenant: if it be meant of the privileges of Ordinances, and fruition of God's Ordinances in any sort, I grant, that if there be no worship of God among them, no fruition of God's Word written or unwritten, no people of ripe age, whether families, or nations, or single persons, can be said to be in Covenant, but are strangers from it; but if they be understood of such peculiar O • dinances and Oracles as the Jews had, Rom. 9. 4, 5. I deny it; for Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, &c. were in Covenant with God without them. His 8th. And this privilege of Ordinances implies also all privileges leading to, and accompanying salvation ; if meant of in-being in Christ, having his spirit to dwell in them, which are the chief privileges leading to, and accompanying salvation, and of all that have the privilege of Ordinances. I deny it; unless he mean it as he doth the 9th. Proposition, that this privilege of Ordinances implies salvation itself upon God's terms in his word revealed, which are Repentance and Faith in Christ, and then both Propositions are granted, the 8th. and the 9th▪ that the privilege of Ordinances doth imply both in-being in Christ, and his spirits in dwelling, and salvation itself to them that repent and believe in Christ. Which is true also of them that have not this privilege of Ordinances, as Cornelius, and many more. And thus Mr. Bl. also hath my exposition and answer concerning his position and supposition: Let's now see what he proves.

SECT. XLVIII. The 35 th. and 37 th. Chapters of Mr. Bls. Vind. Faed. are examined, and his Arguments concluding the natural issue of believers to be taken into Covenant, are answered.

HE entitles thus ch. 35. Arguments concluding the natural issue of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to be taken into Covenant ; which he may prove and not oppse me, who grant, that God promiset • Gen. 17.7▪ to be a God to the natural seed of Abraham, inheriting in domestic and political benefits: From whence he falsely infers▪ that I cast out all the natural seed of Abraham from any title to that Covenant, save in domes • ick and political benefits ; and then undertakes this Position in full opposition, That Covenant▪ in those words expressed Gen. 17.7. in their fullest latitude, as they are spoken in the largest comprehension (which according to Scripture they can be taken,) are entered with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob. So that if to be a God, Gen. 17.7. to Abraham and his seed, comprehend Evangelical benefits of regeneration, justification, eternal life, his position is, That the Covenant is entered in respect of these benefits, with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob ; which can be meant no otherwise then thus, God had promised, Gen. 17.7. these benefits to th • m all: For the Covenant could be no otherwise entered with them, Isaac and Jacob being not then begotten, nor in being, and therefore the entry into Covenant could not be mutual. Here then the Question between us is not, Whether the natural issue of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob were taken into Covenant? Gen. 17.7. for I grant that God there promised to be a God to them by domestic and political benefits, to wit, by setting up his worship more peculiarly in that nation, by raising up the Messiah out of them, by giving them peculiar Laws himself, raising up Judges and Governors for them, vouchsafing them peculiar protection which he vouchsafed not to other p • ople, directing them by his Oracle when they inquired of him, &c. And these benefits he promised to them all conditionally if they adhered to God: But the Question between us is; Whether Gen. 17.7. God have promised to all the natural issue of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob, the Evangelical benefits of regeneration, justification, and eternal life, supposed to be meant in the words, to be a God to thy seed? This I deny, and Mr. Bl▪ should prove, if he dispute in opposition to me. However let's view what he writes.

Answ. 1. The major is not true, if the subject of the Proposition be understood exclusively, or universally, and the phrase in the predicate [ to have the Lord for their God ] be meant in respect of the Evangelical benefits of regeneration, justification, and eternal life. It is not true, that God hath covenanted to be a God in respect of these benefits to all, or only to that seed of Abraham that had possession of the Land of Canaan through the gift, and by virtue of the promise of God: nor doth the Text at all make it plain. For though it prove that the seed of Abraham meant in the fore-part of Gen. 17. v. 8. were also meant v. 7. yet it doth not prove that all, or they only that had the promise of Canaan, had the promise of being a God to them in Gospel grace. The minor is granted, [ all ] being meant, as they speak in Logic, distributively in genera singulorum, that is, of any sorts of them, but not in singulos generum ; and with limitation to certain times fore-appointed of God, not in all times. All sorts inherited, but some were not to inherit till a certain time, and for a certain time; A bastard, Mamzer, Deut. 23.2. was not to enter into the congregation of the Lord, and so not to inherit regularly till the tenth generrtion. But were Mr. Bls. conclusion granted, it proves not what I deny, that to all, and every Israelite God promised Evangelical benefits, Gen. 17.7. or visible church membership and initial seal at all to any in that promise, Gen. 17.7.

Answ. 1. Waving my exception against the title of seal of the Covenant, not given to circumcision, or any other Rite in the Scripture, and inconvenient as is before proved, and putting in [ Circumcision ] instead of it; I deny the major, if understood universally: nor is the major plainly true, but plainly false, it being manifest in that very Covenant, that God entered it not with Ishmael and others whom he appointed to be circumcised. Nor is anything more plain then the contrary to what Mr. Bl. asserts. For God did enter into Covenant with th • natural seed female inheriting of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob, according to Mr. Bl. himself; the daughters of Zelophehad were in Covenant, and yet he did give the sign of the Covenan • to others, and not to them. Nor is the minor true; for the males of seven days old were in a capacity of circumcision, yet they had it not. I grant that circumcision was not limited to the spiritual seed▪ yet conceive Mr. Bls. proof of no force: For though it had been so limited, yet there had been place for the distinction of circumcision in the flesh, and of the heart, since things may be distinguished▪ which are not separate. But were the conclusion granted, it fails as the former in proving what I deny.

Answ. This last speech might be granted, and what else Mr. Bl. infers from the Text; yet he attains not his end, unless he prove that by virtue of that Covenant all the Israelites by natural descent we • e God • regenerate, j • stified people; for the thing he should prove against me, is, that Gen. 17.7. God promiseth to be a God in respect of Gospel benefits to all Abraham's natural issue by Isaac and Jacob. Yet I conceive there are places wherein the Israeli • es were termed God's by virtue of the Covenant of the Law Ezek. 16 8. & 20.5. &c. without mentioning the Covenant Gen. 17.7 which the Apostle conceives differently of, Gal. 3.16, 17. And the spee • hes Exod. 20.2. Deut. 5.6. Exod. 5.1. Deut. 14.1, 2. though spoken of the body of Israel, yet may and are to be understood, at least in some senses of them, not of every individual: Surely he was not God Evangelically to those that believed not, nor were they his people, nor legally, so as to afford them that protection, and tem • oral blessings which are promised in the La • , Deut. 28. &c. to Ahab, Achan, Korah, and such like. But in the Evangelical sense the denomination is from the better part, the people he fore knew, as the Apostle himself expounds it, Rom. 11.2, 5. and in respect of political blessings according to the Covenant of the Law, to the obedient to the Law, as of long life to dutiful children▪ safety▪ whi • e they kept the Solemn Feasts. Exod. 20.12. & 24.24. Nor doth Amos 3.1, 2. which he saith, is full to his purpose, say, that God was a God to that whole family which he brought out of Egypt by virtue of the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. much less to everyone of them Evangelically, nor doth he say he had known them • ll Evangelically, but had known them only, that is, had distinguished them from other people by giving them his Laws, &c. which makes nothing to prove according to Gen. 17.7. God took every descendent from Jacob into Covenant in respect of Gospel benefi • s.

• nsw. Tha • which Mr. Bl. should prove, is, That Covenant expressed in those words Gen. 17.7. in their fullest latitude as they are spoken, in the largest comprehension (which according to Scripture they can be taken) are entered with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob. And in his answer to my Letter, ch. 10. pag. 55, 56. he urgeth Exod. 32.13. Deut. 29.27, Levite 26.42. Exod. 3.6. to prove that Gen▪ 17.7. was a promise of grace and mercy to Jacob's posterity, such as of which Circumcision was a seal, Rom. 4.11. which he saith is no other then a Covenant of grace, and saith Circumcision did seal that Covenant, to be the God of believers, and their seed, Gen, 17.7, 10. But not one of the petitions or speeches alleged do prove either the former, or this last assertion. The petition of Moses, Exod. 32.13. was upon occasion of the making of the golden Calf, & God's speech to Moses concerning the consuming of them for it, and making Moses a great Nation: Moses to divert God from this thing, alledgeth, 1. That they were his people which he brought out of Egypt with great power, and a mighty hand ; and if he should consume them, the Egyptians would reproach him, as intending mischief to them when he brought them out of Egypt. Where it is true, God calls the body of them his people: But this must be understood, if Evangelically, in respect of the better part only; if Legally, either de jure because they ought to have been his people, being delivered from Egypt, and having engaged themselves Exod. 19.8. to obey God; or de facto, because he had done so great things for them, and thereby owned them in respect of his actings for them above other people. 2. He presseth God with his Oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But the Oath he mentions is concerning the multiplying the seed of Abraham, Isaac▪ and Jacob as the stars of heaven, and giving the land of Canaan to them, and that they shall inherit it forever ▪ not a word of being God to all the natural issue of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob in respect of Evangelical blessings, nor a word tending to show the extent of th • promise Gen. 17.7. in respect of gospel grace. The same answer I give to his allegation of Deut. 9.26, 27, 28, 29. And to Mr. Bls. flirt I answer, this Divinity was then known to God, and God might have sent away Moses with this answer, That he spake for some who were dogs, or reprobates, and not children of God according to the election of grace, which is the Apostles Divinity, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. 1 Cor. 10.5. Heb. 3.10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19. and that they were strangers from the Co • monwealth of Israel, that is, of the Israel of God, Gal▪ 6.16. And t • is is also the Apostles Divinity, Rom. 9.6. and therefore I count this no absur • ity. But I grant they, even the worst of them were not dogs, but children, and of the Commonwealth of Israel political, in respect of their outward state, and in that respect holy, and different from other people. To the other I answer, it is true, Moses prayed in faith, and was heard; but there is no mention in the places alleged of his praying for spiritual Evangelical grace for every particular Israelite, but for the preventing an utter destruction of them: Nor doth he at all express any such faith, whereby he believed God had promised to be a God to all the natural issue of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob in respect of Evangelical benefits. but that God would not destroy them, in which respect he was heard. And in like manner the Covenant upon the account of which God did vouchsafe mercy, is that of giving them Canaan, which Mr. Bl. will not have the Covenant itself, but an Appendix to it; and yet Exod 32.13. that is it which is pleaded, and Levite. 26.42, the Covenant it is plain is that he made concerning their seating in Canaan, for it expressly saith, and I will remember the Land, and v. 44. I will not utterly destroy them. The Church it is true, saith, Isa. 64.9. We are all thy people ; but if this Church be meant of all and every Israelite by natural descent, then all and every of them were a praying people, which is not to be said, and therefore is to be understood of the believing remnant only, or else that they were God's people in the sense before given of Exod. 32.12, 14. Deut. 9.29. Exod. 3.6. It is true, God saith to Moses, to stay up his faith in confidence of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, that he was the God of his Father, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and Jacob, and it is • rue, our Lord Christ hence proves the resurrection of the dead, Luke 20, 37, 38. and therefore it proves eternal life included in the promise, Gen. 17.7. but this is so far from proving God to be a God in respect of Evangelical blessings meant Gen. 17.7. to every Israelitte, or to be a God to believers and their natural seed, that it is a good argument to the contrary; for this absurdity would follow, That everyone of them are certainly saved, if he were a God to every of them in the sense, Luke 20.37, 38.

