SECT. I.
About stating the point in difference concerning the ingraffing, Rom. 11. 17. what it is.

THe proposition which Mr. M. would prove from those texts is thus expressed by him, That upon the Parents visibly owning God and his Covenant, their Children had this privilege that they should be reputed to belong to Gods Kingdome, that is, that they should be baptized: Mr. Bs. That the ordinance of Infants visible Church-membership is not repealed. What Mr. M. brought from the former text in his Sermon for Infant-baptism was answered in my Examen, which was vindicated from what Mr. M. replyed to it in his Defence in my Apology Sect. 14. from page 67. to Sect. 15. ex­cepting what I revoke there pag. 76. and the words I said pag. 68. that Mr. M. opposed personal inherent holiness to derivative as inconsi­stent. This Mr. M. denies, conceiving I had meant, that he ex­cluded personal inherent holiness from all those though true believers to whom he ascribes a derivative holiness, whereas my words twere to this sense, That he conceived such a derivative holiness, with which the personal inherent holiness was in some of the branches there spoken of not consistent, that is not together with the other, which the words in my Examen, pag. 68. next following shew to have been my mean­ing, The truth is, the holiness the Apostle speaks of is, &c. And this Mr. M. avoucheth again in his Defence pag. 142. And I say again the whole nation was called holy, not personally inherent, but federal. Wherfore presumming that those who search for truth will take notice of this intimation, I am not willing actum agere, to do what is already done, but to leave the reader to view the passages in those books. But whereas Mr. Ms. conceit of that text as serving for his purpose rested mainly on this, That he thought the ingraffing there meant by the Apostle is admission into visible membership, or visible Com­munion with the Church of Christ, and that the externall seal of their visible graffing in was Circumcision, and of ours Bap­tism, and that breaking off is a casting out of that visible mem­bership, wherof this sacrament is a symbole, and that as the Jews and their Children were ingraffed in together, so we and our Children [Page 3] should be ingraffed by Baptism; this conceit I conceived and still think is so farr from the Apostles expressions that there seems to be no shew of such a sense in the words. For there is not a word of taking any into the Olive but by faith, vers. 19, 20. not the least hint of infants taking in with their parents, not a word that sounds to any such sense as if the ingraffing were by admission into visible membership by an external seal; which if it were so, should have been made the act of the administratour of that seal, wheras this is made Gods sole act by vertue of his power v. 23. with out which it would never be done; Besides, the Jews afore they were broken off are said to be natural branches, not ingraffed: therefore the ingraffing cannot be meant of the admission by Circumcision into visible membership: for that they had. Besides, if the ingraffing be admission into the visible Church by an external seal, the breaking off should by the rule of opposites be either disanulling Circumcision, or some sentence of excommunication or the like, which made void their standing in the visible Church: But their breaking off is by reason of their unbelief, and this is ascribed to their being blin­ded and hardned, v. [...]0, 25. and that from Gods severity. And I conceived the words of Mr. M. himself in his Sermon pag. 43. al­leged by me in my Examen pag. 64. so plain to shew that elsewhere Mr. M. himself understood by ingraffing into the Olive the effectuall conversion of the Gentiles, by giving them faith in Christ, that I imagined it might be easily made plain that the ingraffing is meant of giving faith by election into the Church invisible, and that only elect persons are said to be ingraffed. And therefore (though I conceive that if Mr. M. could prove that the ingraffing were admission into vi­sible Church-membership, it would not follow that infants must be accounted visible Church-members and baptized with their parents, un­less he could prove that our admission is to be according to the same rule with the Jews, which is apparently false in the non-admission of women by Circumcision &c.) when Mr. M. offered to put it to this issue, whether the ingraffing were into the visible Church by an exter­nal seal, or into the invisible by giving faith, to cut off dispute, as much may be, I accepted the offer in my Apology pag. 71. and accor­dingly produced there ten arguments, eight from Rom. 11. the ninth from parallel places, and the tenth from Protestant writers interpre­ting it to that sense, to prove it must be meant of ingraffing into the in­visible Church by election, and giving faith, and answered the only or main argument against it, to wit, that then election would be revo­cable, and Apostacy of true believers would follow, which were Ar­minianism. [Page 4] I know not that Mr. M. hath made any reply to what I have said in my Apology. But Mr. John Geree in his Vindiciae Vindiciarum chap. 6. pag. 26. takes upon him to answer for M. M. And first he excepts that in the repetition [that the ingraffing is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith] I leave out the word [onely] wherein the whole emphasis of Mr. Ms. offer lies; and after Mr. T. brings many arguments to prove that the ingraffing is meant into the invisible Church by election and faith, which I shall ex­amine and discover, if he put in the word [onely] they are too light, if not, they reach not the thing in question. And pag. 28. And it is to be observed that in all his Conclusions he leaves out the word [only] which is the hinge of the Controversy; for we do not only deny, but also positively affirm, that in some the ingraffing was by faith and election into the invisible, as well as by calling and profession of faith into the vi­ble. So Mr. M. pag. 137, and 138. of his Defence; But where Mr. M. interprets it onely of bare admission into visible Church-membership, excluding the ingraffing into the invisible, I profess I cannot find, and therefore believe Mr. T. hath in that im­putation wronged him. To which I reply, that the question is meer­ly about the meaning of the Apostle in the phrase of ingraffing into the Olive (from which is Mr. Ms. argument) whether it were by giving of faith according to election, and so the Olive-tree into which the in­graffing is, be the invisible Church of elect persons; now though Mr. M. used the word [onely] yet I thought it not necessary to put in that word in the repetition of the Question, or Conclusions of my argu­ments, because I used it not in my Examen, and what ever Empha­sis Mr. M. might put in the word [onely] yet the thing in controversy is not in the word [onely:] For though it be granted that the term do note both putting into the invisible and visible Church by consequent, yet if the phrase notes [giving faith according to election] only true be­lievers elect are ingraffed, and consequently not all professors of faith and their Children, which onely will serve Mr. Ms. turn to prove, That Children of professed believers are to be admitted into the visible Church by an external seal: nevertheless it is manifest that if the ingraf­fing be giving of faith, it cannot be admission into visible membership by Baptism, or any such act of man, because this act of ingraffing is made peculiar to God v. 24. and so the acts must needs be different, sith the agents are different, and the persons also different, those that are admitted to Baptism and visible membership, being many of them ne­ver ingraffed, and on the other side many ingraffed as Catechumeni, [Page 5] elect infants, &c. who are never admitted to Baptism and visible Church-membership, and thereupon it will follow that [ingraffing] is not admission by Baptism to visible Church-membership, but only giving faith according to election, and that onely elect persons are ingraffed, the terminus of giving faith being onely faith, and it being according to election none but elect persons have it given them, and so no other ingraffed. It behoved Mr. M. to prove that by in­graffing into the Olive-tree is meant admission into visible Church-mem­ber-ship of parents and children by an external seal, as he speaks, if he would have that text serve his purpose, therefore if I prove that it is a­nother thing that is meant there by ingraffing, a man of an ordinary ca­pacity will perceive that it is impertinently alleged by Mr. M. And this it seems Mr. M. and Mr. G. saw, and therefore Mr. M. indeavors to prove that it cannot be meant of giving faith according to election, for this reason, that then by breaking off there must be apostacy from true faith, and revocation of election; and Mr. Geree when he answers my arguments doth answer them as if he would have it believ­ed, that they prove none of them that the ingraffing is by giving faith according to election. But Mr. G. tells me, sure I wrong Mr. M. in saying that I cannot but admire that Mr. M. should interpret the ingraffing of bare admission into visible Church-member-ship: To which I reply, It is no wrong to hom: For he plainly interprets it pag. 135. of his Defence, of admission into visible Church-membership, and pag. 136. disputes against the sense of ingraffing by election and faith, and therefore he interprets the ingraffing of bare admission into visible Church-membership. But saith Mr. G. we also positively af­firm that in some the ingraffing was by faith and election into the in­visible, as well as by calling and profession of faith. I reply that I also in my Apology pag. 71. premised this caution, That I did not deny but that the same people might be and were ingraffed into the visible Church by profession and baptism, hereby declaring plainly that the question between us was not whether the ingraffed persons were also in the visible Church, but what the act of ingraffing was, and what the phrase did import; and therefore notwithstanding Mr. Ms. or my grant of the persons that they were ingraffed both into the invisible and visible Church, yet Mr. M. might conceive the ingraffing Rom 11. 17. to be bare admission into visible Church-membership, and I, to be giving of faith: Mr. Pemble of precious memory in his Vindiciae Fidei, to which Mr. G. himself prefixed an Epistle, Sect. 1. chap. 2. answering Becanus who alledged Rom. 8. 30. to prove that either [Page 6] by justification is meant sanctification, or else it is left out of that Gol­den Chain, proves that by calling there is meant inward calling and not outward alone, and so sanctification, because otherwise many should be called who are not justified and glorified, and many justifyed and glorifyed, as infants, who are not called. He denies not, but that many so inwardly called, were outwardly called, yet determines, that there is meant only inward calling. Doth it therefore follow that Mr. Pemble took the calling Rom. 8. 30. to be outward calling, and not more or another thing than outward calling, or inward calling only ex­cluding alwaies the outward? The case is just the same with mine: I hold that ingraffing, Rom. 11. 17. is meant of giving faith according to election, and consequently none but elect persons are ingraffed, and yet deny not that ingraffing into the visible Church is a concomitant or consequent of it in some, and may be meant by that term: doth this prove, that I assert that the ingraffing is meant of making all to be of the visible Church who profess faith? Mr. Geree proceeds. And this is enough to carry the cause, that at least the elect Gentiles by ingraf­fing obtained the visible Church-state of the broken off: and so they and their Children are in covenant as the broken off were; and ther­fore I should not be so liberal in my grant as Mr. M. to Mr. T. in this, wherein he is an adversary. I answer, Mr. M. granted no more than truth inforced him. For if the ingraffing be by giving faith according to election, and all the ingraffed are elect ones, then that text belongs not to admission into visible Church-membership, nor the infants of believers as such are ingraffed in the Apostles sense, except they have faith given them That Mr. G. was not willing to be so liberal shew­ed his pertinacy in opinion through inconsiderateness. If it be thought what I there yield will carry the cause, I am willing to put it to that is­sue: let any make the best advantage they can of it, I retract it not. If Mr. G. meant by visible Church-state such an outward form of policie and rites as the Jews had, or that the visible Church of the Gen­tiles is national as the Jews was, so as that all of the nation or in the Families, whereof some, or a great or eminent part, are believers, were to be accounted within the visible Church, as with them, I deny such a visible Church-state, and that the Elect Gentils did by their ingraffing obtain the visible Church-state of the broken off: it being contrary to Gods way of gathering Churches, to wit, by preaching of the Gospel, and contrary to all Gods proceedings therein, and all rules he gives to Ministers. But if by visible Church-state he meant no more than this, to be accounted openly the people of God, to have Gods ordinances, [Page 7] word and worship amongst them, I grant that the elect Gentiles, yea and non-elect, did by their ingraffing obtain the visible Church-state of the broken off. As for that which followes, And so they and their Children are in Covenant as the broken off were; If this speech be meant of the Covenant of Grace, or promise of saving grace, to wit, regeneration, justification, adoption, and eternal life, neither were all the Children of the broken off, nor of the elect Gentiles as their natural children, graffed in the Covenant of Grace: if by being in Covenant be meant according to the modern phraseology to be baptized, or to have right to be baptized, or to be reputed visible Church-members, I de­ny the proposition, and if an argument be thus made, the elect Gen­tiles by ingraffing obtained the visible Church-state of the broken off (in the sense I allow) Ergo, they and their Children have right to be Baptized as the Jews and their Children were to be Circumcised, I deny the consequence, and expect to have it proved by him ad Graecas Calendas. But Mr. G. pag. 26. upon my grant that the same people might or were graffed into the visible Church, but the ingraffing is more than that which is into the visible Church by outward profession and or­dinances, speaks thus. But what is this but what Mr. M. and my self have again and again asserted, that it is meant of making all to be of the visible Church that profess, and those to be of the invisible Church that are elect and truely believe. I answer, M. G. by his gloss endeavours to pervert my words as he did the words of the pro­mise Gen. 17. 7. and the words of the directory, thus, [All thy seed shall be reputed visible Church-members till they discover the contra­ry, and the elect have the promise really] which is to make God pro­mise to be a God to them, who have not the promise really, or God to be a God to them to whom he ceaseth to be a God upon the disco­very of their hypocrisy. But neither of my Speeches is the same with this, that the ingraffing is meant of making all to be of the visible that profess. I said not that the ingraffing Rom. 11. 17. is meant of making all or any to be of the visible Church that profess, but have proved before it is meant of an higher or another act, to wit, giving faith: yet I deny not the same persons to be made of the visible Church who are ingraffed, and that this making to be of the visible Church fol­lows upon it. The rule in Logick is obvious. Quae Conveniunt in eodem subjecto, & quorum unum est causa alterius, non sunt idem formali­ter. Mr. G. passeth to the answer of my arguments, but first pre­miseth an observation which is nothing to the present business, there being no question between us about it. I yield that non-elect persons [Page 8] had in the Churches termed Saints by the Apostle, and Golden Can­dlesticks by Christ, a standing in the visible Church, and not in the invisible, and that the expressions are used Synechdochically, the whole put for the more Noble part, as Austin long since answered the Do­natists, nor do I gather any thing for my purpose, from the term Saints; or Golden Candlesticks, and therefore Mr. G. might have spared his pains in setting down that observation. But this is the question be­tween me and Mr. M. whether the ingraffing be meant of giving faith according to election, and so the Olive-tree be the invisible Church of the Elect, and consequently the branches ingraffed only true be­lievers or elect persons, which I hold; or whether the act of ingraf­fing note bare admitting into visible Church-membership, and the Olive-tree the visible Church as visible, and the branches Fathers and Children, and their ingraffing admission into visible Church-member-ship by an outward ordinance, after the manner of the Jewes infant-Children with the parent to be made thereby visible Church-members. This I deny, and still hold that the ingraffing meant Rom. 11. 17. is not by any outward ordinance after the manner of the Jews into the vi­sible Church, but the giving of faith according to election of grace, whereby the branches are in the in visible Church of the Elect, though by consequent they are also of the visible Church by profession of faith. Now whether my arguments in my Apology prove this determination will appear by considering Mr. Gerees answers.

SECT. II.
The arguments in my Apology, to prove the ingraffing Rom. 11. 17. to be by giving faith according to election, are vindicated from Mr. Gs. answers.

TO the first Mr. G. speaks thus. 1. Because it is by Gods sole power, Rom. 11. 23. I answer, the ground is weak: for no man can give a power so far to believe as to profess, especially one blin­ded and hardned of God, but God alone: and was not the visible Church-state of the Jewes, when all other Nations were without, an act of Gods power onely, nor could it be by man? so then also their re-ingraffing, though many come to be members of the visible Church onely.

To which I reply. It's easy for Mr. G. to say my ground is weak, when he hath hewed off the arms of my argument by his maimed re­petition: But I allow him not to be [...], as the Athe­nian said, to hack my words at his pleasure. My argument was grounded on this, that the ingraffing is said to be Gods act (which Mr. G. leaves out) nay this sole power, God is able, saith the text, to graff them in again, intimating that were it not that God did by his power graff them in again, the thing were hopeless or impossible: whereas if the ingraffing were meant of admission into visible Church-membership by an outward ordinance, this being done by the admi­ministrator, is his act, not Gods, I mean as the subject denominated, though he be the supreme efficient of every act as it is an act; it is the administrator of Baptism that admits into visible Church-membership, and it is an easy act, and the same may be said of an outward profes­sion, it is the easy act of the professour, that may be wrought by moral perswasion. It is one of the arguments of the Contra-remon­strants at the Conference at Hague on the third and fourth articles, that conversion is not a moral swasion of men, or from the power of free­will, but effectual and irresistable, because it is ascribed to Gods power, Ephes. 1. 18, 19. Col. 2. 12, 13. 2 Thes. 1. 11. 2 Pet. 1. 3. why then should it be accounted a weak ground for me to argue that therefore the ingraffing is not an admission to visible Church-mem­bership by an outward ordinance, or by an outward profession (which are in the power of a mans will) but an effectual giving faith according to election, sith it is ascribed to God as his doing, and that proceed­ing from his power alone, with such an Emphasis as if it were hopeless otherwise? It is true every act we do is by Gods power: but this act of ingraffing is made Gods peculiar act, not mans, and by his sole power; and therefore cannot be understood of admission into visible Church-membership (For then the ingraffing might be mans act per­formed by the weakest of men) but of giving faith according to election, and so none ingraffed but the elect into the invisible Church.

2. To the second Mr. G. speakes thus. 2. He argues because the ingraffing is called reconciliation, opposite to casting away, v. 15. which is called breaking off v. 17. But this is also too weak. For the casting away and breaking off being but a loss of what they had, that is visible privileges, the reconciliation might be & in many Gentiles was but a vouchsafing them a visible Church-state, no longer to be reputed dogs as they had been.

I reply. When any shall shew either a Scripture wherein by reconcili­ation [Page 10] to God is meant bare vouchsafing a visible Church-state, and by casting away, and breaking off, a loss of visible privileges; or any ap­proved writer in the Churches of Protestants, so expounding it, I shall begin to suspect that I am mistaken: but till then I shall remain con­fident I am in the right, and shall wonder that any that loves not to wrangle, but fears to pervert the Scripture and the truth of God, should dare so to interpret it. That many in the Churches of the Gentiles were hypocrites, and had only a visible Church-state is not denied, but under the phrase of reconciling the world, is so manifest that only true believers are meant, that not only the terms [riches of the world, v. 12. and reconciliation of the world, v. 15.] are alleged in an­swering the Arminians argument for universal redemption, from the phrases of Gods loving the world, John 3. 16. and Christs being a propitiation for the sins of the World, 1 John 2. 2. to prove that the word [World] though a general Term, yet is taken restrained­ly for believers, elect and saved persons, as Ames fully in his Coro­nis art: 2. c. 10. towards the end, Ball of the Covenant part 2. chap. 2. pag. 222. but also the Citati Remonstrantes themselves De­fens. sentent. circa eum art. pag: 307. do yield that vox mundi per prolepsin fideles gentiles denot at. But that by reconciliation should be meant baptizing or admitting to visible Church-membership, or by casting away or breaking off should be meant putting out of the visible Church-membership (as the law of opposition requires) by excommu­nication or other like act, is scarce a sober conceit.

3. To my third Mr. G. speaks thus. 3. He argues from v. 20. By unbelief they were broken off, but thou standest by faith. I an­swer. The elect by faith and profession was both in the invisible and visible Charch: the formal, by appearance of faith stood in mens esteem, and as members of the visible Church. And to his purpose Calvin, part of whose speech you afterward applaud; Praecipuè notan­dum Pauli sermonem non tam ad singulos homines quam ad totum Gentium Corpus dirigi in quo multi esse poterant frust a inflati fidem potius profitentes quam habentes.

I reply. Is this to answer? 1. not to repeat so much as the medium of my argument; 2. not so much as to deny any proposition, or to di­stinguish any term, or shew any fallacy in it? That which Mr. G. saies, I deny it not, yet the argument stands unshaken, that the ingraffing is not barely into the visible Church by an outward rite (which onely agrees to infanrs) or by bare profession, but into the invisible by giving faith, sith it is by faith whereby the branch stands [Page 11] in the root, and by unbelief is broken off.

4. Saith Mr. G. He argues from v. 17. That ingraffing is meant whereby the wild olive is Co-partner of the root and fatness of the O­live-tree, and then much stirre is kept what the root is. But I an­swer. If the Olive give fatness, I know no other Olive, but he that is the Vine into whom all Christian Gentiles were ingraffed by profession, and the elect of them really also, and hence this expressi n v. 17. in regard of what in profession and shew belonged to all, and in reality was verified of the better part, the elect.

I reply. However Mr. G. content himself to skip over matters of such moment, yet it repents me not to have taken pains to examine thoroughly what is meant by the root, which Mr. G. calls keeping much stir. And I marvail Mr. G. taking upon him to answer my arguments, and so seriously commending this Scripture to me, should be so sleight in weighing my arguments. To this argument he gives no answer at all: but rather doth grant the thing to be proved, to wit, that the ingraffing is into Christ, and the fatness his Grace: on­ly he will have these to belong to all by profession (which infants can­not make) to the elect in reality. Concerning which I say, that the question is not how the Graces of Christ may belong to all and some: but what the phrase of ingraffing imports, whether giving faith accor­ding to election or admission into visible Church-membership by an out­ward ordinance. I say still it is giving faith, because by faith only the branches are partakers of the root and fatness of the Olive-tree. Ames Coron. art. 2. c. 10. opulentiam Gentium in eo consistere pa­lam est, de quo Apostoli & fratres glorificâsse Deum dicuntur Act. 11. 28. nempe quod et iam Gentibus dedit Deus resipiscentiam ad vitam. Apostolus ipse in eodem capite v. 17. diserte explicat o­pulentiam istam, & quorum sit, eorum nempe qui insiti sunt oleae & participes radieis & pinguedinis e [...]us facti, id est fideles. What I said about the root was necessary to clear the text. I say still, Abra­ham is the root there v. 17. and partaking of the root is following A­brahams faith and being justifyed as he was. Willet Comment. in Rom. 11. q 21. Abraham then is the holy root, but by the ho­liness of Christ: and he is the root only [...] by way of example: [...] effectually Christ is onely the root. Diodati annot. in Gen. 17. 5. Father] not only by Corporal Generation of numberless people of Israel: but chiefly by his ingraffing of all Nati­ons indifferently into the body of the Church through the imitation of Abrahams faith, whereof he was an exemplary and borrowed Father, [Page 12] Rom. 4. 12. 17. Pareus Comment. in Genes. 17. 4. sunt filii Abrahami tum fide, quia eadem fide justificantur, quâ ille suit ju­stificatus: tum imitatione, quia vestigiis ejus insistunt. Why Mr. G. speaks of an olive giving fatness I know not, I used not that phrase: By the Olive is meant the believing Church or people, by the fatness spiritual blessings called the fatness of the Olive, not as the cause but as the subject of them: Christ there cannot be made the Olive tree, who doth not receive from another root fatness as this Olive-tree, but impart it.

5. Saith Mr. G. He argues because the breaking off is by blinding, but that is weak, for then ingraffing may be by illumination to pro­fession, which may be without election, Heb. 6. 4, 5, 6.

I reply. It is easier to censure than to answer, [...] blinding or hardning is v. 7. opposed to that State which the election obtained, by which v. 8. they had a spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, ears that they should not hear, v. 10. whereby their eyes were darkned that they might not see, from which Anti-Arminians gather absolute reprobation. Ames animadv. in Remonstr: script. synod. art. 1. c. 16. Hoc ipsam ad reprobationem spectare Apostolus Paulus clarè Ostendit, Rom. 11. 17. now according to the rule of oppo­sites, oppositorum opposita sunt attributa, if the blinding be the ef­fect of reprobation, and the breaking off be by blinding, then the ingraffing is by inlightning, and that inlightning is according to election, and so is all one with giving of faith. It is not denyed but that there is an illumination to profession which may be without election Heb. 6. 4, 5, 6. but it is certain there is an effectual illumination which gives faith Eph. 1. 18. This must be meant by the ingraffing in that place, sith the breaking off is blinding whereby the decree of reprobation takes place.

6. saith Mr. G. He argues because re-ingraffing brings salvation' but that is to some of the ingraffed, not all, unlesse he thinks at the Jews restauration there shall be none of them Formalists and Hypocrites.

I reply. I think at the Jews restauration, there shall be some of them Formalists and Hypocrites, but none of the re-ingraffed. For the re-ingraffing produceth salvation, is by turning them from iniquitie, taking away their sins according to Gods Covenant, v. 26, 27. which cannot be said of hypocrites. Mr. G. still shoots wide from the mark, which is not whether among the Jews ingraffed there will be hypocrites, but whether any of these are said to be ingraffed, and what the ingraffing is, whether giving faith according to election, or ad­mission into visible Church-membership by an outward ordinance.

[Page 13] 7. Saith Mr. G. He argues because the ingraffing is by vertue of Gods election, his love, his gifts of calling v. 30, 31, 32. (mis­printed for v. 28. 29.) But I answer, the election, love and gifts, being such here as belong to bodies or nations, it is not such as M. T. means, which is elestion unto salvation; sith that belongs not to whole bodies or nations, or not to all of them, and so is atttributed in regard of the better part.

I reply. Mr. G. it seems rather than he would lose this text for ingraffing a whole Nation Fathers and Children by an outward ordi­nance, as of Baptism, into the visible Church, will enervate all that the Anti-Arminians dispute from Rom. 11 28, 29. to prove ir­revocable election and certain perseverance of true believers, as may be seen by their several Judgements in the Acts of the Synod at Dort on art. 5. To these purposes the Contra-remonstrants alleged it in the Conference at Hague art. 5. arg. 3. and Ames in his Coronis art. 5. defends their allegation of it for the immutability of the decree of election unto life, and the perseverance of the truely called to salvation, and allegeth Suarez the Jesuite as acknowledging that the gifts there are meant of gifts which come from election to life. Mr. Perkins alle­ged by Mr. Geree on Rev. 2. 4. allegeth Rom. 11. 29. for perse­verance, and on v. 9. to special election, to which place Mr. G. re­fers me, and Mr. Bolton, Instructions for comforting an afflicted con­science, pag. 477. that is, as best interpreters affirm, the gifts of ef­fectual Calling, and yet Mr. G. will not have the election, love, and gifts to be such as belong to election, but understands it of such out­ward privileges or Church-state as are confessedly [...], such as God doth revoke: so violently was he carried in alleging this text for his baby-baptism, that he heeded not what service he did to the Ar­minians by his interpretation, nor how palpably he abused this Scri­pture in which he placed most of his strength. How election may be­long to Nations will be considered in answering the objection against my interpretation. I make no question but all Anti-Arminians that understand the Controversy will disclaim Mr. G. in this answer, and acknowledge that the election, love, gifts, and calling, meant Rom. 11. 28, 29. are by faith unto salvation: whence must needs follow, that the ingraffing from thence to be giving of faith according to election, and not such a poor thing as admission into visible Church-membership by an outward ordinance, as by Baptism, the which the Scripture no where makes the fruit of election, Gods love, gifts, and cal­ling without repentance.

[Page 14] 8. Saith Mr. Geree. Lastly because the ingraffing is the fruit of Gods mercy, and breaking off shutting up in unbelief: But neither is this last cogent, sith there is general mercy to make members of a visible Church as well as special to make members of the invisible, and their unbelief was not onely want of saving faith, but historical faith to profess, which later if they had had, they had not been broken off, and therefore they that have it are ingraffed into their roomes to en­joy that visible standing, which for want of it they lost. Thus Mr. Ts. army of arguments are routed.

I reply. Be it that there is a general mercy as well as a special, and unbelief is a privation of historical faith, and not only of saving, yet here the shewing mercy being opposed to their former hardning, the unbelief, the not believing or obeying God in times past, which was a want of saving faith in the Gentiles who were as it is said Ephes. 2. 12. without Christ, without God, without hope, Gods shutting up all in unbelief that he might have mercy on all occasioned the exclamation, O altitudo! v. 33. and the whole scope and tenour of the Apostles words as I said in my Apology, do so fully shew that the ingraffing is by giving of faith according to election, that as then I did so now I do much more admire, that Mr. M. Mr. G. should indeavour to op­pose so clear a truth, and that like Plautus his miles gloriosus Mr. G. should boast of routing my army of arguments, when there is not one of them by all his answers hath lost an inch of ground, and that the Assembly at Westminster in their Confession of faith, chap. 25. art. 2. should so impertinently allege Rom. 11. 16. to prove that the visible Church consists of the Children of them that profess the true religion. What Mr. G. saies, If the Jews had had an historical faith to profess, they had not been broken off, is said without proof: I con­ceive that there is no numerous Church wherin none are of the invisible Church, but if there were there would be none graffed-in in the Apo­stles sense.

To these eight arguments from the text I added in my Apology two other, one from some parallel places, which I conceived to express the same with that which is said of the ingraffing, Rom. 11. 17. and must be understood of implanting into the invisible Church, as Ephes. 3. 6. 1 Cor. 12, 13. Gal. 3. 14. 26. 28, 29. the other from the testi­monies of H [...]pperius, Bucer, Calvin and Mr. M. himself expres­sing the ingraffing by tak [...]ng away the heart of stone, creating a heart of flesh. This last Mr. G. lets pass here, and Mr. M. in his De­fence answers not to my objection of his own words in my Examen [Page 15] pag: 64. but to the parallel places Mr. G. speaks thus. For the pla­ces Mr. T. makes parallel 1 Cor. 12, 13, Ephes. 3. 6. Gal. 3. 14. 26. 28, 29. they are so farre from confirming his opinion, that they manifestly confirm my observation touching the expressions of Scripture, when they speak of the visible Church in which there are good and bad: they in regard of the profession of all, and the reality in the elect, speak as though all were elect: but it is by a synechdoche. For let Mr. T. tell me, doth he think all and every particuiar person bap­tized in Corinth or Galatia were really ingraffed into the body of Christ, or had put him on? &c. yet this is spoken of all in regard this was true in all in professien and appearance, and there were some elect among them of whom it was true really: even so we do and are to interpret many phrases urged by him in Rom. 11. in this present business.

I reply. I like it not that Mr. G. alters the order wherein I put parallel places. I put first Ephes. 3. 6. which I conceived clearest for my purpose, and alleged it only in my Examen pag. 65. nor doth Mr. G. deny it to he parallel. Now sure the Gentiles were made fel­low-heires, of the same body, and copartakers of the promise of God in the Gospel, not by an outward ordinance, but by giving of faith ac­cording to election, Ergo, the ingraffing, Rom. 11. 17. parallel to it is not by an outward ordinance, but by giving faith according to election, The like might be said of the other places. Mr. Gerees ob­servation I deny not, but acknowledged before to be true and usefull in many places, but to the present business impertinent, the Question being not now how the Gentiles or Churches may be said to be elect or believers though many be hypocrites, but what act the ingraffing, Rom. 11. 17. was, whether an act of God giving faith according to election, or whether it be an act of admission into visible Church-membership, which is the act of an administrator if by Baptism, or some other act of man, and whether that phrase of ingraffing prove that infants of believers are to be admitted by Baptism into the visible Church as the Jews infants by circumcision, as Mr. M. would infer, or whether it prove onely that the Gentile-believers are partakers of the promise of the Gospel, to wit, justification and salvation by Christ, as well as the Jews, as I affirm, and the parallel place, Ephes. 3. 6. plainly interprets the phrase. Nor doth Mr. Gerees observation in­fringe this interpretation, sith the synechdoche doth not alter the mean­ing of the ingraffing, but onely makes a trope in the subject of the pro­position [the nations are ingraffed] where the Nations are put for a [Page 16] part, and the term ingraffed expounded of ingraffing by election, which is onely true of some that are elect: which indeed confirms my expo­sition, as may appear by Mr. Gerees own instance, 1 Thes. 1. 5. Knowing beloved your election of God, and saith it must be under­stood synechdochically of the whole for a part. Where there is no trope in the term election, its not meant of bare admission to visible Church-membership, bur of Gods decree of saving grace, onely that which is said of the Church is limitted to some of them: so when it is said the Gentiles are ingraffed into the Olive-tree, this being understood by a Synechdoche of the whole for a part, shews that it is not every Gentile professour that is ingraffed, but onely the more Noble part of real believers, and the phrase imports giving faith according to election, nor any ingraffed but elect, however many in appearance to us seem to be ingraffed which were not. And therefore Mr. Gerees question to me makes nothing for him, but against him. For it being granted that every baptized person in Corinth and Galatia were not really ingraffed in Christ, and that the places 1 Cor. 12, 13. Gal. 3. 14. 26. 28, 29. are not to be understood of every particular person baptized, which Mr. G. by his question would evince, it follows that ingraffing contains more than admission into visible Church-membership by Baptism, and that the baptizing by one spirit into one body, making to drink into one spirit, having the blessing of Abraham, receiving the promise of the spirit through faith, being Children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, all one in Christ Jesus, Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise, are not meant only of admission into visible Church-membership by an outward ordinance, but of saving benefits according to election. Yea me thinks he that reades Mr. Gerees own words, when he speaks of really ingraffing into the body of Christ, and expounds the phrases, Rom. 11. so as that some where elect, some only in appearance, might well conceive that he himself understood the proper meaning of the metaphor of ingrassing Rom. 11. 17. &c. to be of uniting into the invisible Church of true believers by giving faith according to election, and not of ad­mission to visible Church-membership by an outward ordinance, if it be allowed that Mr. G. understood his own words.

SECT. III.
The Objections of Mr. G. against my interpretation of the ingraffing Rom. 11. 17. are answered.

BUt Mr. G. objects against my exposition, That the Apostle speaks not of particular persons, but of the hody of the Jews, and the body of the Gentiles that were Christians, collectively received into the room of the Jews broken off; and the body of the Gentils that receiv'd Christ by profession were not all elect, but good and bad drawn together by the Drawnet of the Gospel.

Ianswer. This Mr. G. calls an objection against my interpre­tation of the ingraffing, Rom. 11. 17. to be by giving of faith accor­ding to election, and not of admission into visible Church-membership by an outward ordinance, and he saith this is as forcible as that other objection which I account only of weight: now what he objects I my self had observed as being for my purpose in my Apology pa. 76. and said, by the branches are not meant singular persons, but the people from whom they are descended, following therein Hyperius, whose words I have alleged, or the body of them, using Mr. Ms. and Mr. Gs. own term, who therein followed Calvin, whose words I there allege. Mr. G. conceives this, viz. that the body of the Gentiles are ingraffed, to be meant of Christians collectively, and to comprehend the body of the Gentiles that received Christ by profession, not all elect, but good and bad drawn together by the Drawnet of the Gospel. Now he brings nothing to prove this, nor doth he form any argument from hence, nor if it were granted would prove infants to be in this body, or to be ingraf­fed, sith they receive not Christ by profession, nor are drawn toge­ther by the Drawn et of the Gospel. But sith I grant the branches in graf­fed are not singular persons as such, that is distributely taken for every one, but the body of them collectively taken, it is needful to clear my self in this thing, and answer Mr. Gs. inference I conceive he makes. To this end it is to be considered, that when I say the bodie of the Jews were broken off, and the body of the Gentiles ingraffed, I un­derstand this speech as Bucer speaks, de Gentibus univer sim, non de sin­gulis hominibus, as when it was said Acts 11. 18. Then hath God granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life, the meaning is not as if [Page 18] every particular person of the Gentiles, or the whole number of any Nation of the Gentiles had granted to them repentance unto life; though the word be general and might comprehend all, yet in that speech it is put for any indefinitely, not for all universally, and in the application of it notes only some particular persons amongst the Gentiles: so when I say, the body of the Gentiles were graffed in, though this term [body] might be conceived to comprehend every particular person, or the assembly of them, yet I understand no more than this, that the branches are not particular persons as such, but a full, ample, inde­finite number of them, which must be taken, if applyed to particulars, onely to the elect. And thus Anti-Arminians answer the Armini­ans, alleging Gods loving the world, John 3. 16. to prove uni­versal love to every man, That the word [world] is taken for mankind in Common, yet so as that properly the love there is terminated only on the elect of them: so when I say the body of the Gentiles indefi­nitely, or in common, was ingraffed, yet it doth not follow that I mean good and bad are ingraffed, but Ames. animadv. in Antisynod. Remonst. art. 2. c. 3. mundus Joh. 3. 16. potest com­mode accipi pro genere humano in communi: ita tamen ut propriè terminetur di­lectio hujus mundi in electis ex illo. onely the elect. And such kind of expressions are frequent, wherein an indefinite common term incon­sufo genere, notes onely a sort of persons in confu­so genere, neither taken universally for all, nor particularly for some, and yet in application veri­fied onely of some, as when James saith, ch. 2. 5. God hath chosen the poor, the term [poor] is taken indefinitely neither of all, nor some, but the sort of men, yet in application it is verified onely of some, and so 1 Cor. 1. 27. The weak things of the World, though an indefinite term, is verified onely of some, and so that the Gentiles might glory God for his mercy, Rom. 15. 9. is verified onely of some: and in like manner when I say the body of the Gentiles, or their ag­gregate number are ingraffed, this is verified onely of that part who are elect, though Gentiles be a general term, and the speech indefinite. But if this speech of mine be incongruous, I am willing to alter it, though in using it I followed such authors. However Mr. G. hath no advantage by that term so expounded, and other proof for his objection I find none.

I therefore pass to the consideration of the other objection, which I said was onely of weight: to wit, That if ingraffing be meant of giv­ing faith according to election, and the ingraffing be into the invisible Church, th [...]n some branches of the invisible Church are broken off, [Page 19] and so election made revocable, and Apostacy from Grace maintained. To this waving the answer in my Examen, though backed by some­what alike instance out of Scripture, and authority of some Pro­testants, in my Apology I answered, that the branches broken off are meant of them that were in the invisible Church, which yet I conceiv­ed, I acquitted from the Arminian error of falling away from Grace.

Mr. G. hereupon writes thus. He boldly affirms, that the breaking off was of the branches that were truely such, and of the ingaffing that was truely such, into the invisible Church. But may we not change the verse and say—pictoribus atque sophistis, Quidlibet audendi, &c. But he brings an allay, That by the branches are not meant singular persons, but the people; why then the people that were ingraffed into the invisible Church were broken off, so yet the invisible Church was prevailed against in his sense: therefore I know not what help this limitation will do him. That which is said of people in a body must be true of some particulars of that body: so if the body of the people truely ingraffed into the invisible Church were broken off, this must be true in some particular persons. Besides how apparently Cross is Mr. Ts. assertion to the Apostle Rom. 11. 2. Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. God hath not cast away his people that he fore-knew. So you see the people that make the invisible Church are not broken off.

I reply, my words carry no such shew of boldness as Mr. G. would insinuate they do, and for his verse he might change it, as he plea­sed: neither he nor any else have ptoved me an adventurous Sophister. I spare to recriminate, yet say, that if there be any sophistry in this dis­pute it may appear by his repeating my arguments, and otherwise Mr. G. had his share. But to the point. I affirmed, that the branches were broken off from election and true faith, and the invisible Church in which they were, with this limitation, understanding it not of the same singular persons, but the same people or Nation. And to ex­plain I said that a Nation or People are not a consistent but a fluent being, denominated the same not from the same persons, but from the same descent, as a River from the head in the same Channel is the same River in one age that it was in a former, yet not the same Water, and having applyed it, alleged the Words of Hyperius, Bucer, Calvin, to that purpose, and confirmed it by a reason from the text Rom. 11. 2 [...]. 24. in all which if there were errour or mi­stake surely there was no sophistry Lets see what Mr. G. excepts a­gainst i [...]. [...] 1. saith he, I know not what help this limitation will do him. I r [...]ply, I conceive it will free me from the Arminian tenent, [Page 20] which is that the same particular persons that are elect and true believ­ers, may be non-elect and non-believers. 2. But in that sense the in­visible Church was prevailed against. I reply no; but the branches in the invisible Church, yet not the same persons, but the same people or Nation. 3. But saith Mr. G. that which is said of people in a body, must be true of some particulars in that body: so if the body of the people truely ingraffed into the invisible Church were broken off, this must be true in some singular persons: I reply, that which is said of a Nation may be true, and yet not true, of the particular persons of one and the same time. Grot. annot. in Num. 14. 16: sed notandum ju­râsse hoc Deum Israelitico populo qui semper idem censetur, non his vel illis de populo: in v. 30. vos] ad totum populum referendum est sine temporis restrictione; loca similia vide de jure belli ac pacis, l. 2. c. 9. Sect. 3. & cap. 13. 4. Sect. 4. See to like purpose Ainsworth annot. on Exodus 13. 14. Deut. 29. 25. For instance. God saith Micah. 6. 3, 4. O my people I brought thee up out of the Land of Aegypt, and yet no one person to whom Micah spake was brought up out of Aegypt; so it may be said, the Nation that in Davids time was a branch of the invisible Church is now broken off, yet this is true of never a particular person in Davids time, because a nation being a fluent body is the same nation still, though not the same persons: even as a man may say, this Jordan which now runs was divided and stood still, it being true of the same River, though not of the same Water. The Jews in Pauls time were broken off, who were a branch of the invisible Church in Davids time, not the same persons, but the same Nation. And so it is true of particular persons which is said of the Nation; yet one proposition denying is true of particular persons in one age, and another affirming true of particular persons in another age, & both true of the Nation which is the same in different ages. God gave a divorce to the same people he brought out of the land of Egypt, though not to the same persons, he brake off that people which in respect of par­ticular persons of Davids time was the invisible Church from the invi­sible Church in respect of particular persons in Pauls time. So that it may be true, none of the invisible Church are broken off, and some are, understanding the former of particular persons of one time and the later of particular persons in another age, of that people who were in a former age the invisible Church of true believers. 4. How apparently cross is Mr. Ts. assertion [...]o the Apostle, Rom. 11. 12. I reply, There's no contradiction in my assertion to the Apostle. My proposi­tion is true. People who were elect and true believers are now non-e­elect [Page 21] and non believers, and the Apostles true also, God casts not off the people whom he fore-knew, I understanding by the people the same Nation not in respect of the same persons in the same age, the Apostle understanding his speech of the same particular persons: now it's no contradiction if the term be understood [...] of a different part at a different time.

5. It is not good sense, saith Mr. G. to say the body of a people is ingraffed into the invisible Church, whereas the invisible Church is comprehended under a visible body as chaff under Wheat. I reply, the term [the body of a people] I used following Calvin, Mr. M. Mr. G. &c. if it like not it may be omitted: the people, or nation, or as the Apostle speaks branches will serve my turn: yet why it should not be as good sense to say the body of a people is ingraffed into the in­visible Church, as to say the body of a people is ingraffed into the visible Church, which Mr. G. useth, I see not. As for Mr. Gs. reason [wher­as the invisible Church is comprehended under a visible body as chaff under Wheat] I find little either sense or reason in it. For 1. Men use to say that wheat is under chaff; not, chaff under wheat. 2. That wheat is hid, covered, or rather mixed with chaff in the same floor, not, comprehended under chaff. 3. Divines use to compare the in­visible Church to wheat, not to chaff, nor do they compare the visible Church which consists of good and bad to chaff, but the evil persons in it. 4. How the invisible Church is comprehended under a visible body needs some explication. It is true a grear part of the invisible Church is existent in the visible body of the Church on earth, yet a far greater part is not existent in it: the Saints departed, the elect infants, the elect not yet created are part of the Catholique invisible Church; yet not comprehended under a visible body, nor is a visible body a ge­nus or species to comprehend the invisible Church under it, for then the invisible Church should be defined to be a visible bo­dy. All that can be said is, that the present visible Church com­prehends as a totum integrum part of the invisible Church, the elect now existent, and part of them that are not of the invisible, to wit, the reprobate. But why for this cause it should not be good sense to say a Nation or the body of a people in respect of the generality, or a great part of them is ingraffed into the invisible Church, I do not perceive.

6. Saith Mr. G. And to say a Church is broken off from that e­lection which is special and to grace, which was once elect, and from being the invisible that was once the invisible Church, is sure a most grand error. For special election to grace and glory which makes any people of the invisible Church is a foundation of God that remains [Page 22] sure, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. I reply. It is none of my speeches, to say, A Church is broken off from that election which is special and to Grace, which was once elect, and from being the invisible Church, which was once the invisible Church. I said the Nation, people, branches or body of a people (which last expression I had rather now omit) that were elect to grace and glory, and were of the invisible Church, may be broken off, I say not, the Church. And that which I say is no errour at all. I grant that Gods election is a foundation of God that remains sure: yet the people who in respect of persons of one age were elect, may be truely said to be broken off in respect of particular persons in a later age, from the election that people had, in respect of the people of the same descent in a former age.

7. Saith Mr. Geree. The thing which occasioneth Mr. Ts. error is want of consideration of a distinction, which Mr. T. very well knowes, but through eagerness to maintain his tenet (as I conceive) doth not consider. Election is either general or special, so is reproba­tion: general election is of bodies or societies, and this is only in refe­rence to visible Churches, in which is containd the invisible: Thus God is often said to choose the Nation of the Jews, De. 4. 37. & 10. 15. That is the body of his people, to be his visible Church, in which indeed was contained the invisible. Now opposite to this generall election is gene­ral reprobation, whereby a people are cut off or cast out of the honour of being Gods visible Kingdome, and so without hope to be of the in­visible: so then the breaking off of the Jews was onely from this gene­ral election, and their reprobation general to cease to be Gods visible people; But now there is a special election of singular persons to be the invisible Church, and this is never attributed to a visible body (un­less synechdochically) and of this we deny the broken off to be parta­kers of, or to fall from. The Apostle Rom. 11. divides the Church of the Jewes into two bodies, one of the people th [...]t God fore-knew, the other opposite, the one were of the invisible, the other of the visi­ble Church only; those opposite were broken off the whole body of them, but it is only from what they had to be visible members, not from what [...]hey had not, to wit, to be of the invisible: and therefore here his argue simile from the River Euphrates will not serve his turn, f [...]r we in juire not here what the Isra [...]lites had been, nor have we to do wi [...]h the species of Israel, but with th [...]se numerical branches broken [...]: The numericall branches graffed in mentioned by him: For proof [...] [...]7. from v. 23, 24. were not they graffed in his opinion into the [Page 23] invisible Church, and then if in the same sense the numerical branches be broken off they are broken off from the invisible Church, and then they fell from grace. The Apostle shews not there, that the branches were broken off, from what the species of the people had had in former times, but from what they had at the time of breaking off, and that was only a visible standing in the Church by vertue of Gods general election which then they lost.

I reply. I do thankfully take Mr. Gs. indeavour to clear truth to me: nor do I reject his distinction of general and special (I should ra­ther say particular) election and reprobation, the one of bodies, soci­eties, or nations; the other of singular persons: nor do I deny that there is a difference to be made between election to be Gods visible peo­ple, and to be the invisible Church. But whereas Mr. G. conceives through eagerness to maintain my tenet I did not consider it, he is mi­staken: I did consider it, but did not use it as Mr. G. applies it, because I conceived formerly and do still that it is insufficient for un­tying the knot in this controversy about the Apostles meaning. 1. Be­cause the ingraffing or standing in the tree, or partaking of the root, seemed and still seems undoubtedly to be meant of giving or having faith according to election, as the arguments here vindicated prove, ther­fore the breaking off which is opposite to it, must be meant of hard­ning or blinding according to reprobation, as v. 25. is expressed, blindness is happened. 2. Because however it be in other places yet in that chapter the election mentioned v. 5, 7, 28. is to grace and glo­ry, and so in the only places besides in that epistle chap. 9. 11. yea and in all other in the epistles, as 1 Thes. 1. 4. 2 Pet. 1. 10. and the conjugate words [choosing, chosen] in that and other Epistles, as Rom. 8. 32. Ephes. 1. 4. 2 Thes. 2. 13. speak of it onely. 3. Because by Mr. Gs. exposition that breaking off the Jews mentioned Rom. 11. 17. should be only from the visible Church, though it be that state which was opposite to those he foreknew v. 2. shutting up in unbelief v. 32. for which the Apostle Paul expresseth so much grief, Rom. 9. 2. as to wish himself Anathema for their recovery. 4. I follow the interpretation I gave, because the words of v. 23, 24. as I said in my Apology pag. 77. did lead me to that interpretation. For it is said v. 23. [...], they also if they abide not in unbelief shall be graffed in: for God is able again to ingraff [...], them, and v. 24. how much more [...], those which are according to nature shall be ingraffed in their own Olive. the Pronounes [...], they, them, these, whether relative or demonstra­tive [Page 22] [...] [Page 23] [...] [Page 24] have for their Substantive [...], or the branches mentioned v. 16, 17, 18, 19, 21. which are said to be broken off, not spa­red by God: Now I knew not how to clear it, that the same branches be graffed in which were broken off, understanding it of the same nu­merical persons in the same age, unless they should arise from the dead, considering that the Apostle speaks of the branches which in his age were broken off, and saies that those branches shall be graffed in again in some after-age: which knot is not resolved by Mr. Gs. explication of the phrase of ingraffing into the visible Church, any more than by my explication of it into the invisible. For the difficulty seemed not to me to ly so much in the meaning of the phrase of ingraffing, as in shew­ing how the same branches that were broken off, those very branches, are again graffed in, the breaking off being meant of the Jews in Pauls time, and the again graffing-in meant of them in after ages, when the Jews in Pauls time were long before dead: This knot I knew not how to untie any otherwise than by saying, that they were the same that were broken off, not the same singular persons, which is the Arminian te­net, but the same Nation or people, who are broken off from what they were in Davids or Abrahams time. And this I endeavoured to clear by the distinction of a fluent and consistent being, and by the simile of the River Euphrates: in the application of that I did not take the branches for the species of Israel (For I do not take Israel to be a species that is said in quid of more Israels differing in number, as Mr. G. seems to have conceived me) but I conceived Israel or the branches to be the same numerical people or nation in respect of their descent from Abraham, and distinguished the same numerical people from the same numerical persons of one age, as the same numerical Ri­ver from the same numerical Water. Now this though sufficient to answer Mr. G. yet I confess there are some difficulties that stick with me upon more exact consideration, to wit, how to fit the Apostles words to my exposition. For 1. the Apostle seems not by the bran­ches, but by the Olive-tree to understand the people of the Jews as de­scended from Abraham the root as a spiritual Father, partly because the Jews onely are called natural branches as it is said [...] to their own Olive v. 24. which yet must note the invisible Church of true believers, not the people of the Jews as such by natural generation: For it is not good sense to say, the branches, that is the people of the Jews, shall be again graffed into the People of the Jews, sith they were still the People of the Jews, and not broken off in respect of their natu­ral descent, but it is the genuine meaning to say, the Jewish people [Page 25] in after ages shall be graffed into the invisible Church of God (which was once their own Olive by reason of the propriety they had in Abra­ham the Father of the faithful) and so the branches not rightly made as the fluent being, that is the Nation, but the people of that nation in some ages. 2. Because it is said v. 17. But if some of the branches were broken off, which intimates that the branches note not the whole nation or people, but a part, to wit, the people of some age. But then the difficultie continues still, how [those, they, these] could in another age be reingraffed. Mr. Gs. answer removes not the difficulty, it being the same, whether the branches broken off be said to be ingraffed again into the visible or invisible Church. To say that some of the branches, that is the people of the Iews distinct from the Ten Tribes, as they are distinguished Ezekiel 23. 3, 4. shall be graffed in again, is to intimate that the ten tribes were not broken off with the Jews, nor are to be restored again. Therfore I rather choose to say, that the branches broken off the people of one age shall be graffed in again not in their persons but in their posterity, who are called those branches that were broken off, by reason of their consanguinity, as the Apo [...]le calls the Jewes his own flesh, Rom. 11. 14. because of their consan­guinity, and as Pareus Comment. in Hos. 1. 10. speaks iterum hi­recipientur in gratiam, aliquando in suis posteris. However, whe­ther the branches be made the Nation or the people of some age, and the simele be rightly fitted or not, my answer to the objection stands good, that the branches the people of the Jews in Pauls time were broken off from that election and faith which Abraham and other Israelites had in their time. But Mr. G. saith, they were not broken off from what Israel had in former time, but from what they had a visi­ble standing in the Church. But this is not true: For the Jews in Pauls time which were broken off had their visible standing in the Jewish Church they had before; only they were broken off from the faith in Christ which Abraham had, and that election which the Jews in former ages had. And to be broken off from the visible Church of the Jews in which they were, what was it but to revolt from Judaism? which would have been to the better a fruit of faith rather than unbe­lief. Nor were the Gentiles graffed into the visible Church of the Jews, but separate from them, and expelled by them: yea the Gen­tiles were manifestly exempted from the Jewish visible Church-commu­nion, Act. 15. Gal. 2. & 5. 1. &c. onely they were ingraffed into the root and Olive, that is Abraham and the Israel of God in re­spect of that faith and promises in Christ they had, as Ephes. 3. 6. is [Page 26] expressed. I deny not but that the Apostle Rom: 11. divides the Jews Gods people into two sorts, some the people he foreknew, others that were Israel after the flesh onely: the one obtained, the other were blinded, and in that respect broken off from the invisible Church, in which they were not in their own persons, but in their Ancestors. Hy­perius his words alleged by me I conceive are plainly meant of ele­ction and reprobation to life and grace, because he saith plainly, ali­oqui singulos electos de populo Judaico vel de populo Gentili reproba­ri impossibile est, which Mr. G. I imagine would not have con­ceived true of his general election and reprobation onely into or out of the visible Church. Bucers and Calvins words are plain to the sense I give. Bucer expounds insitus fuisti illis, thus, Gentes per fidem Christi sactae sunt semen Abrahae, Gal. 3. 29. Calvin, Gentium in­sitio per fidem facta est. The distinction in Calvin l. 3. institut. c. 21. Sect. ult. Perkins exposit. of Revel. 2. 9. of general and spe­cial election, I allow as above, yet suppose it cannot cleat the Au­thors I allege, nor solve the doubt of the Apostle. Mr. G. had still liberty to expound his own meaning: but I still conceive that he mis­took the Apostle, and that notwithstanding his opinion of it, there is nothing for Infant-baptism to be extracted from Rom. 11. as I shall shew further by answering his arguments in that which followes.

SECT. IV.
Mr. Gs. arguments for Infant-Baptism from Rom. 11. 11, &c. are answered.

MR. G. conceived my Complaint of his non-syllogizing in his Vindic. Paedobap. from Rom. 11. needless, there being fair mediums for syllogismes held out. But finding it so frequently ob­jected by writers that the respondent forms the argument otherwise than the Author, as for instance Dr. Homes in his animadv. on the first argument of my exercitation, and Mr. G. desiring Vind. Paedop. pag. 5. to have choice and liberty of ordering his own weapons, and hav­ing found so much trouble in answering Mr. M. for not syllogizing from the places he allegeth, I conceived it fit to require M. G. to form his medios terminos into syllogisms, which being done, I answer to [Page 27] them, having first premised, that I do not take these to be all one, to be under the Covenant with the parents, to be reputed members of the same visible Kingdom, and to be sealed with the parents: the last is that which is nearest the point: but if Mr. G. would have concluded plainly what is to be proved, he should in these plain terms thus have con­cluded, The Children of Christians have the privilege of being baptized, as the Jews of being circumcised. But let us examine his arguments as he forms them.

That Church-state (saith Mr. G.) and those out-ward Church-privileges, which the Jews had by vertue of a pure Gospel-promise, that the Christian Jews retained: But that the Jews and their seed should be Gods visible Church and enjoy outward Church-privileges was a benefit that they had by a pure Gospel-Covenant. Ergo. The Major is clear from the sevententh verse of Romans 11. whence my second conclusion is proved, that the Jews that obtained me [...]cy kept their station. The Minor I prove. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed in their generations, Gen. 17. 7. is a pure Gospel-promise. But by vertue of that the Iews had this Church-state that they and their seed were the visible Church of God, and in­joyed outward Church-privileges.

I answer. 1. The Conclusion, The Christian Jews retained this that they and their seed should be Gods visible Church and enjoy out­ward privileges, is not either formally or equivalently the thing to be proved, which is, that the Christian Jews and their seed even in infancy were to be baptized, or in Mr. Gs. language sealed. For the Chri­stian Jews and their seed are not all one with the Christian Jews and their infant-seed, nor is it all one to be Gods visible Church and to be baptized: for persons may be of the visible Church by profession as the Catechumeni, who are not yet baptized, or perhaps to be bap­tized, and they may enjoy an outward Church-privilege as Ex. gr. prayer and laying on of hands as Christ did on little children, and yet not be baptized. 2. The Major of the Prosyloogism is palpably false, that the Jews that obtained mercy kept their station, if by station be meant their place or condition of Church-membership in the Iewish Church: for they were both cast out from it, and both did and were to leave it, at least after the time of the full promulgation of the Gospel; yea they could not continue their profession of Christ, and yet retain their station in the Iewish Church, by reason of the professed enmity of the potent party of that Nation to the name of the Lord Jesus. As for Rom. 11. 17. it speaks not of outward Church-privileges, but saving [Page 28] benefits through faith. 3. I deny the Minor, and in the later syllo­gism brought to prove it, I deny the Major, and say, that though the promise Gen. 17. 7. be according to the inmost sense a Gospel-cove­nant, yet in that sense it is not a promise to Abraham and his natu­ral seed, but to his spiritual seed elect and true believers, Rom. 9. 8. and 4. 11, 12, 16, 17. Gal. 3. 8. 9. 16. 29. Mat. 3. 9. John 8. 39. But in this sense the promise is not to any children of be­lievers, but such as are believers or elect persons as Abraham was. But in that sense which is most patent it is a promise to the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh, and so it is no promise to our natu­ral children, who are never called Abrahams seed till they be belie­vers; and in this sense it is so farre from being a pure Gospel-promise, that it is rather to be counted a pure Law-promise of peculiar inheri­tance in Canaan, and other privileges upon their keeping the law God gave them. 4. I deny also the Minor, that by vertue of that (mean­ing if as the formal reason, adequat cause propter quam res est) the Iews had this Church-state (understanding it de jure, of right, which is in question, not de facto, of fact or event) that they and their seed (that is infant seed) were the visible Church of God, and enjoyed out­ward church-privileges: particularly of infants. This is imagined but nothing brought by Mr. G. to prove it.

Mr. G. goes on. Again thus: What Gospel privilege the Nati­on of the Jews had before their rejection, that they shall recover with advantage at their restauration. To have their seed to belong to Gods visible Kingdome with them, and enjoy outward Church-pri­vileges was a Gospel-privilege belonging to the Jews before their fall. Ergo. The Major is clear from, Rom. 11. 25, 26. Hos. 1. 10, 11. & 2. 23. By which my fourth principle, which is in effect the Ma­jor here, is confirmed. The Minor appears. For by being Gods visi­ble Kingdome Christ and all his benefits were offered to them all, and made good to the elect, which ordinarily were among them, and none else, and therfore this was a Gospel-privilege being it conduced to salvation.

I answer. 1. To the Major. Gospel privileges of the Iews are of two sorts: some Personal that belong to the Gospel by vertue of the Evangelical covenant, as to be justifyed, sanctifyed, adopted, sav­ed, heard, &c. by God: of these I grant the Major: Other Gospel­privileges (if they may be so called, and not rather Legal) were Nati­onal, which were temporary belonging to their minority or paedagogy, as to have Christ come in the flesh from that Nation, to have their male [Page 29] infants circumcised, to be taught by types and shadowes, &c. and of these I deny the Major. Nor do the texts prove it, but speak onely of the first sort of Gospel-privileges. Now among the later sort I rec­kon, that the Children with the parents or the whole Nation should be Gods visible Kingdome. And for the Minor I deny it; if it be understood of the Gospel-privileges of the first sort. As for the proof of it I wish it had also been put in form. However I answer to it as it is. And except 1. that Mr. G. proves not what he affirmed, be­cause he changeth the Subject of his Minor proposition to be proved, which was, that the seed of the Jews did belong to Gods visible King­dome with them, but in the proof it is, the Jews or the Nation of the Jews being Gods visible Kingdome. 2. I know not how to con­ceive it conduced to salvation, that the Jews seed did belong to Gods visible Kingdome with them, and enjoyed outward Church­privileges, nor how by it Christ and all his benefits were offered to them all and made good to the elect. 'Tis true that in some sort the Iews being Gods visible Kingdome did conduce to salvation, in that by that means they had the teaching of the Law and Prophets and Levitical rites, whereby Christ was offered in a dark man­ner. But this was not in that the Iews Infants had the out­ward privilege of Circumcision, but from the merciful provision God made for that Nation being his visible Kingdome. And though it be true that by being Gods visible Kingdome they had this offer of Christ in the manner acknowledged by me, and so it was in a sort or in some respect a Gospel-privilege, yet the manner of offering Christ by the Law, Prophets, Circumcision, Levitical Rites, was but a temporary Gospel-privilege, belonging to the paedagogy which is now done away, Gal. 4. 1. Col. 2. 17. Heb. 8. 12. & 10. 1. and rather in the Epistles of Paul and other parts of the N T term­ed Law than Gospel, and this the Iews shall not recover in their restau­ration.

Mr. G. addes, Again thus, what Church-state and privileges belonged to the Chistian Iews in Pauls time, and shall belong to the body of the Iewes when restored (degrees only excepted) that belongs to all Christian Gentiles. But to the former belongeth to have the covenant with them and their seed, so that the Children belong to the visible Kingdome of Christ. Ergo. The Major is my third princi­ple grounded on Rom. 11. 17. And thus I have answered Mr. Ts. de­sire with syllogisms.

I answer, The Major is not proved by Rom. 11. 17. which [Page 30] speaks nothing of outward Church-state. And for the Minor, under­standing it as Mr. G. doth, that it belongs to them to have the cove­nant, that is in his phraseology the outward covenant or the initial seal of baptism, and to belong to the visible Kingdome of Christ as members to be baptized in infancy, I deny it, nor find I any thing brought to prove it. And thus I have also prevailed with my self to answer Mr. Gs. syllogisms, though deemed by me not worth so much labour. I will add a little more to vindicate my self though wearied with Mr. Gs. superficial writing.

Mr. G. of me. Now what saith he to all this. Why? 1. If I mean by the Gentiles assumed into the place of the Iews of the same Church-state, and by partaking of privileges belonging to that Church-state it is denyed. I answer. I do mean the same Church-state and Church-privileges that are not typical, and this is plainly proved by Rom. 11. 17. they are in their place in the Olive and so must enjoy at least what they had: neither hath he nor can he dis­prove it: for though he hold the ingraffing is more than into the vi­sible Church, yet he denies not that they had therby a visible Church-state too.

I reply: if he mean the Church-state and Church-privileges that are not typical, then he doth not mean the outward privileges of the Children of the Iews belonging to the Iewish Church as it was in that state before Christs comming, to wit, male-infant Circumcision. For that was typical, it signified Christ to come, as I have shewed in my Examen part 3. Sect. 9. pag. 90. and in my Apology Sect 14. pa. 66. confessed by Pareus Comment. on Genes. 17. 11. and the ge­nerality of Protestant Writers, nor do I think it will be ever shewed that in the Circumcision of male-infants of the Iews there was any thing moral and perpetual. As for Rom. 11. 17. if because the Chri­stian believers are in the Olive in the place of the Iews, they must enjoy at least what they had in the same outward Church-state and privileges, then must they have a Stately Temple, High-Priest, a place to have Gods name perpetually put, a peculiar Tribe for Priests, their chil­dren to succeed them, a year of Jubilee, none to be bondmen, &c. for all these they enjoyed; And if these be proved to cease as ceremo­nial and typical, I make no doubt but the like will be proved of male-infant circumcision. And for my grant if he had recited my words rightly the impertinency of them to his purpose had appeared: which were these, that I do not deny that the same people might be or were ingraffed [...]nto the invisible Church by profession of faith and bap­tism. [Page 31] But this is nothing to prove that by my concession the Gentiles infants upon the conversion of the parents were to have the same out­ward Church-state and privilege that the Jews had.

Mr. G. goes on. Neither saith he, is a believing Jew a loser in his seed by the comming of Christ: sith this was a peculiar privilege in the time of that Church-state, which now ceaseth to be a privilege: which he saith he hath further discust Examen part 3. Sect. 11. which I have viewed again, and there find, that as here so there he barely dictates without proof, which learned men cannot count satis­factory, thus to defalk the covenant of grace in the extent of it in a thing where nothing typical is shewed or can be.

I reply, my work in examining the Sermon of Mr. M. was not to oppose but to answer, and of an answerer proofs are not required, but solutions of objections. My disputing in my Examen is approved by as able as any of my Antagonists, which I spare to allege. For the 11^th. Section of the 3^d. part of my Examen, when any tells me in what learned men cannot count it satisfactory it will give me the more occasion to revise it. All learned men are not of one size, many are best satisfyed with that which is slightest, and all are apt to magnifie that which they affect, as I find by Mr. Leys vaunt, Doctor Dow­nams magnifying Mr. Husseys piece, Mr. Calamy and Mr. Vines Mr. Blakes answer to my letter, Mr. Geree and Mr. Roberts Mr. Church his Treatise. In that which, if God will, is intended to be done, I shall discuss Mr. Ms. Defence. In the mean time for that which Mr. G. saies I defalk the Covenant of grace in the extent of it in a thing wherein nothing typical is shewed or can be, I answer, To defalk is to cut off as with a sickle: the thing I do is denying of Baptism to infants, though male-infants of Iews were Circumcised. Circumcision Mr. M. acknowlegeth in his Defence pag. 187. be­longs to the Covenant of grace, not as a part of it, but as a means of ap­plying it: nor do I think either Mr. G. or Mr. M. would have said it was a necessary means of applying the covenant of grace to all in the covenant, or so as that an infant without it should not have had the covenant of grace applied to it. I know not well in what manner it is meant, that Circumcision and Baptism are means of applying the covenant of grace, whether ex opere operato, or ex opere operantis, whether morally or physically, or otherwise. By denying infant-bap­tism, I know not wherein I cut off any part of the covenant of grace in the extent of it. I grant elect infants have or shall have the things promised it it, and further if Mr. G. stood to his own words in his [Page 32] Vindiciae Paedop. pag. 13. he durst not extend them. To deny infant-baptism, withholds not infants from the covenant of grace either ex­pressively or by good consequence: neither are all baptized in the co­venant of grace, nor all unbaptized out of it, nor is the interest of a person in the covenant of grace the reason why he should be baptized, nor the want of it, the reason of denying baptism according to the admini­stration of that ordinance by ordinary rule. Mr. G. saies, in the thing in which I defalk the Covenant of grace nothing is or can be shewed to be typicall. Setting aside his affected phrasifying (which I count but vain, if it be good sense) his meaning I conceive to be, that in the Circumcising of male-infants of Iews nothing is or can be shewed to be typical. I answer. If by [typicall] be meant that which did foresig­nifie Christ to come and somthing belonging to the Gospel, then though it could not be shewed from Scripture that there was any thing typical in circumcision of male-infants, yet it may be proved to be wholly e­vacuated now. Typical and Ceremonial I do not take to be all one: The ark of Noah was a Type 1 Pet. 3. 20. yet it is not to be rec­koned among ceremonies; so the land of Canaan, Jonah being in the Whales belly, and other things. And there are hundreds of things in the Ceremonial Law, which are now acknowledged to cease, wher­of few can be shewed to be Typical, however Interpreters take liberty to make them typifie some this thing, some that, according to their various fancies. It is enough that Circumcision in every part and cir­cumstance of it was meerly positive belonging to the ceremonial law now evacuated; I do imagine by the reading of the first part of Mr. Cawdrey and Mr. Palmer their Sabbatum Redivivum chap. 2. pag. 36. that they conceive some general Laws of Seals of the Covenant to be moral not abolished, but are perpetual, though no where ex­pressly laid down in the general, but under the particular seals of each age, and I imagine that one of these laws is, that the initial seal belongs to the infants of believers, and this may be proved from infant Cir­cumcision. I confess the wit of man may do much: but till the Phi­losophers stone be gotten I expect not to see it proved, that there is any thing in Circumcision moral and perpetual: when ever it is attempted, I doubt not some learned man or other will sift it to the bran. I pre­sume it will be found that other lawes about ceremonies confessed to be abolished will be as substantially profitable in all ages as an initi­al seal to the infants of Covenanters, as that of Tithes, of an oecume­nical or national Bishop in answer to the High-Priest among the Iews, &c. Such an attempt I should look upon as the last but feeble prop to [Page 33] uphold the ruinous cause of infant-baptism.

2. Mr. G. might have known that there want not learned men who make almost every thing of Circumcision to typifie something about Christ, as the Circumcising the infant to fore-shew he should be an infant, a male, that he should be a male, in the member for generation, to shew that he should be from the seed of Abraham, which perhaps cannot be demonstrated out of Scripture (nor can hun­dreds of institutions in the Ceremonial law which Divines make typi­cal) yet circumstances and consent of Writers make them very pro­bable. And therefore if I mistake not Mr. Gs. meaning, his speech seems to me to have no likeness of truth:

Mr. G. goes on. For my fourth sectary if it be understood of pristine Church-state he denies it, but he grants the promise will be extend­ed to them and their seed as the text imports Isa. 59. 20. Why then say I, he grants that now under the Gospel children shall be un­der the promise (which is but a branch of the Covenant) and what is this, but that which he hath so stifly denied, and which we assert as the ground of the seal annext to it.

