The Covenant Sealed

A Vindication of several Arguments in the Treatise of the Covenant.

Chap. 32. of my Treatise of the Covenant, I bring several Arguments to evince this Proposition, [that A Faith which is short of Justifying, and saving, admits to Baptism. ] The first of which refers to that, which I had before spoken at large, concerning the latitude of the Covenant, expressing myself in this manner, [Argument vindicated. 1] [All that hath been said for the latitude of the Covenant, may fitly be applied for the like latitude of Baptism]. To this Mr. Baxter replies, Therefore did I say the more of the Covenant before, to show your confusion and mistake in that. It is not every Covenant, or Promise, that Baptism is the seal of. I desire no more of the judicious Reader, but to reflect upon that which I have spoke, Chap. 27, 28. of that Treatise, together with that which he hath been pleased to speak so largely against me: His distinctions of Covenants, and Promises; The several ways that (according to him) men may be in Covenant: How unregenerate men may be in Covenant, and how not; together with his multitude of Positions, (most of which look not at all towards the business) and then consider whether he, or I, stand more guilty of mistake or confusion, and whether he hath brought anything home, after so tedious a discourse, for satisfaction, or to give any color to it, that unregenerate men are not so in Covenant as thereby to have interest in Baptism, which must be done, if he speak anything in opposition to me: My business being to prove that they are so in Covenant, that they have upon Covenant-right, title to the seal; and if the Reader can find anything tending that way, let Mr. Baxter consider whether it be not in full opposition to himself, who reckoning up Mr. Tombs his errors, makes this the fifth in order: that he holdeth, That the Covenant whereof Baptism is the Seal, is the absolute Covenant of Grace made only to the Elect. Did not Mr. Baxter then believe that those that are non-Elect were comprised in it? The conclusion of his large discourse is laid down by himself, pag. 63. in these words, Though wicked men have many Promises from God, especially the great conditional Promise of life, if they will repent, and believe, and though they are also by their imperfect equivocal covenanting with God; yet God remaineth still unoblig'd to them. But how this stands with that which he hath in dispute in the place before mentioned, let him also take into further consideration; where he chargeth this, as his adversaries fourth error: That every right administration of Baptism, is not God's sealing: Actually God sealeth not, but when it is administered to a Believer. It may be called a right act of the administrator, according to God's appointment, but not God's sealing. Against which he thus disputes, pag. 222. If the Sacrament rightly administered to an hypocrite, have all that is essential to God's actual sealing, then it is his actual sealing; But the Sacrament rightly administered to an hypocrite, hath all things essential to God's actual sealing; Ergo. The Minor he proves at large, as I may have occasion hereafter to make known. And whereas he so peremptorily determines, that though wicked men oblige themselves, yet God still remains disobliged, let him consider, whether God be not some way obliged to all that he avoucheth to be his people. If this be denied, there will be found no great happiness to a people, to have the Lord for their God. But God avoucheth those to be his people, Deut. 26.17. who are yet in an unregenerate estate. And if we look into Scriptures, we shall see that this is God's ordinary language. Are there many worse to be found in any visible Church-state, then those with whom God holds contest, Psal. 50? Yet to these he says, verse 7. Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I am God, even thy God: Together with those, Isa. 1. to whom he addresses himself under these titles, Rulers of Sodom, people of Gomorrah: yet we see, verse 2. what language he speaks of them, Israel doth not know, my people do not understand. And whereas he states the Question as though the whole of the dispute turned on this hinge; Whether these men be in Covenant with God, as to God's actual engagement to them; so far as that God's promise is in force for conveying actual right to them, as to the promised blessings? and so whether it be a mutual Covenant, and both parties be actually obliged? And thus I say that wicked men are not in Covenant with God, that is, God is not in Covenant with them: Neither have they any right to the main blessings given by the Covenant, viz. Christ, Pardon, Justification, Adoption, Glory. I know no man that hath spoke so much as himself towards the proof of it in the affirmative: So long as they break not the Covenant-engagement, (in which he confesseth they have obliged themselves,) God stands engaged to them for the greatest spiritual blessings. But according to him, they break not Covenant until they arrive at final impenitence and unbelief. He very well knows that I hold that every wicked man in the Church lives in continual breach of Covenant, and is therefore under the curse and penalty of it; and that I should think that God were actually engaged to give Christ, Pardon, Justification, Adoption, Glory, to them, in that state and condition, were more then strange. These may know by virtue of their Covenant-privileges upon what terms they may attain the mercies mentioned, and upon what terms God stands engaged to give them, and they enjoy the power of Ordinances to work them up to the said terms, which they do not, who are without Covenant, and therefore are afar off, when men in Covenant are near. Did ever man, speak of an absolute tie in a conditional Covenant, whether the conditions are kept or no? That therefore before mentioned which he calls the great question between him and me; is no question at all. It were madness to affirm that, which with these limits he thus denies. Yet still I say, that the Covenant which Baptism seals, is made with the unregenerate as well as regenerate persons; which as we have heard, he makes Mr. Tomb's error to deny. And because the Covenant belongs to them, Baptism in like sort belongs to them: and as upon that account we must baptize them, so in foro Dei, according to the mind of Jesus Christ, they have right to Baptism: Which in case Mr. Baxter shall deny, I shall desire him to reflect upon the afore-cited passages of his own; together with that which, pag. 65 of this Treatise he delivers. If it be the whole matter of Christianity that is professed, but dissembledly: then as he is equivocally, or analogically a believer, or Christian, so I yield he is a member of the Church visible. And Church-membership is one of his own mediums to prove a right to Church-entrance by Baptism, and here is a Faith not above dogmatical; At least, short of that which is justifying, and yet such a faith as is real, having real fruits and effects, and sometimes real miracles. If the argument hold when it is thus enfeebled, how much more when it is put in its full strength? Such an one is univocally in Covenant, whose dissimulation is no other then necessarily attends an unregenerate estate: in case there be anything in Scripture above equivocation, They remembered that God is their Rock, the high God their Redeemer, Psal. 78.34. And whereas I stand charged in this discourse by Mr. Baxter with several uncouth, if not wild, opinions and assertions about the Covenant, and Mr. Baxter despairs (as we have heard) of understanding of my meaning, I shall here endeavor, as to vindicate, so to explain myself in like manner, that the Reader (if not Mr. Baxter ) may be brought to a right understanding; avoiding, as much as may be, both nicety, and multiplicity.

1. It is said, that I suppose certain Promises to go before the great Law of Grace. Those that suppose such (saith he) are of two sorts, 1. The Arminians and Jesuits. 2. Such as Mr. Bl. about Church-Ordinances. And having spent many lines upon the Arminians to show his dissent, and assent, so that the Reader may well have forgotten both me and my charge, he saith, 2. The second part of promises before the great Covenant of Grace is feigned by Mr. Bl. (and if there be any other that go that way, as some do, and that with some difference amongst themselves) and that is a promise of Church-privileges upon condition of a faith, not justifying, nor saving. One that Mr. Baxter will not deny to be eminently learned, (and I think as well versed in his Writings, and mine, as any man alive; Far better, I believe, then he in mine, or I in his) upon observation of this passage, replied as by address to him, You rather feign this of Mr. Bl. then find it in him. And I profess I know no man whose brain ever either hatched, or vented such a crotchet. Neither do I know how this mistake was ever entertained, (for I believe it was a mistake) unless it be, that taking for granted that there is no Covenant of grace entered with any out of the state of grace; and finding, that I assert, that Church-Ordinances appertain to unregenerate Christians, and those that are short of faith that is justifying, he here fancies a promise of these made to a faith of this kind: Whereas that which I say is, That every acceptation of a Gospel-tender (which tenders a man a Christian outwardly) actually vests him in right to these Ordinances, as it did the Jew outwardly, Rom. 3.1. And that these Ordinances are necessarily requisite to bring men up to the fruition of those happy privileges of Pardon, Justification, Adoption, Glorification. So that I conceit no promise of these Ordinances made to such a faith, but an actual investiture of every such believer in them. Neither do I know any promises preceding the Covenant of Grace. Such must be made to mere Heathens, or those that are in a parallel estate, aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel. Unless perhaps some such promise to some such, upon some particular account may be found. Yet if he can work me to be of his mind, that Election, Regeneration, and the Covenant of Grace, are commensurate, so that no non-elect man is in Covenant, then shall I say that there are Promises made before the Covenant. The Apostle speaking of the Jews, that for the generality of them, were neither elect nor regenerate, saith, To them appertained the Covenants. I may therefore charge it upon him, with better reason then he upon me: Those stand vested in promises, that, he says, are out of Covenant. The Promise is said to belong to those Jews, Rom. 9.4. on whom yet the Word took no saving effect, verse 6. Hence by opposition to the Gentiles they were those that were not strangers to the Church, but of it. They were not strangers to the Covenant of Promise, but in the same, Eph. 2.11, 12. Hence God, saith he, maketh his Covenant with them all, Deut. 29.10, 12, 13, 14, 15. speaking there of that solemn renewal of the Covenant of Grace, as Deut. 30.6, 10, 12, 13, 14. compared with Rom. 10.6, 7, 8. evinceth. So, Ezek. 16.8. he made a Covenant with that Church and people, many whereof proved very base, as that Chapter showeth. Cobbet just vindicate. pag. 46. Where much more to this purpose from many Texts of Scripture may be seen.