Mr. Bl. next excepts against me for censuring of Chamiers calling the promise of the Land of Canaan an Apenpendant to the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. And saith, The thing is so clear in the narrative of it, Gen. 17, that nothing can be more evident. The Covenant is full, v. 7. To be a God to Abraham and his seed; and this he might have been, had he pleased, in the Land of Ur of the Chaldees, or in any L • nd whatsoever that his seed had been planted • : But when the Covenant is thus made, there is added; v. 8. And I will give unto thee, &c.

Answ. My censure of Chamier was no more then this, I like not, and I say the same still, that the promise of the land of Canaan Gen. 17.8. is not a mere appendant, but as truly a part of the Covenant God made with Abraham Gen. 17. as v. 7. And to Mr. Bls. strong conceit I oppose my strong conceit of the evidence to the contrary (being backed by the Scripture) as sufficient of countervail his saying; And for his reasons. 1. God might have been a God to them in Vr▪ Ergo, the promise of Canaan is but an appendix, not a part of the Covenant. I answer, 1. by the like reason it might be said, thou shalt be a Father of many Nations, is but an appendant to the Covenant, contrary to Gen. 17.4. because God might be a God to him, though father of one Nation only. 2. By denying the consequence, which is in my slender conceit a baculo ad angulum ▪ The other (if it be a reason and not a dictate) is, the Covenant is full, v. 7. but when the Covenant is made there is added, v. 8. I answer. 1. By like reason it might be said, The Covenant is full▪ v. 4, 5, 6. but when the Covenant is made v. 4, 5, 6▪ there is add • d v. 7. ergo, v. 7. is n • part of the Covenant, but an appendant to it. 2. It is not proved that at v. 7. the Covenant is full, yea v. 8. being as Mr. Bl. himself stiles it, an additional promise, it is proved, that the Covenant is not full without it being added as a promise, and so a part of • he Conant.

I said the Holy Ghost me thinks speaks otherwise Postscript. §. 12. Mr. Bl opposeth. The force of this argument must needs be this. That which is anywhere called a Covenant, that is not an appendant to a Covenant. But the giving of the land of Canaan to the seed of Abraham is there called by the name of a Covenant. Mr. T. sure will not say that Circumcision is the Covenant between God and his people, he will not deny but it is a sign and seal annexed to the Covenant; and yet Gen. 17.10. it is called a Covenant. Mr. T. well enough knows a Metonymy of the adjunct and the common use of it in Scripture; but that it is his wisdom for his advantage to conceal it.

Answ. Mr. T. well knows, that Mr. Bl. useth artifices to elude, when he should answer. The words of the Psalmist were alleged as a plain testimony, which need not be formed into an argumen • , but if it need forming, I should not form it as Mr. Bl. forms it (that he may the ease • er slight what he cannot answer) but thus. That promise which is called God's Covenant forever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations, which he made, was his oath, confirmed for a Law and everlasting Covenant, decl • red by saying in words what God would do, that is a Covenant, at least in part, and not a mere appendant. But such is the promise of the land of Canaan, Gen. 17.8. and elsewhere, ergo. The major might be proved from the definition of a Covenant, which is either a promise or an aggregate of promises single or mutual. The minor is the very text. And to Mr. Bls. shift I reply. I knew well enough a metonymy of the adjunct or sign to beuied Gen 17.10. But I withal knew it would have been my folly to have expounded the term [ Covenant] Psal. 105.8, 9. by a metonymy like that Gen. 17.10. For I should have made the Psalmist speak non-sense, and perverted his plain meaning if I had thus expounded, he hath remembered his Covenant, that is not his promise itself▪ but the sign and seal of it, which he made, sware, said And I think it had been Mr. Bls. wisdom to have concealed this shift, and rather have let it pass without saying anything to the objection.

Mr. Bl. adds his fifth and last argument, from Texts in the N. T. which interpret this Covenant thus en • ered with Abraham in that latitude as extending to his natural issue, and not with limit to his spiritual seed; and that not barely in domestic civil, but in spiritual promises; so that this one hath many in the bowels of it.

Answ. Abraham's spiritual seed are true believers as he was and elect persons, spiritual promises are so called from th • things promised, called Ephes. 1.3. spiritual blessings in heavenly things in Christ, such are regeneration or circumcision of the heart, remission of sins, justification, adoption, eternal life. If Mr. Bl. holds the Covenant with Abraham extending to his natural issue, and not with limit to his spiritual seed in spiritual promises, he holds r • generation, remission of sins, justification, adoption, eternal life, to them who are neither true believers nor elect persons. Let's view his proofs.

First, saith he Rom. 9.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The Apostle aggravating his sorrow for Israel, not respective to civil or domestic but higher concernments for the whole body of Israel, he reckons up their privileges, the privileges of all that according to the flesh were Israe • ites; privileges formerly enjoyed, but now lost, nine • n number. Here sure is enough to conclude them of the seed thus in Covenant t • be of God's adopted seed under the promises.

Answ. He might more truly have said, here sure is nothing (as it was printed) to conclude all the natural issue of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to be of God's ad • pted seed under the promise of spiritval blessings in the Covenant Gen. 17.7. as it contained Gospel grace. The privileges could not be o • all that according to the flesh were Israelites, for of them all as concerning the flesh Christ could not come, now were all (if any of them) privileges Evangelical from spiritual promises in the Covenant of grace, but rather all of them Domestic or civil privileges which believers of the nations had not. Nor were the privileges to the Israelites at all times, but at sometimes. And therefore this text is impertinent to Mr. Bls, purpose, yea this Scripture and that wh • ch follows put together, are an antithesis to his thesis.

Secondly, saith he, Rom. 11. The Apostle speaks of the casting off of God's people. Those that are cast off from being a people of God, were once his people; those that are put out of Covenant, were a people in Covenant: but the natural issue of Abraham ( called natural branches, v 21. being by right of birth of that Olive) are there broken off, cast off; therefore the natural issue were the seed in Covenant.

Answ. The conclusion is granted, the natural issue of Abr • ham who were also the spiritual seed were the seed in Covenant, and such were a great part of the Jews in former ages, but those broken off, were never in the Covenant of grace; Nor is it said they were put out of the Covenant of grace, or broken off from the Olive in which they were in their persons, but in which their progenitors were; nor are they said to be natural branches v. 21. because by right of birth of that Olive, but by reason of their descent from Abraham they are natural branches of that Olive which at first was by natural as well as spiritual descent from him, but never by right of birth. It is false if meant of casting off from being his people, as it is meant Rom. 11.1, 2▪ that those that are cast off from being a people of God were once his people, understanding it in their own persons. But of this text, and this argument, more hath been said in the first part of this Review, and more will be, if the Lord permit, in that which follows.

Thirdly, saith he, Matth. 8.11, 12. whence he thus argues. Children of the Kingdom that are to be cast out, are in the Kingdom only upon an in • erest of Birth, for the fruition of the privileges of Ordinances, and not upon any spiritual title, infallibly giving interest in salvation: But the children of the Kingdom were upon our Savior's sentence to be cast out, therefore they were in the Kingdom only on an interest of birth.