I answer, it is true, I granted of the Iewes when they shall be cal­led under the Gospel, that the promise shall be extended to their seed, nor did I ever deny it, much less stifly deny it, as M. G. falsly chargeth me; yea in my Examen page 66. I say, I think at the calling of the Jews there shall be a more full taking in of the children of the Jews than is now of the Gentiles; according to that Rom. 11. 26. And so all Israel shall be saved. But how this shall be done I express in my Apology page 70. not by an outward Ordinance or initiall seal, as it is called, applied to Infants, but by communicating the Spirit and word of God to them and their seed, as the text alleged by M. G. im­ports Isa. 59. 20. which M. G. leaves out, as if he had not been willing I should be understood: Which was his and other of my An­tagonists frequent dealing with me. But that which I grant I yield only concerning the Elect, not the children of the Iews as their chil­dren, and so not belonging to every Infant of a believing Iew. And thus I expound the promises in my Examen pag. 53, 54. nor will Mr. G. assert the promise of saving grace made to every child of a believer, nor doth he expound the promise, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, in respect of saving graces any otherwise than of the Elect. But to make this, to wit, that the promise shall extend to many of the Jews Children at their calling, and in like manner to many of the be­lieving Gentiles children in several ages, the ground of baptizing eve­ry [Page 34] believers (though but such by profession) child, whereof few per­haps are elect, and whether any now living be elect is unknown to us, seems to me to be an attempt like the building of a Castle in the Air, that is a vain indeavour to establish a thing without a foundation. As for that which he saith the promise is but a branch of the Covenant, if he mean it (as is most likely) that the promise of saving Grace is but one part of the Covenant, the outward seal another, he oppo­seth Mr. M. who in his Defence pag. 187. denies it to be a part of the Covenant, nor is it true. For the seal, as they call it, hath no o­ther relation to it then as an outward adjunct: the Covenant it self con­tains no parts but the promises, it being nothing else but an aggregate of mutual promises: If he mean that the Covenant is the root, that is the cause, the promise the branch as an effect, in that sense his speech is not right, the Covenant being nothing else but an aggregate of mutu­al promises: nor do I know in what other sense to conceive of that parenthesis of Mr. Geree, except he means, that this is but one part of the Covenant, that to children besides the promise of Gods Spirit being in them, there are other promises of other graces, as of justification, a­doption, glorifying: which were true, but nothing to Mr. Gs pur­pose: nor is it likely that this is his meaning, that besides childrens be­ing under the promise, there is another branch of the Covenant, that is their own promise to be Gods, for this were not true of infants.

SECT. V.
A digression about the nullity of connexion between the Covenant and initial seal as it is called, and the invalidity of proofs for it from Gen. 17. 7, 9. Acts 2. 38, 39. the mistakes about which text are shewed, and Mr. Stephens his arguments answered upon occasion of Mr. Gerees words.

MR. G. addes of me; Neither (saith he) will there be two di­stinct estates, one of the Jews, of holy Fathers and Children, another of the Gentiles who have only personal privileges, none for their seed; But by his leave this will follow unless he grant that the promise or Covenant is to Christian Gentiles and their seed too: and if he grant that, whether the seal of initiation will not follow the Covenant I leave to be weighed by proofs set down in their places.

I answer. Mr. G. still maims my words, leaving out both my [Page 35] tenet from which I say the absurdity he conceives will not follow, and the reason I give to avoid that absurdity. 1. He supposeth I grant that the promise or Covenant is to Christian Jews and their seed at their Conversion, and therefore unlesse I grant that the promise or Covenant is to Christian Gentiles and their seed too, there will be two distinct estates of Christians, one of Jews, another of Gentiles. To which I say, I never granted that the promise or Co­venant of grace is universally to he Iews and their seed at their calling, but that perhaps there shall be a more ample taking of them and their children into Covenant than of the Gentiles and theirs: nor did I e­ver deny that the Covenant of grace is made to believing Gentiles, and such seed of theirs as are elect, with which limitation the indefinite promises Deut. 30. 2. 6. Isa. 54. 13. and the rest are to be limit­ted: nor ever yielded that the Covenant or promise did belong to either of them as their natural seed, and so to every of their children, but to the elect only: And therefore it will not follow from my grants, that I make two distinct estates (except in degrees) of Christian Jews and Gentiles. 2. He supposeth that the seal of initiation will follow the Covenant, and so the Jews children are to be sealed at their cal­ling, and consequently the Gentiles, unless I will make two distinct estates of them. To which I answer, the seal of initiation is but a late devised term, which the Scripture useth not, and because so much abuse is made of it, to wit, from a meer Metaphor that's not once used in Scripture to infer lawes and rules to bind mens consciences, I therefore take liberty to reject it. Baptism is the word the Scripture useth, and that is a proper term; and for proofs proving this conse­quence. The promise or Covenant of Grace is to a person, therfore he is to be baptized, I find none in any of my Antagonists writings which require much weighing. Mr. M. in his Defence when he should have shewed the connexion between the Covenant and the Seal declines the proving it, and wrests my words, as if I had granted it, though I plainly argue against it, in my Examen part 3. Sect. 1. If there be any proof in him it is from the particular institution of Circumcision, because it is said Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed af­ter thee, & v. 9. Thou shalt [therefore] keep my Covenant, whence he would gather, that the reason why Abrahams infants were to be circumcised was their interest in the Covenant, and hence it is en­deavoured to form a general rule thus: To them belongeth the initi­al seal whether of the Jewish or Christian Church who have interest or title to the Covenant of Grace. But 1. all the force of this proof [Page 36] hangs on the particle [therefore v. 9.] which is [...] in the He­brew, and may be rendered, And thou, or but thou, as well as thou therefore, and is by others rendered Tu autem, and Tu verò, which are neither of them illative terms. 2. If it were granted that [therefore] is the best reading, yet that the inference v. 9. should be made from the promise onely v. 7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee, and not as well, if not rather, from the promise v. 8. of giving to him and his seed the Land of Canaan, I find no sufficient reason given. 3. But if it were yielded that the inference were made peculiarly from the promise, v. 7. to be a God to Abraham and his seed, it must be proved that every believers infant-child is Abrahams seed, afore it be proved that promise belongs to them, and so that covenant shall be made to every believers child which was not made to every child of Abraham, as appears v. 19. concerning Ishmael, & Heb. 11. 9. As for a visible Church-seed of Abraham, that is neither his seed by nature, nor by saving faith, nor by excellency, in whom the Nations of the earth should be blessed, to wit Christ, I know none such in scripture, though some men have fancied such a kind of Church-seed, as it is called. 4. Lastly were all these things yielded that it is to be read [therefore] and that the inference v. 9. were from the pro­mise, v. 7 and not at all from the peculiar promise to the Jews, v. 8. and that the promise, v. 7. did belong to the Church-seed as they call it of Abraham, yet the proposition could not be made good from hence, sith the inference is not concerning title or right of infants to the initial seal, as if the Covenant or promise of it self did give that, but the inference is concerning Abraham, duty, that therefore he should be the more engaged to circumcise his posterity, and yet onely those that are males, and not afore eight daies, and not onely those that were from himself but also all in his house whose children soever they were; which apparently shews that the giving Circumcision was not commen­surate to the persons interest in the Covenant, but was to be given to persons as well out of the Covenant as in, if of Abrahams house, and not to all that were in the Covenant, to wit, females: which doth clearly prove that right to the initial seal, as it is called, of Circum­cision did not belong to persons by vertue of the Covenant, but by force of the command: which Mr. M. was forced to confess in his De­fence pag. 182. when he granted the formal reason of the Iews being circumcised was the command, and the Covenant he makes only a motive. All which doth fully shew, that the proof of the connexion between the Covenant and the initial seal without a particular com­mand [Page 37] for it is without any weight at all in it. Mr. Robert Bailee▪ in his Anabaptism dictates without proof something to prove a connex­ion between the initial seal and the Covenant, from the nature of the terms, which I have shewed to be of no weight in my letter to him, both because it is vain to make the Metaphor of a seal to be the ge­nus of a rite, it's like to the defining man [a tree turned upwards] to call a sacrament a seal is not to shew what it is, but to what it is like, and also because there being the same nature [of seal of the covenant] agreeing to the after-seal as well as the initial, if the argument be taken thence it will prove infants must have the one by vertue of the na­ture of the terms as well as the other. But his dictates are so fallacious and feeble when they are discovered, that I need add no more to refute them. After these Mr. Nathaniel Stephens in a book intituled A pre­cept for the Baptism of Infants out of the New Testament, to which two ministers of Coventrey have prefixed an Epistle wherein they judge the book as judiciously written, and therefore seems to be of some account, having abused sundry texts of Sceipture, to make good the title of his book, he asserts as he calls it pag. 29. a Convertibility between the word of promise and the word of command. Concerning which po­sition it is to be observed that Logicians do distinguish between conver­tibility, convertency and conversion. Conversion is of propositions, convertency of Relatives, convertibility of simple terms, whereof one may be predicated reciprocally on the other in the Nominative case, as when we say, A man is a reasonable living body, and a reasonable living body is a man. Now in this sense I know not convertibility to be of any terms, but of words that are synonymous, as to say Is­rael is Iacob, and Iacob is Israel, or when the one is the definition, and the other the thing defined; one is the most proper difference or most proper accident, the other the kind or subject thereof: But how absurd it would be to say the word of command is the word of pro­mise, and the word of promise is the word of command, any man un­derstands, that knowes a word of command to be a speech not enun­ciative in the Imperative Mood, but a word of promise is a speech enunciative in the Indicative Mood. But the Author it seems means this, that to whomsoever Christ is promised▪ or God hath promised to be their God, to them there is a command to be baptized, and that they should baptize their infants. Concerning which I grant if the persons be believers, or disciples of Christ, that they having the pro­mise are also commanded to be baptized: but they are not command­ed to be baptized barely in that they have the promise, but in that [Page 38] they are believers or Disciples. But to have the promise to belong to a person, and to be a disciple or believer are not all one. A man is not a disciple or believer till he is called, but to be a child of the pro­mise, Rom. 9. 8. is all one with to be an elect person, as Isaac and Iacob, v. 10, 11, 12. were Children of the promise, to whom the promise was made afore they were born, and so at this day thousands not only of infants but elder persons, not onely among believers but also infidels, particularly the Iews, Rom. 11. 26, 27. some not yet born, some not yet called, are in the Covenant, have the promise of grace made to them, and yet are not commanded to be baptized till they believe and are disciples. Nor can a persons being in Covenant be the direction to a minister whom to admit to baptism, sith it is un­known to him who be in the Covenant of Grace, who not; nor is a judgement of charity to be a ministers rule whom to baptize, but a judgement of ministerial prudence to discern who are disciples by their profession according to Christs institution, nor is there any place for a judgement of charity in infants who neither speak nor do any thing which may shew them to be rather believers than unbelievers. Out of which I infer that all these kinds of speeches are but vain speeches, that the Covenant of Grace without any other command is a command to baptize an infant, that to deny infants right to baptism is to defalk the Covenant of Grace, that the command to baptize disciples is all one as to command to baptize persons in Covenant, with many the like frivolous suggestions still inculcated in writings and Sermons of Paedobaptists, though the vanity of them is often demonstrated as by o­thers so in my writings. As for Mr. Stephens his assertion of the Convertibility as he calls it between a word of Promise and a word of Command, which in plain words should be they to whom the pro­mise or covenant of grace is made, they are commanded to be baptized and their natural children even infants by vertue of the promise without any other command, it is chiefly grounded on Acts 2. 38, 29. in the expounding of which there are almost as many palpable mistakes as there are words in the 39^th. v. For

1. The exposition is commonly carried as if the promise there meant were the promise Ge. 17. 7. to Abraham & his seed: and this expounded as if it were meant, that God would be a God to every believer and to his seed in respect at least of visible Church-membership, which children they call Abrahams Church-seed (which exposition of the promise Gen. 17. 7. hath no footing in Scripture, nor is there any thing from the Scripture to prove visible Church-members of the Gen­tiles, [Page 39] which are not true believers, to be called Abrahams seed, much less their infants) whereas the promise from Peters words Acts 3. 25. seems to be that Gen. 12. 3. In thy seed shall all the Kinreds of the earth be blessed, which verse 26. expounds of Christ Jesus, or that to David Acts. 2. 30.

2. They expound [ [...], is, Acts 2. 39.] as if it were a promise of a thing to come, some outward privi­lege to be conferred on them and their chil­dren, Cobbet Iust. vind. part 1. ch. 2. sect. 4. the promise in praesenti is to you in respect of externall right. whereas the chief thing meant in the speech is, that as it is expressely said by Paul Acts 13. 32, 33. we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the Fathers God hath fulfilled the same unto us their Children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again. So that the sense is not The promise is, that is, there is some outward privilege promised to be conferred on you and your children: but The promise is, that is, is fullfilled now at last after long expectation, in that God hath raised up his son Jesus and sent him to bless you in turning away every one of you from your ini­quities, Acts 3. 26. And by consequence remission of sins is to be enjoyed by them that repent upon their calling.

3. It is taken as if [to you] were meant of those persons to whom he spake as then believers, and under that formal consideration. But 1. it may seem probable from the partitive article v. 41. [ [...] They that gladly received the word, and v. 44. All that believed] all to whom Peter spake did not after believe, though it is said v. 43. fear was upon every soul. 2. However, it is clear that they were not believers till after Peters speech. Nor is the contrary proved from their being pricked in heart v. 37. which it is said they would not have been if they had not believed that Jesus was the Christ. For though this prove that they had some sense of the greatness of Christs person, yet this faith was onely with horror, as in the Devils, from the conscience of the evil of their sin in crucifying him, not such a faith as whereby they did embrace Christ and the profession of him, and addict themselves to him, till Peter had spoken the words v. 38. 39. 40. now the promise is not made to a person and his seed that believe Christs greatness with horror without imbracing him and the profession of him. And this might be confirmed in that after the expression of their horrour v. 37. Peter exhorts them to repent v. 38: and v. 40. with many other words to save themselves from that crooked generation. 2. It is [Page 40] most probable that [to you] is meant [to you as Jews] to whom Christ was first sent and exhibited, according to that Acts 13. 46. It was neces­sary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you, espe­cially those of Jerusalem, according to the prophecy Micah 4. 2. And therefore they are called Children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant, that is the people to whom the Prophets came, and to whom the Covenant was at first assured and made known, and to whom first Christ was sent Acts 3. 25, 26. which is strengthened by the di­stinction between [you] and [those a far off] by which term if the Jews in the dispersion be meant, then [you] notes those then present who were Jews, if the Gentiles, then [you] must be expounded of the Jews as Jews, not as believers; for so they a far off from whom [you] are di­stinguished being Gentiles [you] notes Jews as contradistinct.

4. [Your Children] v. 39. is expounded of their infant-children, yea it is carried as if of them onely. For they would have the promise to be to their children as theirs whether they be called or no, which can be verified onely in their sense of their infants, sith they maintain that even the Children of believers are not in Covenant, the promise is not to them, they are not visible Church-members when they come to years of discretion except they be called in their own persons, and ac­cept the call. By which means they are necessitated to expound it thus, The promise is to you being called, to your children whether they be called or no, to all that are afar off as many as the Lord our God shall call, as if the limitation [as many as the Lord our God shall call] were to be put at both ends, but to be left out in the middle, to salve their fancy.

5. Whereas it is urged that when it is said The promise is to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, which is expounded of the Gentiles, it is not added [to their children] Dr. Homes in his animadv. on my Exercit. Sect. 4. is not afraid to add it, and when he foresaw that it would be objected to him, he answers that Translators put in many words in their translation, to which there are no words answerable in the original text, as if because they adde words necessary to make up the sense, it might be allowable to him to add to the texts when there is no such necessity. His reasons are only why he thinks it should be added, but he brings no copy to prove that ever it was added.

6. Mr. Stephens hath an interpretation of the word [repent] which I know not that any else hath, as if when it is said [repent v. 38.] it were as much as to say [covenant for your selves and Children] as [Page 41] if repentance were all one with covenanting, and repentance for their own sins were covenanting for their Childrens good.

7. And in like manner he holds the command [be baptized every one of you] in a Covenant-sense as he calls it (that is a new devised non-sense, such as we have no Dictionary yet to interpret words by) be baptised you and your Children.

8. Some would possess people with this conceit as if Peters scope were to take away by v. 39. an objection or scruple they would make. If we be baptized our selves our Children shall be in worse case in re­spect of the privilege our children had in the former dispensation of the Covenant, when they had the seal of the Covenant, if they be not to be baptized also, and that he answers them, by assuring them that in this dispensation also their children were in Covenant and were to have the seal of the Covenant. Wheras there is not a word of any such scruple in the text, nor is it likely that they were sollicitous about such an imaginary poor privilege of their children, when their consciences were so oppressed about the grand crime they were guilty of in crucify­ing the Lord Iesus. I may use Mr. Cobbets words Just. Vindic. par. 2. chap. 2. Sect. 6. with some alteration, They were not troubled for want of such outward Church-privileges, and to tell them of such external right to the promise was both impertinent and unsatisfactory, and it could minister but little comfort to sin-sick souls to promise them such privilege, which they might have, and yet die in their sins, Matt. 7. 23. More likely to take off the fear they had from the imprecation mentioned Mat. 27. 25. Peter tells that in Christs crucifying and raising from the dead, was fulfilled the promise which would in the event save them and theirs if they and theirs did believe; somewhat like un­to the comfort Joseph gave to his Brethren in a like streight Gen. 45. 5. and 50. 19. 20.

9. They all do most grossly abuse the meaning of the Apostle in interpreting the inference of the Apostle signified by the particle [ [...], for, v. 39.] which they would have to be this, you have right and warrant to be baptized. For the promise is to you and your Children, as if the illative particle did infer a warrant or right for them and theirs to be baptized. Whereas the thing inferred is not any kind of right which in a legal way they might claim, but is a plain motive in a moral way urged to perswade them to be baptized. And this is manifest from the form of words v. 38. which if they had exprest a right to Baptism by vertue of the promise, should have been in the Indicative Mood in such a form as this, You are to be baptized, you may be baptized, you have right to it, the Minister ought to [Page 42] do it: but the words are in the Imperative Mood exhorting them and perswading them to it, [...], be baptized every one of you, that is, be ye perswaded to perform this duty. Which is confirmed from the first duty he urgeth them to, which is urged in the Imperative Mood [...], repent ye, and to which baptizing is join­ed by the copulative particle [and] which cannot be expounded without non-sense of a right they might claim, but of a duty they were to practise. Which is confirmed from v. 37. to which v. 38 is an answer. Now v. 37. they ask what shall we do? And Peter answers v. 38. repent and be bap­tized, which to interpret of a right they might claim, and not of a du­ty they were to do, had been ridiculous, as when the question is about Onyons, to answer about Garlick, as the Latin Proverb hath it.

10. And lastly, in the paraphrases which usually in their disputes Paedobaptists make of Acts 2. 38, 39. they put not in any thing to answer the term [repent] as if it stood for a Cipher, but paraphrase it thus, Ye may be baptised you and your Children, for the promise is to you and your Children, whereas the putting the word [repent] first, and [be baptized] after, do manifestly overthrow their paraphrase of a right to Baptism from the word of Promise; and shew that the particle [For] doth not prove a right to Baptism, but press to a duty, and such a duty as is to have Repentance precedent, and that in every per­son that is to he baptized. For first they are bid every one to repent, and then every one to be baptized. I hope by this time the intelligent Reader will easily perceive how frivolously Acts 2. 38, 39. is alleged by Paedobaptists to prove as it is called the convertibility of a word of Promise and a word of Command to baptize infants. To shew which I was the more incited by the speech of Mr. John Goodwin in his Pre­face to the Reader (a 4) before his Thrasonical book intituled Re­demption redeemed, in which after his fashion of wording things he thus speaks. They who suffer their judgements to be incumbred with the error of Antipaedobaptism must upon the account of their inthralment under the said error, maintain many uncouth, harsh, irrational, venturous and daring interpretations and expositions of many texts and passages of Scripture, and particularly of these, Gen. 17. 7. 1 Cor. 7. 14: Acts 2. 39. & 16. 15. 1 Cor. 1. 16. 1 Cor. 10. 2. besides many others, which frequenly up­on occasion are argued in way of Defence and proof of the lawful­ness of Infant-baptism. I forbear to recriminate, I doubt not but there are and will be found men that will sift his book, and shew the monstrosity of his conceits about Gods decrees, knowledge, intentions, [Page 43] &c. of his expositions of Acts 4. 27, 28. &c. But for my exposi­tion of the texts he mentions, when he hath read and seriously weighed this writing with my former, me thinks he should be ashamed, if not recant that censure of his. His seven erronious and Anti-evangelical opinions he chargeth the holding Anti-paedobaptism with shall be ex­amined in their place, and his many mistakes therein shewed. For present I referr the Reader to this Treatise to consider whether Paedo­baptists or Anti-paedobaptists do bring the more plain and fair exposi­tions of the Scripture; and return to Mr. Stephens, who pag. 29. speaks thus. I endeavour to prove the convertibility between the word of Promise and the Word of Command first from particular examples; in the Sacrament of Circumcision, the word of promise is, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed; in relation to this promise the Lord did command Abraham to cir­cumcise all his males Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9. In this institution there is a mutual relation and convertibility between the word of Promise and the word of Command. For as many as had a right to be cir­cumcised by the word of promise, had a right to be circumcised by the word of command. Againè converso, there must needs be then a convertibility between these two in the sacramental action. Again in the Institution of the Passeover, Exod. 12. 13, &c.

I answer. If this be his meaning by his convertibility of the word of promise and command, that whoever hath right by the initial seal by the one, hath right by the other, I know none would deny it, for it would follow that there should be a command to deny a person his right if it were not true. But however this his phraseology may take with them that know not how to distinguish between chalk and cheese, this is it he must prove if he will prove any thing to his purpose, that to whomso­ever there is a promise of grace, or of Gods being their God, they are to have the initial seal by a word of command, and vice versa. Which how false, it is shewed above. And for his proof it is but from two particulars, and therefore not a full induction; and neither of the in­stances he gives serve his turn. Not the former. For the promise was to the females as well as the males, they were Abrahams seed, God was their God, they were to inherite the Land of Canaan, as the daughters of Zelophehad, and yet were not to be circumcised: but of this enough before. The other is less to the purpose, for the Sacra­mentall action as it is called of striking the blood Exod. 12. 13. was upon the posts, not on the persons, either parents or first born sons to whom the promise of saving their lives was made, nor did all or only [Page 44] those eat the Paschall Lamb, and unleavened bread, to whom the promise was made: as for instance, not the infants first born of a day or two old. Therefore these very instances are so far from proving his convertibility, that they plainly prove the contrary, that without a particular command distinct from the word of promise, a person hath not right to the initial or after-seal as they call it, though he have the word of promise, sith in both these instances persons had no command to partake of the rite, though they had the promise signified by it. I go on to the next.

Secondly, saith he, This is made manifest by the generall nature of the Covenants between men and men: There must needs be a con­vertibility between these two parts that do contract, as may appear by the Indentures between them. If this be so in the generall nature of Covenants, it must necessarily hold in the Sacramentall Covenant betwixt God and man. There must needs be between the word of promise, which is Gods part, and the word of Command that doth contain the duty of man in the Sacramentall action, there must needs be (I say) between these two a near relation.

I answer, It is true, in Covenants usually there is a mutuall con­tract, and there are mutuall performances to which persons are enga­ged thereby. And if it be true that such a Convertibility must needs be between those persons that do contract according to the generall na­ture of Sacramentall Covenants, then there can be no Covenant be­tween God and an Infant, sith an Infant cannot contract, and so this very argument is against the baptizing of Infants. If any say, Parents do contract for them, to it I say, be it so, then according to this argu­ing they should also seal or be sealed for them. But as I say in my Ex­amen Part 4. Section 4. I insist not on this Argument, it proceeding only according to Paedobaptists hypotheses, and serving onely to shew the vanity of them. But for the thing, it is certain that however the words of faedus, pactum in Latin, [...] in Greek, Covenant in English, be used, the Hebrew [...] and the Greek [...], used in the old and new Testament do not alwaies import a mutuall con­tract, and mutuall performances. God is said to establish a Cove­nant with all living, Gen. 9. 9, 10. between whom and God there neither is nor can be mutuall contract and performance. And the term sometimes rendred [Covenant] is not onely rendred [Testa­ment] but also the Holy writers do illustrate the new Covenant rather by the metaphor of a Testament than of a Covenant, 1 Cor. 11. 25. Gal. 3. 15. Heb. 9. 16, 17. and where the promises are set down [Page 45] without any reciprocall contract or duty exprest, Heb. 8. 10, 11, 12. and 10. 16, 17. Rom. 11. 26, 27. So that it cannot be proved to be the generall nature of Covenants that there should be such a conver­tibility as that both must seal or contract or perform. In Testaments or Wills which have the name of [...] or [...], sometimes trans­lated [Covenant] there is no such mutuall contract or duty, or sealing: there is a single Covenant as well as a mutuall. So that this argument from the general nature of a Covenant, to prove that they to whom God promiseth to be God, they are commanded to be Baptized, is of no weight.

But saith Mr. Stephens, there must needs be between the word of promise, which is Gods part, and the word of command that doth contain the duty of man in the Sacramentall actions, there must needs be (I say) between these two a near relation. To which I answer, Though in mutuall Covenants between God and man, there be a word of command inferring duty, yet this is not from the generall na­ture of Covenants between men and men. For in mutuall Covenants between men and men who are equalls, there is no word of command, but onely of promise on both sides: And therefore the word of com­mand conjoined with Gods promise is not from the generall nature of Covenants, but the superiority that God hath over men. And be it granted there is between the word of command, and promise, in the sa­cramentall action a near relation, yet it proves nothing to his purpose that to every one to whom the promise is there is a command he should be baptized. There are many sorts of relations, of those that are not onely secundùm dici, but also secundùm esse, relatives between which there is a near relation, and a command too of something to be done in relation to promise, yet no command that the person to whom the promise is should be tied to something. As in the promise that is named by Mr. Stephens himself, the first born was not commanded to do any thing, though the promise were to save his life, and what com­mand can there be to a still-born infant in the Covenant of grace? So that in these dictates of Mr. Stephens there is a meer emptiness of any solid proof.

Thirdly, saith he, this is evident from the very definition of a Sa­crament: For the form and being of a Sacrament by and through which it is defined doth stand in the analogy, proportion, correspon­dence, mutuall relation between the outward sign set forth in the word of command, and the inward grace contained in the word of promise: now then, if there be no mutuall habitude and relation between these [Page 46] two, we shall take away the very being and form of a Sacrament.

Answer: I acknowledge two rites of the Christian Church-Baptism and the Lords Supper, and that the Jews had many more rites appoint­ed them: But the term Sacrament, & what is delivered by Protestant wri­ters about the definition of a Sacrament, and many things they inferre thence, I think are not found in Scripture. If M. Stephen▪ would have argued from the definition of a Sacrament, he should have set down a fixed definition of it out of Scripture. The name Sacrament, and the definition Mr. Stephens alludes to [a visible sign of invisible grace] so far as I can find, began much about Augustines times, whose sayings we regard with liberty of examination. But the visible sign is not the word of command, but the duty of him to whom the command comes; nor is the inward grace the promise, but the thing promised, so that the proof concludes not a covertibility between the word of promise and the word of command, but between the thing promised and the thing commanded. Besides, if it be granted that there is a mu­tuall habitude and relation, so as that the one is a sign of the other, and it may be said that the Sacramentall action commanded, or the word of command is the sign of the promise or thing promised, and that is sign­ed by it, yet this proves not the convertibility Mr. Stephens should prove, for this notwithstanding, it remains to be proved that to whom soever the promise belongs, to them the Sacrament belongs. Yea to shew how inconsiderate this arguing is, sith by the grants of the Author the definition of a Sacrament doth as well belong to the Lords Supper as to Baptism, if it take away the form of a Sacrament to deny that to whom the promise belongs to them Baptism belongs, it will upon the very self same ground prove, that to deny the Lords Supper to Infants (which I suppose Mr. Stephens doth) to whom the promise belongs, takes away the form of a Sacrament.

Fourthly, saith he, this doth appear from the weakness of that which is usually alleged to the contrary: and therefore though it may be true (as some say) that a promise may be without a seal; yet when men have once put their seal, it is necessary that there must be a correspondence between the seal, and the Covenant. In like manner it is not absolutely necessary that the Covenant of grace or the word of promise should be set forth with outward signs that appear to the sen­ses: yet the Lord having once in the word of Institution appointed the outward sign to signifie the inward grace, in such a case as this is it is necessary that there should be a mutuall relation between the word of promise and the word of command. They that deny this (to [Page 47] my understanding) do not onely go against the experience of Belie­vers, but also against the common sense of men.

Answer. It is true they that deny a relation between the sign and thing signified go against common sense of men, and they that deny there is benefit and comfort at least in doing our duty in the holy use of Baptism and the Lords Supper, they go against the experience of Belie­vers. But there is no such thing as either of these in denying▪ Mr. Ste­phens his convertibility between a word of promise, and command, contained in such propositions as these, Every person to whom God hath promised inward grace is commanded to be baptized, and every person that is commanded to be baptized, hath a promise of inward grace from God. For the truth of this (if it were true) is not known by experience of Believers, but by reason, nor can it be against com­mon sense of men, Sacraments being onely positive rites, they are not naturall signs, but instituted, and so without revelation of Gods mind no man knows but it may be as well a Sacrament to shave a mans hair, as to baptize him in water: so that in this speech of his is meer vanity. And in the rest there is heedlesness or unskilfulness. For first he doth ignorantly confound the word of promise which is Gods act, with the inward grace which is effected by God many hundreds of years sometimes after the promise, Rom. 11. 26, 27. and the word of command which is Gods act, with the duty of man, and the sign of Gods grace and promise: whereas a word of command may be, and yet the duty or thing commanded not done, and words being signs of the things they express, a word of command can onely express a com­mand not a promise, which is expressed by other words.

2. Most unskilfully as one that understood not himself, he thinks when he hath concluded there must be a correspondence between the seal and the Covenant, a mutuall relation between the word of promise and the word of command, this is all one with his asserted convertibili­ty: wheras there may be a relation between the Covenant of grace and Baptism either as a memorative or sealing sign, and this may be mutuall, and there may be a relation & correspondence (though what he means by it I cannot well tell his expressions are so indistinct and obscure) be­tween a word of promise and command, and yet these propositions not true, every person to whom God hath promised inward grace is commanded to be baptized, and every person that is commanded to be baptized hath the promise of inward grace, which is the onely convertibility that is any thing for his purpose.

He is pleased to censure it as weak which is usually brought to the [Page 48] contrary. Me thinks he should not be ignorant that in my Examen of Mr. Ms. Sermon Part 3. Sect. 1. there is a formed dispute about it: Of which when Mr. M. replied to my Examen in his Defence, he hath rather thought good to possess mens minds as if there we [...]e no such disagreement as my words bear shew, between him and me therein, when the very title of the Section, and the whole series of my discourse, shewes it is my drift to overthrow the imaginary connexion between the Covenant and seal, which is the hinge on which Mr. Mr. first and main argument turnes. If Mr. Stephens think it so weak it will be no hard matter for him to answer it: But then let him not nibble at it, but in a scholastick way set upon it, and overthrow it, and he will say something to his purpose. Otherwise to mention onely one thing, to wit, that a promise may be without a seal, and then to bring in an answer which is in that place overthrown, is but to shift, and not to dis­pute. There are many reasons which moved me to prosecute this large digression being once entered into it, I now return to Master Ge­ree.

Mr. G. yet addes, And unless he grant this privilege to Christian Gentiles, there will follow a partition-wall thus far to make distinct Conditions of persons under the Gospel, contrary to Eph. 2. 14. where Christ hath made Jews and Gentiles equal.

I answer, it is true Christ hath made believing Jews and Gentiles equal, and now and wherein is expressed Ephes. 2. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. But it is no whit contrary to Ephes. 2. 14. to affirm that though the Infant-males were circumcised, yet the Gentile belie­vers infants are not to be baptized, there being no command for this as for that. Nor by making their condition distinct in this, any part of the partition Wall which Christ brake down is made up: but in very truth by this inference, The Jews infants were to be circumcised, therefore ours are to be baptized, is the partition Wall made up again in the A­postles sense: sith it supposeth that the command of Circumcision in some sort bindeth upon which that inference is made.

Mr. G. saith in the close. Thus have I answered Mr. Tombes his large dissertation which I again seriously commend unto him; being not a little grieved to see so much ability and industry cast away to darken manifest truth in my apprehension.

I reply. Thus I have examined Mr. Gerees answer, being much wearied with his unconcocted writings, and sorry to see so much want, I will not say of ability but of industry in him, and so much darkness in not apprehending so manifest a truth as this, That the ingraffing Rom. [Page 49] 11. 17. &c. is by giving faith into the invisible Church according to election. Against which I pass on to examine what Mr. Richard Baxter of Kederminster, and Mr. Thomas Cobbet of Lyn▪ in New-England, have said to the contrary.

SECT. VI.
That the breaking off Rom. 11. 17. was not by repeal of an or­dinance concerning Infants visible Church-membership as Mr. B. conceives.

MR. Richard Baxter in his Book intituled Plain Scripture-proof of infants Baptism and Church-membership, part 1. ch. 7. begins thus. I come now to my second argument to prove [that the mercifull gift and ordinance that some infants should be Church-mem­bers is not repealed] and it is (from Rom. 11. 17. And if some branches be broken off, &c.) Whence I argue thus: if it be onely some that were broken off from the Church, then to the rest that are still in it, the mercifull gift of Church-membership to them and their children is not revoked: but it is onely some that were broken off from the Church: therefore to the rest that remained in, the gift was not repealed. The Antecedent is the plain words of the text, the strength of the Consequence lieth here, 1. For the parties not broken off; the breaking off from the Church is an unavoidable consequence of the re­voking of the gift of Church-membership, and the repealing of the ordinance: therefore where there is no breaking off from the Church, there is no such revoking or repealing. This is most evident, and yet Mr. T. denied this consequence.

Answer. The Church is either invisible, and the breaking off from it is by non-election or hardening: or visible, either Christian or Iewish, and the breaking off from it is either by non-admission, non-circumcising, non-baptizing, or by drawing up the fore-skin, or ex­communicating or such like act. Mr. B. saies in this chapter, that The Apostle saies it of the Jewish Church that some were broken off from the Church. The merciful gift and ordinance Mr. B. means is onely this, That the Infants as well as the Parents should be accoun­ted visible Church-members and have the initial seal. This merci­ful [Page 50] gift and ordinance I find no where, nor hath Mr. B. yet shewed it any where but in the institution of Circumcision, Gen. 17. The some that were broken off, Rom. 11. 17. were some of the Iewish Nation, and the rest remaining in must be understood of the same pepole. What else can be the meaning of Mr. Bs. conclusion but this, to the believing Jews who by believing continued in the olive-tree the visible Church of the Jews, the gift that they and their infant-chil­dren should be accounted visible Church-members, and Circumcised according to the institution Gen. 17. is not repealed, but to unbe­lieving Jews, who are broken off by not believing it is repealed? If any say the gift and ordinance is not meant of that particular instituti­on, but of a visible Church-membership of infants perpetual in all ages, and of an indefinite initial seal, not of that particular initial seal of Circumcision, I reply, such a gift and ordinance is a meer figment like an Idea Platonica: all institutions of meer positives, are of such a rite in particular, and an initiall seal is meerly positive as signs that are not naturall, but by the will of the appointer, and therefore there is no initial seal indefinite. Now if this be Mr. Bs. meaning, I take his Conclusion to be the assertion of a man that dotes: in any other sense it is yet untelligible to me. As for the argument: The antecedent (though he use the Apostles words) is in his sense palpably false. For he conceives the some that were broken off were the unbelieving Iews, and that they were broken off from the visible Iewish Church, as he saith after. But that is palpably false: For they continued in the visi­ble Iewish Church, and the believing Iews were broken off from that Church, and the Gentiles were not to be graffed into the visible Church of the Iews, but were to be broken off from them And for the Con­sequence, though Mr. B. thinks it strange that I denied it, yet I am so far from revoking that denial, that I now conceive the Consequence is rather good to the contrary, that if some were broken off, then the or­dinance of infants visible Church-membership is revoked. For the some broken off being the people of the Iews, and the policy of the Iewish Church thereby dissolved, the ordinance of Circumcision and the visible Church-membership depending thereon, are dissolved or re­voked to all, even them that did believe, as Gal. 4. 1. &c. is deter­mined. And as for that which Mr. B. saith, the st [...]ength of his Con­sequence lies, it hath no strength in it. The breaking off in that text is so farre from being an unavoidable consequence of the revoking of that ordinance, that if that ordinance in Mr. B [...]. sense had been re­pealed, yet the Iews might have been still Gods visible Church: For [Page 51] what connexion is there between these, The ordinance that parent and child should be visible Church-members together is repealed, Ergo, the people of the Iews must necessarily be broken off from being Gods visi­ble Church? I conceive of such a consequence so farre from being un­avoidable, that it rather seems to me to be à baculo ad ang [...]lam. But the breaking off is in the text, v. 7. 20. expressedly made a con­sequent of their non-election and unbelief, and the whole chapter shews it: Now because these (some) were the most and chiefest part of the Iewish Church, and in a sort the body of that nation, there­fore the national Church-frame of the Iews was dissolved, and there­with the infants visible Church-membership, which came by vertue of Legal descent from Abraham, or by associating themselves to the po­licy of Israel. Mr. B. pag. 101. confesseth, that if any say one part of the Ordinance Gen. 17. concerning Circumcising infants of infidels brought into Abrahams family was proper to the Jews, he hath somewhat to justifie it: I inferre that somewhat which justifieth so much, will justifie this also, that the taking the whole Nation and so the sort of infants of natives or others into the visible Church was pro­per to the Iews depending on the national Church-frame of the Iewish policy, and the command suitable thereto. Mr. B. addes. If any say that the some that were broken off were [all the infants among o­thers] as the whole chapter will confute them, so specially consider, that the Apostle saith it of the Jewish Church, whereof the infants were members with their parents, that it was but some that were broken off from the church; so far is the whole church from being dissolved. An: To say the unbelieving Iews were broken off from the visible Church Iewish, is a palpable dotage of Mr. B. refuted before: The Church from which they were broken off, was the invisible Church of true believers of which Abraham was the root by exemplary believing: which being first in the Israelitish nation after Abraham, from whom it had a dou­ble descent natural and spiritual, is called their own olive, v. 24. they natural branches, the Gentile-believers the wild olive by nature, in­graffed by faith. Now from this I say not that all the infants were broken off: Breaking off is by non-election, which whether it reached to all or some I know not. The some that were broken off, were a great part of the Jewish Nation, and therewith was dissolved the Iewish Church visible with its peculiar national frame and policy, by reason of which the infants were accounted visible Church-members, and with it ceased to be so: yet infants might remain in the visible Church by election of grace. Mr. B. addes. Also consider that as the in­fants [Page 52] come in with their parents, so they are not cast out while their parents continue in: except when they are grown up they cast out themselves by their personall sins. Who can imagine that God should cast out the infant (that came in for the Fathers sake) while the pa­rents remain in the same Church? Answ. The infants came into the visible Church of the Jews, not for their immediate parents fake by reason of their faith: though their parents were Idolaters, yet were they reckoned to the congregation of Israel, as the children of A­hab, Ahaz, &c. it was from the will of God in taking that Nati­on to be his people till Christ came to inherit all Nations. The in­fants of the Jews came into the invisible Church by election meerly of Gods grace, v. 5. and by reason of his Covenant first made to their fathers, by reason of which their posterity are yet beloved v. 28. and shall in some of the branches be re-ingraffed, v. 23, 24. In the whole chapter there's not the least hint of infants being visible Church-members by an initial seal. 'Tis true, in the Jewish policy they were reckoned to the congregation of Israel with their parents, and Circum­cised by vertue of Gods command, and his good pleasure to take that Nation for his peculiar people till his Son came. He being come, takes to him disciples of all Nations, and breaks off the Jewish Nation through unbelief, and so dissolves their policy, and therewith the visible Church-membership of infants which depended thereon, though there were a remnant according to the election of grace among the Jews, yet there infants were not visible Church-members, not because God would punish them thereby, it was no punishment nor hurt to them (notwith­standing Mr. Bs. vain exclamations of I know not what loss by it) but because it seemed good to him now to gather his Church by his word and Spirit, not by legal descent. Mr. B. closeth the chapter thus. But the answer that is here given is, that this place speaketh of the invisible Church, which I shall reply to, when I have laid down my next argument, because it is from the same chapter. Answ. That is indeed the answer, and I shall attend to the reply.

SECT. VII.
That the words Rom. 11. 20. of breaking off by unbelief prove not that believers children have visible Church-membership and title to the initiall seal as it is called.

CHapter 8. Mr. B. speaks thus: My 3d. argument to prove that this is not repealed is from Rom. 11. 20. [well: because of un­belief they were broken off:] whence I argue thus: If none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief, then believing Jews and their seed were not broken off; and consequently the gift of Church-mem­bership was not to them revoked: but none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief: Therefore believers and their seed were not bro­ken off; and consequently the gift to them is not repealed. The Ma­jor or antecedent is plain i [...] the words of the text; the Consequence I think is undeniable. For I hope none will affirm that God broke off all the infants of believing Jews, for the sins or unbelief of other men. He that will not punish the children for the Fathers sins, will much less punish them for a strangers.

Answ. 1. The text saith, [by unbelief they were broken off] but not as Mr. B. saies, is plain in the words of the text [none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief] These are not equipollent. 2. Yet waving that, I say, there's a breaking off in purpose, and in execution; in respect of this later, the meaning must be understood, unbelief is not a motive or antecedent to the decree of Gods reprobation, but a con­sequent of it. But it is a means of the execution of the decree, and so the term is fitly rendred [...], by unbelief they are bro­ken off: it is not [...], for unbelief, as the motive of Gods purpose, but by unbelief as the means by which they came to be bro­ken off. 3. The Unbelief here meant appears from Ch. 10. 21. to be not onely negative, but also contrary of them that rejected the Gos­pel: therefore if none were broken off but unbelievers here meant, no infants, no not of infidels that never heard of Christ were broken off, but by Mr. Bs. argument, must be visible Church-members: For such were not gainsaying unbelievers. Wherefore to the argument I an­swer, 1. By denying the antecedent to be in the text: it saith Jews were broken off by unbelief, not that none were broken off but unbe­lievers: infants of the Jews might be broken off, Rom. 9. 11, 12, 1 [...], [Page 54] 18. though they were not such unbelievers as the Apostle speaks of Rom: 11. 20. 2 Nor is there a word in that place, Rom. 11. 20. of breaking off any infant either of a believer or unbeliever, neither here nor elsewhere do I find Gods purpose expressed concerning them. For such texts as these Mark 16. 16. John 3. 5. 18 36. 1 Iohn 5. 11. &c. are to be understood of adult persons. 3. the breaking off is not revoking of an ordinance about visible Church-membership (it's wonder to me that any man that seriously reades the chapter should imagine it) but the execution of the decree of reprobation in excluding them from the invisible Church. Therefore I deny both the antece­dent, if it be understood of infants as well as grown persons, and the the consequences. For though none should be broken off but unbe­lievers among the Jews, yet it follows not that of believing Iews their infant seed were not broken off from visible Church-membership, nor that the imagined gift of title to the initiall was continued: sith the breaking off was of another kind, and the revoking of the intial seal, was from another cause common to Iews and Gentiles believers as well as unbelievers, to wit, Gods will in altering the Iewish Church-frame. Mr. B. mistakes in conceiving the taking it away to be a punishment. And his reason is against himself. For if God will not punish the children for the Fathers sins, then he should not punish the children of the unbelieving Jews with deprivation of visible Church-membership for the parents unbelief, which nevertheless he holds God did to the Iews children.

But Mr. B. goes on thus. All that I know that Mr. T. saith to all these is, that they speak of the invisible Church. But I pray you mark: he doth not say of the invisible onely: nay, he confessed in our dispute, that it spoke of the visible also: And that is as much as I need, and indeed, a yielding of the cause.

Answ. That which I say is this: that when the Apostle speaks of the Gentiles being graffed into the olive-tree, or the Iews being graffed in again, the meaning is not of admitting into the visible Church by an outward ordinance, such as Circumcision and Baptism are, but into the invisible onely by given true faith according to the election of Grace, and when it is said, the branches, that is the most part of the Iewish Nation distinguished from the remnant according to the electi­on of Grace, v. 5. and the people which he foreknew, v. 2. were broken off, the meaning is not that they were broken off from the visible Church by Excommunication or defect of title to Baptism (which is Mr. Bs. vain conceit if I understand him) but that they were by Gods [Page 55] purpose of reprobation hardned in unbelief, and so broken off from the olive, taht is the Universal invisible Church of Gods elect and true believers; of which Abraham was the root by his exemplary believing. And because this olive-tree was first after Abraham in the Iewish peo­ple to whom Abraham was a Father in a double relation, as their na­tural progenitor, and the Father of the faithfull, therefore the Iewish believers are called the naturall branches, and the Universall visible Church, their own olive, the Gentiles the wild-olive by nature, ingraf­fed by emulation of them in believing. Now when I say the phrase notes onely graffing into the visible, and breaking off from it, yet I adde that they who were ingraffed into the invisible or broken off from it, were also graffed into and broken off from the visible, though the phrase of graffing in, and breaking off, express more or another thing as I say in my Apology page 71. Now if Mr. B. need no more, and this be a yielding of the cause, let him make his best of it, I still a­vouch it. But it seems to me to overthrow Mr. Bs. cause. For Mr. Bs. cause is grounded on this, that by not breaking off, is meant not re­pealing the ordinance of visible Church-membership and initial seal, and that the ingraffing is by an initial seal into the visible Church, and that parents and children were so graffed whether elect or not, true believers or not, if the parents professed faith, upon which it must fol­low, that non-elect, nor true believers were ingraffed in according to his sense. Now if it be proved that the ingraffing be of giving faith accor­ding to election, so as that none are ingraffed but elect persons and true believers, and the breaking off be by hardning according to reprobati­on, so as that none are broken off but reprobates, I appeal to any mans understanding, whether this be not impertinently alleged by Mr. B. who brings it to prove such a breaking off as may agree to elect per­sons (for they may be excommunicated or not admiitted into the visible Church) and such an ingraffing as may agree to reprobates (for they may be visible Church-members and admitted by Baptism) though it be granted that the same persons who were graffed in, were also in the visible Church and baptized, and the persons broken off, were not in the visible Church nor baptized.

Mr. B. goes on. But he saith, It speaks not of the visible Church as visible: How then? Doth it speak of the visible Church as not vi­sible? This is an answer like the rest.

Answ. To which I reply; This kind of refuting is like the rest of Mr. Bs. refuting, sleight and superficiall, fit onely for shallow un­derstandings, of which sort did not Mr. B. presume the most of his [Page 56] Readers would be, he would not handle things so lightly and contem­ptuously. He brings in my words in this imperfect manner. It speaks not of the visible Church as visible: whereas that which I say is this, that the ingraffing Rom. 11. 17. and the breaking off v. 20. are not meant of graffing in, or breaking off from the visible as visible, by Bap­tism or Excommunicarion, or defect of title to Baptism, and therefore there is no such thing meant as continuing or repeal of an ordinance a­bout visible Church-membership and initial seal as Mr. B. would draw hence: but into or from the invisible Church by giving faith or blinding; though the same persons that are in or out of the invisible, be in or out of the visible. As when Rom. 8. 30. the Apostle saith, whom he hath called, them he hath justified, though the same per­sons be outwardly and inwardly called, yet the calling there is not meant of bare outward calling (for so many are called who are not chosen, Mat. 20. 16.) but of inward, of which onely the speech is true. Now how doth Mr. B. refell this? Forsooth by a question: Doth it speak of the Church as not visible? To which I answer, if such a frivolous question need answer, The Apostle when he speaks of the olive-tree, he means that Church which was visible as well as invisible, yet he doth not speak of it barely as visible, that is, the in­graffing into it and breaking off from it, are not meant of such ingraffing or breaking off from it as respect it as visible, but as invisi­ble.

But Mr. B. saies of me, He brings many reasons in his Apo­logy, to shew that the invisible Church is here meant, but not of force though nothing to the purpose.

Answ. I brought 10. arguments in my Apology page 71. &c. to prove that the ingraffing Rom. 11. 17. is meant of giving faith ac­cording to election, and consequently none ingraffed but elect per­sons, and so by the olive meant the Church invisible, not the visible as visible consisting of good and bad, of what force they are may appear by refelling Mr. Gerees answers now herewith printed. That they are to no purpose, is most in considerately said by Mr. B. sith they overthrow the very foundation of Mr. M. Mr. G. Mr. B. and others in their disputes, for visible Church-membership to infants of Christians from hence, that we have the same ingraffing by an initial se [...]l for our chil­dren which the Iews had: which is most false: for then ours must be Circumcised as theirs, and if it were true, yet this text speaks nothing of ingraffing or breaking off opposite to it, but of an ingraffing and breaking off of a higher nature, and consequently this text is most pal­pably [Page 57] abused by Mr. M. Mr. G. Mr. B. and the Assembly in their confes. of faith, ch. 25. to vindicate which, every one that desires to understand the Scriptures aright will think to be to good purpose.

But Mr. B: tells me. The truth is, it is the same Church in se­veral respects, that usual [...]y is called visible or invisible. It is spe­cially for the sake of true believers, that all seeming believers are cal­led the Church: And to say therefore, that the Jews are broken off from the Church invisible only, and we planted in their stead, is vain.

Answ. I grant all this: for it hurts not me, who never denied that the Iews were broken off from the visible Church, and not from the invisible only: but do expressely premise it page 71. and Mr. G. acknowledged it, and Mr. B. himself here confesseth I acknowledged it in the dispute between us: Nor did I ever deny that we who are plan­ted in their stead are planted into the visible as well as the invisible Church. And therefore his similitude to illustrate his meaning, and his reasons to prove that the Gentile-believers do come in stead of the Church Iewish, not only as invisible but also as visible, is to prove that which is not denied. That which is indeed to be proved, is, that the ingraffing or breaking off is meant of graffing in or breaking off from the visible Church by an outward ordinance, and not into or from the invisible Church by giving faith according to election, or not giving it according to reprobation, so as that any may be said to be in­graffed who are not elect, which might if it were meant of the visible Church as visible, sith in it are many reprobates, who are taken in by Baptism, or any broken off who are not reprobates, whereas many are broken off from the visible Church, as such by Excommunication who are not reprobates but true believers. But let us consider Mr. Bs. plain arguments from the text to prove that Paul speaketh here of the visible Church.

SECT. VI.
Mr. Bs. arguments are answered, whereby he attempts to prove that the breaking off and graffing Rom. 11. 17. 20. 24. are meant of the visible Church as such.

ANd (saith Mr. B.) 1. I argued from v. 24. For if thou wert cut out off the olive-tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed [Page 58] contrary to nature into a good olive-tree; how much more shall these which be the natural branches be graffed into their own olive-tree? Hence I argued thus: That Church whereof the Iews were naturall branches, was the visible Church: But the Church that Paul speaks of, was that whereof the Iews were natural branches: therefore it was the visible Church. Here an ordinary man would think there were nothing to be denied, But Mr. T. denied the major; whether accor­ding to his conscience or against it, he best knows. For can any man be­lieve that the Jews are called natural branches of the invisible Church onely?

Answ. The word [Church) is not in the text: there is only the word (olive-tree) that I know that answers to it. Now as Abraham being the root hath a double habitude or relation expressed by the Metaphor of a root, one that he is Father of the faithfull, another that he is the Father of the Iews: so the olive-tree hath a double habitude or relation, one as it notes a race of men descending from Abraham as a naturall Father, another as it notes a race of men issuing from him by imitation of his faith as a Spiritual Father. The Jewish people who shall be graffed into their own olive, shall be branches in both considerations, and in respect of one called naturall, but branches of the olive from Abraham the root in both considerations. They then shall be natural branches, as men descending from Abraham of the Iewish nation, which being formerly the Church of believers, they be­ing believers, shall be branches of the olive-tree, not as it notes a race of men descending (for so they are now in it afore their re-ingraf­fing) from Abraham by natural generation, but as it notes the Church invisible, or the Church of true believers, which once in the first place they were, descending from Abraham by faith as well as naturall gene­ration. Whence in answer to the argument I say: if the Conclusion and Major be meant thus, the olive-tree is the visible Church only, or the visible as visible under that formal consideration, so as they should be branches who are only in the visible by profession or an outward or­dinance, the Conclusion is denied, and the Major without any reluctancy of conscience. If they be understood of the visible without exclusion of [...]e invisible, so as that the meaning should be (as the words [for can any man believe that the Jews are called naturall branches of the invisible Church only?] do import) the believing Iews were na­tural branches not only of the invisible but also of the visible, and that the Church Paul speaks of under the similitude of the olive-tree was the invisible and also the visible, though not precisely considered as [Page 59] visible, so as the being in, should note admission by an outward ordinance, then I grant the Major and Conclusion as not repugnant to my tenet, who as Mr. B. acknowledgeth confessed that Paul speaks of the Church, not only invisible but visible also.

Mr. B. addes. I prove the major therefore thus: If Paul here speak of the main body of the Iewish nation, and that body were all members of the visible, but not of the invisible Church, then is it the visible Church, and that most directly that Paul here speaks of: But Paul here speaks of the main body of the Iewish nation, who were all members of the visible Church, but not all of the invisible: there­fore it is the visible Church, and that most directly that Paul here speaks of. Me thinks this is plain: can any man imagin that Paul speaks only of the Elect Iews, who only are members of the invisible Church? that they are cut off, that we might be graft into the invisible Church in their place? This argument might prove the main by it self.

Answ. Mr. B. undertook to prove the major of the former syl­logism, but as a man hasty to utter himself, heedlesly forgets what was to be proved, and instead of proving the major [that Church whereof the Iews were naturall branches, was the visible Church] he proves the Conclusion, with some addition, that it is the visible Church, and that most directly that Paul here speaks of. What he means by [most directly] and where it is that Paul speaks of the main body of the Iews, who are all members of the visible Church, but not all of the invisi­ble, by reason of his obscurity, whether affected or through heedles­ness, I am put to ghess. I think he means not v. 20. alleged in the be­ginning of the chapter, though that be the place in question, of which alone can be meant those words [but I will give you divers plain argu­ments from the text to prove that Paul speaks here of the visible Church] now the text mentioned next before is v. 20. But I know no word in that verse that expresly mentions any term answering to the Church: and however the branches by unbelief broken off, were the main body of the Iewish nation, and in that it is said they were broken off is implied the olive, that is the Church, yet most directly or in the first place they were broken off from the invisible Church of true belie­vers: for they were broken off by unbelief, and were none of them of the visible Church of Christians, for they were professed unbelievers; nor can the visible Church be meant of the Jewish in opposition to the Christian: for from that they were not broken off, but continued in by unbelief, or rather were that Church it self, and therefore could not be said in any good congruity of speech to be broken from it. But it [Page 60] is more likely he means v. 24. produced when he concludes [it is the visible Church Paul here speaks of] For there is mention of the na­turall branches, not v. 20. However the Reader may observe how heedlesly he writes, who undertaking to prove from v. 24. that Paul speaks v. 20. of the visible Church, concludes not at all that Paul v. 20. speaks of the visible Church, but from v. 24. concludes hat there, to wit v. 24. (which was not to be proved) Paul speaks of the visible Church. Yet to that place his words cannot well be fitted. For if he mean by [here] v. 24. he saies not right, that [Paul speaks of the main body of the Jewish Nation, who were all members of the visible Church, but not all of the invisible.] For though he speak of the main body of the Jewish Nation, yet he doth not speak v. 24. of the main body of the Jewish Nation that [were] members of the visi­ble Church, but of them that shall be hereafter engraffed into their own Olive, And of these it is false that they shall be all members of the vi­sible Church, but not all of the invisible: for they all that shall be in­graffed shall be saved, v. 26. There is one thing here by the way to be observed, that when he saies, that Paul speaks here of the visible Church, an ordinary reader would imagine that he meant of the visi­ble Church Christian, for who would imagine that Mr. B. should conceive Paul maketh it a matter to be feared to be broken off from the visible Church Jewish, as he doth v. 20, 21. or that he should conceive it were such a mercy to the Gentiles, a wild Olive, to be graf­fed into the visible Church Jewish? Yet both his words Chap. 7. [the Apostle saith it of the Jewish Church, that it was but some that were broken off from this Church] and here [the main body of the Jewish Nation were all members of the visible Church] which can be true onely of the visible Church Jewish even after they rejected Christ, shew it to be his meaning: which what absurdities it draws with it, hath been in part shewed before: Here onely I note it that Mr. Bs confusedness and darkness in this may be discerned. But to return. I should have thought that I had found the words Mr. B. means when he saies [Paul speaks here of the visible Church] were it not that the words whereby he confirms his argument [me thinks this is plain: can any man imagine, that Paul speaks onely of the elect Iews, who only are members of the invisible Church? that they are cut off that we might be graft into the invisible Church in their place?] do intimate the place to be v. 17. alleged by him ch. 7. Now if he mean that place, I answer him if he ask for my imagination it is this, that Paul is so far from speaking of the elect Iews, who only are members of [Page 61] the invisible Church, that they are cut off, that we might begraft into the invisible Church in their place, that I think he speaks of the reprobate Iews, who were cut off from the invisible Church of true believers by not giving them faith, that we might be graffed in [...], for or in­stead of them, or in their place, as Beza, that is the place which they should in course have had, if they had continued in the faith as their ancestors did. And thus whereas Mr. B. saith, that this argument might prove the main by it self, I have shewed his magnified dispute to be so mis-shapen, that it can serve only to prove this one thing, which the Reader needs observe, that Mr. Bs. disputes seem somewhat afar off, but at a nearer view are shapeless and feeble lumps, hastily brought forth, but never licked over with any acurate study. But however it is my task to examine them, and I proceed.

Mr. B. addes. Further thus: If there be none known to us to be of the invisible Church immediately, but by first knowing them to be of the visible, then it must be principally or first the visible Church whereof Paul saith, the Iews were natural branches. But the former is true, therefore the later. Who dare say that Paul spake here from some revelation extraordinary when he calleth the Iews naturall branches? But if it had been of the invisible Church directly, Paul could have known no man to be a member of that but by extra­ordinary revelation.

Answ. If the Conclusion be granted it hurts not me, who never de­nied that the natural branches mentioned v. 24. shall be graffed into the visible Church, nor do any where meddle with it as any thing materi­al whether they are first or principally of the visible or invisible Church. The thing to be proved is, that any of the ingraffed branches v. 24. shall be bare visible Church-members, or that their ingraffing shall be onely by an outward ordinance into the visible Church, or that Paul speaks of any other ingraffing or breaking off than in or from the invi­sible Church by giving or not giving faith according to election and re­probation. Yet to shew how sleightly Mr. B. argues, 1. It is to be observed that there is no connexion between the antecedent and con­sequent, there being no necessity that Paul should speak there v. 24. of that which is first known. 2. There is as little necessity that Paul must not speak that of the Iews which is not known to us immediately, but by first knowing them to be of the visible Church. As for the question, who dare say that Paul spake v. 24. from some revelation extraordinary, when he calleth the Iews naturall branches? Answ. To know the Iews to be natural branches requires no extraordinary re­velation, [Page 62] it's known by their descent: but if the meaning be, who dare say that Paul knew by extraordinary revelation, that these na­tural branches should be graffed in again into the invisible Church? I reply, who dare say otherwise, that acknowledgeth he wrote by in­spiration of the Spirit, that which is a prophecy, and he calls a mystery, v. 25?

Mr. B. adds. Further I argued thus: (but chiefly ad hominem, because Mr. T. stands so much on Rom. 9. 7.) If the Iews were not natu­rall branches of the invisible Church directly, but onely of the visible, then it is the visible Church that Paul here calls them natural branches of: But the Jews were not naturall branches of the invisible Church directly: Therefore it is the visible Church that Paul here speaks of. Mr. T. denied the minor, which I proved out of Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8. They are not all Israel which are of Israel (but they were all natural branches) neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called; that is, they which are children of the flesh, these are not the children of God (therefore not naturall branches of the invisible Church) but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. To this Mr. T. answered by a learned distinction [that they were the natural branches of the invisible Church, but not by nature.] To which I repli­ed, that the very express words of the text v. 24. of Rom. 11. confuteth his distinction, using both terms [naturall and by nature] He then added [that as men they were of Abraham, and so were naturall; but not as branches] Ah, what a pack of poor shifts are here? 1. The Apostle speaks of naturall branches, and not naturall men? 2. He opposeth them to the Gentiles, who were naturall men as well as the Iews; but not naturall branches. The rest of the heap of words that were here used, had no senee in them that I could understand, and you shall find them in the dispute if published.

To which I reply (though it be answered in my praecursor in clear­ing my self from the 14^th absurdity in the dispute, which Mr. B. would fasten on me) The term branches in the Apostle v. 17, 18, notes two races of men, which had a state in the olive (which is the Church of true believers) and were from the root of Abraham, the one were men descended by natural generation, and therefore called naturall branches and the olive their own, as being firstly from Abraham the Church of believers) the other Gentils who were a wild olive by nature, that is a race of men descended from Idolaters, & by preaching the Gospel being made believers, were graffed into the good olive besides nature [Page 63] and so were branches partaking of Abraham as a Spiritual Father, and the blessings of the oliv [...]-tree called its fatness, to wit, the promises of Gospel-remission of si [...]s, adoption, &c. The natural branches, to wit, the most part of the Iewish na [...]ion being broken off from that station in the olive their Ancestors had, through their unbelief: yet so as that at length these through the power of God in some of their posterity shall be brought to the faith of Christ, and again ingraffed into the olive­tree, the Church of believers, which is not meerly the visible, but al­so the invisible. Now to Mr. B [...]. arguments I answer. That the Iews were neither natural branches of the invisible Church, nor of the visible directly in this sense as they were by nature descended from Abraham, so as that all descended from Abraham, by Isaac and Iacob, must be Church-members, either invisible or visible: yet they are naturall branches of the visible and invisible in contradistinction to the Gentiles, who were also branches, but not naturall, but besides nature. In a word, the Iews are called naturall branches not to imply the cause of their being branches in the olive, that is members in the invisible Church; for they were by the same cause both Iews and Gentiles a­like in the invisible Church, to wit, by election of grace and by faith, v. 20. but to note their originall in birth, and so to difference their descent from the Gentile-christians descent. The text Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8. doth not say the elect Iews were not naturall branches of the invisible Church, as [naturall] notes not a cause of being branches in the invi­sible Church, but a bare qualification of the persons that are branches, in which sense I take it. The distinction I gave was right. The elect Iews were natural branches of the invisible Church as [naturall] notes onely a qualification of their persons in respect of their descent: and yet not [by nature] as the cause of their being branches of the invisible Church. There are no words v. 24. that confute this distincti­on: though in our translation there is [by nature] and [naturall] v. 24. yet it is, in both in Greek [ [...], in according to nature] in neither [ [...], by nature] as the cause, nor is that [by nature] in the translation said of the Iews, but of the Gentiles, that they were a wild-olive by nature or according to nature, that is according to their descent from their ancestors, who were Idolaters. What I added was right, that the natural branches were [naturall] as men from Abraham, but not as [branches] to wit of the invisible Church. Nor are these poor shifts, but the reply to them is poor. The Apostle, saith Mr. B. speaks of natural branches, and not naturall men. To which I return. I presume Mr. B. doth not conceive the branches were boughes of a tree [Page 64] without a Metaphor: that were to imagine a metamorphosis of Iews into boughs of trees like to those in Ovids fables: and if the speech be borrowed, I know no other meaning in the Apostle by naturall branches, but naturall men descended from Abraham by nature, and so the Gentiles were not naturall men as the Iews were. If any thing fell from me in the dispute which was not good sense, Mr. B. might have had so much humanity as to let it pass as from humane infirmity: And perhaps if Mr. B. had been to speak without premeditation, and with such altercation of words as were then, he would have uttered words as em­pty of sense as mine. Some things have been counted absurd and non­sense by Mr. B. through defect of his own understanding. This answer of mine will I doubt not vindicate me and the truth, if I meet with can­did Readers: if not, I expect but what I have found, nothing but injurious censures, and contempts. The words of my Examen pag. 108. if I were to reprint that book, I would alter, and not say that the term [naturall branches] did import, that they had this privilege to be reckoned in the outward administration as branches of the olive-tree by their birth. For though I deny not that they had that priviledge of being members of the Iewish Church by their birth, yet I would not say, it were imported by the term [these according to nature] because I now think it imports only their descent by natural generation from Abraham: which is a plain an­swer without shifting. Mr. B. saith. Furthermore I adde: those that were not branches of the invisible Church at all, were neither na­turally, nor by nature branches of it: But many thousand Iews were no branches of that Church at all: And those that Paul saith Rom. 9. 8. [that they were not the children of God because the seed of A­braham] then they were not members of the invisible Church, either naturally or by nature: but yet they were members or natural branches of the visible Church, as the seed of Abraham, because the Cove­nant made over that privilege to his seed.

An. It is granted that many thousand Iews were neither naturally, nor by nature branches of the invisible Church, and that Rom. 9. 8. proves it: And this is a good argument for me to prove that the Covenant of grace was never made to Abraham and his naturall seed, though that be the basis of the Paedobaptists tenet for Infant-baptism. But if Mr. B. would have proved any thing to the present purpose, he should have proved that some of the elect believing Iews were not naturall branches of the invisible Church. But whereas he saith, yet all the Iews were members or naturall branches of the visible, as the seed of Abraham, because the Covenant made over that privilege to his [Page 65] seed, if he mean by [the visible Church] the visible Church of Christi­ans (of which alone is the question) and [the seed of Abraham] his na­turall seed, it is not true: nor was there ever any Covenant by which God bound himself perpetually to make over that privilege to Abra­hams natural seed to be members of his visible Church, much less of the visible Church of Christians; the Apostle Rom. 10. 19, 20, 21. proves the contrary. It is granted that the infant-Iews were because of their naturall desceat reckoned as part of the congregation of Isra­el, who were the v [...]sible Church of God, till the body of the Iewish people, their Priests, Lawyers, Rulers, and the generality of the commons did reject Christ, and so they continued after, and do at this day members of the Iewish Church. But this they have not by pri­viledge, but by curse, and it comes not from Gods Covenant, but their Unbelief, and is so farre from making them branches of the olive, that indeed their continuing members of the Iewish Church opposite to the Christian, shews they are broken off till they be re-ingraffed into their own olive.

2. Saith Mr. B. I further prove that Paul speaks here of the vi­sible Church, thus. If the breaking off be visible, then it must needs be from the visible Church (yea and directly from it alone) But the breaking off the Jews was visible; therefore it must needs be from the visible Church. The antecedent (that it was a visible breaking off) I prove thus, From Rom. 11. 22. Behold the goodness and severity of the Lord, on them which fell severity, &c. That breaking off wherein Gods severity was to be beheld by the Gentiles, was sure visible: But this was such a breaking off, wherein the severity of God was to be beheld by the Gentiles: therefore it was visible. Paul would not call them to behold that which could not be seen. 2. That breaking off which the Gentiles were in such danger of boasting of a­gainst the Jews must needs be visible (For they would not boast of that which was undiscernable). But this was such as appears ver. 18. 20. Boast not against the branches: be not high-minded, but fear. Yea, 3. Paul himself could not else have known that the Jews were broken off, but by revelation extraordinary, except it had been a visible breaking off: therefore certainly the breaking off was vi­ble. 2. And then the Consequence is evident (that if the breaking off be visible, it must needs be from the visible Church) For to be visi­bly broken off is to be visibly removed from the terminus a quo (or the Church from which they are broken) But there can be no visible removal or distance from an invisible terminus: therefore there can be no visible [Page 66] removall from an invisible Church, and consequently it is the visible Church which they are directly visibly broken off from: Though it's true, that their breaking off from the invisible Church, may from thence in the second place be rationally concluded.