I am farther charged, that my common phrase is, That they (namely unregenerate men) are in the outward Covenant, with this note upon it, what that is I cannot tell. Who would not now think but that here were a phrase peculiarly mine: Upon which the same learned hand as before, expresseth himself in these words, I do not see that that phrase is common with Mr. Bl. He rather useth it as from others: which any may evidently see, if they consult pag. 189, 190. of my Treatise of the Covenant. But of this I have spoke before, and therefore his guesses upon it, that he believes that it is called outward, by reason of outward blessings annexed to it, might have been spared. They that use it, express their own meaning, The Covenant (they say) is but one and the same; but all are not in the Covenant after one and the same manner: Some are only in it by outward profession, to the present participation of outward privileges; but some by cordial acceptance to the enjoyment of saving benefits by means of these privileges. He says in the place quoted, I should have thought it but reasonable for Mr. Bl. 1. To have told us what those outward blessings are that this Covenant promiseth. But what need I to tell him, when, pag. 61. he hath told me, that it is a promise of Church-privileges, and I now tell him that these stand actually possessed of these privileges, and have all the Promises, together with these privileges that the Gospel contains. And that these privileges are appointed of God, to bring them in God's way to the possession of them. 2. Saith he, That he would have it proved out of Scripture that God hath such a Covenant distinct from the Covenant of grace, which promiseth Justification and Salvation, and having other conditions on our part. To this I know not what to say; but that when Mr. Baxter hath proved that there are not only mountains of earth in his West side of England, viz. Wreakin, Mawbourn, Clee, but also mountnins of Gold, I will endeavor the proof of this, if I can tell how: for he hath had as many thoughts of such golden Chimaera's, as I have had of any such Covenant, distinct from the Covenant of Grace, which in my name he here imagineth. Having vindicated myself from these imposed fancies that never entered into my thoughts, I shall now endeavor, if it may be, further to clear my own meaning in these following Propositions.

1. Those that take upon themselves a Christian profession, being separate for God, calling him by the name of Lord, that have Ordinances of God as their inheritance, that acknowledge a Deity, and no other but the true Deity; a necessity of worship, and none but the Christian worship, these with me are in Covenant with God, as was [Propos. 1] the whole state of the Church of the Jews, and the whole face of the visible Church of the Gentiles, that were engraffed in their stead. This to me is plain in that they are the Church or Churches of God, Acts 7.8. Gal. 1.2. The called of God, Mat. 22.14. The people of God, Isa. 1.2. Psal. 90.7. They that sacrificed to the true God, Psal. 50.7. Are the sons of God, Gen. 6.1. Deut. 14.1. Rom. 9.4. Are a people nigh unto the Lord, Deut. 4.7. Psal. 148. ult. God professing himself to be their God, Psal. 90.7. Are Children of the Covenant, Acts 3.35. Saints, Psal. 90.5. Act. 26.10. 1 Cor. 14.33. Believers, Act. 8.12, 13. Act. 21.20. Luke 8.13. Disciples, Matth. 10.1, 4. Acts 9.1. & 15.10. Christians, Act. 11.26. That all of these imply a Covenant-state; and that unregenerate men have in Scripture all this honor, is clear. These therefore with me are in Covenant. I know that as to all of these elogies it is answered in a word, that they are equivocal. An answer that I can scarce take into my thoughts without horror; As though God's oracles were all over, from one end of the Bible to the other, like those of Apollo, and there were no reality either in their separation for God, or gifts that they receive from God, (which as to illumination, conviction, faith, as well ordinary as extraordinary oftentimes are many) or privileges that they enjoy: But this we shall have further occasion to consider; and when there can be no plain denial that all of this here mentioned argues Covenant-state, a quarrel seems to be picked, rather then any direct answer given. For as I say, pag. 189 of my Treatise, That in Old-Testament-times the Covenant was made with Israel in the uttermost latitude of it, with all those that bore the name of Israel, making proof at large from Deut. 29. as the Reader may see. Mr. Baxter quoting the place, takes notice of no more then that it was made with all Israel: and infers, pag. 65. So that it seems he takes all to be in Covenant that bear the name, Christian. And then questions; What? Though they know not what Christ or Christianity is? Is taking a name, entering into Covenant? The poor Indians that by thousands are forced by the Spaniard to be baptized are said to know so little what they do, that some of them forget the name of [a Christian] which they assumed. And do's not he think that a man may take as plausible exceptions against his word, where he saith, The rule is, That a serious professor of the faith is to be taken for a true Believer; If he would travel as far as India for it, as he doth here against God's Word? Do not we know, that force may make these poor Indians to appear serious in their profession? And it is wonder that it should be so strange with him, that taking a name should be entering Covenant, or at least that it should imply a Covenant-state: Let him consult, Isa. 4.1. and those manifold Scripture-Texts, which express the relation of God's Covenant-people to him, in these words, A people called by his Name; or on whom the Name of God is called. And distinction should be put between children of the Covenant by descent from parents in Covenant, whether Jews or Christians, (who continue their Covenant relation, till they professedly cast it off, notwithstanding their ignorance) and such that of mere aliens are to be received, having no other title then their own present qualification. This ought to be voluntary, as well in renouncing their old false way, as embracing the present, as we see it was in those converts through the Acts of the Apostles. And it is not to be without some competency of knowledge, discerning the evil of their former course, and the happiness attainable in the present. And I am easily induced to believe that more knowledge by the industry of teachers, is now required, then was in the primitive times, seeing there is not so much of God by miracle to persuade, and, as it were, to overrule: So that it is not a naked taking of a name that is intended, but that which still attends upon it: As a wife is called by her husbands name, and withal makes her abode in his house, so it is with a Covenant-people, and was with Israel: They bore the name of God, and they made abode in the Church of God, enjoying his Ordinannances as their inheritance. Mr. Baxter says, For the Word of God, God oft bestows it on infidels, and in England there aremen that deride the truth of Scripture, and esteem it: afliction, and yet for credit of men come ordinarily to the Congregation. These have the Word given, and so have other unregenerate men, but not by Covenant that I know of. That God doth bestow his Word on infidels, to me is strange: it is true that he often tenders it to them, but in case they remain infidels, they put it away from them, and bestowing implies not only a tender, but an acceptance. It is the great advantage of Israel above other Nations that to them was committed the oracles of God, when others had not that honor. And to speak of God's giving his Word by Covenant, is a most improper speech, seeing it is the very Covenant droughts; as though we should say, he gives his Word, by his Word. And these sure are no open deriders that for the credit of men make such a public profession: this would work restraint on the one hand, as it puts upon profession on the other. And in case any such thing be, though the Covenant is perfidiously broke, yet (as I conceive) not totally cast off, as long as any open profession is continued. What shall we say of those that take their sons, and daughters to give them to Moloch? this can be no low crime, and an high departure from the true God, yet these bring forth children unto God: and they are his children, that they thus sacrifice, Ezek. 16.20, 21. So also, Psal. 106.35, &c. Israel was mingled among the Heathen, and learned their works, and they served their Idols, which were a snare to them; yea, they sacrificed their sons and daughters unto Devils, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and daughters. Yet this, as appears, casts them not out of Covenant; God notwithstanding remembered with them his Covenant, ver. 45. This was therefore doubtless but a partial apostasy; taking in the worship of Idols, they did not totally cast off the worship of God: God was not totally cast off in Judah, neither did cast off Judah. Ahaz was of the worst of Kings, and yet his posterity was reckoned among the people of the Lord. Had the Jews then been as severe disputants against a Covenant-state as are risen up now, the Church of God had wanted an Hezekiah, he had never lived, much less wrought so happy a Reformation in the Church of God.

[Propos. 2] 2. Those that are looked upon by men, as in Covenant with God, and so ordinarily judged (as the people of Israel were) by the name that they bear, their abode in the Church, and profession that they make, and so accordingly styled, they are truly, and really in Covenant. A man may know a man to appertain to such or such a person, because he sees him in his family, hears him call him Master, sees him, sometimes at least, in his work, and knows him to have the repute of his servant; Though to know him to be a faithful servant requires more diligence of enquiry, and a stricter scrutiny: So a man may be as easily known to appertain to Jesus Christ; The same Characters make him known. For all that is required to being in Covenant is visible, open, evident: but sincerity of heart in covenanting is invisible and secret. And therefore the Jew outwardly, Rom. 2.28. is called by the Vulgar, Vatablus, Tremellius, Arias Montanus, and Castalio, Judaeus in manifesto; by Calvin, Judaeus in aperto; by Beza, Judaeus in propatulo: the Jew inwardly, Judaeus in abscondito, or, occulto: Their Church, or Covenant-station giving them those great advantages after mentioned, was open and manifest. Those that say, Lord, Lord, as, Matth. 7.21. are of those that avouch God to be their God, and God avoucheth them to be his people. And therefore when they come with their sacrifices, though in their sins, and God upon that account testifies against them; yet he says, I am God, even thy God. It is confessed by Mr. Baxter, that we must judge those that make profession, to be in Covenant with God: we must give them the name of Christians, and men in Covenant with God, and we must use them as Christians in works of charity and Ordinances, and Church-communion, and so must use their Children as Christians children. And seeing reason to judge so, (according to Scripture-character of men in Covenant) they are so. Either in this we judge right, or else we proceed upon mistake. If we judge aright, then all is well: If we mistake, then all in these proceedings is null. Water hath been applied to the child of such an one, but no Sacrament dispensed; And according to a man's hopes, thoughts, or fears of his fathers regeneration, are his hopes, thoughts and fears of his own baptism, and consequently of his interest in Church-communion; for this stands or falls according to his fathers interest or non-interest in the Covenant. When Mr. Baxter is urged with this, he uses to refer to his Treatise of Infant-Baptism, where he lays us down a grand Rule or Maxim, and out of that extracts many others. His grand Rule is, That a serious Professor of the faith is to be taken for a true Believer: and this being laid down, he proceeds on. If this Proposition were a Scripture-Maxim, then it would have born a farther superstruction; but being neither found there, nor any proof made that it is any way deduced thence, mother and daughters may all justly be called into question: and seeing he cannot but know, that very many as to the thing for which it is produced, (which is in order to admission to Ordinances) will utterly deny it, he might have done well to have made some essay to have proved it. I do yield that charity is to hope the best, but that we should put our charity to it, or our reason either, for probability or certainty, when we are nowhere so taught, and have a more sure rule for our preceeding, I see no reason. I can scarce meet with a Minister that says, (and I have put the question to many of the most eminent that I know) that he baptizeth any Infant upon this ground of hope that the Parent is regenerate, but still with earnest vehemence professes the contrary. I desire the Reader to consider Mr. Cobbets third and fourth Conclusions in his just Vindication, pag. 46, 52. There is a bare external being in the Covenant of Grace, saith he, of persons who possibly never shall be saved. Concl. 3 ^d . The Church in dispensing an enjoined initiatory seal of the Covenant of Grace looketh unto visibility of interest in the Covenant, to guide her in the application thereof: Concl. 4 ^th . Visibility of interest, and saving interest are there opposed. See also Mr. Hudson, pag. 249. John the Baptist did not in his conscience think they had all actually, really and completely repented and reformed themselves, whom he baptized, but he baptized them unto Repentance, Matth. 3.11. and they by receiving the same bound themselves to endeavor the practice thereof. It were a sad case for Ministers, if they were bound to admit none, or administer the Lord's Supper to none, but such as were truly godly; or that they judged in their conscience to be so, or were bound to eject all that they judged were not so.