Answ. This argument 1 concludes not Mr. Bls. position, that the Covenant expressed Gen. 17.7. in the fullest latitude of the words as they are there spoken, in the largest comprehension (which according to Scripture they can be taken) are entered with all the natural seed of Abraham, by Isaac and Jacob. 2. It contradicts his own position, for if it be as, he here saith, tha • they were not children of the Kingdom (though the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob) upon any spiritual title infallibly giving interest in salvation, and yet the Covenant Gen. 17.7. wherein God saith, he will be a God to Abraham's seed, comprehends such saving grace as creates a spiritual title, infallibly giving interest in salvation, as the Apostle Gal. 3.16, 17, 18, &c. expounds it, then the Covenant Gen. 17.7. is not entered with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob, in the fullest latitude of the words as they are there spoken, in the largest comprehension (which according to Scrip • ure they can be taken) therefore this argument overthrows his own positi • n. 3. If by [ being in the Kingdom ] be meant being visible members of the visible Church Jewish, the conclusion is granted, but withal it is proved from the same text, that they were never in the visible Church Christian, but were opposite to it, in that they embraced not the Christian Faith, but opposed the Lord Jesus Christ, and so had no right to baptism, though they had circumcision, and did eat the passover. 4 It is manifest from the text, and agreed upon by interpreters, that the Kingdom of Heaven in that place notes the Kingdom of glory, or the state of eternal life and blessedness in heaven, and not the visible Church only, or a being in it for the fruition of the privileges of ordinances. For 1 the Kingdom of heaven is that wherein Abraham and Isaac and Jacob were then sat down, for it is said v. 1▪1. they shall sit down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob, in the Kingdom of heaven. But they were then sat down not in the visible Church only, nor had being in it for the fruition of • he privileges of ordinances, but in the state of eternal life and blessedness in heaven, ergo ▪ 2. The Kingdom of heaven there is directly opposed to the outer darkness, where is weeping and gnashing of teeth v. 12. But that which is directly opposed to the outer darkness in which is weeping and gnashing of teeth, is the Kingdom of glory, or the state of eternal life and blessedness in he • en, and not the visible Church only, or a being in it for the fruition of the privileges of ordinances, ergo. 3. The scope of the speech of our Savior is conceived by most interpreters, to be to abate the insolency and pride of the Jews, who contemned the Gentiles. Upon occasion of the Centurions faith v. 10. he tells them, though they now despised the Gentiles as not worthy to eat with them, yet they should come from East and West and should sit down with the best of their Ancestors, in the best, highest, and happiest place and condition. 4. Ex • ounding it of the visible Church it were not true which our Savior speaks; For the Gentiles did never sit down with them in the visible Church for the fruition of the privi • edges of ordinances, such as C • rcumcision, the Passover, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, for some of these Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, did never partake of, nor ever shall, nor may the Gentiles with them, partake of circumcision, and the passover, for that had been to have foretold that the Gentiles should have been circumcised with those Fathers, which had been to establish Judai • m, contrary to the Apostles decree Acts 15. to Paul's determination Gal. 2. & 5.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Yea, if it had been foretold that the Gentiles should come and join themselves to the visible Church Jewish, which began in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our Lord Christ had foretold that conjunction, which was so far from proving true in the event, that they who did come to Christ were persecuted and cast out of that Church Gal. 4.29. 1 Thes. 2.15.5. Hence it follows, that the children of the Kingdom are not so called because they were in that▪ Kingdom of heaven which is there meant, for then they had never been cast out: but they are called children of the Kingdom, because as Diodati notes, by the prerogative of God's Covenant the Jews seemed to be heirs of this Kingdom, or as the new Annot. as ch. 9.15. who were born of those parents to wh • m the Kingdom was promised, and by virtue of the Covenant Rom. • .4. it had still belonged to them, had they not forfeited it by their unbelief and wickedness. Pisch. sch. Filios vero regni ] id est, Judaeos qui hacteni • s per aliquot saecula ad regnum illud coelorum vocati sunt & vocantur. Beza Annot. Filios regni, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Id est, indigenas, quos vocant vulgo naturales subjectos. Intelligit autem Dei regnum, ad quod pertinebant in gener • quicunque erant ex Abrahae genere, cum longe alia sit ratio coram Deo censendi filios Abrahae, nimirùm ex fide. So that they were children of the Kingdom not before God in actual title or possession, but only in appearance to men, and likelihood, considering their descent and the first manifestation of Christ, and the Gospel to that people. 6. Out of this it appears that a man may be said to be • ast out of the Kingdom of heaven, who was never in actually, but only in possibility, according to what was apparent to men, and consequently Mr. Bls. propositions are not true in his precedent argument, Those that are cast off from being a people of God, were once his people; those that are put out of Covenant, were a people in Covenant ; nor the argument good, Ishmael was cast out of Covenant, therefore once in. Nor is it seldom, that men are said to be brought up from the grave, as Psal. 30.3. and to be redeemed from the grave and hell, who were never in, but only in danger of it.

But Mr. Bl. hath yet a fourth text, which was his text in his Birth-privilege, it is Gal 2.15. From whence after some explication given of the text he t • us argues, That which is a privilege of nature or birth, belongs to the natural issue, that cannot be denied. But to be in Covenant with God as a people holy and exceeding others that are without as sinners, is a privilege of nature or birth, therefore this privilege belongs to the natural issue.

Ans. To be in covenant with God may be understood either in respect of the Covenant with Abraham Gen 17. or the Covenant at Mount Sinai Exod. 19. To be in the Covenant Gen 17. may be in respect of Evangelical benefits, or of domestic and political benefits or privileges, as, to be accounted members of the Israelitish nation and so of that church, to have the service of God among them, the law among them, education under it, freedom from idolatry, and other pollutions of the Gentiles. To be as a people holy, may be understood either of holiness by inward sanctification, called circumcision of the heart, or of outward holiness in being distinguished from other people, as set apart visibly for God, whether in reputation or truth, either by God's distinction or by an outward sign, or by their own profession. I grant the minor of being in Covenant either Exod. 19. or Gen. 17. in respect of the domestic and political benefits, at least some of them, and to be a holy people exceeding others that are without as sinners, if understood of outward holiness in reputation or truth, by God's distinction, and by the outward sign of Circumcision, was (I do not grant is) a privil • dge of nature or birth, and accordingly grant the conclusion, that this privilege did (I do not say doth) belong to the natural issue (I do not say to all) of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob, and was proper to the Jews, and no more can be gathered from Gal. 2.15. there's not a word of the same privilege as belonging to the natural post • ity of believing Gentiles. But the minor is denied, if understood of Evangelical benefits and of holiness inward (of which alone the question should have been formed, his position being in full opposition to my words) nor is it proved out of the text, himself expounding Jews by nature, that is by birth and off spring of a nation that is holy though in themselves sinners, reputed an holy people, a people by covenant holy to the Lord, which they might be though to be in Covenant with God Gen. 17.7. and as a people holy and exceeding others that are without as sinners by inward holiness be not a privilege of nature or birth.

But Mr. Bl. thinks my grant involves me in not a few contradictions. 1. To what I say Exercit. pag. 3. the natural seed inherit only domestic and civil benefits. But Mr. Bl. falsely chargeth me, the word [ only ] is Mr. Bls. addition not mine, as the Reader that shall read the words may perceive. 2. To what I am wont to deny, that birth entitles any to such privileges as interest in Circumcision, and observance of Moses law. But this is another of Mr. Bls. forged calumnies: let him show if he can that I say so anywhere, and he deserves some credit, if not let him suffer as a Calumniator. 3. That I deny the natural seed any promise of spiritual mercies, which is another forgery of his like the former. 4. That I say this was proper to the Jews in that Church state, who had prerogatives peculiar to them. And then saith thus. And here we urge it no further, and it fully concludes Mr. T. in a contradiction, that will have the natural seed of Abraham, and no other then his spiritual seed to be entitled to such privileges. Here's more of his forgery, that I say no other then Abraham's spirit • ul seed are entitled to such privileges as were proper to the Jews in that Church state, who had prerogatives peculiar to them. Let him show any such thing in my writing, or let him, as he and his fellow Paedobaptist Mr. Robert Baillee (who hath in like sort wronged me) as they ought, testify their repentance by righting me. Otherwise the Lord will to their shame discover their evil dealing, i • their own conscience be so blind or so hard as to slight such a sin.

He concludes thus, Any one of these arguments severally, much more all • ointly, make good this position, that all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob, are in that great Charter (vouchsafed of God) taken into Covenant so as to be the people of God, and to enjoy all privileges of his people in order (upon God's terms) to everlasting salvation. But 1. not one nor all prove that God did promise to all Gen. 17.7. or any such outward privileges as he means, to wit, to be circumcised, or right to it and the Passover, nor that all enjoy them. 2. The promises of justification, adoption, eternal life, upon God's terms, without the promise of regeneration and effectual calling, make no • a person to be in the Covenant, nor a people holy to the Lord Evangeli • ally. Now this promise Mr. Bl. hath not proved to be made to all the natural seed of Abraham, by Isaac and Jacob, and till he doth so, he proves nothing against my assertion Exercit. pag. 3 which he pretended fully to oppose, but hath failed to do it. His 36. ch. is answered before sect. 29. I pass on to ch. 37. which is thus entitled, The Covenant in New Testament times takes in parents with their children ; This he sets himself to make good first by interrogatories, and then by Peters words Acts 2.38, 39. which is answered before sect. 21. A little o • his interrogatories.

To his first, if by the grant he mean the Covenant of grace Evangelical, I deny it to have been ever made to a beli • ver and all his seed, nor is it proved by Mr. Bl. If a Covenant of visible Church-membership and initial seal, I deny any such Covenant ever made by God to a believer and his seed, or the grant thereof to have been held by the Church of God in fee from Abraham to this present hour, and therefore need show no reverse of such a grant.

To his 2d. demand, I grant a whole nation may enter into Covenant as Deut 29. nor do I restrain any from engagement of their infants and posterity unborn by an oath and curse to own God But I find there no promise or grant of visible Church-membership and initial seal to believers and their seed, by virtue of such a Covenant. His other frivolous questions in that demand are answered often, that the difference ariseth f • om the different institution of Circumcision which is the rule of administering them, not interest in the Covenant if there were such.

To his 3d. demand, I know no scandal ever given or likely to be given to the Jews by not baptizing infants. His random talk of s • riking out of the Covenant infants, is shown often before to be vain, as going on suppositions not proved. To his alleg • tions of Gen. 17.7. Ezek. 16.20. 1 Cor. 7.14. I have often answered before.

To his 4th. that the reason why in the Apostles days and the next age to them▪ no question was moved about the baptizing of infants, though infants were circumcised by the Jews is manifest, to wit, Christ had not appointed infants to be bap • ized, the Apostles and primitive Christians did not at all use it, it was contrary to the end and use of baptism as appointed by Christ, they knew not of the Paedobaptists doctrine, about the title to baptism from the Covenant, and its succession to circumcision.

But Mr. Bl. further refers me to Mr. Baxter's Treatise of Infants Church-membership, proving that infants were sometimes Church members, pag 26, 27. that there is no repeal of this grant vouchsafed of God pag. 27, 28. waiting for some fair answer to the former demands Whereto I shall address myself, as being very desirous wi • h the assistance of the Lord to do my endeavor for the freeing of men from the delusion of that Book, wherewith a great number of Paedobaptists have been gulled.

SECT. XLIX. The 4 th▪ Ch. of Mr. Baxter's, Part 1. of Plain Scripture-proof, &c. is examined, his conceits about Infants visible Church membership and their admission considered; and sundry Animadversions made on that Chapter.

MR. B. part 1. ch. 4. of his Plain Scripture-proof, &c. writes thus.