Answ. Mr. P. in this argument would prove that the breaking off Rom. 11. v. 17, 19, 20. must needs be from the visible Church, yea, and directly from it alone, though their breaking off from the invisible Church may from thence in the second place be rationally con­cluded, and yet his sixth argument is to prove that the breaking off must be from the visible Church, because there is no breaking off from the invisible. How can breaking off from the invisible be ratio­nally concluded, which cannot be? This tome seems a contradiction. But to the argument. The visible Church is either of the Iewish Nation, oppo­site to the Christians, or the visible church of christians consisting of Iews and Gentiles owning [...]hrist: The visible breaking off is either by an Ecclesiastical censure, as Anathematizing, or Casting out by Ex­communication, or such like, or else by their own act of Apostasy from the Christian Communion. Had Mr. B. distinctly told us from which of these visible Churches, and by which of the acts the visible breaking off is of which he speaks, my answer might have been shorter and more easie. But I am sure none of them is the truth; not from the visible Church of the Jews, for the unbeliving-Jews stood still in it, and the believing-Iews were broken off from it: not from the visible Church of Christians by an Ecclesiastical censure, for they were never within, and therefore not liable to it, according to that 1 Cor. 5. 12. what have I to do to judge them that are without? nor by their revolt from the Christian Communion, for they were never joyned to it, and yet that only is opposite to Mr. Bs. purpose as being directly opposite to admission by a visible ordinance, which is the thing contended for in behalf of in­fants: nor was the visible breaking off any other act of theirs: For though it is true, they were broken off by their not believing, v. 20. yet the breaking off was not their visible act, but Gods, he brake them off, he spared not the naturall branches, v. 21. it was his [...], v. 22. his cuttingness, sharpness, or as it is translated severity, and therefore it was a judiciall act of his according to his purpose of re­probation, which brake them off from the invisible Church of Gods Elect, who are a certain body having an existence in all ages; and because they were after Abraham the root for many ages in a sort ap­propriate to the Common-wealth of Israel, therefore called their own olive, yet not as a rock that abides the same, but as a river which is [Page 67] in flux, some water coming, other water flowing away though the same river, yet I say, that the Iews when they were broken off from the invisible Church, they also by consequent did break themselves off from the visible Church of Christians by denying Christ, and persecut­ing Christians. But the act of breaking off Rom. 11. 17. &c. taken formally and precisely, notes only Gods judiciall act of blinding and hardning, or his not giving faith according to his purpose of reproba­tion. Now to the argument I answer, 1. Concerning the antece­dent I distinguish: The breaking off the Apostle speaks of may be said to be visible, either in it self, or as the Schools speak in the act, as when David slew Goliath, or in the effect or consequent of it, as when the Angel of the Lord slew Senacheribs hoste. If the antecendent be understood of visible breaking off the former way, I deny it, if the la­ter way, I grant the antecedent, that it was a visible breaking off in the Consequent their denying Christ, as the conversion of the Ephesians, by the Spirit of God was invisible in the act by a secret work like the winds blowing, John 3. 8. upon their hearts, yet it was visible in the effect the burning their books, Acts 19. 19. Now if Mr. B. mean it of this visibility, I deny the Consequent. And to his several argu­ments I answer. To the first. The term [ [...] Rom. 11. 22.] is often used concerning that which is not visible in the Act, but in the Conse­quent, 1 John 3. 1. John 11. 36. &c. and so Paul might call them to behold that which could not be seen in it self, but in the Consequent. And yet the truth is, the thing the Apostle calls on them to behold is not the act of breaking off, for that is presupposed as known, but the good­ness and severity of God, which can be seen only in the Effects or Con­sequents. The same answer serves to the second argument: they might boast of that which was not visible in it self, but in the Consequent, though it seems to me Mr. B. takes [visible] for any thing that may be known by any way of discerning without extraordinary revelation, whereas that only is visible which is to be discerned by sense, as it is u­sually taken in the dispute about the visible Church: otherwise visible and invisible might be confounded, a member of the invisible Church being discernable by reason or faith, though not by sense. To the 3d. Paul might know that the Iewish people were broken off by their obstinate continued gainsaying and persecuting christianity, yet the brea­king off be from the invisible Church, and an act in it self invisible. Nevertheless I make no question but Paul knew their breaking off by special revelation. For it is termed by him a mystery Rom. 11. 25. and as a Prophet he foretells their restitution. If the visible breaking [Page 68] off be so termed in respect of the Consequent as being visible in the e­vent, I deny the Consequence. For a breaking off from the invisible Church, may be visible in the Consequent, though not in the act it self. Yea to shew you how weak Mr. Bs. Consequence is, though it were true that the act of breaking off were visible in it self, yet it fol­lows not that the Church from which the breaking off is, must be the visible. For it is not true which he saith, there can be no visible re­movall or distance from an invisible terminus. In locall motion if an Angel be present at a place as Luke 2. 9. he may be said to be a ter­minus à quo, when the person departs from the Angel, the motion vi­sible from an invisible term. But it is much more manifest in morall and legall removals, as when men depart from God by serving Idols, by express renouncing God as Job 22. 17. when Christ declared Iudas to be a son of perdition, Iohn 17. 12. there was a visible breaking off from the invisible Church.

Mr. B. proceeds. 3. Again: The Conclusion before-said I prove thus: (viz. That Paul here speaks of their breaking off from the visible Church) If every visible breaking off from the invisible Church be also a visible breaking off from the visible Church: then the breaking off which Paul here mentioneth must be from both (if it be from the invisible) but the former is certain, therefore the la­ter: The Antecedent I prove thus. To be visibly broken off from the visible Church is to be visibly out of Covenant with God, out of his favour, and in a known state of damnation; (I speak not here of casting out of one particular Church onely, or with limitation or of meer non-communion) but all that are visibly out of Covenant with God, and out of his favour, in a state of damnation, are visibly broken off also from the visible Church; (I will not dispute whether de facto or onely de jure, whether in se or quo ad nos:) therefore breaking off visibly from the visible Church is inseparable from visible breaking off from the invisible: (nay, it is the same thing in another notion.)

An. M. B. seems to conceive a visible breaking off from the visi­ble Church which may be de jure, and not de facto, in se, and not quoad nos: but I conceive there is no visible breaking off from the visi­ble Church but it is alwaies de facto and quo ad nos: but this onely by the way. The Conclusion M. B. infers is, that the breaking off which Paul mentions Rom. 11. 17, 19, 20. must be both from the visible and invisible Church (if it be from the invisible) concern­ing which I have often granted that the Jews mentioned under the term [branches] Rom. 11. 17, 19, 20. were broken off from the invi­sible [Page 69] Church of true believers, and the visible Church of professors of true faith: but that the phrase imports breaking off from the invisible formally, the breaking off from the visible follow'd on the breaking off from the invisible. But for the Argument I deny the consequence. For though every visible breaking off from the invisible Church were also a breaking off from the visible Church, yet the breaking off which Paul here mentions is not thereby proved to be from both, till it be proved that the breaking off Paul mentions was visible in the act, and not onely in the consequence of it, which is not yet done. Nor in­deed doth M. B. offer to prove this consequence, but supposeth it as if it were proved before, to which I have here answered. As for the proof of his Antecedent, it is not true which he saith, that breaking off visibly from the visible Church is inseparable from visible breaking off from the invisible, much less that it is the same thing in another noti­on, nor that all that are visibly out of Covenant with God, and out of his favour in a state of damnation, are visibly broken off also from the visible Church. For a person who is excommunicated for a seeming contumacy in evil or error, but mistaken, is visibly broken off from the visible Church, and yet not from the invisible; and a person that lives in a state of impenitency in some gross sin, or damnable error, and yet is not excommunicated (which experience shews may happen, from many causes) is visibly broken of from the invisible by his open evil life, yet not from the visible in which he still continues. Nor can the visible breaking off from the invisible, be the same thing with visible breaking off from the visible, sith there may be a visible break­ing of from the visible meerly by the censure of others, but no visible breaking off from the invisible, but either by a visible declaration of God, or some visible act of the person of Apostacy, deniall of faith, open impenitency, and contumacy in error or sin that cannot stand with true grace. But Mr. B. adds, Further if God should break of from the invisible Church onely and directly, then it would be by an invi­sible act: But this was by a visible act: therefore it was from the vi­sible Church.

To which I answer, The Minor is that which is to be proved, yet not a word brought to prove it. Yea all along the chapter the act of God by which the Jews were broken off is expressed by terms that note invisible acts of God in themselves, though in the consequent visible: as rejecting, v. 1, 2. blinding or hardning, v. 7. giving a spirit of slumber, eies that they should not see, and eans that they should not hear v. 8. making their table a snare v. 9. darkning their eies not to [Page 70] see v. 10. casting away v. 15. which either note the immanent act of Gods reprobation or the not giving of faith, which is visible onely in consequent not in the act.

Mr. B. goes on. 4. Again you have heard before from v. 17. That God broke off but some of the Jews, and so the rest remained in the Church: now if some remain in the invisible Church, then much more in the visible, for if God should break off all from the visible Church, and but some from the invisible, then he should take those for his true servants and in a state of salvation, who do neither profess to be his servants, nor are in Covenant with him; but the consequence is absurd, therefore so is the Antecedent.

To which I answer, I grant his Conclusion, that they which remained in the invisible, to wit, the remnant according to the election of grace v. 5. of which Paul was one, were also in the visible Church, and that they who by harding or blinding were broken off from the invisi­ble Church were also broken off from the visible: But all the questi­on is what the terms [breaking off and ingraffing] import in those places v. 17, 19, 20, 23. whether a breaking off from the invisi­ble by not giving faith according to reprobation, and an ingraffing into the invisible by giving it according to election, or breaking of direct­ly from the visible alone, which is wont to be by some Church-censure, and the engraffing into the visible alone directly by an initiall seal. Now this later is not proved by proving they were in the visible Church as well as in the invisible, no more than it is proved that the calling Ro 8. 30. doth note their outward calling, because they that were in­wardly called were also outwardly called. The rule in Logick is true, that quae conveniunt in eodem subjecto non sunt eadem formaliter. Yet because there is something observable in that which follows I shall examine it. That this absurd consequence (saith Mr. B.) would fol­low appears thus, from the nature and properties of both sorts of Church-members: for visible being in Covenant or professing true Religion (explicitly or implicitly) makes a visible member; and sin­cerity in the Covenant makes a member as invisible; and all these are in the state of salvation: now to say that one is a member of the invi­sible Church, and not of the visible, is to say, he is sincere in the Co­venant which he is not known to be in at all; and that he is in a state of salvation before he be in a state of common profession, or any thing equivalent, which is absurd. And I shall shew you afterward, that without this abjurdity Mr. T. cannot in his way affirm that any Infant is saved.

To which I answer. Mr. B. supposeth an implicite profession of true Religion or some thing equivalent to common profession makes a visible Church-member. The implicite profession, and the thing equivalent to common profession is the parents real actuall believing in Mr. Bs. judgement, as his words ch. 29. shew, or some ones who hath the disposing of a person. But we must take this upon Mr. Bs. word, that in the Christian Church parents reall actuall believing is equivalent to the infants explicite profession to make it a visible Church-member. No Scripture saies so, nor is it much unlike to the Popish doctrine of the Colliers implicite faith in the Church as sufficient to save and to ad­mit into Church-Commnnion, though the person himself know no­thing of Christ. Credit in altero qxi peccavit in altero, is a saying of Augustin without proof. The invisible Church is sometimes de­scribed the number of elect persons, according to Heb. 12. 23. The Church of the first-born, which are written in heaven. And so all elect persons are members of the invisible Church though unborn, or if born yet either make no profession or profess contrary to the faith, and so are no visible Church-members of Christ, but visibly members of Satans Kingdome for the present: nor are all such members of the in­visible Church in the state of salvation for the present. But because as Dr. Ames Med. Th. lib. 1. c. 31. sect. 4. 5. the elect afore they are ingraffed in Christ are not actually, but onely in possibility in the Church, therefore that definition of the invisible is of it not as ex­isting actually onely, but also as future, therefore others define it, a company of true believers elect. But then this must be understood of true believers in the seed or extraordinary exercise of faith, or else infants will be excluded, which must be acknowledged to be true of infants in the womb, or else all they be out of the invisible Church: But infants in the womb cannot be said to be visible Church members before they be visi­ble men, therfore it follows, that one is a mēber of the invisible Church and not of the visible, and in the state of salvation afore he be in a state of common profession, or any thing equivalent, which Mr. B. counts absurd. And thus without any absurdity Mr. T. can in his way af­firm that many infants are saved, and yet deny them visible Church­membership. And for what Mr. B. tells us, he shall shew afterward when I come to examine ch. 27. of this book of his. I doubt not to shew the vanity of his arguing grounded upon his mistake, that to be a visible Church-member is to seem to be of the invisible according to a judgement of probability without any visible act of theirs, and that by denying infants visible Church-membership we deny the seem­ing [Page 72] though but in a judgement of probability to be of the invisible, and consequently we can have no true ground of hope of their salvation. Which is falsely by him ascribed to me, who do take visible Church-membership to be that which is discernable to sense, and deny not a probability of infants being elect, but expressely grant it, and that from thence there is a good ground of hope of the salvation of infants, though none of them be visible Church-members of the Christian Church, which consists not of a nation by generation, but of disciples made by preaching of the Gospel. But I must follow Mr. B. who thus pro­ceeds.

5. Again you heard before, that they were broken off only for unbe­lief: now if unbelief onely break off from the invisible Church; then it onely breaks off from the visible; and therefore it must needs fol­low both that the visible Church is also here meant, and that none but for unbelief are broken off from one (rightly) any more then from the other: (I run over these hastily, because I would have done with this which is so plain already.)

Answ. It seems Mr. B. doth run over things hastily, because for the most part like Ahimaaz he runs without his errand. Canis festi­nans caecos parit catulos. But if he would have done with that point, why did he trouble the reader with his medium, which is the same he urged before, and so hath answer before? To which I adde, that it is not said by the Apostle, that the Iews were broken off onely for un­belief, much less that none are broken off but for their own unbelief, such as was in the Iews; nor if it were granted, will it follow, that if unbelief onely break off from the invisible Church, then it only breaks off from the visible. For there may be a breaking off of true believers from the visible Church, by a just Excommunication. Nor doth it fol­low that by the olive-tree must be meant the visible Church, as visi­ble consisting of good and bad, or that none but for unbelief are broke off from one (rightly) any more than the other. Yea, if this be true, then Excommunication must be taken away. For that breaks not off any such for such unbelief as is meant Rom. 11. 20. which was contrary unbelief of them that voluntarily refused and persecuted the Gospel: now such are not the subject of Excommunication according to the received Exposition of 1 Cor. 5. 12. And if none but for unbe­lief are rightly broken off from the visible Church, then it is against right that any professed believer be Excommunicated though he be scandalous: which overthrows the use, and condemns the practice of of Excommunication by taking away the subject of it. But Mr. Bs. [Page 73] dictates deserve not so many words to refute them, saving for the cre­dit he hath gotten among the inconsiderate, to the prejudice of the truth.

6. Lastly, saith M. B. I argue thus. That Church which men may be and are broken off from, is the visible Church (for Mr. T. will confess that no man is broken off from the invisible Church): But this Church is it that men (the Jews) were broken off from: ther­fore this is the visible Church. Mr. T. hath 2. answers to this, 1. That they are broken off in appearance, as those branches in John 15. 2. are said to be in Christ in appearance: But this is to adde error to error. It is bold expounding to say, that when Christ saith they were branches in him, the meaning was, they were not in him, but onely seemed so; They were really in Christs visible body. To which I reply, the interpretation if it be bold, yet it should be favourably censured for Chamiers sake whom I cite in my Apology page 76. and other Protestant authors as thus using it. Nor indeed is Mr. Bs. sense any other than it. For Mr. Bs. being in the visible body of Christ re­ally is no other than the being in Christ in appearance, not in reality as before God, as Rom. 8. 1. it is taken. So that in that answer is no adding error to error. But because the other answer is that I stick to, let's see what Mr. B. saies to it. But 2. (saith Mr. B.) This answer in his Apology he after dislikes upon the discovery of one that he thinks better, viz. That it is the Collective body of the Jews, not ta­ken as at that one time, but as the river that runs to day, is the same river that ran long ago, though not the same water. But this shift will never serve his turn. 1. For if the Church be constituted of in­dividuall persons, then if none of those individuall persons were broken off, the Church was not broken off: But the Church is constituted or composed of individuall persons, therefore if none of them be broken off, then the Church is not broken off: (but that is false.)

An. Mr. B. hath so imperfectly and obscurely set down my answer, that the Reader without looking into my Apology page 76. will not rightly understand it. For 1. the Subject of the proposition in my an­swer, as he sets it down is [it] by which it is uncertain whether he mean the Olive-tree or the branches, the Church invisible or the peo­ple of the Jews who are branches from Abraham, and are one and the same people though not the same persons in severall generations: this later is my meaning, the former it seems Mr. B. conceived my meaning to be. 2. The Predidicate of my proposition is quite left out, which was [is broken off]. Now he seems to have conceived my [Page 74] answer to be, that the Church is broken of from the invisible Church: whereas my meaning was not that the Church of God is broken off from the invisible Church, but this, that the Nation of the Jews, of which the body or most part in some ages were in the invisibie Church, as branches in the Olive, in a continued succession, in the time of the Apostle that people, to wit, the most part of that Nation, were broken off from the invisible Church or Olive-tree in which that people in the individuall persons of a former age did stand. Now that this is no shift, that by the branches naturall and ingraffed were meant the col­lective bodies of Jews and Gentiles appears by the 6 Arguments Mr. Cobbet in his Just vindic. Part 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 1. proves it by: though I conceive he doth not so fully explicate and adapt the Apostles similitude as had been requisite, as may appear from my answer to M. G. before, and the examination of that chapter in that which follows. But to answer Mr. Bs. arguments, he would prove that the Church (which in a direct opposition to me, should be meant of the invisible) is not broken off, which contradicts not my words, who never said that the Olive-tree, that is the invisible Church of Believers, is broken off: but that the branches, that is the people of the Jews of Pauls time in respect of the greatest number and prevailing party were broken off from the invisible Church, in which were the same people or branches in former generations. Nor do I deny that the Church consists of in­dividuall persons, or that individuall persons were broken off from the invisible Church; but I deny that the branches do note individuall persons as singularly and distributively considered, but collectively as the body of a people, and I say not that the same individuall persons were in the invisible Church, and were broken off from the election, faith, and place they had in the Olive-tree in their own persons: but that the individuall persons of one age, are broken off from that electi­on and faith which the same people had in another age in their proge­nitors.

2. Saith Mr. B. Again, if they were broken of for unbe­lief, then for the unbelief of some particular persons, and consequent­ly it was some individuall persons that for that unbelief were broken off: Now sure God would not break off the Church for the unbelief of any foregoing age, without their own.

An. The Conclusion being granted hurts not me, who speak not of the breaking off a Church, but a people or Nation, and that by the unbelief of particular persons, and those particular persons of that age in which that people were broken off from the invisible Church, though [Page 75] they were not broken off from what those particular persons were afore their breaking off, but from what their Ancestours were.

3. Saith Mr. B. Again, If but some were broken off, then those some must needs be individuall persons, and not all the nation in a sense containing no individuall persons.

Answ. When I say the Jewish Nation broken off, I mean some individual persons, even the greatest part of the individual per­sons of that time, and therefore Mr. B. in this fights with a shadow of his own.

4. saith Mr. B. According to Mr. T. his conceit, they must be in breaking off a long time, at least an age, viz. by the death of all the true believers, and succession of unbelievers: But this was not so; There was a time when the same Church (for the greater part) which was a Church before, did immediately cease to be, viz. when Christ added a new fundamental article to their creed, without which before they might have been saved, but after could not [if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins] They that were of the Church before, immediately upon the rejecting of this article, were all un­churched, this being now made essentiall to their Sonship or Church-membership, and of absolute necessity to their salvation, which was not so before to the same individuall persons: their unbelief which was but negative was now privative. Either they were a Church immediately before this breaking off, or not. If they were not, then they were broken off before this breaking off, and so this could be no breaking off: If they were a Church, then it was individuall persons that were broken off; and consequently it must needs be from the visible Church, seeing from the invisible there is no breaking off in Mr. Ts. own judgement.

Answ. According to my conceit rightly understood, there is no need of such a continued breaking off by the death of some, and suc­cession of other. Their breaking off was as Mr. B. truly saies, when the Jewish people in the generality, chiefly the builders, rejected Christ the corner stone; (which is a good argument to prove the breaking off to be from the invisible Church by unbelief) These persons were not before in the invisible Church, they never looked for the redemp­tion by Christ, as those Luke 2. 38. but trusted in themselves that they were righteous, Luke 18. 9. received honour one of another, and sought the honour that commeth from God only, John 5. 44. It is true they were of the visible Church of the Iews before, but never of the invisible Church of God: The visible Church of the Iews had [Page 76] in it the invisible Church before, which was never broken off. Individual persons, even the greatest part of the Iews in that age were broken off from the invisible, not from what they in their persons were in before, but from what the people of the Iews in foregoing time were. It is not true, that in my judgement their is no breaking off from the invi­sible Church, nor doth it follow if individuall persons be broken off from the Church, it must needs be the visible, not the invisible. And to Mr. Bs. confident affirmation, I return as confident a denial, that either he hath proved, that the Apostle Rom. 11. doth speak of breaking onely, or graffing in only to the visible Church, much less of graffing into, or breaking off from the visible Church of the Iews by an initiall seal, according to the frame of that Church, or of the continu­ing the state of infants with believing parents, as visible members in the Christian visible Church. I follow after Mr. B.

SECT. IX.
Mr. Bs. arguments for Infants visible Church-membership unrepealed from Rom. 11. 17, 19, 24, 26, 27. in chap. 9, 10, 11. of the first part his book are answered.

CHap. 9 My 4^th arg. (saith Mr. B.) to prove Gods ordinance for infants Church-membership is not repealed is from Rom. 11. 24. [how much more shall these which be natural branches be graffed in­to their own olive-tree?] whence I argue thus. If it be into their own olive (even the olive which they were broken off from, and of which they were naturall branches) that the Iews shall be re-ingraffed at their recovery: then Gods ordinance for their infants Church-membership is not repealed. But they shall be re-ingraffed into their own olive; therefore the said ordinance is not repealed. The antecedent is the words of the text. The reason of the Consequence lieth here; in that their own olive is their own Church; and their own Church did ever contain infants as mem­bers: therefore when they are re-ingraffed into their own Church, their infants must needs be re-ingraffed with them. I know nothing that can be said against this, but the old objection of Mr. T. [That it is the invisible Church that is here meant] to which I dare say, I have [Page 77] given an answer sufficient to prove that it is the Church visible. And one more argument to that end let me adde from the text. That Church which is called the Jews own, must needs be the visible Church: But this Church which Paul speaks of was the Iews own; therefore it was the visible. If I thought any would deny that the visible church was more properly called [the Iews own] than the invisible, I would waste some time to prove it; in the mean time I take it for gran­ted.

Answ. The Consequence of this argument is to be denied. Nor doth the reason of it prove it, no not though it were granted the olive noted the Iewish visible Church (which yet is apparently false, sith the Iewish visible Church, is quite taken down by Christ his death, who hath freed us from the law having a shadow of good things to come, Heb. 10. 1.) which had infants Church-members. For nei­ther doth it follow that the same sort of persons shall be ingraffed again, nor have the same way of ingraffing by an initial seal: For this should suppose they are now broken off by uncircumcision, and shall be graffed in again by restoring male-circumcision at the 8th. day of their birth: which are the genuine issues of this exposition of Mr. B. of ingraffing into the visible Church of Iewish infants. If this be a good reason, because the Church into which the Jews at their calling shall be re-in­graffed is their own olive, therefore their infants shall be visible Church-members, they having still infants visible Church-members, then it is a good reason they shall have either the first-born Priests or the Levits, instead of them, one High-priest, &c. because these were in their own visible Church. But my old objection that the ingraffing is into the invisible Church by giving faith according to election stands still, and therefore all these arguments of Mr. B. and others are imper­tinently brought. And as for his additionall argument in this chapter, it is like the rest. The invisible as well as the visible Church is called the Iews own, the reason of that term being neither from the invisibili­ty nor visibility of the Church, but from the Iews peculiar relation to A­braham the root, from whom not only by spiritual imitation of his faith, as the Gentile-believers, but also by natural generation they were de­scended, which the Gentiles had not. And indeed the term [ [...] v. 24. their own or proper olive] opposed to the Gentiles wild olives by nature, must be from some thing peculiar to the Iews, as their proper de­scent from the root, and relation, at least in priority if not in propriety, to the olive from that root, and not barely from the common notion of the Church either as visible or invisible, which do alike belong to [Page 79] Gentiles as well as Iews, who are all alike in Christ Iesus, Gal. 3. 28. Col. 3. 11. And therefore the Major proposition [That church which is called the Iews own must needs be the visible church, meaning it as visible] is rightly denied, and if Mr. B. waste time to prove it, he will but keep his old wont. I follow him.

Ch. 10. My fifth argument (saith he) to prove the ordinance for infants Church-membership not repealed is from the same v. with the 2 following [they shall be graffed into their own olive. Blindness in part is happend to Israel, till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, and so all Israel shall be saved] with a multitude of the like places in Scri­pture which speak of the calling of the Iewish Nation. from whence I argue thus. If all Israel shall be graffed again into their own olive, and all be saved from their off-broken state, then infants shall be graf­fed in and saved with the parents: But the text saith, that all Isra­el shall be graffed in again, and saved from their off-broken state: ther­fore infants shall be graffed in and saved.

Answ. The Conclusion is granted: but this proves nothing to the present question, except it be against Mr. B. For that which he is to prove is, that infants shall be accounted members of the visible Church at the calling of the Iewish nation, and graffed in by an initiall seal: but the Conclusion is for me: For the graffing in which is accompanied with salvation is by giving faith according to election, and is of none but true believers or elect persons. As for the phrase of saving from their off-broken state, if Mr. B. mean by it as it's likely, to be saved onely from their not being a visible Church, it is a manifest abuse of the Apostle, who as appears v. 26, 27. understands such a saving as turns away ungodliness, and takes away sin, which is by giving faith ac­cording to election.

But Mr. B. tells us thus. I know but two things that can be said against this. First some may say that by all Israel is meant some onely, excluding all infants. To which I answer. I had rather say as God saith, than as they that thus contradict him: upon such expositi­ons you may contradict any thing in the Bible as well as this. If God say all, at least I think it is the safest way to beleive it is all. But me thinks those men should not reject the plain letter of Scripture, that so exclaim against us from want of plain Scripture.

Answ. Though we be not necessitated to expound [all Israel Rom. 11. 26.) by some only, excluding all infants, yet they that exclaim against paedobaptists for want of plain scripture for infant-baptism may do it justly: nor are they to be charged with rejecting the plain letter [Page 78] of Scripture, or contradicting God, or saying otherwise than he saith, or opening a way to contradict any thing in the Bible as well as this, who expound [all] by a great part, not including every man woman and child descended from Adam or from Israel.

Sure I am all those Ancients, and later Protestant Divines (who are exceeding many) who in the point of universall grace and redemption do expound in many Scriptures [all] of a limited universality, or a great part, and those in particular that so expound [all Rom. 11. 26.] must be chargeable with all these evils, if Mr. Bs. censures be right. But I am not now a whit moved by Mr. Bs harsh expressions, being well acquainted with his rashness and vanity, though I did not Imagine half so much inconsiderateness in him before I read this Book of his as I have done since. But for the thing it self Rom. 11. 32. It is said that he might have mercy on [all] will Mr. B. say [all] notes eve­ry man woman and child? The like may be said Rom. 5. 18. John 12. 32. &c. They that please to see instances of the word [all] limited to a select number may find many in Mr. Rutherfurds Ser­mons on John 12. 27. &c: from page 400 to 410. As neer as I can ghess by my reading the Bible, the places wherein [all] is taken for eve­ry particular dictributively are fewer than those wherein it is taken Sy­nechdochically for some, though many, or with some limitation. And I may justly retort on Mr. B. his words, that he that will expound [all] by every particular individual, shall be necessitated to reject to the plain letter of the Scripture, to contradict God, and open a way to contradict many things in the Bible, yea, and pervert I am assured all sorts of writers sacred and profane: But enough of this wild passage of Mr. B: though it is necessary considering the advantage it gives to the tenet of universal redemption. But Mr. B. addes. 2. Paul saith not all be­lievers, but [all Israel] shewing fully that it will be a national recove­ry. Now if you can prove that any are excepted: yet if it be national, certainly infants are part of the Nation; and it is not the Nation if all the infants be excluded.

Answ. I conceive that [all Israel Rom. 11. 26. imports a Natio­nal recovery; nor do I go about to prove the sort of infants excluded: yet do I not think that [all Israel] notes every Iew whatsoever, but the fulness of them, as Beza observes in his annot. in locum. But Mr. Bs reasoning however is most vain, that because infants are a part of a nation, therefore where any thing is said of a nation it is appliable to infants. I will not now repeat what is to be seen in my Postscript to my Apology s. 14. in answer to Mr. Blake, who objects the same. I [Page 80] need go no further than the same Epistle to the Romans ch. 15. in which the word we translate Gentiles, that is Nations, is used 10. times, and I think he that reads the chapter with any consideration will con­fess that scarse in any of those 10 the things said of Nations can be un­derstood of infan [...]s. The like may be said of many other places, but I shall reserve them till I examine Mr. Bs. and others ridiculous expo­sitions of Mat. 28. 19. to prove infants discipleship and baptism thence. I go after Mr. B.

2. (Saith he) If the old [...]bjection (that it is the invisible Church) be brought in by Mr. T. besides what is said against it already, I yet further adde from the text this strong argument. That Church which all Israel shall be saved into or re-ingraffed or recovered into is the visible and not the invisible Church: but this Church which Paul speaks of is it which all Israel shall be saved or re-ingraffed into: there­fore it is the visible and not the invisible Church.

Answ. The phrase of saving into a Church visible or invisible is Mr. Bs. own, not the Apostles, nor any ap roved writers that I know: nor is it I conceive good sense: Being in the Church as in Noahs Ark preceding salvation, whereas that phrase makes salvation to precede, and the Church to be the terminus to which it tends. Therefore laying aside that phrase, I confess the medium Mr. B. useth yields a strong argument, but not for his Conclusion but mine, and is my sixth argu­ment in my Apology pag. 73. to prove that the ingrassing is into the invisible Church, which is so manifest, that whereas Mr. B. saith of me, I can hardly imagine Mr. T. so charitable, as to say that all Israel men women and children shall be certainly saved eternally, as they must be if they be saved into the invisible Church, I reply, 1. That I perceive Mr. B. when he wrote this, did not heed my words in the place of my Apology last quoted, else he would never have suggest­ed this of me. 2. That I could hardly imagine Mr. B. so inconside­rate, but that I find it so, as to conceive that those of whom it is said Rom. 11. 26. that they shall be saved v. 27. be turned from un­godliness, have their sins taken away, should not be ingraffed into the invisible Church of Gods elect and true believers: which will in­ferre, that there shall be some turned from ungodliness, have their sins taken away according to Gods covenant with them, and b [...] saved, who are not elect or true believers, which Arminians themselves I think will disclaim, and all save such as incline to Origens reputed o­pinion of saving all at last.

But Mr. B. addes. If he should so judge, yet at least this will hold, [Page 81] that if the whole Nation, infants and all, be so visibly saved into the Church invisible, then they are much more saved into the Church visible. But according to Mr. T. all Israel shall be saved into the Church invisible, therefore much more into the Church visi­ble.

Answ. 1. Mr. B. puts upon me such expressions as I count little better than non-sense, of saving into the invisible and visible Church: which would intimate the saving Rom. 11. 26. to antecede their be­ing in the invisible Church, which I conceive follows on it. 2. In his Major conditional proposition in the antecedent the term is [so visibly saved] which is not so expressed in the Minor, and thereforethe Syllo­gism is illogicall, having four terms. But if the argument were recti­fied thus or to like purpose, If the infants shall be saved or ingraffed into the invisible Church, much more into the visible, I would deny this argument if it be applied to infants in their infancy. For the one may agree to them, and not the other. And if it were good, it would prove that either abortives and still-born infants are not of the invisible Church, or else must be in the visible: which is to me no small absur­dity. And whereas Mr. B. wisheth I would chew a little upon his plain arguments, I tell him that I think I have better chewed upon his and Mr. Gs. arguments about this text, than either of themselves have done, though I confess, but that Gods providence puts me on it, it is a grievance to me to spend my time about such superficial writings, and chew upon such insipid meat. And I return Mr. B. this plain answer. That though I knew all the Iews infants at their recovery shall be saved (which I do not) yet I should dare to deny them to be members of the visible Church Christian till they believe. Nor am I ashamed to say I am grown much bolder by examining my Antago­nists writings to deny any thing I conceive untruth that is against my way: and that I find so much inconsiderate boldness in my Antago­nists, as that they are not ashamed both on this text, and in other points of their dispute, to unsay usually in their writings against Ana­baptists what they els-where averre against Arminians.

‘Ch. 11. My 6^th arg saith Mr. B. is also from the same text, v. 17, 19, 24. [If some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild olive-tree wert graffed in amongst them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive-tree, &c.] The branches were bro­ken off that I might be graft in, &c. so v. 24. Whence I argue thus. If it were the same Church that the Jews were broken off from, which we Gentiles be graffed in, then our infants have right of membership as [Page 82] theirs had (and consequently the ordinance that some infants should be Church-members is not repealed) But it is the same olive or Church which they were broken off from, that we Gentiles are graf­fed in: therefore our infants have the same right of membership, &c. If their Church admitted Infants members, and our Church be the same, then ours must admit of infant-members. This argument con­cludeth not only that the gift and ordinance is not repealed to belie­ving Iews, but also that it continueth to the Gentiles; what may be said against it is answered before.’

Answ. If the same olive be the invisible Church (which is mani­fest by parallel places, Ephes. 3. 6. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 14, 26. 28, 29. as I allege in my 9^th argument page 74. of my Apology) then this onely proves, that elect infants of Gentiles are in the same in­visible Church of true believers (which I prove in my Apology page 71. 72. in my 3^d and 4^th argument, from their standing by faith, partaking of the root and fatness of the olive tree, to be here meant, and have in this writing vindicated from Mr. G.) and then Mr. Bs. argument falls. And to speak truth, it is manifestly false, that the Christian Gen­tiles were graffed into the same visible Church with the Jews: for then they should have been circumcised, &c. contrary to the determination Acts 15. Yea this was the cause of breach between Iews and Gen­tiles, that the Gentiles were Churches by themselves, not proselytes to them, but that they forsook the Temple and Law of Moses. They were as Cornelius, proselytes of the gate, who received the faith of the believing Jews, but were not of visible Church-Communion with them, as it appears of Cornelius whom Peter counted unclean, and was not to go in and eat with him, Acts 11. 3. therefore not of the Iewish visible Church. Yet were it granted that the Gentiles were graffed into the same visible Church with the Jews, except only the ceremonial accidentals, Mr. Bs. argument will not follow, if the in­fant visible Church-membership were from that peculiar Church-state of the Iews which is abolished, which I have in part proved in my A­pology page 66. and shall much more fully do in my reply to Mr. Bs. 5^th ch. What he further saith, Another argument I might bring here from the same text: in that it maketh the olive, that is the Church it self, to remain still, and onely some branches broken off, and others of the Gentiles ingraffed in their stead: And if the Church it self were not broken but onely some branches, then it is not taken down except onely ceremonial accidentals: therefore the Apostle saith, blindness in part is happened to Israel, that is, to part of Israel: it makes for [Page 83] me, who conceive the invisible Church of the Jews to remain still, some branches to be broken off, to wit, that part of Israel to which blind­ness hapned, and the Gentiles to be ingraffed in their stead: which are none of them true of the visible Church of the Jews, which remained not; the branches broken off to whom blindness hapned, were not bro­ken off from the visible Church of the Jews, nor were the Gentiles graffed into the visible Church of the Jews in their stead. And where­as he saith he doth purposely omit those other arguments which Mr. Cobbet and others use to prove that the Apostle speaks of the visible, I have read Mr. Cobbets Just vindic. part 2. ch. 2. and do adde to what is before said for clearing this Scripture, those animadversions, which with what is said before I take to be abundantly sufficient to shew the Paedobaptists misallegation of Rom. 11. 17. &c. for infant-baptism.

SECT. X.
Animadversions on the 2^d chap. of the 2^d part of Mr. Cobbets Just vindication, whereby is answered what he further endeavours to draw from Rom. 11. 16. &c. for infant-baptism.

TO the first section I say, that I Grant that the Jews and Gentiles collectively taken for a great or greatest, or chiefest part of the people, are said to be broken off and ingraffed: yet no necessity of un­derstanding these acts as meant of removing from, or admission to out­ward feder all and Church-ordinances, and privileges of the visible Church, but may be and are meant of breaking of from, or ingraffing into the invisible Church. And though it be frequent to understand such collective terms, as nation, people, world, house, generation, &c. as particularly Rom. 10. 19, 21. Rev. 11. 17. & 14. 6. Mat. 16. 4. John 12. 19. Acts 2. 36. onely of persons of age of discretion, yet I do not deny that infants may be said to be broken off and in­graffed Rom. 11. 17. &c. and that the ingraffing of the Jews that shall be is by vertue of the Covenant God made with the Fathers, and yet this makes nothing to the admitting infants to an initiall seal, which is not by vertue of the Covenant as the proper immediate cause of right to it, but by vertue of the institution to those to whom it appoints it.

To the 2^d, that which is said, that the root and first fruits, Rom. 11. 16. are not onely Abraham, but also Isaac and Iacob, I conceive is not proved. Abraham is called a root not only in respect of natural propagation, but also in respect of spirituall, as being the Father of the faithfull, which term I conceive is no where given to any but to Abraham, Rom. 4. 11. 12. 16. Nor do I know how the Gentiles are said to partake of the root, v. 17. to be born by the root, v. 18. but in that they follow Abrahams faith, and are fixed upon him as an example, by believing as he did. I deny not, that the Covenant was made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: but I conceive that the making of the Covenant with them was not the reason of the denomina­tion of the root, but propagation and descent, which being onely ap­propriate to Abraham both wayes as a Matural father of the Israelites, and Spiritual father of believers, the term [root] can I think be meant onely of him.

'Tis true, Abraham onely cannot be called [Fathers v. 28.] but then it is not proved that these Fathers are the same with the root v. 17, 18. or that the reason of the term [root] is from the Covenant: which if it were it might as well be meant of David as of the other Patriarchs: whence the things promised in Christ are called the sure mercies of Da­vid, If. 55. 3. Luke 1. 69. and for whose sake they are said to be beloved as well as Abraham and Isaac and Iacob. It is proper e­nough to call Abraham the first fruits, Rom. 11. 16. it is in the Greek [...] first fruit in the singular number, which is applied only to Christ a singular person, 1 Cor. 15. 20. to Epaenetus, Rom. 16. 5. And yet if it were in the plural noting one individual basket, sheffe, or what ever other things were presented as first fruits, it might be applied to one person as well as it is applied to a collective in the sin­gular, 1 Cor. 16. 15.

To the 3^d it is supposed that the fatness of the olive cannot be meant of spiritual saving graces; for they flow not immediately from the olive, that is the Church visible or invisible, nor is it theirs but Christs to convey. But this reason might as well prove that Abra­ham Isaac and Jacob are not the root in respect of the Covenant: for they could not make the Covenant, or convey Covenant-privileges: yea by this reason neither shall the fatness of the olive note external federall interest or right to the initial seal, or Church-privileges. For though these are given to them in the Church, yet they are given by God or Christ by whom the Covenant is made, and confirmed: the sign may be used by the administrator, the right and interest which is the fatness [Page 85] according to Mr. Cobbet, as I conceive, is from God, Therefore I conceive it is called the olives fatness as the subject, not as the effici­ent, and in that sense it may as well be applied to spirituall graces as outward privileges. Nor is in a Metaphor such exactness to be ex­pected, as that because from the olive the fatness flows into the branches, so spirituall graces must from the Church to the members, no more than in the Metaphor of a head and membets there is a necessity that some members give inlightning, quickning abilities, as the heart and liver give vitall spirits and blood. Nor is Abraham the less a root or Father of the faithfull, because he begets not by infusion but only is a patern to believers.

To the 4^th in the six conformities there's little but dictates upon falfe suppositions and palpably impertinent allegations of Scripture. In the first the Conclusion might be granted concerning infants, withou a­ny hurt to my cause, being understood as I conceive is meant Rom: 11. 17. 19. of inserting into the invisible Church by giving faith ac­cording to election. But if understood of ingraffing into the visible Church by an outward ordinance, or as he calls it page 160 a Church act, the Major is not true, nor is there a word Rom. 11. 17, 19. to prove it. And though the Minor were granted in Mr. Cobbets sense, yet the texts are never a one of them to the purpose. The first Isa. 44. 3. speaks of powring his Spirit on the seed of Jacob, which is not all one with admission to an outward ordinance: nor true of all their buds and sprigs as Mr. Cobbet calls them. The 2^d Isai. 18. 5. is a prophecy of cutting off the Ethopians young ones by the Assyrians, as the New Annotations explain it. What is this to prove the Iews infants were inserted into the visible Church by an outward ordinance? The next Isai. 61. 9. is as impertinent, not speaking of infants, but such as shall be known among the Gentiles and among the people, so that all that see them should acknowledge them to be a seed which the Lord hath blessed, which cannot be understood of all infants of the Iews who are not so known or blessed, but is truly understood of the elect converted, called Priests of the Lord, v. 6. the New Annot. The seed of the Church which shall so thrive and prosper as others shall take notice of Gods blessings on them, Acts 5. 13. The last is Psal. 128. 3. which speaks not of new-born infants, but such as sit about a table, nor of any admission into the visible Church by an outward ordinance, but of sitting at table in common meals.

In the 2^d conformity, The Conclusion might be granted understood of the inserting the Apostle means Rom. 11. 17, 19. but understood [Page 86] of infants and their ingraffing by a Church-ordinance into the visible Church, it is denied. The Major may be granted, the Minor is to be denied understanding it of the breaking off meant Rom. 11. 17. &c. The proof from this, that the Gentiles are spoken of collectively, there­fore their infants meant, is answered already in answering Sect 1. of that chapter.

In the 3^d. If the cutting off from Church estate be meant of cutting off by an outward ordinance, to which ingraffing by an outward ordi­nance answers, then I know not what outward ordinance the cutting off should be by but Excommunication, and so the Major is false, and the Minor is false, speaking not de facto, which is not in question, but de jure, a child is not Excommunicated because his parents are so; yea Mr. Cotton way of N. England, ch. 4. sect. 6. acknowledgeth Godly learned Divines hold that the children of Excommunicate persons should be baptized, though he think otherwise. If the cut­ting off be meant of that which is by Gods hardning or blinding accor­ding to reprobation, as was indeed the case of the Jews, Rom. 11. 17, 20, 21, 22. and might be, was and is the case of Gentiles at this day, it is not denied but God usually cuts off children when the pa­rents apostatize from the invisible Church, and consequently from the visible. But this is meant of another kind of cutting off than Mr. Cobbet would have (which stands in direct opposition to ingraffing by baptism, or admission into Church-Communion) and so cannot infer the Conclusion Mr. Cobbet would gather, that the Gentile-parent and infant-child were graffed into the visible Church of Christians by the outward ordinance of baptism,

In the 4^th The Major, Minor, and Conclusion are granted in the sense the Apostle means by remaining in the Root, and abiding in the Covenant-estate by the parents and childrens believing in Christ: but if understood of remaining and abiding in the visible Church by an initial seal belonging to children, whether believers or no, even in infancy, (which is Mr. Cobbets business to prove) neither of the propositions is true, nor is any such thing in the least manner hinted in the Apostles words, but it seems to me a meer dotage to imagine it. As for Mr. Cobb [...]ts question, How come believing Jews children being once in Covenant in their ancestors, yea, and parents right also, and not be­ing then of years to reject Christ at present, to be cut off? I answer, Mr. Cobbets question is expressed in such language as is used by paedo­bapt [...]sts, but the Scripture useth it not: which because it deceives themselves and others, without disparagement to the worth of the users, [Page 87] I reject as a piece of late-minted gibberish, by which is insinuated, as if denying infants baptism were all one as to cut them off from the Co­venant of grace, and that infants of believing parents are eo ipso in the Covenant of grace, and that the Covenant of grace must needs instate them in a title to baptism in the Christian Church. Which Hypotheses with many mote, Mr. Cobbet with othe [...]s have not yet proved, though he spends many leaves in his indistinct dictating way to prove them in his Iust vindic. part. 2. ch. 1. which so farre as I find any thing needful of further examination than what I shall do in exami­ning others w [...]itings, shall be examined by me, when I examin the paedo­baprists suppositions about the Covenant and seal, as they call it, in my review of the dispute. But for present, laying aside his darkning terms, the question plainly expressed is, whereas Iewish male-infants were cir­cumcised, how come the Iewish infants of believing parents to be deni­ed baptism? The answer is: By the taking away of circumeision and appointing baptism onely to disciples of Christ who profess faith in him.

In the 5^th there is the same kind of mistake as in the former, as if the ingraffing Rom. 11. 17. &c. were meant of admitting into the vi­sible Church by an initial seal: whereas it is manifestly meant of in­graffing by faith into the invisible church according to election, not a word of any ingrassing but of believers, nor the least hint of ingraffing any barely by the parents faith. That because the ingraffing again the Iews, is meant in a collective sense, therefore infants must be included, is a dictate without proof, the falsity whereof is shewed before. That Isai. 61. 9. and 65. 23. are impertinently alleged to prove infants title to baptism is shewed before. The text Isai. 65. 20. is misalleged by Mr. Cobbet and Mr. Cotton in the beginning of his Dialogue, and others, to prove infan [...]s to be disciples, it being a prophecy of the long life of the Iews after their return from captivity, rightly explained by the New Annot. on that place thus, He that is now a child shall attain to those years ere he die, and is to the same purpose as the prophecy of Zacha­riah ch. 8. 4, 5. Ezech. [...]7. [...]0. &c. is an express prophecy of the re­deeming out of captivity, and uniting the Iews and the 10 Tribes, not a word that hath any shew of proof for infant-baptism; Ier. 30. 19, 20. is a prophecy of the flourishing estate of the Iews upon their return from captivity; Acts 2. 38, 39. is nothing to the purpose, as hath been proved in my Exercitation, Examen, Apol [...]gy, and more fully in this Disquisition, s. 5. Nor is there any thing either [...]n Mr. M. or Mr. C. or any other I have met with, but meer dictates to prove either that [Page 88] the promise is v. 39. mentioned to shew that the right to baptism fol­lows bare interest in the promise, or that they were considered as be­lievers in [...]itled to baptism, and intitling thereto their children in that speech according to the state they were in, in that instant when Peter spake those words, or that the promise doth belong to the in­fant-children whether called or no. But notwithstanding all that hi­therto is said, it stands yet good which I have alleged, 1. That v. 39. is not a proof of their right to baptism, but a motive encouraging them to repent and to be baptized into the name of Christ. 2. That [the promise is] is as much as the promise is fulfilled, as the parallel place Acts. 13. 32, 33. shews. 3. That it is said [to them] in their dayes, and for them, not as then believers, but as Iews of Ieru­salem to whom Christ was first sent and exhibited, Acts 3. 26. 4. That it neither is said to belong to them or their children or any afar off without calling, and so not to their infants as the infants of believers. Ezech. 16. 20, 21, 36. the Iews children are said to be born to him and his children, not in a sense common to all believers children, but in a respect proper to the Iews; if as Iunius in his note on v. 21. which he compares with Ierem: 20. 26. it be meant of their first born because they were Gods by special title, or any other of their children Daughters as well as Sons, as v. 20. shews, yet in either it was in a sense peculiar to the Iews, whose children were Gods in a sense that proselytes chil­dren were not Gods, being brought out of Egypt, as is apparent from Levit. 25. 40. 46. &c. and their land called his land, Hos. 9. 3. in a peculiar respect, and therefore it is impertinently alleged both by Mr. Cobbet here and elsewhere often, and by the Assembly in their Confession of faith, ch. 25. art. 2. for believing Gentiles infants Church-membership. The conceit of Divines on Cantic. 6. 11. 13. of baptisms being the navel of the Church for infants is pretty, and may be sit for a Sermon to illustrate by it a thing otherwise proved, but not for a proof.

In the 6^th there is in like manner nothing but dictates upon mistakes, as if the fatness of the olive were Church-privileges, and these were Communicated from parents to children, as sap from greater boughs to lesser sprigs, and that if this were not, it would be poor and sad with believers, contrary to Rom. 11. 12. contrary to natures law, and the law of the tenure of the Covenant of grace. To all which as con­taining no new proof, I need say no more than what is said by me here and elsewhere.

In the 5 [...] section he answers objections, and first he answers to [Page 89] that which I allege in my Exercit. s. 5. page 10. that federal holiness of it self intitles not to baptism, because Rom. 11. 16. the elect Isra­elites yet uncalled are federally holy, and yet not to be baptized, and therefore federal holiness (if that were granted to be meant 1 Cor. 7. 14.) would not intitle of it self infants to baptism. To this he an­swers, That the passage is meant of the body of the Jews collec­tively taken, yet not distributively meant of all parts of the Nation, but of the choicer part: which indeed takes not at all away the force of the objection, which urgeth that even the choicer part elect and in Covenant, yet either unborn or uncalled, are federally holy, but not baptizable. Therefore he flies to another distinction of federally holy, se­minally and actually: in the former a person may be federally holy, yet not baptizable, but in the later he is; and so are the children of be­lievers actually federally holy, and have a right to baptism: And then sayes it follows not, persons not in being which are federally holy on­ly semnially and intentionally they have not actual Church-right, nor can actually be baptized; therefore persons existing and living which are federally holy actually they may not be baptized. To which I reply, 1. Mr. Cobbet proves not that 1 Cor. 7. 14. must be understood of federal holiness actual, and not intentional or semnial. Tertulli­an understands it as if it were as much as designati sanctitatis. Mr. Cob­het should have told us when persons are federally holy actually in his sense, whether he means it to be as soon as they are existent, or as soon as they are called. If the former be meant, then it will follow the e­lect Jews, who shall hereafter be called, are federally holy actually as soon as they are in being; which doubtless will be many years afore they are called, and so professed infidels descended from professed un­believers, which if granted, then when they are professed unbelievers, they are actually federally holy, and yet not baptizable, unless a pro­fessed infidel be to be baptized. If the later be said, that then persons are actually federally holy, and to be baptized when they are called, I agree. But then it will follow, though not as Mr. Cobbet forms the argument, yet thus. A person existent and federally holy actually may not have right to baptism till called, therefore a child may be holy federally actually, and yet not baptizable till called, and conse­quently federal holiness of persons existent will not prove right to baptism till they be called; the contrary whereto is supposed by them that inferre the baptizability of persons existent from their actuall fede­rall holiness though yet uncalled.

The 2^d objection is not mine, yet because it is not well answered [Page 90] by Mr. Cobbet I shall not let it pass. The objection is to this pur­pose. The Jews onely are naturall branches of that root, Rom. 11. 16. not the Gentiles, therefore if Church-privileges be communicated by natural propagation from the root, there the Gentiles children cannot by that passage challenge them as not comming by naturall descent from Abraham. The answer is, that they are however in the root by grace and proportion. To which I reply, to be in the root by propor­tion is a new phrase. I know of no other way for Gentiles children to be in the root, to wit, Abraham, but by grace, believing as he did, and so the objection is strengthened, that no Gentiles children are in the root there, till they be believers. As for that which is said that the Jew branches were broken off that the Christian collective Gentiles might by grace be graffed in sc. in their stead, Rom. 11. 19. I grant it; but for the inference made in these words, Look then what Covenant and Church-right the Jewish parents had for their children in an heredita­ry way, the same hath the inchurched Gentile for his children through grace, there is nothing that I know of in the text, or in the Antecedent, to infer this Conclusion. The text though it speak of the Gentiles collectively as ingraffed, yet as Mr. Cobbet himself confesseth, it is not meant distributively of all the parts, but only of the choicer, and so no other are ingraffed in the stead of the Iews but the choicer part, to wit, believers: nor is the ingraffing any other than by faith as is ex­pressely declared v. 20. and this is not by any hereditary way, but by grace of election or mercy, v. 28, 29, 30, 31. Nor is it true that what Covenant and Church-right the Iewish parents had for their children in an hereditary way, the same hath the inchurched Gentile for his children through grace: For the Iewish parents had the Covenant of the land of Canaan for their children in an hereditary way, Gen. 17. 8. but so have not the in churched Gentiles for their children; the Church-right of male-infant Circumcision, of the Passeover, &c. the Iewish parents had for their children, which the Gentiles have not. Besides (which Mr. Cobbet foresaw) this were to make way for all children of Christian Gentile-nations to have right to Church-privileges: Nor is this inconvenience prevented by this answer, It sufficeth that thus farre it holds, that as all and onely Church-members children were Eccle­siastically priviledged among the Iews, so all and onely Church-mem­bers children are Ecclesiastically privileged among the Gentiles. For 1. It is nothing but a dictate which is said. He saith it sufficeth that thus farre it holds, but he doth not prove it thus farre holds, nor doth he give any reason why it should not hold further, yea if he do [Page 91] not revoke his universal proposition, and unsay his own speech [what Covenant and Church-right the Iewish children had, the same Gentile believers children have] he must acknowledge that it holds further, and acknowledge a nationall Church and Church-right, which Mr. Cotton in his way of New-England denies, and others of that judgement in point of Church-government. 2. Nor is is true that all and only Church-members children were Ecclesiastically privileged among the Iews, sith the children of Israelites who were Apostates and Idolaters had the privilege of Circumcision and the Passeover, as the children of Ahab, Manasseth, &c. Nor is it true that all and onely Church-members children are Ecclesiastically privileged among the Gentiles. For the children of those that lived and died in the worship of Idols, in witch-craft, &c. have had right to baptism, &c. upon their conversion, as well as Christians children.

The answer also to the third objection, which is [that the Gentiles are ingraffed in a way contrary to nature, and therfore this is nothing to the federal estate of Gentile-infants as comming of believing parents, and so in a way of nature] is insufficient. For neither the first converted Gen­tiles, nor their children, though their ancestors for many generations were believers, can be said to be natural branches in the Apostles sense, but besides nature. For it is clear that the term natural branches is appropriate to the Iews: all Gentile-believers and their children are said to be ingraffed besides nature, that is besides the naturall course of descent from Abraham by natural generation.

The answer also to the 4^th objection is insufficient. For though the Gentiles that stand by faith are collectively taken, yet according to Mr. Cobbet himself, the Nation of the Gentiles is said to be ingraffed onely in respect of the choicer part, which are believers. And when he saith the faith mentioned is not a bare personall faith respecting this or that Gentile, but the Covenant of grace as it was held out to them and theirs jointly, and not barely as made to themselves perso­nally, but as in reference to families and kinreds of the earth so im­bracing it: this is nothing to the objection, which is not from the ob­ject of faith by which persons are ingraffed, that it is a personall pro­mise, and therefore none but such believers are ingraffed, but this, that those onely are said to be ingraffed who believe, and therefore not infants, who believe not the promise either personal, or as in reference to families and kinreds of the earth so imbracing it. Yet that men may not swallow down Mr. Cobbets dictates without heed I would warn Readers to observe, 1. That it is dangerous to say faith in­graffs, [Page 92] which looks to Gods Covenant as in reference to families and kinreds of the earth so imbracing it. For thereby the object of faith as ingraffing is made the Covenant not simply, but as imbraced by kinreds, so as to believe that kinreds imbrace it is made necessary to ingraffing faith. Then suppose a person should believe the Covenant, and know not any else that imbraceth it, he should not be ingraffed by his faith; then onely knowledge of the Gospel is not sufficient to make known the object of faith, but narrations of others facts are necessary; then the first converted Gentile, as for instance Cornelius, could not have ingraffing faith, for then the families of the earth did not embrace the Covenant, with many more such absurdities. 2. That he saith, the unbelief of the Iews for which they were broken off, was not barely the rejecting of the Covenant of grace as made to them­selves personally, but as it was held out in Christ to them and theirs jointly. Which if true, then suppose a Iew should have rejected Christ and the promise of grace as personally made to him, he should not have been cut off for this unless he rejected it also as jointly made to him and his; on the other side, suppose Christians believe in Christ and the promise of grace as made to them personally, but not as held out in Christ to them and theirs jointly, they should be by this doctrine not ingraffed but cut off. For my part I have said often, and still say, it is a new Gospel that the Covenant of grace in Christ is made to a believer & his naturall seed, nor do I find it in any of the texts named by Mr. Cob­bet, Ier. 31. 1. Acts 3. 25. Acts 13. 46, 47. Mat. 21. 41, 42, 43, 44. Rom. 9. 31, 32, 33. and 10. to the end. Rom. 10. 21. with 11. 1. &c. & v. 20. For though I find in these texts terms collective, yet I have learned from Mr. Cobbet to understand them di­stributively onely of the choicer part, which the passages themselves, for many of them, shew onely to be meant of believers or elect persons, and so the Apostle expounds the nations to be blessed, Gal. 3. 8. of them that are of the faith of Abraham, v. 9. And whereas Mr. Cob­bet saith, it is a gross mistake that none are subjects of the lump, Rom. 11. 16. but elect ones, nor any branches which were not such by faith in Christ, I presume I have proved it in my Apology page 67. &c. to be no mistake at all; which I have vindicated from Mr. Gs. and Mr. [...]s. objections here, that then some of the invisible Church should be broken off.

The 5^th objection recites the words of my Examen, and in answer­ing it, Mr. Cobbet endeavours to overthrow my sense, 1. He object­eth that the branches broken off were really in Christ, because they [Page 93] that came in were in the place of the broken off; therefore if the bro­ken off were not really in, neither were the ingraffed. To which I an­swer, waving the dispute about the rendring [...] Rom. 11. 17. and allowing the reading [for them.] If [them] do referre to the bran­ches broken off, then it doth not note that place which they had, but which they should regularly in course have had if they had not by unbelief been broken of. If [them] do referre to the nation of the Iews, then the meaning is, the Gentiles now ingraffed were in the place which the nation of the Jews had in a former age, though now in that age that nation was branches broken off. 2. That the branches broken off are said to be partakers with them of the root and fatness of the olive tree. I answer. The term [ [...] fel­low or joint-partaker, if it referre to the branches broken off, it doth not intimate that the partaking was such as they had, but might have had if they had stood by faith in the root; if to the Iewish nation, they were partakers in the branches of a former age. 3. That Abraham, Isaac and Iacob were Fathers of the visible Church. Answer. I find not any evident ground to make any other than Abraham the root, who is the Father of the faithfull, and so of the invisible church of true believers by his exemplary faith, no where said to be Father of the vi­sible church. 4. That the fatness cannot be meant of saving graces, but Church-ordinances, because the former are not derived from the Church, but the later. To this I answered before: both are in the Church as the subject, neither from the Church as the cause: spirituall graces are said to be the olives fatness as the subject, though not as the cause of them. My words alleged by Mr. Cobbet out of my Exa­men page 106. do not prove that I confess the fatness of the olive to be onely of Church-privileges, (which is denied by me page 68.) yet I conceiving the olive to be meant of the People as well as the Church, said they were branches of the olive by birth, in which I confess I spake not so inconsiderarely as I hope I should do now having better I conceive understood the text by much discussing of it. I have now ful­ly ventilated that text, omitting nothing of moment about clearing of it, that hath occurred to me; and I hope Mr. M. will remember his promise never to urge this text more for ingraffing children with pa­rents by an initial seal into the visible Church, to which it is impertinent, and others also will desist from the like urging it hereafter. However I have done my work about this text, I hasten to the other part of my present task to shew that 1 Cor. 7. 14 is not meant of Covenant-ho­liness or state of separation to God derived to infant children from the [Page 94] faith of one parent believing, whereby they might be intitled to bap­tism.

SECT. XI.
Of the agreements and differences between me and Mr. Marshall concerning the sanctification and holiness mentioned 1 Cor. 7. 14.

THe last text which M. Marshall allegeth to prove his second Conclusion in his Sermon, which in his Defence he thus expounds, That upon the parents visibly owning God and his Covena [...]t their children have this privilege that they should be reputed to belong to Gods Kingdome, by which he means they should be baptized, is 1 Cor. 7. 14. which I called in my Examen his principall hold, and did therefore more largely examine what he said about that Scripture, than any other. In his Defence Mr. Marshals spirit seems to have been much moved that I said so much of it, interprets it as if I thought some strength in it, chargeth me with Thrasonicall vanting &c. All which words I should not think worth the taking notice of, were it not that I am thereby misrepresented to them that know me not, as if I were some vain Glorioso, like a Fencer playing a part to shew my skill, rather than seriously contending for truth, which had been abominable prophaness to play with holy things, and madness considering the de­triment which then and sithence hath hapned to me by reason of my en­gaging in that argument. Then he brings the matter of my discourse to three heads. First Our Agreements, Secondly, my Impertinencies, Thirdly, Our Differences. I inrend to follow Mr. Marshall foot by foot, though it be to mine and the truth's disadvantage, in that Mr. Marshall hath changed my method, and the sorting of my Arguments, which much tended to the right understanding of the Dispute: of which I complain in my Apology Sect. 13. page 59. which I presume the Reader who searcheth for truth will heed being premonished.

First, saith Master Marshall we agree, that Sanctified may have many senses, and that of those many, two onely are appliable in this place, either the Matrimoniall sanctification which you insisl upon, viz. chastity in the wife and husband, or lawfull matrimony between them, and legitimation of the children, or else Instrumentall sanctifi­cation [Page 95] in the husband and wife, and federall holiness in the children, which I insist upon.

An. It is true, for abridging the dispute, and bringing it to an issue, I say page 72. of my Examen, there remain only two senses of the word sanctified: that is, there remain only two senses in question be­tween us, that of Instrumentall sanctification, which was expressed thus in Mr. Marshals Sermon, the unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband quo ad hoc, so far as to bring forth a holy seed, the other Matrimoniall, which I did not express, as Mr. Mar­shall sets it down, Chastity in the wife and husband, or lawfull ma­trimony between them, but thus, the other of Matrimonial sanctifica­tion, whereby the one is enjoyed as a chast yoke-fellow by another without fornication: So that by Matrimoniall sanctification here I un­derstand not so much the lawfulness of the marriage in the first contract, as in the continued use and enjoyment, and expound [The unbeliever is sanctified] by [is lawfully enjoyed by his wife as a husband, not­withstanding his unbelief] which however Mr. Marshall heeded not, it was necessary for him to observe, and would have prevented some of his objections, as I shall shew afterwards.

The second agreement he thus expresseth, that [...] may signifie by, as well as in, whereas my words were, It is agreed that [...] may be read in, to, or by, so that he leaves out [to] which he had acknowledged page 24. of his Sermon, and was by him confirmed by the texts I brought in my Exercit. page 15. Now though I mislike not the reading of [in] if it be expounded as Beza and Piscator do, respectn uxoris, in respect of his wife, yet I agree with Beza that it is not to be rendred per uxo­rem, by the wife, which Mr. Marshall following the vulgar Latin and our last translation, for the most part useth, which reading will a­lone serve for Mr. Marshals exposition of Instrumentall sanctification, and therefore should have been proved to be the onely right reading: for he makes the faith of the believer the instrument or instrumentall cause of the unbelievers sanctification for bringing forth a holy seed: which would not have been expressed by [in] as Beza expounds it, or [to] which barely note an object, no causality. And therefore un­less he can gain that reading [by the wife] as necessary, his sense of Instrumentall sanctification, will not agree with the phrase. For my part I conceive that the best reading is to read [to the wife] as best ex­pressing an object. And to clear it I alleged sundry places where [...] hath that sense. Dr. Homes Animadv. page 52. 53. endeavours to elude them, but without success. Matt. 17. 12. is so plain to my purpose, [Page 96] that what is there [...], is Mark 9. 13. [...], without the prepositi­on; 2 Pet. 1. 5. is so plain that Dr. Homes his elusion can be ta­ken for no other than a cavil; Col. 1. 23. [...], is so plain, that unless we wiil run into Dr. Denn's wild conceit of preaching of the Gospel in the Sun, Moon, &c. we must needs read it [to every creature] whereto I adde, that of Grot. De­fens. fidei Cathol. de satisfac. c. 7. apud Pemble on Zach. 1. 9. [...] doth signi­fy [ad] as well as [in] as Ps. 19. 5. & 91. 12 Hebraeos frequentissima particularium [...] & [...] permutatio, and that of Mr. Gataker Dis­sertat. adv. Pfoch. c. 18. where he observes in the Greek of the old Testament, Deut. 28. v. 60. [...], et Reg. lib. 4. ch. 5. v. 27. [...], adhaerebit in te, pro tibi, with sundry o­thers: Yea Mr. Cobbet in his Just vindicat. page 4. ch. 1. sect. 2. saith of this very place, by the particle [ [...]] in, to or by.

To that Mr. Marshal saith of our third agreement I except not, nor to the fourth, saving that I wish when Mr. Marshal confesseth it to be an argument he had declared whether with me following Piscator in his scholie on the place, he takes it to be an argument from an absurdi­ty which he knew the Corinthians would not grant. The 5^th agree­ment I gainsay not, but deny the sixth, and though I grant the 7^th yet deny Mr. Marshals collection from it, from the abuse of which I have cleered my self in my Apology s. 13. page 58, 59. For the 8^th I take his concession, that some interpreters both ancient and mo­dern, do interpret this text as I do: nor do I deny that it were easie for him to bring ten for one, who interpret this text as he doth, if he understand it of those who are termed Calvinists, but if he compre­hend Papists and Lutherans, I conceive he would fail of performing his undertaking, of Papists Chamier Panstrat. Cath. Tom. 4. lib. 5. c. 10. names onely Salmeron, and of the Ancients, Augustin peremptorily rejects it as impertinent. Tom. 7. de peccat. merito et re­mis. c. 26. Ac per hoc et illa sanctificatio cujuscun{que} modi sit, quam in filiis fidelium esse dixit Apostolus ad istam de baptismo et de peccati origine vel remissione quaestionem omninò non pertinet.

As for the particulars wherein we differ, but the cause depends not at all upon them, to that of misciting Beza, I answered in my Apolo­gy s. 13. page 59. To the testimony of Tertullian as interpreting this text of federall holiness, I have answered in my Apology s. 16. page 85. To that of Athanasius in the Praecursor of this Review. To Mr. Blakes paralleling this place with Gal. 2. 5. I have spoken in [Page 97] the Postscript of my Apology, s. 9. My exception against Mr. Cooks, or Mr. Woodcocks speech, as if none afore Bellarmine had given the inter­pretation I give of 1 Cor. 7. 14. was not to shew my reading, as Mr. Marshall it seems conceived, but to remove the prejudice which that speech if not answered might create against the truth, I hasten to that wherein the knot of the dispute lies, whether [sanctified and holy] be meant of that santification and holiness which I call matrimoniall, or of that sanctification which Mr. Marshall calls instrumental, and the holiness which he calls federall. Mr. Marshall speaks thus. The sense which you undertake to justifie is, that it is a matrimonial san­ctification, where the Apostle saith, the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, &c. the meaning is, their mariage is law­full, and their children are not unclean, but holy, the meaning is, they are not bastards, but lawfully begotten.

Answ. 1. Mr. Marshall apprehended not rightly my mind, in that he sets, as according to my mind, the speech thus, The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife. It is true page 75. it is thus print­ed once, If the unbelieving husband were not sanctified by the wife. But that was an error in the print, my written Copy which Mr. Mar­shall had by him having it otherwise, as I conceive by that first Manu­script of my Examen which I have yet by me; and though it were not put among the Errata by me, whether through mine or the Printers inadvertency, I now know not, yet the conclusion there, and the next page, and my use throughout that Section, and chiefly my determina­tion page 14, 15. of my Exercitation, might have occasioned Mr. Marshall to have otherwise recited my expressions as usually they are, the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife, or in the wife, that is in respect of his wife, if he had studied my writing exactly, and dealt candidly, which would have prevented his fifth argument.

2. When Mr. Marshall expresseth my sense of matrimoniall sancti­fication thus, their Mariage is lawfull, he doth not rightly express my mind. It is true page 75. I speak thus, for no other holiness fol­lows necessarily to the children in that their parents mariage is lawfull, and they born of such parents, but legitimation. But that expression was not for an explication of what I mean by marrimoniall sanctifica­tion, but to shew the causes of legitimation. And all along where I express what I mean by matrimoniall sanctification in the Apostles words, I still mean it not of the first entrance on mariage, but the con­tinued lawfull use of it, As page 72. I say, the other of matrimoniall sanctification, whereby the one is enjoyed as a chast yoke-fellow by the [Page 98] other without fornication page 74. so that the sense is, the unbelie­ving husband is sanctified to his wife, that is lawfully or chastly used as a husband without fornication in respect of his own wife, whether believer or unbeliever; and after, yet mariage continues still, they are husband and wife, and so sanctified to each others use, in respect of their chast enjoyment of each other, and it is no sin for them to ac­company together, notwithstanding the unbelief of the one party; and page 76. I expresly deny the doubt was whether their wedlock were unlawfull, but whether the believer might continue with the unbeliever in conjugall use. And page 80. the sanctification of the unbeliever is meant of lawfull conjugall copulation. Which if heed­ed might have prevented Mr. Marshals inference Arg. 3. and some other of his mistakes.

My meaning is this, the unbelieving husband, though an unbeliever, and so an unholy person, yet is sanctified to the wife, that is in con­jugal use is as if he were sanctified, and so lawfully enjoyed as her hus­band: else were your children unclean, that is, if it were not so, that the unbelieving husband and wife might lawfully accompany together, your children which you have, or shall beget, would be unclean, that is base-born, but now, that is the lawful copulation of the parents be­ing put, the children are holy, that is lawfully begotten. Mr. Mar­shals sense is, The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife as a believer, that is, by vertue of her faith is fitted, or made capable to beget a holy seed, else your children were unclean, that is, they should not belong to the Covenant of grace, so as to be taken to be members of the visible Church of Christ, and to be admitted to bap­tism: But now they are holy, even the infants upon their birth, by rea­son of the faith of the one party belong to the Covenant of grace, so as to be taken to be members of the visible Church of Christ, and to be admitted to baptism, Now the Reader may observe that neither Mr. Marshall, nor others that have opposed me in this point prove this sense of theirs, by shewing the use of the words [sanctified, unclean, and holy] in their sense els-where, or by shewing by the analysis of the text, and the matter of it, that the sense they give must be the sense which should have been done by them bringing this text to prove In­fant-baptism by it. Whereas on my part it had been sufficient to over­throw their interpretation, without giving any interpretation of my own. Yet because I desire to have truth cleared, I shall re-examine what hath passed in the dispure about this place, and adde what I fur­ther conceive useful for the clearing of the text.