[Propos. 3] 3. Mans obligation of himself in Covenant unto God, upon the terms by him proposed, necessarily implies God's obligation to man. Where God makes tenders of the Gospel by his Ministers to any one out of Covenant, there he makes tender of the Covenant; and where a person or people professedly accept, that is, engage themselves, (as myriads of thousands did through the Acts of the Apostles ) this person, this people, each man of them is in Covenant. As Scripture calls them by the name of Saints, Disciples, Believers, Christians, so we may call them Covenanters. They have all a sanctity of separation, which Cameron says, is real, and Mr. Baxter disputed from thence to a right in Baptism, from that Text, 1 Cor. 7.14. There is in most of them, if not in all, some graces that are real, either common or saving, and a Covenant doth not wait till the terms be kept, and the conditions made good, before it hath the being of a Covenant. And whether these be every way sincere, or any way dissembling, yet, as Mr. Baxter acknowledges, they really oblige themselves: And God howsoever dissembles not, but is bound by himself upon his own terms which they professedly accept to confer all that the Covenant holds forth. So that wheresoever man is obliged, there a complete Covenant is made up. For God's tender goes before, and man is the last party, and completes the Covenant.

[Propos. 4] 4. Sincerity, and integrity of heart; or full reality in a man's intentions to stand to the whole of a Covenant, is not of the essence, and being of it. Both parties stand engaged upon their respective terms, though one part should have unsincere intentions. A wife is a wife, and the marriage is complete, when both parties have publicly expressed consent, though she hold a resolution to be stubborn, refractory, profuse, &c. A man consenting to serve, whether in bare words, or taking earnest, (as is most usual) or by hand and seal, (as in the case of apprentices) is a servant, although he intend with Onesimus to purloyn, or take his opportunity to be gone. Mr. Baxter thinks it makes for his advantage, to say that unregenerate men are unsincere in Covenant; but that is a concession, that utterly destroys him. If they be unsincere, or, as the Psalmist speaks, not steadfast in Covenant, then they are in Covenant. A Propositione secundi adjacentis ad propositionem primi adjacentis valet argumentum. If it be true that Catiline is a seditious man, then it is true that he is a man: that Peribomius is a vicious man, then he is a man; that Judas is treacherous and perfidious in Covenant, then he is in Covenant: A man's conviction that he is an unjust steward, or an unfaithful servant, doth not conclude him to be no servant, or no steward, but the contrary. And whereas, pag. 66. he saith, The differences, Mr. Bl. must take notice of, between human Covenants and ours with God; or else he will mar all. Men know not one another's hearts, and therefore make not Laws for hearts, nor impose conditions on hearts: and therefore if both parties do confess consent, though dissembledly, they are both obliged, and the Covenant is mutual. But God offers to consent only on condition that our hearts consent to his terms, and therefore if we profess consent, and do not consent, God consenteth not, nor is, as it were, obliged. This were somewhat to purpose, in case he could make it appear that Scripture denies all being of a Covenant, where the all-seeing eye of God sees not all integrity and sincerity. But Scripture-language, which is the safest for us to follow, being (as we have heard) far otherwise, there is nothing mar'd in non-observance of any such supposed difference: For which we shall presently hear again and again Mr. Baxter's own confession.

5. There is a real and serious purpose in many unregenerate persons [Propos. 5] to serve the Lord, and to come up to as much as they think he in Covenant requires, though with Austin they have a great mind to delay, and often to put off the thought of their more exact, and serious service; and too ordinarily think that they keep Covenant, when they break it. Having not as yet any right knowledge, either of their own hearts, or God's commands: And in this posture in which they thus stand before they come up any higher, yea, though they never come higher, they reach unto graces in themselves real, true, and good, and also do the works which God commands; and this sometimes is Mr. Baxter's own thoughts. When his business is, to inform his Hearers, or Readers, and not to make opposition against others, then he can use the word [real] and forbear the word [equivocal] as appears in his Saints everlasting rest, Part 3. Sect. 6. There is a common grace which is not saving, yet real, and so true, and good, and so true grace as well as special grace which is saving. Which may be a fair answer to that which himself hath said, pag. 68. of this Treatise; Mr. Bl. in his explication of this Dogmatical faith, addeth by way of exclusion [though not affecting the heart to a full choice of Christ] where he seems to imply, though he express it not, that the faith that he meaneth doth affect the heart to a choice of Christ which is not full. But if so, then, 1. It is much more then assent, or a mere Historical, Dogmatical Faith. 2. But is the choice, which he intimateth, real as to the act, and suited to the object? That is, the real choice of such a Christ as is offered, and on such terms? If so, it is justifying faith: If not, either it is counterfeit, as to the act, or but nominal, as to the object, and is indeed no choosing of Christ. That which is real and true, is neither counterfeit nor merely nominal, so far as they know either Christ or their own hearts, they undissembledly choose and take to him, as expecting to be happy in him, rather then any other object; though too often it is upon mis-information: and when they come to a right understanding of the terms, they are in danger to quit the way in which they might enjoy him. He further says, Mr. Bl. thinks that there may be an undissembled profession, which yet may not be of a saving faith; and adds, But then I conceive it is not an entire profession of the whole essential object of Christian faith, viz. of assent and consent. In which it doth but cast dust in his Readers eyes, in confounding the entireness of the object, and the integrity of the subject. There may be an entire profession of the whole essential object of faith, where the will is brought in to make no more full choice, or consent then hath been said. There is added, It will be an hard saying to many honest Christians, to say, that a man not justified may believe every fundamental article, and withal truly profess repentance of all his sins, and to take God for his Sovereign to rule him, and his chief good to be enjoyed to his happiness, and to take Christ for his Lord, and only Savior, and his Word for his Law and Rule, and the Holy Ghost for his guide and sanctifier, and the rest which is essential to Christianity. I think it will be nothing hard for any honest Christian to say, that a man not justified may believe every fundamental article, as to assent, and that he may be convinced of the necessity of such repentance, and accordingly to make profession of it, as Johns converts were baptized into it. That such an one may freely yield that God hath right of Sovereignty and rule, and that he is the chief good to be enjoyed for happiness, and that he ought to take Christ for his Lord, and Savior, &c. and that this may be done truly, not only as to reality of assent, but as to reality of purpose to make this choice, so far as the man knows his own heart, or the mind of God in this work: though there be not that integrity to yield up himself wholly, which yet by the power of Ordinances through the Spirit in God's time may be done, and through grace perfected.

Lastly, God setting up a visible Church upon earth in order to that [Propos. 6] which is invisible, will have those admitted that give assent to Scripture-doctrine, and accordingly make profession: And this of itself in foro Dei, brings them into Covenant-right, and visible Church-membership. And therefore according to the mind of God, and, as Apollonius speaks, jure Dei in this estate are to be received; Though they shall hit or miss of the mercy of the Covenant accordingly as by grace they come up to, or by sin fall short of the Propositions contained in it. A Scholar (sa • th Mr. Hudson) that is admitted into a School, is not admitted because he is doctus, but, ut sit doctus; and if he will submit to the rules of the School, and apply himself to learn, it is enough for his admission. The like may be said of the Church visible which is Christ's School; Vindicat. p. 248. To which Mr. Baxter himself, if I understand him, hath given his assent in his Treatise of everlasting rest, Part 4. Sect. 3. The door of the visible Church is incomparably wider then the door of heaven; and Christ is so tender, so bountiful and forward to convey his grace, and the Gospel so free an offer, and invitation to all, that surely Christ will keep no man off: if they will come quite over in spirit to Christ, they shall be welcome: if they will come but only to a visible profession, he will not deny them admittance. This seems to speak the mind of Jesus Christ for their admittance, and that in foro Dei, as well as in foro Ecclesiae, they stand in Covenant-relation, and have title to Church-membership. Thus Mr. Baxter and the Reader may see my thoughts in this thing: and though I doubt not, but that he will question much that I have said; yet now at last I hope both he and others may know my meaning.

Argument 2. vindicated.