Answ. That I did often in the dispu • e at Bewdly go over and over the terms of this argument, need not seem st • a • ge, when Mr. Thomas Hooker having the book he was to examine before him in Print, in a like point, saith thus, survey of the sum of Church Discipline, Part 1. ch. 12. When I had read over Mr. Rutherford once and again, I was at a stand in mine own thoughts, to determine certainly what was his proper intendment by the catholic and visible Church. I might well doubt what he meant by the visible Church, how he defined i • , (wherein his notion is different from what others have, as is shown before in the 2d. part of this Review, sect. 17.) whether he meant the visible Church catholic, or particular; and if particular, whether Jewish, or Christian. And for the admission, what he meant by it, how, and by whom it ought to be, was doubtful. I perceived in the very entrance of the dispute, by his preface, and his propounding the question about our baptizing, representing it as odious, as if it were murder and adultery; and after by his denying liberty of repeating to me, refusing to explain his own terms, scoffingly putting if off as if it were catechizing of him, when I desired him to open some terms to me which he used; and when I told him that it was needful the people should understand us, he replied, he came to dispute with me, not to instruct them: nor would clear them, except I could by distinction force him to it. I deprehended that he was, as I found him, bent to catch advantages to insult over me, and carry away the same of a victory, and not in a brotherly candid way to discuss the point, that truth might appear to all the hearers, which I hoped from a man so seemingly godly. Upon which reasons I confess I was hesitant, both about the answering of this, and other arguments all along the dispute, finding that Mr. B. had studied arguments in unusual expressions, that he might the more easily entangle me, having no time to weigh his words, but being required presently to give answer. For which reason I was also necessitated sometimes to vary my answers as I deprehended his meaning to be. Now presuming I shall better understand Mr. B. then I could do before, I shall give a more determinante answer to his argument. Which that I may do, I conceive it necessary, that in the entrance I do inquire into his opinion concerning the visible Church, and admissi • n into it, and the meaning of his expression [ ought to be admitted visible Church-members. ]

1. Mr. B supposeth that the reason of the appellation given to the visible body, is its seeming (to the judgment of man) to be the same with the mystical. Praefestin: Morator sect. 11.

2. That

He saith, Answ. to my Valedict. Orat. pag. 176. Wherein how Mr. B. is mistaken, is shown in the 2d. Part of this Review, sect. 17. pag. 229, &c.

3. Ch. 20. He imag • nes an universal visible Church existent, not dissolved ; which is all one as to say, there is or was an universal visible Church, consisting of indivi • ual members immortal, or perpetually visible: Which mistake of his will come under consideration in that which follows.

4. Ch. 5. & ch. 20. he imagines having infants to have been of the essentials of the Jewish Church. But therein he is mistaken: For though they may be termed substantial parts, yet not essential, (the Jewish Church had ben a visible Church though there had been no infant in it) but integral.

5. Ch. 20. that the nature of the Jews Church was not repealed, that the Jews Church was not repealed, ch. 5. that the Law or Covenant on which the species or essential form of their Church (and many of its accidents) was grounded, is not changed or repealed. Though the Jews are cast off, yet the law and nature of Churches is still the same ▪ Which speeches, with other more of the like kind, shall be (God willing) examine • d in that which follows, and the non-sense and vanity of them shown.

6. Ch. 23. that infants visible church-membership did not begin at the institution of circumcision, but rather with the first infant of faithful Adam, though he after fell off.

7. That this is grounded on a Law and Covenant of God, which is made higher then that, Gen. 17.7. even that Gen. 3.15. Ch. 23. Yea, he makes it to antecede the fall of Adam. Ch. 19. it is said to be of the Law of nature to have infants to be a part of a Kingdom: And ch. 13. therefore infants to be church-members. Pag. 60. That infants must be church-members, is partly natural, and partly grounded on the Law of grace and faith: as if Church constitution were natural, and not by mere institution.

8. Animadv. on Mr. Bedford's treatise of Baptismal regeneration. Plain Script. proof pag. 3 • 6. pag. 15. and elsewhere he makes the condition of the infants church membership and justification to be wholly without him in the faith of the parent. The falsity of which conceit is shown by me in the 2d. part of this Review, sect. 10, 17. and elsewhere.

9. That this visible church-membership, notwithstanding the continuance of the parents Faith the imagined Law and Covenant, yet endures not but til they, when they come to years, do themselves make profession. So Plain Scrip. proof, part 2. ch. 6. pag. 119.

And pag. 335. He saith,

10. That there is no other way of admitting visible members now into the Church, but by Baptism, pag. 24.108. But they are visible members afore Baptism according to his tenet, pag. 24. We and infants are Church-members before Baptism.

11. I presume that when he saith, All that ought to be admmitted visible church members, ordinarily ought to be baptized, he means this of Christian Churches, church members, and admitting into them, not the Jewish: For though I find him speak as if the Jews Church were not repealed, (as in his non-sense he speaks, ch. 20.) that is, as I imagine, in the nature or essence the Jewish Church visible and the Christian were the same, and so they that were admitted into the Jewish, are to be admitted into the Christian; which caused me to suspect at the Dispute an ambiguity in that expression [ ought to be admitted visible church-members. ] Yet I do not imagine that he holds the proposition in this sense, All that ought heretofore to be admitted visible church members in the Jewish Church distinct from the Christian, ordinarily ought then to be baptized afore Christ's coming▪ while the Jewish Church stood: if he should, I should deny it.

12. That this admission which infants are to have is, as he often speaks, into the visible Church : But what this admission into the visible Church is, by whom, and unto whom it ought to be, according to Mr. Bs. judgment, is yet to me uncertain. Admission is, according to the common use of i • , the taking in of a person into an Office, Army, or Family, or the like, to perform the work, enjoy the benefit, profit, &c. of such an Officer, Member, &c. And it is usually done by some Officer to whom that business is committed; and the person upon his admission, and by virtue of it, takes his place, work, benefit, or what else he is admitted to, as his right and due. But I know no such thing in the baptizing of infants. Indeed by Baptism regularly, a man is admitted to the Communion of the Church in prayer, hearing, receiving the Lord's Supper, and such other acts of Christian Communion as belong to visible Church-members. But an infant by Baptism is not admitted to these Prayer and hearing are in some sort allowed to unbaptized persons, and they are admitted to them who are infidels, when infants baptized are sent away as uncapable of them, and disturbers by their crying and playing. The Lord's Supper they are not admitted to by their Baptism, till they themselves profess, as Mr. B. and other Paedobaptists agree; The being, name, repute of Chur • h-members is antecedent to Baptism, and therefore they are not admitted to it by Baptism. I must confess therefore I do not well know what this admission of infants i • which is by Baptism, and I think the proposition in Mr. Bs. argument to be void of truth or sense, if it be not thus construed: All that ought to be admitted visible church-members are baptized, or, which is all one, ordinarily ought to be baptized afore they are admitted, unless the admission and baptism be one and the same, and then the speech is an inept tautology, as if he had said: All visible church members that ought to be baptized, ordinarily ought to be baptized. So that now Mr. B. may see some reason of my demur about his major proposition, which though it were as plain as he well knew how to express himself, yet there is so much ambiguity in it, that in the sense which the words in any good construction will bear, it is to be denied: But if he understand it in the later sense, the Syllogism is nugatory, the minor and the conclusion being the same. Nevertheless, as in the Dispute I let the major pass, so I shall do in this answer, only taking notice of some things in his proof of it, and insist upon my denial of the minor.

The first argument of Mr. B. to prove admission into the visible Church is to be by Baptism, I approve, and thence conclude against infant Baptism thus. If we have neither precept nor example in Scripture since Christ ordained Baptism, of admitting any by Baptism as visible members but believer • by profession, then all that must be admitted visible members ordinarily by Baptism, must be believe • rs by profession. But since Baptism was instituted (or established) we have no precept or example in Scri • ture of admitting any a • visible members by Baptism, but believers by profession. Ergo, all that must be admitted visible members must be believers by profession. I know not what in show of reason can be said to this. For what man (yet Mr. B. and Paedobaptists dare) dare go in a way which hath neither precept nor example to warrant it, from a way that hath full current of both? yet they that will admit infants into the visible Church by Baptism do so. If he say there's precept before, I answer, his own major requires precept or example since Christ ordained Baptism, and therefore that shift avoids not the retortion of his argument. To what he replies to this argument in his Praefestin. morator, sect. 16. besides what I have said in the 2d. part of this Review, sect. 4. pag. 66.67. there is enough in the same book, sect. 10, 11, 12 &c. to manifest, that infants are not in any Scripture disciples appointed to be baptized, Matth. 28.19. Nevertheless, I find Alstedius in his Supplement to Chamier de natura Ecclesiae, cap. 7. §. 4. thus writing. Baptismus admittit in Ecclesiam particularem: sed in Ecclesiam catholicam potest aliquis admitti sine baptismo; quia hanc ad rem sufficit vera fides. And whereas Mr. Ball in his reply to the answer of the New-Ergland Elders about the nine positions, pag. 60. had said, Baptism is the seal of our admission into the congregation or flock of Christ; but not evermore of our receiving into this or that particular society as set members thereof : Mr. Allin rejoyns in his Defense, pag. 163. Baptism doth not admit actually into the Church, and your own expression secrety implieth as much, when you say, Baptism is a seal of our admission into the Church or flock of Christ: If baptism be the seal of our admission, then there is admission thereunto before baptism: but who doth admit, and where and when is any admitted to the Church, but in particular congregations? • an any be admitted into a Charch, that whole Church being ignorant thereof? Fulwood serm. of the Church, &c. p▪ 14. The children of believers, born in the Church are not (though virtual) actual members of the visible Church before Baptism. This I produce, to show the uncertainty among Paedobaptists about admission into the Church by baptism, and membership before Baptism.

Like also what Mr. B. saith in his 2d. arg. To be above ordinances is to be above obedience to God, and so God's: And when he saith in his 3d. The nature and end of baptism, is to be Christ's listing, engaging sign ; it is a good argument to prove that infant baptism hath not the nature and end of baptism, • ith it is not Christ's (that is, according to his appointment) listing, engaging sign, the infant neither lists nor engageth himself by it as Christ appointed: And when he saith, If it be the use of baptism to engraff and enter us into the body or Church, 1 Cor. 12.13. and into Christ, as Rom. 6.3. then sure it must be used at our engraffing and entrance, it rather follows, it is before, since the means is to be before the end in execution. To what he saith about Church-members, Disciples, Christians, enough hath been said in the 2d. part of this Review, sect. 10. &c.