SECT. XII.
Mr. Marshals first argument against my exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. as meant of Matrimoniall sanctification and holiness from the use of the words [sanctification and holiness] is largely answered.

FIrst Mr. Marshal disputes against my sense of the words thus. Ʋn­cleanness and holiness when opposed one to another, are never meant of civilly lawfull or unlawfull, but are alwayes used in a sacred sense, alluding to a right of admission into or use in the Tabernacle or Temple, which were types of the visible Church, and holiness is al­wayes taken for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred use.

Answ. The argument I conceive stands thus. Those terms which are never meant of civilly lawful or unlawful, but are always used in a sacred sense, alluding to a right of admission into or use in the Taber­nacle or Temple, which were types of the visible Church, and holiness is alwayes used for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred use, cannot be taken for lawfull use of mariage, bastardy or legitimation of children. But uncleanness and holiness when opposed one to the other are never meant of civilly lawfull or unlawfull, but are alwayes used in a sacred sense, alluding to a right of admission into or use in the Tabernacle or Temple which were types of the visible Church, and holiness (or sanctification) is alwayes taken for a separa­tion of persons or things from a common to sacred use, Ergo. Hereto I say,

1. That Mr. Marshall doth not prove that the Tabernacle or Tem­ple were Types of the visible Church: its rather plain from John 2. 21. that it was a type of Christs own body; and Heb. 9. 24. the Holy place is made a type of Heaven, and if the Tabernacle or Temple be types of any Church they seem to be types rather of the invisible than visible Church, 1 Peter 2. 5. Nor doth he prove that ever a person is said to be holy for his right of admission into the Tabernacle, though I deny not but persons are called [holy] being admitted to the service of the Tabernacle, from their relation to it; nor doth he prove that ever the word sanctified or holy was used to signifie right of admission into the visible Church, though I deny not but from their admission they are denominated holy; nor do I believe Mr. Marshall can find in Scrip­ture [Page 100] the word sanctified used in his sense, either for being designed, made capable, fitted, or made an instrument to bring forth or beget a holy seed, or the word holy for one that hath right to be admitted to the initiall Seal as he speaks.

2. I deny that the word sanctification or holiness is alwayes taken for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred use, mean­ing as he doth by sacred use such as is about Gods immediate worship contradistinct from civill matters. I find indeed the words sanctified and sanctifie to note some discretion and distinction from other things by way of exaltation, and p [...]e-eminence, (except when it is used [...]) as Mr. Mede in his discourse on Mat. 6. 9. observes: but not alwayes relating to Gods immediate worship. The Cities of Refuge are said to be sanctified Jos. 20. 9. yet not to the immediate worship of God, but the preservation of mans life, [...] Act. 21. 24. is meant of the Nazarites vow. See Ainsw. on Num. 6. 2, 3. Diodat. on Numb. 11. 18. Sanctifie your selves] by abstinence and purificati­on of any impurity, corporall or spiritual. The Medes Isai. 13. 3. are called Gods sanctified ones, yet not for any use about the Taber­nacle, or Gods immediate worship, but as the New Annot. (which I am informed were made by Mr. Gataker) men prepared and appoin­ted to execute judgement, Jerem. 51. 27, 28. and 1 Sam. 21. 5. when it is said, The vessels of the young men are holy, if by the ves­sels be meant the bodies, as the New Annot. expound it, referring to Acts 9. 15. 1 Thess. 4. 4. the holiness there seems to be only a freedom from the company of women. See Ainsworth on Levit. 15. 18.

3. Though sanctification or holiness should be taken for separation of persons or things from common to sacred use, yet by conceiving an Acyrology, or Catachresis, that is impropriety or abuse of speech, the sense might be, as I conceive it most likely, to be thus understood, The unbelieving husband, though an unbeliever, is sanctified, that is, is all one to his wife, in respect of the lawfull enjoyment of him as her husband, as if he were indeed sanctified to God. Piscator observes in his Scholy on the next verse before 1 Cor. 7. 13. Ne eum dimittito, [...] vel [...], pro ne eum deserito, ne se ab eo separato, ne ab eo discedito, ut locutus est snpra 10. et infra. 15. Grot. annot. ad 1 Cor. 7. 13. [...] hic usurpat de muliere non dur â admodum [...], quia etiam [...] potest dici [...]. Or nearer to my purpose 1 Cor. 10. 2. when it is said they were baptized, it is as Grot. in his annot. Baptizatisunt, id est quasi baptizati sunt, as if [Page 101] they were baptized. The New Annot. Because they were that unto them in type, which baptism is to us in truth, the Apostle saith by an A­nalogy, they were baptized unto Moses. Becman. Exercit. The­ol. 11. Analogia quadam baptizari dicuntur. As for Mr. Selden desyned. Hebr. l. 1. c. 3. page 42. though he conceive the baptism there to be meant of that which was oppointed by God, Exod. 19. 10. Yet saith it is wont to be understood of a figure of baptism, and as Grotius understood it, and cites Cyprian Ep. 16. Aug. tract. 11. in Joh. Hieron. Epist. 127. which I allege to shew the vanity of Mr. Jo. Goodwins censure beforecited. As for Mr. Ainsworths conceit in his cen­sure on a Dialogue of Anabaptists from Psa. 77. 16, 17, 18. that the Israelites were baptized with water, because the clouds rained then, it is but a conceit. For however that proves nothing for the sea, the Israelites were not washed with it, nor is it said that the clouds poured out rain on the Israelites: but as Junius, Piscator, Mr. Ainsworth himself in his Annot. on Exod. 14. 24. Psal. 77. 18. referre it to the horrible tempest of rain, hall-stones, thunder, light­ning which fell on the Egyptians. The Israelites are only said to be baptized by an abuse or impropriety of speech. Which is by the way a sufficient answer to what Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Baillee, Mr. Phi­lips, Mr. Cobbet and others bring from this text to prove Infant-baptism.

4 If sanctification be alwayes taken for separation from common to sacred use, then Mr. Marshals sense of instrumentall sanctification is overthrown. For in his instrumentall sanctification there's no separating of an unbeliever from a common to a sacred use. For in the unbelievers begetting a holy seed is no sacred use, it's as com­mon and as carnall an act as any other he doth that is not in its nature sinfull, neither in the nature of the act, nor intention of the agent ha­ving any thing of holiness in it: if the child be holy either internally or externally, it is meerly by an accident to the unbelievers act. Nor doth the faith of the wife sanctifie, that is separate the husband from a common use to a sacred. For then it must be either the presence of faith in her that doth it, or the actuall exercise of it. If the presence or inexistence habitual of faith in the wife do sanctifie the unbelieving husband, then either in the reality of it, or bare profession, if the former be said, then except there be faith in the reality of it, there's no san­ctification, if the later, then the bare profession without reality can really sanctifie an unbeliever to produce a holy seed; which is to make a false faith have a real effect. If the exercise of faith only do sanctifie [Page 102] (which Mr. Marshall seems to imbrace, making the sanctification to be in the use in his Sermon) then it sanctifies by some vow, or prayer, or the like, and then the husband is not sanctified instrumentally by the faith of the believing wife, except she exercise such an act; which would make it uncertain to any baptizer, whether there were such a sanctification or separation. If it be said, he is separated in common estimation, then this sanctification is the fruit of common estimation, rather than of the faith of the one party, sith without faith he may be said to be sanctified, but not without this common estimation. I do thus argue to shew how inconsistent Mr. Marshals description of san­ctification is with his exposition of sanctification here. And besides the words of Mr. Cobbet in his just vindic. part. 1. ch. 1. sect. 2. pag. 5. do in my apprehension plainly make the sanctification here to be by exercise of faith. For he will have this phrase to note not only a law­full use, but also a holy use as believers, such as is meant 1 Tim. 4. 5. according to that Tit. 1. 15. Prov. 21. 4. which cannot be true of any inchurched professor, but onely of a true believer, and that too onely when true faith is exercised, whence no children will be holy, but those who have one parent a true believer, if this sense be good. But I return to Mr. Marshal.

First, Whereas Mr. Marshall saith uncleanness and holiness when opposed one to ano [...]her are never meant of civilly lawfull or unlawfull. To this I excepted. Nor do I like the calling it civil holiness or civilly lawfull: for it is not from the laws of men, but the institution of God. I reply, saith Mr. Marshall, this is a poor shift. I answer, it was not u­sed for any shift at all, but to prevent an advantage which my adversa­ry might think to have by an incommodious expression, if it were al­lowed him. Mr. Marshall goeth on; By holy and civil we distin­guish things belonging to the first and second Table. All second ta­ble duties are civil things, though their institution be of God: Civil Magistracy though instituted of God; obedience to Parents though instituted of God; and all the judiciall laws given to the Jews about Meum & tuum; Were they not therefore civil because they were Gods institutions? or is marriage a business more concerning religion than these are? is it a sacrament? or how else is it more holy than these other civil things?

Ans. Divines usually distinguish the duties of the two Tables into religious and civil, yet I know not that either they or the Scripture deny civil duties to be a part of holiness: which onely would prove that mariage because belonging to civil duties, is not to be denominated [Page 103] holy. Holiness and Righteousness are not so exactly distinguished, but that they interchangably are applied to duties of both Tables. As for mariage I stick not at the calling of it a civil thing in some sense, as being among men regulated by civil laws, and serving for a civil end; yet considering that Beza, Mr. Marshall and others, use this as a seem­ing advantage to overthrow my interpretation, urging that according to it the Apostle should resolve the Corinthians conscience from the laws of civil policy, and that mariage being a civil thing, it cannot be termed holy, nor the use of mariage said to be sanctified, nor holy be as much as legitimate; I was willing to prevent that disadvantage. Mr. Marshall would not have mariage called holy, but thinks some inconsistency to be in my phrase of matrimoniall holiness. He asks me Is mariage more holy than other civil things, as Magistracy, obedi­ence to Parents, judiciall laws about meum & tuum? I answer, Though I do not take Mariage or Magistracy to be holy in Mr. Marshalls sense, for a state of separation to religious or sacred use, yet Magistrates being called Gods, and sons of the most high, Psalm 82. 6. even Cyrus is said to be annointed of God, Isa. 45. 1. they are called ministers of God, Rom. 13. 4. it is no strange or absurd thing to term Magistracy or Magistrates holy, or sacred, though a civil thing. And for mari­age, besides what I said in my Examen page 77. out of the English Liturgy. Mr. Ralph Cudworth, that of Grotius in Matt. 19. 5. Matrimonium rem esse sacram magno consensu gentes crediderunt, it may be aded, that in Pagnins Thesaurus on the root [...], it is observed by Mercer that Sponsalia Hebraei à sanctitate & castitate [...] & verbo [...] utuntur pro desponsare; and Illyricus in his Clavis Scripturae voce Sanctus, Mal. 2. 11. videtur sanctum vocari matrimonium sanctum Jehovae, id est matrimonium quod or­dinavit & sanctificavit Dominus. The Helvetian Confession ch. 29. makes it a Satanicall doctrine to forbid mariage, quasi non san­ctum vel mundum sit. Jewels Apology ch. 8. Divis. 1. We say that matrimony is holy and honourable in all sorts and states of per­sons: The Augustan Confession cals the Covenant of mariage most holy. The generall Confession of the reformed Churches in Polonia exhibited September 1. 1645. We affirm that Matrimony is holy, and a divine institution. Zanch. in 1 Thes. 4. 4. sunt autem corpora nostra destinata ad sanctum conjugium. Ain [...]w. on Deut. 24. 5. Holy wedlock. Zuinglius de vera & falsa religione C. de matrimonio, Matrimonium sanctissima res est. Beza himself in his annot. on Mark 10. 9. Other contracts are meerly humane and civil, but [Page 104] mariage is a more Holy thing, and is therefore established in the Assembly it self of the Church the authority of God himself as it were comming between. And indeed our Saviour saith, that God him­self join'd the maried, Mark 10. 9. And Solomon calls the mari­age Covenant the Covenant of God, Prov. 2. 17. so that however magistracy, obedience to parents, judiciall laws about meum & tu­um be of Gods appointment, yet because of Gods speciall instituti­on in Paradise, and not because it was, or is counted a Sacrament in the popish sense, mariage hath gain'd the appellation of holy before other ordinances of things pertaining to the second table. And foras­much as the Assembly in the Directory for worship (as in like manner other reformed Churches and former people) have thought good to appoint the minister to direct the solemnity of mariage, and impart a mariage blessing, it should me thinks be allowed that mariage in some qualified sense, be rather termed holy than some other civil in­stitutions, concerning which no such direction is given.

Mr. Marshal goes on. You except secondly, Ʋncleanness may be taken for bastardy in allusion to a tabernacle use, bastards being num­bred among the unclean. I reply, this is spoken without any proof, for although the Lord saith, Deut. 23. 2. that a bastard shall not come into the congregation of the Lord, it cannot be meant that ba­stards shall be numbred among the unclear, or having nothing to do about tabernacle or temple services, for there was the same law for Eunuchs, who were not excluded as unclean; no unclean person might eat the Passeover, might no Eunuch nor bastard eat the Passe­over? It is needless to enter into a further discourse about that place Deut. 23. how or in what sense a bastard might not come into the congregation, whether by the congregation be meant the Sanhedrin as some, or whether his not entring be of bearing office as others, or of not marying a wife an Israelitess as others; it matters not, it's sufficient they were not numbred among the unclean.

Answ. Mr. Marshal had said, uncleanness is alwayes used in a sacred sense alluding to a right admission into, or use in the taber­nacle or temple, which were types of the visible Church, and he had said, that not comming into the congregation of the Lord Deut. 23. 2. is meant only of bearing office in the Church, or some such like thing, and not of being under the Covenant belonging to the Church. Now hence I inferred uncleanness for bastardy might be taken allusive­ly to the Tabernacle, if the exclusion of bastards from the congregation of the Lord were an exclusion form the Tabernacle, which I supposed [Page 105] Mr. Marshall would grant of all that were excluded from bearing of­fice in the Church, sith the offices of the Church were executed at the Ta­bernacle. To which I adde, if unclean be taken allusively to the Ta­bernacle as a type of the visible Church, much more to the Common­wealth of Israel, sith the congregation or whole people of Israel were a type of the visible Church more expressely than the Tabernacle, as may appear by Gal. 6. 16. Ephes. 2. 12. 1 Pet. 2. 9. Yea Mr. Marshall himself in his Sermon page 19. had mentioned the mungrel kind in Nehem. 13. 24. &c. as accounted unclean, and so to be put away, and the reason of the putting away as unclean is fetcht Nehe. 13. 1. from Deut. 23. 3. in the next verse to which mention is made of putting away a bastard from the congregation of the Lord, and Ezra 9. 2. they are opposed to the holy seed: now the opposite term to holy is unclean, therefore if the mungrels by reason of that law Deut. 23. 3. were not a holy seed, they were unclean, and consequently bastards alike separated from the congregation of the Lord were not a holy seed, but unclean. The New Annot. on Deut. 23. 2. calls bastards a polluted posterity. But Mr. Marshal reasons thus, No un­clean person might eat the Passeover, bastards might, therefore they are not reckoned among the unclean. I answer, I find Num. 9. 10. that the unclean that were defiled by a dead body, were not to keep the Passeover in the first moneth, but afterwards: and though the Iewish Rabbins do extend it to some other defilements, as Ainsworth in his Annot. on Num. 9 10. yet it is not likely to be extended any further than to transeunt defilements, not to permanent, sith it was not a denying of the Passeover but for a time. Therefore if there be such a law that no unclean person might eat the Passeover (which I have not found yet in those words) it is to be understood, not of all un­clean persons in any sort, but of such as were accidentally and transeunt­ly made unclean for some dayes or moneths. It is a mistake, which Mr. Marshals reasoning supposeth, that a person was denominated un­clean only by reason of defilement removing from the Passeover. There were sundry moral and legal uncleannesses among the Iews, for which a person was not to be kept from the Passeover. Salmasius ad Colrium page 587. Lex Mosis immundos dixit, qui alieni sexus uterentur vestibus. Deut. 22. 5. Levit. 21. 14. For the High-Priest to marry a widow had been to defile him, yet not to keep him from the Passeover. The like v. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. Whatever the exclusion were from the congregation of the Lord, it was for some un­cleanness that bastards were excluded, and therefore they were reckon­ed [Page 106] among the unclean, which is enough for my purpose. Besides, saith Mr. Marshall, when you thus construe else were your children un­clean, you make there a bastard and unclean to be termini convertibi­les, consequently every unclean child must be a bastard; Now if any man would suppose, that bastards might be reckoned among the un­clean, yet all unclean children must not be reckoned amongst bastards; all the children of the Gentils, were unclean, yet they were not bastards.

I answer, my words plainly shew the conrrary to that which Mr. Marshall here obtrudes upon me. I do not say bastards were the on­ly unclean, but were numbred among the unclean, therefore I con­ceived other sorts of unclean persons than bastards. Nor is there a word in my Examen or any where else in my writings, wherein I make a bastard and unclean to be termini convertibiles. Yea, but you con­strue, Else were your children unclean, thus, else were they bastards. Answ. Be it so; how doth this follow that therefore I make every unclean person a bastard? Doth he that saith with the Apostle, to distribute is a sacrifice, inferre therefore every sacrifice is to distribute? or he that saith fornication is uncleanness, say, every uncleanness is for­nication.

This is a slip of Mr. Marshals pen through inconsiderateness, or his and my logick are not the same.

But saith Mr. Geree, bastards were not unclean in that sense, when the Apostle wrote this, and therefore the Apostle would not express bastardy by a word that was so obsolete, that the use of it was un­warrantable.

Answ. 1. Bastards were unclean in that sense when the Apostle wrote this among the Iews, who still conceived the Law of Moses in that sense to bind them.

2. If this reason were good, that because bastards were not unclean to Christians, therefore the Apostle would not use a word allusively to a Iewish use abolished, then neither would he use the worde unclean and holy in allusion to a Tabernacle use in Mr. Marshals sense, for that was abolished to Christians; so that this reason is as much against Mr. Marshall as me.

3. When Mr. Geree saies that the Apostle would not use an obso­lete word, that the use of it was unwarrantable, if he mean by un­warrantable that the use of a word is unwarrantable because obsolete, he insinuates a strange position, as if the using an obsolete word were unwarrantable, and so sinfull, which how he will make good I know not: sure they that use Plautus, Ennius, Chancers, and others obso­lete [Page 107] words may be taxed perhaps as offending against Priscia [...]s rules, but I do not imagine they offend against Gods law. If he mean that the Apostle would not use a word that alludes to an obsolete use of the Iews unwarrantable to Christians, besides that it is to mee a new noti­on of an obsolete word to call that an obsolete word which alludes to a custom grown out of use, whereas I alwayes took that to be an obso­lete word which is grown out of use among modern persons, the positi­on of Mr. Gerce in that sense is palpably false, for in the same Epistle 1 Cor. 5. 7, 8. and else-where frequently Rom. 12. 1. Philip. 2. 17. & 4. 18. &c. he useth such allusive words: yea the holy writers in the New Testament throughout do usually speak with Hebraisms, and with allusions to the customs of the Iews, as Mr. Gataker hath fully proved in his Exercitation against Pfochenius.

Thirdly, saith Mr. Marshall, you referre me to the 1 Thess. 4. 7. God hath not called us to uncleanness but unto holiness, and desire me to tell whether uncleanness be not there meant of fornication, and by holiness chastity.

Answ. Mr. Marshal sets not down for what purpose I referred him to that text, though I expressed my self plainly that I opposed the texts against his two positions, 1. About the use of the word uncleanness, of which he affirmed that when uncleanness is opposed to holiness, it is alwayes taken in a sacred sense, referring to a Tabernacle use, to a right of admission into, or use in the Tabernacle or Temple, which were types of the visible Church. Against this assertion I opposed, 1 Thes. 4. 7. 2 Cor. 7. 1. 2. That holiness is alwayes taken for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred use. Against this I opposed 1 Thess. 4. 3, 4. 1 Cor. 7. 34. Let us see what Mr. Mar­shall replies hereto. I answer, saith he, I prevented this in my Ser­mon, and shewed that chastity among the heathen is never called san­ctification. The holy Spirit onely is the Spirit of sanctification, and the bodies of the heathens are not the Temples of the holy Ghost: but among believers it may be called so, because it is a part of the new Creation, a part of the inward adorning of the Holy Ghost, and though the Chastity of believers is only a morall vertue in respect of the object, yet in respect of the root, principle, end, it's a Christi­an vertue, and its an act of oure religion to keep a mans self unspot­ted from the flesh, as well as from the world, Iam. 1. 27.

Answ. 1. Mr. Marshall in all this, and that which follows, an­swers not a word to my allegation of 1 Thess. 4. 7. 2 Cor. 7. 1. against his first position, where plainly uncleanness opposed to holiness is taken for [Page 108] fornication, and so not in a sacred sense allusive to Tabernacle, or Temple, right, or use.

2. All this discourse, in which he spends many words as if he were preaching not disputing, is to prove that chastity among the heathens is never called sanctification, and his reason is because it is not an ef­fect of Gods sanctifying Spirit. To which I answer. The position may have two senses, one that chastity is never called holines by heathens, and of that I shall say somewhat anon. The other, that the chastity of heathens is never called sanctification or holiness.

This sense he seems to intend: But grants it may be so called in be­lievers, which is enough for my purpose to overthrow his position, and reasoning. For if that be true which he grants, it will follow, that holiness is not always taken for a separation of persons, or things from common to sacred use, for in the chastity of a believer is not such a se­paration. Let any man tell me what sacred use a chast believing wo­man is separated for, in that she is chast, more than an unbelieving chast woman. Besides, when Mr. Marshall reasons that [holiness or sanctified] cannot be taken for Matrimonially lawfull, because mari­age is a civill thing, no business of religion, a second table duty, these reasons are as well against the mariage and chastity of a believer, as an unbeliever, and therefore if they prove, that holiness cannot be taken for chastity in an unbeliever, they will prove it cannot be so ta­ken in a believer, contrary to Mr. Marshals concession.

2. Mr. Marshals reason to prove that chastity in a heathen can­not be called holiness, because the person is not truly sanctified, is vain. For vis et norma, the rule and measure of words, and their sense, is use, as Horat. de arte poetica: nor is the use of words alwayes ac­cording to speciall reason, but ex placito, as pleased the users or be­ginners. Otherwise no reason can be given why from [...] the same root should com a nown signifying a Saint and a whore, [...] should signifie to bless and to curse [...], a crime, thing polluted, and a pious fact, [...], a medicine, and a poyson, sacer, holy and detestable, with many more the like. It is sufficient, that uncleanness doth plain­ly signifie fornication, and then holiness opposite to it must signifie chastity, for terms standing in direct opposition must have opposite sen­ses. Besides Mr. Marshals reason supposing no vertue could be called holiness, but what comes from the Spirit of sanctification, is thus to be formed. That which comes not from the Spirit of sanctification can­not be called holiness, the chastity of an unbeliever comes not from the Spirit of sanctification, Ergo: If the major be good, it will over­throw Mr. Marshals own interpretation of federall holiness, which [Page 109] according to him comes not from the Spirit of sanctification, sith it may agree to children who neither themselves nor parents were ever truly sanctified. If it be said the Apostle will not call that holiness which is not, besides the falsity of it, that holiness is never meant but of saving holiness, it is against the frequent use of Scripture and other authors, that call the faith of hypocrites by the name of faith, the ver­tues of heathens by the names that signifie such vertues, the righteous­ness of the Pharisees by the name of righteousnes: though they be not in truth that which they are called.

‘Mr. Marshal goes on. Besides, I now adde there is no reason that that place 1 Thess. 4. should be restrained to fornication, because many other sins are named in that place besides fornication. Mark the words in the third verse, the Apostle tells them, that the will of God is their sanctification that every one should abstein from fornica­tion, that no man go beyond, and defraud his brother in any matter. And then he gives this as a reason common to all the particulars, be­cause God hath not call'd us to uncleanness, but to holiness: so that by holiness there is meant not only chastity but justice also; and what kind of consequence were there in such an argument, let no man go beyond his brother in bargaining, because God hath not called us to fornication, but to chastity?’

Answ. If holiness notes not only chastity, but justice also, then holiness may be taken for that which is civilly lawfull, a second table duty, and is not alwayes used in a sacred sense alluding to a right of ad­mission into, or use in the Tabernacle or Temple which were types of the visible Church: nor is holiness alwayes taken for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred use: but for a second table duty, which is civilly lawfull, not only for chastity but also for justice, contrary to his former assertions. So that after much cavilling he is for­ced at last to yield that which I produced the text for, that holiness is taken for chastity. As for his dispute that holiness is not restrai­ned to chastity, it hurts not me, who did not say it noted only chastity. Nevertheless I know not how to understand holiness in the 4^th verse of any other vertue than chastity, when the Apostle saith, that every one of you know how to possess his vessel in holiness and honour. Sure most of the interpreters I have met with restrain it to Chastity. Pisca­tor in his Scholie on 1 Thess. 4. 4. is expresse, Hic Nomen [...] accipitur specialiter de castitate, ut liquet ex anti [...]hesi.

The Comment ascribed to Hierom, suum corpus unusquis{que} ca­stum servando sanctificet et honoret; Illyricus in his clavis Scripturae [Page 110] on the word sanctus, Aliquando haec novae obedientiae sanctificatio ad solam castitatem restringitur, 1 Thess. 4. 3, 4, 7. 1 Tim. 2. 15. Revet. in Exod. 20. 13. Castitas 1. ad Thess. 4. v. 4. aptissimo nomine vocatur [...], & Gal. 5. v. 22. [...]; Beza, Zanch. Grot. referre us to that which is 1 Cor. 6. 18. Rom. 1. 24. which shew they took the sense to be, to possess our bodies in chastity. And ac­cording to them that by his own vessel understand his own wife, as Aug. de nupt. c. 8. which Heinsius in his Exercit. confirms from 1 Pet. 3. 7. and otherwayes, it is much more plain, that holiness is referred to chast copulation in opposition to adultery, and such like unclean­ness. And though I did not in my Examen restrain holiness v. 7. to chastity, as Mr. Marshall seems to construe my words, yet there want not learned men who restrain the holiness there to chastity: yea after Chrysostom, Theodoret, the greek Scholiast, Diodati, Daniel Heinsius in his Exercit. on the New Testament lib. 13. c. 2. doth largely dispute the thing, and determines that going beyond v. 6. is going beyond the bounds of marriage, and defrauding the brother is by adultery, as David did Ʋriiah. But if it be granted that the going beyond and defrauding is in respect of goods, yet the Apostles consequence may be good, let no man defraud his brother in bar­gaining, for God is the avenger of such things, and let a man possess his vessel v. 4, 5. because God hath called us to holiness, that is to chastity. v. 7.

For it is not alwayes necessary that the reason should be understood as referring to that which is next to it: instances may be given to the contrary in which is inversion of order, as 1 Cor. 7. 16. is a reason to perswade to the resolution v. 13. 1 Tim. 5. 24. is a reason of the pre­cept, v. 22. not of that which comes between as Diodati observes. Dr. Hammond in his treatise of the power of the keys makes it frequent. And before him Illyricus in his tract of Schemes in the Scriptures.

‘Mr. Marshal goes on. Whereas you allege Beza thus interpreting this text v. 3. This is the will of God even your sanctification i. e. saith Beza, that you abstein from fornication, and upon this (id est) you build much, therefore I shall consider it.’ Sir id est put in by Beza, hath reference not only to that which doth immediately follow, ‘namely that you abstein from fornication: but to the 6. verse also, that no man go beyond and defraud his brother. Beza saith, id est ut abstineatis, ut ne quis opprimat et habeat quaestui. It being ordi­nary to have instances given in the second table, when the duties of the first table are principally intended; that the Holy Ghost might meet [Page 111] with hypocrits, who are apt to put all their holiness in outward per­formances. Yea Beza in the same place in his Annotations upon the word [...] referres him to John 17. 17. and his note upon John 17. 17. is this, sanctum autem dicitur quod Dco peculiariter devo­tum ac consecratum est; an expression agreeable to the Hebrew noti­on, and therefore Beza addeth, est autem hoc vocabulum profectum ab Hebraeis:’ so that by Beza we are brought back to the notion of devoting and consecrating things to God.

Answ. That which I build on Beza's id est was onely this, that holiness is not always taken for a separation of persons and things from common to sacred uses, as Mr. Marshall affirmed. And that truly follows from Beza's id est. For though he comprehend also oppression and defrauding v. 6. under holiness v. 3. yet he doth also comprehend under holiness as a branch or part of it the abstaining from fornication, v. 3. the possessing the vessel in holiness and honour v. 4. not in the lust of concupiscence, v. 5. which are enough to prove that chastity is a part of holiness and that holiness is not alwayes put for a duty of the first table, or for a separation from common to sacred uses.

If that which is added by Mr. Marshall tend to this, that these du­ties of the second table are not brought as branches or parts of holiness, but as properties of a holy man, and so make the instances here like that of James 1. 27. I answer, The matter there is not like to this; it is true Iames chap. 1. 27. as likewise chap. 2. 14. &c. doth of purpose apply himself to discover an hypocrite by his unmercifulness, but here the Apostle makes it his business to direct and mind them how to walk answerably to their calling v. 1. 2. 7. and accordingly tells them that the will of God was their sanctification, and instances wherein it consists, to which Beza puts in id est, than which a plainer expression cannot be to shew those to be branches or parts of the Com­mandement concerning holiness, and not properties or adjuncts onely of a holy person. As for the referring us to John 17. 17. by Beza, there is nothing either in that text or Beza's annotation on it to prove Mr. Marshals position, or disprove my allegation of 1 Thess. 4. 3, 4, 7. against it. It is true, he saies that is holy which is peculiarly de­voted and consecrated to God, but he doth nor say that nothing is cal­led holy, but what is thus devoted and consecrated, and when he saith that the words [holy and sanctifie] come from the Hebrew, how lit­tle advantage that gives to Mr. Marshall for his position, and how much to the contrary, hath been shewed already.

‘Mr. Marshall proceeds. But you yet endeavour further, and turn [Page 112] and wind the words every way, and run over all words that are of the same tribe or kinred [...], because you cannot find [...] among the heathen, and in the end you have found an instance in Stephanus Thesaurus where [...] signifies Castimo­niam servo (I am chast.)’

Answ. I know not what Mr. Marshal calls turning and winding words every way, or the running over all the words that are of the same tribe or kinred. This I did: I enquired as much as my time and means would permit about the use of the word [...] among the heathen, because Mr. Marshall said chastity among heathen is never calld sanctification; which might have this sense, that the heathens ne­ver called chastity [...] or sanctification. And this I thought ne­cessary for examining Mr. Marshalls position about the words [un­cleanness and holiness.] And I alleged (not as Mr. Marshall miscites my words [...], but) [...], com­ming from the same root, with [...], as used for holiness and cha­stity very frequently, both in Scripture and all sorts of Greek Authors. And put in the margine Grot. Annot. in Mat. 5. 8. solent pro eodem usurpari [...] et [...]. And if it had then occurred, I should have added this of George Pasor in his Lexic. in voce [...] castus, 1 Thess. 5. 26. [...], osculo sancto, hoc est casto. Now to this no­thing is said by Mr. Marshall but only to the allegation of the verb [...] which Stephanus renders castimoniam servo, and confirms it out of Demosthenes, against which Mr. Marshall speaks thus.

But first Stephanus speaks but doubtingly, he puts in videtur, which you leave out.

I answer, I have not now Stephanus to examine this, but Scapula his abbreviator in voce [...] hath [...], item castimoniam servo, and I might be allowed to cite Stephanus as he doth.

Mr. Marshall adds, Besides, [...] is usually meant [...], So Suidas.

Answ. Be it so, yet that it is used at any time for castimoniam ser­vo is enough for my purpose.

‘He addes, and the very instance which you from Stephanus have brought out of Demosthenes makes directly against you. For the Priest saith, I offer sacrifice, and I am in case to do it, for I am pure from the company of man, [...], and all other things which might pollute me: that is I am holy according to my order, and therefore fit to do my office. These last words which give the full sense of the place, you have (not very fairly) left out of your quotation.’

Answ. Whether [ [...]] be to be rendred [I am chast] as Stepha­nus and Scapula, or [I offer sacrifice] as Mr. Marshall, I cannot well judge, having not that oration of Demosthenes to peruse. My allega­tion of that passage was upon Stephanus his credit which is very great for his exact skill in the Greek. That I left out some words serving to give the full sense of the place, was done fairly by me, sith being put in, as they would not have furthered my purpose, so neither do they hinder it: but still it appears, that Chastity among heathens was re­puted to have something of holiness, which this place confirms, in that the Priest counts her self holy, and fit to offer sacrifice, because she was clean, and chast or pure, as from other defilements, so from the company of man. Which shews the company of men was counted to have somewhat of uncleanness, and chastity of holiness. Which con­ceit is agreeable to what we find in Scripture, Exod. 19. 15. 1 Sam. 21. 4, 5. Grot. in Exod. 19. 15. Pars haec sanctificationis. 1 Sam. 21. 5. 1 Cor. 7. 5.

‘Mr. Marshall proceeds. Yet you make another supplement out of 1 Cor. 7. 34. That she may be holy in body and spirit, and de­mand whether the meaning be not that she may be chast. I answer, the plain meaning is that she being free from worldly distractions is at more liberty to give her self wholly to godliness, than others can, who have these wordly avocations: and in truth it is a pretty odde sense which you have invented of this place, the unmaried cares for the things of God that she may be chast; but she that is maried cares for things of the world how she may please her husband. I wonder what learned man concurs with you in this? I doubt in this rare interpretation you are all alone.’

Answ. All I said was this; And when the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 7. 34. that she may be holy in body, is it not meant that she may be chast? not to make any supplement as if there were a defect in the tex [...]s alleged, but because I thought that holiness there had been opposed to sin, as 2 Cor. 7. 1. and then chastity had been a part of holi­ness of body.

But I stand not upon this place, conceiving Mr. Dicksons observa­tion to be right, that holiness is opposed not to sin, but to civil and com­mon, and so holiness of the body is restrained to praising of God and such like holy exercises of the body. Yet because Mr. Marshal puts me to it, I might tell him that the Commentary among Hieroms hath this note, sancta corpore ac usu conjugali, which is by chastity or continence, and that sanctity notes a separation of the body from con­jugall [Page 114] use, and a separation of the spirit from worldly cares, as well as dedication of both to God. And Rivet. in Exod. 20. 13. applies it to chastity. But there's no need to make use of this text, holiness being so manifestly used for chastity, 1 Thess. 4. 4.

‘Mr. Marshall adds. When I added that even the meat and drink of believers sanctified to them serves for a religious end and use to re­fresh them who are the Temples of the Holy Ghost; You answer me, it seems in eating and drinking they do an act of Religion; to which, I need no other reply than your next words, that they are sanctified to them by the word and prayer, they receiving them after an holy manner with faith, supplication and thanksgiving, &c. And that this place of Timothy doth hold out more than a lawfull use is most apparent, because it is such a use of the Creatures, as the hea­thens had not, who yet had a lawful use of the Creatures; and it is such a use as is appliable onely to believers, and such a use as is procured by the word and prayer; and although wicked men do not do an act of religion in feeding the bodies of the Saints, because all their acti­ons are unclean; yet believers have an holy use of those Creatures which heathens feed them with, having the word not only to war­rant the use of them, but prayer to procure Gods blessing to that end for which they eat and drink, which is to live to God.’

Answ. Had Mr. Marshall dealt rightly, he had set down my words, which were, Is it a religious end and use to refresh them who are the Temples of the Holy Ghost? (as Mr. Marshals words in his Sermon plainly imported.) Then the Godly in eating and drinking do an act of religion, because they refresh themselves. And after, If re­freshing the Temple of the Holy Ghost be a religious use and end, then the inordinate eating of a godly man, or the feeding of a godly man by a profane person, is a religions use and end; wherein the thing I excep­ted against was not that which Mr. Marshall spends words unnecessarily to prove, though I expressely granted it in my Examen page 81. that the meats and drinks of believers sanctified to them, serve for a religious end and use, so that they have not only a lawfull but a holy use of their meat and drink, which unbelievers have not: but this I excepted against, that Mr. Marshall makes it a religious use and end to refresh them who are the Temples of the Holy Ghost, from whence the absurdities I inferred follow, Nor hath Mr. Mar­shall a word in his reply to evade them.

SECT. XIII
The 6^th and 7^th of Mr. Marshals additional arguments about the words [sanctified and holy, 1 Cor. 7. 14.] are answered.

I think it most convenient for elucidation of this point to answer here Mr. Marshalls 6th. and 7th. additional arguments page 155. 156. of his defence, as being about the use of the words [sanctified and ho­ly.]

‘Secondly, saith Mr. Marshall, my second I take from your own words page 73. where you say, the sanctification of the unbeliever here is such a sanctification as is parallel to 1 Tim. 4. 5. where the Creatures are sanctified to the pure by the word and prayer, therefore there must be more meant than the heathens are capable of, therefore another sanctification than Matrimoniall sanctification, for that the heathens had: if therefore this must be such a sanctification as that place in Timothy means, it must be a sanctification peculiar only to believers.’

Answ. Mr. Marshall misrecites my words, and mistakes my mean­ing, I do not say in the place he cites, that the sanctification here is such a sanctification as is parallel with that 1 Tim 4. 5. but only say, that this may be the sense I gather from the like use of the word [...], 1 Tim. 4. 5. which likeness I make, not in asserting the sanctification here to be such a sanctification as that place in Timothy means, but that as 1 Tim. 4. 5. it signifies lawfully enjoyed, so here, though in a different manner, and from a different reason or cause.

Mr. Marshall goes on page 156. Thirdly, yet a third argument I take from your own words: you have endeavoured (though in vain) to shew that bastards may be called unclean, and holy may be called chast; but you do not, and I believe you cannot, produce out of the Scripture the least shew of a proof that holiness signifies legitimation; you are holy, id est, you are lawfully begotten; if you can, pray let us have it in the next.

Answ. Whether I have endeavoured in vain to shew that bastards may be called unclean, and holy chast, I am willing the unprejudiced Reader should judge. If I do not produce out of the Scripture the least shew of proof that holiness signifies legitimation, the same may be said of Mr. Marshall and all others that I have met with, they do not, and [Page 116] I believe cannot, produce out of the Scripture the least shew of a proof that holy signifies federally holy in their sense, that is, by vertue of de­fcent from a believer to be capable of an initiall seal or first sacrament as they use to speak: if they can, I pray that they would let us have it in the next.

The texts brought by Mr. Cobbet in his Just vindic. part. 1. ch. 1. sect. 5. do none of them prove that the term [holy] signifies federally or Ecclesiastically holy in the sense wherein they would have it here ta­ken, to be capable of an initial seal or first sacrament. Many of the texts have not the word [holy] in them, sundry are brought to prove that which is not denied, that the visible Church may be called holy, to have the adoption, to be chosen, though there be tares as well as wheat. Ezra 9. 2. [holy seed] doth not note that which is capable of the initial seal. For both the holy seed, to wit, Israelitesses were uncapa­ble, and the unholy or unclean seed were capable of Circumcision, as all born in Abrahams house, Gen. 17. 12. But [the holy seed] there notes that seed which was descended from both parents Israelites, and not by mixed mariage of women of impure Nations, and there­fore [the holy seed] is no other than a legitimate seed, according to Mo­ses law, and consequently if the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. did allude to Ezra 9. 2. (as it seems somewhat likely) there is a plain place to prove that [holy is as much as [legitimate] that is, a seed allowed now by God, however it were heretofore when the Gentiles were strangers from the Commonwealth of Israel. Dan. 8. 24. [...], Junius populum sanctorum, the people of holy ones, notes the Iews destroyed by Antiochus Epiphanes mentioned 1 Mac. 1. 24. &c. who are called the people of holy ones, because of Gods Covenant, worship, laws, love, favour to that people, not precisely from right to an initial seal; if in any relation to Circumcision, it was, not because they had title to it, but because they had it. Deut. 14. 2. & 26. 18, 19. & 28. 2. 9. prove not that holiness doth note barely a right to the initial seal, but a di­stinction from other people by Gods love, choice, laws, and their o­bedience to them. Ezek. 16. 8. 20, 21, 23. compared with Jerem. 2. 2, 3. & 3. 1. Isai. 54. 4. 5. prove not that holiness notes a right to Circumcison, but a peculiar state of separation to God by vertue of his Covenant with them, and love to them. Their children are called his, and said to be born to him, because of that claim he had to them jure dominii & jure faederis saith Piscator in Ezek. 16. 20. not from their right to Circumcision. 1 Pet. 2. 9. alludes to Exod. 19. 5, 6. but it is not said of any but the invisible Church of the [Page 117] elect, as I prove in the Postscript to my Apology in answer to Mr. Blake s. 8. not yet refuted by any I know.

And for the urging me to bring a place in Scripture, where the word is in the same sense, or else it must not be so construed here, i [...] is an unreasonable thing to require it. For it is acknowledged common­ly by learned men, that words are found sometimes in such senses in all sorts of Authors as they have no where else. Meric. Casaubon in his Diatriba de verborum usu, page 67. &c. to Grotius on Phil 2. 6. say­ing that [...] in our books signifies not some inward or hidden thing, but that which appears to the eyes, and therefore it signifies not the essence of God, but divine power of doing miracles, he answers, Rectè, modo nihil obstet, quò minus usitata verbi significatio retineatur. Tum enim certè usitatam significationem minus usitatae praeferre rectum est. Nam alioquin nullum non scriptorum genus earum vo­cum exempla suppeditat, quae vel rarò vel sortasse apud eundem scri­ptorem non omninò nisi semel tali notione, quam con extus ibi ratio manifestò requirit, occurrent, Imò non pauca, quae longè diver­so vel etiam contrario sensu una eadem{que} paginâ, non dicam sententiâ: qua'e quod apud Thucydidem [...] arma sumere et depone­re, intra unius ambitum sententiae à do [...]t is notatum. Ita fert com­munis loquentium usus. He gives instances in the use of [...] and [...] in the same place according to Grotius his own mind, and in the use of [...] John 17. 17. 19. by the agreeing consent of inter­preters. Mr. Seaman of Ordination pag. 36. And it is as certain that many Greek words are used in the New Testament in such a sense as they are no where else to be found: those common words of [...] and [...], are enough to prove it. He allegeth this to justifie the expounding of [...], Acts 14. 23. of laying on of hands Mat. 18. 17. being alleged for Church-censures committed to Church-officers in the Confession of Norton resp. ad quaest. Apollon. c. 4. page 63. adhuc serio desideramus, ut edatur locus in Novo Testamento ubi presbyterium voca­tur Ecclesia. faith advised by the Assembly ch. 30. Art. 2. I conceive they understand by the Church the Presbytery or Church-officers, and by let him be to thee as an heathen and a Publican, excommu­nication, yet I think they cannot shew in Scrip­ture where the Church is taken for the Presbytery or Church-officers, and Mr. Gillespy in his Aa­rons Rod, &c: 3^d book ch. 2. pag. 365. let him be to thee an heathen and a publican is a phrase never used else-where in Scripture. Ma­ny more such instances might be given out of other places: but I will [Page 118] confine my self to the same Epistle 1 Cor. 7. 3. the Apostle in this very chapter useth [...], the giving due benevo­lence, for conjugall copulation, following therein the manner of all Nations using seemly forms, [...], commended in Gellius noct. Att. l. 9. c. 10. in matters of mariage duty, and yet Mr. Gataker advers. Pfoch. c. 11. saying undecun{que} id hause­rit, intimates, he knew not where else it is so u­sed Mede paraph. on 2 Pet. 3. p. 15. it would be long to shew in how many words the Apostles and the Greek Scriptures written according to their dialect use no­tions, which the Greeks used not, viz. respecting some con­formity or other with their own language. in any Greek Author, unless following him. Salmasius ad Colrium pag. 693. says, 1 Cor. 11. 10. per [...] Apostolum intellexisse velamen ex­tra controversiam est, cum de eo inter omnes con­stat, and yet, no where else is it found to be u­sed in that sense. All that singularly learned man could bring for it besides the context, is an allusion to Levit. 13. v. 45. which is farre more obscure and unlikely than my confirming the use of un­clean for bastards, by allusion to Deut. 23. 2. The sense of the word [...] v. 14, 15. the same Au­thor both there and in the Dialogue de coma, after a large and exact ex­amination of it, makes a womanish dress of hair, distinguishing the sex, though he find onely something in Hesychius Artimedorus, and some other conjectures not just in that sense in any place else, because it best suites with the matter. More such examples might be brought both out of that Epistle and other Scriptures where the sense of a word or phrase is only gathered from the context, and cannot be confirmed by the use thereof in that sense elsewhere. Now whether I have pro­ved that the sense of the word holy is most rightly, yea necessarily, to to be understood of legitimation, as from the concurrence of interpreters, so from the matter and Analysis of the words, will appear by perusing my Exercitation and Examen, and this review, compared with the con­trary writings, specially by weighing the argument which Mr. Mar­shall calls my 8th. exception. Besides, when Mr. Marshall confesseth that I have endeavoured to shew that bastards may be called unclean, sure there is brought by me a shew of proof, that holiness signifies legitimation, which Mr. Marshall denies. For it follow­eth plainly by the rule of direct Opposites in Logick, which is, that they are to be understood in opposite senses, if by unclean be meant bastards, by holy must needs be meant legitimate: yea Mr. Marshall acknowledging my Analysis of the Apostles argument to be right, page 46. and that those words Now are they holy to be the Assumption of [Page 119] it, Holy must needs be all one with not unclean, or else the Apostles argument hath four terms. Wherefore I infer, that if I endeavoured to shew bastards may be called unclean, in doing this I did also make a shew of a proof, that holy signifies legitimate, which Mr. Marshall denied, but I added also something from Mal. 2. 15. which whether it yield a shew of proof to prove holy signifies legitimate, comes now to be examined.

Mr. Marshall saith thus, Sure I am, that place Mal. 2. 15. That man might seek a holy seed, or rather a seed of God, will give you no help: for though a seed of God in that place might be interpre­ted (as Mr. Calvin would have it) for legitimate, because (as he saies) that uses to be called divine, which is excellent, as a legiti­mate seed is in comparison of a spurious, yet that is nothing to holiness. The word in the Hebrew there used is not a holy seed, but a seed of God, an eminent, and excellent seed, as all eminent or notable things use to be called; great Armies are called the Armies of God; great and high hills are called the hils of God; great and tall trees are cal­led the trees of God; so that take a seed of God in that place for a legiti­mate seed, yet there is nothing to prove that holiness may signifie le­gitimation, though for my own part (pace tanti viri) I humbly conceive the Prophet intended not a legimate seed onely (as Mr. Calvin would have it) but to shew what was Gods chief end in the institution of mariage, viz. The continuance of a seed of God, where­in the Church is to be propagated to the end of the World.

Answer, I deny not but that as many interpreters reade [one] in the Nominative Case, and apply it to Abraham, so they make a seed of God such as might serve God and not Idols, nor that sundry of those that reade [one] in the Accusative, as our Translators do, make a seed of God to be more than a legitimate, to wit, a just or godly posterity. Yet there are together with Calvin other learned men that do extend it no further than legitimation. Thus of late Theodorus Strackius hy­pomn. in Heresb. Hist. Anabap. page 64. Mr. Cobbet in his Just Vindic. part 1. ch. 1. sect. 4. when he saith, the children of each man and wife are a seed of God, or of his institution in generall ap­probation, as Mal. 2. 15. truly proveth. And the reason is, that which I set down in my Examen page 77. to wit, that the text speaks of the first institution of mariage, the proper end of which was, not a seed of God distinct from the wicked, but a lawfull seed distinct from spu­rious by loose and uncertain copulation. As the proper genuine end of mariage, as such, was in respect of the parties their naturall solace [Page 120] and help by society; though God intended also that as his Creatures they should serve him, an end agreeing to them as Creatures, and common to Angels that mary not: so in respect of their posterity, though God intended also that they should be godly, yet the proper and genuine end of the mariage was only the having them lawfully be­gotten, which very thing was it which the Prophet intended in opposi­tion to he Iews Polygamy and divorces upon insufficient causes.

Now this reason Mr. Marshall hath not at all answered, though he tells us what he humbly conceives, which little satisfies his Reader without giving reason of his judgement. Now if this be granted, then it is much to the business of holiness, a seed of God and a holy seed be­ing terms of the same sense here: And so Piscator in his Analysis of Mal. 2. 15. Institutio conjugii declaratur ex fine, quod voluit ut per tale conjugium procrearentur liberi sancti: in his Scholie, Semen Dei id est liberos sanctos ex Dei institutione in legitimo conjugio na­to [...]. Diodati and the New Annot. He might seek,] Gods chief end in this proce [...]ding was that the posterity might be sanctified being born in chast wedlock according to his appointment, whereas it is de­filed by all manner of unlawfull conjunction: And even the confession of faith advised by the Assembly ch. 24. art. 2. Mariage was or­dained for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with a holy seed, and in the margin no other text is alleged to prove this proposition, but Mal. 2. 15. which evidently shews that a holy seed, and seed of God, are terms equipollent in the Assemblies judgement. Whence I inferre, that if by [seed of God] be meant no more than legitimate, Malac. 2. 15. and that a seed of God, and a holy seed, is all one, it is no meer imagined sense, but such as hath shew of proof, yea and strength too, the matter it self leading to it, to interpret holy by legitimate, 1 Cor. 7. 14.

As for that which Mr. Marshall addes. Now according to y [...]ur interpretation of holiness for chastity, the Apostles argument must run thus, If your mariage were not lawfull, your children would be ba­stards, but now they are chast, which serse were too ridiculous, which to av [...]id you are compelled instead of chast to say legitimate, without any example of such a use of the word holy.

Answ. All this runs upon Mr. Marshalls mistakes of my forming the Apostles reason, which is not, If your mariage were not lawful at first entring, but in the continued use of it in cohabitation and con­junction, your children would be bastards, nor do I say, but now are they chast, but legitimate, nor am I compelled to expound holy [Page 121] by legitimate from any other thing than clear evidence of reason in A­nalysing the text, and whether I or Mr. Marshall have shewed better example of our use of the word [holy] let the Reader be judge. The word [holy] Ezra 9. 2. to me is all one with legitimation.

Mr. Geree in his Vindic. Paedobap. page 27. speaks thus. Be­sides (as I think) Mr. Blake hath well observed, Who call children unclean or holy for the parents act? The accident denominates the subject where it is, not another. Now uncleanness and chastity are not in the children, but in the parents, and therefore to call the chil­dren unclean or holy for their parents chastity or unchastity is most uncouth and unproper; and therefore not to be adm [...]tted in the Apo­stles words.

Answ. If none call children unclean or holy for the parents act, how is it true which Mr. Geree and Mr. Blake make children federally holy or unclean for the parents believing or not believing?

Formal denominations are, to speak exactly, alwayes from the form denominating: which is not always an accident, but sometimes a substance, as from a head hea­ded; Kecker. syst. Log. lib. 1. p. 2. c. 1. Bur­gersd. Instit. Log. lib. 1. c. 25. n. 7. and not only from an accident inherenr, but also adjacent, as from a coat coated. And somtimes men use a causal denomination, as from heating hot. I call not children unclean or holy, from the parents chastity or un­chastity as from a form formally denominating: But when I say from the parents lawfull copulation a person is holy or legitimate, from their loose and unlawfull copulation unclean or illegitimate, I mean such copulation is the cause, and the denomination (if the term befit) caus­sal: but formally children are unclean, that is illegitimate, for their uncleanness of birth or illegitimation, and holy, that is legitimate from, their holiness of birth or legitimation. But these are niceties. I ha­sten to examine Mr. Marshalls arguments from the matter of the A­postles discourse.

SECT. XIV.
Mr. Marshals second argument to prove the sanctification 1 Cor. 7. 14. to be meant of instrumentall sanctification and holiness federal, because the person in whom the other is said to be sanctified was a believer, is answered.

MY second argument saith Mr. Marshall was. Had this been the meaning else were your children unclean, but now are they holy, else had your children been bastards, but now are they legiti­mate, the Apostles answer had not been true, because then if one of the parents had not been a believer, and so by being a believer had sanctified the unbeliever, their children must have been bastards, whereas we know the children born in lawfull wedlock are legitimate though both the parents were unbelievers. To which you an­swer, this privilege comes not from the faith of the believer, but from the relation of marriage; and your reason is, because the Apostle saith not the unbeliever is sanctified by the be­liever; but from the husband or the wife; although one or two old copies have the word believer, yet the rest have it not, and the reason cannot be conceived rightly to be any other, but that although the person meant were a believer as well as an husband or wife, yet in this passage they are considered as husband and wife, and not as believers, to intimate that the sanctification did not come by the faith of the pa­rents, but conjugal relation.

Answ. Mr. Marshall doth vary my words in three particulars to my disadvantage.

1. He sets down my words thus, [this privilege comes not by the faith of the believer] which intimate an acknowledgement of some pri­viledge asserted by the Apostle to a believer, which I had expressely de­nied in the very next words before the alleged, and my words were, The holiness here expressed is not from the quality of faith.

2. Mr. Marsh [...]ll sets down these words as mine, and that in a dif­ferent letter, that they might be marked [your reason is because the A­postle saith the unbeliever is sanctified from the husband or wife] by which recital I may seem to the unwary reader to acknowledge this [Page 123] reading, The unbeliever is sanctified from the wife, whereas I still contend it should be read [in] or [to] rather, and deny that [...] notes any causality, which either [by] or [from] would import, but only the terminus, object, or correlate, to which the other relative refers.

3. Whereas I said in this passage they were considered only as hus­band or wife, and not as believers, expressing it disjunctively, because I meant it only of the believer, not denying that the unbeliever is con­sidered as unbeliever, Mr. Marshal recites my words as if I had expres­sed my self conjunctively [as husband and wife] which is an incommo­dious expression for the reason given. Having thus set my answer right, though not so full as it is in my Examen, to which I hope the Reader will have an eye, let us consider what Mr. Marshall replies, and so much the rather because in this Argument is his chief strength.

I reply saith he, this expressely crosseth the Apostles confessed scope; for the question was not whether an husband might leave his wife, or a wife her husband, the Apostle had resolved that case before, v. 10. but whether a believing husband might leave or separate from an un­believer; No [saith the Apostle] if the unbeliever be content to dwell together, (if not, let them go, a brother or sister is not in bondage in such a case) why? for the unbeliever is sanctified in or by the wife; but now in your sense, the Argument had been as good to say, the un­believer is sanctified in or by the unbeliever, or the believer is sancti­fied in or by the unbeliever, which had been nothing to the question in hand.

Answ. Scope is a greek word, and signifies a mark at which an archer shoots: In the Metaphor the Apostles scope was that which he intended to do, which was to resolve the question, Whether the believer might still dwell with the unbelieving yoke-fellow. The Apostle resolves, the believing party may, and the reason is because the unbelieving party is sanctified: Now if the Apostles argument had been as Mr. Marshall would have it conceived, it might have been according to my sense (which yet I deny) that the unbeliever is sanctified in or by the unbe­liever, or the believer is sanctified in or by the unbeliever, yet the scope had been attained, and not crossed; For that was only the resolving of the question from this reason, because the party unbelieving, who oc­casioned the doubt, is sanctified, which sanctification effected resolves the question, whether it be understood in Mr. Marshalls or my sense, whether truly mine, or imagined to be mine, and therefore this reason of Mr. Marshal that my answer crosseth the Apostles scope comes to [Page 124] nothing, sith the Apostles scope is not crossed by it expresly or implicit­ly; but attained by it as well as by Mr. Marshalls. Nevertheless sith an absurdity seems to follow if in my sense the Apostles argument had been as good to say as Mr. Marshall conceives. I answer, 1. Mr. Marshall supposeth that according to my opinion the sanctification is meant of some sanctification properly so called, whereas I make the sanctification by an impropriety or abuse of speech, thus, The unbelie­ving husband is sanctified, that is, is as if he were sanctified, it is all one to the dwelling together, as if he were sanctified, they may law­fully couple and continue together, as if he were sanctified. 2. Mr. Marshall supposeth, that in my sense one party is made a cause of the others sanctification, whereas I make the one onely as object, or ter­minus, or correlate to the other: but the reason or cause of the sactifica­tion to come from the common conjugall relation between them, and accordingly I grant, that in my sense it might have been truly said (though not pertinently) the unbelieving husband is sanctified to his unbelieving wife, that is, lawfully enjoyed as if he had been sanctified, and the believing wife sanctified to the unbeliever in the same sense: the Apostle not speaking of any sanctification here, but what might agree to them though neither were a believer. 3. Nevertheless I say that in my sense the Apostles argument had not been framed as Mr. Marshall makes it, because I do not understand the sanctification properly, but improperly, or Catachrestically, as I have said, and I deny the reading [by] or [in] in such a sense as Mr. Marshall makes it to have; to wit, to make it imply a causality from one party to ano­ther, but only I allow a reading [in the wife] so as to note a termination or objective respect. 4. I deny that the Apostles argument had been as good if so framed, because it had not aptly answered the doubt, which was, Whether the believing wife might dwell with the unbe­lieving husband; whence the Conclusion to be proved was this, That the believing wife may dwell with the unbelieving husband. Now let the argument be framed according as Mr. Marshall saith by my in­terpretation it will be as good. That wife who hath her unbelieving husband sanctified to her may dwell with him; But the unbelieving wife hath her unbelieving husband sanctified to her. The Conclusion that follows is, Ergo, the unbelieving wife may dwell with the un­believing husband: which is another proposition than what was to be concluded. But if the right Conclusion be put, The believing wife may dwell with the unbelieving husband, and the same Premises re­tained, then there will be four terms [believing wife] the Subject in the [Page 125] Conclusion, but not in the Minor proposition, [the unbelieving wife] the Subject in the Minor, [may dwell with the unbelieving husband] the Predicate in the Conclusion and the Major terminus, and [the wife that hath her husband sanctified to her] the medium. In like manner if it be made thus, The wife who hath her believing husband sanctifi­ed to her, may dwell with her believing husband, But the unbelie­ving wife hath her believing husband sanctified to her, Ergo, the un­believing wife may dwell with her believing husband: this is not the Conclusiuon to be proved. But if the right Conclusion be put, The unbe­lieving wife may dwell with the believing husband, the same Premi­ses being retained, there are five terms [the believing wife] the Subject of the Conclusion, [the unbelieving wife] the Subject in the Minor, [may dwell with her unbelieving husband] the Predicate in the Conclusion, [may dwell with her believing husband] the Predicate in the Major, [the having her husband sanctified to her] the medius terminus, which would be monstrous in Logick; and therefore it is most false which Mr. Marshall saith, In my sense the argument had been as good to say the unbeliever is sanctified in or by the unbeliever, or the believer is sanctified in or by the unbeliever; sith either of these medium's in my sense would either have inferr'd another Conclusion than was to be made, or if the right Conclusion were made, the syllogism would have four or five terms, which is monstrous in Logick, and not be a scribed to the Apostle. As for that which Mr. Marshall saith, that the A­postle had resolved before, v. 10. whether a husband might leave his wife, or a wife her husband, to psove that it was not the scope of the Apostle, v. 13, 14. to resolve that doubt but another, I answer: Nor do I make the Apostles scope to be to resolve that doubt v. 13, 14. which he had resolved v. 10. but I make the Apostle to resolve v. 13. the same doubt which Mr. Marshall doth, Whether the believer might dwell with the unbeliever; And v. 14. I make the argument, whereby he confirms his determi­nation in v. 13. which argument, if according to my sense of it, it be the same with that which he had determined v. 10. is so much the fitter for the Apostles scope, sith it being not the Conclusion, but me­dium to prove it by, it was to be ex notioribus, by things more known, there being no good proof ignoti per ignotum, of a thing unknown by an unknown, but of a thing unknown by a known.

Mr. Marshall goes on. Again the Apostle expressely names the unbeliever in opposition to the wife or husband who is a believer; of which there had been no use if he had intended only a Matrimoniall [Page 126] sanctification, he migh have said, the wife is sanctified by the hus­band, and the husband by the wife, let them be what they will, which cannot be spoken truly, when the Scripture saies plainly, nothing which pure or holy to the unbeliever, as Beza well observes upon this place.

Answ. There was use of expressing the unbeliever distinctly for an express resolving the doubt, though the sanctification be meant of ma­trimonial sanctification; nor had the Apostle clearly resolved the doubt if he had said only, the husband is sanctified to the wife, and the wife to the husband, without expressing the unbeliever. For the argu­ment then had been thus.

The wife which hath her husband sanctified to her, may dwell with him; any wife hath her husband sanctified to her, Ergo, any wife may dwell with her husband. This Conclusion would resolve the doubt only implicitly, or by consequence to be gathered by them, and therefore not so plainly as was either fit for a Casuist, or needfull for the Corinthians, especially women of tender consciences, not so quick witted as to perceive a Consequence, the doubt being of cohabitation with the unbeliever, precisely for that reason because he was an unbe­liever. As for that which is said, that it cannot be spoken truly of any husband that he is sanctified by his wife, because nothing is pure or holy to the unbeliever; I answer, it may be truly said in my sense according to the reading I use, that any husband is sanctified to his unbelieving wife, that is lawfully enjoyed without fornication. As for the sanctification proper to believers, it is neither mine nor Mr. Marshalls sense. For his instrumentall sanctification is not by the word and prayer, he acknowledgeth that his instrumentall sanctifica­tion is in those that have no: true faith, but are only professors of the faith, and not onely when they pray actually, but also when they pray not, but neglecting God follow their lust, yet they beget a seed federal­ly holy in Mr. Marshals sense; else he will be hard put to it to be assu­red the child is federally holy when he is to baptize it. Whereas when it is said Tit. 1. 15. to the defil [...]d and unbelievers nothing is pure, it is plainly meant v. 16. of them that profess they know God, but in works deny him, and the sanctification 1 Tim. 4. 4, 5. is on­ly then when it is with thanksgiving and prayer. For which reason it is likely that Mr. Cobbet in his just vindic. though page 5. he would have the sanctification to be by vertue of true faith, yet where he sets down what he conceives of the Apostles inference and argument page 16. mentions only the holding forth interest in the Covenant of grace, and professing faith therein in a Church-way, which is enough to prove [Page 127] it is not meant of such a sanctification as the Apostle means Tit. 1. 15. 1 Tim. 4. 4, 5.

Mr. Marshall addes. And though the word [believer] be not in the text, yet it is necessarily implied, and therefore some copies have it in the margin, not only one old copy, and a copy of Clermont, and the vulgar latin so read it, but Augustine also in his book where­in be expounds the sermon on the mount, and Tertullian in libro secun­do ad uxorem. For as Beza rightly observes, the question is con­cerning a believer what he is to dowi [...]h an unbeliever.

Answ. Though Augustine and Tertullian put in the word [be­lieving] yet it may be true that all the copies besides those I named reade it without the Epithet of believer, for a citation in an author is not accounted a copy of a book, nor is alwayes exactly done, though I deny not but there may be good use made of such citations to recti­fie the reading in Copies. I grant that the believer is necessarily and plainly implyed, for the reason Beza gives, nor do I mislike the put­ting it expressely in a commentary or citation, as Augustine and Ter­tullian, though not in a copy. But this doth the rather confirm my conceit, sith it being so necessarily and plainly implied, and yet not expressed, it is to me more than probable, that the sanctification of the unbeliever is not from the believing. For who doth ever (spe­cially in an argument) leave out the word in which is the chief Em­phasis on which all hangs, and not rather in pronouncing speak it more remarkably, and in writing express it more discernably than o­ther words? Now Mr. Marshall and those that expound that text this way, make the sanctification of the unbeliever, and the holiness of the children, to be the fruit of the faith of the believer, and ye [...] al­though the term [believer] be necessarily and plainly implyed, it is not expressed at all. Surely in reason, if that the Emphasis, energy, medium, or force, had been in the term [believer] (as they would have it) it would have been expressed, though [wife] had been left out. But when that is left out, and wife and husband twice expressed so di­stinctly and remarkably, it cannot in reason be conceived, but that the Apostle would thereby lead us to conceive that the sanctification is from the conjugall relation, and not from the faith of one of the parties conjoyned.

Mr. Cobbet in his just vindic. part. 1. c. 1. sect. 2. Finally when in the 16. verse the case is understood of a person which is as well a believer, as an husband or wife, by whom it's said the infidell party may come to be saved, yet that party is barely named wife or [Page 128] husband, not believing wife or husband, will any now say that there can be no other reason thereof rendred but this, that albeit the party intended were both an husband or wife, and a believer; yet in that particular the party is considered not as a believer, but as an hus­band or wife? I suppose here the absurdity would be so gross that none would own it, no more let any truly judicious speak that way of that here mentioned, the unbelieving husband is sanctified by, or [...], or in the wife.

Answ. Mr. Cobbet I conceive from some words in Mr. Cottons letter to me meant me in this passage, and opposed it to those words in my Examen (page 75) the reason cannot be conceived rightly to be any other but that although the person meant were a believer as well as a wife or husband, yet in this passage they were considered on­ly as husband or wife, and not as believers; to intimate that the san­ctification did not come from the faith of the party, but from con­jugall relation, and therefore I thus answer, that Mr. Cobbet doth not fully set down the force of my reason, because he leaves out that which I alleged, that when the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. speaks of the unbelieving party, he doth expressely say [the unbelieving husband] but not when he speaks of the believer: Whereas had he made sancti­fication a fruit of faith, he would have remarkeably expressed the be­liever. Now that he doth v. 16. mean the believer, and yet say on­ly, O wife, O man, serves not to avoid the force of my reason, which was not barely from this that the person though meant to be a believer, yet is not expressed with that Epithete under that notion, but that even where the Emphasis lay in that word, yea after my Anta­gonists interpretation, all the strength of the Apostles argument lyes in it, yet it was left out, even then when the unbeliever was twice named distinctly. Now neither was any such Emphasis, v. 16. in the term [believer] to require the express mention, it was enough to name the person so as that it might be understood who was meant. For v. 16. is not argumentative to prove the lawfulness of cohabitation as v. 14. wherein is requisite exactness, so as that no part at least not the medium of the argument be left out, but v. 15. 16. are motives to make them yield to the resolution v. 13. & delivered Retorically not Lo­gically: they are not arguments drawn from something certain in being as v. 14. The unbelieving husband is sanctified, but only inducements from things future and contingent, as from fu­ture peace and conversion of the infidel: nor is the unbelieving person expressed v. 16. by a term importing that notion as v. 14. 2. Mr. Cobbet seems not to apprehend my meaning in that expression, that [Page 129] in that passage v. 14. the believer was considered not as a believer, but as husband or wife, which he takes as if I had meant that the Apo­stle had taken wife or husband with precision or abstraction from be­liever and unbeliever, and so the Apostle meant it of any husband or wife though an unbeliever. But that was not my meaning, my words being plain [although the person meant were a believer] so I conceived no other person there meant than a believer, nor could be according to the Apostles mind. Yet in that passage the believer is not considered as a believer, that is, as sanctifying the unbeliever in that he was a believer, but as a wife or husband; to intimate, that the sanctifica­tion is by reason of conjugal relation, as I plainly express my self in that place. Now my reason being thus fram'd and understood, I leave to Mr. Cobbet or any mans judgement that is acquainted with mens writings, whether it be likely the Apostle would have left out a word so Emphaticall, as they would make it, if he had laid the same stress, which my Antagonists do, upon it.

Mr Marshall goes on; and when he sayes the unbelieving party is sanctified in or by the other party, it plainly implies the one party sanctifies the other, viz. the believer sanctifies the unbeliever (not re­tro) which needed not be said of Matrimonial sanctification as you call it, for in that sense both parties were sanctified in themselves, not in or by one another, mariage being honourable amongst all, and the bed (the coitus) undefiled.

Answ. I still except against the reading [sanctified by the wife] and deny any causality implied by the particle [...], and when I allow the reading [in] I expound it onely as Beza, respectu uxoris, but pre­ferre the reading [to] conceiving it clear that [...] notes only a terminus, object, or correlate, to which the other party refers, and that the sanctifi­cation as it is only by an acyrology, catachresis, impropriety or abuse of speech ascribed to the unbeliever, so whatever it be it comes not from one party to another, but from the common relation between them both, because as Mr. Marshall rightly allegeth, mariage is honou­rable among all, and the bed (the coitus) undefiled. If Mr. Marshall will make good his reason, he must prove that [...] must be rendred [by] and no otherwise, contrary to his own grant, and that it notes a cau­sality, and that the one sanctifies the other, by the inexistence or act of faith, and that the one is sanctified to the other by reason of their common conjugall relation.

Besides, saith Mr. Marshall, there are words which plainly de­notate it a little before, a brother or sister, which are taken for belie­vers [Page 130] v. 12. if a brother have an unbelieving or infidel wife, v. 15. a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such a case.

Answ. That the Apostle did express before and after the believer, and not here, makes against Mr. Marshall: for it is a plain argument that the Apostle did not place the Emphasis or medium of his argu­ment in the word believer, nor make believing the cause of sanctifica­tion, sith he left it out where it would best have fitted that purpose, and yet exprest it in other places on both sides.