[Argument vindicated. 2] My second Argument is, All the obsurdities following the restraint of the Covenant to the Elect, or men of a saving Faith: follow upon this restraint of interest in baptism.] Mr. Baxter answers, What absurdities follow such restraint of it to sound believers, as I have asserted, I should be willing to know; though with some labor I have searched for it. Bear with me therefore, whilst I examine what you refer me to. It is, pag. 109. where you charge those absurdities. I wonder that all this labor for search should need, when as he says, he hath a reference, and the Reader I think may see enough from Mr. Baxter's own hand in the places already mentioned; one part of the first absurdity which I have pressed, Mr. Baxter is pleased to repeat; This restriction of the Covenant (to shut out all the non-regenerate) makes an utter confusion betwixt the Covenant itself and the conditions of it: or (if the expression do not please) the Covenant itself, and the duties required in it: between our entrance into covenant, and our observation of it, or walking up in faithfulness to it. All know that a bargain for a Sum of money, and the payment of that Sum: the covenant with a servant for labor, and the labor according to this covenant, are different things. Faithful men that make a bargain, keep it; enter covenant, and stand to it: But the making, and keeping; the entering, and observing, are not the same: and according to this opinion, Regeneration is our entrance into Covenant, and regeneration is our keeping of Covenant: before regeneration we make no Covenant, after regeneration we break no Covenant, there is no such thing as Covenant-breaking. All this makes an utter confusion in the Covenant. After a charge big enough, he says, I cannot give my judgment of the intolerableness, and great danger of your mistake here manifested; without unmannerlinesse, I will therefore say but this, It is in a very weighty point, near the foundation, wherein to err cannot be safe. To which I only say, I wish he had spoken fully out, that the intolerableness and supposed great danger of my mistake, might have been seen, and I earnestly desire all my friends, that in case I err in this manner as I stand charged, that they would afford me their help to discover my error; but I trust I shall make it good, that my error at the highest is but equivocal. He adds: In my Aphorisms, (pag. 265.) I gave my reasons for the contrary; we must therefore see first what is said there, where he thus bespeaks his Reader. Here let me mind you, of one useful observation more. The Covenanting on our parts, is a principal part of the conditions of the Covenant, though this may seem strange, that a covenanting and performing conditions, should be almost all one: And indeed, I think all intelligent Readers will judge it to be far more strange than true, though we are to hear of that which is more strange presently, we are told of reasons in this page, but I find no piece of a reason in it, but only, I say, instead of a reason; And I know not where anything towards a proof of this position may be found, unless it be in the Poets Hyperbole, Dimidium facti, qui been coepit, habet; He that hath well begun, hath half done; yet half is not almost all. He goes on. It is a truth so far beyond all doubt, that our own Covenanting is a principal part of the condition of the Covenant of grace, as that it is in other terms a great part of the substance of the Gospel. Here are mysterious words. Is our covenanting a part of the condition, or is the condition a part of the Covenant? The condition is here made the integrum, and our Covenanting one part of the condition. This is above my reason. And for the other part, I say, if our covenanting be a great part of the substance of the Gospel, then the Jew outwardly did make a better progress in Gospel-ways then we are yet aware of, or the Apostle understood when he spake so much as we read, Rom. 2. concerning him, for he was in Covenant, otherwise he had been no Jew at all, but a Pagan or Heathen. Having told us, (I cannot guess to what end) that the same act is called our conditions, as the performers; and God's conditions, as the imposer, and promiser: giving his blessings only on these imposed conditions, he adds, Most properly they are called the conditions of God's Covenant, or promise, rather than of ours; for our own promise is the first part of them, and our performance of that promise, but a secondary part: Is not here a convincing reason? Our own promise is the first part, our performance the second part; Ergo they are more properly the conditions of God's, Covenant then of ours. I deny not the thing, but wonder at the reason; but, speed it as it will, I thence collect, that promises and performances are distinct things, and that is enough for me. Our promising to God, I am sure, is our covenanting; this then differs from Covenant-keeping, or performance, and is not to be confounded with it. There follows, For, 2. God's Covenant is a free gift of Christ, and life to the World on condition of their acceptance: This our Divines against the Papists, and the doctrine of merit have fully proved. That God doth freely give Christ to those that accept him, I freely yield, and that our Divines have fully proved it against Papists, I confess, and that it must be asserted against Antinomians; but what Divines have proved that God's Covenant is his free gift of Christ, and life to the world on condition that they will accept, I know not: It is the first time (I think) that ever I heard it. This then is a full definition of a Covenant, which I yet think comes short of it; and if it be a truth, it well serves my purpose; many a Covenant is made, and conditions never performed. After his expression of himself about the modification of our acceptance of Christ by faith, he adds, Our acceptance or consent, is our Covenanting and our Faith. So that our Covenanting with Christ, and our Faith is the same thing: that is our accepting an offered Savior on his terms, or a consent that he be ours, and we his on his terms. And who knows not that this Faith or Covenanting, or consent is the condition by us to be performed, that we may have right to Christ, and life offered. I do know the latter, and therefore upon that account, (as upon divers others) I deny the former. I know that justifying faith is the condition by us to be performed; and I as well know, that it is not our covenanting, but our making good our Covenant. That Faith by which the Romans stood in Covenant with God, was such a faith that the whole visible Church of the Gentiles had, and the Jews both, Rom. 11. But this was not a justifying faith, but short of it. To make justifying faith, and Covenanting Synonyma is an error, I am confident, of what size I leave to others to determine. If they were both one, Scripture would promiscuously speak of them; but we find that it still distinguisheth them, and gives us clearly to understand, that the greatest part of Covenanters are short of Faith that is saving and justifying. Ordinances in which the Covenant of grace is dispensed, and which speak all those that entertain them to be in Covenant, are granted of God to men short of justifying faith, as their proper inheritance, Rom. 3.1. Deut. 33.4. Titles implying a Covenant-state, (as I have abundantly shown) are given of God to them that are short of this faith, viz. Christian, Disciple, Saint, Believer, Called, Brethren: God imposes Covenant-conditions, makes promise of Covenant-blessings upon these imposed conditions, to those that are short of Faith that justifieth; These therefore are in Covenant. Though I hear neither of Scripture nor argument, nor anything else but bare words in two or three Paradoxes for my conviction, yet by a similitude I shall understand, that our own Covenant-act is the primary condition of God's Covenant. In his Aphorisms he says, It may seem strange, but now a similitude shall render it familiar, If a King (saith he) will offer his Son in marriage to a condemned woman, and a beggar, on condition that she will but have him, that is consent, and so covenant and marry him; here her covenanting, consenting, or marrying of him is the performance of the condition on her part, for obtaining her first right in him and his: but for the continuance of her right is further requisite. If we had had either Scripture or argument to have given us a first light, then a Simile might have served for somewhat, and come in as a garnish; but being served in alone, it may speak the Authors thoughts, but never settle any in the truth. And I shall leave it to the Reader to judge whether the edge of it may not easily be turned against himself, and whether when it is brought home, it will not prove destructive to his own opinion. I must therefore tell the Reader, that our relation to Christ whilst on earth, is more frequently expressed in Scriptures, by espousals, then marriages: as we may see through the book of Canticles, and Hos. 2.14. 2 Cor. 11.2. and that there is ordinarily a relation of men to God, preceding faith that justifies. Now Mr. Baxter is not so ill read in the Civil Law, but that he knows that there are sponsalia de futuro, and sponsalia de praesenti. Those, God is pleased to take for his people, that are his only in the first relation, and to honor them with privileges to bring them on to the second. Whereas he says, Our Covenant principally is to receive, nor is it only de futuro, but de praesenti. I may answer, first, If our Covenant be to receive, then it doth precede this receiving; and secondly, if he mean, that it is our duty to receive Christ in present, and not to delay the least moment of time, I shall readily yield; but in case he say, that present profession and engagement to receive gives a people no title to any Covenant-relation, before Christ be actually and savingly received, I may well ask what we are to say to the whole body of Old Testament-Scriptures? were not all Israel in Covenant? were they not all visibly the people of the Lord? are they not owned of God for such, when they were at the worst and lowest? How many thousands of Scripture-Texts may be brought to evince it? Had they called themselves so, and valued themselves as such, on this account to be a people nigh unto the Lord; and no people so nigh, it might have been said to be their own vapor; but when God gives them that testimony of honor, and hath never done with it, sure he would have us to believe it. There is a first right therefore, before that right in the similitude contended for; and that is no other but a right of Covenant: to be without God and without hope is the case of a mere heathen uncircumcised in the flesh, Eph. 2.11. The state of visible relation is one step nearer, than aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel do enjoy; and yet too short of a state of salvation. Mr. Baxter concludes, By this time I leave it to the Reader to judge who it is that introduceth confusion about the Covenant, and whether it be an error of the lower size: And I am very well contented to sit down and hear his judgment: and if it be upon this determined against me, I shall say the authority of man is mightily prevalent. I have yet seen no title of Scripture, nothing of reason, only that which I take to be Scripture-Paradoxes, are laid down as Maxims. There follows, As for that you add, that then there is no Covenant-breaking, I reply, 1. quoad essentiam, et possibilitatem, there is, 2. quoad existentiam, there is a breaking of mere verbal and erring half Covenants; but if you think, that sound Covenanting may be utterly broke, then you are against the certainty of perseverance. I desire to know whither this essence, possibility and existence refers, whether to the Covenant, or to the breaking of Covenant. If it refer to the Covenant, as the words seem plainly to imply, then here is a new piece of learning, that the essence of a thing may be broke, and the existence stand firm. I have learnt that existencies may be destroyed, and essences remain, and instance is commonly given in Roses in winter; But I have not until now heard the contrary. But if these refer to breaking of Covenant, then the meaning is, there is a possibility, but there shall not be a futureity: But this is flatly to gain-say the Scriptures, that complain so frequently of actual breach of Covenant. Somewhat therefore is granted, and somewhat denied. It is granted that there is a breaking of mere verbal, and of erring, half-Covenants; but I am told, that if I think that sound Covenanting may be utterly broke, then I am against the certainty of perseverance. If by sound Covenanting, truth of Covenant be meant, this may be broke, and no Saint apostatize, but if integrity of heart and such soul-qualifications as might be desired in Covenanters be understood, the truth of a Covenant stands, where this is wanting: otherwise none but upright, honest, sincere men, can ever make bargains. It follows, They broke their particular Covenants about reforming Idolatry, and such particular sins. And these particular Covenants were branches of their grand Covenants, and so habemns reum confitentem. It is farther said, They broke their verbal, and equivocal Covenant, or promise to God, whereby they seemed to accept him on his own terms, but did not. But it should be remembered, that this Covenant they broke was a marriage-Covenant, as is frequently testified in Scriptures, as, Jer. 31.32. where the Lord speaking of the Covenant made with Israel when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt: Which my Covenant they brake, saith he, although I was an husband unto them: which is further clear, Jer. 3.1, 14, 20. Hos. 2.17. This then was a real, and no equivocal Covenant, or else Mr. Baxter's similitude, on which he puts so much stress, is spoiled. And I never knew, that verbal Covenants, where sincerity of intention for faithful performance was wanting, were equivocal Covenants: much less where a man did not fully understand himself in covenanting. All want of integrity is not equivocation: Men may promise and not perform, men may promise and never mean to perform, (which I think few unregenerate men directly do) and yet not equivocate. If a Gentleman shall promise a Tenant a Lease for life, provided that he will give him a dog, he brings him one, and accordingly expects his Lease, the Landlord puts him off in telling him that he indented with him for a dog-star, or a dog-fish, here is equivocation; but had he directly promised and broken faith, it had been no equivocation, but falsification. I have heard of one of quality that often solicited one to serve him, after long importunity he got a promise from the man, that such a day he would come and serve him, he kept his day, and came and served a writ upon him: This was equivocation; but if he had not come at all, as the son in the Parable did not work in the Vineyard, when he had said he would, that had been plain falsification. If those were equivocal Covenants, and no reality of the being of a Covenant between God and them in them, then all the honor that followed upon them, and mercies enjoyed were equivocal likewise. Then whensoever God calls Israel his people, we must understand him his equivocal people: when he calls them his portion, we must understand it his equivocal portion: when he says, Judah is his inheritance, we must understand his equivocal inheritance: and Christ's word, Matth. 8.12. The children of the Kingdom shall be cast out, must be interpreted, the children of the equivocal Kingdom: and, Matth. 22.14. Many are equivocally called: and, Rom. 9.4. the Apostle must be understood, To whom pertaineth the equivocal adoption and the equivocal glory. These certainly broke Covenant, and yet we have no example of Saints apostasy in them. When the Jesuits forced Texts of Scripture to find (if it had been possible) one or two equivocal speeches in our Savior's words, as Joh. 7.8. I go not yet up to this feast, leaving out [Yet] that so there might be either an untruth, (for he did go up) or an equivocation: as also in those words of his quoted from the Psalmist, Joh. 10.34. I have said ye are gods: how would they have gloried, in case they had learned, that Scripture was almost all over equivocal? Give them this, and the day is theirs in the doctrine of equivocation.