In his 6th. argument, having formed an argument from Ephes. 5.26. he saith of me. Mr. T. in his Exercit. objecteth, 1. That then the thief on the cross, &c. were no church members. Answ. It follows not from [he that is baptized shall be saved] that therefore he that is not baptized shall not be saved: so here, for the former speaks but ad debitum, and the later de eventu; it will follow, that it is a duty to baptize all members where it may be done; but not that it shall certainly come to pass.

Refut. What I said Exercit. pag. 21. of that text, Ephes. 5.27. was not an objection against what Mr. B. would evince from the text, but in answer to an argument urged for infant baptism from that text by a London Minister, in a conference anno 1643. Which argument being drawn from an act or end of Christ, which was not only duty▪ but his performance: it was urged, that if infants were not baptized, and to be baptized, they belonged not to the Church : To which I answered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by an answerable illation, by the same reason the thief on the cross should not belong to the Church because not baptized. That which Mr. B. answers is not true, that Mark 16.16. the former part speaks but ad debitum, and the later de eventu. For though a duty may be gathered from the subject of the proposition, it being clear, that salvation being promised to the believer baptized, Faith and Baptism are required duties to that end; yet the former part of the proposition doth as fully speak of an event as the later part doth. And though Ephes. 5.26. it is proved a duty to baptize, as a • so to preach the word, because it is Christ's way (in which we are to concur with him) of cleansing his Church: yet the cleansing of the Church with or in the washing of water by the word, doth not note a duty, but an end intended, and event to follow by Christ's action. Mr. B. proceeds.

2. He objecteth, that therefore it must be understood of the more famous part of the Church, or that purification is to be understood of that which is for the most part. Answ. The Apostle speaks plainly of the whole Church; and to take it for part, is to cross the Text, except you show a necessity for it. 2. It speaks of all quoad debitum, in regard of the means of it, which they are capable of. 3. And usually quoad eventum of the said means too.

Refut. 1. It cannot be understood of the whole visible Church, in which are many reprobates; for it is that Church which Christ loved with that peculiar love which is the Husbands pattern to love his Wife by, for whom he gave himself, that he might sanctify it, that he might present it to himself glorious, and a Church not having spot or wrinkle, or any of such things; but that it might be holy, and without blemish: which are true only of that part of the visible, which is also of the invisible Church of the elect. 2. Whomsoever it speaks of, [ that he might purify it in or with the washing of water by the word ] it speaks of the intention of Christ; which being supposed that it is not frustrated, it follows, that those who are said to be purified in or with the washing of water by the word, are all in the event converted by preaching, and baptized with water. Which since it cannot be said of all elect infants, for they are not purified by the word, it must be understood as I say, either by a synocdoche of the whole for the more famous or apparent part; or else the act is meant of that which is usually done, or for the most part, not what is universally and perpetually. 3. It is granted, that we may gather thence the duty of preaching the word, and baptizing with water, and that they who are sanctified by preaching are to be purified by baptism, and that this was usual in the event, a known use in the primitive times: But expressly it notes only Christ's act, not the Ministers duty, which is only implied, and follows from this, that Christ doth it by them; and it supposeth, that they who are capable of the one, to wit • baptism, are capable of the other, the hearing of the word▪ for these two are conjunctively put, not dis-junctively either the one or the other, as if some were purified in the washing of water only, others by the word; but the same who are purified by the one, are purified by the other. Mr. B. adds.

Object. But some may say, that [by the word] is here added, which infants are not capable of▪ Answ. 1. Infants are sanctified by the word of promise and precept to parents to dedicate them to God, though not by the word preached to infants. 2. The means is to each member as they are capable. Washing by water to those that are capable of that, and by the word to those that are capable of that, which blind and deaf men are not anymore then infants.

Ref. There is no word of precept to parents to dedicate infants to God by baptism, though there be to pray for them; nor do I think M. • . would allow every parent to dedicate his or her infant to God by baptism, which they must do if there were a precept to them to do it. That there is no such word of promise as entitles every infant of a believer, or any definitely to baptism, much less that appoints parents to dedicate their infants to God by baptism, is amply shown in this book before. Nor can the meaning be, Ephes. 5 26. of such a sanctification. For 1. no word of promise, and precept to parents to dedicate them to God, is that which Christ doth sanctify or cleanse them by, partly because there is none such, partly because the word of precept to parents (if there were such) to dedicate them to God, would not cleanse or sanctify the infants, it hath no effect on them, nor notes their duty: nor doth the precept sanctify or cleanse, but the observing of it; nor was the parents dedication ever made by God a means to cleanse or sanctify the child, as there is meant. Nor, were there such a word of promise to a parent, would that of itself sanctify and cleanse. 2. The word there meant, is the word of the Gospei preached to those who are said to be cleansed by Christ. For 1. all along the N. T. and particularly in that Epistle, by [the word] is meant the word of the Gospel, as it is preached or published. Acts 10.22, 36, 37. Rom. 10.8, 9, 17. Ephes. 6.17, Heb. 6.5. 1 Pet. 1.25. Luke 3.2. John 3.34. & 6.63, 68. & 8.47· & 12.47, 48. & 15.7. & 17.8. Acts 5.32. Matth 13.20, 21, 22, 23. Mark 2.2. & 4.14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20. & 16.20. Luke 1.2. & 5.1. & 8.11, 12, 13, 15; 21. & 10.39. & 11.28. John 5.24, 38. & 8.31, 43, 52. & 14.23, 24. & 17 6, 14, 17, 20. Acts 4.4, 29 31. & 6.2, 4, 7. & 8.4, 14, 25. & 11.1, 19. & 12.24. & 13.5, 7, 26, 44, 46, 48, 49. & 14.25. & 15.7, 35, 36. & 16.6, 32. & 17.11, 13. & 18.11. & 19.10. 1 Cor. 2.4. & 14.36. & 15.2. 2 Cor. 2.17. & 4.2. & 5.19. Gal. 6.6. Ephes. 1.13. Phillip. 1.14. & 2.16. Col. 1.5, 25. & 3.16. & 4.3. 1 Thes. 1.6, 8. & 2.13. 2 Thes. 3.1. 1 Tim. 5.17. 2 Tim. 2.9, 15. & 4.2. Tit. 1.3, 9 & 2.5. Heb. 13.7. Jam. 1.21, 22, 23. 1 Pet. 2.8. & 3.1. Revel 1.9. & 6.9. & 12.11. & 20.4.2. It is the word of the Gospel preached or published, by which persons are said to be purified, converted, regenerate, sanctified, John 15.3. & 17.17. Acts 20.32. &. 26.18. Rom. 10.17. Gal. 3.5. Ephes. 1.13. Jam. 1.18. 1 Pet 1.23. not anywhere by the word of promise barely as made by God, but as it was fulfilled and preached, is Christ said to sanctify or cleanse his Church. And by this, all said to be purified, Ephes. 5.26. are cleansed, and therefore no infants, who are not at all capable of understanding it, and therefore not so capable of being cleansed by it as the blind and deaf. Mr. B. yet adds.

Object. But it is the invisible Church that Christ is said thus to cleanse, Answ. 1. Certainly those that are washed with water, or hearing the word, or either, are all visible members. 2. The visible Church hath the outward privileges and titles of the invisible, because as to us they must in prohability be judged to belong to both. Therefore Paul freq • ently calls them all saints and sons of God by faith, &c.

Ref. Though they be of the visible who are so washed, yet the Church Ephes. 5.25, 26, 27. cannot be meant of the merely visible; but only of them who are so of the visible, that they are also of the invisible, as is proved before from the things said of the Church, which agree to none other. And thus Mr. B. hath my answer to that Ch. and my apprehension of his major ; let's now view his minor, and try his Achilles which he is so confident of.

SECT. L. The fifth Chapter of Mr. Bs. Plain Scripture proof &c. Part. 1. is examiand the texts Gal. 4.1, &c. Matth. 28.19. cleared so as to prove infants now no visible Church-members.

CH. 5. he begins thus.

Answ. I Know none at Bewdley so erroneous or foolish. But Mr. B. may see (if his high soaring meditations and studies will allow him time to descend to view such a low argument, as he oft disdainfully speaks) something written in the 2d. part of this Review, Sect. 2, 3. which tends to prove that no good argument can be drawn from the Old Testament for his admission of infants visible Church members. And for his many and clear arguments from the New Testament to prove infants to be members of the visible Church ; he did wisely put in the caution, God willing when I come to them I shall let you see them, to save his credit, though he never show them. For my part I despair of ever seeing them. As for those I have found brought by him, the chief have been examined in the first and second Part of this Review, and found impertinent. The dispute that remains to be viewed is so immethodical, that had Mr. B. ever been bred up in Schools, I am confident he would have been ashamed of it. But I must now follow him in his own track.

I therefore, saith he, argue thus; First, If by the merciful gift and appointment of God, not yet repealed, some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church, then some infants are to be so admitted still: But by the merciful gift and appointment of God not yet repealed, some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church: therefore they are so to be admitted still.