Mr. Marshall concludes thus. And if you should say the believing party sanctifies the unbeliever, not quà believer, but by the word and prayer. I answer, this would make the argument stronger, for it is such a sanctification as heathens are not capable of.

Answ. I neither say, the believing party sanctifies the unbeliever quà believer, nor by the word and prayer, but the unbelieving husband is sanctified, that is, is as if he were sanctified, to his wife, and so may be lawfully used by her by vertue of the conjugal relation between them.

SECT. XV.
Mr. Mashalls 5^th and 8^th arguments being the first and last of his additionals against my exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. in that the sanctification and holiness could not be except one were a believer are answered.

I Shall here answer Mr. Marshals 5^th and 8^th arguments against my interpretation, being the first and last of his additionals, sith the an­swer already given serves for those also.

First, saith Mr. Marshall page 155. you say the unbelieving hus­band is sanctified by the wife, and sanctification you here take for chastity, which is a most incongruous speech, to say the one party makes the other chast, if he or she were not unchast how are they made chast by the husband or wife? and if they be unchast, how doth this make them chast? mariage is then honourable or chast when the bed is undefiled, this argument is onely from the unseemliness of the expression.

Answ. I do not say that either sanctification is here taken for cha­stity, or that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, or [Page 131] that the one party makes the other chast, but the unbelieving husband is sanctified to his wife, that is, is as if he were sanctified, so that he may be enjoyed lawfully as a chast husband, without fornication, notwithstanding his unbelief, and this hath no unseemliness of expres­sion: nor do any of Mr. Marshals inferences follow on it, that either the one was unchast before, or that the one makes the other chast, by my doctrine, and that it is unexplicable how being unchast they should be made chast. These questions arising meerly from Mr. Marshals mistake of my meaning, are impertinent; though in some sense they may be made chast by mariage, who were unchast before, as when two fornicators mary, they now chastly live together, though before unchast. Perkins exposition of Revel. 2. 15. Hosea took a wife of fornication not to maintain her in her sin; but to make her a chast woman.

‘Lastly saith Mr. Marshall page 156. Yet one argument more I propound, Your sense makes the Apostles argument wholly inconse­quent, if the unbelieving party were not sanctified [viz. matrimo­nally) then were your children unclean, that is (in your sense) ba­stards, which follows not; for if they were both unbelievers, yet their children were not bastards, and if they were both chast (yet being infidels) their children were unclean, id est, infidels and pa­gans; so that to close this, I retort your own words page 75. That let it be granted (that it is meant of matrimonial sanctification (as of necessity it must) then the uncleanness must be meant of bastardy, and holiness of legitimation, but I say è contra, let this be granted (as of necessity it must) that it is not meant of matrimonial sanctifica­tion or lawfulness of wedlock, then uncleanness must not be meant of bastardy nor holiness of legitimation, but of some other holiness, which what that is, is next to be enquired.’

Answ. This argument also is upon the same mistake as if the sancti­fication must be by vertue of the faith of the one party as the cause, which is still supposed but never proved. The Apostles Consequence is good as I make it, and Mr. Marshalls retortion vain, as wi [...]l appear in the issue of the dispute.

SECT. XVI.
The third argument of Mr. Marshal urging that by my Exposition the Apostle is made to prove the same by the same, is answer­ed.

I Return to consider Mr. Mar. third and fourth arguments. My third argument, saith he, was, the Apostles argument had had no strength in it, supposing the text were to be interpreted as these men would have it: their doubt (say they) was, their mariage was an unlaw­full wedlock; and so consequently their children bastards; which kind of argument (said I) were but idem per idem. Your answer to this is such a one as I know not what to make of it: you say I do not rightly set down my adversaries explication of the Apostle, the doubt (say you) was only whether they might live in conjugal use, but there was no question of their children whether they were legitimate or not; they were assured their children were not bastards, but le­gitimate, and this the Apostle uses as his medium to prove they might lawfully live together.

Answ. My answer was plain enough for a man less acute than M. Marshall to have discerned it; but it seems, either want of lei­sure, or some perturbation of mind or distraction of thoughts hindred him.

My answer was, 1. By denying that the adversaries he opposeth make the doubt which the Apostle resolves to be that which Mr. Mar­shall made it, whether their mariage (to wit, at their entring) were an unlawfull wedlock: and I said plainly the doubt was, not (as Mr. Marshall curtals my words, and makes them obscure) whether they might live in conugal use, but whether the believer might continue with the unbeliever in conjugal use. Between that which Mr. Mar­shall sayes they make the doubt, and that which they do make the doubt, there is a manifest difference, the later doubt might arise from sundry causes not incident to the former. As suppose a Papist that holds that heresy makes void a mariage, should doubt whether he is to live any longer with a wife with whom being then a Catho­lique he conceives his mariage at first lawful, doth he not at the same time take his mariage undoubtedly lawful at first, and yet doubt of his present continuance? So I conceive the Corinthian Christians did [Page 133] doubt of their continuance in conjugal use with the unbeliever, and yet doubted not of the lawfulness of their mariage at their first entring on it.

2. I answered (which Mr. Marshall leaves out in the repetition, and so darkens my answer) that the reason whereby the Apostle resol­ved the doubt was, for they were sanctified each to other, notwith­standing the unbelief that was in one party: which did directly take away the occasion of the doubt, which arose from the opinion, that the unbeliever being an unsanctified person, did pollute the believer, the Apostle answers no, the unbeliever is to his wife notwithstanding his unbelief as if he were sanctified, and so may still be lawfully enjoyed as her husband; By which answer he plainly resolves that the mari­age and the lawfull use of it still continues between them.

3. I answered by denying that his adversaries conceived the Corin­thians to doubt whether their children were bastards, which Mr. Mar­shall charged on them, and told him that the legitimation of their chil­dren was out of doubt wi [...]h them, yea, that the Apostle makes this the medium, whereby he proves that the unbelieving husband was sanctified to his wife, and that it is an argument ab absurdo, which Piscator rightly observes in his Scholie on the place. Argumentum ab effectu, videlicet consequente absurdo. Now if it be an argument from a consequent absurdity, then he knew they took it as an absur­dity that their children should be unclean, which Mr. Marshall must also acknowledge if he stand to his fourth agreement page 146. where he grants my Analysis of the Apostles argument to be right. Now let the question be according to this stating of it, may the believing wife continue to dwell with her unbelieving husband? and the an­swer thus, she may, for the unbelieving husband, though such, is to his wife in respect of conjugal use as if he were sanctified, the Apostle resolving by his Apostolical authority, that Christianity takes not a­way the continuance of natural & civil relations according to a known principle among all that mariage was lawful among all sorts of people, persons, and this confirmed by an argument ad homines, from that which themselves counted absurd, that their children whether begotten before the conversion of the one party (taking [...] as Beza, not for an Adverb of time, but for a particle of reasoning, as much as [at­qui but] as Piscator in his Scholie, and is rightly acknowledged by Mr. Cobbet in his just vindic. part. 1. ch. 1. sect. 1. where he cites for [...] as in like sort used, 1 Cor. 12. 18, 20. Rom. 3. 21. Heb. 8. 6 & 9. 26. & 11. 16. which to me is most probable, and that [your children] is changed from the third to the second person, not [Page 134] as Mr. Cobbet ibidem sect. 2. to note that this belongs to them as in­churched believers as a privilege; but to note they were once unbe­lievers, your children, which you begat in unbelief) or since con­version (taking [...] now, for an adverb of time) should be accounted bastards, which they must needs be if the unbelieving husband though an unbeliever were not to his wife as if he were sanctified (which is the right interpretation of the Apostles meaning by Mr. Marshalls ad­versaries) I appeal to any man of competent understanding, whether it be not farre from a trifling proving of the same by the same, and not rather a solid and demonstrative satisfactory way of arguing, the posi­tion being resolved by answering the reason of the doubt, the unbelief of the one party, and therefore unsanctified, and so unlawfull for a believer to company with, and this answer proved by a consequent absurdity in the judgement of the doubters if this were not true. Yea I say further, were our frame of the Apostles argument as Mr. Mar­shall saies, were you not lawfull man and wife, your children were ba­stards, it were not a proving of idem per idem, but from differing things whereof one is at least antecedent to the other, for not being law­full man and wife is not the same with bastardy though they are con­nex. And yet every proof when the same is proved by the same, is not alwayes trifling, when there is a formall difference though not reall, as when an argument is from the definition to the thing defined, from the notation of the word to the thing noted, from one conjugal term to another, as Mr. Marshals Logick I presume may inform him. But let us hear his reply.

To which saith he, I reply, take this for granted which you say, and (if I want not common sense) you plainly and fully answer your self; for if they were out of all doubt that their children were not bastards, then it was not possible for them to doubt whether their own mariage were lawfull; take this to be his argument, Your children are legitimate, this you all grant; Ergo, your mariage is lawfull, of which you doubt: risum teneatis amici? they received the one as a supposed principle, that their children were lawfully begotten, which could not be but in lawfull wedlock, yet had not light enough to know that their wedlock was a lawfull wedlock, if they doubted not of the later how could they of the former?

Answ. The thing that Mr. Marshall in this passage would evince is, that if the Corinthians did not doubt of their childrens legitima­tion, they could not doubt of the lawfulness of their own wedlock, and thereby that I plainly and fully answer my self; but to what objecti­on [Page 135] or expression of mine I answer, he tells me not. But he supposes I make the doubt this, whether their own mariage were lawfull? though I expressed my self plainly enough in these words, The doubt was only whether the believer might continue with the unbeliever in conjugall use, between which two there is an apparent difference, as I have often shewed. Now saith Mr. Marshall, if they were out of all doubt their children were not bastards, then it were not possible for them to doubt whether their mariage was lawfull. If Mr. Mar­shall had said they could not reasonably or probably doubt, it might have passed, but to say, they could not possibly doubt, is both against reason, sith that may be done that implies no contradiction, and against the experience of too Mr. Baxter the Saints everla­sting rest edit. 1 page 409. they will acknowledge the Premises & yet deny the ap­parēt Cōclusion. many it may be acuter than the Corinthians were, that have granted the Premises, and denied the Conclusion in things of plain connexion, especi­ally in doubts of conscience, when made by ten­der consciences, and by women, whom non per­suaseris etiam si persuaseris, you shall not per­swade them when you have perswaded, nor con­vince them when you have convinced, nor settle them when you have resolved. But I need no such exception, my answer plainly is, they might doubt whether they might continue still in conjugall use, by reason of the unbelief of one party, from some pro­hibition of the Apostles, though they doubted not of their former or later childrens legitimation; as a Papist may doubt whether she is to live with her Lutheran husband, though she neither doubts of her childrens legitimation, nor of their wedlock at first. So that what e­ver become of Mr. Marshals common sense, whether it were bound up by sleep or awake, his friends invited to laugh will find in these pas­sages little matter ridiculous, unless it be to observe him striking at his own shadow.

SECT. XVII.
Mr. Marshals 4th argument that after my exposition the Apostles resolution had not taken away the doubt of the Corinthians from the fact in Ezra 9. & 10. is answered.

‘I Proceed. My fourth argument saith Mr. Marshall was, according to this interpretation, the Apostles answer could no way have reach­ed to the quieting of their consciences; their doubt was, whether they were not to put away their wives and children as not belonging to God, as being a seed whom God would not own among his people, and this answer could never have quieted their consciences to tell them their mariage was lawful, and their children legitimate. To which you answer, this argument is grounded on a mistake, the question was not say you about putting away their wives and chil­dren as not belonging to God, but something else; I reply, but if it be not grounded upon a mistake, and that (as Beza saies) Paul is not here arguing about civil policy, but arguing a case of consci­ence, whether because of the idolatry of the wife or husband religi­on did not require that they should be put away, because God would not have his holy seed mingled with them, even by your own con­fession, the argument stands good: which whether it will not be made out shall (God willing) by and by appear.’

Answ. Mr. Marshall keep stills his wont of leaving out the chief thing in my answer, which was that it was a mistake in Mr. Marshall, that the question was whether according to the example in Ezra they were not to put away their wives & children as not belonging to God. So that the chief strength of the objection then was that the doubt in the Corinthians did arise from the fact in Ezra, and according to my in­terpretation the answer could not take away the doubt. To which I answered 4. things, 1. That it is but a conjecture that they had any relation in this matter to the action mentioned in Ezra. 2. That some other occasion is as likely, as I shewed before. 3. That there was no doubt about putting away their children. 4. That I had shewed before what the doubt was, and how the Apostles answer fits it. Now Mr. Marshall in his repetition leaves out the chief words in this objection, [according to the example in Ezra] and all my rea­sons to the contrary, and sets down his reply as if the mistake I meant were, that he conceived amiss, that Paul is not here arguing about [Page 137] civil policy, but arguing a case of conscience: Whereas there is not a word about this in Mr. Marshals objection in his Sermon, nor in my answer to it. Nor will I own such mishapen expressions, which intimate by the opposition, that he that argues about civil po­licy argues not a case of conscience, as if no case of conscience were about civil policy. As for that which Mr. Marshall saies, if it be not grounded upon a mistake, then the argument stands good, I marvel Mr. Marshall hath so little regard to his conscience or reputa­tion, as to say that is my own confession, of which there is not a word in my Examen, or any other writing of mine: nor can be gathered from them. But whether that which he saies, be made out (as his phrase is) by him, I shall consider in his answer to my first exception as he calls it, page 157.

SECT. XVIII.
The insufficiency of what Mr. Marshall, Mr. Geree, Mr. Blake, bring to avoid my Exception, that it is without proof sup­posed that the doubt answered 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13, 14. did arise from reading the fact Ezra 9. & 10. and not from the Epistle mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 9. is manifested.

‘HAving thus plainly (saith Mr. Marshall) overthrown your in­terpretation, it remains that I make good my interpretation a­gainst your exceptions; I said their doubt seems to arise from the law of God, which was in force in Ezra's time, where Gods people were ordered to put away their infidel wives and children, as a pol­luted seed which God would not have mingled with his own. You answer, first you see very little agreement between this case and that, and that the cases are very far different of two persons under the law, the one a Jew by profession, the other a stranger; second­ly, in that none of the phrases, except the word (holy) are used in the one place which are used in the other; thirdly, you rather think their doubt arose from a former Epistle which he had written to them, mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 9. wherein he commanded them not to keep company with fornicators or Idolaters, hereupon they might doubt whether they should continue with their unbelieving yoke-fellows.’

Answ. It is true, these things Mr. Marshall here sets down, were in my exception against his setting down the occasion of the Corinthi­ans doubt, and in answer to Mr. Thomas Goodwins reason for it, Ex­amen page 71. But when Mr. Marshall made this the ground of his 4th. argument, I answered as I said before, 4. things, to the first of which Mr. Marshall saies nothing, but by his own phrase [their doubt seems to arise from the law of God] and Mr. Gerees page 20. [it might probably arise] my answer is confirmed that it is but a con­jecture that the Corinthians had any relation in this matter to the action in Ezra. Now this is answer enough to Mr. Marshals 4th argument, which is grounded on this, that the doubt arose from that fact. But if that be but an uncertain ghess, then how can Mr. Mar­shall conclude thence that the answer must be fitted to the resolution of that or the like case, and because according to my interpretation it is not so fitted, therefore my interpretation is not the Apostles mean­ing: For my part I am so far from confessing (as Mr. Marshall im­putes it to me) that if the occasion of the doubt were the reading that story of putting away their strange wives in Ezra and Nehemiah, Mr. Marshals argument must stand good against my interpretation, that I think if it were the occasion of the doubt, yet my interpretation of the Apostle would as well suit with the doubt so occasioned as Mr. Marshals, nor do I think Mr. Geree could make good that speech of his in his vindic. Paedobapt. page 20. that if the scruple were occa­sioned from the fact Ezra 10. 3. that then it doth carry the sense quite to him and overthrow mine; it being remembred that the doubt was as Mr. Marshall rightly puts it in his 3d agreement, page 146. whether the believer were to retain the unbelieving yoke-fellow. Yea I say now, that if the Apostle did allude to the term [holy seed] Ezra 9. 2. it there signifying a legitimate seed, it serves well to prove my exposition of [holy] for [legitimate.] As for the doubt whether their children were to be put away, neither hath Mr. Marshall brought a word to prove that it was the doubt, nor hath he said any thing in answer to my reason to the contrary from the Analysis of the words, to wit, the particles [ [...], else were] shewing it to be an argument ab absurdo consequente, it is impli'd they counted it out of doubt their children were not unclean, but an absurdity to imagine so. But what saith Mr. Marshall to my exceptions against Mr. Thomas Good­wins confident conceit, that the occasion of the doubt, 1 Cor. 7. 13. must arise from the fact Ezra 9, & 10. by reason of the agreement of matter and phrase?

I reply, saith he, first, that the cases were the very same when their scruple arose, for though they were both unbelievers when they were maried, and at that time neither of them both belonged to the Church of God, yet when one of them was converted, and the o­ther remained an infidel, one of them was now become a Church-member, the other remaining an alien, their case was the very same, and they finding their condition parallel with that in Ezra might very well apply that case to themselves to make this their doubt.

Answ. He that would make their case the same must not vary it in one particular: all Casuists and Lawyers determine a case to be varied when one materiall circumstance is varied. And yet Mr. Marshall a vouches the cases were the very same, though he sayes not a word to that material disparity I made between them, the Iews being un­der the Law of Moses and professing it, the Corinthian Christians not so, and yet that doubt if it were occasioned by that fact must arise from the doubted force of the Law of God, as Mr. Marshall rightly allegeth. As for that which Mr. Marshall saies, they were the one an unbeliever, the other a believer, when the scruple arose, it takes not away the disparity in the cases as I set it down, which is material to shew there was not agreement in the matter, and so not one likely to be the occasion of the doubt of the other. For this difference at their first mariage varied the case in order to the doubt, the Iews fact being occasioned by Gods law, which did condemn as well the first entring on mariage with the unbeliever, as the continuing in it, but it was not so with the Corinthians, who did not question their first en­tring into mariage when both were unbelievers, which they would have done if their doubt had risen from that law, but onely they doubted of their continuance in it one being an unbeliever. But to shew it to be more unlikely that the doubt of the Corinthians arose from that story, sith my Antagonists place so much to their purpose in this supposed parallel of their condition, which they prove not, I shall to the disparities before alleged, which vary the case, add some more. As that the case of the Iews was not of the wives putting away of her husband, but of the husbands putting away his wife; but here the doubt is as well of the believing wifes leaving her unbelieving hus­band, as of the believing husbands putting away his wife, and this leads to another disparity, the Iews case was about a divorce in way of authority or power in the hu [...]band putting away his wife, but this of a wives leaving of her husband, was never by way of authority or [Page 140] power, but only of will, there the fact was not simply for Idolatry or unbelief, but chiefly because of their descent from the people whose affinity the Lord had forbidden, but here no scruple arose from the strangeness of the nation, but from the unbelief only of the one party. More of these might be alleged to shew that there is not such agree­ment in the cases as to conclude the doubt of the one to arise from knowledge of the fact of the other. Nevertheless by the way it may be observed, that if the cases of the Iews and Corinthians were the same, and yet the law that bound the Jews did not bind the Corinthi­ans, how will it follow that the same command which tyed the Jews to circumcise their infants, binds us to baptize ours, when the com­mand of putting away wives did not bind the Corinthians, though less proper to the Jews than that of circumcision?

Secondly, saith Mr. Marshall, although the phrases used in Ezra dif­fer from those used here, that makes nothing against this collection, because phrases are used according to the different administrations, each speaking according to the received dialect belonging to the ad­ministration they lived under.

Answ. My exception was against Mr. Thomas Goodwins confi­dent assertion, that the occasion of the doubt 1 Cor. 7. 13. arose from Ezra 9. &. 10. by reason of the agreement in matter and phrase: so then if the phrases differ as Marshal confesseth, my exception against that assertion of Mr. Goodwin was right, and for the matter, let Mr. Cobbet commended by Mr. Goodwin himself be heard in his just vindic. part. 1. ch. 1. sect. 4. as for the paralleling of that Ezra 10. 44. with this case it is very unsuitable, that was a case of per­sons inchurched, having an express prohibition to the contrary, not to joyn with such, as persons betwixt whom and themselves there was a partition wall, yet doing it. This is a case of persons all of one sort, pagan, when first maried, and under no such prohibition; onely af­ter they were maried one imbraceth the faith. But saith Mr. Mar­shall, it makes nothing against his collection.

Answ. Mr. Marshall tells not what collection he means, but this I suppose is the collection, that the occasion of the Corinthians doubt was the reading or hearing of the relation of the fact Ezra 9. & 10. If this be the collection, I conceive it makes much against it, that the Apostle in answering the doubt occasioned thence should use none of the phrases there, though he had an eye on the story there.

But saith Mr. Marshall, the reason might be, because phrases are used according to the different administrations, each speaking according to [Page 141] the received Dialect belonging to the administration they lived un­der.

I answer. Phrases it is true are used much after the customes in use, but that it should be likely the Apostle would not use phrases allusive to Iewish customs or laws in the old Testament when he wrote to the Corinthians, especially when he resolves a doubt occasioned by a Iew­ish law, is so contrary to the constant use of the Apostle, whose phrases are many of them Hebraisms, and allusive to the passages and rites in the old Testament, yea in this very Epistle 1 Cor. 5. 2, 3, 7, 8, 13. and 6. 16. and 7. 3. & 9. 13. &c. and to the use of the holy writers in the New Testament, as Mr. Gataker Mr. Marshalls Collegue hath prov'd at large again Pfochenius in an entire tract of that point, that neither is there any probability in what Mr. Marshall saith, nor do I believe that when Mr. Marshal hath read that book of Mr. Gataker, will he urge this any more. As for that which he saith, each speaking according to the received Dialect belonging to the administration they lived under, if by Dialect be meant as Grammarians use the word for diversifications of the same language, as in the Attick, Dorick, Io­nick Dialects among the Greeks, it is a new piece of learning, which I never met with before, that Dialects belong to the administration they live under, and are diversified thereby, which I alwayes took to be diversified by the use of the several tribes or people of the same nation and language, in the same time in which the administration, that is (if I mistake not Mr. Marshals meaning, which is easie in so obscure a speech) Ecclesiastical rites and policy are the same, as at this day there's a different Dialect in the Northern and Southern English, though they have had the same Church rites and policy.

But Mr. Geree hath another reason to prove that the occasion of the doubt was from the fact Ezra 9. & 10. which he expresseth in his vindic. Paedobapt. ch. 1. sect. 4. page 20. thus. And that the scru­ple and resolution were of this nature (that is from Ezra 10. 3.) there is evident presumption in the text it self v. 12. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord, which hath reference to that before verse 10. And unto the maried I cōmand, yet not I, but the Lord, that is, as I once learned from that reverend Divine (whom for honour I name) Mr. Dod, the Doctrine of those equally joyned in mariage the Apostle delivered as from the Lord, that is, from the plain relation of God in the old Testament. But to the doubt of remaining together where one is a believer, the other an infidel, I say, not the Lord, That is not to be taken as though Saint Paul did resolve any thing against the mind [Page 142] of God. But this resolution he gave as an Apostle under the N. T. which was different from the dispensation of the Lord under the Law. For then an alien, if not a proselyte, did defile the Iew and the seed, as appears Ezra 9. Neh. 13. 23, 24. but now the Apostle resolves otherwise.

Answ. Mr. Dod was a man of very reverend esteem for holiness of life; but as for his conceit about this text, as if the Apostle when he saith v. 10. not I, but the Lord, should mean the doctrine against se­paration of those equally joyned in mariage, the Apostle delivered as from the Lord, that is, from the plain relation of God in the Old Testament, the contrary is rather true. For the doctrine for separati­on of the equally joyned in mariage seems plainly delivered Deut. 24. 1. and was so taken by the Vide Seld. uxor. Heb. l. 3. c. 18 &c. Pharisees Mat. 19. 7. and divorces frequently used among the Iews upon small occasions. And on the other side the doctrine for separation of the unequally voked by reason of different religion seems plainly delivered in the Old Testa­ment, Deut. 7. 3. & 23. 3. as it was interpreted Ezra 9. 11. Nehem. 13. 1. And for my part I rather conceive (as Mr. Cobbet in his just vindic. part. 1. c. 1. sect. 1.) the meaning to be v. 10. not I, but the Lord, that is, not by any new revelation, but the Lord Iesus Christ expressely, Mat. 5. 37. & 19. 6. 8. 9. Mark. 10. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Lu. 16. 18. & v. 12. Not the Lord, that is Christ Iesus by express determi­nation in the New Testa. but I by speciall revelation with Apostolicall authority. But were Mr. Dods interpretation current, yet it would be so farre from evident presumption, that the scruple arose from Ezra 9. & 10. that it would be a good argument to the contrary. For then the words v. 12. Not the Lord, but I, must have this sense, that the Lord in the old Testament had not determined the doubt of remaining together where one is a believer, the other an infidel, but the Apostle under the new, which were not true, for the Lord had expressely resol­ved for their separation: but if it were true that he had not, then is it not likely the doubt should arise from Ezra 10. 3. where there is an express determination, whereas by Mr. Dods interpretation the A­postle is made to say, the Lord in the old Testament had not determi­ned that doubt. As for that of Mr. Geree, that the resolution of the Apostle was different from the dispensation under the law, by reason of the different state of the Iewish policy, it serves very well to shew, that as that law of separating an alien, so the law of Circum­cision, and other laws, were from a peculiar respect to the state of the Iews afore Christs comming, and not from a common reason belong­ing [Page 143] to both Iews and Gentiles by vertue of the Covenant of grace, which is brought to make a perpetuall rule serving for us in Bap­tism.

Thirdly, saith Mr. Marshall, and as to that you say, that it might arise from 1 Cor. 5. 9. I answer, should that be granted, yet my sense remains as strong as before.

Answ. Mr. Marshall denies not but that the doubt might arise from that which is 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. Mr. Geree vindic. Paedobapt. ch. 1. sect. 4. page 20: sayes thus. And for my part I dislike not your conceit of that occasion if you take it not exclusively to exclude ours; for I conceive the doubt might arise from both; and one of them would adde strength to the other, and the doubt having ap­pearance of ground from both would be more strong. I confess, if the occasion of the doubt were from both, the doubt would be more strong: yet if it be granted the doubt to arise from 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. Mr. Mar­shals 4th argument in his sermon would not be more strong, for it rested on this, that the Corinthians doubt arose from the fact in Ez­ra; which is weakened, yea comes to nothing if there were another occasion of the doubt, though Mr. Marshall say, his sense (he would say argument) remains strong as before. But let us hear his rea­son.

For if this scruple now rose, that if believers because of the infi­del condition of the husband or wife might not by the rule of the Gos­pel continue in mariage-society with them, it must be from some rule of religion which must strike upon the conscience; and from what rule could they gather that their mariage which before was lawfull, was upon their conversion turned into fornication?

Answ. The thing that Mr. Marshall brings this as a reason for, is, that if it be granted the Corinthians doubt to arise from 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. yet his sense remains as strong as before; Now what co­herence this hath with the thing it is brought to prove I do not under­stand, but rather in this, and that which follows in this paragraph, the discourse of Mr. Marshal seems to be intangled as if he had been puzzled, and heeded not whereto he spake. For if it be granted that the doubt came from that 1 Cor 5. 9, 10, Why doth he frivolously ask from what rule they could gather their mariage, (he should say con­tinuance in mariage) which was before lawfull, now upon their conver­sion was turned into fornication, he should have said made unlawful? sith if the doubt be granted to come from thence, the rule of religion is plainly expressed to be, that a believer is not to keep compa­ny [Page 144] [...], to be mingled with Idolaters, which was a rule of re­ligion, that might strike upon a believers conscience, & make the belie­ver think it unlawful to continue in mariage society, though they did thence not conceive their mariage turned into fornication, as Mr. Mar­shall doth incōmodiously express the question. So that the reason of Mr. Marshall (if there be any reason in it) strengthens not Mr. Mar­shals sense against mine, but serves as well the occasion of the doubt as I make it, as it doth Mr. Marshall. But perhaps ther's more to the purpose in that which follows.

And if their doubt were (as your self grant) whether it were law­full for a converted party or a believer still to retain their infidel wife or husband (not of unbelievers whether they be sanctified matrimo­nially one to another) the doubt must necessarily arise from something in religion, some case which was peculiar to believers, now (as Mr. Beza saies truly) the doubt being in their consciences of an unlawful­ness to continue in their maried condition from something peculiar to Gods people, the Apostle should have used a most indirect argument to pacify their consciences, in referring them to the civil laws of other Nations, by which their mariage is proved lawfull.

Answ. Mr. Marshal undertook to confirm his sense by granting that the doubt of the Corinthians resolved 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13. might arise from that 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. now I see not any word tending to any argu­ment from this concession of the occasion of the doubt to confirm his sense, but what he brings is from the Apostles resolution of the doubt as he conceives me make it. And therefore it is apparent Mr. Mar­shall as a puzzled man had forgotten what he was to prove. But per­haps he hath however some good new argument against my interpreta­tion, let us examine it then. That which he would evince seems to be, 1. That by my interpretation the Apostle should referre the Co­rinthians doubting from something in religion to the civil laws of o­ther Nations to pacify their consciences. 2. That the Apostle so do­ing should have used a most indirect argument to pacifie their consci­ences. I answer, The Corinthians were Greeks, and what civil laws of other Nations it should be meant they should be referred to, except the Romans to whom they were then subject, I do not apprehend. This then Mr. Marshall would insinuate, that according to my interpretati­on the Apostle should referre the Corinthians to the civil laws of the Romans to pacifie their consciences. But Mr. Marshall doth not shew the least hint of such a consequence from my interpretation, nor indeed can. I said expressely Exercit. page 16. and Examen page 77. that the Apostle resolves them by his Apostolick authority, as [Page 145] himself declares v. 12. As for that which Mr. Beza saies it would be a most indirect argument to pacifie their consciences in referring them to the civil laws of men, I grant, taking [indirect] for an argu­ment unsuitable to the doubt, and so unlikely to satisfie. But no such thing is done by my exposition, yea my exposition of the fore­part of the 14th v. in which is the medium which confirmes the reso­lution v. 13. is the very same with Mr. Bezas, as I have often shewed, nor is it yet disproved. But Mr. Marshal goes on thus.

And to what purpose should he discourse of bastards or the like, when their consciences were scrupled in something which began to concern them upon their conversion? and to tell them they were san­ctified in their unbelief could never have reached the scruple arising after they began to be believers, because their mariage might be firm and good while they remained unbelievers; yet the infidel might now become impure in that relation of mariage to the other which was converted.

Answ. To what purpose the Apostle should discourse of bastards, and whether that which I make the meaning could reach the scruple arising, is best perceived by the Analysis of the Apostles reasoning, which as framed by me is not excepted against by Mr. Marshal, and therefore this question of Mr. Marshals he might easily have answered himself, if he would have heeded my words, which distinctly tell him the forepart of the 14. v. yields a medium to prove the Apostles resolution v. 12, 13. and the later by an argument ab absurdo conse­quente confirms that medium. Whether my interpretation be true hath been discussed. Now whereas Mr. Marshal concludes, And there­fore it remains that it must be resolved from some rule which must reach believers as they were the people of God, and not be common to infidels with them: Now what is that argument which Paul here uses to satisfie them? (which must reach them as they were be­lievers) your self grant it is this, else were your children unclean, which is the medium, because your children are not unclean but holy, therefore the unbeliever must be granted to be sanctified to the wife or husband; this argument must therefore necessarily inferre some kind of holiness, which is appliable only to the state of religion, there­fore it must be federal holiness.

I answer, The apostle resolved the Corinthians by his Apostolicall authority, which was a rule reaching believers as they were the people of God. As for the argument, though it be not so rightly framed by Mr. Marshal as I use to do, yet that which he saith, I grant to be [Page 146] part of the argument as I make it, but I deny that this must necessari­ly inferre, that the holiness there meant is appliable onely to the state of religion, till Mr. Marshall doth not onely say, but prove it, and therefore federall holiness is not yet proved from this text by Mr. Mar­shall or any other that I know.

Mr. Blake in his answer to my letter ch. 7. pag. 33. will not have it likely that the occasion of the doubt should be from the command, 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10.

1. Because it's not yielded by many that any part of divinely inspi­red Scripture is lost. And he saies, that Chrysostom finds the pre­cept 1 Cor. 5. 9. in the same chapter, v. 2.

Answ. As there be that deny any part of holy Scripture to be lost, so there be that grant it, conceiving it no more impeachment of the providence of God, Vide Camer. praelect. de verbo Dei Glasc. c. 13. or faithfulness of the Church, than that which all must grant, that all copies extant are so corrupted in some passages, that there is no way to restore the right reading, but by conjecture: nor do they conceive it such a dammage to the Church as is inconsistent with Gods care of them, though some books be lost, if that the same doctrine be in these now extant. As for the Epistle mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 9. Beza in his annot. on that place, not onely conceives, but proves from the particle [...] but now, that the Ep. v. 9. distinguished from that he then wrote, must needs be another Epistle which is now lost. To which may be added that v. 10, 11. are plainly for an explanation of what he had written before, which they were apt to mistake, and therefore there was some other Ep. which he thought needful to explain by this. As for Chrysostom, because Mr. Blake quotes him not, I cannot tell where to seek what he allegeth. I do not find the thing in his Homily on 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10, 11. where else to seek it I know not.

But saith Mr. Blake, if granted that v. 9. mentions a former Epi­stle, yet v. 10. seems to be his present further explanation, and no part of the contents of that Epistle formerly written, and so there is no room left for your conjecture.

Answ. It follows rather on the contrary, that if v. 10. be a further explanation of the former Epistle; then it is part of the contents of the former Epistle, though not fully understood, otherwise it should not be an explanation but an addition. Which is furrher confirmed in that the new explanation seems to be not so much about the object or sorts of persons with whom he had forbiddden them formerly to keep com­pany, [Page 147] as about the extent of the act of keeping company, concerning which his prohibation was to be limitted. And therefore there is room left for my conjecture, that the doubt resolved 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13, 14. might be occasioned by the Epistle mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 9. yea I say further, if that v. 10. were no part of the contents of the former Epistle, yet if the Corinthians (whom Mr. Blakes conceives to be ra­tional men, and thence (though vainly) collects that they must doubt of their childrens case as well as their own) did conceive it a like rea­son, they should not keep company with Idolaters as with fornicators, they might raise their doubt from the prohibition which did not con­tain the thing doubted of: which hath the more likelihood, if it be true which Heinsius mentions in his Exercit. on that verse, that an interpre [...]er conceives the Corinthians under the name of fornicators in the former Epistle understood idolaters.

Mr. Blake goes on. And put the case further that the 9. & 10. v. do both express the contents of that Epistle, why do you take both the ends, and leave out the middle? making their scruple to be their converse with husbands or wives fornicators or idolaters, and not as well with covetous or extortioners?

Answ. I left out the middle terms [covetous and extortioners] in my Examen page 71. because I conceived it superfluous for me to put them in. Their onely scruple I mentioned was there conversing with the Idolatrous or un believing yoke-fellow, because the Apostle only re­solves that doubt 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13, 14. about which the dispute I held was. Whether or no they scrupled conversing with covetous or ex­tortioners, I could not tell, because the Apostle is silent about that doubt. The alleging of 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. by me, was not to shew what was their scruple 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13, 14. but what might be the occasion of it, and that was exprest by me only as a conjectute, not asserted by me to be likely, but only to be far more likely than that the occasi­on of the doubt was from the fact mentioned Ezra 10.

But Mr. Blake addes. If this conjecture of yours hold, the Apo­stle thus writes to the Corinthians, if any brother hath a wife that is an idolater, fornicator, a drunkard, or extortioner, let him not put her away.

Ans. My conjecture was, that possibly the occasion of the Corin­thians doubt resolved 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13, 14. might be from that which he had written before to them, 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. but how, if this hold, the Apostle must write to the Corinthians thus, if any brother hath a wife that is an Idolater, fornicator, a drunkard, or extortioner, let him not put her away, I cannot imagine. For neither doth it fol­low [Page 148] that if that passage ministred occasion of doubt about the one sort, (viz.) the unbelievers, it must also raise doubt of necessity about the other. Wise men not alwayes seeing the consequent of that principle which they are possessed with, or if they had the occasion of the doubt from 1 Cor. 5. 9. doth it follow that the Apostle must either know that to have been the occasion, or resolve their doubt with reference to it? and if he did, yet there was no necessity he should resolve it in like manner concerning fornicators as idolaters. Yea but saith Mr. Blake, it must needs be that the Apostle takes in every part and piece of their scruple, and so the question about divorce so much agitated, would have been determined.

Answ. It is likely the Apostle took in every part and piece of that which was propounded to him as the Corinthians scruple indeed, but there was no necessity he should take in every part of that which Mr. Blake may imagine would have been their scruple if my conjecture hold. But if the Apostle had taken in every part of their scruple, yet the question about divorce so much agitated might have been unde­termined. The question so much agitated I think from the following words is that which was once in Oxford agitated between Dr. How­son, Mr. Banny and others on the one side, and Dr. Pye, Dr. Rainolds and others on the other side, which as I remember was principally whether upon a lawfull divorce for adultery the innocent party might mary again; Howson holding with Bellarmine the negative, Dr. Rai­nolds and others the affirmative. I do not suppose they held now no lawfull divorce, for then they should have destroyed the thing suppo­sed in their question; and though it might be they held Moses per­mission was to put away a wife in case of adultery only, that the na­kedness or uncleanness mentioned Deut. 24. 1. is adultery, yet I think that was not the main question. Now if the Apostle had taken in every part of the Corinthians imagined scruple, and resolved as Mr. Blake would have it, that if my conjecture hold then he must write to the Corinthians if any other brother hath a wife that is an idolater, fornicator, a drunkard, or extortioner, let him not put her away, yet this doth not determine the controversie so much agitated, whether the innocent party might mary after a lawfull divorce, except by destroy­ing the thing supposed, that there is a lawfull divorce, and if it did determine that which Mr. Blake makes Dr. Howsons tenet, he needs not wonder they did not hit on this text for their purpose, sith such a resolution of the Apostle is bred only in Mr. Blakes brain.

As for that which Mr. Blake addes about my Uncle Whately, of pre­cious [Page 149] memory, his retraction, I doubt whether Mr. Blake addes it in jest or in earnest. 'Tis true he did ingenuously retract in a passage be­fore his Carecloth the positions in his Bridebush, The sins of adulte­ry and wilfull desertion disolve the bond of matrimony, acknowledg­ing it would follow then that a husband might not lawfully use his wife having plaid the adultress if that were true, for they should be no more husband and wife, if the bond of wedlock were broken: But if I had been acquainted with him sooner, and held the same conjecture I do now, yea and the Apostle must have resolved as Mr. Blake ima­gines would follow if my conjecture hold, yet the suggestion of this would have been so far from saving his retraction, that it would rather have necessitated him to it. For if the Apostle should write thus, If any brother hath a wife that is a fornicator, let him not put her away, would it not the rather follow that fornication dissolves not the mari­age knot, and so my Uncle Whately must the rather have retracted that position, that it did, if by my acquaintance w^th him sooner this had been suggested to him? What follows is answered in my Postscript, which I thought then, and still think, is answer enough to Mr. Blakes an­swer to my letter. In which I find so many absurd glosses, dictates, flirts, incoherent, inconsequent, impertinent passages, and so little solid nervous disputing, that as I had not said so much as I have done heretofore had not Mr. Vines and Mr. Calamy by their vain crackings necessitated me to it, so neither would I have added this, but to stop the mouths, if it may be, of those that call on me to an­swer him, who I think is sufficiently answered, till some judicious person shews me wherein my answer to him in my Postscript is de­fective. I am afraid my judicious Reader will give me little thanks for troubling him with so much. I pass now to the vindicating of mine own exceptions against Mr. Marshals interpretation.

SECT. XIX.
My objections against instrumental sanctification, that it fits not the case of persons disabled for procreation, that it makes the ar­gument of the Apostle to be from a future contingent, that the act of producing a holy seed is not from any special designation of God, are vindicated from Mr. Marshals answers.

‘MR. Marshall speaks thus. But against this you except many things. First this could not have resolved the doubt in the case of those who by age could not be sanctified to this end, or by reason of accidental inabiliry for generation, they might still depart each from other not­withstanding this reason. I answer, it follows not, this is a laying down of their right which they may claim when they are capable of it; this is their privilege, which remains firm though it should never come into act, as if a freeman of a City should have right to have all his children born freemen, that is to be numbered among his pri­vileges, though he should never have a child; this reaches to men and women maried and unmaried, yea even to children yet unborn: be­sides, the first part of it reacheth to the bed, even the coitus is not only undefiled, but sanctified.’

Answ. This exception or reason of mine was meeely against the ex­pounding of this phrase the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the hus­band, thus, the unbelieving wife is sanctified instrumentally, that is as Mr. Marshall expressed it quoad hoc, so farre as to bring forth an holy seed. Now I truly said they could not be said to be sanctified for the bringing forth a holy seed, who are disabled for bringing forth any seed at all, and so it could not have resolved the doubt of such; whereas the Apostles determination is concerning any husband and wife, the one an unbeliever, the other a believer. Now in answer hereto Mr. Marshall saies, this sanctification is a laying down of their right, or privilege, which remains firm though it should ne­ver come into act. I reply, the instrumentall sanctification of Mr. Marshall was thus exprest in his Sermon page 19. the unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband, quoad hoc, so farre as to bring forth an holy seed, and in his defence page 162. the ones being sanctified in the other, quoad hoc, so farre as to make them capable to bring forth a holy seed. Now I appeal to any Logician and Grammarian whether a person may be said to be instrumentally san­ctified [Page 151] for such an effect which he neither doth nor can produce? whe­ther a woman may be said to be sanctified quoad hoc, so farrè as to bring forth a holy seed by vertue of the faith of her husband, who is by age or accidental impotency utterly disabled naturally from bear­ing any children, and hath no supernaturall power inabling her there­to? whether she may be capable to bring forth a holy seed who is not capable to bring forth any at all? Bringing forth a holy seed can­not be without bringing forth a seed, and therefore the woman uncapa­ble to bring forth a seed is uncapable to bring forth a holy seed. Yea, Mr. Marshals own words [when they are capable of it] do impliedly acknowledge that such persons are not then capable of the right of be­ing sanctified instrumentally for bringing forth a holy seed. I deny not but there may be a privilege which never comes into an act, but I ut­terly deny that this speech by which Mr. Marshall paraphraseth the A­postles words, the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the believing hus­band, quoad hoc, so farre as to bring forth a holy seed, can be true of such a woman as is altogether disabled from child-bearing. And there­fore the Apostles argument, understood after Mr. Marshals sense of it, had not resolved the doubt concerning them that were past generation, whereas it is not denied that the resolution reacheth even unto such in case of disparity of religion. As for what Mr. Marshall adds, Be­sides the first part of it reacheth to the bed, even the coitus is not only undefiled but sanctified, I do not understand either what that [it] re­fers to, or what he means by [reacheth to the bed] nor of whom he means it, nor what he means by [the first part] sith I find no partiti­on of any thing in this answer, nor in what respect or manner the coi­tus is said to be not onely undefiled but sanctified also, nor to what purpose that is added [even the coitus is not only undefiled but sanctifi­ed] and therefore till Mr. Marshall expound, it I must let it pass as the speech of a man between sleeping and waking.

‘Mr. Marshall goes on. Secondly say you, this reason would then run thus, you may live together, for you may beget a holy seed; and so their consciences should have been resolved of their present lawfull living together, from a future event which was uncertain; and here (as I toucht before) you bring in Chamier nothing to the pur­pose: I answer, it is not from a future event but from a positive real truth; if Pauls reason be framed thus, The children which believers beget upon their infidel yoke-fellows are a holy seed, therefore be­lievers have a sanctified use of their infidel husbands or wives, had this been a reasoning from a future Contingent? As for what you [Page 152] here cite out of Chamier, I answer only this, I perswade my self you are by this time ashamed of your impertinent quotation, I assure my self if you be not, your friends are.’

An. 1. Mr. Marshall opposeth to a future event a positive real truth ineptly, for to a future event is opposed a thing past or present, not a truth which is a right affirmation or deniall of something; if he would have spoken aptly he should have said [but from a thing present or past] Besides when he saith it is from a positive real truth, not from a future event, he intimates some truths not to be real or positive, but every truth, I conceive, though from a future event is real, that is, not i­maginary onely, and every truth is positive, that is, puts things as they are, truth of speech being an agreement with that which is indeed, except he mean by [positive] determinate, according to that which Lo­gicians say, de futuris contingentibus non est determinata veritas.

2. Mr. Marshall quite changeth my reason, and mistakes the point in question which was Whether the sanctification of the unbelieving wife spoken of by the Apostle be meant of instrumental sanctification for the bringing forth a holy seed, which I proved that it could not be so, because then the Apostle should resolve them of their lawfull living together from a future event which was uncertain, which had been absurd and contrary to the very expressions of the Apostle, which im­ports a thing very certain, yea a thing present or past, as Chamier ob­served; where the future event is made this, to be sanctified for this purpose, to wit, to be an instrument for bringing forth a holy seed, now to be an instrument to bring forth a holy seed is a future event and uncertain, it may be or not be; and this is the medium for proof of the Apostles determination v. 13. that they might live together.

Now what saith Mr. Marshall? he tells me if Pauls reason be fra­med thus, the children which believers beget upon their infidell yoke­fellows are a holy seed, therefore believers have a sanctified use of their infidel husbands or wives, had this been a reasoning from a future contingent? which is a ridiculous kind of answering, never ex­cepting against my framing the reason, but rather allowing it after, nor denying that the begetting a holy seed was a future contingent, but substituting another reason instead of that framed by me, wherein he makes the Conclusion that which I made, and that rightly, the Apostles medium according to Mr. Marshals interpretation to prove the Apo­st [...]es determination, v 13. and he makes the latter part of the 14th. v. the medium to prove the former part, and then asks me had this been a reasoning from a future contingent? which is just as in the proverb, [Page 153] to answer about Onions when the interrogation is about Garlick.

3. Chamiers words were cited by me to confirm my reason, that the sanctification is not to be understood of a future contingent. And for this the words are so pertinent, that it is the express speech of Chamier, and therefore however Mr. Marshall or my friends in their mistake conceive of my citation, I know no reason to be ashamed of it. But I assure my self Mr. Marshall hath much cause to be asha­med, and to be humbl [...]d before God and men for his so heedless and overly handling a point of such importance, and thereby not onely greatly wronging me, but much more the truth, and Church of God, of which the Lord give him repentance.

But he goes on. Thirdly say you, s [...]nct [...]fication is here not ascri­bed to God as selecting some from other [...] for such an use, but is com­mon to all unbelieving husbands in respect of their wive, and comes from that commo [...] relation, not speciall designation. I answer, this argument is a plain setting down the question in controversie, as an argument to prove it self, and I have already proved the contrary, that it is a privilege not common to all who are maried, but peculiar to believers.

Answ. My reason is this, Instrumental sanctification is by Gods speciall designation of some selected by him for special use: this is proved from those places which speak of instrumentall sanctification, of which I alleged two, Jerem. 1. 5. Is [...]i. 13. 3. to which I might have added Gen. 2. 3. John 10. 36. and it is confirmed by reason. For to be sanctified instrumentally is to be set apart to be an instrument for bringing forth a holy seed, now an instrument must be the instru­ment of a principall agent, which can be no other than God, nor be sanctified any other way than his special designation; But in this speech of the Ap [...]stle there is no special designation of one to be an instrument of God, which is proved in that this sanctification comes from the common relation between them and if it came from the faith of one party, yet it is not from speciall designation of God, therefore here is not meant instrumental sanctification. Now I appeal to any whe­ther this be a setting down the question in controversie as an argument to prove its self, and not rather an argument drawn from the genuine description of instrumental sanctification, else where to shew how it agrees not with the sanctification here meant. What he saies he hath proved before, I have examined before, of which the Reader may judge.

SECT. XX.
That the proposition included in the consequence of the Apostles ar­gument 1 Cor. 7. 14. is not true of instrumental sanctification and federall holiness, but true onely of matrimonial.

MR. Marshall proceeds. Fourthly, say you according to this exposition the words following could not be true, else were your children unclean, but now they are holy, because in this form of rea­soning this proposition is included, their children could not be holy without that sanctification: which you say is false, because children may be in covenant, and be regenerate, though their parents had never been thus sanctified the one to the other, the children of infidel pa­rents may be sanctified. I reply, not while they are infants, they are not by any birth-privilege to be accounted as belonging to the Church of Christ, which is the only thing about which we are disputing, no man ever went about to prove out of this text that none can ever be converted whose parents are not sanctified the one unto the other.

Answ. Mr. Marshall leaves out in his repetition sundry words which were of moment to be inserted, to wit, [the proposition had been false understanding it of instrumentall sanctification and of federall or reall inherent present holiness] and after [for the begetting of a holy seed] and [may be in the covenant of grace] are left out. The rea­son is this. That interpretation which makes the proposition included in the Apostles argument, which is the hinge upon which it turns, to be false, is not right, but the interpreting sanctification of instrumentall sanctification for begetting a holy seed, and holiness of federall or reall inherent present holiness makes the proposition included in the Apostles argument (which is the hinge upon which it turns) to be false; Ergo, it is not the right interpretation. The Major needs no proof: the Minor is proved by shewing, 1. That this proposition is included in the Apostles reasoning [without the sanctification there mentioned, cheir children could not be holy.] 2. This proposition to be false un­derstood of instrumental sanctification and federal or inherent holiness: for then the proposition would be thus [without sanctification to be­get a holy seed by the faith of one of the parents the children could not be holy, so as to be in the covenant, that is, to be accounted be­longing to the Church of Christ] But this proposition were false in this [Page 155] sense. For the children may be accounted belonging to the Church of Christ without that sanctification. Now what saith Mr. Marshall to this? he denies not that proposition to be included in the Apostles reasoning as set down by me, nor doth he deny the proposi­tion in that sense to be false: onely he saies the proposition is true while they are infants they are not by any birth-privilege to be ac­counted as belonging to the Church of Christ, which is the only thing about which we are disputing.

Whereto I reply, it is not to the present business what is the only thing about which Mr. Marshall and I are disputing, nor what any ever went to prove out of the text: but what is the proposition inclu­ded in the Apostles reasoning, and whether true in Mr. Marshals sense. Mr. Marshall denies not the proposition to be as I set it down, nor will he avouch it to be true except the words [your children] be restrained to them while they are infants, but the word the Apo­stle useth is [your children] which is not here or elsewhere restrained to infants, except some other thing so limit it. They were their chil­dren when they were of twenty years, as well as when they were of two dayes old: nor is there any thing in the text that restrains it to in­fants. Now then if the proposition include children of riper years, and they may be accounted visible members of the Church of Christ, though neither parent be a believer, then is the sense which makes this false proposition to be included in the Apostles reasoning a wrong in­terpretation, nor doth it solve it to say, they are not by brith-privilege to be accounted as belonging to the Church. For the Apostles propo­sition is not, without that sanctification their children could not be holy by birth-privilege, but they could not be holy at all; yet I adde, that the proposition if [children] were restrained to infants in Mr. Mar­shals sense, were false. For infants bought by money of any stran­ger, were circumcised, Gen. 17. 23. and therefore in Mr. Mar­shals sense federally holy, and usually Paedobaptists in the Reformed Churches do account foundlings and others, whose parents are nei­ther of them a believer, such as are to be baptized, which is that they mean by federally holy.

Mr. Marshall proceeds. Next (after another impertinent bring­ing in of Chamier) you reason thus, take it in my sense, and it is no satisfactory reason, you may live together, for you may beget a ho­ly seed; I answer, this is the same with your second argument an­swered before; and wherein I pray you lies the weakness of it, you may live together and have a holy use of your unbelieving yoke-fel­lows, [Page 156] for God esteems the seed of such to be an holy seed as truly as if both were believers, is this a slight or unsatisfying answer?

Answ. That which I alleged out of Chamier, was very pertinent to the matter for which I produced it, viz. to prove that to argue from an event, which might possibly not be at all, to resolve the Corinthi­an Christian▪ that he might lawfully continue with his unbelieving wife, had been unsatisfactory. But I am told this is the same with my second argument answered before, which I acknowledge, and therefore did not make it a distinct argument by it self, but added that and the 6th and 7th so called exceptions only as amplifications of what I said before But Mr. Marshall asks wherein lies the weakness of it? I answer, I told him plainly enough wherein it had been unsatis­factory, in that it would have been a resolution of them of their law­full living together, from a future contingent, the begetting a holy seed, which some of them perhaps knew would never be, as being disabled from generation. As for that which Mr. Marshall makes his para­phrase of the Apostle, and then askes me is this a slight and unsatis­factory answer? I answer, Mr. Marshals paraphrase here neither a­grees with the Apostles words, nor with his own exposition, nor is it a satisfactory answer as he makes it. It agrees not with the Apo­stles words, 1. Because the apostle doth not use v. 14. a conjuncti­on copulative [ [...], and] but a causal [ [...], for] whereas the paraphrase useth a copulative, you may live together, and have a holy use of your unbelieving yoke-fellows: but the Apostle saith, let her not put him away: for the unbelieving husband, &c. making the latter the me­dium to prove the former. Now Mr. Marshall by using [and] instead of [for] makes one copulative proposition of both, and so quite marres the Apostles reason. 2. Mr. Marshall puts nothing in his paraphrase to answer to those words [else were your children unclean] though it be a main part of the Apostles reason. Nor doth this paraphrase a­gree with Mr. Marshall [...] own exposition. For 1. His own expositi­on is, the unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband quo­ad hoc, so farre as to bring forth a holy seed: but this is not all one with his paraphrase, you may have a holy use of unbelieving yoke-fel­lows. Forasmuch as there may be an holy use of unbelieving yoke­fellows, otherwise than by bringing forth a holy seed. 2. Mr. Mar­shalls exposition of those words [but now are they ho [...]y] is, that they are to b [...] accounted by men belonging [...]o the Church of Christ: but here he paraphrase [...]h them thus [God esteems the seed of such to be an ho­ly seed, as truly as if both were believers] so that Mr. Marshall doth [Page 157] but wast paper by a frivolous question nothing to the purpose, sith my ex­ception was not against this new paraphrase as unsatisfactory, but a­gainst that other which I conceived, and Mr. Marshall denies not to express his meaning, and I have often told him it had been unsatisfa­ctory, and I gave him my reason for it, which he hath not yet refuted. And yet as I said, so I conceive this new-shaped paraphrase yields not a satisfactory reason to prove that the believer may live with the unbeliever, because God esteems their children holy, sith the doubt was about their own cohabitation, not of retaining their children: yea Gods esteeming the child holy only for the believers sake, and not the unbeliever, might rather increase their doubt whether they might then live with the party not esteemed holy by God. But Mr. Mar­shall hath yet more to say about this exception, and he thus speaks.

‘Nay I adde further, had the Apostle gon about to prove that a believing wife & a believing husband have not only a lawfull enjoy­ment one of another (as heathens have) but a sanctified, as they have of other creatures, because else their children were unclean, but now they are holy, all your exceptions would lie as strong against this last as against the former: for you might have said this only reaches those that are of age. Secondly, this depends upon a future contingent. Thirdly, this depends upon their common relation. Fourthly, and children may be holy, that is, afterward regenerate, though this be denied, let the Reader consider of it.’

Answ. When the Reader hath considered this observation of Mr. Ma [...]shall, he shall only find Mr. Marshall continuing to talk at ran­dome. He first makes a new supposition of another case of two be­lievers, and then speaks of their having not onely a lawful enjoyment of one another (as heathens have) but a sanctified, as they have of other creatures. Which neither expresseth what I or himself meant by [the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife] and then adds, the rest of the Apostles reason v. 14. and then tells me my exceptions would lie as strongly against this last as against the former; which it seems he accounts an absurdity sufficient to invalidate my exceptions. Wherein he doth but beat the air; my exceptions were not against the word [sanctified] used in the sense here expressed, but against the un­derstanding by it instrumentall sanctification for bringing forth a holy seed, which is not all one with having a sanctified enjoyment of one another, as they have of other creatures: now if my exceptions lie as strong against that exposition of instrumentall sanctification, if the Apostle had spoken of two believers as well as now when he speaks of one believer and the other an unbeliever, I know no absurdity there­in [Page 158] nor any thing to infringe the strength of them, but rather to confirm them. And therefore I see not how he should trouble the Reader with this new supposition and the inference thereupon, except it be to puzzle him, as himself seems to have been. But he proceeds further and tells me,

‘You go on, and say that in your sense the reason is plain and satisfactory, let them live together though one be a believer, the o­ther an unbeliever, for notwithstanding this difference in religion they are husband and wife, mariage being honourable among all, and the bed undefiled. I reply, but this had been no satisfaction to their scruple; their doubt was not whether their mariage were lawfull while they were heathen, but whether now their conscien­ces would not be defiled in remaining joyned to Idolaters, and the Apostles resolution must remove that which your sense doth not; you granted they doubted not the legitimation of their children, and therefore your sense could not have removed the scruple as is above shewed.’

Answ. Though Mr. Marshal by maintaining my words detracts from the clearness of them, yet, letting that pass, lets view what he re­plies. He tells us that their scruple was not whether their mariage were lawfull while they were heathens. To which I assent, there is no difference between us about the scruple, nor about the Apostles reso­lution, v. 12, 13. and therefore if it be the Apostles resolution that re­moves the doubt, my sense being all one with Mr. Marshals, if that removes the doubt, my sense removes it well as his. All the difference is about expounding v. 14. which whether it be more satisfactory ac­cording to my sense, or his, may be judged from that which is above shewed. As for that which he addes, that I grant they doubted not the legitimation of their children, and therefore my sense could not have removed the scruple as is above shewed, I know not where he shewed this above. I confess he took on him to shew that if they doubted not of the legitimation of their children, they could not doubt of the lawfulness of their mariage, which hath been sufficiently answe­red already. But I am yet to seek that which he saith here, he hath shewed above, that because they doubted not of the legitimation of their children, therefore my sense could not have removed the scruple.

‘Mr. Marshall adds. And whereas you adde the like resolution he gives v. 17. concerning circumcised and uncircumcised servants, they might still continue with their masters, their Christian calling did not dissolve these relations, I answer, in one word this like hath [Page 159] no likeness at all in it, there is no parallel betwixt these two cases, he speaks not one word about believing servants continuing with un­believing masters, but of servants in generall, whether their masters were believers or unbelievers, he tells them that they might continue servants though they were Christs freemen, yet if they can fairly ob­tain their freedom let them choose that rather.’

Answ. Mr. Marshall tells me, this like hath no likeness at all in it, there is no parallel betwixt the two cases. But what though the cases be not parallel, yet the resolution may be like, yea the cases may be like though not parallel, sith parallel being a term taken from Geo­metry by which are meant lines equally distant, it in the Metaphor imports a more exact and even answerableness than the term likeness. And though there is no express mention of unbelieving masters, yet they being included in the generall term masters, the resolution is, that they might, though the Lords freemen, continue with their unbelieving masters. Which resolution I am sure hath some likeness with this here, that the believing wife might continue with her unbelieving hus­band.

SECT. XXI.
It is at large shewed that neither Mr. Marshall in his Sermon, nor his Defence, hath answered the objection from the inconsistency of the Apostles included proposition with his exposition.

‘MR: Marshal proceeds thus. One argument more you bring a­gainst this interpretation, if the sanctification were meant of matrimonial sanctification, and the uncleanness of federal unclean­ness, so as to exclude them out of the Covenant, whether of Saving graces or Church-privileges, then the proposition was most false, be­cause children of parents not matrimonially sanctified one to the other were within the Covenant, as Pharez, Jephta and others. I answer, First, I desire the Reader to take notice that you take the Covenant here in this place, as I do, for Church-privileges. Secondly, indeed if sanctification be taken for matrimonial sanctification, or lawful­ness of wedlock, and uncleanness of federal sanctification, the propo­sition may be granted to be false, and let them who so take it under­take the defence of it if they can; but let it be meant of that other san­ctification [Page 160] which I have justified, then the proposition is most true, I say again, all the children of those parents the one whereof is an un­believer are unclean, that is, federally unclean, excluded out of the Covenant, in respect of Church-privileges at least, if not of Saving graces (which is a secret left to God) unless the one be sanctified in the other.’

Answ. 1. What Mr. Marshall desires the Reader to take notice of, that I take the Covenant here in this place as he do [...]h for Church­privileges, because I speak thus, so as to exclude them out of the Co­venant, whether of Saving graces or Church-privileges, is frivolous, sith the Reader might easily perceive the meaning of it to be whether of Sa­ving graces as it ought to be taken, or of Church-privileges as Mr. Marshall though abusively takes it. So that it is so farre from being true, that I take the Covenant there for Church-privileges, that the contrary is rather true, sith I express it so only to recite Mr. Marshals use of it, not mine own.

2. Mr. Marshall, as in other things, so in this, through haste (as I conceive) handles this reason of mine so indistinctly and imperfectly, that the Reader cannot from his words or mine, as they are by him re­cited, know what the proposition is, about the falsity or truth of which we are disputing, because both that which leads to it, and the propo­sition it self included in the Apostles reason, and not denied to be so by Mr. Marshall, is omitte [...] by him. Wherefore because the chief point of the dispute about the meaning of the text lies in this, it is necessary before I answer the rest of Mr. Marshals wrangling (as I may truly call it rather than disputing about this text,) to put the Reader briefly in mind of the state of the point in difference between us, desiring him, if he seek the truth, to weigh better my words in my Examen, than I think Mr. Marshall, or Mr. Geree, or any of those that have taken up­on them to answer me, have done. Briefly thus, after I had shewed that when the Apostle saies [the unbelieving wife is sanctified in or to the husband] the meaning is not as Mr. Marshall, [the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband so farre as to bring forth an holy seed] which after Mr. Thomas Goodwin I call instrumental sanctificati­on, but thus, [that the unbelieving wife though an unbeliever, is lawfully enjoyed by her own husband as a wife without pollution, as if she were sanctified] which I called for distinction sake matrimonial sancti­fication, and then having shewed that the words [else were your children unclean, but now they are holy] are an argument ab absurdo conse­quente, if that were not true that the unbelieving wife is sanctified to [Page 161] the husband, I shewed by reducing it into syllogisticall form that this Hypothetical proposition being the Major [if the unbelieving wife were not sanctified to or in the husband, your children were unclean if the Consequence be good, this proposition must be true [all the children of those parents whereof the one is not sanctified in the other, are unclean] which I confirmed by alleging rightly and pertinently Cha­miers words against Augustines interpretation, Panstrat. Cathol. tom. 4. lib. 5. c. 10. s. 67. which shew that he avers the Apostles reason to include these two propositions [omnes nati ex iis pa [...]enti­bus quorum alter non sanctificatur in altera, sunt impuri, nunquam parentes quorum alter non sanctificatur in altera gignunt liberos pu­ros sive sanctos] I inferred that this proposition [all the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other, are unclean, or no such children can be clean] cannot be true of matrimoniall sanctification (which I had first demonstrated to be the sense) and federall unclean­ness, whether by it be meant exclusion from the Covenant of saving graces or Church-privileges, forasmuch as Pharez, and Zara, Jeph­ta and others were in the Covenant, though the one parent were not sanctified to the other. Now what saith Mr. Marshall to this? First he saith the proposition if understood of matrimonial sanctification (not rightly expressed by him according to my mind of lawfulness of wedlock) and uncleanness of federal sanctification (it should be un­cleanness) may be granted to be false, he will not undertake the de­fence of it. So then all rests on this, whether I have proved my sense of matrimonial sanctification, which whether I have done or no let the Reader judge. Sure I am Beza annot. in locum paraphraseth it thus. Fidelis uxor potest Andr. River. sum. controv. tract 3 q. 3. s. 8. Apostolus do­cet conjugem infi­delem sanctificariin fideli nō per infide­lem ut Jesuita inter­pretatur. Id verò nô intelligitur de sanctificationae, personâ sed ejus usu in vin­culo conjugali, &c. cum infideli marito bona conscientia consuescere. Piscator sch: in 1 Cor. 7. 14. Sanctificatus est, id est usus illius ut sanctus et conscientiam uxoris non laedens concessus est. Zegedin. loc. com. page 357. Rationem sumit a licito usu matrimonii, ac totius vitae, neque enim copula infidelis fidelis in­quinatur. Sanctificatur infidelis à fideli quo ad usum et communionem thori, ab effectu, si im­mundum esset vestrum conjugium, et libri qui in­inde nascerentur immundi essent, at non sunt im­mundi. Menochius, Sanctificatur matrimonium, et conjunctio haec San­cta est, unde non profanatur neque polluitur fidelis per cōtractum infi­delis. Grot. annot. Hic [...] & [...] dicuntur [...], pro [Page 162] usu viri aut uxoris, id est consuetudine conjugali. I confess divers do conceive the sanctification to be the fruit of the faith of the one party, and that the unbeliever is said to be sanctified by the other either because the believer leads the other to the faith, or that the prayers of the believer make the conjugal use holy to the believer (which sense I observed above to be embraced by Mr. Cobbet, but neither to be right, nor for his advantage) and other conceits there are about this. But the most common I have met with in Protestant Divines, who yet avouch hence federall holiness of children, is to understand the sancti­fication of the unbeliever to be in the lawfull continuance of conjugal use without fornication, so that the sanctification excludes no other impurity than unlawful use of mariage. As for instrumentall sancti­fication for begetting a holy seed I still say, as the first I ever heard use the term was Mr. Thomas Goodwin, so likewise he was the first I observed so expounding it. And therefore there is good cause of suspition of it for its novelty as well as for its falsity.

‘But saith Mr. Marshall. Let it be meant of that other sanctifi­cation which I have justified, the proposition is most true. I say a­gain, all the children of those parents the one whereof is an unbe­liever are unclean, that is, federally unclean, excluded out of the Covenant in regard of the Church-privileges at least, if not of Saving graces (which is a secret left to God) unless the one be sanctified in the other.’

Answ. Though it had been fit he had in this place expressed di­stinctly what he means by being sanctified, or the sanctification which he hath justified, yet I am content to make supply of that defect from the bottom of the same page 162. where he thus speaks, there is no such barre to be removed by the ones being sanctified in the other quoad hoc, so farre as to make them capable to bring forth aholy seed. This then is the proposition which according to Mr. Marshalls exposition is included in the Apostles argument [all the children of those parents the one whereof is an unbeliever, or whereof the one is not sanctified in the other, quoad hoc so farre as to make them capable to bring forth a holy seed, are unclean, that is, federally unclean, ex­cluded out of the Covenant in regard of Church-privileges t [...] least, if not of Saving graces.] This Mr. Marshall averres to be true, I averre it to be manifestly false, even according to Mr. Marshals own hypotheses. For 1. They who were to be Crcumcised were not excluded out of the Covenant in respect of Church-privileges. But children were to be Circumcised of whose parents neither was a be­liever [Page 163] nor the one sanctified in the other, quoad hoc, so farre as to make them capable to bring forth a holy seed in Mr. Marshalls sense. Ergo some children whereof neither parent was a believer, nor sanctified the one in the other in Mr. Marshals sense, were not excluded out of the Covenant in respect of Church-privileges, which is contradictory to Mr. Marshals proposition, and consequently the proposition concei­ved by Mr. Marshall in the Apostles reasoning is not true: nor his exposition of the Apostle, right. The Major needs no proof, to be of right Circumcised being in Mr. Marshals sense one way of being in­cluded in the Covenant in respect of Church-privileges. The Minor is proved by sundry instances, In the first institution of Circumcision God appointed Gen. 17. 12. 13. that the male child of eight daies old who was bought with money of any stranger which was not of A­brahams seed, should be Circumcised. Now such had neither parent sanctified in the other in Mr. Marshals sense, sith neither parent was a believer; And accordingly the practise of the Jews was when they took any children captive, or bought servants, they did Circumcise them though neither parent was a believer, 1 Mac. 2. 46. See Sel­den de jure Nat. & Gent. Juxta discip. Heb. l. 2. c. 2. 3. Besides the proselytes of the Gentiles had been excluded from being Circum­cised if the proposition included in the Apostles reason were to be under­stood in Mr. Marshals sense, sith they had neither parent a believer; nor doth it avail to say they were not excluded when they embraced the Covenant, but they were not by birth-privilege included, for the A­postles proposition hath not that limitation in it [all the children where­of neither parent is a believer are excluded from Church-privileges by birth] but simply [are unclan] that is, excluded from Church-privi­lege (if that were the meaning of the term unclean) anyway, yea so as to make it impossible they should be ever clean, Mr. Marshall not denying page 160. nor Mr. Blake in his answer to my letter pag. 36. this proposition to be included [without that sanctification their children could not be holy] now such a speech excludes holiness from such at all times, and therefore Chamier as conceiving the exclusion to be perpetual expressed himself thus, nunquamne infideles utuntur uxoribus nisi menstruatis? 2. They who are to be baptized are not excluded out of the Covenant, in regard of Church-privileges, but the children of those parents whereof neither is a believer, nor sancti­fied the one in the other, in Mr. Marshals sense, may be baptized. As for instance, all the believers of the Gentiles newly converted, the Eunuch Acts 8. Cornelius Acts 10. the children of the Iews whose [Page 164] parents were hardned against the doctrine of Christ, were children of parents whereof neither was a believer, and so not sanctified the one in the other, in Mr. Marshals sense, and yet baptized. Nor is it of any moment to say they were not infants; for neither doth the word [children] note only infants, nor doth any thing in the text re­strain it to the time of infancy, yea many interpreters that conceive the holiness would be by receiving the faith, do thereby shew that they understand it of them when of grown years. Besides according to the doctrine of Mr. Rutherfurd both in his temperate plea ch. 12. concl. 1. arg. 7. and in his due right of Presbyteries ch. 4. sect. 6. page 260. 261. &c. the infants are capable of baptism whose nearest parents are professed unbelievers, and the Grave confutation of Brown­ists published by Mr. Rathband part 3. page 50. makes children capable of baptism if any of their ancestors in any generation were faithful. And the practice of Paedobaptists is usual to baptize infants whose pa­rents are uncertain, if born in a Countrey where the faith of Christ is professed. Yea however Mr. Cobbet in his just vindic. part. 1. c. 1. sect. 2. would (though vainly) that the changing of the person when the Apostle saith [your children] notes the children of inchurched professors by Covenant, whence it would follow that they onely (if his exposi­tion were good) should be capable of baptism, yet Mr. Cotton who so much commends him in his Epistle before Mr. Nortons answer to Apollonius saith in his way of the Churches of Christ in New Eng­land c. 7. s. 2. what hindereth but that if the parents will design their infant to be educated in the house of any godly member of the Church, the child may lawfully be baptized in the right of its hous­hold governour, according to the proportion of the law. Gen. 17. 12, 13. Therefore certainly according to the Paedobaptists hypotheses the proposition included in the Apostles reason were in Mr. Marshals sense most false, and consequently his exposition not right.