Mr. Baxter adds, Your second absurdity is, That then there are no hypocrites, and replies rather, Then all unregenerate professors are hypocrites. They pretend merely to real proper covenanting, and they do covenant but verbally and equivocally. But the great falsehood of this I have sufficiently discovered, and therefore my Argument which he notably curtails still stands firm. It were too tedious to trouble the Reader with all my words and his.

The third absurdity which I press, Mr. Baxter doth not vouchsafe to name, but only refers to his answer to Mr. T. I shall therefore let it alone, not intending to interpose between them.

Argument 3. vindicated.

My third Argument to prove, [That a faith short of justifying may give title to baptism, is, To make the visible seal of baptism which is the privilege of the Church visible to be of equal latitude with the seal of the Spirit which is peculiar to invisible members, is a Paradox.] To which he answers, But you take it for granted, that we do so; which is too easy disputing: and I may well take it for granted, seeing in the next words he yields it; where he says, We give the seal of Baptism to all, that seem sound Believers, and their seed; and we say, the seal of the sanctifying Spirit is only theirs that are such believers. Their seeming faith works then only by way of cheat; to procure that which is none of their right, and so both seals are of equal latitude, which yet is more plainly expressed in his following words: But if you speak only of Covenant-right to Baptism, coram Deo, by his gift of Covenant, then I make them of the same extent; and I cannot tell what other Covenant-right to speak of, but that in which God avoucheth a people to be his, and himself to be their God, and I dare not have a thought of anything but reality in his words. For his distinction which he hints here, and plainly delivers elsewhere, of right in foro Dei, and in foro Ecclesiae, both to Covenant and Baptism, I suppose considerate men will pause upon it, before they receive it, especially in the sense which he puts upon it: 1. They may press him with his own rule, Ubi lex non distinguit, • ibi non est distinguendum. Such a right to visible Ordinances before men never granted of God, I would learn. 2. They may demand whether it be the Will of God, that any upon the latter right coram Ecclesia should be baptized by the Church. If it be, then they have right coram Deo: If it be not his will, then they have no right coram Ecclesia. I know no Court that God keeps respective to visible Church-privileges, but his Church. 3. They may tell him of the necessity that is put upon Ministers to profane this Divine Ordinance, in putting this seal ordinarily and unavoidably to mere blank paper, which is a most contumelious abuse of it. Of many that are called, few are chosen; and yet all that are visibly called, are thus sealed, when in God's sight all title is wanting. 4. They may tell him, that poor souls are thus miserably cheated in bearing them in hand, that this great privilege, and consequently all further Church-privileges are theirs, when the conveyance is more fraudulent that casts it upon them. 5. They may yet tell him, that a door is here opened to Anabaptism, or multiplication of Baptism. A new door, of which either nothing or very little hath ever been spoken. When discovery shall be made, (as according to these principles it may be often made) that the title, when Baptism was administered was barely seeming; then all was null ab initio in such proceedings: and as such persons always were in the eye of God, so now in the eye of men, they are unbaptized persons: And in case God ever vouchsafe the grace of conversion to this man, he is now by Divine appointment to seek baptism. In case Simon Magus, who after baptism did discover himself to be in the gall of bitterness, by God's grace should ever attain repentance and forgiveness, (which Peter did not judge to be desperate) he must then upon conversion afresh offer himself to Baptism. If Titius be admitted into possessions presumed to be his true inheritance, and afterwards it be made to appear that it never appertained to him, but to Sempronius; when this appears all is to be judged invalid. And if Titius ever gain due right, he must again procure possession, and is not to hold on his former cracked and seeming title. So that whensoever a Minister converts a baptized man, he must look upon former proceedings as null, and upon his conversion baptize him. Neither let Anabaptists here triumph, as they may baptize whom we have baptized, when they see them converted, so we may baptize whom they have baptized, too many of both parties, manifesting over-evident signs of their unconversion. 6. They may tell you that, that Scripture-distinction of circumcision in the flesh, and circumcision in the heart, is hereby overthrown; seeing circumcision in the flesh, where circumcision in the heart is wanting, is uncircumcision: which the Apostle grants respective to true happiness, Rom. 2. ult. but denies respective to Church-privileges, Rom. 3.1. 7. They may tell him, that this principle standing, all persons dying unregenerate, die unbaptized; yea, all that were baptized in infancy and after converted, remain still unbaptized. 8. That it is much to be feared, if not certainly to be concluded, that the major part by far of Worcestershire combination consists of unbaptized persons, there being, I doubt, no good evidence of true conversion in the most considerable part of them; subscription to the confession there, and consent to membership, being all that is required; and whether it be enough for a good satisfying evidence that a man or woman is in grace, that he or she hath subscribed, or put to their mark, let any judge. I am sure it is voiced, that the most profane (where the Minister carries any authority) are as forward for subscription as any. If all marriages were null, where grace were not in truth in the parties, I fear that through the Christian world there would be more adulterous, then marriage-copulations. And in case where there is no grace, there is no subject for Baptism, there are as many unbaptized persons.

Argument 4. vindicated.