Answ. Mr. B. pag. 24. plainly saith, that by [admitting] he means solemn admitting, that since baptism was instituted (or established) we have no precept or example of admitting visible members any other way, that as a soldier before listing, and as a King before crowning and taking his oath, so are we and infants Church-members before baptism: He saith pag. 26. of this argument, I will first fetch you one from the Old Testament. Whence 1. it is apparent that his visible Church membership and admitting visible Church-members, are not the same. 2. That a merciful gift and appointment of God of visible Church-membership is not a • l one with the merciful gift and appointment of God of admission of visible Church-members. 3. That a merciful gift and appointment of God of admitting visible Church-members, is by some solemn rite. Which is confirmed in that he speaks of admitting visible Church-members, as a duty to be performed by some persons, as when he saith ch. 4. ought to be admitted visible Church members, and in this place were once to be admitted visible Church-members. Visible Church-membership might be and was a gift of God, not a duty, (which is some action to be done by man) but a state or relation resulting from the foundation, or cause, or reason of it. Now if Mr. B. cannot show (as I am confident he cannot) any other gift or appointment of God of admitting infants visible Church members in the Old Testament unrepealed, besides that of circumcision, then either his antecedent (as he terms it) must be meant of it, or else he mocks the people of God with a pretended merciful gift and appointment of God of admitting infants visible Church-members unrepealed, which is nowhere extant, but is feigned by himself to delude them: and if it be that of Ci • cumcision, then his minor asserts the appointment of Circumcision, and h • s conclusion is, that our infants are still to be circumcised. Nor can I, with all my enquiry and study, conceive (if he had understood himself) he could mean any other. For by his making admission solemn, comparing it with listing of a Soldier, crowning of a King, it is manifest that he understood it of a solemn Rite; and speaking of it as a thing that ought to be, he must mean it of an act to be performed by man; and limiting it now to Baptism, he intimates it was by some Rite answerable to Baptism heretofore, which I hardly think any learned man but would conceive must be meant of Circumcision and no other, since no o • her was appointed by God to infants for admission of them as visible Church-members. It is true, he often, when I pressed him in the Dispute to speak plainly whether he meant by his appointment or Law unrepealed that of Circumcision, did deny it, and distinguished between the Law of infants visible Church-membership and that of Circumcision; but he never shown me a Law of infants admission as visible Church members besides it. And in his arguments whereby he proves the not repealing, he concludes about the not repealing of the Law of infants visible Church-membership, not of their admission. Of which fallacy I had in the Dispute some obscure apprehension, and therefore pressed him so often to speak plainly, and told him he must mean it of Circumcision, (which fact of mine Mr. B. did in the Dispute, and doth here ch. 23. represent as defective in tenderness of conscience, fear of God, love of truth, charity to a brother, common modesty, after his usual fashion of making out-cries without cause,) but could not then c • ear it, having not then so well understood his opinion, nor his shifting of the terms, nor being able to show it for want of a Notary, and time to view his arguments, he being also very quick in urging and pressing me to answer, without allowing time to weigh his arguments: and therefore after much altercation concerning his meaning, gave way to his proof of the Law of visible Church-membership unrepealed, and neglected to keep him to the proof of the Law of admission unrepealed, to mine and the Causes great disadvantage. Whether Mr. B. did fraudulently or ignorantly manage the Dispute, belongs to God to judge; though I must needs say, that I did then, and do still suspect he was not free from deceit, or dolus malus in it: finding in a Copy I have of the Dispute, That he distinguished then between visible Church membership and admission. As for myself, had I perceived so clearly as now I do, his mind about the kind of visible Church-membership and admission of infants he asserts, I should have stuck to this, That though infants could have been proved visible Church members, according to the Law he pretends unrepealed; yet were they not to be admitted by Baptism, which is appointed only for visible Church-members by profession of faith: And therefore whereas he saith he contends more for infants visible Church membership then Baptism, and makes tha • the very heart of the controversy, I conceive otherwise, and do let him understand, that were it not that I know that he hath very much abused me and others in that which follows, I should think my tenet not overthrown, nor much regard it, though his Law of infants visible Church-membership were yielded, and my answer to his arguments omitted. But since things are as they are, I resolve to go on.

Answ. What I did I still grant, that infants were part of the Jewish Church, and were circumcised; but the conclusion Mr. B. infers from Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. is not that which Mr. B. should prove. For it is not all one to say, Infants were part of the Church, and by God's merciful gift and appointment some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church. Nor doth Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. prove either infants were part of the Church, or their admission. Their entering into Covenant was not by any act of their own, but by the Elders or parents, who in like manner Covenanted for the unborn, v. 15. who could not thereby be visible Church-members, being not then existent; and therefore the Covenant there made them not vis • ble Church-members. Nor is there any proof of their admission thence, they were admitted either after or before, the Covenanting was not their admission, for admission is the act of some person that hath that trust or office committed to him; but their Covenanting was the p • rsons own act, and if it did admit the infants, then it did admit the parents, Elders, Captains, and so they did admit themselves, which is absurd; and the establishing them for a people to himself, is no more then as Piscator rightly Schol. in Deut. 29.13. That he might require from thee the worship of himself by obedience towards his precepts, and so may bind thee to himself. So the obligation of the people precedes, and he might be to thee a God, that is may in like manner promise to thee that he will follow thee with his grace, and do thee good and so make thee happy. So God's promise follows. It was a Covenant neither to make nor admit them visible Church members, but to engage them to obedience, and to assure them thereupon of protection and blessing: and this extended to their posterity v. 15. who could not be then visible Church-members, or admitted then as being not existent.

2. Saith Mr. B. If infants were engaged to God by the seal of his Covenant (Circumcision) then they were members of his Church: But some infants were so engaged: therefore they were Church members; this is all undeniable. I never yet met with any that denied either.

Answ Circumcision is not styled in Scripture the seal of the Covenant, but I grant that infants were members in the Jewish Church visible, admitted by Circumcision, and engaged thereby though not by their own act, yet according to God's injunction and severe exaction to keep the Law, and t • is is the only proof of their admission Mr. B. brings out of the Old Testament. He adds,

3 If infants were part of those that were baptized to Moses in the cloud and sea, and drank the spiritual drink, even of that rock which was Christ, then sure they were part of the visible Church: But the antecedent is plain 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3. They were all baptized, &c.

Answ. I deny the antecedent to be plain, 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3. and have proved the contrary to be true, in the 2d. part of this Review Sect. 21. whither I refer the Reader:

4. Saith he, the Martyr Stephen calleth that assembly, whereof they were members [the Church in the Wilderness] Acts 7.38. Therefore they were Church members.

Answ. The conclusion and proof is granted, but I observe that the conclusion to be proved is altered from this [ by God's merciful gift and appointment, some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church ] into this [ infants were Church members, part of the visible Church. ]

The 2d. part of his antecedent, which he saith is the only thing I deny, and which the whole weight of this argument lieth on, is [ that this merciful gift of God to infants, and ordinance of Church membership is not repealed ] and he saith he hath here the negative, and the proof lies not on him yet he will examine my proofs, and then prove the negative by a multitude of evident arguments from the Scripture, that he hath shown Scripture not questioned for it, and that he may justly expect plain Scripture or argument to prove the repeal of that Law.

Answ. He hath shown no plain Scripture, nor any argument for a Law or Ordinance that infants are, were or shall be visible Church-members of which I need prove a repeal, though I grant he hath proved a Law or Ordinance for the admission of infants by Circumcision, which is the only Law or Ordinance I find in him, either for infants visible Church-membership or their admission, and if he hold it unrepealed, I can quickly prove the contrary. Nevertheless I follow him in his wild goose race.

Answ. And I have long expected from Mr. B. some plain Scripture in which I might see any such Law or Ordinance distinct from Circumcision for infants visible Church-membership and admiss • on, which I might consider wh • there it be repealed or no • , or capable of a repeal or not. 1. Because it must be a plain word of God only that can prove such a law, and men's reasonings (as it will appear in the examining them Mr. Bs. are) may as likely prove as vain in this as anything, if they be not grounded upon plain Scripture. And 2. because I deal with those men, particularly Mr. B. that pretend plain Scripture proof for infants Church membership and Baptism, but to those that justly call for such, bring no express precep • or example of infants baptism in the N. T. (which alone can be counted plain Scripture p • oof in this thing) but consequences from Circumcision and the Jewish Church-state, which have no validity but on the grant of such suppositions as are false; yea in these men's disputes against Papists, and Prelates, and others, are rejected; and yet they are so extreme blind as to think, and so impudent as to bear the people in hand, these are plain Scripture proofs of infants Church-membership and Baptism. And therefore did I over and over and over desire Mr. B. to bring me some word of God for such a law. But what text do you think he brought? In his public dispute he never once offered to name one text: nay, in his Praesest. morator sect. 6. printed some few years after upon deliberation he brings none, though pressed by me in my Precursor. Nevertheless, since M. B. forceth me to it, I determine, as I have done to others, so to si •• Mr. Bs. allegations 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He goes on in his venomous way thus.

What if Mr. T. should use Magistrates as he doth infants (as former Anabaptists have done) hath he not as good ground? and would they take it well? May he not as well say, when I show him Scripture in the Old Testament for Magistrates in the Church, and being God's people [that it was from the peculiar state of the Jews: God hath set up no Magistrates of Christians in the Church now] would not our Magistrates bid him bring some Scripture to prove the repeal, or else they shall take their Old Testament Commission for currant? and let him bring me anymore Scripture to prove the repeal of infants visible Church-membership, then is brought to prove the repeal of Magistrates in the Church if he can: (O how just is it with God, that those Magistrates who favor, countenance and cherish those men, that would keep all Christians infants out of the Church, should by the same men be put out themselves, both of Church and State?)

Answ. What Anabaptists in former times did or held, it is hard to say, since we have the narration of their facts and tenets only from their adversaries. Notwithstanding Augustine's reckoning Jovinian among heretics, and Jerome's invectives against Vigilantius, yet learned Protestants have excused or defended both. Dr. Reynold Conference with Hart, ch. 5. div. 3. Jewels defense of the Apol. Field of the Church book ch. 30, 31. Cracanthorp vindic. Eccl. Anglic. contra Spalat. Andr. Revet. sum. contr. tom. 1. quest. 1. &c. Mr. B. himself would not pass without a deep censure, if the writings of Mr. Crandon, Mr. Eyre, Dr. Kendal, &c. should be taken for good proof of his tenets. It is much harder, and indeed a most injurious thing, that the conceived opinions and practices of men of former times, should be charged on Antipaedobaptists now who do disclaim them. And as for this spiteful passage of Mr. B. though I have said enough to answer it in the 2d. part of this Review sect. 3. yet I add. That I have not so good ground to deny Christian Magistracy as infants visible Church-membership, that I have Scripture to prove the repeal (if it must be so called) of the pretended visible Church-membership of infants, which was only in the Jewish national Church now dissolved, and another frame erected by Christ: but not so of the Magistracy which was not proper to the Jewish people. Melchizedek was a King, Job was a Magistrate Job 29, &c. Civil Magistracy as the power of Parents, and Masters, are of the law of nature and nations, Christ and his Apostles did not alter the state of Magistracy, but left them as they found them, and confirmed them; sundry converted Governors kept their place after conversion: bu • the visible Church-membership of infants was only in the Jewish Church, the frame of which is quite altered by Christ and his Apostles, and not the least hint given of any infants being in or solemn admission into the Christian visible Church, but much to the contrary in the New Testament. We keep infants out of the Church no otherwise then Christ and his Apostles did, and if Magistrates do favor, countenance and cherish us in this, they do but cherish us in the doing of what the Apostles of Christ did, and M. B. that doth animate the Magistrates to molest us, and in his 7th. humble advice to the Parliament Decemb. 24. 1654. would have us deprived of all Pastoral Cure having the public maintenance, doth show his mind to persecute us, and by his grounds had conceived himself bound in conscience to have dealt so with the Apostles, if he had been in their days. But O how good is God to us, and just to him and such as he is, that the madness of such a Balaam is rebuked, his advice rejected as injurious, and pernicious, tending to take away that liberty of examining things rece • ved, and to impose on men's consciences new subscriptions and conformities, as intolerable as those the Prelates urged, and consequently shutting out light from shining, and inducing persecution afresh; and that he and such as he is, who are partial in God's law, profaning, yea quite changing or dissolving the prime solemn ordinance of Christ, and opposing (contrary to their solemn Covenant) the reformation of that abuse, should be made contemptible before all the people! Mal. 2.9.