‘But to follow Mr. Marshall. This argument (saith he) I answerd in my sermon and framed it thus, that holiness is here meant which could not be unless one of the parents were sanctified to the other, but federall holiness of children may be where parents are not sanctified one in or to the other, as in bastardy, Davids child by Bethsheba, &c. in which case the children were federally holy, and yet the harlot not sanctified in or to the adulterer or fornicator though a believer. My answer was, that the Apostles scope in this argument is to shew that the children born of an unbeliever would not be holy unless the other parent could remove that bar, but hath [Page 165] no force of an argument where both the parents are believers, which was the case of the Jews, the case of Hargar, Bersheba, &c. All the reply you make to it page (80) is to bestow a few scoffes upon it, that my answer is to deny the Conclusion, that I shew no fault either in the matter or the form of the argument, that the scope which I mention is but a meer figmen [...]; that I do as good as say, that the objector can make no argument out of it, and that therefore I need make no answer; and that in one place I grant the Minor, then the Major, and thus you most gallantly vapour upon me; I reply, were it not that some Readers are prone to think him to have the truth, that speaks most bravingly, I durst (without adding a word more) leave all scholars to judge whether my answer deserves all this scorn.’

Answ. To the imputation of scorn, vapouring, braving, I have answered in my Apology, sect. 5. page 24. I say still that Mr. Mar­shal in answering the argument in his Sermon did not follow the rules of Logick I have learned in the Schools in which I was bred, which were to shew some fault in matter or form, of which Mr. Marshal doth neither. I adde now that I have read Aristotles Elenchs, Ke­ckermans Systeme, Fasciculus praeceptorum Logic. and many o­ther Logicians who give rules about answering, and I am confident Mr. Marshall cannot shew that his pretended answer is agreeable to the rules which either those or any other Logician gives. Mr. Geree to help out Mr. Marshal here saies in his vindic. paedobapt. pag. 29. he tells you, you frame not your objection right, id est, you dispute not ad idem: you dispute fallaciously, ex ignoratione Elenchi: for the question is not of the holiness of children of parents in generall not sanctified to one another, but where one is an unbeliever and not sanctified to the other. I answer, Keckerman, Syst. Log. lib. 3. sect. 3. c. 2. saith truly, that there is an ignoratio Elenchi in a syllo­gism when the Conclusion doth not directly oppose the position of the adversary, an Elench being as Aristotle in his Elenchs, a syllogism with contradiction of the Conclusion. Now the position of Mr. Marshall was that federal holiness was meant 1 Cor. 7. 14. And my Conclusion was, federal holiness is not there meant. If this be not a direct opposition or contradiction of Mr. Marshals Conclusion, let it be shewed what condition is wanting; He tells me the question is not of the holiness of the parents in general, &c. whether he expres­sed well Mr. Marshals conceit will appear by that which follows. For the present, the question to be concluded was neither the one, nor [Page 166] the other, but this, whether federal holiness be meant in the words [but now are they holy] and the Conclusion in the argument denying it, there was a direct disputation ad idem, and no ignoratio Elenchi as Mr. Geree unskilfully allegeth. What I said, that it is a meer fig­ment, that the Apostles scope in this argument is to shew that the children born of an unbeliever would not be holy unless the other parent could remove that bar, was truly said by me, there being no such scope in the Apostles words. But the scope is plainly to shew they might lawfully live together, notwithstanding the unbelief of one party; nor is there a word in the Apostle of a barre against producing a holy seed, nor of removing such a barre, or removing it by the be­lievership of one party: all these I again a vouch to be meer fig­ments and Chimaeras imagined in Mr. Marshals phantasy, not ga­thered from the apostles words. And when he saith [hath no force of an argument] if he means the Apostles scope, which seems to be the Nominative case to [hath] I know not how to make good sense of it; nor did I ever place the force of an argument in the Apostles scope; but in the argument of the Apostle and the proposition which the Apostles argument presupposeth as true. And I say still Mr. Marshal made no answer to it at all, but both granted Major and Minor without de­nying the form of it to be good. But perhaps he hath mended the matter in his defence; let's hear then what he saith.

‘But lest you go on in your vain boasting, I shall apply my answer more particularly to the argument which you acknowledge to be your own, And I say plainly that the Major proposition is not true if taken universally, viz. that holiness of children is here meant, which could not be unless one of the parents be sanctified in or by the other, what ever those parents be, though both of them be believers. This proposition (say I) is not true, because when both the parents are believers, there is no such barre to be removed by the ones being sanctified in the other, quoad hoc, so farre as to make them capable to bring forth a holy seed, they being both in the Covenant, and that sinful defiling of one anothers body, doth not deprive them of that privilege of the Covenant to have their children accounted to belong to the Church of God, but when one of the parents being an unbe­liever or infidel must have their children accounted out of the pale of the Church, unless that barre be removed to them, it's true, that unless the one be sanctified in the other (the unbeliever in or by the believer) their children would not be holy; If therefore you make not your Major so universall, but limit it as the Apostle doth, and make [Page 167] the argument thus, That holiness of the children is here meant which could not be unless the one were sanctified in or to the other, the one of the parents being an infidel, but this was the case of Hagar, Bersheba, Jephta, Pharez, &c. now your Minor is false, this was not their case, neither of their parents were unbelievers, though sinfull in that act: And now I pray you where lies the absurdity or weakness of my answer; all this I said before, only you would not see it; and thought to carry it with more advantage to you by scof­fing than by solemn refuting.’

Answ. No other refuting of an answer to an objection is necessary than to shew that it is no answer according to Logick rules, which I did concerning Mr. Marshals answer, by telling him that he neither shewed faultiness in the matter, nor form of the objection. What re­futing Mr. Marshall calls solemn, and what solemnity is required in refuting, I do not well understand; [solemn] is a term of law, and then a thing is done solemnly when it is done according to certain words or rites prescribed. If my refuting were not in set words or rites (though I know not what solemnity in refuting Logicians pre­scribe other than I have used) it's not material, if it were right. I neither used scoffing, nor thought to carry any thing with more advan­tage by it. I do not think Mr. Marshall said all before, that now he doth, and I would both then and now see his answer if it were to be seen, which yet is to me either non-sense or non-apparens. Where­in the absurdity and weakness of his answer lies, I shall tell him the rather because he prays me. Mr. Marshal tells me I acknowledge the argument to be mine own. And it is true for the matter of it, I owned it, but as for the form, it being not framed by me, but Mr. Marshall, as he acknowledgeth, It liked me not well when I wrote my Examen, and when I wrote my Apology I less liked of it, as may be perceived by my mending of it in my Apology sect. 5. page 24. where I say the truth is, the argument should be thus framed. That holiness which might be though one of the parents were not sanctified to the other, is not here meant; but federal holiness might be though one of the parents were not sanctified to the other; Ergo, federal ho­liness is not here meant: or thus, that uncleanness which doth not a­gree to all the children of those whose parents are not sanctified one in or to another, is not here meant; but federall uncleanness doth not a­gree to all the children of those parents who are not sanctified one in or to another, Ergo, federall uncleanness is not here meant; but be­cause these two propositions are in a manner equipollent [that holiness [Page 168] of the children is here meant, which could not be unles one of the pa­rents were sanctified to the other] and this [that holiness which might be though one of the parents were not sanctified to the other, is not here meant] therefore in my Examen I did not alter the Ma [...]or propo­sition, but saith Mr. Marshall the Major is not true if taken univer­sally, viz. That holiness of children is here meant which could not be unless one of the parents be sanstified in or by the other, what e­ver those parenes be, though both of them be believers.

Answ. I deny not that I take it so universally, or more universally, whether the one parent be a believer and the other an unbeliever, or neither of them a believer, or both them are believers, their chil­dren are not, cannot be holy in the Apostles sense, unless the one be sanctified in or to the other, and this proposition is included in the A­postles argument as I have above demonstrated. But Mr. Marshall saith it is not true when both of them are believers. Answ. This then is not true according to Mr. Marshall, that if two parents be be­lievers, the one is sanctified by the other for bringing forth a holy seed, and their children federally holy. But I had thought, it had been more certainly, and undoubtedly true according to Mr. Mar­shalls hypotheses, the reason proceeding à fortiori, if the belief of the one party sanctifies the other unbeliever, for bringing forth a holy seed, the belief of both parties much more, and if the children of the one parent being a believer, are in the Covenant in respect of Church-pri­vileges, much more the children of both parents being believers: else the children of both parents being believers have less privilege than when on only is a believer, and Mr. Marshall doth ill to baptize any children whereof both their parents are believers, they being according to him not sanctified to bring forth a holy seed, and so consequently their children not federally holy: which I presume his fellow assertors of Paedobaptism will disclaim as very absurd. But let us hear Mr. Mar­shals reason.

‘This proposition (I say) is not true, because when both the pa­rents are believers, there is no such barre to be removed by the ones being sanctified in the other, quoad hoc, so farre as to make them capable to bring forth a holy seed, they being both in the Covenant, and sinfull defiling one anothers body, doth not deprive them of that privilege of the Covenant to have their children accounted to belong to the Church of God.’

Answ. Mr. Marshall upon his figment of the Apostles scope to re­move a barre conceives this proposition not to be true [the children [Page 169] could not be holy unless one of the parents were sanctified in or by an­other, when both are believers] because then there is no barre to be removed. A barre is but a metaphor, and in proper sense is nothing but a let or impediment: what let or impediment for begetting a holy seed is to be removed when one is an unbeliever, which is not to be removed when both are believers, I cannot conceive: if the barre be the parents not being in Covenant, it is surely removed as well when both are in Covenant, as when one: if to have their children accoun­ted out of the pale of the Church (as the words after seem to mean) that barre is removed, and to be removed, as well when both parents believe, as when one onely, according to Mr. Marshals hypotheses. And if there be no barre to be removed which should hinder their ho­liness, then it is much more certain they are holy according to Mr. Marshals hypotheses.

When Mr. Marshall addes, And that sinful defiling of one an­others body doth not deprive them of that privilege of the Covenant to have their children accounted to belong to the Church of God; I understand not what this makes to prove the proposition not to be true universally taken, or that there is no barre to be removed when both parents are believers. The speech it self as I understand it is the asser­tion of the Minor in the objection, That the children may be holy with federal holiness where one of the parents is not sanctified to the other with matrimoniall sanctification, which is lawfull use of each o­ther.

But saith Mr. Marshall, ‘when one of the parents being an unbe­liever or infidel must have their children accounted out of the pale of the Church, unless that barre be rem [...]ved to them, it's true, that unless the one be sanctified in the other (the unbeliever in or by the believer) their children would not be holy.’

Answ. Neither is the proposition in this manner true according to Mr. Marshals sense, as I have proved above, where I have shewed, that children whereof neither parent was a believer were to be Cir­cumcised, and according to Paedobaptists hypotheses to be baptized.

Mr. Marshall goes on. ‘If therefore you make not your Major so universall, but limit it as the Apostle doth, and make the argu­ment thus, that holiness of children is here meant, which could not be unless the one were sanctified in or to the other, the one of the parents being an infidel.’

Answ. If the argument be mine, it is not Mr. Marshalls part to frame it as he pleaseth, but to answer it as he finds it made by me.

But saith he, the Apostle doth so limit it.

Answ. It is true that the truth of the Major proposition in the ob­jection doth depend upon the proposition implied in the Consequence of the Apostles argument, which is, [if the unbelieving wife be not sanctified to the husband, your children are unclean]; which depends upon the truth of this proposition [all the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other, are unclean] or this, [none of the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the o­ther, are holy.] These propositions neither are limited by the Apostle as Mr. Marshall saies, nor did Chamier Panstrat. Cath. tom. 4. lib. 5. c. 10. s. 78, conceive they were to be limited otherwise than I do, when he said, omnesne na [...]i ex iis parentibus quorum alter non san­ctificatur in altera geniti sunt in menstruis? Ita oportet sanè, aut hanc ridiculam esse interpretationem. Nor is it necessary they should be so limited, for though the Conclusion be only of one believing parent, and another unbelieving, yet the proposition proving it must be lar­ger, of all parents sanctified or not sanctified one in or to another, as I answered Mr. Blake in my postscript to my Apology page 123. If a man will prove this, if an English-man be noble, he is honourable, he is to prove it by this [all noble men are honourable] nor is he to adde [English-men] unless the reason of the honourableness were from the being an English-man, and not barely from being noble: so here, this Consequence [if the unbelieving wife be not sanctified to the hus­band, your children were unclean] is proved by this [all the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other, are unclean] and there's no need, nor fitness to put in [all the children of the parents whereof one is an unbeliever not sanctified to the believer, are unclean] and the reason hereof is, because the force of the sequel depends not at all upon this, that one was an unbeliever: yea the unbeliever is put by the Apostle, not to shew that his being an unbeliever was the reason of the sanctification or holiness, but it is added as if he had said [the unbelieving husband though an unbeliever] to intimate, thatash is un­belief is no cause of the sanctification, so neirher is it a hinderance, though doubted to be so by the Corinthians. And the term [believer] is omitted quite, because the force of the sequel lay in this, that the one patent is sanctified to the other, whether they be believers or unbelievers, one or both. But if the proposition were to be limited, as Mr. Marshall would have it, thus [unless the one be sanctified in the other, the one of the parents being an infidel, their children would not be holy] it would be most false according to Mr. Marshals doctrin. [Page 171] For then it would be true, that the children of both believers are fede­rally unclean, none of them holy, that is, in the Covenant, in respect of Church privileges, for then there is no barre to be removed, then they are not sanctified the one in the other, whereas according to his own doctrine the children of both believers are more certainly in the Covenant. Yea, page 160. of his defence he himself saith thus: For God esteems the seed of such to be an holy seed, as truly as if both were believers. Which speech supposeth it undoubted that the children of both believers are a holy seed. And this (though I find him rather a confused disputer than subtill) yet there is reason to conceive Mr. Marshall saw: for having made this the Major in the argument [that holiness of the children is here meant, which could not be unless one were sanctifi [...]d in or to the other, the one of the parents being an infidel] whereas he should have assumed [but federal hol [...]ness could be though one of the pa [...]ents were not sanctified in or to the other, the one being an infidel] and then have denied it, foreseeing (as it is like­ly) this would be false with this limitation [that federal holiness of children could not be unless one of the parents were sanctified in the o­ther, the one beeng an infidell] he thrusts in for the Minor another pro­position than was in the objection, whether fraudulently or unskilfully I leave it to his own conscience to judge, and saith thus.

But this was the case of Hagar, Bathsheba, Jepthta, Pharez, &c. now your minor is false, this was not their case, neither of their pa­rents were unbelievers though sinfull in that act.

Whetein Mr. Marshall after he had mis-shaped the Major of my argument after his own mind, leaves out the proposition, which a Lo­gician would have expected to have been put as the Minor, and puts another instead thereof▪ which would make the objection a mon­strous syllogism, and then calls it my Minor, and tells me, now your Minor is false, this was not their case, neither of their parents were unbelievers though sinfull in that act, whereas the Minor in the ar­gument I owned was [but federall holiness of children may be where parents are not sanctified one in or to the other] which had been true whether both parents were believers, or one onely, though the copu­lation were unlawfull.

But saith Mr. Marshall, ‘now your Minor, the case of Hagar Bathsheba, Jepthta, Pharez, &c. is false, this was not their case, neither of them were unbelievers though sinful in that act.’

Answ. Whether Hagar, or Thamar, or Jephtas mother were un­believers, I know not: M. Marshall after calls Thamar a Gentile. The [Page 172] thing I alleged was not that they were unbelievers, but that those wo­men, & the fathers of the children named, were not sanctified one in or to another, and yet the children according to Mr. Marshals hypotheses federally holy; yet If I had put the instance in a child of the Ammo­nitess wife of Solomon, of whom mention is 1 Kings 11. 7, 8. that she sacrificed to Molech, yet that child had been federally holy notwith­standing Solomon and that woman were not sanctified one in or to another; yea the children of Ahab and Jezabel, or any concubine unlawfully used by him, though a worshipper of Baal, being born in Israel, and descended from Abraham, had been federally holy in M. Marshals sense, that is to be Circumcised, though the parents were both gross Idolaters, worshippers of Baal, and such as persecuted the Lords Prophets, being manifest unbelievers. And therfore let Mr. Mar­shall fashion the argument how he will, it would be false in his sense of instrumental sanctification and federall uncleanness and holiness which the Apostles argument presupposeth that all the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other are unclean, or none of them holy: much more if by [sanctified] be meant matrimonially (which I conceive I have demonstrated) and true only of matrimo­niall sanctification and holiness: and therefore do conclude that Mr. Marshals interpretation is manifestly false, and mine true [...] which I was to demonstrate.

But Mr. Marshall tells me; ‘In the close I added indeed, if a believer should adulterously beget a child upon a Pagan, this ob­jection in that case deserves to be further weighed, but here it comes not within the compass of the Apostles argument; upon this also you bestow two or three scoffes, you call it a wise remedy, nothing to the purpose; & you construe it as if I had said, I will not answer the objection which is made, but if you will make it thus and thus I will answer it. Truly Sir, I am perswaded, all learned men ei­ther laugh at or pitty this vanity of your disputing; in sober sadness tell me, was this the scruple of the Corinthians? or doth the Apostle here meddle with this case of believers and infidel harlots? doth he not confine himself to answer cases betwixt believers, and their unbelieving wives and husbands? or do both these cases require one and the self same answer?’

Answ. To that of scoffing I have answered in my Apology s. 5. page 24. Of my construction of Mr. Marshals addition there was reason. However Mr. Marshall be perswaded all learned men laugh at or pitty the vanity of my disputing, yet my disputation hath had the ap­probation [Page 173] of as learned in this kind as Mr. Marshal, and perhaps any other of the Assembly, and though I do not think it any matter of laughter, yet I conceive it cause of much pitty to them, and mourning to the Church of God, that there is such vain overly disputing in Mr. Marshall, and I fear by the texts added to their confession of faith, and other things I have heard in the Assembly about this matter, which I am confident would appear to any intelligent man, if from the texts alleged by them for infants baptism and Church visibility arguments were framed in a syllogisticall way. Sure it is no laughing matter, but lamentable, that men should for not apprehending doubtfull disputa­tions be adjudged unfit to live at liberty in the Commonwealth, or in imployment of preaching the Gospel, or enjoyment of Christian Com­munion. But Mr. Marshal falls a posing me, and askes me four que­stions, which lest the Reader should take the not answering to be tergiversation, I will answer. The first is, Was this the scruple of the Corinthians? Answ. This, what? belike whether believers and infidel harlots might live together. I tell him in sober sadness I know not all the scruples the Corinthians had, but the scruple here answered I have often told him is, whether the believing yoke-fellow might live with the unbelieving yoke-fellow: The second, ‘or doth the Apostle here meddle with this case of believers and infidel harlots?’ I answer him, no. To the third, ‘doth he not confine himself to an­swer cases betwixt believers and their unbelieving wives and hus­bands?’ I answer Yea. To the fourth, ‘or do both these cases re­quire one and the same answer. I answer, it may be they do, it may be they do not.’ I shall tell him more distinctly whether they do or not, if I can, when he distinctly sets down the cases, and the questi­ons upon the cases, if he think fit to make use of me for his Casuist. In the mean time I crave the Readers pardon for answering such trifling and impertinent questions; yet Mr. Marshal hath not done with me but adds.

‘To speak plainly, I could name Divines who are no whit inferior to your self, who conceive that a believer, even when he commits fornication with an infidel, doth so farre remove the barre in the unbelieving party, as that the child is (in the believing parents right) to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant of grace, and Church of God; but because I knew that question fell not within the Corinthi­ans case, and was a question which the text and controversie in hand did not tie me to give a resolution to, I purposely baulked it, not once suspecting I should have met with an adversary so uningenu­ous, [Page 174] to say no worse, who would have said the baulking of this questi­on had been the yielding of the cause; and I say again, this case of bastards concerns not the Apostles case, who speaks not of parents adulterers, but of husbands and wives, the one a believer the other not; yet this advantage may be made of those instances, that if a­mong the Jews, the true Church of God, the children of one parent a Jew, the other a Gentile (forbidden to be maried) were federally ho­ly, as in the case of Pharez and Thamar, then may one party a be­liever interest their children in the same Covenant; and if bastards among the Jews were partakers of Church-privileges, much more reasonable may it seem, that the children of both chast parents, where­of the one at least is a believer, should be federally holy, it being Gods rule in this case, partus sequitur meliorem partem.’

Answ. It is easie for Mr. Marshall to name Divines superior to me every way: but concerning the baulking of the question of which he speaks, what ever he did in his Sermon, he hath spoken plainly enough in the same page to it in his defence, where he saith, and that sinfull defiling of one anothers body doth not deprive them of that privilege of the Covenant to have their children accounted to belong to the Church of God. If he mean me by his adversary (as I know not whom else he should mean) whom he chargeth with want of ingenuity to say, no worse (though perhaps he thinks worse) for say­ing the baulking of this question had been the yielding of the cause, I wonder where he finds those words of mine; his speech to me seems like the talk of a man in a dream; what he addes, that this case of ba­stards concerns not the Apostles case, yet some advantage may be made of my instances, I answer. 1. The case of bastards as by me alleged concerns the Apostles dispute as by Mr. Marshal interpreted. 2. The advantage will not be worth his labour, till he prove that there is the same reason of baptizing our infants now, as of circumcising Jews infants then, which will never be done till Mr. Marshall can shew a command for baptizing infants, sith he confesseth truly page 182. of his defence, in these words [and though the formall reason of their being circumcised was the command of God; Yet the Covenant of grace, or their Church-state was the motive to it, and the thing it related to] that the formall reason of the Jews circumcision was the command of God: and therfore till alike Command be shewed for infant-baptism as for infant-circumcision, there is not parity of reason for one as the other, and so the argument for infant-baptism from analogy conceived be­tween Circumcision and Baptism is evacuated, as I truly a verre in my [Page 175] Apology s. 18. page 97. 98. Nor is the asserting a thing as Gods mind in positive rites without a command, though seeming reasonable to us, any other than a seminary of superstitions, as I often in my Exercitation and Examen have observed concerning Popish supersti­tions. As for that which he speaks of Gods rule in that case, partus sequitur meliorem partem, it is for ought I know a rule of Mr. Mar­shals invention. In Law they say, partus sequitur ventrem, but in Divinity I know no such rule that any parent under the Gospel, com­municates by birth any Covenant-holiness or Church-privilege, but the rule is now and still hath been, God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens, Rom. 9. 18. And thus is Mr. Marshal again beaten from his chief hold.

SECT. XXII.
The objection in my Apology, that according to Mr. Marshals expo­sition the Apostles reason would prove a fornicatrix believing may live with a fornicator, as well as a maried wife with her husband, is not answered by Mr. Geree or Mr. Church.

YEt one thing more is to be vindicated which Mr. Geree saith is only a cranck I have. I had said in my Apology s. 18. page 96. If the reason of the lawfulness of the living of two persons together in disparity of religion be taken from the vertue of faith in the one party, not from the relation of husband and wife as Mr. Marshals exposition makes it, the medium of the Apostle to prove the lawfulness of the living of a believing wife with an unbelieving husband, will as well prove the lawfulness of the living of a believing fornicatrix with an un­believing fornicator, as may appear by a syllogisticall analysis of the Apostles argument. To this Mr. Geree in his vindiciae vindiciarum ch. 7. page 34. thus speaks, ‘I answer, if all the reason of the law­fulness of a believing wife living with an unbelieving husband were from the faith of the believer, there were some strength in this Conse­quence; but that we make not all the reason: for the scruple was in the Corinthians, whether notwithstanding their lawful mariage, they might lawfully live together; yes saith the Apostle, the unbeliever (in the use of mariage) for so it must be understood, is sanctified to the believer, else &c. so chast mariage is the ground-work, which satis­fied [Page 176] not their consciences, for so were they Ezra 9. & 10. yet was the holy seed polluted, but now saith the Apostle, the unbeliever is san­ctified to the believer, &c. so then the parties that may lawfully live together on this ground are supposed to be man and wife; And his Major proposition must be, That man and that wife may lawful­ly live together whereof one is sanctified to the other, and so his for­nicators will be excluded, not concluded.’

Ans. It is true, according to the Apostles argument, as he frames it, it is necessary that [husband and wife] should be inserted, but accor­ding to Mr. Marshals and others exposition concurrent with his it is not necessary, for they fetch all the reason of the lawfulness of living together from the ones being sanctified to the other, and that they as­cribe only to the faith of the one party. Mr. Marshall in his defence page 153. The believer sanctifies the unbeliever. Mr. Blake in his answer to my letter ch. 7. sect. 2. pag. 36. that sanctifying which the Apostle mentions is a result of the faith of the believing yoke­fellow. Dr. Homes Animad. on my Exercit. page 53. the believers faith hath the only stroke under Christ and his Spirit to sanctifie the unbelieving husband, as sanctifying is here meant. Yea the sancti­fying is so entirely ascribed to the faith of one party, that Mr. Mar­shall who understands by being sanctified made capable to bring forth a holy seed, asserts page 163. that sinfull defiling of one anothers body (by which he means fornication) doth not deprive them of that pri­vilege of the Covenant to have their children accounted to belong to the Church of God, and tells me in the same page, he could name Divines who are no whit inferior to my self that conceive so. And accordingly so Paedobaptists commonly hold and practise. Now if the sanctification of one by another to beget a holy seed be the only reason why the believing husband might live with the unbelieving wife, and this sanctification be by the faith only of one party, inso­much that even an unbelieving fornicator is sanctified by a believing fornicatrix for begetting a holy seed, which Mr. Marshals expo­sition avers, then according to the same exposition the Apostles reason will as well hold to prove the lawfulness of such fornicators to live to­gether as well as such yoke-fellows.

But saith Mr. Geree, ‘that we make not all the reason, for the scruple of the Corinthians was about maried persons, and accor­dingly the Apostles resolution, and therefore man and wife must be inserted into the Major proposition.’

I answer, it is true, the Corinthians scruple, and the Apostles medi­um [Page 177] were only of the sanctifying of the husband and wife, as such ac­cording to the genuine exposition, and therefore I still contend that the reason of the sanctifying is from the relation of husband and wife, and not from the faith of one p [...]rty, and so according to my exposition, [husband and wife] necessary to be inserted in the Major. But my argument proceeds from the Apostles reason, not as made by him, but according to Mr. Marshals exposition, who makes the sanctifi­cation to be from the faith of one party only, insomuch that he ac­knowledgeth, that even a fornicator and fornicatrix, if either be a belie­ver, are sanctified to produce a holy seed, and therefore according to his exposition of the Apostle, all the reason of living together is from the faith of the believer, and consequently [husband and wife] not necessary to be inserted in the Major, and so the reason as he expounds it will as well serve to prove that two fornicators may live together, as well as two maried persons.

But saith Mr. Geree of me, ‘He saith it is not necessary to insert [being husband and wife] sith the sanctification is not ascribed by him to the relation between them, but to the faith of the one. But I answer, this is no good ground; for though the mariage be no cause of this sanctification, yet it is a ground supposed to make the Apostles resolution [...]rue, and on that ground it is made. There's two things required to satisfie spiritual conscience in the use of a thing; First, that it be lawfull in it self. Secondly, that it be holy to us. The former is common to Heathens and Christians (in moral things) The last is the peculiar of believers: if either be wanting, consci­ence is defiled, and will be disquieted. Now the sanctification here to quiet their consciences, is an addition to the law of mariage com­mon with them to heathens, and so we ought not to sever the later from the former which the Apostle supposed.’

I answer, Mr. Geree roves from the point, and makes a discourse to prove that which I contend for, that the Apostle supposed that the sanctification was of maried persons. But he should, if he would have answered any thing to the present point, have shewed, that according to Mr. Marshals exposition it is necessary that the persons sanctified one to another be husband and wife that they may lawfully live toge­ther, according to his framing the Apostles reason. Till he do this, my argument stands good, and Mr. Marshalls exposition deserves to be exploded.

Mr. Josiah Church in a book entituled, The divine warrant of infant-baptism, (commended by Mr. Geree and Mr. Roberts beyond [Page 178] truth and it's desert, it being nothing but a superficial and velitary dres­sing in a new and that often ambiguous phraseology and fashion old arguments with frequent tautologies, but without distinct stating the point) argum. 1. page 12. takes upon him to answer this reason.

And first he saith, the Apostle would not have answered such a question, whether a believing person might live in fornication with an unbeliever.

Answ. Nor did I say he did or would: but that after Mr. Mar­shals exposition the words would serve turn to resolve the lawfulness of their living together in fornication, which being an absurd thing, the inference that I make is good, that Mr. Marshals exposition is naught.

2. Saith he, he meant not that faith and the Covenant exclusive­ly were the cause of the sanctification of the infidel in the Christian: As where he saith, every creature of God is good if it be received with thanksgiving, &c. He means not that it is good without a legal right to it, though it be received with thanksgiving (which is usuall in theeves and robbers) but in the case of civil right only: one cause produceth not the effect, una causa non producit effectum.

Answ. If by [he] Mr. Church understand the Apostle, as the words following, as where he saith, &c. which is meant of Paul, seem to import, it is true, the Apostle meant not that the faith and Cove­nant either exclusively or inclusively were the cause of the sanctification of the infidel in the Christian. But if he meant it of Mr. Marshall it is most false, as is proved before, he makes the faith of the believer the sole cause of the sanctification, so that by him the infidel harlot is sanctified according to his sense by the believing fornicator, and whereas he saith one cause produceth not the effect, though it be true of some Causes, as of remote causes, and not in act, yet, in the sense I used the speech, positâ causâ ponitur effectus, it is alwayes true of the adequate cause in act, which Mr. Marshall acknowlegeth the faith of the believer to be in respect of sanctification for producing a holy seed, and Mr. Church himself in the margin of his book page 4. puts this very axiome as a certain truth, positâ causâ ponitur cau­satum. But saith Mr. Church,

3. It supposeth a believing adulterer living with an infidel adul­tress, which is not to be supposed: for a believer may fall into that sin, but living in it is inconsistent with faith and Ecclesiasticall dis­cipline.

Answ. 1. By believer in Mr. Marshals sense is understood one that [Page 179] is so only by profession, and this may be supposed, it being too common in experience, that believers by profession do live incontinently with unbelievers.

2. True believers may have faith suspended in its operation a long time together, and Ecclesiasticall discipline may be remitted.

3. If it were impossible that a believer should live in adultery, yet it is no such strange matter to frame arguments upon things that are not, as when in natural Philosophy there is dispute whether there would be local motion in vacuo, si daretur. But my arguments proceeding upon Mr. Marshals exposition, to shew the falsity of it, in that [...]ccor­ding to it the Apostles reason would as well serve to prove the lawful­ness of two fornicators living together, as two maried persons; there was no need I should suppose the possibility or being of the thing, but only shew the ill Consequence of Mr. Marshals exposition. And the [...]efore Mt. Church his answering is frivolous, and having perused his book, I know the rest is like this, slighty and superficiall, nor would I have thought it worth while to take so much notice of it, as I have done, but that Mr. Geree and Mr. Roberts commend it so super­latively, as if by it infant-baptism were compendiously and solidly pro­ved by Scripture demonstration; that it is an Iliad in a nutshel; the strength of former writers extracted and contracted. Mr. Marshall tells me thus, your self acknowledge that if these two Conclusions could be proved, the cause is gained, as well as lost if those be lost. I an­swer. Mr. Marshall doth me wrong in saying that I acknoowledged that if those two Conclusions could be proved, the cause is gained, I only said in my Examen page 82. as conceiving by losing these you lose the cause, but page 110. I expressely denied that the cause were gained without a command, though all his five Conclusions were yiel­ded him. Which I still aver. Yea, I say further, that in their dis­pute for infant-baptism from Circumcision, there are more than a dozen false Hypotheses presumed by them as true in their intangled discourse, justly so called by me in my Apology page 47. by the over­throw of any of which their argument from analogy is enervated. But these things I referre to the remainder of my review of this dispute if e­ver God enable me, in the mean time blessing the father of Spirits for his assistance to me thus farre in this so knotty and toylsom a work, ha­ving had to do with such cross and pettish Antagonists.

I had hoped my work of vindicating my exposition of this text had been here at an end. And perhaps it had been so, if Mr. Richard Baxter had communicated to me animadversions on this writing, when [Page 180] I lent him almost the half of it for his perusal, and expected that as a neighbour and brother in the Lord he should have imparted them to me for the rectifying of me. But he hath chosen rather to print what he had against my exposition, in an injurious manner setting down my words otherwise than he should, without my recension of them, so as thereby to expose me to hatred or contempt. Which course of his if it be not a plain rent and Schism from me, contrary to 1 Cor. 12. 25. I understand not what Schism is. However, sith it so falls out by Gods providence, though it be to my wrong and trouble, yet in hope truth will gain by it, I proceed to examine what Mr. Baxter hath about this Scripture.

SECT. XXII.
Mr. Bs. premised grants, various expositions, distinctions and ex­plications of the words [sanctified and holy] are examined.

MR. Baxter in the begining of his 29th ch. of the first part of his book intituled Plain Scripture-proof of Infants-church-mem­bership and baptism, calls the text 1 Cor. 7. 14. that full, plain text for his visible Church-membership of believers infants, against which men do so willfully cavill in vain, as if they were sorry that God speaks so plainly, and were resolved to yield neither to dark ex­pressions nor to plain.

But Mr. Bs. peremptory confident speeches, and hot charges, are too weak to determine the matter. Me thinks a little sobriety might have caused him to speak more cautelously, if not for my sake, yet for Musculus his sake, who having used it against Anabaptists, did in his commentary (when men best discern the meaning of a text) relinquish Mr. Bs. sense, and fell to mine as convinced by evidence of reason. I presume he doth not think either he, or Camerarius, Melanchton, O­siander, Ambrose, Hierom, Aquinas, Gorran, Anselm, Gagnaeus, that I omit others such as Mariana, Vasquez, Suarez, Cornelius à Lapide, Emmanuel Sa, Menochius, Perinus, &c. would wilfully ca­vil against a text, and yet they agree with me. But let us consider what he saith, It is undeniable,

1. That it is only believers to whom Paul giveth this comfort, [Page 181] and of whom he saith, that their children were holy.

Answ. I deny that the words of Paul were to give comfort, but to resolve a doubt; and though it is true, they were only believers whose doubt he did resolve, and of whose children he then spake, yet I deny that either the sanctification of the unbeliever in or to the yoke­fellow, or the childrens holiness is ascribed to the faith of the believer.

2. And that it was spoken as a common privilege to all believers children, and not as proper to the children of these Corinthians: all this is confessed.

Answ. By whomsoever it is confessed (though I think Mr. B. means me) yet I deny it to be confessed by me, (yea Mr. B. page 86. saith I deny it) that either it was spoken as a privilege to believers children, or as a common privilege to all believers children. Mr. B. knows, that it is the chief thing that I contend, that this is meant of legitimation, and therefore I should contradict my self if I should understand it of the base children of believers. However, I desire the Reader here to take notice, 1. That Mr. B. takes it for undeni­able, that to be holy is a common privilege to all believers children, and consequently their illegitimate children. 2. That this holiness is not proper to the children of those Corinthians.

Then he names three expositions. Some he saith expound it of Saving holiness, Mr. B. takes it for undoubted, that it is meant of a state of separation to God, as a peculiar people from the world, as the Church is separated, called from the Covenant or promise of God as the chief cause [federall holiness] my judgement is set down plain enough before. As for Mr. Bs. saying [it is a general rule among all sound Divines in interpreting Scriptures, that you are to take words in the ordinary sense wherein God in Scripture useth them, except there be a palpable unavoidable necessity of understan­ding them otherwise] I do not easily believe Mr. B. therein.

Sure I am sound Divines, as they are accounted, do expound Mat. 18. 17. [tell the Church] of the Presbytery, besides the ordinary sense of the Scripture, without palpable unavoidable necessity. The like may I say of [delivering to Satan 1 Cor. 5. 5.] expounded of Excom­munication, and many more. And for my part I think words are of­ten interpreted rightly besides the ordinary sense, when either the scope, coherence, frame of speech, all usion, or other such fit reason lead to another sense, though without palpable unavoidable necessity of under­standing them otherwise. And if it be no wonder that men that rashly venture upon singular interpretations do abound with error, and [Page 182] be uncapable of any satisfaction from Scripture, I conceive Mr. B. who seems rash enough in venturing on singular interpretations, as likely to abound with error, and to be uncapable of satisfaction, as another man. If he would insinuate concerning me (as it is likely) that I am rash in venturing on singular interpretations because of my exposition of this text, me thinks he should be ashamed thereof, there being so many of note concurring with me, and such important reasons delivered by me.

Mr. B. afore he comes to his arguments for his sense, dictates much about the terms [holiness and sanctification] He tells us that the com­mon nature of holiness is one and the same in all: that is, a separation to God, omne sanctum est Deo sanctum, and page 255. Holiness is taken for nothing else in all other Scriptures but fer a separation to God. But God is holy, and yet me thinks it were inept to say God is se­parated to God, and we are bid to sanctifie the Lord of hosts himself, Isai. 8. 13. yet not to separate God to God. Chastity is called holiness, 1 Thess. 4. 3, 4, 7. Mr. B. page 255. acknowledgeth it a part of holiness, and therefore to have the common nature of it, and then if all holiness note separation to God, then Chastity is such, and when Mr. B. hath shewed how Chastity is a separation to God, it is not impro­bable but I may be able to shew that legitimation notes also a sepa­ration to God, and then I shall find my sense agreeable to the use or notation of the word. For my part I think [sanctification and holi­ness] in Scripture, note discrimination, differencing, Excellency, setting apart, preparation: but not alwayes separating to God. I have na­med before Ios. 20. 9. 1 Sam. 21. 5. holiness seems to be meant only of freedome from the use of women, to which I adde, Jerem. 6. 4. sanctifie warre, that is pre­pare Pis. schol. in 1 Sam. 16. 6. Sanctificatio autem illa consiste­bat in lotione vesti­um et abstinentia à mulierum concubitu ut declaratur Exod. 19. 14, 15. warre, yea Deut. 23. 14. the camp is said to be holy in respect of freedom from impurity by mans dung, and generally holiness is opposed to any sort of uncleanness, whereof bastardy being one, holy is aptly put for legitimate, especially considering that in things of mariage [...] words of honour and comliness are used. Grotius in 1 Cor. 7. 14. saith, To be sanctified is to be a lawfull wife, and this ac­cording to the expressions of the Hebrews, that say a wife is sanctifi­ed by a pledge, &c. and allegeth Moses Kotrensis to this purpose. Buxtorf. Lexic. Heb. radice [...] parari, praeparari, destinari ad aliquid generaliter: in specie sacrari, consecrari, sanctificari, san­ctum, sacrum esse vel fieri.

Next Mr. B. sets down 4. distinctions, 1. He saith a person or thing may be holy in state and standing relation, or else only for some parti­cular act or use, whether for shorter or longer time: In this latter sense a wicked man, yea a heathen, may be sanctified or separated, when it is to a common, and not to a speciall work. But this cannot be the holi­ness that is here ascribed to infants while they are infants. For they be not capable of any such work for God. Therefore it is a holiness of state which is ascribed to them.

Answ. 1. Mr. B. makes distinctions, but he brings not Scrip­tures to exemplifie the branches of his distinction, which had been re­quisite when he distinguished of words used in Scripture.

2. He plainly confounds these denominatives [Holy and sanctified] applying both branches of the distinction to either indifferently: where­as if we speak after the use of the Scripture, when a person is set apart for a particular act, he is said to be sanctified, no where that I know to be holy, and a state of separation is expressed by [Holy] not by [sancti­fied.]

3. Holiness of state and standing relation are made equipollent, whereas to be holy in state doth as well note a denomination of qua­lity as a relation, as when we said God is holy, this is a holiness of state yet importing a denomination of quality from his purity, not of standing relation to another.

4. When Mr. B. saith when a heathen may be said to be sancti­fied, it is to a common and not to a speciall work. I conceive he would have said [sacred work] For if he understand [common] in opposition to special, then he is said to be sanctified to a common, that is a generall work, that is which any were to do, and if so, there is no separation or setting apart, and so no sanctification.

5. I take notice he denies Infants can be holy as sanctified to some particular act or use.

6. That he understands the term children 1 Cor. 7. 14. as applia­ble to infants, if not to them only.

The 2d distinction is of holy in state by meer separation and rela­tion, or qualification with endowments suitable to the state which they are separated to. In the former sense he saith all the infants of the faithfull are sanctified, and perhaps some of them also qualified by renewing grace for their future service of God: in the later sense e­very true believer is sanctified.

Answ. 1. Holiness to God though it import a relation, yet I con­ceive it doth not import a meer relation, but as qualities and other [Page 184] things which be not meer relations secundùm esse, as they speak in Schools, though they note some reference, as Science to the object known, sense to the object sensible, so it is with holiness, it doth of­ten import some reference to God, yet it is not a meer relation. And therefore though it be true that every person or thing that is said to be holy or sanctified is not endowed with renewing grace, yet they have some qualification, or form, such as common profession, or descent, or anointing, or some such like note from which they are thus denominated holy or sanctified, and consequently if infants be denominated holy or sanctified, there must not only be the Covenant as the chief cause, but also some form or other, of descent, birth, or the like, which must deno­minate them holy. 'Tis true, the elect Iews yet uncalled are holy, Rom. 11. 16. not in act, but in purpose, and so as their holiness is future, the form from which they are denominated holy is future, however there must be some form, qualification, note, or foundation from whence the thing or person termed holy or sanctified is so called.

The 3d distinction is thus expressed. There is a sanctifying or se­parating to God either directly and immediately: so every belie­ver, and so their children are sanctified. And there is a se­parating or sanctifying to God remotely and secondarily, when a thing is separated for his use who is separated to God, and will (or is bound by his profession to) use it for God, and sanctifie the fruit of it di­rectly to him: thus all our meat, drink, and enjoyments are sancti­fied, because whether we eat or drink, or what ever we do, it must be all to his glory. Thus the unbelieving husband or wife is sancti­fied to the believer, both as being separated to one, that is separated to God, and also who will use all for God: yea as a husband or wife they make up that conjugall state which is more directly for God: And if they beget a holy seed it is one of the uses that they were sanctified to.

Answ. 1. Mr. B. conceives these terms, a disciple, a visible Church-member, holy as separated to God, applied to infants, equi­pollent, as the tenor of his whole discourse in this book shews. Now ch. 3. page 15. he saith, the parents are disciples directly, the infants remotely or mediately: But here he saith, every believer and their children are sanctified directly and immediately, which I take to be a plain unsaying of what he said before.

2. Nor can his speech here be true, that the children are sanctified immediately, when they are sanctified by the means of the parents faith, according to his own supposition page 15.

3. The sanctifying to God as he calls it remotely or secondarily is [Page 183] ill expressed. The place to which he hath reference is 1 Tim. 4. 5. But there the creature is not said to be sanctified because it is separated for his use who is separated to God, and will (or is bound by his profession to) use it for God, and sanctifie the fruit of it directly to him, or because he must do all to Gods glory. But the text saith it is sancti­fied by the word that takes away the prohibition of meats, and al­lows us the use of every creature, and prayer and thanksg [...]ving where­by God is acknowledged to be the giver of them, without which though the person be separated to God, and by duty, profession, yea and purpose of will he will use it for God, except he do so use it actu­ally it is not sanctified. To speak truth, by Mr. Bs. description Bath­sheba was sanctified to David when he lay with her in adultery; Noah when he drank wine and was drunk: For all the conditions of sancti­fication as set down by Mr. B. concurred in these acts, they were per­sons separated to God, and would or were bound by their profession, to use them for God. And if it were enough for sanctification of enjoy­ments that they must be all to Gods glory, sith [must] implies nothing but duty in that place, and not only hypocrites, but also infidels pro­fessed must or ought to do all to Gods glory (which is true, or else it is no sin to them that they do not) all enjoyments may be said to be san­ctified to hypocrites and professed unbelievers, according to the force of Mr. Bs. dictates.

4. If Mr. Bs. speech be right, that the unbelieving husband or wife without abuse or impropriety of speech be sanctified to the belie­ver, both as being separated to God, and also who will use all for God; yea as a husband or wife they make up that conjugall state, which is more directly for God; and if they beget a holy seed, it is one of the u­ses they were sanctified to: then by the like reason the unbelieving child may be said to be holy or sanctified, because he is separated, as a child to one that is separated to God, and who will use all for God, and as a fatner and child they make up that family state which is more directly for God, and if he bring up and match him, this is one of the uses to which he was sanctified. Which if true, there may be a ho­liness meerly from extrinsecal respects, according to Mr. Bs. dictates, which doth not make a person a visible Church-member, and there­fore the holiness 1 Cor. 7. 19. according to his explication doth not necessarily inferre Church-membership, sith it may agree to an infidel husband, wife, or child.

5. He saith, As husband or wife the believer and unbeliever make up that conjugall state which is more directly for God, whereby [Page 184] it seems the conjugal state is by him made to be more directly for God: If be mean more directly than the unmaried, then it would be shew­ed wherein. The Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 32, 33. seems to determine o­therwise. And if it be that the conjugal state is more directly for God, why should not mariage be termed holy, and legitimate children holy children? If he say it is more directly for God in that one is a belie­ver, why doth he use this expression [As husband and wife] which a Reader would conceive to mean that under that formall consideration then conjugall estate is more directly for God? If it be ascribed by him to the faith of the one, then it would be shewed wherein the conju­gall state of one believer and another unbeliever is more directly for God than the conjugal state of two unbelievers. If it be said, in that it is to beget a holy seed, then suppose a child begotten both parents being unbelievers at the time of begetting, but afore birth the one is converted and becomes a believer, that conjugal state is not directly for God, nor the one sanctified to the other for his use, nor consequent­ly the child holy, sith the Apostles included proposition makes the children unclean of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other, and yet Mr. B. conceives such a child holy. Again two aged persons marying lawfully though believers, their conjugal estate is not directly from God, nor they sanctified, because they are not for the use of begetting a holy seed, being now unable for procreation.

But Mr. B. to salve the matter saies. Though I will not stick to the common term of [instrumental sanctification] which Mr. T. takes so much advantage against, because it implies but one of the ends of this separation, and that not constant neither. For I doubt not but in some cases it may be lawful for those to mary that are past child-bearing.

To which I reply. Mr. B. it seems will stick to the thing meant by in­strumental sanctification, yet will not stick to the term of instrumental sanctification; which is in effect to tell me, he will wrangle rather than yield to an expression though not denied to be apt enough. For what is it to be sanctified to ones use, but to be instrumentally sancti­fied to him. But saith he, Mr. T. takes much advantage of it. It seems then when a term gives me advantage Mr. B. will not stick to it, which is no better than a professed [...], or drawing a contrary way. But sure the advantage I make of it is not barely from the term, but also from the thing signified by it in my Examen part. 3. s. 8. pag. 72, 73. And why will not Mr. B. stick to it? because saith he, it im­plieth but one of the ends of this separation, and that not constant [Page 185] neither. But Mr. B. assigns no other end of the sanctification of the un­believing husband to the wives use, but the begetting a holy seed, and if this be one end, yet the term is fit to express it: yea if there be any o­ther uses for which one is sanctified to the other besides begetting a ho­ly seed, yet the term instrumental sanctification were fit enough to ex­press them. For what is it to be sanctified to another use but to be his instrument. Burgersdic. Inst. Leg. lib. 1. c. 17. s. 26. unumquod{que} instrumentum est id quod est quia & quatenus aptum est ad certum usum.

Lastly, Mr. B. by saying, that the begetting a holy seed is not a constant use of lawfull marying, confirms my argument against the sense of instrumental sanctification i [...] the case of maried persons past child­bearing, though one be a believer; they are not sanctified to beget a holy seed, and yet they are said to be sanctified 1 Cor. 7. 14. other­wise the Apostle had not cleared their lawful living together, which is proved by the Apostle from the sanctification of one in, or to ano­ther.

The 4th distinction is thus expressed. Again, sometime persons or things are sanctified actively, that is separated to some action for God, as the Priests, Levites, &c. And sometimes passively, that is separated to be used for God, as the Temple, Altar, Sacrifice, &c. The unbelieving husband or wife is both wayes sanctified.

To which I answer. But that Mr. Bs. name is up, and thereby seems licensed to dictate without proof, I would demand of him a text wherein a person is said to be sanctified passively to be used for God, as the Temple, &c. And for the unbelieving husbands sanctification passively for Gods use without his action, as an Altar, &c. is such a notion as I cannot yet divine what it should be. All these things are dictated by Mr. B. without proof or direction where to find it. Next he would seem to apply them thus.

All these distinctions are but from several ends and degrees of se­paration. The common nature of holiness is one and the same in all: that is a separation to God; And so both children of believers and also unbelieving yoke-fellows are here said to be holy and sanctified.

Answ. After Mr. B. had shewed various wayes of holiness and sanctification, when he comes to apply his distinctions he doth not tell us in which way the sanctification of the unbelieving yoke-fellow, or the holiness of the children 1 Cor. 7. 14. is to be understood, and in which not: but wraps up all in the common nature of separation to God, and yet denies that in some sorts of sanctification and holiness the [Page 186] infants of a believer, and the unbelieving parent, are holy or sanctified. So that his whole proceeding in distinguishing of various wayes of san­ctifying and holiness, and then closing up all in the common nature of holiness, without shewing in each of these how the unbelieving hus­band or wife is sanctified, and the child holy in his sense, 1 Cor. 7. 14. is at least illogical, if not sophisticall, serving onely to put the Reader to fish out his meaning, if not for an advantage to put by his Antagonists opposition. And by this understanding Scholars will con­ceive how unlikely, if not impossible, it was for me to answer such a disputer presently upon hearing his arguments, and to shew the falla­cy of his distinctions with satisfaction to hearers. But I shall now follow him step by step.

SECT. XIV.
Mr. Bs. first argument from the constant use of the word [holy] to prove that 1 Cor. 7. 14. it is understood of a state of separation to God intituling to visible Church-membership, is answered.

I Come now saith, Mr. B. to my argument. If the children of be­lievers are holy in state, then they ought to be admitted visible Church-members: But children of believers are holy in state: there­fore they ought to be admitted visible Church-members.

In answer hereto, I distinguish of holiness in state. Holiness in state is either potential or actual. Potential holiness of state is that which is onely future but not existent. Of this I think Mr. B. means not his speech, if he did, I should deny the Consequence. Actual is upon calling inward, or outward, or both, and these manifested by profession, or some way answerable to it, or else hidden or not known. If holiness of state be meant of actual holines upon calling inward, or outward, or both, manifested by profession, or something answerable, so as that such holi­ness is known to the admitter, then I grant the Consequence, but de­ny the Minor. If it be meant of other kind of a holiness than this, as I conceive Mr. B. means, I deny the Consequence.

But saith Mr. B. ‘The Consequence of the Major I thus prove: If ho­liness of state here be a stated separation of the person from the world to God, and the Church-visible be a society of persons so separated, [Page 187] then those that are holy in state are to be visible Church-members: But the Antecedent is true. For certainly all Divines in their defini­tion of the Church are agreed, that it is a society of persons separated from the world to God, or called out of the world, &c. Therefore the Consequent is true.’

Answ. 1. Mr. B. alters the term in the Consequent, and so proves not the thing to be proved. In the former syllogism the term was [ought to be admitted visible Church-members] in this [are to be vi­sible Church-members]. This later term [are to be visible Church-members] notes what the persons ought to be, of this there is no doubt, but that not onely persons holy in state, but all in the world ought to be visible Church-members, that is, to profess the faith of Christ. But the other term notes the duty of the persons who have the power of admission.

2. That which I conceive Mr. B. would here have said, is [those that are holy in state are visible Church-members, and so ought to be admitted] And yet if this were his Consequence I do not see that it is good. For a person may be a visible Church-member of the universal Church in Mr. Bs. sense, yet ought not be admitted either to baptism or the Lords supper ordinarily as a visible Church-member till by pro­fession he be made known, and tender himself for admission to them that have power to admit him.

3. Mr. B. doth here as he did in the dispute go about to prove the Consequence of an hypothetical proposition by another hypothetical, which was wont to be decried in Schooles, as being a way serving only to hamper the understanding and memory of a respondent, when as there is a plain way to prove it by the simple proposition upon which the force of the illation stands, and so Mr. B. should have thus disputed in a regular form. All persons holy in state ought to be admitted visi­ble Church-members, Ergo, if the &c.

The Antecedent of which Enthymeme I should deny being under­stood of any other holiness in state than what is by profession of the faith of Christ.

4. But to it as it stands formed by Mr. B. I say that if he mean by [holy in state] separated to God by calling, so as that they are pro­fessors of faith, I grant the Consequence, the term [are to be] being rectified into [are, or are to be admitted] But of other holiness of state I deny the Consequence. Nor doth the agreed definition of Divines prove his Consequence good in any other sense than I grant it. For when they define the Church [meaning the visible Church, which Mr. [Page 188] B. should adde if he bring a definition to his purpose] they understand it of calling by the Gospel, so as that they be professors of faith, as may appear by the testimonies which Mr. Hudson (commended much by Mr. B. page 339.) vindic. of the essence and unity of the Church Catholick hath collected ch. 1. s. 3. out of Augustine, Hierome, Calvin, Bullinger, Keckerman, Zuinglius, Trelcatius, Polanus, and most expressely Mr. Bifield on the Creed art. 9. To the same pur­pose speak Confessions of Churches: Basil. art. 5. Gallic. art. 27. Angl. art. 19. Argentin. c. 15. August. art. 7. Saxon. art. 12. Bohem. art. 8. that I may omit other Authors. But because the main of the dispute will lie on the Minor, which Mr. B. calls the Antece­dent, which will come to be examined after, I have dispatched the 4. arguments here brought to prove his Consequence, I pass on for present to his next argument.

2. I prove it further thus. If this holiness of stated separation to God be the constant attribute of the Church, but never of any per­son without the Church, then all that are so holy must be admit­ted Church-members. But the former is true: therefore the latter.

Answ. Holiness of stated separation to God by profession of the faith is the constant attribute of the Church-visible, never of any with­out the Church-visible, and all that are so holy are to be admitted vi­sible Church-members in a regular way. But holiness of stated separa­tion to God by election or Covenant of grace of persons not yet called nor professing faith is the attribute of the invisible, but not of the visi­ble Church, and many such are not of the visible Church, nor are to be admitted as Church-members.

3. Aga [...]n, If tho [...]e that are thus holy by stated separation to God did not belong to the Church as members, then there were a holy soci­ety or generation without the Church. But the Consequent is absurd; for there is no holy generation without the Church: therefore the An­tecedent is unsound.

Answ. The same distinction answers this also: there's no holy ge­neration, or society of persons holy by stated separation to God by profession or calling without the visible Church: but there's a holy generation of Elect persons, and to whom the promise belongs, who belong to the invisible and yet not to the visible Church.

4. If God argue from such holiness of the Jews to the inchurch­ing of them, then the so holy must be inchurched: but the Holy Ghost doth so argue Rom. 11. 16. &c. so the Consequence is pro­ved.

Answ. That the holiness there is meant of holiness through electi­on, and giving of faith, and ingraffing into the invisible Church, is de­monstrated before in my Apology page 71. and in this writing in the examining Rom. 11. 16, 17. But it is manifestly false, that the A­postle argues from the holiness of the Iews to the inchurching of them, that is to prove them to be visible Church-members because holy in state (which is Mr. Bs. meaning] sith he plainly means the speech of the Iews not yet born, who are holy by vertue of Gods election and pro­mise, yet belong not to the visible-Church till they be called.

Mr. B. goes on thus. ‘The Antecedent is plain in the text [the children are holy by stated separation to God] And for the vindicating of the sense of the text against Mr. T. his sense of legitimation, I argue thus, 1. If the constant meaning of the word [holy] be for a sepa­ration to God, then we must so understand it here, except there be a palpable necessity of understanding it otherwise. But the constant sense of the word [holy] is for a separation to God, and here is no palpable necessity of understanding it otherwise, therefore we must so understand it here.’ Then he saies,

1. That I denied not that the constant meaning of the word [holy] was as he said. But this I do not think is true: Frequent I might grant it to be, but not constant, as knowing God, the Spirit of God, the young mens vessels 1 Sam. 21. 5. are termed holy, yet not in his sense as separate to God.

2. That I affirmed there was a palpable necessity of understanding it otherwise here; but I shewed not what the palpable necessity was. But I do not conceive I used that term [palpable necessity] except it were because Mr. B. used it, and it was not convenient for me to spend time to shew the unfitness of it. A necessity there is of understanding it otherwise here, and this I prove in my Exercit. s. 5. Examen part. 3. s. 8. Postscript. s. 7. from the analysis of the words, and the truth of the proposition included in the Apostles speech: to which I have in this writing shewed that neither Mr. M. nor any other that I have seen have yet answered, nor that Mr. B. hath cleared it will appear in the vin­dicating my objections, which thing no man could expect reasonably should be done in the dispute at Bewdley by me then a respondent, and not well understanding Mr. Bs. conceits about this Scripture.

3. That I said that [...] is taken by the Apostle for a womans veil, when yet it is no where else so used. Which is true: and be­sides it the Reader may see before the speeches of many learned men as justifying the use of a word in a different sense from the common mean­ing [Page 190] where the matter leads to it: which liberty if it be not allowed, many Scriptures (that I may use Mr. Bs. words) would be perverted, and not understandable. Selden l. 1 de synod. c. 7. page 138. vocum à pristina significatione sive degenerationes, sive mutationes, sive signi­ficationes novas pro seculorum & persuasionum discrimine non rarò in omni scientiarum, artium, rerum usu fieri quis nescit? And that many words are used in this first Epistle to the Corinthians besides the ordinary sense might be shewed not only in the word [...], but also in the terms [...], due benevolence 1 Cor. 7. 3. [...] v. 13. let her not put him away, ch. 8. 10 [...], shall be builded, 1 Cor. 11. 14. [...] we translate nature, Salmasius de coma page 69. ponitur pro consuetudine, sicut [...] saepe pro [solet] in optimis Scriptoribus, 1 Cor. 14. 14, 15. 19. [...], with understanding, that is so as that another may understand, &c. And for Mr. Bs. enforce­ment of his argument for the better plea before the judgement seat of Christ, who understands a word in his sense in which it is used 600 times, no where else in mine, it is but vain. For he hath the best plea for his sense who useth a word in a sense to which the matter leades, though it be used 10000 times otherwise and no where else in that sense. The best interpreters do make no scruple thereof, as is shewed before. If Mr. Bs. plea were good, than a Socinian hath a better defence for him expounding Phil. 2. 6. [...], the form of God, of the outward shew and appearanee to the eyes, than they that interpret it of the essence of God, in which sense [ [...], form] it's conceived is no where else used. And as for Mr. Bs. charge and de­mands I take them to be childish, not likely to move any but weak understandings, more like the course of a popular orator, than a disputer. As for his insinuation of my exposition as a singular fancy, it cannot be construed to be any better than impudence or ignorance; there being so many learned men, and some of the best note, specially in their commentaries, that concurre with me, Wolfgangus Musculus is commended by Mr. B. page 140. who retracts the exposition of fe­deral holiness in which he used it against Anabaptists, and understands it in my sense in his commentary on the place. And this may be seen in his words translated in my Exercit. s. 5. without any boasting, or making silly people believe that I have one godly▪ learned, and sober Divine on my side contra­ry to truth, though Mr. B. do page 140 insinuate so much, though I have translated and printed his very words, declaring him opposite to the Anabaptists, though he agree with me in expounding this text. [Page 191] Which text if it had been so plain for Paedobaptism as Mr. B. would have it conceived, sure Musculus and other learned men in their com­mentaries would have seen it. And therefore I cannot but admire that Mr. B. should so forget himself as without any moderation or so­briety of spirit so freely charge us with injurious dealing, deluding the people, as if we had desperate resolutions and prostituted conscien­ces, and considered not faithfully what we did in not yielding to his exposition. It hath been in part shewed in my Antidote, and will more fully appear in the Review, that Mr. B. peremptorily affirms on slight reasons that Acts 15. 10. infants are called [disciples] in a sense or rather non-sense no where else used: and yet he finds no such spee­ches of him in my writings. But for a further answer to his argu­ment, I say, 1. That for such a holiness in state of separation from the world to God on birth from the Covenant of grace and parents faith without the holy persons profession, not by election nor calling, and which may be without any internal spiritual life and rectitude, or sal­vation accompanying it, I am confident he cannot bring one place in all the Bible where such a holiness is mentioned. I find in my notes I took of Mr. Thomas Goodwins Sermons at Bow in Cheap-side, that he asserted that the holiness 1 Cor. 7. 14. must be not onely federal, external, or Ecclesiastical holiness for Church-membership, but also reall above federall, for which Mr. Baily in the first part of his dis­suasive ch: 6. page 116. chargeth him as favouring Antipaedobaptism, and that which he said was as I remember because in the New Testa­ment [holy] applied to persons is not taken for any other than such real holiness.

So farre as I can find in 250 places in which [holy] is used in the New Testament, it is no where used for any other than real holiness, or some such holiness as is from inward purity or outward profession and conversation when it is applied to persons, saving in this text 1 Cor. 7. 14. and Luke 2. 23. where it is meant of a ceremonial ho­liness, which is not after Mr. Bs. sense. Whence I inferre that Mr. B. doth but vainly affirm it to be taken in his sense near 600 times in Scripture, I do not think he can bring one place just in his sense. But it will be said, Is it not sufficient to his purpose that it is found to note a state of separation to God any way? I answered before in my prae­cursor, No: because then chastity might be sufficient for admission to visible Church-membership, because it is termed holiness 1 Thess. 4. 3, 4, 7. I adde now, that if chastity be called holiness, and all ho­liness note a separation to God (as Mr. B. conceives) of which no o­ther [Page 192] reason can be given than because it is his speciall command and institution, then also [legitimate issue] may be termed [holy] as being according to Gods will and special institution of mariage, and so in a sort separate to God. But enough of this in my praecursor, and in this writing before.

SECT. XXV.
That if [holy] 1 Cor. 7. 14. had allusion to Ezra 9. 2. it we [...]e bet­ter intelligber of legitimation, than of federall holiness, contrary to Mr. Bs. 2d argument.

MR. B. proceeds thus. My 2^d argument is this: if infants of the faithfull were Church-members before Christs time, and so holy; then it is utterly improbable that the Apostle should speak of no other holiness here but legitimation (which is common to the children of Pagans) and most probable that he speaks of the same kind of holiness, which was the ordinary privilege of the seed of the faithfull before. But that such infants were visible Church-mem­bers before Christs comming is confessed and fully proved before, Therefore, &c. They are also called the holy seed Ezra 9. 2. And then he tells us, if the Apostle by [holy] should have meant [legiti­mate] then he should not speak to be understood, but to draw them to mistakes, and it is utterly improbable, that Paul should here tell believers of that as a glorious privilege, which every Pagan had, and they might expect that the privilege of their children should be as great as the Jews.

Answ. 1. It is but a fancy that the Apostle speaks here of any pri­vilege belonging to believers children as such, much less of a glorious pri­vilege: there's not a word ascribing any thing to the children because of the faith of the one party, but by reason of the conjugal state of the parents; nor is the holiness mentioned as a privilege ascribed to them by the Apostle for their comfort in them, but as a thing certain to them, and yet must be denied if the other thing were not granted.

2. Nor is it true, that the holiness whereby infants were visible Church-members afore Christs comming was the ordinary privilege of the seed of the faithful. For it was a condition they had who were [Page 193] in Abrahams family, and the policy of Israel whether their parents were faithfull or not. The children of Ahaz, Ahab, &c. though Idolaters by their descent, the children of strangers gotten by warre or purchase, if once brought into the Congregation or Common-wealth of Israel, were to be circumcised, and were reckoned to that Church.

3. It is not true that the children of believers now have less privi­lege by not being counted visible Church-members, than the Jews children, as shall be shewed in its due place.

4. It is false, that in Mr. Bs. sense the term [holy] was ordinari­ly taken in the old Testament for such a holiness of stated separation from the Covenant and parents faith, not saving, but making them vi­sible Church-members, and intitling them to circumcision. And therefore in Mr. Bs sense it would have been as unintelligible as mine if the Corinthians must know the meaning onely by the constant use of the word. And where as Mr. B. saies, Infants of the faithful are called the holy seed Ezra 9. 2. if [holy] were meant in Mr. Bs. sense, yet one place proves not the constant use: But (as I have shewed before in part) it is most false that the infants of the faithfull are there called the holy seed. For they were such as had mingled themselves with the people of the lands, mentioned v. 1. that is in marying their daugh­ters v. 2. and Ezra 10. 2. by taking strange wives of the people of the land, which Mr. B. me thinks should nor have ascribed to infants. Nor are they called the holy seed because children of the faithful by reason of the parents faith: for then their children should have been also the holy seed though begotten on prohibited women, whereas it is mani­fest that the holy seed there is opposed to the children of Hebrews begot­ton on prohibited women as unclean called the mixed multitude, & to be put away from the Cōgregatiō of Israel though they were Hebrews children, yea children of the Priests, as is apparent from many pas­sages in Ezra 9th and 10th, and Nehem. 13th chapters. But the term [holy seed Exra 9. 2.] is so called from their legitimate descent in blood from Abraham and Israel by a mariage not forbidden by the law Exod. 23. 32. Deut. 7. 3. cited by our translators in the mar­gine at Ezra 9. 11. No children of an Hebrew believer born of a pro­hibited woman are there called the holy seed. Selden lib. 5. de jure nat. & gentium juxta discipl. Hebr. c. 15. Ita{que} non solùm ex auctoritate hujus Ezrae historiae, verùm etiam ex ipsorum Talmu­dicorum disertis testimoniis paganae liberi tametsi ab Ebraeo suscepti planè Pagani erant. All these were called the mixed multitude Nehem. 13. 3. and were not to come into the congregation of God v. 1. [Page 194] according to the law Deut. 23. 3. and therefore were separated from Israel, Nehem. 13. 3. And the like law is for the [...] or ba­stard Deut. 23. 2. who were regularly debarred from the Congrega­tion of the Lord, that is, from bearing publique office say the New Annot. Pisc. &c. on Jud. 11. 5. or mariage with an Israelite by blood, or civil privileges in the Commonwealth of Israel as other Israelites. Whence Jepthah was put out by the Elders of his Fathers house, Judg. 11. 2. Grot. annot. ad Judic. 11. 2. quia de adutera matre natus es] extrane â ut hic Josephus. Apud Gentes aliquas matre non cive nati [...] dicebantur ut ex Aristophane ostendimus lib. 2. de Jure belli ac pacis c. 5. s. 15. Apud Hebraeos verò mater quae legi se subjecerat non maculabat natales, ne{que} ad haereditatem capassendam obstabat. Quare meritò Jepthes de hac injuriâ queritur infra. 7. Much may be seen of this in Selden de Jure natur. & gent. juxta dis­cip. Ebr. lib. 5. c. 14, 15, 16. Grotius annot. ad Nehem. 13. 3. id est natos ex gentibus quibus lex noluerat esse jus connubii & hono­rum. Whence I inferre, that Mr. B. is quite mistaken in conceiving the holy seed Ezra 9. 2. to be meant of the federal holiness of infants of the faithful as such, separated to God as visible Church-members by vertue of the faith of one of the parents: but they are called the ho­ly seed not from the Covenant of Grace to parent and child, nor so as to import a privilege meerly Ecclesiastical in contradistinction to civil but by reason of descent of blood, whereby they had right of mariage, honours, to be reckoned in the genealogies of Isra­el, to inherit with them, and such like privileges, from which others born of prohibited women, mamzers or bastards, were exempted, though the Father served the God of Israel, according to sundry of Moses his laws. And therefore I conclude, that if the A­postle did allu [...]e to this in Ezra 9. 2. he might be more easily under­stood in my sense than in Mr. Bs. and Mr. Bs vain speeches about my interpretation may be more justly retorted on him, it being plain that the holy seed Ezra 9. 2. is onely a legitimate seed by descent of blood according to an allowed mariage to the Israelites.