My fourth Argument is, [The great condition to which baptism engages, is not a prerequisite in Baptism. This is plain, no man is bound to make good his condition before engagement to conditions; no servant is tied to do his work, before he hath received earnest; no Soldier to fight, before he is listed, or hath given in his name. But faith that is justifying, to accept Christ is the condition to which Baptism engageth.] To this Mr. Baxter answers, What is the conclusion? Therefore justifying faith is not a prerequisite in baptism, or according to the Simile no man is bound to accept Christ to justification before he is baptized: And then begins highly to Rhetoricate. I confess the reading of such passages in Grave, Learned, Godly Divines, and that with such confidence uttered, as undoubted truth, and that in zeal to save the Church from the errors of us that are contrary minded, doth very much convince me of human frailty, and that the best of men do know but in part, and in a little part too. If Mr. Baxter seek an instance of human frailty, he hath made no mischoice in casting his eyes upon me, he cannot see so many in me as I know; but I am sorry, that he must put his wit upon the device of one, or at least take hold on the most handsome seeming opportunity, to cry up one, and so to give too much evidence (as one said upon the first sight of it) of his own weakness. As to the conclusion, that justifying faith is no prerequisite in Baptism, in the sense that every Reader may see I have given of it, I shall maintain, and as Mr. Br. hath heard, I have the strength of the reformed Churches for my confirmation in it; but for the other, which serves only to blind the Reader, and to bring me under a charge, that no man is bound to accent of Christi before he be justified. I look upon it as an assertion, both senseless and graceless. I believe it never came into the heart of any that is either grave, or godly to utter it, and that there is scarce any so witless, or graceless as to believe it, and so Mr. Brs. volume of 31. Reasons, five, pag. 84, 85, 86. Twenty six, pag. 94, to 107. are almost at one breath answered. Few of them tending to oppose anything that I hold, but in the far greatest part brought against his own conceit; and no assertion, or opinion of mine. I suppose I could easily furnish him with a large addition of reasons, to deny this fancy; Faith is commanded in the moral Law, as I have asserted Treat. of the Covenant, pag. 18. and I think no man believes that Baptism doth first put a man under such obligation. Some Papists do charge upon us, that we maintain that Baptism delivers us from the moral Law, and therefore the Council of Trent anathematizeth those that hold it, but never any I think were charged to say, that Baptism is our first obligation to it. 2. An unbaptized man is bound to endeavor to avoid damnation, but he that believeth not shall be damned. 3. He is bound to endeavor to obtain Salvation; but we must believe with the heart, and confess with the mouth to Salvation. 4. Baptism presupposeth the Covenant; but the Covenant, as I have often said, engages to believing. 5. None can be exempted from believing, but they are withal exempted from repentance; but unbaptised persons are to repent, Act. 17.30. 6. Faith in Christ hath been actually required of the unbaptized, Act. 16.30. And therefore it is marvel that when Mr. Br. judgeth me to be overtaken in this folly, he would spend so much time with me or so many words upon me, transgressing the wise man's advice, Prov. 26.4. Answer not a fool according to his folly. When he thought I had no more wit than to think that no man is bound to accept Christ for justification before he be baptized, I marvel that he would set his wit to mine. But what is it that I have said to induce him to think that I am in that opinion. I have said? The great condition to which Baptism engages, is not a prerequisite in Baptism; and can any man imagine that I meant anymore than that it is not required to the being of Baptism? Can any man think that I ever meant that it is not required of the person that is for Baptism, till after he be baptized? and have I not in the next page cleared mine own meaning, where I say, that there is no necessity that justifying faith go before, but a necessity that it must follow after Baptism: further explaining myself, It is true that in men of years justifying faith sometimes goes before Baptism, as in Abraham it went before Circumcision: but it is not of necessity required to interest us into a rite either of baptism or Circumcision; and doubtless I never thought that either Abraham or any other was justified by that work that was never required at their hand. I say, justifying faith, or grace in the truth of it, is no prerequisite in marriage; and I further say, that a Minister in times past might, and a Magistrate at this time may lawfully marry persons void of justifying faith or grace, and yet he is no better than a graceless man, that thinks that persons unmarried are not tied to faith and godliness. Grace is no prerequisite to buying and selling. A bargain of sail stands firm, though there be no grace in them that make the bargain. Men without grace may go to Kidderminster to buy hangings and curtains, and those of that place may lawfully trade with them, and yet both parties are before hand bound to grace and godliness. But though my assertion is clear enough, yet some may say, my similitude darkens it. I say, No servant is tied to do his work, before he hath received his earnest; no Soldier to fight, before he be listed, or hath given in his name. To this I say, If my expressions which I thought were clear, (well knowing my own meaning, yet) to others seemed dark, no candid man would draw them further then the proposition which my argument was brought to confirm, which is, That a faith dogmatical, or as I explain it, a faith short of justifying, entitles to Baptism. In my similitude I looked at the resemblance that is between a Soldiers listing, a servants entertainment into his Masters service, and a Christians Baptism. And as a Soldier is not bound in order to listing, first to fight: nor a servant in order to his entertainment, first to work: so a Christian is not bound in order to Baptism, first to believe to justification. And thus I fully explained myself in the next page but one. That faith which is the condition of the promise, is not the condition in foro Dei of title to the seal, an acknowledgement of the necessity of such faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a title to the seals and the performance of the condition of like necessity to attain the thing sealed; To promise service and fidelity in war is enough to get listed, as to do service is of necessity to be rewarded. So that any Reader I think might clearly have seen, and I hope now will more fully understand my meaning: Having taken notice of Mr. Baxter's great mistake, and upon it his injurious charge, I think it most meet in this place to take notice of another (though under another head) that so, at once I may vindicate myself from things of this nature. I say, in my Treatise of the Covenant, chap. 16. pag. 111. Sincerity is said to be the new rule, or the rule of the New Covenant. To this Mr. Baxter is pleased to reply, When I first read these words which you write in a different character, and father on me, I was ashamed of my nonsense, for they are no better: but it came not into my thoughts, once to suspect a forgery in your charge. Far was I from imagining that so reverend, pious, and dear a friend, would tell the world in print, that I said that which never came into my thoughts, and confute that soberly and deliberately as mine that I never wrote. After many other words added, If when we are dead, men should read Mr. Bl. book that never read mine, and there see it written that I said [sincerity is the new rule, or the rule of the New Covenant] can any man blame them to believe it, and report of me as from him, and say, what shall I not believe such and such a man that reports it in express words? Can any man now think but that I father this upon him; and that I report it to the world in print, in express words, that he hath said it? will it not be said on Mr. Baxter's credit that I said it, and wronged him in it? But I desire the Reader to peruse the whole Chapter; and in case he find not Mr. Baxter's name there at all, then he must needs conclude that this was spoken at least improvide et inconsulte, and some testimony of human frailty given in it. I recite indeed some passages of Mr. Baxter's in that Chapter without his name, being unwilling indeed to make it known that he was in any such opinion, or that he had laid any such charge of intolerable ignorance upon learned Divines as there he does. But of this he hath heard enough already from other hands; How can he tell that I mean him in those passages, seeing I never named him, but that the words are his? And when these words now in question (produced at a good distance from the other) are none, of his, who can say that I meant him? much less can they say, that I have expressly charged them upon him. If they be in any odd corner of his book (as he says he knows not but that they may be), he then may be yet charged with them, and therefore injuriously complains of any injurious charge upon him. But to return to what we have in hand. Though in Mr. Baxter's five first Reasons, there is much very well worth animadversion, yet seeng there is nothing, but that which hath either already been spoken to, or else that tends to the overthrow of that senseless sottish tenent, (which I profess to abhor) I shall pass them by. For his additional 26. Arguments which he sets, (I know not for what reason) at a great distance from the rest; the greatest part of them are brought, and mightily fortified to beat down that which I think never any but himself set up. I think his misconceit first hatchit it, and I am well content to stand by; and see him murder it; For so many of them as look at all in opposition to anything that I hold, I shall take them into consideration.

His two first arguments drawn from Authority, the first of the Assembly of Divines, and others of a number of Fathers, are brought to prove that the profession of a justifying faith is required to baptism; and what is that to me, who never denied it; but in plain words have often affirmed it? It is sufficiently implied where I require a dogmatical faith to Baptism. A dogmatical faith assents to that of Apollos, Jesus is the Christ, and when I say that this entitles, I cannot mean, concealed or denied, but openly professed. If I say that a man hath six pence in his purse may dine at such an ordinary, I do not mean with six pance concealed, or denied, but produced and paid. Have I not both the words [professing] and [profession] both in the margent and in the Index? seeing Mr. Baxter calls upon me to declare myself further in this thing, I do believe, and profess to hold that, he that upon hearing the Gospel preached and the truth of it published and opened, shall professedly abjure all other opposite ways whatsoever, and choose the Christian way for salvation, promising to follow the rules of it, is to be baptized and his seed, and that upon a right not only coram Ecclesia, but coram Deo; It being the mind of God that such should be admitted. The authority of reverend Mr. Gataker against Dr. Ward is only worthy enquiring into, citing Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Whitaker, as Mr. Baxter observes. But Mr. Gataker himself understands not (as he says) what Dr. Ward means by the initial faith and repentance which in the judgment of the Apostles gave right to those that desired baptism, and upon that account I cannot directly tell what that is that Mr. Gataker opposeth. The authorities quoted by him, reach not the thing that we contend about Luther says, He (meaning Philip) will not baptize him unless he believe; I say the same: Neither Simon Magus nor any of the Samaritans men or women could have baptism, before they believed. Calvin says, He had not baptized him without true faith, which is doubtless to be understood of fides quam, not quâ credimus, as appears in his words before. There is no doubt but Ananias had first faithfully instructed Paul in the principles of godliness. A belief of such principles then Calvin means. Bucer speaks only of profession of faith, and requiring of men to believe. Neither is there anything in Whitaker's testimony that comes up to our purpose: For Mr. Marshalls Sermon of unity that is added, I have it not, and there is nothing quoted out of it. Whereas it is said, that an hundred might easily, and truly be cited to this purpose: I say, if it be but to this purpose, it is not to our present purpose. If they be brought to prove that justifying faith is required of men before baptism, they may well prove that: but as I have said, so I do say, I think never man denied it. Dr. Ward I believe never opposed it. If they be brought to prove that no faith that is short of that which is justifying gives title to baptism, and speak no more than those already quoted, they speak not home to the purpose. And in case there be any that have said, that Baptism still presupposeth regeneration, and that we baptize infants or men of age only upon this supposition as regenerate. As Mr. Baxter, Append. pag. 71. says that, Learned Divines have given Papists great advantage in mistaking the nature of justifying Faith, thinking that it consists in [a belief of the pardon of my own sins;] So I may say, that those, whosoever they are, that have confounded Covenant-holiness, with that of regeneration and inherent sanctification, have given as great advantage to others, yea, to the Papists themselves. And as the former doctrine ha's perplexed many a weak soul, being not able to make good their assurance, they conclude thereupon their want of Faith; so these as much perplex the consciences of those that administer this Ordinance, which I had rather express in Mr. Baxter's words then mine own, Append, pag. 70, 71. No Minister can groundedly administer the Sacraments to any man, but to himself, because he can be certain of no man's justification, being not certain of the sincerity of their faith. And if he should adventure to administer upon probabilities or charitable conjectures, then should he be guilty of profaning the Ordinance, and every time he mistaketh he should set the seal of God to a lie: And who then durst ever administer a Sacrament, being never certain but that he shall thus abuse it? adding further, I confess ingenuously to you, that it was the ignorance of this one point, which chiefly caused me to abstain from administering the Lord's Supper for so many years. And I confess as ingenuously, that in case he can work me to his opinion, I stand resolved for present to baptize no Infant, as being unable to know the Parents faith to justification; and further with Walaes concluding that the Parents faith doth not justify the child; but as Calvin resolves, lib. 4. instit. cap. 16. Sect. 20. they are baptized into future faith and repentance, which Walaeus also says is the opinion of most others: Neither shall I baptize any man of years till I have as high assurance, if not more, of his justification, than Mr. Baxter seems to think any man can have of his own. If this must stand, then Paedobaptists and Anabaptists must all leave their Principles; and both men and women when they have learned to read that new name in the white stone, [that is] have concluded their assurance, must turn Sebaptists, and then let us look for as many counterfeits, as there were Jews in Christ's time with broad Phylacteries. Those that bottom Baptism on the Covenant, holiness of Covenant, distinct from that of sanctification, stand ensnared in none of these difficulties or inextricable perplexities.