Mr. B. adds, yet in private I confess he cited two texts to prove the repeal of God's Ordinance and merciful gift, that infants should be Church-members: and I will read the two places to you (which private conference I would not mention, but lest it should be thought a wrong to him to overpass his only proofs) The first was Gal. 4.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. when I considered that such a man should deny all infants Church-membership, and affirm that God hath repealed that his Ordinance, and merciful gift, and have no more Scripture for it then such as this, and yet be so confident, it maketh me amazed. Hath he not a good wit, that can prove that Christ hath repealed his merciful gift, because he hath redeemed us from under our bondage and tutorage? or that he hath shut out all infants from his Church, because he hath delivered them from the inconveniences of their minority? If I had no better proof then this for infant baptism, I should be ashamed once to open my mouth for it.

Answ. Had Mr. B. any true love, or justice towards me, as he seems to have by his pretended loathness to mention my private conference, he had not so often and with such false calu • niatory inferences mentioned in his writings what past in private conference concerning my censure of men's not receiving the doctrine of Antipaedobaptism, my plea for plurality of places, &c. whereby he hath done what in him lay, to defame me as proud covetous, schismatical, and given over by God to a reprobate mind, though there was no necessity of such divulgings. But much experience hath taught me to expect no better usage from an intemperate Zealot for his opinion, though a pretended friend and seeming godly, then from an open enemy. Mr. B. is amazed that I alleged Gal. 4.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. as I did, and but that I have learned nil admirari of such passages, I should be amazed at his dealing with me, in setting down my proofs, though they were but in a private conference without study. The thing of which he urged me to prove the repeal, I remember not whether it were of the visible Church-membership of infants, or of their admission. The latter was it, the repeal of which he denied; For so was his antecedent [ By the merciful gift and appointment of God not yet repealed, some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church ] and this is proved plainly from Gal. 4.1, &c. that the ordinance of admission (which was no other then circumcision) of infants is repealed; yea, if that explication of Beza, Legem enim (id est totam illam legalem oeconomiam) dicit fuisse instar tutoris sive curatoris ad certum tempus dati, thus Englished in the New Annot. For he saith that the law, that is the whole Government of God's house according to the law, was as it were a kind of tutorship or office of an Overseer appointed for a time, be right, the Church-membership visible of infants (which was peculiar to the Jews, and belonged to the legal Church-state) is plainly limited in that place to a certain time now expired, and consequently the ordinance of such Church-membership (if there had been such) repealed. And I say, that if he had so good proof for his infant baptism, as this is for the repeal of his pretended ordinance of infants admission and visible Church-membership unrepealed, I would plead for it as he doth. But Mr. B. as one that ha • h a good wit, can by his Chemistry prove hence his non repeal.

Nay, saith he, I pray you do but consider, whether his own proof be not sufficient against him • Doth not this text plainly tell us, that the heir in his minority is Lord of all? and so approve of the natural birth privilege of our children in civil things? And will God then deny children to be heirs of anything, and bereave them of their spiritual or Church-privilege, and neither tell us why he doth it, nor that he doth it.

Answ. God's heirs are but co-heirs with Christ▪ Rom. 8 17. true believers or elect persons, who are not deprived by me of any truly so called spiritual Church privilege. The privilege of infants visible Church-membership as it came with the spiri • ual Church-state of Abraham's family, so it ceased with the dissolution thereof, of which God hath given us reason in that it was but for an appointed time by God, which as it began with God's special love to Abraham ; so it ended upon his loathing his unbelieving posterity, and setting his love on the Gentiles.

Again, saith he, more plainly: if Christ came to free the heir from his bondage and tutorage only, and from the servitude of his minority; is it likely that he came to free them from their Church-membership? Can any man think that this was any part of the • ondage? require those whose consciences are not wholly enslaved to their fancies and conceits, to judge of this soberly, whether they can possibly think it a bondage to be a member both of the universal Church and of a particular! Let them not here tell me that Circumcision was a bondage▪ or that the Law was a Tutor; For I speak of none of these, but of their being members of the Church of God.

Answ. Whom Mr. B. means by person whose Consciences are wholly enslaved to their fancies and conceits I cannot determine, I know few men who give me more cause of fear that they are such then Mr. B. who seems to me to have more conceits and • ancies then one, and those with so much pertinency and violent zeal promoted, as (me thinks) searce agree to a sober man. For myself I say, that such a visible Church-membership as the infants of the Jews had, in my soberest judgment, I not only can possibly think (which Mr. B. himself also may do, since it implies no contradiction) but do verily think to have been a part of the imperfect state of the Church, and in some respect of the bondage. For though Church membership be a privilege of itself, yet comparatively, and in respect of some consequents attending it, as namely subjection to the whole Law of Moses, it is a manifest imperfection and bondage. As the state of the Apostles was a state of minority, bondage, imperfection, while Christ was on earth in comparison of the estate after his ascension, when the spirit was poured out upon them John 16, 7. And I doubt not to affirm that Christ came to free his whole Church from that visible Church membership it had then, by natural descent, and consequently to alter the visible, Church membership of infants into a more perfect way, by setting up a Church throughout the world, not by carnal descent in one nation, but in a spiritual way by faith in Christ, through the pre • ching of the Gospel. And I must tell Mr. B. of Circumcision and the Law, it's bondage and Tutorage (whether it like him or not) since infants had nowhere else visible Church-membership then in the Jewish Church, whereby they were in bondage to Circumcision and the Law. Nor can I tell what ordinance of admitting visible Church-members unrepealed he means, besides that of Circumcision, and therefore he must speak of these if he speak of the visible church-membership in the Jewish Church which had these annexed.

3. Yet further, saith he, when this text tells us that Christ came to redeem us from under the Law, and the bondage of minority, is it not a clear proof that he hath brought us into a far better state then we were in before? and hath advanced us in his family, as the Heir at age is advanced? And can any man of common sense and conscience expound this of his casting all their infants out of his family? Christ's Church is his family; and doth the Heir use to be freed by being cast out of the family? Why may he not as well say, that all the body of the Jewish nation are now delivered by being cast out of the Church or Family of Christ? Is it not more agreeable to the scope of the Apostle here to affirm, that certainly they are so far from being turned out of the family or Church of Christ, that by Christ they are now brought into a far higher state, and made members of a far better Church, then that particular Church of the Jews was.

Answ. It is true, Christ hath advanced his Church into a far better state then it was in before, and that is the reason why infants are left out (I say not cast out) of his visible Church. For whereas the particular Church of the Jews (in which alone infants were visible Church-members) was as well a civil Commonwealth as a Church of God, and was by descent of birth, and by proselytism made up of all in the Commonwealth; it seemed good to God to make his Church more spiritual, consisting only of them who owned Christ as their Lord; and therefore till infants do so, they are no parts of the visible Church Christian. And thus men of common sense and tender consciences may and must expound the Apostle, it being agreeable to his scope, if they will speak rightly: And the body of the Jewish nation, I mean the greatest or most considerable part, if embracing the Gospel they had been baptized, their children being not baptized till they professed, had been rightly said to be delivered from the minority and bondage they were in before in the sense before declared. Mr. B. adds.

4. And if any yet say, that it is not the infants, but only the parents that are thus advanced by Christ to a better state, is not this text plain against him? For the Apostle extendeth redemption here to those that were under the Law; and who knoweth not that infants were under the Law? And if it did not belong to each individual under the Law, yet it cannot in any tolerable sense be denied to belong to each species or age; (yet I can prove, that conditionally this deliverance was to each individual person in the sense as God sent his son Jesus to turn everyone of them from their iniquity, Act. 3. last.) And now judge I pray, whether this be not a pitiful ground for men to prove the repeal of God's merciful gift and ordinance of infants Church-membership.

Answ. That which I say is, that the particular Church of the Jews being dissolved, a Church of a better constitution is by God erected, and so the Church of God is advanced by Christ into a better state, that is, from carnal to spiritual, which necessitates the leaving infants out of the visible Church Christian, till they be disciples or believers: and this is a better estate to infants as well as parents, since that Church-state did engage them to Circumcision and the Law, which were their bondage. Nevertheless Mr. Bs. proof is not to be allowed: For it follows not, redemption is extended to those that were under the Law, therefore to each individual, or to each species or age, the term being indefinite, and the speech true if any under the Law, and those of one species or age be redeemed; as in like sort, when God is said to choose the poor, the weak things of this world, this proves not universal election of the poor, or weak, since the terms being indefinite, they need not be understood universally except in necessary matter. I remember once in a Dispute it was urged thus for universal redemption, Christ came to redeem them that were under the Law, all are under the Law, Ergo. To which I answered by denying the minor, producing Gal. 4.21. Rom. 6.14, &c. though I might h • ve answered also by denying the indefinite term to contain all. But if Mr. Bs. reasoning be good that it cannot in any tolerable sense he denied to belong to each species or age because they were under the Law, it will follow, that it cannot be denied in any tolerable sense to each Jew, for they were under the Law, and then it will follow tha • the Jews were universally redeemed that they might re • eive the adoption of sons. And it seems by his words in his Parenthesis, Mr. B. holds a conditional deliverance for each individual person meant Gal. 4.5. concerning which, besides what I have said before, Sect. 33, 34, 35. I add this censure of Mr. John Collings, Provoc. provocatus in answer to Boatman, ch. 5. pag. 61. Universal redemption; conditional Covenant. Two Covenants, one absolute, another conditional, are notions in Divinity I do not understand, and think them hardly reconcilable to truth, (if to sense,) they are the canting language of those that would supply Franciscus de Sancta Clara's pla • e, as to reconciling us and Arminians, and are no better then Arminianism minced for the better digestion. But those words of Mr. B. that God sent his son Jesus to turn everyone of them from their iniquities, Acts 3. last, in the sense he can prove (as he thinks) that conditionally this deliverance was for each individual person, do import that he holds that Christ was sent not only for universal redemption conditionally, but also for universal conversion conditionally. Which if true, then Christ blesseth all by turning everyone from his iniquity, Acts 3.26. conditionally; and then unless he can assign another condition then the act of a man's free-will, he must hold universal grace of conversion, and conversion by Christ's blessing conditional upon the concurrence of man's free-will, which is indeed the venom of Arminianism. Which if Mr. B. hold (as his words import) I may well say he stands on pitiful ground, a very quagmire, however men judge of my proof from Gal. 4.1. &c. of the repeal of the pretended ordinance of infants Church-membership.

Mr. B. proceeds. But one Text more was named, and that is my Text, Matth. 28.19, 20. Go disciple all nations, &c. Is not this brave proving the repeal before mentioned? What saith this Text to any such matter?

Answ. The first question hath so much insolent folly, that I think fit to give no answer to it. To the second I say, 1. This Text compared with Mark 16.15. proves, that Christ appointed after his resurrection, that his Church should be gathered in all nations by preaching the Gospel, and baptizing, and no otherwise; and consequently, the Church not gathered this way is not agreeable to Christ's institution. The forepart of the antecedent is plain; For as Pareus rightly paraphraseth the words, Com. in Mat. 28.19. Christ's words have this sense, Make to me Disciples, gather to me a Church among all nations by your preaching bringing them to the faith of the Gospel. And Piscat. observe. Matth. 28.19. By the coherence of the sentences it is signified, first by the doctrine of the Gospel the nations were to be brought into the Church, then to be baptized when they should enter into the Church and profess the faith. And that neither the institution of Christ, nor practice of the N. T. allows any other way of gathering the Church, is proved in the 2d. Part of this Review, sect. 5. &c. 2. I say this Text excludes infants from being baptized, as is proved in the same place, and consequently from being visible members of the Christian Church. The antecedent is confirmed from Mr. Bs. words, Plain Scrip. proof, &c. against Mr Bed. pag. 299, 300. where he proves from Mat. 28.19. Mark 16.16. &c. That in the institution and every example of Baptism through all the Bible, the first grace is pre-requisite as a condition, which he makes to be faith included in the term [Disciple.] The consequence is also proved from Mr. Bs. assertion, Plain Scrip. proof, &c. Par. 1. ch. 5. pag. 24, 25. and elsewhere, proved from Mat. 28.19. All visible Ch • rch members are to be baptized. Whence I infer, All visible members of the Christian Church are to be baptized. No infant is to be baptized. Therefore no infant is a visible member of the Christian Church. Now if no infants are now visible members of the Christian Church, and the Church which is gathered without making Disciples by preaching the Gospel first to them, and then baptizing them, is not agreeable to Christ's institution, then Christ hath repealed the gift and ordinance of visible Church-membership of infants. I expect now some brave answer from Mr. B. to these plain arguments without any bravery. But what do I meet with.

Answ. Though Mr. Bs. confidence, and his foolish admirations and exclamations have taken much with the shallow and heedless both Ministers and people of this age, yet they appear ridiculous to me. His speeches in this place are but dictates, that if nations be to be discipled, infants cannot be excluded ; that because they were to endeavor the discipling all nations, therefore infants ; that when the parents are by teaching made Disciples, the children are discipled also : all which I deny, and have demonstrated to be false so fully in the 2d. Part of this Review, sect. 5. &c. that I shall as soon expect the snow be proved black, as any of them proved by Mr. B. or any other. His similitude is frivolous, no child being included in the parent in respect of discipling, as the child in the womb is in respect of drowning. If it were, then also in respect of baptizing, so that if the mother with child be baptized, the child also is baptized as well as discipled, and then baptism of such infants after would be rebaptization. Such a grant or Covenant, by force of which infants are made Disciples is a mere figment. If infants were made Disciples by a Covenant, it must be of God to them, wherein he promiseth it to them upon their parents bei • g discipled; and if so, then they are discipled ere they be born, and consequently not made Disciples by the Apostles, and so no part of the nation to be discipled by them, nor they to endeavor their discipling unless they should actum agere, do what is already done ; whence it will follow, that they had no commission to disciple or baptize infants, for they had no commission to disciple by God's Covenant, or to baptize such Disciples, but those who were made by their preaching Disciples; and as Mr Collings saith truly in his Provoc. provoc. ch. 5. pag. 54. The Apostles notwithstanding that precept, Matth. 28.19, 10. did not think themselves obliged to baptize any, but such as believed and confessed their sins Mr. B. adds.

Answ. Though our last translation read Acts 9.35. And all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw him, and turned to the Lord ; yet in the Greek, and agreeably the vulgar, Beza, &c. And all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw him, who turned to the Lord ; which seems to import, that all they who turned to the Lord saw him, and so [ they that saw him ] is limited by [ them turned to the Lord, ] which is not to be said of infants. But were the reading retained as it is in our last translation, yet it is a gross conceit of Mr. B. to apply this to infants. For it is said of these, 1. That they saw Aeneas cure. 2. That they were converted to the Lord. 3. That by seeing the cure of Aeneas they were moved to turn to the Lo • d, as Piscator in his Sch • lie saith, to wit, moved by t • e miraculous healing of Aeneas by Peter. Now to affirm these thing • of infants, is in my apprehension (however it be in Mr. Bs. ) against common sense. Besides me thinks Mr. B. should not be ignorant that free • uently in the Scripture such expressions wherein the word [ all ] is used; are limited to a greater part, and those of years the matter so requiring it, as Matth. 2.3. & 3.5. Acts 8.10, &c. Mr. B. adds.

How can Christ bid them, Go and disciple all Nations, if infants and so all the Nation are utterly uncapable of being disciples? or how will Mr. T. expound the word all nations ?

Answ. Had Mr. B. heeded the words of the 13. Section of the first part of my Examen, or the 14th. section of the Postscript to my Apology in answer to Mr. Bl. he might have found answer to these questions. But I conceive upon very probable signs Mr. B. never studied my writings, but lightly read them, and I find he hath dealt with me in like manner concerning my answers in the dispute at Bewdley, and such passages as he excepts against which fell from me in private conference, and that this is the reason of these and many more unnecessary questions he puts me to answer. But if the Reader please to read the 2d. part of t • is Review sect. 5, &c. he may see a full answer to these questions, the sum whereof is this; that Christ bids them Go, and by preaching the Gospel Mark. 16.15. make disciples of or out of all nations, and then baptize them, who by believing the Gospel became disciples, Mark. 16.16. which may and must be understood with exclusion of infants, as when he bids them preach the Gospel to every creature Mark. 16.15. & Col 1.23. it was preached to every creature under heaven, yet no infant meant. And by way of retortion, I do s • riously ask Mr. B. how he will expound the word all nations ? and how Christ can bid them disciple infants without making Christ a fool and a tyrant in commanding that which is ridiculous and impossible?

Mr B saith of me further. He oft saith, It is here one and there one out of a city or nation that God will call: I shall say more to the shame of this speech afterwards: yet let me say this much at present. If it be but some few▪ or here and there one, yea or but the most that Christ commandeth to disciple, then we must endeavor to make but those few or most disciples (for our endeavor must not go beyond our command and commission) But this is most horrid Doctrine, and notoriously false, [that Apostles and Ministers ought not to endeavor the discipling of all, but of some.] (For Paul oft professeth his longing and endeavor to the contrary:) therefore it is as false that the command is not for the discipling all.

Answ. What Mr. B. hath said to the shame of my speech plain Scripture proof, &c. pag. 279, 280. (which is I think the place he means) is to the shame of so impudent an affronting of plain Scripture proof refelled in my Precursor sect. 22. which shame is not at all covered by hi • reply in his praefestinis morator sect. 22. in which he doth not at all answer my proof out of Scripture for my speech, but only seeks to acquit himself from that which I charge him with as not rightly setting down my words, which is his frequent fault. Two parts of my speech he excepts against, 1. that God will not call nor ever did, a whole nation so as that every individual should be within the visible Church. Against this he refers to his Addition pag. 339.340. and there he turns me over to Mr. Hudson, and refers me to the answering of him when I answer the 20th. Chapter of the first part of his plain Script. &c. But many of the texts, and consequently the rest are shown to be impertinently alleged, in the 2d. part of this Review sect. 9. (where pag. 129. I was mistaken in what I said, I know not what is in Mr. Bs. addition pag. 339, 340. thinking then it had been some addition which was not in his first edition, which now I find otherwise) and therefore if I say no more of that, the Reader will not want an answer to the allegations in his addition pag. 339, 340. 2. He excepts against what he conceives I say [that Apostles and Ministers ought not to endeavor the discipling of all, but of some] which he terms horrid doctrine and notoriously false. On the other side if my meaning be rightly understood, to wit, of persons that have not the use of reason, such as in • ants, natural fools, &c. I aver the contrary doctrine to be horrid and notoriously false, for the reasons fore-given. If he charge me with it, that because I say God will not call a whole nation (which I mean of effectual call alluding to 1 Cor. 1.26, 27, &c.) therefore I mean that we should endeavor to disciple none but such, his charge is but a calumny. No words of mine either in pulpit w • iting, or private speech, tended to such a sense. As for what he saith, Paul oft professeth his longing endeavor to the contrary, if he mean contrary to my assertion, it is most false. He nowhere professeth his longing and endeavor to disciple the whole of a nation, even the infants. The profession he makes