SECT. XXVI.
Mr. Bs. 3d argument, that if my sense stand, Pagans being legiti­mate might be termed holy, is answered.

MR. B. goes on thus. ‘3 If to be holy in Pauls sense here be no more than to be lawfully begotten; then we may call all per­sons holy that are not bastards: but that would be absurd: therefore the Antecedent is so. The Minor I prove thus: If it be not the phrase of Scripture to call all Pagans holy that are not bastards, or any other, because they are not bastards, then it is absurd for us to call them so; (for it is a contradicting of the constant use of the Scripture-words) But the Scripture doth no where call Pagans holy, or any other, meerly because they are not bastards: therefore we must not do so.’

Answ. This objection rests on these propositions, 1. That we must not, or it is absurd to speak otherwise than according to the constant use of the Scripture. 2. That this is a contradicting of the constant use of the Scripture-words. If the first be true, then we must not, or it is absurd to call the first day of the week the Sabbath day, for it is besides the constant use of the word in Scripture, and so in Mr. Bs. language a con­tradicting of the constant use of the Scripture-words: & which is more, such a varying from the Scripture-use as may occasion men to mistake, as if by Sabbath day in Scripture were meant the first day of the week, for which day it is never used there. The like might be said of other words, yea of Mr. Bs. use of [holy] for federally holy in his sense. As for the second proposition I understand it not. He contra­dicts, or gainsayes, that affirms or denies the contrary to what another saith: in the using the word [holy] for [legitimate] is a diversity or variation from the constant use of the word, no contradicting or gainsaying what the Scripture sayes. But this is not the only time that Mr. B. speaks as if he either knew not or heeded not the meaning of the words he useth. As for the thing it self: I confess to call in ordinary speech Pagans legitimate children [holy children] would be a kind of Soloecism, or uncouth expression, which would make people marvel, if not mistake him that speaks, and so it would be if any should call believers children holy, or as Mr. Ge­ree would have it rendred 1 Cor. 7. 14. Saints. Yet neither the one [Page 196] or other contradicts the constant use of Scripture as condemning it of unfitness or other imperfection of speech; nor would it be any more un­fit for a write to call the legitimate issue of heathens holy, than to call their mariage holy (which I have shewed before to be frequent in ap­proved writers) especially the Apostle going before us, and it being ob­served by Mr. Gataker against Pfochen. cap. 11. [...] qi di­cuntur, formulae{que} honestiores, de qibus Agellius noct. Attic. l. 9. cap. 10. apud omnes fere gentes rebus conjugalibus exprimendis con­quisirae. And the Apostle puts holiness for chastity, 1 Thes. 4. 3. 4. 7. As for Mr. Bs. additions according to his manner supplying in quips what he wants in proof, of speaking according to Scripture not the fancies of men, then almost all the world may be called holy, they are but frivolous. We are to speak according to the use of words, nor are we tyed to speak in the phrase of Scripture, though it be com­mendable, and for my part I like not such affected innovations in speech as Castalio and others are charged with, but love to speak according to Scripture, yet if it were put to question whether there being no other exception to a mans words but this, that he useth a word differently from the constant use of Scripture, conceiving it to be used in one place in the sense he takes it, there be an absurdity, unfitness or unseemliness in the speech? I should determine negatively. I would not call all mariages of ignoble, beggerly, infidel, profane, vitious people in my ordinary speech honorable, yet Heb. 13. 4. mariage is said to be ho­norable among all, and living continently 1 Thes. 4. 4. is termed possessing our vessels in holiness and honor.

Against this argument Mr. B. brings in two allegations of mine. 1. That Mal. 2. 15. A seed of God is a legitimate seed. To this be answers 1. That this is nothing to the word [holy]. I reply, I have shewed it is taken by learned Divines for all one, and therefore it is pertinent. 2. If by a seed of God were meant legitimate, then Joseph, Benjamin, Solomon, and a great part of the holy seed should be bastards, and so shut out of the Congregation; which is a known falsehood. To this I reply, That waving the questions whether Leah or Rachel were Jacobs right wife, or Bathsheba Davids, Mr. B. must maintain either those persons or some others lesse questioned to be illegitimate, or else he must maintain Polygamy to have been lawfull to their parents, therefore this absurdity will as much lie upon Mr. B. to avoid as my self. As for shutting out of the Congregation of the Lord, D [...]. 23 2. it's shewed to be meant of not being reckoned in genealogies among the legitimate Isra [...]lites by descent, to whom mariages, inheri­tances, honors, Political privileges were to be communicated as [...]o others. [Page 197] And of these as Euauchs so bastards were debarred, such as were so ta­ken, not every one which was so indeed: or if every bastard were to be debarred, yet Polygamy being then taken for lawful, yea and Concu­binate too, the law was not so understood nor executed. But what Mam­zer or bastard is meant, and how excluded, may be seen in Selden de jure nat. & gent. [...]uxta disc. Ebr. l. 5. c. 15, 16.

3. Mr. B. gives his own sense of Malach. 2. 15. in these words, But why should not Gods word be understood as he speaks it? and a seed of God be understood peoperly? For God will sooner choose and bless the seed of the temperate, than of the wandering, insatiate, licencious lust, and the temperate and sober will also sooner educate them for God. And this seemeth the plain scope of the place: though some other I know do otherwise expound it.

To which I answer, 1. that Mr. B. grants that making one Mal. 2. 15. was in opposition to wandering, insatiate, licencious lust, or in a word, by lawfull mariage, and consequently the seed of God, is meant of that seed to which that marriage tended. 2. He saith, this seed is called the seed of God, that is a Godly seed, understood proper­ly, or as he speaks pag. 67. belonging to God in a peculiar special manner as distinct from the rest of mankind, members of his Church, even the infants. And he gives two reasons, 1. because God will sooner choose and bless the seed of the temperate: 2. the temperate and sober will sooner educate them for God. Whereby Mr. B. inti­mates, that the seed of God here becomes such by Gods choice and blessing, and parents education: which shewes his uncertainty and con­fusedness. For his words, why should not a seed of God be under­stood properly? shewes he meant it of a seed that is really godly, or in practise by vertue of Gods choice, and parents education, but pa. 67. ch. 23. he would have it understood of infants of believers, whom he takes to be visible Church-members by vertue of the parents faith, and Gods Covenant: But infants are not a seed of God, that is, godly, by parents eduction in infancy, therefore his exposition here and pa. 67. agr [...]e not, and his allegation of it there to prove infants visible Church-membership is from his own words shewed to be impertinent. 2. Here he makes a seed of God to be meant of that which is not born of intemperate lust, and indeed the very words lead to it, he made one (in mariage) that he might seek a seed of God, intimating that the seed of the intemperate and incontent would not be a seed of God. But Mr. B. agrees with Mr. M. that the seed of a believing parent though begotten by intemperate lust is by covenant and parents faith a visible [Page 198] Church-member, for he saith chap. 29. pag. 80. that the words 1 Cor. 7. 14. [now are they holy] were spoken as a common privilege to all believers▪ children whence it follows, that if such be excluded Mal. 2. 15. from being a seed of God, Mr. B. did very impertinently bring it p [...]ge 67. to prove that infants of believers were visible Church-members, the words being not to be understood of infants of believers as such by vertue of the Covenant, but of children of lawfully maried persous by vertue of Gods institution, which I contend for.

Then Mr. B. brings in my objection thus. The direct end of ma­riage is legitimation of issue, therefore this is here meant; and an­swers, There are other ends as direct, as that the man might have a help meet for him, &c. 2. The Consequence is denied: For it is not proved that the Prophet speaks here of the direct end. 3. If by the direct end he mean the ultimate end, which is first intended, then 1. either the ultimate end of Gods instituting mariage (but then his assertion is manifestly false, for Gods glory is his ultimate end; and many other greater there are than legitimation) or else he means the ultimate end of man in marying (but that is nothing to the text, and is also plainly false) or if by the direct end he mean the next effect, this is neither true, nor any thing to the matter.

Answ. By this passage, and other passages in this chapter, may be perceived how ill Mr. B. dealt with me when I lent him my written papers about the meaning of 1 Cor. 7. 14. and he having taken out of and abridged them as he pleased, sent them me hastily again without any animadversions, whereby I perceived he meant not to deal with me as one that would help me to see my mistake, but make use of my notes for his advantage, and therefore I had no reason to impart any more unto him. For in those written notes now printed the word was not, the direct end, but the proper and genuine end of mariage as such, in respect of their posterity, assigning in express term, another end in re­spect of the parties, their natural solace and help by society, which if he had heeded and been, willing to set down fairly as my words were, it might have prevented all this cavil. But for fuller reply, I say, If there be other ends as direct, as that a man might have a help meet for him, &c. yet if (as I reason) the proper end of the first institution in respect of posteritie were not to seek a seed of God distinct from the wicked but from spurious, then this later sense must be meant, and not the former. But Mr. B. denies the Consequence, for it is not proved that the prophet speaks here of the direct end. To which I say [the direct end] was not my term, but Mr. Bs. alteration. I somewhat [Page 169] question whether any end can be rightly said to be indirect: my term was [the proper end in respect of posterity, distinct from the proper end in respect of the parties] (which explication he doth ill to leave out) and this I conceive Mr. B. will not deny, that the Prophet here speaks of the proper end of mariage, that is the end not common to the being one flesh without mariage, the words are so plain as that Piscat. Diod. N. Annot. &c. ubi suprà speak to this purpose: yea doth not Mr. B. himself say, it is the plain scope of the place to difference the seed of the temperate from the intemperate? And therefore the consequence is undeniable, mariage not differencing a godly seed either in practice or visible Church-membership from the ungodly, many children of mari­ed persons being ungodly and out of the Church, and many begotten in fornication, godly and in the Church; but differencing a legitimate seed from an illegitimate. Nor was the use of mariage in its institu­tion for a spiritual purpose, but a civil or natural. And thus my rea­son stands yet unanswered, that sith the Prophet speaks here of the pro­per end of God in appointing mariage, and that is for a seed of God distinct from spurious, not from wicked, by [a seed of God] is meant legitimate] not [godly in Mr. Bs. sense] and Mr. Bs. reasoning is frivolous, I speaking not of the ultimate end of God or man in mary­ing, but of the proper end of mariage not common to being one flesh without mariage; which end is not the end of mariage by accident but of it self, and of which a legitimate seed is the genuine effect.

Mr. B. goes on thus. His second objection is this: if bastards be called unclean, then by consequent the legitimate may be called holy; to which I answer, the consequence is ungrounded; all uncleanness is opposite to cleanness, but not all to holiness. The Beasts that chew­ed the cud and had cloven feet were clean beasts, and yet every Ox or Sheep was not holy.

To which I reply. Mr. Bs. answer is upon a mistake of the Conse­quence. For the Consequence is this: unclean and holy are here im­mediatly opposites, therefore in what sense [unclean] may be taken here, in the opposite sense [holy] may be taken: For it is a plain rule in Lo­gick, that where terms stand as opposites, the one is to be taken in the sense opposite to the other. Now that [unclean] may be taken for [illegitimate] is proved from Deut. 23. 2. where the bastard is reckoned among them that were not to enter into the Congregation of the Lord, and therefore counted unclean. Now Mr. Bs. answer is by denying that which is not asserted by me, to wit, that all uncleanness is not opposite to holiness; which I neither do nor need affirm. For it is [Page 200] enough for my purpose, that in that place 1 Cor. 7. 14. they are op­posites, which is not denyed; and that if [illegitimate] may be as much as [unclean] [holy] may be as much as [legitimate]: which is enough to answer Mr. Bs. objection, that to call legitimate children holy is to contradict the Scripture-use of words.

But Mr. B. hath another answer. ‘Again, you must distinguish of uncleanness, 1. either it was ceremonial, 2. or moral. The uncleanness of bastards then was only or chiefly ceremonial or Typi­call, God did deprive them of the Jewish privileges, as those were for a time that had touched the dead, which yet was no sin. God doth not now shut such out of his Church to so many generations as he did then out of that congregation in some measure. So that ba­stards are not now so unclean as then they were, and therefore the le­gitimate not so holy; when legal or Jewish ceremonial cleanness and uncleanness are ceased: therefore this could be none of the Apostles meaning here. And if God did yet call bastards unclean, as he did then, it will not follow that we may call all them that are no bastards holy, till God have warranted us so to do. But see how these men will trust to groundless far-fetcht Consequences, when it fits their turn.’

I reply, All may see Paedobaptists consequences, even Mr. Bs. are far-fetcht, being fetcht from circumcision the Jewish infants Church-membership, and I am sure upon accurate scanning they are groundless: but that this objection of mine is a groundless far-fetcht consequence he that saies it heeds not or cares not what he saies.

For it is not denyed unclean and holy are here opposites, it is affirm­ed here by Mr. B. God did call formerly bastards unclean, it is not denyed opposites may be taken in opposite senses, therefore as unclean allusively to the Jewish law may be taken for illegitimate, so holy standing in direct opposition to it 1 Cor. 7. 14. may be taken for le­gitimate. This is a plain and near consequence upon grounds not de­nied by Mr. B. himself. Now what saith he to it? That we must distinguish between ceremonial and morall uncleaness, that bastards were ceremonially unclean then, not so now, nor the legitimate so ho­ly; therefore this could not be the Apostles meaning here. To which I reply, the uncleanness of bastards was rather civil and judicial than ceremonial or ecclesiastical as it is taken in contradistinction to civil, as appears from Nehem. 13. 1. 3. For the effect of it was not any separation till purged by some rites, but a putting away from Israel as making an impure mixture in bloud. But however, were it granted [Page 201] that it was a ceremonial uncleanness, and it being granted (as I rea­dily do) that bastards were not unclean then as under the law, nor the legitimate so holy, that is in that peculiar sense of the Jews (which I never asserted); yet the Apostle in an allusive sense might call bastards unclean, and legitimate holy, because it was a use then known, as he doth in many other words, Auathema, Rom. 9. 3. keeping the feast, unleavened bread, 1 Cor. 5. 8. Circumcision, Philip. 3. 3. Priest­hood, 1 Pet. 2. 5. though all these be now ceased as they were then. And whereas Mr. B. addes, if God did yet call bastards unclean as he did then, it will not follow that we may call all them that are no bastards holy, till God have warranted us so to do; I conceive that if God did yet call bastards unclean, as he did then in an opposite sense to holy, surely we may expound [holy] by [legitimate] and are plainly warranted by God so to do notwithstanding Mr. Bs. ground­less dictate to the contrary.

SECT. XXVII.
Mr. Bs. fourth argument that the unbelieving husbands sanctify­ing cannot be meant in respect of lawful continuance in mariage, is answered.

MR. B. goes on to his fourth Argument, for his sense against mine. ‘If (saith he) the sanctifying of the unbeliving husband or wife be not meant of making or continuing the mariage lawfull in opposition to adultery, then by holiness of the children cannot be meant their legitimation in opposition to bastardy. But the san­ctifying of the unbelieving husband or wife cannot be meant of mak­ing or continuing the mariage lawful in opposition to adultery (or scortation) Therefore by holiness of children cannot be meant their legitimation in opposition to bastardy. He proves the minor thus. If God do no where in all the Scripture call the meer making of a thing lawfull [the sanctifying of it] (but many hundred times use the word in another sense) then we must not so call it, nor so interpret him here: But God doth no where in Scripture call the meer making of a thing lawful [the sanctifying of it] therefore we must not so do, nor here so interpret it.’

To which I answered by denying, 1. the Consequence, and he to make it good replyes, 1. He is resolved to follow Scripture phrase as neer as he can.

To which I reply, so am I, and in this exposition do interpret it af­ter the common sense of Scripture, though with some diminution, which I call (as Rhetoricians do) abuse or impropriety of speech, in which manner it is frequent to use terms in Scripture, as 1 Cor. 10. 2. were baptized, is as if they had been baptized, Matth. 12. 49, 50. He that doth the will of my Father is my Mother, that is, is to me as if he were my mother, Matth. 19. 12. some have eunuchi­zed themselves for the Kingdome of heaven, that is saith Mr. Selden de jure nat. &c. l. 5. c. 16. by a similitude, they by removing lust have as it were gelded themselves, Heb. 11. 12. [...] deaded or killed, which our translators render, as good as dead, just in my sense of sanctified in respect of procreation as if he were dead though then alive. The like might be said of Mark 10. 30. Luke 14. 26. Exod. 2. 9. Levit. 17. 4. And indeed such kind of expressions are so frequent in Scripture and other Authors, yea and in common speech, as when we say I found him a Father, a Brother, homo ho­mini Deus, &c. that I cannot tell what to call it but shallowness, or frowardness, or some such like weakness in Mr. B. who would insinu­ate into mens minds, as if my interpreting [the unbelieving husband is sanctifyed to the wife] that is, is as if he were sanctifyed in this re­spect, to wit, the lawfull enjoyment of her husband, she may as law­fully use his company in conjugal use as if he were sanctifyed, or had been a believer, that this is not speaking as God speaks, or as the Scri­pture speaks 500 times. He might as well say, that he that interprets thus Christs words, He that doth the will of my Father is my Mo­ther, is to me as if he were my mother in some respect, speaks not as God speaks, or takes the word otherwise than it is in 500 places: which insinuations though they take with vulgar capacities, yet I am confi­dent all judicious Scholars count meer trifling.

2. Mr. B. tells me I must shew some palpable necessity for leaving the constant use of the word, which he doth not yet believe I can do.

To which I reply, 1. The constant use of the word [sanctifyed] is to be made holy by regenerating grace: now I use it in that sense onely with some diminution, which may be called abuse or impropriety of speech, as when Christ calls an obedient hearer his mother, Abra­hams body dead, Heb. 11. 12. the Israelites were baptized 1 Cor. [Page 203] 10. 2. the constant use is retained, onely the predication is with some diminution, as in some one respect only, by similitude, analogy, after a sort, or the like.

2. There is a manifest (which Mr. B. calls palpable) necessity that it be used in this sense, sith an infidel continuing an infidel in sensu com­posito, in a compound sense, cannot be said to be sanctified, that is, re­generated. But he may be said to be sanctified as 1 Tim. 4. 5. To which I reply, 1. That place is but one, and so Mr. B. recedes from the constant use of the word: which he counts my fault. 2. Nor is the speech there as here of the sanctifying of a person, but of a thing to be received, as meat, &c. 3. Nor is the sanctifying here said to be by the word and prayer, or any exercise answerable thereto, as there. 4. Yea it hath been shewed before that the sense of Mr. B. before given doth neither agree with the sanctification 1 Tim. 4. 5. nor can Mr. B. give any instance where the word sanctified is used according to his uncouch explication, or rather darkning of Pauls words, which the sense I give makes plain and easie. But I must follow him.

But at last, saith Mr. B. Mr. T. denied also my Antecedent, and affirmed that the word sanctifying was used for [making lawfull] and proved it (as he useth) out of 1 Tim. 4. 5. To which I replied, that the text could not mean it of a meer making a thing lawfull; which I proved thus; if it were lawfull before (even to Pagans to eat and drink, though they sinne in the manner, and ends) then this can­not be meant of making it meerly lawfull; But it was lawfull before: Therefore, &c. To which he gave not so much as any denial, but yielded all; whereupon I could not but desire the people to observe, &c.

To which I reply, that being wearied with Mr. Bs. cavilling at the plain sense I gave, I did affirm that the word [sanctifying] was used for [making lawfull] 1 Tim. 4. 5. and when he altered the term into [meer making lawful] I yielded his Conclusion, because he that proves that it signifies somewhat more than meer making lawfull, proves it sig­nifies making lawful: which was all I affirmed, and therefore I thought not best to have any more altercation about it. Hereupon Mr. B. con­trary to agreement falls to his Rhetorick, turns himself to the people, censures them that hold with me as led by mens interest in me more than by God or the evidence of truth, and chargeth me as if I could bring but one place that I could say did favour my sense, and then plainly gave up that one also, and so would most injuriously represent me to the people as a deceiver: whereas the main of my answer was [Page 204] the denying the Consequence of his argument, and yet brought a text to prove that to be sanctified is to be made lawful though not meerly law­full, which Mr. B. added besides my words: nor was I bound to ju­stifie. I have above shewed that to be sanctified 1 Cor. 7. 14. cannot be meant as 1 Tim. 4. 5. which is enough to overthrow his sense.

I suppose it seasonable here to mind the Reader, 1. Of Mr. Bs. inequality, who thinks it enough for him, though he be the affirmer, and should therefore prove what he affirms, when he is prest by me to bring one place to shew where [holy] is taken in his way, to tell me it is used many hundreds of times for a state of separation to God in ge­neral, though he bring no one place to prove it is used for the speciall way of separation to God he contends for, and yet when he puts me to shew a place for my sense of [sanctified] for [making lawfull] excepts against it as insufficient, because it doth not there signifie [meerly making lawfull] though I be but a respondent, and that allegation is for my purpose, though otherwise without it, it be made good. 2. Of my condition in the dispute at Bewdly, when I found Mr. B. not ta­king so fair and plain an answer as I gave about the meaning of the word [sanctified] though he had seen it in my written notes exemplifi­ed by the like, but in stead thereof using such indirect wayes as he here confesseth he did by turning himself to the people, and to possess them with thoughts as if I and others did but delude them, and that upon so sleight a pretence, though he knew his arguments were pre­meditated, written in his book, and about that text altogether un­known to me, as I had reason to conceive, of purpose, I was in much distraction of thoughts, finding I held a wolfe by the ears, which I neither knew how to hold or loose without danger of being condemned as a deceiver, if I were silent; or if I spake, to expose my self to his forward cavellings, and injurious censures: to which strait every way like in my reading I find not any before me brought. But the Lord kept me (I bless his name) from breaking out into intemperate passions or lan­guage though much provoked by this his dealing, and hath so brought it about though to my great trouble, that his arguments being printed, I am preserved to answer them, and thereby to vindicate the truth. I go on.

Mr. B. adds. I proved my Antecedent thus. If by sanctifying be meant [making or continuing lawfull] then both this and all other l [...]wfull relations of Pagans are sanctified, but the Consequence is ab­surd, therefore the Antecedent. Mr. T. answered to this, that their relations may be said to be sanctified in this sense; but when Scripture saith so, I will believe him.

To which I reply, in the sense I gave, an infidell child may be said to be sanctified, or an infidell servant, that is, delighted in, comman­ded, as a child or servant (as if he were sanctified) by his infidel fa­ther or master. And though it be not my phrase, but his, to say their relations are sanctified, yet in the sense I explain it is no absurdity to say pagans lawfull relations are sanctified to them, nor shall account it to be, till it be proved so to be.

He goes on. I further argue thus. That which is common to all Pagans lawfully maried cannot he mentioned as a privilege proper to believers: But Paul mentioneth sanctification of the unbeliever to them as a privilege proper to believers, Ergo.

T'is true, I deny the Minor, though page 80. he takes it as if it were confessed, that here the Apostle ascribes a privilege to a belie­ver. But saith Mr. B. the scope of the Apostle fully satisfieth me of the false-hood of this. I reply, the scope of the Apostles, analysis and frame of the words, specially the leaving out the term [believer] though the term [unbelieving] be twice mentioned, satisfies me upon my ex­actest enquiry, that it is a clear truth, that the Apostle doth not con­firm his resolution v. 12, 13. in v. 14. from a privilege derived from the faith of the one party, which had been insufficient to quiet their con­sciences as Mr. B. and others expound it, but by assuring them that notwithstanding their scruple, yet their mariage-state continued law­full notwithstanding the feared impediment, and so it is from a thing common to all maried persons. But against it saith he I argue thus.

If neither in this nor any other text, the Holy Ghost do ever speak of sanctifying to the unbeliever, but to believers onely, then it is not to be understood of a thing common to every Pagan that is lawfully maried: but the Antecedent is undeniable. For here Paul saith onely to the believer, that the unbeliever is sanctified to them, and not to any other. And no other text can be produced that saith it otherwise.

To which I reply, I deny the Consequence: For though he speak of sanctifying here to none but a believer, nor any where else, yet sith the reason of his speaking onely to a believer is plain to be because the occasion was only the believers doubt, and so he was to resolve them, (not that which Mr. B. imagines, the comforting of them against their known unhappy condition that they were necessitated to abide with the unbeliever, against which he should comfort them by acquainting them with a privilege they had, if they did exercise their faith aright) there being no such thing as the comforting against grief, but the satis­fying of their consciences, in the Apostles words, and he leaves out the [Page 206] term [believer] and mentions those of [husband and wife] it is to me very apparent, that the reason of the ones being sanctified to the other is from the conjugal relation, not the faith of one party, and so no privilege mentioned of the believer as such.

Mr. B addes. Whence another argument may be added. That cannot be said to be done to the believer as his proper privilege which he enjoyed before while he was an unbeliever: but the lawfull use of his unbelieving wife he enjoyed before. Therefore it is not his privilege as a believer, and consequently not the thing here meant.

To this I reply by denying the Consequence, which will not be proved till Mr. B. prove that the sanctifying is a privilege of the belie­ver as a believer, by reason or vertue of his faith, which Mr. B. though he say I deny it, yet contents himself to say he is satisfied fully from the Apostles scope to be a falsehood, but proves not nor answers my rea­sons to the contrary. I may more truly say he that is led by such di­sputing is led by mens interests, not by evidence of truth.

SECT. XXVIII.
Mr. Bs. 5^th argument that the Apostle by my exposition should not argue from a thing more known, is answered.

MR. B. proceeds thus. ‘My next argument is this; If by san­ctifying were meant making lawful, then the Apostle could not argue as à notiore (from a thing more known) from the childrens ho­liness to the unbelievers being so sanctified: But the Apostle doth ar­gue à notiore: so saith Mr. T. still, and Apol. p. 120. he saith they were certain their children were legitimate. I do unfeignedly ad­mire how Mr. T. can satisfie his own conscience in the answer he giveth to this argument, or how he can make himself believe, that it is either satisfactory or rational. But I will hide none of his an­swer from you, as it is you shall have it, and so judge of it. I confir­med my Major proposition thus (for the Minor is his own) 1. If no man can rationally know that his children are legitimate till he know first that his mariage is lawfull (as in opposition to adultery) then the childrens legitimation is not a thing better known than the said law­fulness [Page 207] of mariage. But no man can rationally know that his children are legitimate till he know first that his mariage is so lawful: therefore the childrens legitimation is not a thing better known than the lawfulness of the mariage. The Minor I prove thus. If the childrens legitimation be a meer consequent of the said lawfulness of the mariage, receiving all its strength from it, then no man can ra­tionally know that his children are legitimate till he first know that his mariage is so lawful: But the Antecedent is certain (and con­fessed by Mr. T. Apol. p. 123.) therefore so is the Consequence: or thus; If every man that doubteth of the lawfulness of his mariage (as being adulterous) must needs rationally doubt also of the legitima­tion of his children, then the said legitimation is not a thing better known. But every man that doubteth whether his mariage be a­dulterous, must needs rationally doubt whether his children are legi­timate: therefore the said legitimation is not better known.’

To which I answer. Admiration is usually from ignorance, and that sometimes from heedlesness, which I find so frequent in Mr. B. that I do not admire that he is so frequent in his frivolous admirations. My answer with which I can satisfie my conscience is this, that Mr. Bs. argument goes on two mistakes, 1. That all proof must be by that which is rationally more know able. Whereas the speech in Lo­gick that all proof is by that which is more known, is to be under­stood of that which is any way more known, whether it be notius na­turâ, or personae, in the order of nature, or the way of the persons under­standing with whom we reason, in which it serves turn if the thing be but more readily conceived or first thought on, though in a rational way it should be last, if there be a connexion between the thing to be pro­ved and the medium by which the proof is made. 2. Mr. B. doth mistake me very much. It is true, I say the Corinthians doubted not of the legitimation of their children, but that I say that they doubted whether their mariage were adulterous I suppose can no where be found in my writings, and if it did fall from me in the dispute (which I do not remember) I do now revoke it. Some short written notes of what I delivered in my Sermon at Bewdley wherein I answered Mr. Bs. ar­guments in the dispute, have it thus; I say not they doubted whether they had lived in fornication, and yet doubted not of the legitimation of their children. My interpretation is this; They doubted whether the believer were not to relinquish the unbeliever. The answer is, no: The reason is the unbeliver being a husband is as if he were a believer or sanctified in respect of his own wife so farre as to continue together [Page 208] lawfully notwithstanding his unbelief: This he proves by an argument to the persons; you grant your children legitimate though begotten and born in this state, therefore you must grant the lawfulness of conti­nuing together as husband and wife, for the one being granted cannot be true except the other be also yielded. And this I conceive is rational arguing, as in a like case; A man doubts whether he may serve his master out of favour with a king? It is answered he may: For not­withstanding his disfavour he is to him a master as if he were in fa­vour, else he might not wear his cloth, which he doubts not to do. The arguing is like, and both rational. In each the doubt is but sin­gle, and both proved by a double medium, the first from the conti­nuance of the relations notwithstanding these extrinsecal things, in­fidelity and the Princes disfavour; the other proves these to the per­sons from their grants, that their children are legitimate, therefore their maried estate holds, the other his right to wear his cloth conti­nues, therefore his relation to his master. Now let us consider what Mr. B. saith about my answer to this, in which he would have men imagine I made by my answer the Corinthians, Paul, and my self, lit­tle better than fools or mad-men. After his manner he begins thus.

Now what saith Mr. T. to all this? why in our dispute he saith over and over, that the Corinthians were certain that their children were no bastards, and yet they were not certain whether their conti­nuing together were not fornication. And this magisterially he af­firmed without any reason: To which I reply. 1. Then were the Corinthians certaintly mad, even stark mad-men if they doubted that they lived in fornication, and yet were sure that their children were lawfully begotten in that state. But Mr. T. hath no ground in reason and conscience to make such a Church as this of Corinth to con­sist of mad-men: nor will I believe him that they were so besides themselves in this, who had so much wisdome in other things.

To which I say, It is true, I did say in the dispute sundry things which I do not remember, and that I was so unadvised upon the confidence I had of Mr. Bs. imagined ingenuity that I should neither find him so captious of advantages, nor so tart and quick as I did, but willing to give me some breathing time and liberty to open my self, and after to have let me have his arguments in writing that I might have re­viewed them and my answers afore they were published, that I took no course to have the passages written by an equal Notary. And I con­fess I was at some loss in the dispute about this argument, finding by my Sermon and Antidote page 17. I did mistake it. Yet however [Page 209] some things might fall from me either through inadvertency by weari­ness, distraction of thoughts, or other humane infirmity, I do not think I said they were not certain whether their continuing together were not fornication, much less that I magisterially affirmed it. This perhaps I did say, that they might not see the consequence from their childrens legitimation to the lawful continuance in their mariage use; which is not all one as to doubt or be uncertain whether they lived not in for­nication, when they were certain their children were legitimate. But what ever I then said, I now declare that I think the doubt was about the lawfull living together, and the proof of the affirmative is from the lawfull continuing in mariage, the mariage-bond being not dissolved by the infidelity of the one party, assured by the Apostles authority, and confirmed to the persons from that which is undoubted to them, their childrens legitimation. Yet had I said they were certain of their childrens legitimation, but uncertain whether they lived not in forni­cation, it will not follow they were stark mad, they might be dull, yet not stark mad. There may be found that know not the connexion of things, that may deny a man to be a reasonable living creature, and yet hold him a man, that grant contradictories true, and yet not stark mad. Nor do I imagine but that there were slow-witted men in the Church of Corinth, the Apostle saying they were not many wise after the flesh, 1 Cor. 1. 26: though he speak of them as he doth 1 Cor. 1: 5. and 8. 1. and 10. 15. Nor need I make a Church of mad-men as Mr. B. after his manner insinuates.

But he goes on. I reason further: He feigneth them to know a thing not knowable, and so an impossibility; for it is not knowable that the child of an adulterous or fornicating bed is lawfully begotten; and if they were in doubt of their living in fornication, though it were not so, yet it would aford to them no more assurance of their childrens legitimation than if it were so indeed: for who can raise a Conclu­sion from unknown Premises? Indeed if there were any other Premises to raise it from, then it were something; but there is no other ground in the world on which a man can know that his child is fully begotten, but onely to know that he was no fornicator or adulterer.

Answ. Mr. B. saith I feign the Corinthians to know a thing not knowable, as being an impossibility, to wit, that the child of an adul­terous or fornicating bed is lawfully begotten, and I confess if I should so feign I should feign them to know an impossibility according to my acknowledgement page 123. of my Apology here cited by Mr. B. But that I feign the Corinthians to know this is Mr. Bs. dream: yea though I had said as he makes me, that they doubted not of their childrens [Page 210] legitimation, and yet doubted of their mariage whether it were forni­cation. For though I confess that in this case if they did rationally dis­course they must doubt of the one that doubt of the other, yet if through inadvertency a person heed not the connexion, a man may doubt of the one, and yet through dulness not doubt of the other. Mr. B. might remember that in his Saints Everlasting Rest, part. 3. chap. 7. Section 16. He saith that many honest hearts have such weak heads that they will acknowledge the Premises and yet deny the apparent Conclusion.

As for Mr. Bs. demands to me that I would tell him upon what ground they were ceriain that their children were lawfully begotten while they doubted whether their living together were not fornicati­on, and the rest of that trash, I pass by as suitable to the rest of his vain Rhetorick, and desire him to tell me whether he do hold the polyga­my of the Patriarches was not fornication, and if it were (as he must say unless he fall into Ochimis his opinion, and oppose our Lord Christ Matth. 19. 5. 8. Mal. 2. 15. as commonly Protestant Divines conclude) then how could the children of the Patriarchs by their second wives the former living, be no bastards, as Mr. B. affirms pag. 67, 68. of this book? or if he will reconcile these together, free himself from the madness he chargeth me to cast on the Corinthians, and shew how he is free from making a lawfully begotten child of an adulterous or fornicating bed? But I love not to imitate Mr. Bs. vagaries, but to keep to the matter.

Mr. B. addes. But 2. Mr. T. saith in his Sermon on Delibe­ration, that this is not absurd to imagine of understanding persons, seeing even learned men do not at all times see the consequences of things at present. To which I answer: (If it need any;) 1. Far­fetcht or difficult Consequences they may not see; but such as this, I dare say, he is meer mad, if not stark mad, that cannot see. 2. Then Mr. T. being a learned man will take it for no wrong it seems, if a man tell him he is not able at present to see this Consequence, that his children are lawfully begotten; therefore he did lawfully beget them, or he did not beget them in fornication. 3. But if such a learned man should not see the Consequence of the said Antecedent, yet I would fain know how he comes to know the Consequent, without first knowing any Premises or Antecedent. This is the question that Mr. T. should have answered; How they came to be so certain that their children were lawfully begotten, when at the same time they knew not whether they begot them lawfully or in fornication. Did not so able a man as [Page 211] Mr. T. know, and that after so much dispute, that this was the question which he should have answered? And yet he saith nothing to it: And yet he saith he hath abundantly answered all. What should a man say to such dealing? and that from a man of learning and piety? and that dare on these grounds deny Church-membership to all Christian infants in the world? shall I accuse his understanding? why, he thinks his cause so plain, that he smiles and wonders at all the most learned men in the world that dissent from him; shall I ac­cuse his conscience and say he doth these things wilfully? No, but I leave it to God the righteous Judge, onely I am still more confirmed, that a visible judgement of God doth still follow Anabaptistry where ever it comes.

Answ. I see Mr. B. ready upon every light occasion to insult upon me, and therein to be carried on with such extreme hard conceits of me, that he speaks as if he were confirmed that not onely I, but also all Anabaptists (as he calls us) were left over to a reprobate sense; for what other visible judgement he means here should still follow A­nabaptistry where ever it comes, I imagine not. And why so? For­sooth I do not answer at all to a question of his, and yet say, I have a­bundantly answered all. To which I reply, I did and do conceive that I did abundantly answer all Mr. Bs. arguments in the dispute, by shewing that his sense could not be right, though I omitted the an­swering of this question; and my saying it in my Sermon is justifiable, however Mr. B. think of it. Yet if there were a defect in answering his question it was because I had not, nor could procure his arguments in writings to consider of them. I confess that to answer this argument especially (which I did suspect I did not then well understand nor clearly answer) I did much desire his arguments in writing, and I earnestly moved Mr. B. to gratifie me at least with those about 1 Cor. 7. 14. but could not get them from him till he printed them in this bitter, taunting and insulting manner: which the Lord forgive him. But to the matter, 1. Mr. B. recites my words in a Sermon, and it is very likely I used them. But in his Answer he carries it as if I had said [cannot see, or is not able to see] when my words were only [do not see] And this is no absurdity to say that through meer incogitancy of the connexion, as in my Antidote page 19. learned men do not see the plain Consequences of things when they do not discourse rational­ly. And though I think it might be a wrong to a learned man to say he is not able to see the Consequence Mr. B. sets down; yet I count it no wrong to me to say that I do not see a Consequence when I assent [Page 212] to the Consequent without any discursive illation from the Anteeedent, as in thousands of things men take them for granted and undoubted without any rational Conclusion, being unquestioned points, and so they know or assent to the Consequent materially taken without first know­ing any Premises or Antecedent formally considered as having connexi­on with it. 2. Mr. B. tells me, this is the question Mr. T. should have answered, How they came to be so certain that their children were lawfully begotten, when at the same time they knew not whether they begot them lawfully or in fornication. I answer, what I did conceive at the dispute I do not remember, I think my thoughts were somewhat confused about answering this argument, for the reasons fore­given. But since by the notes of my Sermon, & my Antidote page 17. I find that I did not deprehend that this was the question Mr. B. would have answered: what ever I did then, I now give a plain answer, 1. That what the thoughts of the Corinthians were it is impossible for me to tell. 2. But this I conceive, that the Apostle doth prove the lawfulness of continuance of the maried persons in conjugal use not withstanding the unbelief of the one party from the legitimation of their children as more known, that is, as being or likly to be first thought or granted with­out any rationall discourse: not as Mr. B. conceives me to assert or suppose, that at the same time when they doubted not of their childrens legitimation, they doubted of, were uncertain, or knew not their own lawfull begetting them, but that they might, did, or were apt to think or conceive first of the one, and therefore the Apostle brings it as a me­dium to prove the other. And this I conceive is a sufficient answer to this pretty quirk, but no solid argument of Mr. B.

But one thing more, saith Mr. B. ‘Mr. T. hath both in his Dispute and in his Sermon; and that it is ejusdem farinae, of the same nature with the rest. He speaks as if it were their children begotten before conversion of the believer, that they were cer­tain to be legitimate, and their mariage-state afterward which they doubted to be unlawfull (though in his Sermon he speaketh darkly and ambiguously) But it is strange to me, if he believe himself in this: And if he do, I return him this answer. Is it not e­nough that he feign the Christian Corinth. to be besides themselves, but he must charge little less on S. Paul and on the Holy Ghost? As if the Spirit of God by the Apostle did prove their continuance in ma­riage with unbelievers to be no fornication, because their children be­fore the conversion of the believer (and so before the time doubted of) were legitimate. Is this good disputing to say you are certain that [Page 213] your children which you got before your conversion are legitimate, therefore the unbeliever is sanctified to you now, and you may now continue the matrimonial enjoyment of them? And so the Apostle should tell them nothing of the legitimation of the children begot since their conversion, when yet the doubt was only of the lawful­ness of their mariage since then, and not before. If one of Mr. T. his hearers should doubt (as many do) whether he may lawfully thus continue and proceed in the Ministery, and whether they may main­tain him in this way: were it any good argument for me to use, to say, his labours before he preached against Infants-baptism and Church-membership were Orthodox; therefore he may go on now, and you may maintain him. Who would not laugh at such a fool­ish argument? And dare you fasten such on the Spirit of God?’

Answ. It is true, in my Examen page 72. 73. and it is likely in the dispute with Mr. B. I did say, that in probability [ [...], hath been sanctified] is meant of the time when both were unbelievers, and [your children] meant of those before the conversion of one party, as well as since. And thus did Musculus in his comment on 1 Cor. 7. 14. whose words are Englished in my Exercit. page 11. 12. 13. herein relinquishing Ambrose: and yet Musculus did not imagine that he should feign the Apostle Paul, much less the Spirit of God, to be besides themselves. I will use his words, It is as if he said, unless mariage were holy and clean, even between unbelievers, what other thing would follow, than that all the children are bastards and un­clean? But far be it from us to say so; they are holy, for they are born of lawfull mariage. And for my part I should think the argument much the stronger if it be so conceived: Your children born when both were infidels were legitimate, therefore then your mariage-use was lawfull, and now notwithstanding one be an unbeliever yet still your conjugal-use continues lawfull: For it is grounded on this, that whe­ther persons be believers or infidels their mariage is not thereby nulli­fied, nor their children illegitimate, because mariage is honourable among all, Heb. 13. 14 and therefore if I delighted in such kind of spee­ches I might more justly than he doth question whether Mr. B. were not besides himself, or under a visible judgement of God for calling the argument as by me conceived, foolish. Nevertheless in my Antidote page 19. I say, it is the more clear exposition to understand it of those born since the conversion of one party, as being more easily conceived & so perhaps apposite to resolve the doubt according to the present state of the Corinthians. As for his illustration it serves not his turn, sith as [Page 214] is before shewed, the Apostes argument is not foolish but solid, even ac­cording to the opinion that makes him speak of the children before the conversion of one party, how ever the resolution concerning my mainte­nance had been. Yet by the passage I perceive now,

1. That many in Bewdley did doubt of owning me as their Teach­er, and maintaining me, because of preaching against Infant-baptism.

2. That Mr. B. was acquainted with their doubts.

3. It seems improbable that he would resolve them that they ought to own and maintain me.

4. That there is thereupon strong presumption that they were alien­ated, and withdrew at least in some measure from me. Which I doubt not was the beginning of the breach there between us, if there were any, so that Mr. B. seems to have had a hand in it, notwith­standing all his fair shews of making peace. Now whether Mr. B. did Bewdley a good turn in occasioning thereby my removal from them, they do know perhaps already, and may know more hereafter. This I perceive plainly by this passage, that the division there (though it nei­ther were nor is much discernable that there is any) began on the part opposite to me.

SECT. XXIX.
Mr. Bs. sixth argument that the Corinthians doubt was not of their continuing in fornication, but impiety, is answered.

MR B. goes on. My sixth argument is this; If it were not the unlawfulness of their mariage as fornicating, but as impious, or irreligious directly, which the Corinthians suspected, then it is not the lawfulness in opposition to fornication, that is here called sancti­fying. But it was not the unlawfulness as Fornicatory, but as impi­ous directly which they suspected: therefore it was not the lawfulnes as opposite to fornication, which is here meant by sanctifying. The Minor onely will be denyed, which I prove thus: If they doubted not of the legitimation of their seed, then they could not rationally doubt of the lawfulness of their use of mariage, as fornicatory: (but they might doubt of the lawfulnes of it as being impious:) But the An­tecedent is Mr. T. his own, Apol. p. 120. therefore the Consequent [Page 215] he cannot well deny. 2. Besides to any unprejudiced man, it will appear from the very scope of the text, that this was the Corinthians doubt, whether it were not irreligious to live with unbelievers? and not, whether it were not direct [...]y fornication.

To this argument I reply, that whereas he saith the Minor only will be denyed, he is mistaken, it is the Consequence of the Major that is de­nyed. To express my self plainly we must distinguish between the doubt, the reason of the doubt, the occasion of the doubt, the reso­lution of the doubt, and the media whereby the resolution is confirm­ed. The doubt was, whether the believing yoke-fellow might conti­nue with the unbeliever, or whether they were to leave one another; the reason of the doubt was because it seemed irreligious, the occasion of that might be either the reading Deut. 7. 3, 4. or some such like passage, or that which he had written before 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. or some other; the resolution of the doubt was, that they might live toge­ther, need not be divorced, or repudiate each other, notwithstanding the unbelief of the one party; the medium whereby he proves it is, because the one is sanctifyed in or to the other, that is as I conceive, he may be lawfully enjoyed as a husband as if he were sanctifyed and were a beli­ever, because the mariage holds good though one remain an unbeliever, sith mariages, even among unbelievers, are lawfull and honourable, ac­cording to Gods institution Gen. 2. else, if this were not so, your chil­dren, by the unbeliever, should be unclean, that is, unlawfully begot­ten, who are now, that is this being granied that mariages are lawful among infidels, holy, that is, lawfully begotten opposite to unclean. But saith Mr. B. pag. 90. And how would this resolve their doubt, which it is apparent was, whether it were directly impious or irreligious to live with heathens? would it be any satisfaction for the Apostle to answer, that it is not fornication? it may be unlawful as impious, though lawfull as not fornication. To which I answer, Mr. B. con­founds the reason of the doubt with the doubt. The doubt was whe­ther they were not bound to be divorced or to relinquish the other, the reason thereof was the impiety of the unbeliever, which seemed to dis­annul the mariage. The answer is proper and apposite to the doubt: They might live together, for the mariage was not disanulled by the un­belief of the yoke-fellow, but the unbelieving husband though an un­believer is sanctifyed, that is in respect of conjugal use is as if he were sanctifyed, to his own wife. As if now a Papist should doubt whe­ther she must not leave her Lutheran husband lately converted to it, it would be a right answer to say, no, for the mariage relation continues [Page 216] though her husband be an heretique, So v. 21, 22. the Apostle resolves the Servant that he was to abide with his Master though an in­fidel, because the relation of servant and master continue, though the reason of the doubt was the impiety of the master. I will ad the words of two Protestant writers of good account, though the thing be plain e­nough. Piscat. analys. 1 Cor. 7. 7^o prohibet divortia quibus causam praebere posset conjugis infidelitas seu incredulitas, id est, re­ligio: quum scil. conjunx non profitetur religionem christianam, v. 12. & 13. 8^o respondet objectioni: & docet conjugem fidelem bonâ conscientiâ uti posse conjuge infideli, & ejusmodi conjugium es­se licitum: id quod probat ex effectu, videlicet sanctitate liberorum, qui ex ejusmodi conjugio nascuntur, v. 14. Stephanus Zegedinus, loc. com. pa. 357, Rationem sumit à licito usu matrimonii, ac totius vi­tae; ne{que} enim copula infidelis fidelis inquinatur, sanctificatur infidelis à fideli quoad usum & communionem tori. Ab effectu, si immu­dum esset vestrum conjugium, & liberi qui inde nascerentur im­mundi essent, at non sunt immundi. Where by the way I observe that these Authors make the holiness of the children the effect of the lawfull use of copulation and mariage-bed: now no holiness of chil­dren is the effect of lawfull use of the bed, and copulation, but legiti­mation: the Children would be visible Church-members according to Paedobaptists grants not onely when the persons use the bed lawful­ly, but also when they use it unlawfully if one be a believer, yea if both be unbelievers and use the bed unlawfully, yet if either be a be­liever afore the birth, the child begotten will be a visible Church-mem­ber, yea if after the child is born afore it comes to use its own reason it shall be held a visible Church-member and baptized by their hypotheses if the parent become a believer, and on the otherside children begotten and born of parents neither being believers at any time may be visible Church-members and be baptized in infancy, according to Mr. Cottons opinion in the way of the Churches in N. E. ch. ult. and Mr. Baxters here pag. 101, 102. if they be any Purchasers or Guardians to dispose of who are believers. But Ireturn.

SECT. XXX.
Mr. Bs. seventh argument from the preferring a proper and usual sense before an abusive, is answered.

MR. B. addes. My seventh argument is this: when the pro­per sense of a word may be taken, and also that sense wherein it is used many hundred times by the Holy-Ghost, and this without any palpable intonvenience; then it is sinfull to reject that sense and prefer an abusive Catachrestical sense, and which is disagreeing from all other Scripture-use of the word: But here the proper sense of the word [sanctifyed] may be taken, wherein Scripture useth it many hundredtimes, and that without any palpable (yea the least) inconvenience; Therfore it is sinful to prefer before it an abusive sense, wherein Scripture never useth the word; (by his own confession) The Major was not denyed; the Minor was denyed (that the proper u­sual sense may be here taken without inconvenience) 1. I desired him to shew any inconvenience in it. And you shall anon here all that he hath shewed then or since.

Answ. 1. Mr. B. saies that I confess the word [sanctifyed] is taken here in an abusive sense, wherein the Scripture never useth the word; in which he misrepresents my words. I say the word is ta­ken in this place in the usual sense in which it is taken in Scripture, for a person sanctified, as 1 Cor. 1. 2. and 6. 11. &c. but not without a catachresis, that is abuse or impropriety of speech, as when it is said he that he areth my word is my Father and Mother, the word is taken in the usual sense, yet with some abuse or impropriety of speech, is to me as if he were my Father and Mother, which Mr. B. absurd­ly calls an abusive sense, whereas it is only a turning of the word from its simple sense according to its full latitude by applying it to a person in some respect only, or with some diminution, which is common with all authors.

2. Mr. B. supposeth his sense to be used many hundred times in Scripture. But as I have said before, I do not conceive the word [sanctifyed] is used any where for Mr. Bs. sort of remote sanctifying to him who is separated to God, and will (or is bound by his professi­on to) use it for it God, no not 1 Tim. 4. 5.

[Page 218] 3. Hovv usual it is to interpret words as I do, this hath been shewed above.

4. I have shewed before it is no sin to use a word in a sense to which the scope, coherence, parallel place, &c. lead, though there be no such palpable inconvenience as Mr. B. speaks of to understand it in the usual sense, as 1 Cor: 11. 10. Mat. 18. 17. &c.

5. Nevertheless in this place Mr. Bs. sense cannot hold by reason of sundry inconveniencies, as namely, that it is an uncouth interpre­tation, that in reason it is very impertinent to tell them, the believer may live with the unbeliever in mariage use, for the unbeliever is san­ctifyed to him who is separated to God, and will (or is bound by his profession to) use all for God, which hath no more ground to justify the living together of maried, then of unmaried persons; yea that reason must rest on this or the like proposition, that a believer may lawfuly en­joy that which he will or is bound by his prosession to use for God, and it is sanctifyed to him, and so any thing that is anothers, goods, wife, &c. are sanctifyed to a believerwho is separate to God and will or is bound by his profession to use all for God, which willbring in that which M. B. so much inveighs against, community of goods, wives, &c. If it be said it supposeth the things sanctifyed to be lawful, or his own; I re­ply, 1. Mr. B. doth not put that in his description of his remote san­ctification, he would have all things simply to be pure to the pure Tit. 1. 15. and 2. Nor by either Mr. Bs. or Mr. Ms. interpretation of the sanctifying 1 Cor. 7. 14. is it necessary to be inserted, sith the reason of the sanctifying is not by them drawen from the conjugal relation, but from the faith of the one party, as is shewed before, Sect. 22. 23. &c. 3. But let the proposition be, All that is lawfull or his own is sancti­fied to a believer, yet the doubt of the Corinthians would not be re­moved by the proposition so limitted, sith the doubt was whe­ther the un believing husband were lawful and to be owned any long­er as a yoke-fellow. Besides that proposition is not true except the be­liever be such really before God; For he only useth all for God, and so hath all sanctifyed to him; no hypocrite doth use all for God, but for himself, though he be a professed believer, and then the Apostles rea­sonexpounded in Mr. Bs. sense would not justify such persons living toge­ther, but rather conclude a necessity of their desertion of the unbelieving yokefelow: yea sith a true real believer someimes doth use things against God, lives like an unbeliever in sinfull practices and a profane course, so as to incur excommunication, then his unbelieving wife should be divorced, he should put her away, sith she is not sanctifyed to him [Page 219] in this state; the like may be said if he doubt whether he be a real believer. Again, sith the using all for God is a future contingent, Paul had resol­ved them of the lawfulness of continuing together at present from a fu­ture contingent, which might be or not be, which Chamier ubi suprà counted justly absurd, such a reason being manifestly unsatisfactory. All these and more in conveniences there are which at the time of the dispute and after conference I could not discern, but some I did then discern, and some I put in my Antidote page 15. to which the an­swer of Mr. B. is considered in its place: in the mean time I shall pursue him step by step.

2. Saith he, ‘I proved the negative thus. If the Scripture say expressely, that to the pure all things are pure and sanctified (and here be nothi n against that sense) then it being a certain truth, we may so understand it here. But the Scripture saith expressely, that to the pure all things are pure and sanctified (in the proper sense) There­fore it being a certain truth (and here is nothing against that sense) we may so take it here.’

To which I answer, by denying both the Consequence of the Major and the Minor. The Consequence, because it rests on this proposirion, that a place of Scripture is to be expounded in that sense which hath a certain truth, and hath nothing there against it. For there is more required, to wit, the fitness of it to the scope, coherence, &c. But the Minor I also deny, and besides what is already said against Mr. Bs. sense, and what is to come after, for the present I adde, That 1 Cor. 7. 14. doth not ap­pear parallel to Tit 1. 15. because there the whole strength of the pro­position is in the term [pure] and therefore there mentioned with Em­phasis, but 1 Cor. 7. 14. the term [believer] that might answer to it is omitted, and the object of the sanctification is expressed by [hus­band and wife] leaving out [believer] which shewes the reason of the sanctification to be not from the faith of the believer, but the conjugal relation.

But Mr. B. taking all occasions to render me as bad as he can, pro­ceeds in his course thus. ‘What Mr. T. said to this, it is a shame to hear from the mouth of a Christian: but you may see part of it (if it be worth the seeing) afterwards. In brief he affirmed and long contested, that all things are sanctified to believers onely while they are acting faith; yea, only while they are actually praying (in the sense of that text) And so brings in an old condemned Heresie (so cal­led by the Fathers) that nothing is pure to us longer than we are pray­ing. Then his dispute was unsanctified, and so is his preaching, though [Page 220] it be against infant-baptism, and though he pray before and after; yea then his very meat and drink is unsanctifyed (which Paul said were sanctified by the word and prayer) and then what good will prayer do as to the sanctifying of any thing, when it sanctifieth no longer than we are praying? would any man believe that such doctrine should fall from Mr. T. a man of learning and supposed judiciousness? If he had not long insisted on it, and that before about 30. Ministers and Scholars and some thousands of people, I should not expect that one should believe me. And is it any wonder if he that will or dare plead thus, dare also plead against infant-baptism? yea, when I ar­gued against him thus [if it be onely in the very exercise of faith and prayer that things are pure, then sleep is not pure or sanctified to you; (for you do not exercise faith and prayer in your sleep) but sleep is sanctffied: therefore it is not onely in the very exercise of faith and prayer.] Here Mr. T. denied that sleep is sanctified; (would any man believe it?) which I proved thus: If all things are pure to the pure, then their sleep is: But the text saith, All things are pure to the pure, Tit. 1. 15. Therefore their sleep is pure to them. Here Mr. T. an­swered, that by all things were meant some things. And thus you see, what grounds the most learned go on against our baptism; which would make a tender heart even tremble.’

Answ. The grounds we go on against infant-baptism are not any which Mr. B. here mentions, but that it is not according to Christs institution Mat. 28. 19. or the Apostles practice; and therefore will­worship, which Mr. B. did not then hold forth for them to see; nor is it true that by that he there speaks or writes his Hearers or Readers did see what grounds the most learned go on against his baptism. When I read Mr. Bs. book I wondred as much at Mr. B. as he did at me, that he should so zealously maintain infant-sprinkling upon such gross fooleries as he doth, that infants of believers are disciples, Mat. 28. 19. disciples in a meer relation without any learning, disciples re­motely by their parents faith, that our infants are visible Church-mem­bers from a supposed ordinance unrepealed, but no where shewed ex­cept in the Church-membership of the Jews, which with the rites of that Church is manifestly taken away by dissolving that policy and putting up another frame in a far different way, besides most gross per­vertings of texts, such as I may well say would make a tender heart e­ven tremble to repeat. As for the present passage of his, me thinks a tender heart would have trembled thus to repeat in print to the world his brothers words, taking him at the worst, without ever asking of him [Page 221] his meaning, who did so often desire the arguments in writing, that he might mend his answers in dispute, when he lived but 2 miles from him. But I am so inured to his deforming paintings of me, that I make account of it as a good hour in which I meet not with some of his stuff while I examine this writing. It was my folly I confess, and it proves my disadvantage that I entered the dispute without agreement about rules, notaries, &c. trusting to Mr. Bs. imagined candor, and expecting rather a friendly conference than such a pitcht dispute: so that I cannot convince Mr. B. of his fictions as I might have done. But whereas Mr. B. makes me say that all things are sanctified to be­lievers while they are acting faith, yea while they are actually praying, & that onely in the very exercise of faith & prayer things are pure, some notes that I got set down my words [when they pray, not without actu­al praying, by vertue of the exercise of faith] Mr. B. himself page 208. [by the present act of faith and prayer] not as here [while they are actually praying, only in the very exercise of faith and prayer] By my expressions what ever they were my meaning was to exclude onely from sanctifying, either professed faith without reality, or a habit of faith real without acting, and an acting of faith interrupted by falling into sin, remisseness, and partial back sliding from that Christian course: but never in the sense Mr. B. interprets me, as if I held a thing sancti­fied onely while, that is during the coexistence of prayer, and the use of the thing: which were indeed to speak things inconsistent, the use of the thing being not till the prayer be ended. My tenet rightly un­derstood neither brings in the heresie of the Euchites, which as August. tom. 7. de haeresibus ad Quodvult Deum haeres. 57. was, that they shousd onely pray, nor denies sleep to be sanctified when the person keeps a holy course of walking with God in prayer when he is waking. It is true, I said by all things Tit. 1. 15. were not meant all things simply, for then sins should be said to be pure, and therefore the speech Tit. 1. 15. must be understood as 1 Cor. 6. 12. with limitation, which is in effect to say some things are pure; But I answered this in my Praecursor in answering the charge of gross a bsurdities on me in the dispute at Bewdley. I may say he that dares thus misrepresent ano­thers words for his advantage, dares take hold on any vain pretence to uphold the tottering credit of his infant-springling.

SECT. XXXI.
Mr. Bs. 8^th argument from the impurity of all things to an unbelie­ver, is answered.

MR. B. addes. My 8^th argument is thus: If the holy Ghost say expressely that to unbelievers nothing is pure, then you must not say that their husbands or wives are sanctified to them (nor ex­pound this text of any supposed sanctification common to them:) But the Holy Ghost saith expressely that nothing is pure to unbelievers: therefore it is not a sanctification common to them that is here men­tioned. If the Scripture do not onely use the word holy and sanctifie many hundred times in another sense and never in your sense, but al­so speaks the direct contrary, viz. that nothing is pure to unbelie­vers, then let Mr. T. say if he please that their wives are sanctified to them: but I will not say so. But 1. He saith (but magisterial­ly without the least proof) that the Apostle speaks Acurologically and abusively; and by sanctified means quasi as if they were sanctified. Answ. But besides that this is both unproved, yea and fully confu­ted, I would further know what he meaneth by [quasi sanctified] Is it [as good as sanctified?] Then it is apparently false: For to be un­sanctified though lawfull is not as good as though they were sanctifi­ed.

To which I reply: There is no contradiction to say nothing is pure or sanctified to an unbeliever in the proper sense, that is, so as that they use it agreeable to Gods will, and with his acceptance, and yet to say that an unbelieving yoke-fellow is sanctified, that is, is as if he were sanctified to his unbelieving wife in this respect onely so as to be en­joyed as a husband, which is no more than this, that mariage-use is honourable or lawfull among infidels. And this sense hath been pro­ved by the analysis of the Apostles words, and by the frequent use of terms in such an improper manner as 1 Cor. 10. 2. and elsewhere, and so the sense runs clear, and not otherwise, nor is this refuted by Mr. B. or any other. I mean by [as if he were fanctified] he is in this respect as lawfully enjoyed as if he were a believer. Pasor in voce [...] 1 Cor. 7. 14. uxor infidelis in viro sanctificata est, h. e. pro sancta habita. If the expression be used by any [as if he were sanctified] is as good as sanctified] yet there is no more apparent falsehood in such a [Page 223] speech then in our translators rendring [...] Heb. 11. 12. dead or made dead by [as good as dead] it being usual in our Eng­lish tongue to express thus, that which the Latins do express by quasi as it were. Nor do I say to be unsanctified, if lawfull is as good as if he were sanctified: but only this, it is as good barely in this respect to be used by his wife as if he were sanctified, though he be unsanctified, which is all one as to say, that conjugal use is lawful with such a one as well as if he were a believer, and therefore Mr. B. doth but trifle in his ca­vil at that expression, and in imagining two different senses of the ex­pression, he is as it were sanctified. But 2. saith he, it would be but a proving idem peridem, as if the Apostle should say, it is lawfull to live together, because it is lawfull; whereas he argues that they may lawfully live together because the one is sanctified in or to the o­ther. To which I answer, the proof is not by the same, but by terms connext: the believer need not put away his wife though an infidel, be­cause though she be an infidel, yet being his wife she is lawfully used as if she were sanctified, not putting away, and lawfully using, are not the same though connext, and so no nugatory proof of the same by the same. 3. Saith Mr. B. And why should a thing onely lawfull to be said to be sanctified, or as if it were sanctified when it is not sanctified? law­fulness is a condition pre-requisite in the subject of sanctification; for God never sanctifieth sin. It may be long lawfull and never sancti­fied. Answ. For the same reason a person is said to be sanctified who is not sanctified, for which he is said to be Christs mother, who is not Christs mother, the Israelites to be baptized, who were not baptiz­ed, he must hate his Father who must not hate him, the woman that liveth in pleasure is dead, who is not dead, 1 Tim. 5. 6. what a frivo­volous demand is this to ask why the Apostle should use such a kind of speech, when the reason is so often rendred because it well served to remove the doubt from the unsanctifiedness of the person as an im­pediment to their continuance in conjugal converse? 'Tis true, law­fulness is a pre-requisite condition of sanctification when sanctification is taken without any abuse or impropriety of speech, yet it may import the same with lawfulness in the sense the Apostle useth it? The next que­stion which is his 4th objection, is answered in answering the 6th ar­gument. 5. Saith Mr. B. And who should be here believed in their interpretation? Mr. T. that expoundeth by adding to the text? or those that say no more or less than the text saith. We say as the Apostle saith, that the unbeliever is san­ctified in or to the believer Mr. T. saith, he is as it [Page 224] were sanctified: that is, he is not sanctified, but either as good or somewhat like it: who shall be believed here? S. Paul or Mr. T? I believe S. Paul, that the unbeliever is sanctified. Let Mr. T. believe that he is but as it were sanctified. Answ: It is one thing to expound by adding to the text, and another thing to adde to the text, which is to be expounded. The later is Mr. Bs. fault, who saith, we say as the Apostle saith, that the unbeliever is sanctified in or to the believer, when the Apostle mentions not [believer] but [wife husband] The former is necessary, when the words are not so plain, that they need no exposition. I know not how a man can expound but by altering the more dark words into more perspicuous; and that is seldome without addition as may be seen in all paraphrases and com­mentaries; and such is my addition, and should be believed. Mr. Bs. questions are so nugatory that he might be ashamed of the frivolousness of them. Is S. Paul or Mr. T. to be believed? Answ. Doubt­less Paul, when Mr. T. speakes contrary to him: but when Mr. T. speaks the same more perspicuously that S. Paul speaks both are to be believed. But Paul saith, That the unbeliever is sanctified, Mr. T. he is not but as it were sanctified. Answ. Christ saith, he that doth the will of his Father is his mother. Mr. T. saith he is but as his mother in some respect; yet there is no contradiction. So Saint Paul saies, the unbeliever hath been sanctified, Mr. T. he hath been but as is were sanctified in some respect, and there is no contradiction herein.

But will Mr. B. himself say simply, the unbeliever is sanctified? I trow he will not, but after a sort, and in some respect. And if so, doth he not as well vary from the Apostle as I do? But saith Mr. B. he tels us that 1 Cor. 10. 2, 3. to be bagtized in the cloud and in the sea is quasi baptized. And what of that: what is that to this? Because in metarhors similitudes, types, &c. the name may be given from the thing signified, doth it follow that it is so here, where Mr. T. doth not so much as affirm any type or similitude? Answ. Mr. B. denies not that I say right [baptized 1 Cor. 10. 2.] is as much as [as it were baptized] but asks what of that? If so, as it is very apparent then neither Infant-baptism, nor sprinkling as the same with baptism, can be hence concluded as Paedobaptists endeavour. Mr. B. addes another question, of which he is full when he wants arguments. What is that to this? Answ. It is an illustration to my exposition by gi­ving an instance in a like expression in the same Epistle. But there is yet another interrogation I must answer (For I see I am now tied to [Page 225] this caucasus, and must answer every of Mr. Bs. frivolous questions) Because in Metaphors, siwilitudes, types, &c. the name may be gi-from the thing signified doth it follow that it is so here, where Mr. T. doth not so much as affirm any type or similitude? Answ. No, nor did Mr. T. ever make such a foolish argument, 1 Cor. 10. 2. bap­tized is as it were baptized, therefore 1 Cor. 7. 14. sanctified is, as it were sanctified; yet it follows well as Mr. T. alleged it, that if [baptized] 1 Corinthians. 10. 2. were so expounded, [san­ctified] 1 Cor. 7. 14. might be so expounded, if nothing else were against it. But there is no metaphor nor type 1 Cor. 7. 14. Nor do I know of any Metaphor or type 1 Cor. 10. 2. If Mr. B. think the cloud or Sea were types for signifying or foretelling our baptism he opposeth Protestant Divines who denies the old shadows to be types of our Sacraments. Ames. Bellerm. Enerv. tom. 3. c. 3. th. 11. figuras figurarum non instituit Deus, nec docet Scriptura. But in 1 Cor. 10. 2. is a relation of a thing done and yet this expression is used, and therefore it is no strange thing, it is so used 1 Cor. 7. 14.

SECT. XXXII.
Mr. Bs. 9^th hinted argument from this, that the Apostle makes the childrens uncleannes an horred Consequence is answered.

BUt Mr. B, for all his brevity hints one more argument. The Apostle here argueth from this as a horrid Consequence contain­ing much evil in it [else were your children unclean] and from the contrary as a happy Consequence [but now they are holy] But according to Mr. T. his exposition there is no great good in one, nor evil in the other. Therefore Mr. T. his sense is dissonant from the Apo­stles. For the major it is undeniable: the minor Mr. T. will confute when he hath well answered me, what great evill it is accor­ding to his opinion to be a bastard? 1. It is no sin (in the child) that is certain. 2. And what evil of suffering is it? 1. Though the parents should be impenitent, yet according to Mr. T. it would be no punishment to the child to be out of the visible Church. For he thinks that even the seed of the faithfull are all without, and yet it is no evill to them. And for the place he urgeth, (he will have [Page 226] mercy on whom he will have mercy) they may be concerned in it as well as others. So that except meer shame among men, or the effect of humane laws, what harm doth he leave?

Answ. 1. Though Mr. B. say the major is undeniable, yet I de­ny it, and say it is manifestly false. The Apostle doth indeed argue from the childrens uncleanness as an absurdity Consequent, as Pisc. in his analysis of the place: but not as from a horrid consequence containing much evil in it nor from; the holiness as a happy consequent, but as a certain concession. 2 Yet did it contain an horrid consequence containing much evil it might be the infamy & deminution of privileges according to humane laws that might be meant. It was a horrid thing to Jephthah that he was illegitimate, Judges 11. 2. & the law of God, Deut. 23. 2. ex­cluded them from the congregation of the Lord. As for Mr. Bs. im­putations to me, that it would be no punishment to a child to be out of the visible Church, it is true, I hold that the not taking in of infants into the visible Church of Christians as they were into the Iews is not any thing penal, but only a different state of them arising from the dif­ferent Church constitution. But the other speech is falsly charged on me, that even the seed of the faithful are all without, and yet it is no evil to them. It is strange to me, that Mr. B. should confound the seed of the faithfull with their infant-children, as if the infants onely were their seed. And it is but an abusing of people to use the term [to be without] used Mark 4. 11. 1 Cor. 5. 12. Col. 4: 5. Revel. 22. 15. but not in Mr. Bs. sense, for them that are only without the visi­ble Church negatively through bare incapacity of nature to understand the Gospel preached: whereas it is alwayes in the Scripture of the N. T. used for them that are without positively as being alienated in their minds from God: whereby Readers are grosly abused as being apt to conceive that the the evils spoken of them that are without are meant of of infants even of believers, if their admissibility into visible Church-membership by baptism be not acknowledged. It is true, bastards may be concerned in the mercy of God mentioned Rom. 9. 15. as well as others, and when I urge that place I urge it pertinently, If I did leave no other harm to bastards but meer shame among men, or the effect of humane laws, yet it were evil to be abhorred to have the brand of bastardy. But there are other evils that follow it, as chiefly that their education is not regarded, they are cast out of families not owned by the parent, nor provided for &c. But I need not aggra­vate these evils, sith as I said before, it is false that the Apostle argues from the childrens uncleaness as from a horrid Consequence contain­ing [Page 227] much evil in it. Thus I have made a full answer to all Mr. Bs. ar­guments in print for his sense of 1 Cor. 7. 14. His reserves I nothing doubt are as weak as the printed. I pass on to vindicate my arguments against his Exposition.