All the following Arguments to the 9 ^th . may be easily granted, and that is thus formed, If the Apostles use to communicate the proper titles of the justified to all that are baptized, (till they see them prove apostates or hypocrites) then they did take all the baptized to be probably justified, (though they might know that there were hypocrites among them, yet either they knew them not, or might not denominate the body from a few that they did know) But the antecedent is true; Therefore. For the truth of the antecedent here laid down, [That the Apostles use to communicate the proper titles of the justified to all that are baptized,] I expect better proof then a naked affirmation. And all that is brought for proof, is, I need not cite Scripture to prove, that the baptized ar called by the Apostles Believers, Saints, Disciples, Christians; Mr. Bl. hath done it already, pag. 28. And he very well knows that I there make it good, That those titles are not proper to the justified, but ordinarily given to those that are not justified, nor in any saving condition. But if my words in the place quoted, or elsewhere may not be heard, Mr. Baxter's sure will take, who in his Saints rest, Part 4. Sect. 3. p. 105. saith, There are many Saints (or sanctified men) that yet shall never come to heaven, who are only Saints by their separation from Paganism into fellowship with the visible Church, but not Saints in the strictest sense, by separation from the ungodly into the fellowship of the mystical body of Christ, quoting these following Scriptures, Heb. 10.29. Deut. 7.6. and 14.2, 21. and 26.19. and 28.9. Exod. 19.6. 1 Cor. 7.13, 14. Rom. 11.16. Heb. 3.1. compared with verse. 12. 1 Cor. 3.17. and 14.33. 1 Cor. 1.2. compared with 11.20, 21. &c. Gal. 3.26. compared with Gal. 3.3, 4. and 4.11 and 5.2, 3, 4. John 15.2. His demand therefore to me is strange: Now who knows not that salvation is made the portion of Believers, Saints, Disciples? when he himself affirms that there are Saints that never shall be saved. He afterwards puts a further question, Is it another sort of them? or doth the Scripture use to divide Saints as a genus into two species? Not that I know of: It is but an aequivocum in sua aequivocata. The name belongs to them but as the name of a Man to a Corps, &c. Then it seems that there is nothing of Reality in such Separations. Cameron tells us otherwise, that there is a reality in this Saintship by separation. In the relation of his dispute with Courcellius he affirmed, that the Text of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7.14. was without doubt to be understood of real holiness. To which Courcellius replying, He that is really holy hath no need of regeneration and baptism: But Infants of Believers after they are borne have need of baptism and regeneration; Ergo. Which Cameron answered, (as the relation says) by distinguishing of real holiness, which is twofold: One consisting in the bare relation of the person to the people of God, or the Church, and depends wholly upon birth within the pale of the Church, and of parents embracing the Covenant. The other is, &c. And it seems that the Scripture is still under the change of equivocal speeches all over. As Cameron hath somewhere observed, that the word Saints in Scripture is far more frequently taken for Saints on Earth, then for Saints in heaven; so I doubt not but it may be maintained that it speaks far more frequently of Saints by dedication, and separation, and so of Believers and Disciples by profession, then by inherent qualification; and doth it in all these places speak equivocally? had it been affirmed to be Genus Analogum, in opposition to uni vocum, as is said of Ens in respect of Substantia & Accidens, it had been less; but to make nothing of this noble privilege of which Scripture speaks so honourably, is too plainly to side against the truth itself. I would know for my learning, what advantage or profit a dead Corps is in Capacity to enjoy; I think one at all: but these (as the Apostle tells us) have much every way, even they that have no more then sanctity of this nature; If such equivocation be found in the word [Saint] their the like is to be affirmed of the word Believer, and believers having their denomination from their faith, that is equivocal in like manner, and so our Common division of faith into dogmatical or historical, temporary, miraculous, and justifying, is but a division of an aequivocum in sua aequivocata, which I should think no man would affirm, much less Mr. Baxter, who makes common and special graces to differ only gradually, and then as cold in a remiss degree may grow to that which is intense, so one aequivocatum may rise to the nature of another, animal terrestre may become Sidus coeleste; one of our dogs that we use on Earth, may become a star in heaven; then miraculous faith itself hath only the name, and nothing of the power and nature of faith in it. Judas had power given him to cast out unclean spirits, Maetth. 10.1, 4. and he never had faith that justifieth; if his faith was only aequivocal, then the unclean Spirits were equivocal likewise; I shall never believe that an aequivocal faith can cast out a real devil. The Apostle tells us of faith to the remooval of Mountains void of charity, 1 Cor. 13.2. If this were equivocal faith, those must be equivocal Mountains. Mr. Baxter adds, To put the matter beyond doubt, I wish Mr. Bl. to consider that it's not only these forementioned titles, but even the rest which he will acknowledge proper to the regenerate, which are given by the Apostles generally to the baptized. Instances given in Adoption, Gal. 3.26, 27. union with Christ and several others. If I will acknowledge this, I shall be soon brought to yield up all. Is all Adoption proper to the regenerate? what shall we say then to that of the Apostle, Rom. 9.4. To them pertained the Adoption? Had the Apostle that heaviness and continual sorrow of heart, for Israel after the flesh, and doth he yet give them that testimony that they are regenerate? Gomarus on the place hath these words, Lest any in this place should mistake Adoption and acceptation for sons in Scripture is twofold, general and special. General adoption is an outward destination or call into the visible Church and Company of the Sons of God, upon which account many are said to be the Sons of God, as opposite to the Sons of men, that is, aliens from the Church, Gen. 6.2. And Israel this general way are called the sons of God, not only those that were elect to life eternal and regenerate, but also those that were reprobate and merely carnal, and therefore the Jews, Sons of the kingdom, or the Church of God, are said to be cast into utter darkness, Matth. 8.12. And whether all union with Christ imply regeneration, let John 15.2. be consulted, where an union with Christ is clearly held out; yet Mr. Baxter brings that text among others to prove that there are some Saints that shall never be saved. Mr. Hudson and Mr. Cobbet tell us at large that, Christ is the head of the Church visible, and hath many unfruitful members. Other phrases are there brought, or titles as proper to the regenerate; which are well known in Scripture to be applied to such as have Apostatized, and are brought by Arminians to prove falling away, and are answered by their adversaries; Mr. Hudson's words are here worthy of consideration. Only the invisible company have internal spiritual communion, and are elect, many of those that have external communion and are visible members shall perish, and yet by reason of their profession, are said, 2. Thes. 1. 1. to be in God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, as Ames also confesseth, Med. lib. 1. Cap. 32. art. 9. Such was the Church off Corinth and Ephesus, &c. wherein all were not in Communion for life; and of such Christ speaketh, John 15.2. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he takes away. and verse 6. If a man abides not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered, and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. These are said to be redeemed, 2 Pet. 2.1. denying the Lord that bought them; and sanctified, Heb. 10.29. yet hath accounted the blood of the Covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and much more to this purpose, Vindi. pag. 5. And if the Apostle give Testimonies to whole Churches holding out what they engage to be, ought to be, and professedly were, this comes short of his purpose.

I find little or nothing in all the other Arguments but that which either looks not at all towards anything that I hold, or else is already spoken to. His last only from human authority is observable. Our Divines against the Papists (saith he) do generally plead that Hypocrites are not true members of the universal Church, but as a wooden leg is to the body. I must tell him that if they be Members of a particular Church then they are true members of the Church universal, Taking universal and particular in a Similar homogeneal way for the visible Church state, as we must take them if we speak anything to purpose. That which is pars partis, is pars totius, if my finger be a part of my hand, it is a part of my body, and if Mr. Baxter be an Inhabitant of Kidderminster, then he is an Inhabitant of Worcestershire, and if of Worcestershire, then an Inhabitant of England; and let us see what they say of the Church visible indefinitely. Lord Duplesse in his Treatise of the Church, pag. 3. saith, The invisible Church containeth none but the good, the visible containeth both the good and the bad; that only the Elect, this all those indifferently that are brought into her by the preaching of the truth. Wollebius saith, pag. 194. the visible Church is a company jointly called as well of Elect as Reprobate. Ravanellus in verb. Eccles. The visible Church consists not only of the Elect and truly Godly, but also of reprobates, and Hypocrites. Gomarus Analysis, in 2 Thes. 2. Our Divines understand the Church universal not invisible (which only contains the elect and truly faithful, of which Christ speaks, Matth. 16.) but the visible which consists of Elect and Reprobate. Mr. Hudson, Vindication, pag. 7. In the same sense, that a visible Church may be called a Mystical body of Christ, Christ may be also called a Mystical head thereof, as Christ terms himself a Master, so he hath evil, slothful servants, and stewards, as a King he hath rebels that will not have him to rule over them, even in his Church, Matth. 25.6. giving like instance, as a shepherd, as an householder, as a bridegroom, a husbandman, a fisherman, a vine, adding, Christ saith, My people are foolish, they have not known me, sottish children, &c. Pareus, Revelation 3.1. The Church of the called is one consisting promiscuously of good and bad, faithful and hypocrites; the Church of the elect is another consisting of Elect and truly faithful, which indeed are of the same company of those that are called. Ames. Anti Bel. T. 2. lib. 2. Cap. 1. not. 5. when Bellarmine had stated the controversy between his party, and his adversaries. Others he says require inward virtues, to make any a Church member, But we (faith he) do not think that any inward virtue is required to make a man in some sort a part of that true Church of which the Scripture speaks. After discovery of his sophistry in the word after a sort, positively answers, It is false that inward virtues are required of us to put a man into the Church according to the visible state of it. Abundant more like Testimonies might be added if it would not be the Readers trouble. And lest all of this should be evaded with this distinction, that respective to us they are members, but they are not so in foro Dei, let us see what Apollonius hath in his answer to the question concerning qualification of Church-members. He saith, The reformed Churches distinguish between the invisible Mystical Church of Christ which is the company of believers, called, which have Communion with Christ, to which no hypocrite can be joined, &c. And the outward visible Church, which is the society of those that profess the true faith for the exercise of Ecclesiastical Communion and society among themselves. And having expressed his judgment, as to the question, proves it by three Arguments. The 3 ^d . is from the description of the Church visible whose nature in the right of God is described (saith he) that it is a barn in which chaff is gathered with the wheat, the house of God in which are vessels of Gold and wood, a net in which are fishes good and bad. This distinction therefore as thus applied is here by him denied, and to this end we may examine further the definitions given by Divines of the visible Church: A definition compriseth no parts that are Monstrous, adventitious, Excrementitious or barely equivocal, but those only that are of the essence or at least integrality where it is an Integrum, as the Church (as Mr. Hudson hath shown) is, that is defined. We have heard Woll • bius his definition before. Mr. Hudson, pag. 9 ^th . saith, The Church visible is a company of people, called or separated by God, from Idols to the true Religion: and yielding professed subjection to that call, which is true (saith he) of the godly as well as of the Hypocrites. The Leyden Professors, dispute. 40. Thes. 32. give this definition. The visible Church is a Company of those which by the outward Word and use of Sacraments and Ecclesiastical Discipline, are gathered into one outward body and society. Explaining themselves in he 35. Thes. in the same manner as Mr. Hudson before. The definition of Trelcatius junior little differs from it, pag. 432. And whereas Mr. Baxter saith, that our Divines generally plead that Hypocrites are not true members of the universal Church, but as a wooden Legge to the body; I am almost confident that in turning over all his books, he can produce but few such Testimonies. Had he said the Catholic Church instead of universal, I believe he might have found many, but whether he can find them speaking in his terms, I somewhat question. When Whitaker handles the question so voluminously, he states it of what sort of men the Catholic Church consists, but not universal. Dr. John Reynolds, maintaining that position, The holy Catholic Chur • h which we believe is the whole company of God's Elect and Chosen, expresseth himself by the word Catholic, we see, in his Thesis, and adds, The wicked must needs be a part of the Church, if the name of Church did signify the visible Church. Now I think that scarce any will deny that the universal Church is visible, which Mr. Hudson so largely hath proved, cap. 5. Yet Whitaker as largely makes good that the Catholic Church is invisible, quaest. 2. de Eccles.. If I be now sent to my Dictionary to see whether Catholic and universal be not both one, and demanded whether there be anymore difference between them, then is between Idolum and Imago, about which we have had so much stir with the Papists, the one a Greek word, the other a Latin; I confess it is so in Grammar, but not in their use of it that handle the question of the Church Catholic in this manner, and when their Authority is quoted their sense must be inquired into. And in case they took it for the same as universal, they could not make it invisible, in which sense Hudson observes, Zanchi, Gerard, Whitaker, Chamier, Ames, Dr. Wille • , do use it, to which Daverant, Trelcatius, with other might be added. The distinction is usual into Catholic, and visible, and in that sense a wicked man is no member of the Church Catholic, as opposite to vibsile, when yet he is a true Member of the Church universal as opposite to particular; And therefore I say that a bad man is a true Member of the Church visible, and I think I am not gainsaid by any of our Divines, but seconded. But though they may be true members of visible Churches, yet perhaps Mr. Baxter, hath a way to make them only as wooden legs respective to the true Church visible, Churches with him being no true Churches, but aequivocally so called, owning that Charge of Bellarmine's, where he saith, that the Confessionists, and Calvin teach, that there are two Churches, A true one, which is the Congregation of the holy and faithful: An outward one, which is only a Church in name, in which good and bad are found, but the bad are in the Church, not of the Church: But here he hath Ames his adversary, who better understood the mind of Protestant Writers, and in this is rather to be believed. He answers, Tom. 2. lib. 2. de Eccles. Cap. 1. This fiction of two Militant Churches which is put upon them, is a manifest Calumny, they do not divide the Church Militant into two Species, but they distinguish and hold forth a double respect or consideration of one and the same Church: One according to the inward Essence, and the other according to the outward manner of Existence. Yet this must be taken further into Consideration, seeing from this distribution of the Church, Mr. Baxter hath got up an Argument to prove visible Churches to be no Churches, which is his nineteenth Argument of his 26. and is thus framed: If the distribution of the Church into visible and invisible be but of the subject into divers adjuncts, and not of a Genus into its Species, then that part or those Members, which are merely visible, are indeed no part of the Members of the Church so distributed, but are only Equivocally called a Church, Church-Members, &c. The Antecedent must be yielded him; the Consequence (he saith) is undeniable, in that adjuncts are no part of the Essence, much less the form, or the whole Essence; and therefore cannot denominate, but aequivocally, instead of the essence.