SECT. XXXIII.
My speech, that it is not enough for Mr. B. to overthrow my sense except he prove his own, is vindicated.

‘MR. B. tels us he will proceed to answer all that ever he could know I have brought against his Exposition of this text. And 1. he takes notice that I say, if he do overthrow my sense and prove not his own, it is nothing: for possibly neither of us may be in the right. And the answers thus, 1. I wonder not that he seeth a pos­sibility or his own erring, but rather that he seeth not that he cer­tainly erreth. 2. I have fully proved my exposition already. Is it not proof enough that the Scripture near six hundred times useth the word in my sense, and never in his sense. 3. When there is but these three senses urged by any of understanding, I think the over­throw of his third is the establishing of one of the former; and if either of them stand his cause must fall. For the other sense of the word [holy] which is for qualitative real holiness makes against him more than mine. And I say again, I had rather say as they that would have it a holiness of separation such as certainly saveth, than as Mr. T. that it is onely to be no bastards. For I know no one Scri­pture against their judgement that shall affirm, that all infants of believers so dying are certainly saved: nor any argument but only this, that then the children of the faithfull that prove wicked, do fall away from grace. And were I necessitated to the one (as I am not) I had rather believe that such grace as consisteth not in personall qualificati­ons, but is meerly relative grounded on the Covenant, and having only the parents faith for its condition, I say, that such grace may be lost, when they come to age; then to believe, Mr. T. that God hath denied all infants in the world to be so much as members of the vi­sible Church.’ For I see twenty times more may be said against this o­pinion of his than the other.

To which I reply. It is some ease to my spirit under the heavy [Page 228] load of M. Bs. injurious censures of me, that he doth not make me so arrogant as not to imagine it possible for me to erre, nor doth it dis­quiet me that he wonders that I see not that I certainly do erre, being acquainted with the vanity of his wonderments, who often wonders at that of which the reason is obvious. That his exposition is not proved is shewed by answering his arguments. That he saith, there are but those three senses of real, federal, matrimonial holiness ur­ged by any of understanding, shewes his ignorance. For to omit that of Augustine (a man sure of some understanding) refuted by Chami­er Paustr. Cath. tom. 4. lib. 5. cap. 10. Sect. 67. of a ceremo­nial holiness, Hugo Grotius (no babe) annot. in 1 Cor. 7. 14. goes another way from all the three senses Mr. B. sets down, and allegeth Tertullian and Hierom for him, that the unbelieving husband is sanctifyed as a lawful husband to his wife a believer, and so she need not depart from him. For otherwise if the believer depart the chil­dren would be unclean, that is, would be heathen infidels called un­clean Act. 10. there being none to teach them the Christian faith, but now, that is, the believer staying, the children are holy, that is, be­come Christians, or as Tertullian candidati fidei inquirers into the faith and learners of it, the Lord helping the endeavours of the better part in the education of them. And so this text is not understood of the infants in their infancy, to which Mr. B. and others appropriate the word [children], nor the holiness derived from the Covenant, but from the education of the children, nor the holiness a holiness of meer relation without any qualification in the person, but a holiness of qua­lity from the good disposition of the person. And this exposition is confirmed from v. 16. in which a like reason is urged from the pos­sibility of saving the unbelieving yoke-fellow if they continue together as of saving their children v. 14. And truely this exposition would be probable, were it not that the words [else were] appear to note a plain proof in a Logical way of the sanctifying of the unbeliever to the yoke­fellow, not a Rhetorical motive to perswade them to live together, and the scope of the speech there is to resolve the doubt and settle the judgement, not to move the affections. And whereas Mr. B. saies that the first sense of qualitative real holiness which certainly saves, makes more against mine than his, if he means my opinion of An­ti-paedo baptism sure it is very unlikely. For if it were granted as Mr Thomas Goodwin (the only man that I have found following that sense) would have it, that the Apostle means it thus; if it were not for the faith of the believer the children would be unbelievers [Page 229] (which proposition is not true) but now, that is by reason of the faith of the one party they are many of them elect and in the covenant of saving grace, (which unless warily understood is not true) though many are not, yet would not it serve turn to prove the right to baptism of any much less of all the infants of believers. For

1. Were it granted that all much less if it be granted onely that some infants of believers are elect, and have the promise of saving real ho­liness, yet unless they have that holiness in infancy and it appears to the baptizer by their manifestation of it or Gods special revelation, that they have it and so are believers he is not appointed to baptize them, and therefore were that sense granted (which is not) yet it would not make against my opinion, that infants are not to be baptized accor­ding to ordinary rule. Nor is the conceit of M. T. Good. in his Ep. before Mr. Cottons Dialogue of infant-baptism of any weight, chat sith a great part of the infants of believers dy in infancy and they are the most pure part of the Church, God would not have them come in and go out of the world without some visible token of his favour, and therefore they should be baptized. For 1. This is but a reason of man, which is not to be a rule to us in Gods ordinances without his own appointment. 2. The like reason might be framed concerning still-born or infants dying within an hour, or less after their birth, they should be bapti­zed, and then either ministers must be still in the way to do it, or Pa­pists care is commendable that Midwives baptize, and however pri­vate baptism will be necessary. 3. It is but a meer dictate without proof that God would have them partake of a visible token of his fa­vour. To the contrary may be alleged, that all infants till Abra­hams time were without such a visible token, from Abrahams time all the females, and males deceasing afore the eight day; that its not in reason necessary they should have a visible token of Gods favor, who shew no visible token of their regard of God. 4. If it were granted (which is not) that God would have them partake of a visible token of his favour, yet that it must be baptism and not laying on of hands, which Christ used cannot be proved. So that were Mr. Tho. Good­wins sense granted, yet it would not make against me as Mr. B. saith. Yea Mr. Robert Baily in the first part of his disswasive chap. 6. pag. 119. conceived that the opinion of Mr. Thomas Goodwin de­nying the common sense of federal holiness not qualitative and sa­ving tends to overthrow infant-baptism, of which he gives his reason in that plaee.

2. How uncertain or false Mr. Thomas Goodwins hypotheses are [Page 230] by which he would prove infant-baptism, and how insufficient to that end hath been, though briefly, yet sufficiently touched in my Apology Sect. 5. pag. 19. But yet Mr. B. had rather embrace that opinion than mine, and he gives his reason;

1. Because he knowes no one Scripture against their Judgement, that shall affirm all infants of believer so dying are certainly sa­ved.

To which I answer; Nor do I know any Scripture for it: but I think notwithstanding Augustines and other Antients opinions from Rom. 5. 12. John 3. 5. about original sin and necessity of water­baptism to all infants for their entering into the Kingdom of God, yet the Scripture is silent in this point, whether they are all certainly saved that dy in infancy either children of believers or unbelievers. But why he should for this reason rather embrace the opinion of qualitative real saving holiness to be meant, 1 Cor. 7. 14. than mine of matri­monial I see not, except his prejudice against my exposition and judge­ment.

2. Saith Mr. B. Nor any argument, but onely this, that then the children of the faithful that prove wicked do fall away from grace.

Answ. There are many arguments against the opinion of inter­preting 1 Cor. 7. 14. of qualitative real saving holiness of believers infants by reason of the parents faith besides that which Mr. B. produ­duceth, though he see them not. As

First, That the parents faith by that exposition is made a cause, or motive, or reason of a childs being elect, or sanctified, or in the cove­nant of grace, or in Mr. Bs. phrase these are grounded on the parents faith, which I conceive not agreeing with the Apostles determination even concerning the Children of Abraham and Isaac, Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18. denying every believers child to be a child of the promise, referring election of some and hardning of others even of Abraham and Isaac's house meerly to Gods will, as the cause, motive or reason of it.

2. That the children are holy with such a holiness for the parents faith will, I presum, be only judged of such parents as have true reall faith, it being absurd, that the child should be judged to have re­al saving holiness for or by the parents faith who hath none himself. But if it be meant only of such that their children are all, or for the most part, holy with a real qualitative saving holiness, then the incon­veniences follow on this opinion which follow on Mr. Bs. sense men­tioned in my Antidote pag. 15. and are to be considered here­after.

[Page 231] 3. The Apostle had resolved them of the lawfulnes of their continuing together from a thing meerly impertinent to the thing to be proved. For what connexion is there between the lawfulness of the parents being to­gether, and the childs real holiness? Is it unlawful for parents to live together, if they knew all or any of their children would be ungodly or reprobates? or were it any whit the more lawful for fornicators to live together if they knew all or any of their bastards should be godly and be saved?

4. The principal argument against that opinion is, that then this proposition should be included in the Apostles consequence: none of the Children of those parents whereof neither is a believer are holy with a saving real qualitative holiness, but all unclean, that is repro­bates and ungodly, contrary to the grace of God to the children of Gentile Idolaters, and to the Article of the Creed about the Catholike Church, and would indeed overthrow the preaching of the Gospel to any but believers children. But let us see how Mr. B. endevours to avoid the only a [...]gument he knew, to wit, that then there would be a falling from grace of many children of believers, who prove wic­ked. He denies not but that from the opinion of understanding 1 Cor. 7. 14. of a holiness of separation which certainly saves, and affirming it to be meant of the infants of believers, it will follow that some in­fants may fall from grace: in which me thinks he might have observ­ed that these are inconsistent suppositions to suppose that they have that holiness of separation which certainly saves, and yet that they fall from grace. But he tells us that he had rather believe that such grace as consisteth not in personal qualifications, but is meerly relative grounded on the Covenant, and having only the parents faith for its condition may be lost when they come to age, than to believe with Mr. T. that God hath denyed all infants in the world to be so much as members of the visible Church. Whereto I reply: If he should be­lieve the exposition to which he rather inclines than mine, and his gran­ted suppositions, he should believe not only meerly relative Grace, but a qualitative, real, saving holiness, yea which certainly saves may be lost, and therefore this evasion would not help to avoid the absurdity that follows on that opinion if Mr B. should imbrace it. But I observe sundry strange conceits in Mr. B.

1. That he imagines a meerly relative grace without personal qua­lification grounded on the Covenant, having only the parents faith for its condition, which is to me a meer figment.

2. That this meer relative holiness without personal qualification [Page 224] would save certainly infants dying in infancy, and so an unclean thing which hath no personal qualification of inherent holiness may enter into heaven.

3. That he is not utterly averse from believing such grace may be lost, which seems either to imply a contradiction, that the grace that saves certainly may be lost, or else that grace which would certainly save the infants if they did die infants may be lost if they live: which if true I see not how God will be acquitted from change in his cove­nant, if not in his purpose, and me thinks every believing parent should be bound out of love to his childs soul to pray to God to take away his child in infancy, and not to hazard its salvation by prolong­ing its life.

4. He conceives my denying infants visible Church-membership doth exclude infants from salvation: and yet imagines not that the want of holiness of personal qualification doth so: which is as much as to say, a person really unsanctifyed may be saved, but a person not seeming to men to be of the invisible Church in a judgement of proba­bility (as he vainly describes visible Church-membership) may not. I haved shewed what may be said against that opinion, have examined what is said against mine: I perceive Mr. Bs. prejudice swaies him much, and indeed blinds him that he cannot or will not consider the evidence of what I bring for my opinion, nor the futility of his own reasoning. But I pass on.

SECT. XXXIV.
That the terms [sanctifyed and holy] are often used in a sense different from Mr. Ms. and Mr. Bs. descriptions, and agreeably to my explication.

Mr. B. addes. But in his papers which he shewed me against Mr. Marshals defence, he mentioneth some Scriptures where Holiness or sanctifying is not taken for separation from common to sa­cred use, as Josh. 20. 9. 1 Sam. 21. 5. Isa. 13. 3. Jerem. 51. 27. 28. To which I answer, Mr. M. can plead for himself, but this is nothing against what I have said. Holiness is ever a separation to God, though not ever to a temple or religious use. Sure the cities [Page 225] of refuge were separated to God, when they were separated for the singular exercise of his mercy, and saving the lives of his people, and for being eminent types of Jesus Christ the great sanctuary of distres­sed Sinners.

Answ. The Papers I shewed Mr. B. are now printed, and by his leaving out my explication of a sacred use, and other things, it ap­pears how he took notes out of them. But sith he relinquisheth Mr. M. lets see what he saith for himself. He tells us, The Cities of re­fuge were separated to God, because they were for the singular exer­cise of his mercy, preserved the lives of his people, and were types of Christ. But that they were types of Christ, and not by a meer judici­al law for a political use is more than Mr. B. proves, or I think can prove; yet if it were granted it is no more than may be said of Noahs ark, Josephs advancement, &c. which yet are not said to be separated to God. Moveover if this reason be sufficient, that a thing may besaid to be separated to God, which is for exercise of Gods mercy, and preserving mens lives that kill another unawares, then every magi­strate even a heathen is separated to God, and so Pagans may be called holy, which he denyed in his third argument. And why may not a physician be said to be separated to God, or sanctifyed, a Souldier, and others that are to preserve mens lives, specially the lives of Gods people? yea why may not they that are to propagate posterity, to build up families, as legitimate children are by Gods institution, be said to be separate to God? If such an use as preserving mans life be e­nough to denominate a person separated to God, it will be no hard matter to justify my sense of holy for legitimation as agreeable to Scripture.

2. Saith Mr. B. in what sense soever that in Samuel be taken, that the vessels of the young men were holy, it hath no shew of opposition t [...] my interpretation.

Answ. If it have this sense that the young mens vessels were said to be holy only in that they were kept from women though not Levites, then holy is not taken alwaies for a separation from a common to sa­cred use, as Mr. M. affirmed, then there is a holiness in forbearing women: which if it be a separating to God in such a large sense as may draw in legitimation, a child may be said to be holy as separated to God in respect of legitimation: which would answer Mr. Bs. three first arguments, and justify my interpretation.

3. Saith Mr. B. much less Isai. 13. 3. it being the same sense e­vidently as I have pleaded f [...]r.

Answ. The sense Mr. B. pleades for is that the unbelieving hus­band is sanctified to the wives use by vertue of her faith, who will (or is bound by her profession to) use all for God, as 1 Tim. 4. 5. Were the barbarous Pagan Medes said to be Gods sanctifyed ones in that they were prepared and appointed to execute judgement upon the Chal­daeans Jerem. 51. 27, 28. and did all they did out of a proud cru­el desire of dominion and revenge, without any regard to Gods honour, sanctifyed to that sense? were they sanctifyed to one that is separated to God, who would use all for God, and made up a state which is more directly for God? Doubt-less there were none of these uses, nor any religious use, but only they were appointed by Gods providence, and so said to be Gods sanctifyed ones in that they executed vengeance on the Chaldaeans, who had spoiled the Jews, though the Medes had no such intention: in respect of which imployment Cyrus is said to be Gods anointed Isa. 45. 1. And therefore neither sanctifyed nor ho­ly are taken in so narrow a sense as either Mr. M. or Mr. B. take it. But both may be taken according to my sense, which would help to answer the 1. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8. of Mr. Bs. arguments.

Mr. B. addes. Further Mr. T. allegeth 1 Thes. 4. 3. This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye abstain from fornication. To which I answer, 1. It is not all that are no ba­stards that are here called sanctified, 2. nor is it meer lawfulness of mariage-use that is called sanctification; no nor the meer chastity of any heathen; 4. but here sanctification is plainly taken for the reall purity of their lives as becometh a people separated to God, whereof their chastity is a part.

Answ. It is so plain that meer chastity or lawfull use of the body in opposition to fornication is called holiness that Mr. M. and Mr. B. do but vainly cavil against it; and this evidently shewes the term [holiness] not to be restrained either as Mr. M. to a separation to a sacred use, or as Mr. B. to a separation to God, but that it is appli­ed to a mariage-use, of which a legitimate issue is the genuine product, and so the expression of [holy] for [legitimate] was easily intelligible, contrary to what Mr. B. so often pretends. Yet once more Mr. B. tells us.

Further Mr. T: addeth, that mariage is called holy by many Divines: therefore legitimation may be so. Answ. But we are only in question how Scripture calls. I had rather stick to Scri­pture with you, because you make men believe we flie from Scri­pture. If you would stand to the judgement either af the antient or [Page 235] the late learned and godly, we should more willingly join issue with you. Besides the Popish estimation of mariage as a Sa­crament may occasion some epithites to it not yet laid aside. And yet were it worth the standing on I might shew with more reason why ma­riage should be called holy than meer legitimation. But I am loth to draw you away from meer Scripture-argument.

Answ. Though the question be onely of the Scripture-use of a word, yet Scripture-use is cleared by the use in other Authors, the urging of which is not a drawing away from Scripture argument but a help to understand it. Wherein I make men believe Mr. B. and other Paedobaptists flie from Scripture, I do it rightly. Wherein it is fit to stand to the judgement either of the antient or the late learned and godly, I refuse not to stand to [...]t: But it is but a frivolous thing to imagine it fit to stand unto their judgement in that in which I have shewed plainly, and my Antagonists, at least some of them, acknowledge them in part to have been deceived. It is not rightly suggested as if the terming mariage holy might come from the Popish opinion of making it a facrament, when the Authors words derive it from the Scripture, and institution of it in paradise, and our Saviours words about it, that God hath joyned maried persons together, and Solomon calls their Covenant the Covenant of God. Yea one Author I allege, to wit, Grotius, tells us that the Gentiles with one consent have believed mariage to be a thing truly holy, and the Au­thors are most of them approved Protestants, and some Churches in their Confessions so speak. Though there be more reason whymariage should be called holy than meer legitimation, yet if there be reason why [holy] should stand for [legitimate] 1 Cor. 7. 14. its enough to my purpose, which hath been already demonstrated. I go on to the vindicating of my objections against Mr. Bs. sense which Mr. B. en­deavours thus to elude.

SECT. XXXV.
The objection is made good, that according to the Apostles words as expounded by Mr. B. no infant is to be baptized, sith the reality of the parents faith is not known.

HE tells his Reader, that the great and chief argument I use a­gainst his exposition of the word [holy] is that which he took out of my own manuscript sent him, which he would have the Reader believe he sets down rightly, and then falls to his censure and childish interrogation, insinuating that it is arguing against the plain words of Scripture, and be not those ductile and tractable soules, that will be drawn from the plain words of God with such a maze of words? In which setting down of my words now printed in this writing s. 12. the Reader may perceive, that either Mr. B. carelesly abridged my words (which indeed I feared, and therefore would send him no more, ha­ving tasted the like dealing from Mr. Edwards as I relate in my Apo­logy page 9.) or unfaithfully printed them. For 1. The argument in my written paper was not as Mr. B. saies, against his exposition of the word [holy] but against Mr. Ms. sense of the word [sanctificati­on] which he said was alwayes taken for a separation from com­mon to a sacred use. 2. Mr. B. leaves out a great part of the argu­ment, and that wherein the strength of it consisted, as that in Mr. Ms. instrumental sanctification there's no sacred use, and yet Mr. B. saies what he sets down is the very strength of my arguing. 3. he makes me to argue thus, if the faith of the parents be the cause of the childrens holiness, then it is either, &c. which gives him oc­casion to fill up his book with some thing about the difference between a cause and a condition: whereas the word [cause] is not used in that place, nor is the argument about the childrens holiness, but the parents sanctification, in these very words [nor doth the faith of the wife sancti­fie, that is, separate the husband from a common to a sacred use] And indeed I did in my Examen, and in all my disputes about that text 1 Cor. 7. 14. distinctly examine the meaning of the words [sanctified] and [holy] because the true understanding of the word [sanctified] is the key to the opening of the word [holy] which nevertheless both Mr. M. Mr. B. and others do confusedly jumble together. 4. Whereas the words in my manuscript were [If the presence or inexistence habitual of [Page 229] faith in the wife do sanctifie the unbelieving husband] Mr. B. leaves out the words [inexistence habitual of faith] which were explicatory of the words [presence of faith] and then insinuates that I do illogical­ly contradistinguish the presence of faith from the exercise of it, and doubts whether I mean by the presence of faith the habit or the act, tells me I should have opposed present to past. All which cavils had appeared vain, had my words been rightly recited.

Then Mr. B. tells ‘what is the condition on which God in Scrip­ture bestoweth infant-holiness, to wit, the actual believing of the parent out of a habit of faith though the act be not presently at that time performed in the time of begetting the child, or its birth or bap­tism, and seems to admit plainly, that without reality of faith there is no sanctification, telling us that he doth not see any inconve­nience that will follow upon it, or any reason to avoid it, but onely takes notice of what I told him in conference, that if it were the reality of faith that was requisite, then the baptizer could not know it, and that this was abundantly sufficient to confute all that he had said, and then breaks out into his wonted childish wonderments and exclamations, terms this speech a silly contemptible answer, tells the Reader, that I admire any thing that is mine own, though such as a young Divine might be ashamed of.’ But I am now so well acquainted with such gaggling, that it moves me not. Upon the grant that the believer to whom the unbelieving parent is sanctified is only a true real actual believer before God, however in my conference I might produce but one inconvenience, yet in my Antidote page 15. 16. I urged more. As 1. Then the Apostles reason had not reached to the resolution of his or her lawfulness of living together with the yoke-fellow, who were onely visible believers, but not in in reality such, they must depart, and the like may be said of that re­al believer that doubted of the reality of his faith, of which many there are of the most sincere, these should be deterred from living with their yoke-fellows, because in their apprehension they were not san­ctified to them. Besides the Apostle should resolve them, not by a thing obvious to all, but from a thing known onely to God and the real believers own conscience, which is not probable. And this with the rest were I conceive in my confutation Sermon. But what saith Mr. B. in his Corrective page 255. it is answered before. But I know not where, nor doth he tell me, but imagine in his haste not heeding it he skipped it over without answer. 2. I said, if as Mr. Bs. sense supposeth the faith of the believer were the cause of sanctifi­cation, [Page 238] the term [believer] would have been expressed, sith the Em­phasis lies in it. Now what saith Mr. B. to this, he denies that his sense supposeth the faith of the believer to be the cause of sanctificati­on. Answ. Mr. B. in this and sundry other places seems to take [cause] strictly or as Schribler speakes rigorously for a physical effici­ent: But in reasoning Logicians call any thing, which is before in or­der of nature, and upon which the other certainly follows, the cause of it, as rationality is called the cause of visibility, the interposition of the earth of the moons Eclipse, &c. And they say such demonstrations in Geometry, Arithmetick, &c. are from the cause, that they produce scire per causam, knowledge by the cause, though there be no physi­call efficiency or causality, but one antecedent to the other. And in this larger sense I took it. But let the word be altered, and put [rea­son, antecedent, or condition] the argument is of the same force, that [believer] should have been expressed, if the faith of the one party had been the reason, or antecedent, or condition of sanctification in Mr. Bs. sense. To which Mr. B. hath given no answer, but like a boy at School what he cannot answer skips it over. 3. If the sense be as Mr. B. would have it, then this proposition is true, as being included in the Apostles reasoning [The children whereof one of the parents is not a real believer before God are none of them holy as separated to God] But it is false, take the separation to God what way, and to what use he will, the child of professed unbelievers, much more the child of professed believers, though not really such before God, may be and perhaps is separated to God. Now what saith Mr. B. to this? He denies not that the proposition is included in the Apostles reasoning as he expounds it: But tells me page 255. that my 3^d is answered be­fore, but tells me not where: yet if I find it, I shall reply to it, when I meet with it. He addes. ‘Yet do you here give up in my judgement the whole cause about this text: you say that this pro­position [the children whereof one of the parents is not a real true be­liever before God are none of them holy as separated to God] is false take separation to God what way and to what use I will. Do you know what you have said? why then you yield that some such chil­dren are holy and separated in my sense, that is that they are holy by vertue of Gods Covenant claim and gift, as being separated from those without the visible Church, to stand in the relation of disciples, Chri­stians, or visible Church-members: This is my sense of holy; and if you yield this to any children, sure it will be to the seed of Christi­ans: And if to any, why should not those be baptized? But I sup­pose [Page 239] you will recant these words. As for your consequent I have shewed you before the ungroundedness of it.’

To which I reply, I think I know what I said, nor do I recant my words, nor do I give the whole or any part of my cause by them. I said, some children of professed unbelievers, much more of professed believers, though not real, are holy as separated to God, that is, are Christians, disciples, either invisible or visible Church-members for pro­fession, preaching, or salvation, and this I say is by Gods Covenant of Grace, and this is true. But I did not say [some infant children are such] Is Mr. B. so childish as to confound infants and children? Is not a person his fathers child when he is 20 years old as well as when a moneth old? It is a gross mistake in Mr. B. Mr. M. Mr. Blake, &c. when the Apostle speaks [your children are holy] to appropriate this to them as they are in infancy; whereas the Apostle useth not a word restraining to infancy, but extending to riper years also. Yet for further reply, whereas he saith, if you yield this to any children, sure it will be to the seed of Christians, if he mean it of infants, and their holiness of visible Church-membership, I deny it; sith Mr. B. knows I make a difference between the Christians and Jewish Church, and do grant some sort of visible Church-membership to the Jewish infants, which I yield not to the Christian, by reason of the peculiar Covenant and Church-constitution of the Jews. So that hitherto Mr. Bs. advantage from my words is but imaginary. For my consequent of which he saith he hath shewed before the ungroundedness, I under­stand not well what the consequent is of which he hath shewed the ungroundedness, nor where. The truth is, the shewing of what holi­ness that proposition of the Apostles is true, is the hinge on which the whole dispute about this text turns, and this is my main argument for my exposition, that in no other sense can the Apostles proposition in­cluded in his reasoning be true, but of legitimation. About which al­though Mr. M. saith much in his Defence, yet as a puzzled man, as I shew in my Review herewith printed: But Mr. B. either saith no­thing or little to it, but according to his fashion where he meets with a knot meddles not with it. Yet if I find any thing in him about it, I shall examine it as I go on.

Mr. Cobbet in his Just. vindic. part. 1. ch. 1. after he had sect 1. acknowledged the practicles [...] else were, and [...] but now to be used in argumentations, and sect. 2. determined that to be san­ctified 1 Cor. 7. 14. notes not onely a lawful use but also a holy use, such as is meant 1 Tim. 4. 5 according to Tit. 1. 15. sect. 5. would include [Page 232] both federal and Ecclesiasticall holiness, but shews not the difference between them clearly, and when he comes to paraphrase the Apostles words, he speaks thus, if your interest in the Covenant of Grace, which you hold forth, and your faith therein, which you in a Church­way profess, are not effectual to produce something peculiar to believers in a conjugal relation differing from all Pagan spouses, they will ne­ther produce any thing peculiar to them in a parental relation to their children; which words are very dark and muddy, neither expressing the interest in the Covenant of Grace what it is, nor how they hold it forth, nor what their faith is, whether real or seeming only, whether he ascribe so much to the profession of it in a Church-way (as it seems he doth) that though the parent be otherwise a real believer, yet the child without it hath nothing peculiar to it in a parental relation, nor sets down what the child hath peculiar to it, which orherwise without this influence of the Covenant and faith they should not have, that I find it harder to find out his meaning than to refute it. However the Reader may easily perceive the unfitness of the paraphrase to the Apo­stles words, which ascribes an influence of the Covenant of Grace and faith, which are not at all mentioned, to produce the sanctifying of the unbeliever (who hath no personal privilege) and holiness of the children (an unquestioned personal privilege) when there's no mention of the Covenant of Grace or faith in the words, and makes such a diffe­rent effect from the same cause of both the sanctifying and the holiness, and supposeth a privilege mention'd of which there is not a word in the text. But chiefly to our present business, if I undestand him, his san­ctifying of the unbeliever must be meant of the sanctifying by the reali­ty of faith of the one parent, and that must be professed in a Church­way, and his holiness of the children federal and Ecclesiastical, so as to be accounted visible Church-members, and then the proposition of the Apostle included in his argument according to his exposition is [none of the children of those parents whereof one of the parents is not sancti­fied by the reality of the faith of the other professed in a Church-way, and interest in the Covenant of Grace, so as to have a holy conjugall use more than lawful, are Ecclesiastically and federally holy, that is, visible Church-members, and capable of the instial seal] which ex­cludes from baptismthe children of parents which are not real believers, yea and the children of real believers if they profess not in a Church­way, and which is chiefly to be considered according to their own hy­potheses the proposition of the Apostle would be false, sith Judahs faith did not so sanctifie Thamar, and yet Pharez was Ecclesiastical­ly [Page 233] holy, and many children of unbelievers are Ecclesiastically holy, which is contradictory to the Apostles proposition included in his words as expounded by Mr. Cobbet. Nor doth he any whit salve the matter sect. 6. by telling us it hurts him not who makes the main spring of the holiness of the children, not to be the sanctifying of the un­believing yoke-fellow to the believing (though the words of the Apo­stle allege no other spring or reason) but the Grace of the Covenant to the believer and his seed (which is neither there, nor any where else mentioned). For whencesoever the holiness come, yet the Apo­stles proposition must be true, or Mr. Cobbets exposition is not good, which Mr. Gobbet neither there nor any where else that I know doth reconcile, and therefore I inferre from this and the rest of the debate of this point with Mr. M. Mr. B. and others, that the Apostle accor­ding to their expositions is made to speak false: which being not to be granted, their expositions are to be rejected. I return to Mr. B. My 4th argument upon Mr. Bs. grant he insists long in answering, though he never touch the point he should answer to. The argument may be thus formed. None are to be baptized by an administrator, but those who are certainly known to him to be visible disciples of Christ, or visi­ble Church-members. This proposition is plain, that the administra­tor must certainly know the visible discipleship or Church-member­ship of the baptized. I do not say he must certainly know the realtyof his faith before God, but his visible discipleship in the face of the Church. And that is, 1. From the institution, which requires to baptize disciples, Mat. 28. 19. which must be understood of known disci­ples, otherwise that qualification were put in vain, as a rule to direct whom to baptize, therfore they must be at least visible disciples by some sign from the person, or else must be known to be such by some revela­tion of God. 2. From the Apostles and other baptizers practice, who would know the faith of persons to be baptized ere they baptized, as Acts 2. 38. 41. & 8. 37, 38. even Simon Magnus was a known believer by profession, and so a visible disciple, ere he was baptized, although not a known real believer before God. 3. Otherwise per­sons might baptize them that they knew not whether they were visible disciples or no, and so should baptize without rule at random, and turn the ordinance into sport and mockery, without any engaging of the baptized to Christianity, with many more absurdities. Wherefore though a baptizer need know only by a judgement of charity or proba­bility the sincerity and reality of a persons faith, and that he indeed be­longs to God; yet he must know certainly his visible discipleship: [Page 242] nor can the rule be [charitably believed faith] For then the administra­tors charity is his rule, and if so, then he swerves not from his rule, when he denies baptism to a true believer or professed disciple, though he uncharitably conceive him not to be such. Now I subsume. But according to Mr. Bs. grants and exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. no baptizer can be certain of the visible discipleship or Church-membership of any infant without special revelation. Therefore no infant is to be baptized according to his grants and exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. without special re­velation. The Minor is proved from many of Mr. Bs. grants, to wit, 1. That professing true religion (explicitely or implicitely) makes a visible Church-member. 2. That the parents faith is for the child e­quivalent to a common profession, page 47. 3. That the faith requi­site to the sanctifving of one parent to the other must be real faith exer­cised, profession is not enough without it, page 92. 93. 4. That the Apostle determines those children onely are holy, that is, visible Church-members or disciples, whose parent hath such a real faith exercised. 5. That the reality of anothers faith can be certainly known onely to God without special revelation. 6. That no baptizer hath (at least ordi­narily) such a special revelation. And the argument may be thus formed. That visible discipleship or Church-membership is not to be known certainly without special revelatlon, which is not to be known certain­ly but by knowing certainly that which cannot be known certainly but by special revelation. This proposition is evident of it self, and thus the Dominicans, Dr. Twisse and others argue against Jesuites, that God cannot know future contingents by a middle knowledge antecedent to a decree of his will, because the object is not knowable in that in­stant, for it hath no futurition. Protestants prove that Papists can­not know whether the host be transubstantiate, and to be adored, because they cannot known the Priests intention in his officiating. So much more may I say, man cannot know certainly the visible Church-membership of an infant with­out knowledge of the reality of the parents faith, sith the visibility of the infants Church-membership is not without the reality of the parents faith. But this Mr. B. grants page 97. cannot be known without speciall revelation, sith man cannot know the heart, Ergo, &c. Now what doth Mr. B. answer to this. He discourseth at large, that a person hath right to baptism before God by reality of faith, and that this is known onely by a judgement of charity or probability, and that if a baptizer knew a person made profession not seriously, he might be rejected, and that the Apostles did baptize those whose [Page 243] real repentance and faith was not certainly known.

But all this is not to the point. For though they knew not certain­ly the reality of faith, yet they knew certainly their visible discipleship, which is not to be known in the case of infants, sith it comes not from the parents meer profession of faith, but the reality of it for the child equivalent to a common profession, which reality of faith is not known, and therefore according to Mr. B. his own grants and exposition, no infant can regularly be baptized. Which argument is fully confirm­ed by the very like arguing of Mr. B. pag. 225, 296. when he tells us That if the absolute Covenant of grace were to be sealed with bap­tism, no minister can know to whom to administer it, to whom not, because it then belongs to the elect onely who cannot be known: even so here, sith according to the Apostle expounded by Mr. B. holiness of separation to God belongs only to the child of the parent who is a real believer, no minister can know to whom to administer it, and to whom not, because it then belongs only to the child of a real believer before God, who cannot be known. And thus have I vindicated or rather Mr. B. for me made good that which Mr. B. terms my great and chief objection against his exposition. There are many passages in Mr. B. about answering that objection, which need some animad­versions on them: but because I should but weary the reader with things superfluous, I will pass them over, and likewise the second objection as he calls it from Titus 1. 15. which was indeed brought onely to prove, that which Mr. B. grants, that then onely the unbelie­ver is sanctifyed in his sense to the believer, when the believer is real­ly such before God.

SECT. XXXVI.
That Mr. B. whiles he seeks to relieve Mr. M. against my objection [that by his exposition of the Apostle might be concluded the law­full living together of fornicators] vents many wild conceits, and falls into gross absurdities.

BUt Mr. B. addes some more objections of mine: in the first of which he saith I glory more confidently than all the rest, though he can produce no one word of glorying. But saith Mr. B. to [Page 236] me he never objected it, as seeing it was of no sorce (I conjecture) a­gainst my exposition. It is true I did not object it to Mr. B. partly be­cause that objection proceeded on Mr. Ms. exposition, and Mr. Bs. seemed not so liable to it, because he requires a realty of faith to the sanctifying of the one person to the other, whereas Mr. Ms. sup­poseth onely a profession, and Mr. Bs. sanctifying is by the word and prayer to the true believers use, as 1 Tim. 4. 5. in which man­ner nothing but that which is lawfull is sanctifyed, but Mr. Ms. instrumental sanctification for begetting a holy seed argrees to fornica­tors as well as maried persons, according to Mr. Ms. and I conceive Mr. Bs. judgement too, if one of them be a heliever. Yet Mr. B. will needs have a fling at it. But I think it not worth while to tran­scribe it, or to make any other reply but what I have done to Mr. Geree, and Mr. Church. For they all go upon the same mistake, as if the syllogism I make in my Apology pag. 96. were according to the Apostles doctrine, as he propounds it, or I expound it: whereas I expressly said thrice in that place, it is according to the Apostles do­ctrine as it is expounded by Mr. M. whose very words I produce in my Review now printed. And so neither is the Major my fiction, but the Apostles proposition as Mr. M. expounds him without the limi­mation of [lawfull mariage] and the Minor is expressly confessed by Mr. M. nor do I think Mr. B. denies it, who saith pag. 80. that it is undeniable that it was spoken as a common privilege to all belie­vers children that they were holy, therefore the child of a believing fornicatrix is according to Mr. Bs. speech a holy seed, and in Mr. Ms. sense the unbelieving fornicator is sanctifyed by the faith of the believing fornicatrix to beget a holy seed (which tenet I think Mr. B. denies not, though he otherwise expounds the sanctification 1 Cor. 7. 14.) so that I need not prove against Mr. Ms. sense, sith it is accor­ding to his sense, and is by him acknowledged.

But saith Mr. B. The text only affordeth me this proposition [where one party in lawful mariage is sanctifyed to the other, there it is no impiety for them to live together] The reason of the limitation I shew­ed before. Though the said sanctification be required to make their mariage to be pious and religious; yet it is neither alwaies nor onely required to the direct lawfulness: not alway; for Heathens mariage is lawfull to whom nothing is pure: not onely; for there must be o­ther requisites to the lawfulness before the sanctification, which in fornicators is wanting.

Answ. I grant the proposition the text affordeth according to mine [Page 237] exposition and the genuine sense of the Apostle must be so limitted as Mr: B. saith. But I have shewed in my Review before Sect. 22. that according to his exposition itneed not be added: forasmuch as the sanctification he expounds it of, is competent by his own confession to two fornicators, if one be a believer by profession the one is sanctifi­ed instrumentally to the other for the begetting a holy seed. And whereas Mr. B. gives the reason of the limitation, that which he saith is either so ambiguous, or so impertinent, that I know not what to make of it. The limitation I conceive was [in lawfull mariage] But the reason given is as if the limitation were somewhat else, either [the said sanctification] or [it is no impiety] If this later be it, it is an altering of the Predicate, not a limication of the Subject of the propo­sition. And if I understand Mr. B. it seems he conceives, That if the one be not fanctified in lawfull mariage to the other by the reall actuall faith of the other party, it is impiety for them to live to­gether, though it be not directly unlawful, and that the Apostle doth not resolve them of the direct lawfulness of living together, but of the piousness and religiousness of living together. Wherein Mr. Bs. conceits to me seem strange, that he should imagine, that the living to­gether of unbelievers in lawful mariage should he impiecy, and that what is directly lawful should be called impiety. I grant that unbe­lievers though maried do live impiously together: But it is one thing to say they live impiously together in respect of their want of the know­ledge and worship of God, and another thing (somewhat like the speech of a Manichee) to say, that their living together in lawful mari­age is impiety, which is agreeable to Gods own institution, and is hono­rable, and an undesiled bed, Heb. 13. 4. Infidel magistrates do go­vern impiously, and yet their using magistracy to punish evil is not im­piety. Nor is any thing that is directly lawful to be called impiety, though the persons be impious and impiously abuse it. And it is also strange to me that he should imagine that the Apostle doth resolve the Corinthians not of the direct lawfulness of their living together, but onely of the piety and religiousnes. Whereas the words are v. 12, 13. let him not put her away, let her not leave him, which are as much as [it is not necessary to leave him as if it were unlawfull to live together by reason of his unbelief.] For though the occasion of the doubt were his impiety, yet the doubt was whether the mariage were not therby dissolved, and so become unlawful to live together, and the Apostles resolution is plain, no: yee may lawfully live together not­withstanding he persist in unbelief, yee need not be divorced or repu­diate [Page 246] each other. Besides piety and religiousness of their living toge­ther consisted in the exercise of faith and prayer. Now if the resolu­tion be imagined thus [ye do live piously together, one hath a real faith and doth exercise it] this had been a resolution, which their own conscience onely could make, not the Apostle, he knew not whether hade thy a real faith and did exercise it orno. If the resolution be imag­ined thus [ye may live piously and religiously, because one being a be­liever may pray &c.] this had been unsatisfactory. For it is as true on the other side they might not pray, sith they might fall into sin as many did, 2 Co. 12. 20, 21. 1 Co. 5. 1. yea this might be said even of the unbelievers, they may become believers and pray &c. as v. 16. To which I add, that according to this conceit, when the Apostle saith [the unbelie­ving husband hath been or is sanctifyed to the wife] that is by her reall faith exercised in prayer, &c. as 1 Tim. 4. 5. either the Apostle must know by special revelation what they practised, and the reality and undissembledness of their faith (which is not likely, sith he knew their estate by report of others, 1 Cor. 1. 11. & 5. 1. and 11. 18.) or he must speak of it by conjecture, or speak of the sanctification only as possible; neither of which had been fit to resolve them, as I said be­fore. To these I might add the argument before brought Sect. 35. against his exposition, upon his concession that it must be reall faith exercised which sanctifyes, but that I would not wearie the Reader by repetition.

But saith Mr. B. of me, If he would prove that bastaods are a holy seed (as he hath not yet, when himself saith, they were shut out of the Congregation to the third generation, as Deut. 23. 3.) yet he hath not proved that the sanctifying of one party to the other was the cause.

Answ▪ I do not, nor need prove that bastards are a holy seed, but contend expressly for the contrary. It is enough for my purpose, that I have proved Mr. M. granted them to be so, if the children of a belinver, and the same is evinced to be Mr. Bs. judgement by his own words pag. 80. It is undeniable that to be holy was spoken as a common privilege to all believers children. And for the term [cause] rigo [...]ously taken, I stand not upon it, but take it for any physical, or moral, or legal cause, reason, medium, condition or antecedent, o [...] which the consequent or effect followes necessarily whether by ver­tue of an active quality, in the agent or the will, law or grant of a [...] it being enough for my purpose if either of these or any other [...]y Antagonists grants the holiness of the seed fol­lowes [Page 247] on the sanctifying of one party to the other. Now this is ac­knowledged by Mr. Marshall in his Sermon pag. 23. This holiness is a fruit of one of the parents being a believer, and by Mr. Blake, answer to Mr. Blackwood pag. 110. this holiness is a necessary result and consequence of faith in the parent.

Mr. B. addes thus. ‘But suppose this be urged yet further, and any should argue thus; All the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other are unclean: But the unbelieving whore is not sanctified to the fornicator; therfore all their children are unclean, or unholy: To which I answer, 1. If the whole be granted the absurdity is not such as Mr. Ts. exposition brings.’

Answ. The supposed absurdities my exposition brings have been all hitherto cleered. If the whole be granted, then it follows, that what Mr. B. pag. 80. said was undeniable, that to be holy was spoken as a common privilege to all believers children, was false, for it is directly contrary to the conclusion here that saith, all the base chil­dren of believers are unclean or ungodly, and so they are not visible Church-members in a State of separation to God; that if they die there's no certain hope of their salvation; that the ordinance of visible Church-membership granted heretofore to base illegitimate infants who were circumcised, entered into Covenant, Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12. with others is repealed, that there is less privilege to the children of believers now than formerly; that they are now cast out, without any mercy in lieu of it; that they are not to be baptized, and so God deales worse with Christians than with Jews whose base children were circumcised, as Pharez, Zara, Jephthe, and in a word all the odious (though frivolous) imputations which Mr: B. endeavours to fasten on my opinion of denying believers infants visible Church-membership will light upon his own opinion concerning base Children of believers, and then if Mr. B. cleer himself, I doubt not but he will give me some light how to answer him.

But he hopes to salves this by telling us, All bastards may be un­holy in respect of their birth, or as not having any promise to them as such a seed; and yet afterwards either the penitent parents or others have full interest in them, may have power to bring them into the Church and covenant: but of this more anon.

Answ. If bastards be unholy in respect of their birth, or have no promise to them as such a seed, then the promises to a believer and his children to a thousand generations of them that love him, to the righteous and their seed urged by Mr. B. chap. 21, 22. to prove visible [Page 248] Church-membership of infants of believers unrepealed, are imperti­nently alleged, for they belong not to them. By what title then shall they be baptized? Mr. B. saith, Afterwards either the penitent parents or others that have full interest in them may have power to bring them into the Church and Covenant. But can a parents re­pentance, or anothers interest in them, bring them into the Church, and Covenant? Can they be said to be in the Covenant, who have no promise made to them? No marvel we be at a stand what to answer to such arguments as wherein persons are said to be in the Covenant, and by vertue of that to be visible Church-members, and yet are confessed to have no promise made to them, which either is or hath a shew of contradiction. All the plea hitherto hath been that the visible Church-membership and holiness of infants hath been by vertue of Gods Cove­nant or promise: yet at last Mr. B. rather than fail, finds another way (but what he tells us not) of bringing them into the Covenant who have no promise to them; and this may be done either by the penitent parents, or if they be impenitent or fail, any Guardian, Master, Gos­sip that have full interest in them (who perhaps may be wicked and vitious men) may bring them into the Church and Covenant, make them visible Church-members, and capable of baptism. Which if true, then all children of infidels may be brought into the Church and Covenant, then it's but vain talk of a privilege of believers children, then the Apostle speaks false, that unless one of the parents being a be­lieber sanctifie the other, the children are un clean, that is, not sepa­rate to God; then may man make a supplement to Gods Covenant, where it is defective; then may parents, and masters, and Guardians, and Gossips make visible Church-members without a promise, &c. But we shall hear more of this wild fancie anon.

Mr. B. goes on. 2. The major proposition is a meer fiction not to be raised from the text; For the text will afford but this: [all the children of those parents are unclean, whereof one being an unbelie­ver is not sanctified to or in the believer.]

Answ. What he saith, the text will afford [to or in the believer] is his addition: the text saith [in or to the wife or husband.]

Mr. B. addes. But Mr. T. will needs face down Mr. Blake Apol. page 123, That though there be no more than I say in the text, yet the proposition that proveth it must be as he saith: As if S. Pauls Logick must needs be the same with Mr. T. his, or else it cannot be right. Is it not possible that Paul may be in the right though he reason not as he?

Answ. Yes: and it is as possible Mr. T. his reason may be right as Mr. Blakes. Mr. Blake and Mr. B. would have the Apostles pro­position included in this sequel [if the unbelieving husband be not sanctified in or to the wise, your children are unclean] to be this [all the children of those parents are unclean, whereof one being an unbelie­ver is not sanctified in or to the believer] I conceive [in or to the belie­ver] is not to be put in, because omitted by the Apostle, and [one being an unbeliever] not necessary to be put in, because the force of the sequel lies in the connexion between uncleanness of the children and non­sanctification of the parents, and that there is the same reason of the connexion if both be believers, or both unbelievers, if the one be not sanctified to the other their children are unclean, none holy. Where­in I follow Chamier Panstrat. Cath. tom. 4. l. 5. c. 10. s. 67. who thus forms the propositions included in the Apostles sequel [all born of those parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other, are unclean. Parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other do never beget chil­dren clean or holy] and he knew what was Pauls Logick as well as Mr. B. or Mr. Blake.

Mr. B. addes. ‘But (saith Mr. T.) he that will prove that if an Eng­lishman be noble he is honourable, must prove it by this universal, All noble men are honourable. Answ. But it is another matter which S. Paul is proving. He that will prove that an Englishmans wife though of base or mean parentage, is made honourable if he be noble; must not prove it by such an universal, All noble mens wives are honourable: For where the law of the land doth not alter their title upon mariage this would be false.’

Answ. What other matter Mr. B. means S. Paul is proving, or what it makes to the purpose, I do not discerne: his speech seems to me like the abrupt speech of a dreming or puzzled man. But for my instance, supposing that it is not peculiar to an English Nobleman to be honou­rable, but common to all Noble men (which I took or supposed at least as true) then there is no necessity to put into the proposition proving the sequel [Englishman] But the force lying in the connexion between ho­nourableness and nobility the instance is good enough; nor doth Mr. Bs. instance at all overthrow it. Yet I confess the instance had been more apposite, if it had been made thus. A godly servant is not bound to leave his infidel master. For the infidel master is sanctified to his ser­vant, else he should be lawless. Here the Consequence [If the infidel master were not sanctified to his servant, the servant were lawless] is to be proved by this proposition [those servants whose masters are not san­ctified [Page 250] to them, are lawless] nor needs there the putting in the term in­fidel, sith the force of the Consequence lies no whit on it, the rela­tion being the reason of the connexion, not the quality of the person. But it seems Mr. M. Mr. Blake, and Mr. B. conceive some necessity of putting in the term unbeliever.

Paul, Saith Mr. B. speaks not of a sanctification that was before and without the faith of the one party, but which is a later privilege comming upon his or her believing, as is before proved.

Answ. It is supposed before, but no where proved, nor offered to be proved, but taken as if it were granted, though it be expressely de­nied by me, and that upon this reason, that if the Apostle had ascri­bed the sanctification to the faith of the one party he would have ex­pressely said [in or to the believer] where it is omitted, to shew that the reason of the sanctification was not from the faith of one party, but the conjugal relation.

Mr. B goes on. Indeed a holiness in the parents is necessary to the childrens being holy, as theirs, and so a former sanctification or d [...]dication of the parents to God is necessary.

Answ. What Mr. B. means by the limitation [as theirs] I know not unless to cover himself for some evasion under dark terms. The A­postle saies, if the unbelieving husband be not sanctified, &c. your children would not be holy without [as yours.] And his proposition in­cluded in his sequell is plain. Those children are unclean, whereof one of the parents is not sanctified in or to the other. If Mr. B. would speak clearly he should have said so. But then it had been false in his sense: For the children of unholy persons may be visible Church-members se­parate to God, &c.

If the meaning be holiness in the parents is necessary to the chil­drens being holy as theirs, that is, as the children of such particular persons, it supposeth some children are holy as they are the children of such particular men. But this were a new and strange conceit, that any children should be holy as children of such men as if their holiness came from the parents principles of individuation, or numerical personality. For so all the children of those persons should be holy whether they were maried or loose, believers or unbelievers, sith in all these states and qualifications they are the same numerical persons. If by [as theirs] be meant [as so qualified] then the sense is [holiness in the parents is necessary to the childrens being holy as the children of holy persons] which speech is true indeed, that holiness in the parents is necessary to the childrens being holy, if they be the children of holy persons, for [Page 251] they cannot be supposed the children of holy parents, if the parents be not holy. But this is a meer nugatory speech. And so, saith Mr. B. a former sanctification or dedication of parents to God is necessary. A man would think M. B. made a distinction of a former and a later san­ctification or dedication of parents to God, and this former were ne­cessary to the childrens holiness as theirs, if not the later. But he de­livers himself so darkly and incoherently, that what these sanctificati­ons are, and to what they are necessary, needs an Oedipus to unfold; Till that be done, I let pass these dictates as the talk of a man in a dream. But he goes on.

‘But this sanctifying of one to the other as a privilege to the belie­ver, supposing the other formerly unsanctified, this is not necessary to the holiness of the issue, in any but where one party was an un­believer. It will not follow that because a leaper must be cleansed, or else he will beget a leaprousissue, that therefore every man must be cleansed, but onely that every man must be no leaper: And so here; it will not follow, that because an unbeliever must be sanctified to the other in this sense: that therefore all must be so: but only that they must be no unbelievers, or else be sanctified so. Therefore if two fornicators be both believers, though one be not sanctified to the o­ther, yet for any thing this text saith, their children may be holy. For being neither of them unbelievers, they are not capable of this sanctification. A wounded man may beget a sound issue, though a leaper cannot.’

Answ. If I mistake not Mr. B. he imagines, 1. That the sancti­fication of the unbeliever is theremoving some impediment from him (Mr. M. calls it a barre) which might let the begetting of a holy issue, like the cleansing of a leaper, without which he will beget a le­prous issue. 2. That this is to be done by the faith of the one party, and so he begets a holy issue, and thus he falls from his remote pasive sanctification of the unbelieving husband to the use of her who will use all to God, to Mr. Ms. instrumentall sanctification for the be­getting a holy seed, which is different from the sanctification 1 Tim. 4. 5. Tit. 1. 15, sith it may belong to the person, who is not a real actuall believer, but a professor of faith though not in reality. But what barre or impediment is removed from the unbeliever by the faith of the other party, neither Mr. M. nor Mr. B. tells us. It is not unbelief. For he is supposed still an unbeliever: It is not any thing in the child to be begotten, for then the child to be bego [...]ten should be said to be sanctified, not the unbelieving parent. I for my part perceive [Page 252] yet nothing but riddles in these passages. 3. Mr. B. supposeth when the Apostle saith [the unbelieving husband is sanctified] this notes the ap­propriation of this sanctification to the unbeliever, as if he said, the unbelieving husband is sanctified, while he is an unbelie­yer, or if he be an unheliever, or in case he be an un­believer, as if the speech were conditional and the unbelief noted a ne­cessary condition or qualification requisite to the sanctification, so that if the persons were both believers they should not be said to be sanctified one in or to the other. His own words are plain to this purpose [For be­ing neither of them unbelievers they are not capable of this sanctifi­cation] now this conceit is manifestly opposite to the Apostles intent, who therefore added [the unbeliever] twice, because the doubt arose from his being an unbeliever, and put it not as a condition of being sanctified, but adversatively, as if he had said [though he be an un­believer, and so however yet question whether you are not to be di­vorced from, or relinquish him as an unsanctified person, yet I tell you, he is as if he were sanctified, &c.] 4. Mr. B. imagines the term [un­believer] therefore necessary to be put in the proposition included in the Apostles sequel, and that this proposition is the Apostles [All the chil­dren of those parents are unclean whereof one being an unbeliever is not sanctified in or to the believer] and that the other is false, and not the Apostles [all the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other are unclean] for want of the terms [unbeliever and believer] though the Apostle omit the term [believer] For saith he, this sanctification of one to the other as a privilege to the believer, sup­posing the other formerly unsanctified, this is not necessary to the ho­liness of the issue, in any but where one party was an unbeliever. From which it follows.

1. That one believer is not said to be sanctified to another believer, though an unbeliever is.

2. That a believing wife hath a privilege to have her husband san­ctified to her if he be an unbeliever, but not if he be a believer, and so loseth some yea a great privilege of his being sanctified to her by his becoming a believer.

3. That all the children of two believers are unclean, (for the text saith expresly, if there be not that sanctification, the children are unclean, not as Mr. B. disjunctively, they must be no unbelievers or else be sanctified so) but not if one be a unbeliever, and the other a believer.

4. It will follow on this, that the believing wife may live with the [Page 253] husband if he be an unbeliever, for then he is sanctified (which is the reason of the Apostle why they may live together) but not if he be a believer. Such gross absurdities are there involved in this answer of Mr. B. before studied, and upon deliberation printed: which if they be not worse than any came from me in the dispute, let me be judged a frantick man. Mr. B. would make somewhat of these wild con­ceits to answer the objection, that if holiness or sanctifying were the effect or result of the faith of the believer, then an unbelieving fornicator might be said to be sanctified by his believing whore to beget a holy seed, and so they might lawfully live together. Now what saith he hereto? Forsooth this.

Therefore if two fornicators be both believers, though one be not sanctified in the other, yet for any thing this text saith, their chil­dren may be holy. For being neither of them unbelievers, they are not capable of this sanctification. Where he concludes the children of two fornicators, believing, though one be not sanctified in the other, may be holy, though he said before they have no promise as such a seed, and the Apostle expresly saith unless the unbelieving husband be sanctified in the wife your children are unclean, whereby the children of them that are not husband and wife are declared unclean. As for his rea­son to which [therefore] directs [either because onely an unbeliever must be sanctified to the other in this sense (no where mentioned by him before page 81. in an uncouth acception for removing an impedi­ment to a privilege) or onely they must be no unbelievers, or elfe be so sanctified] in my apprehension there is no shew of Consequence in it. And the reason following is alike [For being neither of them unbelie­vers they are not capable of this sanctification] As if nothing were in the text against the holiness of two fornicators children, but the term sanctified, and that the term [husband and wife] were not there. But were all he here dictates granted him, yet there is nothing answered to the objection as I made it not of two believing fornicators, but one an unbeliever, the other a believer, the unbeliever Mr. B. denies not to be capable of this sanctification, and if so, why then may not a be­lieving fornicatrix live with an unbelieving fornicator sanctified to her according to the force of the Apostles reasoning with Mr. Bs. exposition.

The next objection is as well against his opinion about infants vi­sible Church-membership derived from the Covenant, as against his ex­position of this text, and so not proper to this place, though perhaps in conference it might fall from me, when we argued about the meaning of this text. And therefore I shall reserve the vindicating of it till I dis­pute [Page 254] the point about the imaginary visible Church-membership of in­fants, and examine Mr. Bs. hypotheses concerning it, and the Cove­venant as the cause of it. Only that the Reader may understand the reason of my smile he mentions, it was this, that Mr. B. being asked of the cause of the existence of infants visible Church-membership should assign onely a remote cause, and that which being put, the effect is not put, as if the cause of a things being were any remote cause, and not the same with the adequate immediate cause in act, which being put the effect is put.

SECT. XXXVII.
The objection, that in Mr. Bs. sense, children may be holy who are born of infidels, is vindicated from Mr. Bs. answer, and the nakedness of Mr. Bs. opinion about that point is discover­ed.

BUt he saith of me, one thing more, he hath an object. against Mr. Blake Apol. page 124. which may seem to have more weight with it; and that is, that in our sense children may be holy though born of infidels; for he saith, [according to Mr. Blakes opinion it is false, that [unbelieving parents never beget children by birth-privi­lege holy] for children born of infidels brought into Abrahams fami­ly had right to circumcision, and so were by birth-privilege holy in Mr. Blakes sense. 1. I answer: if a man say that this was proper to Abraham and the Jews, he may have far more to justifie it, than Mr. T. hath to prove that the Church-membership of the whole sort of infants was proper to the Jews.

To which I reply, it is well Mr. B. will confess that the childrens, born, of infidels brought into Abrahams family right to circumci­sion, and holiness by birth-priviledge in Mr. Blakes sense were proper to the Jews, hath much to justifie it, though it be not his own judge­ment. For if this have any thing to justifie it, that the childrens, born of infidels brought into Abrahams family, right to circumcision, and holiness as visible Church members was proper to the Jews, then like­wise there is something to justifie it, that the Church-membership of the whole sort of infants, which was no where but among the Jews in [Page 255] Abrahams family and the proselytes added to that Church, arising from that peculiar law given to Abraham, Gen. 17. concerning his family, was proper to the Iews. And indeed it is abundant evidence that this visi­ble Church-membership of the sort of infants was proper to the Jews, in that in all the N. T. where there is so much mention of the Church, & the members of it, and their comming together, and other things spo­ken of them, yet there is not the least hint of an infants being reckon­ed a visible Church-member, but many things said of the visible Church and all its members, which do exclude infants from being reckoned visible members of the Christian Church distinguished from the Iewish. But of this more largely, when I examine the 2d. argument of Mr. B. and his pretended ordinance of infants visible Church-membership unrepealed, and the reason of taking in infants into the Iewish Church. Mr. B. addes,

2. ‘I answer, according to my own judgement thus: 1. I de­ny it as most untrue, that the children of infidels brought into A­brahams family were by birth-privilege holy, as Mr. Blake expresseth it. For those children that he means were either those born in A­brahams house, or bought with his money: for the former, they were no children of infidels; for Abraham kept no infidels in his house, nor must do: For the parents were to enter the Covenant as well as the children, and the father was to be circumcised: And I have fully proved before (and a multitude of texts more might be brought to prove it) that men were not to be circumcised whilest they were professed pagans, but were to enter into Gods Covenant as well as the Iews; even the hewer of their wood, and the drawer of water, Deut. 29. 10, 11. when God commandeth Abraham to circumcise every male, it is supposed he bring them into Covenant, whereof it was the seal.’

Answ. 1. If Abraham did not, nor ought to keep any infidels in his house, yet supposing a child of infidels were born (which might be, as of a captive woman or the like ready to be delivered) in his house, yet it was to be circumcised, Gen. 17. 12, 13. which is e­nough to make good my words.

2. By Mr Bs. doctrine Abraham might have hired servants though he could not prevail with them ro be proselytes, and these might have children in his house, and must be circumcised by the same Law.

3. That Abraham kept no infidels in his house, nor must do▪ at least for some time, cannot be proved. It is not unlikely, that there were in Abrahams house infidels: if Hagar were not one, it is pro­bable [Page 256] Ishmael by his description, Gen. 16. 12. and his mocking of Isaac, was no better, and what his sons by Keturah were may be conjectured by their posterity.

However the daughters of Heth, if not their husband Esau, it is not improbable were no better than infidels in Isaacs house. And for Jacobs the text tells us how Rachel hid her Gods, and after Gen. 35. 2. Jacob was commanded to put away the strange gods, there­fore there were in his house that had strange gods. A mixed multi­tude came out of Egypt with Israel, and one of their sons blasphemed the name of the Lord Levit. 24. 10, 11. All Israel were ready to make the molten calf, Exod. 32. The Iews Doctors say, that they might keep a professed pagan a year without killing him though he re­fused to take on him the 7 precepts of Noah. If a woman with child by a Pagan were taken captive and brought to bed in Abrahams house of a male child that child was to be circumcised by the law, Gen. 17. 12, 13. and so was by birth-privilege holy in Mr. Blakes sense, and therefore it is not most untrue, but most certainly true, which I say, that the children of infidels brought into Abrahams family were by birth-privilege holy in Mr. Blakes sense. Mr. B. goes on thus.

2. ‘If he mean the infants bought with money, I say, they were not by birth privilege holy: for then they should have been holy as soon as they were born, and so before they came into Abrahams family. 2. You must therefore distinguish between infants as born of such parents, and so they were unholy; and as after becoming Abra­hams own, the parents giving up their title to him, and so Abraham had power to bring them into the Covenant, and make them holy by separating them to God: but this was by no birth-privilege.’

Answ. To be holy by birth-privilege may be understood either for­mally or materially. Formally so as that they have it by vertue of birth, and so it is granted those that were bought with money were not holy by birth-privilege. Materially, so as that they are said to be by birth-privilege holy, who have the same supposed privilege of holiness which Mr. Blake so calls, though by another way. And thus it is to be conceived▪ that I meant when I said, that infidel pa­rents beget children holy by birth-privilege in Mr. Blakes sense, and so those that were bought with Abrahams money and brought into A­brahams family, were holy with the holiness which Mr. Blake calls holinese by birth-privilege; Now this is enough for my purpose, sith the Apostles proposition is not of infants onely but of children, nor doth he say that if the parents were not sanctified one in or to another, [Page 257] they should be unclean or not holy by birth-privilege, yet holy other wayes: but simply without any such restriction they should be all unclean, which were not true in Mr. Ms. Mr. Blakes, Mr. Bs. and other Paedobaptists sense. Therefore I conclude their sense of 1 Cor. 7. 14. is not true, and the proposition being true in my sense, my sense is the true [...], which was to be demonstrated.

But Mr. B. adds somewhat more, which I am to examine ere I shut up this dissertation. Mr. B. saies, Infants as born of infidel parents were unholy, but as after becoming Abrahams own, the parents giving up their title to him, and so Abraham had power to bring them into the Covenant, and make them holy by separating them to God. And for my part I believe, that this is a standing rule and duty to all Christians: Only the children of a believer are holy directly as theirs, or by birth-privilege (in subordination to the Covenant) and from the womb: But when we either buy infants, or they are left Orphans wholly to us, so as that they are wholly ours and at our dispose, the parents being either dead, or having given up their interest to us, I doubt not though they were the children of Jews and Turks, but it is our duty to list them under Christ, and enter them into his school, kingdom, or Church by baptism: and that Gods law will prove this. Why else were the Jews to circumcise all bought with money (even meer slaves) but because they were wholly their own, and at their dispose? but not hired servants, because they could not by their au­thority prevail with these as with the other; but must stay till they voluntarily would be proselytes. I know some will think it incredible that even slaves or any should be compelled to enter Gods Covenant: But I need not tell them that the good King of Judah appointed that whoever of his people would not enter into Covenant should be put to death. (Indeed this Covenant contained not circumstantials, but that they should take the Lord for their God, and renounce all Idols that were directly set up as gods; and he that will not take this Cove­nant, I think ought not by any good Prince to be suffered to live in his kingdome).

Answ. If this doctrine be true, that a believer is to baptize any ones infants that are his own as his slaves, Orphans of which he is Guar­dian, captives, adopted children &c. then it will follow, 1. That a person is to baptize them that are uunclean, not separated to God, but unbaptizable: For such, by the Apostles doctrine as they expound it, are all the children whereof one parent is not sanctified by the faith of the other. But this is absurd, yea contrary to what Mr. B. saith page [Page 258] 80. that it is undeniable that the holiness 1 Cor. 7. 14. is a common privilege to all believers children, Ergo. 2. That a person hath right to visible Church-membership and baptism without the grant of the Covenant; For it's not pretended God hath made any Covenant or grant to believers and their servants, wardes, captives, or adopted children, and so in vain it is pretended that it is a privilege common to all believers children to be holy as 1 Cor. 7. 14. that they have this privilege by the Covenant, and to deny it them is to rob them of their right; that by denying them they are greatly injured, being put out of the Covenant, whereas by this doctrine they may have Church-inte­rest without the Covenant, even the slaves of believers have the same privilege with the sons, and in effect the Paedobaptists do but cheat peo­ple telling them such a privilege belongs to their children being belie­vers, and how comfortable a doctrine they teach them, and how Ana­baptists condemn all their children with a bloody sentence putting them out of the Covenant, and denying them all interest therein, and yet in the end Mr. B. holds it no such privilege, but that any infidels child may by his master be put into the Covenant, baptized, be a visible Church-member, separated to God, &c. 3. If this be true, then an infidel parent by giving away his title to his child to a believer may make him a visible Church-member though himself an infidel, and if he die in infancy be certain of his childs salvation; yea a person by buy­ing a child with money may have power to make him a visible Church-member, and give him a right to baptism, and consequently if he die in infancy a certain hope of salvation, and so the gift of God shall be obtained by money; then it would be a duty and a charitable work to buy or steal or take captive Moores, Iews, Turks, Salvages children, and baptize them as visible Church-members, because they are their own. And why should it not be a good trade for a poor Christian to indent with a rich infidel, and to take his child as his own, and mo­ney with him to make him a Christian and baptize him, as they that take apprentices do, when the child is such a gainer by the bargain, and the believer hath need of money? only there is this difficulty in it, sith the parents title cannot be so given away but that he may claim and recover it again, how security shall be given that the childs visi­ble Church-membership be not disannulled by the parent. In a word, if this doctrine of Mr. B. be true, then it is to no purpose that baptism is limited to disciples believers, any ones infant may be baptized, if he come under the power of a believer. 4. If this be our duty, and that Gods law to Abraham will prove it, because the Iews were to [Page 259] circumcise all bought with money, then the law about circumcision still binds us, is a rule to us about baptism, and if so, then other laws a­bout the Passeover, linnen Ephod, Purification of women &c. bind still, or else there may be a certain rule out of Gods word determining our freedom from part of the Cerēmonial law, and not from other parts, with many other ill consequences, which Mr. B. will not avoid till he bring to pass what some are hammering on, to find a morality in meer positive ceremonies, which is the high-way to reintroduce Popish and prelatical ceremonies. As for Mr. Bs question why the Iews were to circumcise slaves bought and not hired servants? I answer, because God commanded it. But what is this to prove it our duty to baptize all infants even of infidels that are wholly at our dispose ex­cept the same command which was to circumcise be still a command in force, and a command to us to baptize after the rule of circumci­sion? which is still said, but never proved, nor ever will be. As for Mr. Bs. judgement that some may be compelled to enter into Cove­nant by the magistrate, it is nothing to the business of baptizing by the minister, who is appointed to baptize none but disciples made by preaching, not by the magistrates authority. Mr. B. closeth up all with this speech. This is my judgement; in which I am the more confident, when I consider how freely Christ inviteth all commers, and that he never refused any that came, or any infant that was brought: And that it ill beseemeth Christians without plain grounds to straiten Christs kingdome, or to keep out any that he would not have kept out.

To which I reply, Christ invited freely all commers, and refused none: but invited none, nor accepted any to baptism till he were a disciple, John. 4. 1. He refused not to bless an infant that was brought, by lay­ing on of hands and prayer, but never baptized any, or appointed any infant to be baptized by his disciples: so that this instance is against infant-baptism, Christs not doing it shewing that he would not have it done; & if it beto be brought into a rule it's fitter to prove bishoping than baptizing. As it ill beseemeth Christians to straiten Christs kingdom, or to keep out any that he would not have kept out, so it ill beseemeth Christians to widen it, and to take and keep in so many, that the king­dome of Christ (if the denomination be taken from the greater or more eminent part) might more truly be called the kingdome of the Devil consisting of such professors as from whom Mr. B. saies page 98. he will be a separatist. My judgement is, that ministers should not be over-rigid about admission of members, so as to keep out of the Church [Page 260] by denying baptism and communion to any weak Christians that desire it: But that baptizing of infants, and taking as Church-members all born in a so called Christian Nation hath been the ttue cause of hor­rible perverting and profaning the rule of Christ about baptism, and hath so corrupted the Church of God, that instead of his house it hath been made a den of theeves, is too manifest by experience: of which Mr. B. hath made himself deeply guilty by patronizing these corrupti­ons, and under pretence of opposing schism is become an enemy to re­formation according to Gods word. Which will be made appear in answering the rest of his book, which is for his arguments for infant-baptism frivolous, and for his exceptions against believers baptism light, if not scurrilous, unfit for a well temper'd moral man, much more for a professed and in shew a mortified godly Divine. The an­swer to both parts shall not be wilfully slackned, but hastened as the Lords providence shall vouchsafe liberty, and ability.