To this I answer, the consequence might as fairly have been, that these members which are invisible, are no parts or members of the Church so distributed, seeing invisibility, or invisible (as is confessed) is an adjunct as well as visibility or visible. There may be a distribution of man by hundreds of adjuncts, either corpulent or lean, high or low, black or fair, old or young, rich or poor, learned or unlearned, &c. If one of these so denominated be a true man, shall the other then be only aequivocally a man? If a corpulent man be a true man, is a lean man no man? If a tall, black or old man be a true man, shall then a low, fair or young man be no man? This must needs follow as well as the other. The reason given, that adjuncts are no part of the Essence, is not at all to the purpose, seeing the subject that is denominated by such adjuncts, hath its Essence; though blackness be not of the essence of a man, yet the man that is black hath his essence; and though visibility be not of the essence of the Church, yet the Church which is denominated visible hath its essence. And whereas we are warned to note, that visible is not the same with visum; so I can give warning that invisibile, is not the same with non visum, though I know not to what purpose.

Secondly, I answer, the Church being an integrum, and that per aggregationem, and only one, in exact propriety of speech, it cannot be capable of any such distribution: so there must be one Church of one denomination, and another of another, but it is a distribution of Church-members, which serve as parts to make up the whole: some of which are only visible, that is all their honor, to make a visible profession, and to enjoy the glory of Ordinances, and the Divine protection of God over his vineyard; upon which account they are nigh, when others are a far off. The other are invisible members; As they have all the visible honor before mentioned, so they have an addition of a far greater glory of invisible graces. The former I take to be the Church most properly (though I know others are of another opinion) for two reasons. 1. When the Church is an integrum (as Mr. Hudson hath largely proved it) the visible Church contains the whole, for the invisible part is also visible, invisible respective to graces, but visible respective to profession and outward privileges: The invisible is only one part, and so not the Church in its most proper signification. 2. The Scripture almost wheresoever it speaks of a Church, takes it in this acception, and that which is the ordinary and common language of the holy Ghost, which he uses most often, almost always, is that which is most proper. Some have said, that the word Church is not more then once taken for the Church invisible, which is, Heb. 12.23. The Church of the first born. If it should be granted, that there is two or three places more, which will bear that acceptation of it, which is as much as can be pretended; yet I dare say, there is not one for twenty, where the Church is taken for the Church visible: And is the language of Scripture still all over aequivocal? When Christ says, The Kingdom of heaven is like to a man that sowed good seed in his field; is like to a draw-net: shall we say, the Kingdom of heaven aequivocally taken? Stephen says, This was he that was in the Church in the wilderness; must we understand it of the Church aequivocal? And when Paul gave Timothy a directory, how to behave himself in the house of God, which he says, is the Church of the living God; must we understand it of a Church aequivocal? Such a one would be but a weak ground or pillar of the truth; we may say the same of abundant other places. If all these aequivocals be granted, it will shortly be questioned, whether there be any reality in Scripture language.

As the authority of our Divines is produced against the Papists, so also their authority against the Arminians is brought forth. Our Divines against the Arminians (saith he) do suppose the first act of believing to be the first time that God is as it were engaged to man in the Covenant of grace; and that it is dangerous to make God to be in actual Covenant with men in the state of nature, though the conditional Covenant may be made to them, and though he hath revealed his decree, for the sanctifying his elect. That God is then first engaged for the graces of the Covenant I easily yield, for then the grand condition by the help of grace is put in by the soul. But let us here take up that which he is pleased to yield, and compare it with that which he hath put into the Index of his Treatise of Infant-Baptism, where he notes this as Mr. T. his Error; That the Covenant whereof Baptism is the seal, is only the absolute Covenant made only to the Elect, which pag. 223. he confutes. And if men in the state of nature be in that Covenant that Baptism seals, (viz) the conditional Covenant, then men in the state of nature, and short of justifying faith, have right to Baptism. It follows, In my opinion the transition is very easy from Mr. Blake's opinion to Arminianism, if not unavoidable save by retreat, or by not seeing the connection of the consequence to the antecedent. When this was charged upon me by another hand, I was acquitted by Mr. Br. and he testified for me, that I had acquitted Mr. M. from any such charge. I marvel therefore that now it should be fastened upon me. But let us hear his reason, For grant once that common faith doth coram Deo give right to Baptism, and it is very easy to prove, that it gives right to the end of Baptism, God having not instituted it to be an empty sign to those that have true right to it. What is it that we hear, will it give immediate right to the end of Baptism? That may be easily said, but I think hardly proved. It is no empty sign, if in the right use of it, it may prove serviceable to it; I am sure the Jew outwardly had right to the Oracles of God, and yet no immediate certain right to their end, which is to be the power of God to salvation, It will be an hard task, to prove the certainty of all their salvation, that in the right of God stand entitled to any Ordinance of his: the reason will hold of all as well as one, they are not empty and vain. The Jews had right to Circumcision in the flesh, and none that was a Jew outwardly might neglect it, and yet were void of Circumcision of the heart, or forgiveness of sin. The conclusion is, That it will be no hard matter to prove, that it is some special grace that is the end of Baptism, at least remission of sin. And so upon the right use of common grace, God should be in Covenant obliged to give them special grace, which is taken for Pelagianism. It will far rather follow from that opinion, that a common and special grace differ only gradually, not specifically; According to that promise of our Savior, Matth. 13.12. To him that hath shall be given, which our Divines have still understood of graces of the same, and not of a different kind: he that hath common graces and improves them, shall have a larger measure of those graces; and he that hath spiritual graces and improves them, shall have a more large measure of spiritual gifts. And if they be both of one kind, then Christ's promise holds from the one to the other. It will be an hard matter I think to prove, that all that have right in Ordinances, though they make no right use, shall attain to the end of them.

Argument 5. vindicated.

My fifth Argument was, [That faith upon which Simon Magus was in the Primitive times baptized, is that which admitteth to Baptism: Simon himself believed and was baptized, Acts 8.13. But Simon's faith fell short of saving and justifying.] To which a sudden answer is given, Concedo totum, sed desideratur Conclusic. He is certainly much to seek both in Syllogisms and Common reason that could not infer, and could not know that I left the Reader to infer, that, Ergo a faith that is short of justifying, entitles to Baptism. And so I have the whole in question yielded, and that which was once said would make foul work in the Church if once granted. But as soon as it is yielded me, a Means is unkindly used to take it away from me. And it is further answered, That may be said to admit to Baptism which so qualifieth the person as that we are bound to baptize him, as being one that seemeth sound in believing as Simon did. If such liberty of interpretation be yielded, who may not easily elude the sense of any Scripture-Text? the Text saith, that Simon believed, and was baptized: