Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 46

Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3 · Section 46

p. 245SECT. XLVI. The 27, 28, 29 Chapters of Mr. Blakes Vindic. Faeder is are examined, and it is shewed, That he hath not proved the Covenant of Grace in Gospel times to admit or to be made to any but the Elect regenerate.

SIth Mr. Bl. is accounted one of the chief Patrons of Infant Baptism, my purpose is to examine the remainder of that which he hath written in his Vindic. Foed. against me for Infant Baptism, and may be conceiv…d to be yet unanswered. Ch. 27▪ pag. 189, 190. he heaps up many texts to prove that in old Testament times the Covenant was made with Israel in the vttermost latitude and extent with all that bore the name of Israel, which I grant, understanding it of the National Covenant, Deut. 29. and of the Covenant of the Law, Exod 20. &c. but deny it being meant of the Covenant o… Evangelical grace, which is the onelyonly Covenant the people of God are now under, and which alone is the question now, Who are in this Covenant? or to whom is this Covenant or the promise… of it made by God? I assert as before, Sect. 33. That it is made onelyonly to the Elect▪ And M. Bl. pag. 191. yeelds that many Orthodox writers seemingly restrain the Covenant one…y to the Elect and regenerate. But he addes some distinctions, whereby he thinks what they say may be salve… from self contradictions. 1. Of a two fold Covenant, 1 a single, 2▪ a double to perform both parts, to save upon repentance, and to give a new heart: But he doth not shew that there is any Evangelical Covenant now which is not double, nor that either the double or single is made with any but the elect. 2. Of an inward Covenant, which …e grants to be made onelyonly to the elect; and an outward, which, he saith, is a Covenant properly so called, and which Scripture holds out for the Covenant of God with his people, in which all professed Christians so called are, which puts them into a capacity of Sacraments, and their children of the initial Sacrament: But what this outward Covenant is, or where it is to be found I know not; what I find about it …s shewed to be vain, Sect. 25. and Mr. Bs. refutation of it in his Apology against Mr. Bl. pag. 66, 67, 10… ▪ saves me any further labour to shew it to be a figment 3. Of being in Covenant according to title to the Covenant, or to the benefits of the Covenant; and saith, the right of Covenant belongs to all that externally mak… profession, the benefit onelyonly to the elect. But I know no right of Covenant, but what is by Gods promise, and surely all to whom God promiseth have the benefit of the Covenant; and to imagine, that the Covenant of grace is to any to whom the grace following the Covenant is not, is to make Gods Covenant and word to fall, which the Apostle abhorred, Rom. 9.6. and to make the Covenant of grace as liable to complaint …s the first Covenant, contrary to Heb. 8▪6, 7, 8, 9, 10▪ 4. Of entring into Covenant, which all visible professors do, and stedfastness in it, which do onelyonly the elect and faithfull, Psal. 78.3…. But this text speaks p. 246not of the Covenant of Evangelical grace as if any were entred into it who were not stedfast in it: but of the Covenant of the Law with the Jewish people, which is not the Covenant in which the Gentiles are under the Gospel. And to Mr. Bls. confused talk I again say, 1. That the Covenant of Evangelical grace is made by God onelyonly to the Elect, and that in respect of Gods promise none but they are in the Covenant, nor is there to any right to Sacraments or capacity of an initial Seal barely by that being in Covenant. 2. That profession of Faith may cause a man to be taken to be in the Covenant by the guides and brethren of the visible Church, in the face of which he may have title to Sacraments, but his infant children have no title thereby to Baptism. 3. That from the beginning none but the elect had the Covenant of grace made to them. 4. That from the beginning it is not proved the children with their parents to have been no not in the imaginary outward Covenant. But let…s v…ew what Mr. Bl. saith▪

1. He alledgeth Matth. 28.19. and takes it as freely con…est, that a Disciple of Christ is in Covenant with God, and tels us that the Covenant Matth. 28.19. is committed to man to work, and to judge of it being wrought, to put a seal for ratification and confirmation of it; which cannot be restrained to the elect, for they onelyonly are known to God; an elect person and a Church member should be termini convertibiles, the seal of the Spirit, and the seal of the Sacrament are in equal latitude; to baptize an unregenerate person is to put a seal to a blank, as high an abuse of that sacred Ordinance as the circumcision of the Sichemites, Gen. 34▪ 24.

Answ. It is not confest by me that a Disci…le of Christ, that is every Disciple of Christ is in Covenant with God, meaning it in respect of Gods Covenant or promise of Evangelical grace made to him, nor do I know of any Covenant, Matth. 28.19. committed to man to work, and to judge of it being wrought, and to put a seal for ratification and confirmation, though I grant every Disciple professing Christ is in some sense in Covenant with God, that is, by his act of profession doth engage himself to follow Christ, and so in that respect is in Covenant with God, and that Matth. 28.19. the Apostles are injoyned to make Disciples by preaching the Gospel, and baptize them, which may be done without working a Covenant between God and man, (which phrase doth imply that a Minister can work God into Covenant, which is in my apprehension an absurd conceit) or judging of a Covenant being wrought, or putting to a seal for confirmation of it. And for the absurdities Mr. Bl. infers from the denial of restraining the Covenant to the elect, I count the first not to follow upon my tenet, sith I conceive a man may be a Church-member who is not in the Covenant of grace; and for the second, I count it no absurdity according to my explicat…on before given, Sect. 34▪35. though I do withal declare, that the seal of the Sacrament is a term I reject for the reasons given before, Sect. 31. And for the third, I count it no abuse to put a seal to a blank, that is, to baptize a person who is not in the Covenant of Evangelical grace. As for the 2d. argument Mr. Bl. would draw from Matth. 28.19. to prove that the p. 247Covenant of God is onelyonly a Covenant professed, because Matth. 28▪19. a whole Nation is in Gods ordinary way of administration in a capacity to attain and enter into it, it is answered in the 2d. Part of this Review, sect. 9. where it is shewed that Matth. …8.19. there is no such command as to make Disciples, and bap…ize the whole of a Nation, even the infants.

Mr. Bl. adds a 2d. text, Matth, 20.16. & 22.14. whence he argues thus; If there be a call from God in the times of the N. T. in a far greater latitude then the grace of election, that of many called few onelyonly are elected, then the Covenant in the N.T. times is not to be restrained to the elect and regenerate, but contains all that professedly accept the terms of the Covenant, and visibly appear a people of God. This is evident, seeing the call is into Covenant; all at the feast were called ones, all the hired Labourers were Covenant-servants. To conceive men to be called of God, and not to be in Covenant with God, is a full contradiction. The call hath its terminus a quo and its terminus ad quem; a state which upon call they leave, and a new state on which they enter. They are upon this call in a nearer relation to God then the rest of the world, otherwise they were the same as ever, and not called at all. But there is a call in N. T. times, &c. Ergo.

Answ. The consequence of the major is denied, and to the proof of it I say, 1. The call is not into Covenant with God in the sense which … n…w in question: For now the question is, Whether there be a Covenant in the N. T. wherein God engageth himself to be God, and to account for his people any besides the elect? Now no man is called into Covenant in this sense, for no man is called to engage God to be God, &c. it were an arrogant act to call or invite men to engage God, it is God onelyonly who is to do this, and therefore if any were to be called to this, it were God himself. 2. It is not true, that to conceive men to be called of God, and not to be in Covenant with him is a full contradiction. For though the calling mentioned Rom. 8.30. do always bring men into an estate of being in Covenant with God, yet not the calling Matth. 20.16. & 22.14. For though the calling there have a Terminus a quo & ad quem, in the one resembled by calling to work in the Vineyard, in the other by calling to a Wedding feast; yet that every one that was called had a new state on which he did enter, is not true: For even those who refused to come were called, Matth. 22.3, 4. and the m…n who came in without a Wedding garment, though he sate down, yet was not in a state of Covenant, or acceptance, but was thrust out. Nor is Mr. Bls. arguing of any force. Men are called into Covenant with God, therefore they are in Covenant with God: For by the same reason it might be inferred, the same men are called into the fellowship of Christ, 1 Cor. 1.9. into the Kingdome and glory of God, 1 Thes. 2.12. therefore some non…elect persons are in the fellowship of Christ, in the Kingdom and glory of God, which is false.

Mr. Bl. adds Mat. 13.24, 25, 47. & 3.12. & 2 Tim. 2.20. whence he argues thus. A man in the Kingdome of Heaven is a man that is in Covenant with God; unless he stood in a Covenant relation he could have p. 248no standing there; and the comparison were very strangely drawn, if this Kingdome thus set out had all that were good, none bad in it.

Answ. It is granted that good and bad, elect and non-elect are in the visible Church, and so in the Kingdome of Heaven, if by it be meant the visible Church: but that a man in the Kingdome of Heaven is a man that is in Covenant with God, that is a man in the visible Church is a man that is in Covenant wi…h God, so as that God hath made a Covenant or promise of Evangelical grace to or with him, is denied, nor is; or ever will be proved by Mr. Bl.

A 4th. text is Heb. 10.29. whence he saith, These must needs be granted to be wicked, yet cannot be denied to be in Covenant, being sanctified with the bloud of the Covenant. And then sets down three interpretations; one of the Arminians, that say they were sanctified internally and in Covenant, but fall from both, which he lets pass▪ Another, that Christ is said to be sanic…fied, which seems to him to be very much strained. A third, by external separation for God and dedication to him, which he embraceth.

Answ. Neither do I conceive tha… it is Christ who is said to be sanctified by the bloud of the Covenant: For though I grant he is said to be sanctified, Joh. 10.36. and to sanctifie himself, Joh. 17.19. and foreign to consecrate or make perfect, Heb. 2.10. & 5.9. & 7.28. Yet I do not find … phrase applied to Christ any where, that he is said to be sanctified by the bloud of the Covenant; but still applied to those that a…e bought by Christ, Heb. 10.10, 14. & 13.12. Nor doth it so well suit with the Apostles aim of aggravating the s…n o… Apostacy from Christianity, to mean it of Christs being sanctified, as of the Apostates being sanctified heretofore by that bloud of the Covenant which he now counted common, or unclean: Nor do I conceive it can be meant of such a meer external sanctification, whether by Baptism, or external profession, as Mr. Bl. and others conceive. For 1. the sanctification here is the same with the sanctification meant, ver. 10, 14. & 13.12. But that sanctification i… more then such an external sanctification, e…en such as perfects for ever them that are sanctified, v. 14. and hath with it the writing and remission of sins according to the Covenant which is set down v. 15, 16, 17. 2. No where is such an external sanctification ascribed to the bloud of the Covenant; but to ascribe to it such a meer external sanctification in any sanctified by it, is to d…minish the vertue of it, as if it did no more then the legal sacrifices, contrary to the Apostles arguing, Heb. 9.12, 13, 14. 3. Nor thirdly, had it aggravated the Apostates sin to say that he had counted the bloud of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified onelyonly externally, a common thing: For this had shewed no more evil in the disestee… of Christs doat…, then if the bloud of the legal sacrifices which did san…ifie externally, Heb. ….12. had been counted unclean. Therefore I conceive the sanctifying Heb. 10.29. meant of the effectual sanctifying before God, meant Heb. 2.11. & 10.10▪14. & 1….12. but yet understand the sanctifying, Heb 10▪29. not of what was so really, but of what was according to their own opinion, and profession embracing the Christian Doctrine. Even as Gal. 5.4. Whosoever are justified by the Law, that is, p. 249Whosoever of you do avouch that you are justified by the Law. Luke 15.7. some are said to be just persons needing no repentance; that is, in their own opinion and profession, as those Luke 18.9. And thus I conceive is that speech also to be understood, 2 Pet. 2.1. and hereby the Arminian argument from both places for Universal Redemption, and Apostacy of Saints is avoided. Now these may be denied to have been in Covenant, that is, to have been of those to whom God promised Gospel grace, sith they were onelyonly sanctified according to their own opinion and profession▪ yea though the sanctification were meant of being sanctified externally, and this were from the bloud of the Covenant, yet it follows not that those who are sanctified thus are in Covenant with God, as the meaning of those is who say the elect onelyonly are in Covenant, that is, the Covenant of Evangelical grace is made by God onelyonly to the elect.

Mr. Bl. adds Neither can all the noise which Mr. T. hath made about 1 Pet. 2.9. take off that text, but that it speaks fully to hold up a Covenant in this latitude; and from thence I thus argue. If those phrases, a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy Nation, a peculiar people, be applied to Christians as to Jews in an equal latitude to one …s to other; then it must needs follow that there is a Covenant in Gospel times in like latitude as in the time of the Law, including all that accept the terms of the Covenant, and visibly appear as t…e people of God, and is not restrained onelyonly to the elect regenerate. The consequence is evident, seeing the terms plainly imply a Covenant. Here is a Covenant people or no where: But these terms, a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, are applied to Christians as well as to Jews, to one in as great a latitude as to the other. That which God speaks to Israel in the Wilderness, that Peter speaketh to the Church to which he writes▪ All Israelites in Moses days, all Christians professing, in Peters time, had those titles, when onelyonly those that kept Covenant were at any time worthy of them, and had the comforts of them.

Answ. The noise I make is not a meer sound without reason, nor is any one of my reasons made void by Mr. Bls. answers. To him I reply▪ 1. That his speech is inconsiderate when he saith the text speaks fully to hold up a Covenant in this latitude, which comprehends non-elect persons, when there is not a word of any Covenant, and the terms he onelyonly saith plainly imply a Covenant. And though I deny not that the people there mentioned were a Covenant people, yet I deny any one of the terms doth imply a Covenant; for a chosen generation doth not imply a Covenant, sith both electi…n and generation may be without a Covenant; and the like may be said of the other terms, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar, or purchased people: …o that in this respect the consequence may be denied. Nor is the consequence good for another reason. For it is not true that all Israelites in Moses days had those titles, which I find Exod. 19▪5, 6. yet there onelyonly three of them, and those not said of all the Israelites in M…ses days, but a promise of being to God such as these titles import, upon condition they did hearken to his p. 250voice, and kept his Covenant, which was neither verified of all Israelites in Moses days, nor in after times. And therefore though those terms were applied to Christians as to Jews, yet it doth not necessarily follow that there is a Covenant in Gospel times in like latitude as under the Law, sith those titles were not verified of all the Jews at any time, but of them and then onelyonly when they were obedient But I deny the minor also of Mr. Bls. argument, that the terms are applied by Peter in an equal latitude to Christians as by Moses to Jews, and assert as in my Postscri…t, sect. 10. pag. 128. that they are applied onelyonly to those who are members of the invisible Church. Whereupon Mr. Bl. speaks thus to me.

But I would wish Mr. T. to take into more serious consideration. First, whether the first verse of this second chapter be meant onelyonly of invisible members? Whether the Apostle pe…swades regene…ate men, and onelyonly regenerate men, to lay aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and evil speakings?

Answ. To the first question I say affirmatively, that by new born babes, v▪ 2▪ are meant onelyonly members of the invisible Ch…rch; for they are said, ch. 1.23. to be born again, not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth for ever ▪ Ver. 2. to be elect according to the fore-knowledge of God the Father, begotten again unto a lively hope, ver. 3. And to the 2d. that he mentions onelyonly regenerate persons, whom he perswades, though the duty is incumbent on others.

2ly. Whether the 3d. v. be to be thus limited; Whether the Apostle makes doubt in that manner, whether they had tasted that the Lord is gracious? And yet those words in both those verses must needs be understood of the same men, and under the same notion as these, ver. 9. The Apostle brings his speech to no full period till v. 11. Those that must lay aside all malice, guile, &c. of whom he makes question, whether they had tasted that the Lord were gracious; they are this chosen generation, this royal priesthood.

Answ. 1. foreign 1 Pet. 2.3. is translated [if] and may seem to import doubt or uncertainty, but it may be as well translated [seeing] as it is 2 Thes. 1.6. and so it imports certainty that they had tasted how gracious the Lord is, without making question of it. And this reading is more apposite to their condtiion, and more suitable to the exhortation; For it is more agreable to the nature of a motive to the duty, ver. 2. to conceive it thus, Desire the word to grow by it, sith or seeing you have tasted how gracious the Lord is. 2. But if it were read [if] yet in such pass…ges as these [if] doth not import doubt, but onelyonly is as a rational particle, noting the connexion between the terms, as Joh. 15.18. Ephes. 4.20, 21. And so the sense is here, If you have tasted (which he supposeth, not questioneth) then you ought to desire the milk of the word, that you may grow by it. 3. Were it the Apostle had doubt whether they had tasted how good the Lord is (which is not to be conceived, considering what he saith of them, c. 1. v. 3, 23. c. 2.2, 5. &c.) yet this doubt might be of a more full tast, which every regenerate elect person might p. 251not have. 4. The exhortation to lay aside malice, &c. doth not intimate they were any of them whom he calls new born babes, v. 2. a chosen generation, an holy nation, v. 9. unregenerate or non-elect; for such exhortations are necessary for the most holy Saints, in whom are reliques of corruption, and liableness to temptation.

3ly. Saith Mr. Bl. Let him seriously consider the Apostles further enlargement of this honour of these Christians, which in times past were not a people of God; words borrowed from Hos. 1.10. Hos. 2.23. and spoken of the call of the ten revolted Tribes: And in Deut. 32.21. of the call of the Gentiles into a visible Church state and profession, and so applied by the Apostle, Rom. 9.24, 25, 26. Whence I argue. The call of the ten revolted Tribes, and of the Gentiles into a visible Church way, is not to be meant of the Church as it is invisible onelyonly. This Mr. T. hath taken into consideration, and answered. However it be in the p…aces to which the allusion is, yet it is certain that here it is meant of such a calling as is from darkness to marvellous light; taking it, it seems, for granted, that there is no marvellous light in visible Churches; that in the land of Zebulon and Nephthali where they saw a great light, there were onelyonly invisible members. Matth. 4.15, 16.

Answ. My answer to this objection was in two things. 1. That terms appli…d to Christians in the New Testament with allusion to passages in the Old, yet are not always to be applied to Christians in the same latitude they were to Jews. 2. That in that place such a calling is meant as is from darkness to his marvellous light by his vertues or powers; which therefore deserve to be shewed forth, and which they do shew forth that are thus called. And both these I confirmed from Rom. 9.24, 25, 26. which is manifestly said of them who were called v. 23. vessels of mercy; Nor is this a denomination a parte praestantiori, for it is expresly said foreign were the same whom he called vessels of mercy. And the same place of Hos. 2.23. is alluded to in Rom. 9.25. and 1 Pet. 2.10. and can be understood of no other then the elect. And therefore if the places Hos. 1.10. Hos. 2.23. Deut. 32.21. should be understood (which I grant not) of any other then the elect or members of the invisible Church; yet 1 Pet. 2.10. can be understood of no other, sith no other have such a calling as is there meant, v. 9. nor any other obtain mercy as there is meant. That which Mr. Bl. replies after his flirting fashion, goes on this false insinuation, that I took it for granted, that there is no marvellous light in visible Churches, which he would refute from Matth. 4.15, 16. and that this was the force of my reason; whereas my reason did not suppose that at all, but that none are so called from darkness to light in that manner the Apostle there describes the calling, but onelyonly the elect, which is true; though there be marvellous light in visible Churches, yea, and in meer visible professors, yet none so called as Peter describes 1 Pet. 2.9. but onelyonly members of the invisible Church.

4ly. Saith Mr. Bl. As honourable titles as these are frequently given in Scripture, as shall be shewen, to visible professors, why should then these be limited to invisible members?

p. 252Answ. 1. No titles so expresly noting elect persons as those 1 Pet. 2.9. are given any where to mee… visible professors. 2. If they should be in any pl…ce given to the visible Church, yet they are to be restrained to the elect onelyonly; as when a heap of corn is so called, whic… hath much chaff… or a fie…d of corn, which hath m…ch tares; the denominatio… is from the better part, and is to be applied …s verified onelyonly of it.

5ly. Saith Mr▪ Bl. Mr. T. in his Letter made this Text to be parallel with those Texts, Gal. 6.10. 1 Tim. 3.15▪ 1 Pet. 2.10. And those Texts I have demonstrated to be meant of visible Churches, to which Mr. T. …eplies nothing.

Answ. I do not find that in my Letter I made 1 Pet. 2.…. parallel with those Texts, Gal. 6.10. 1 Tim. 3.15. 1 Pet. 2.10. But in my Exercit▪ § 12. I do alledge to …rove that onel… bel…evers may be meant by a holy Nation, as they are by a family or kindred, Ephes. 3.15. the housh…ld of faith, Gal. 6.10. the house of God, 1 …im 3.15. a people, 1 Pet. 2.10. Now saith Mr. Bl. these texts I have demonstrated to be meant of visible Churches. But he hath not demonstrated them to be meant of meer visi…le Churches, or meer visible Professors in them, who are not also of the invisible Church; and therefore I thought in my Postscript, and think still I need make no further reply. Mr. Bl. considers my arguments to prove 1 Pet. 2.9. meant of the invisible Church.

1. I argue (saith Mr. T.) from the terms, chosen generation, royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that is by Christs death, Tit. 2.14. which cannot be affirmed of any other then elect and true beleevers▪ Ergo. Answ. 1. Such a way of arguing would not pass with Mr. T▪ in his adversary; as peculiar people is tak…n in one place of Scriptur…, so it must be taken in all places; but in one place it is taken for the elect regenerate If this would …old, much labour might be spared in finding out the various acceptation of words in Sc…ipture.

Reply. M. Bl. it seems hath such a spirit of Divination, as to foresee what I would do in a contingent thing. But thi… …olly of his I impute to his Satyrical vein▪ which makes him that he can neither relate nor answer any t…ing of mine candidly. My argument was not drawn onelyonly from the term [peculiar people] but also from the terms [chosen generation, royal priesthood, an holy nation] which with th… o…her term [a peculiar people] or as in the Margin of our last Translation [a purchased people] have been applied to the elect onelyonly by these interpreters, whose words I here set down. Beza analys. Loci oppositum membram, electorum videlicet summam excelien…tiam describit, &c. Piscat analys▪ Hortatur commemoratione duorum maximorum beneficiorum Dei, electionis ad vitam aeternam, & vocationis efficacis. Electionem indicat his verbis: vos autem estis genus electum, vocationem vero illis regale sacerdotium gens sancta, &c. Dicson. Vocantur autem regale sacerdotium quia sunt & regni Christi & sacerdotii participes, imo per Christum sacerdotes & reges constitut… vocantur, genus electum, quia Deus eos prae aliis populis sibi adoptaverat. Gens sancta, quia eos sibi dicaverat Deus in vitae puritatem. Populus in acquisitionem, quia Deus eos redemerat, & sibi in thesaurum & haeredita…em asciverat, p. 253Diodati. v. 9. A royal] that is to say, a company of Priests who are likewise Kings, Exod. 19.6. Priests to Godward, to whom believers do yield spiritual worship. v. 5. and Kings over the creatures, over which Christ their head hath given them the dominion, which they had lost in Adam, and hath made them fellows in the glory of his Kingdome, Matth. 19.28. 1 Cor. 6.2, 3. Revel. 1.6. & 2.26, 27. & 3.21. & 5.10. & 20.6. A peculiar] which he hath purchased with a price and made his, by a sove…aign title to hold them for his own people. New Annot v. 9. A chosen] that is, whom God hath effectually called out of the would, see Chap. 1.2. Deut. 7.7. Royal] that is Kings and priests, See Exod. 19.6. Revel▪ ….6. & 5.10. Kings, beeause of that power which they have, through Christ, over their lust, see Ph…l. 4.13. Priests, because separated to the service of God, see v. 5. Holy nation] see Exod. 19.6. & Deut. 7.6, &c. A peculiar people] or a purchased people peculiar] or a people for possession: that is, a people … God hath purchased to be his own. See Exod. 19.5. Deut. 4.2. & 7.6. & 26.18. Psal. 135.4. Tit. 2.14. Act. 20.28. Ephes. 1.14. 1 Thes. 5.9. Dr. John Rainold Apolog. …hes. §. 21. Nam prim… nomen populi sanctorum Dan. 7.27. ex Daniele satis clarè indicat significari electos, 1 Pet. 2.9. Gentem sanctam & populum Dei peculiarem, Exo. 19.5▪ Mal. 3.17. Tit. 2.14. Eximiè nuncupatos quandoquidem hic est populus cui soli regnum amplissimum in Christo, & cum Christo, ut ibidem Dan. 7.27. promissum est, ita da u…iri testantur sacrae iterae Apoc. 5.10. & 20.6. & 22.5. §. 20. ad designandum populum electum, 1 Pet▪ 2.9. qui Deo cedit foreign in possessionem seu peculium. By which allegations it may be perceived, 1. that the interpretation I give is the common interpretation of most learned Protestants: 2. that it is proved no by one title onelyonly but by four titles, whereof not one of them can be applied in the sense Peter useth them to any but the elect: 3. that this interpretation and application is confirmed not by one only place of Scripture, but by many: 4. that though I alledged but one place, to wit Tit. 2.14. yet being so manifestly paralel, and so clearly pregnant for my purpose it was enough, and such as I would allow the like in any adversary for good proof, though] do not take it that in all places the sense is proved by the alledging one scripture in the sense conceived, nor do I think it unnecessary to finde ou… the various acceptation of words in scripture.

2. Saith Mr. Bl These termes and others equivolent to these are given to the Israelites Deut. 14.1, 2. Deut. 7.6. Deut. 32.9. not as a church invisible, but as visible members. Their qualifications are often a low, as their appellations by reason of their relation to God raise them high. And setting apart Christs death, I would know how they came to this honour.

Answ. These termes are given in the places cited to Israelites, yet that they are given to them as visible members, and not as a church invisible, or as I would say to the church visible of Israel, in respect of and with limitation to the elect or members of the invisible church, as a field of corn in respect of the good grain, is not proved. Yet if it were the titles 1 Pet. 2.9. spoken of christians, cannot be verified of them but p. 254in a sense appropriate to the elect. They are no way a royal priesthood, but as priests that offer spiritual sacrifices to God, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ, v. 5. which none but the elect and true beleevers can do; no other way royal but in that they are Kings to God, r…ign ov…r sin, Satan, &c. through Christ, which none but the elect do; a chosen generation, but by Gods election to life eternal; a holy nation, but by regeneration of the spirit; a peculiar people, but by Christs purchas…; which can be verified of none but true believers, and elect persons. And to Mr. Bls. demand I answer, setting apart Christs death, I know not how Christ…ans should come to this honour which is expressed 1 Pet. 2.9.

3. Saith Mr. Bl. The gift of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastours, and Teachers, were the gift of Christ, and purchase of his death. These are for constitution of …sible Churches, visible members enjoy these priviledges in common with regenerate persons, to which more is already spoken.

Answ. Though I finde Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastours, and Teachers, termed Ephes. 4.11. the gift of Christ; yet I do not finde them said to be the purchase of Christs death as such: nor do I know how they can be truely said to be the purchase Christs death, as is meant, 1 Pet. 2.9. Tit. 2.14. so as that every Apostle, &c. should be redeemed from iniquity, be of the people of Gods possession, to shew forth the vertues of God, &c. nor do I conceive to what purpose this is brought in here by Mr. Bl. except he mean that the titles 1 Pet. 2.9. are given to the visible Church in respect of the Ministers, which is so frivolous that I am unwilling to imagine it of him.

2. Saith Mr. Bl. Mr. T. objects from that which is said of them, they are called by God, by his power and vertue into his marvellous light, and v. 10. that now had obtained mercy which they had not before; which cannot be affirmed of any but true believ…rs and elect persons.

Answ. Men brought into a visible Church-state, are brought into a marvellous light. The seven golden candlesticks Rev. 1.20. had a marvellous light in their lamps, and yet in some of those there were onelyonly a few names, that had not defiled their garments; And this light is a mercy, the fruition of it a great mercy, Psal. 147.19, 20. Yea, it is applied by the prophet, Hos. ….23. (whence the Apostle gathers it) unto the mercy enjoyed in a visible Church communion, as is not denied by Mr. T. himself.

Reply. Where it is that I deny not that Hos. 2.23. is applied unto the mercy enjoyed in a visible Church communion, I remember not, yet if I did grant it any where, I might understand it of saving mercy, proper to the elect, for that is mercy enjoyed in a visible Church communion.

But Mr. Bls. answer is not to the argument as by me urged; For I did not form it thus, they who have marvellous light, who have obtained a great mercy are elect: But thus; they who are called by Gods power or vertue, which therefore they are to shew forth, out of darkness, into his marvellous light, which in time past were not a people, but are now p. 255the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy, are the elect, which I confirmed from Rom. 9.23, 24, 25. where the same place of Hos. 2.23. is alledged and applied onelyonly to the elect. But these things are said of those 1 Pet. 2.9. Ergo. Which argument is confirmed by the words of Piscator above cited, and of Beza in the place cited, where he saith, Simulque ne quis ambigat sit electus necne revocat nos Apostolus ad vocationem efficacem, ex qua aeternum illud alioqui occultissimum electionis nostrae decretum certò intelligamu…, idque ex una Dei gratuit… eligentis & vocantis misere…ordia. The new Annot▪ praises] or vertues. That is, that we might glorifie God in our conversations, thereby shewing forth the abundant mercy and great power of God in calling us. Isa. 8.13. Darkness] that is ignorance, ch. 1.14. whereby is meant our sinfull and miserable estate by nature, under which men are kept, through ignorance of the Gospel, Eph. 4▪ 18. & 5.8. Col. 1▪13. His marvellous] hereby is meant our estate of grace, through the effectual calling of God by the knowledge of the truth. See 2 Cor. 4.6. Acts 13.47. & 26.18. called marvellous, because of the great mystery of godliness, which is revealed in the Gospel; and called his, because God revealeth it. Dr. John Rainold Apol. thes· § 15. Neque soluni è tenebris in admirabi…em Dei lucem vocati, 1 Pet. 2.9. sed & electi, 1 Pet. 1.2. nuncupantur, atque genus electum, 1 Pet. 2▪9. Now though meer visible Church-members may have marvellous light, and obtain great mercy, yet they cannot be said to be thus called, to be a people of God, and to obtain mercy, as Peter there describes.

3. Saith Mr. Bl. It is said that those persons did beleeve contradistinguished to them that were disobedient and stumbled at the word: but such are onelyonly the Elect, Ergo. Answ. So did all they that made shipwrack of the faith, 1 Tim. 1.19. So did Simon Magus, Act. 8.13. So did the hearers compared to the rocky ground, Luk. 8.13. And whereas it is said, these believers are contradistinguished to them that were disobedient and stumbled at the word, it fully makes against him; Those disobedient ones, are those that disallow Christ, as we see v. 7. that reject Christ upon tender, that persist in Judaism or Gentilism. All others no… professed Jews nor Gentiles, are in that place beleevers (and in all other Scriptures respective to visible prerogatives) which are all visible church-members.

Reply. It is true some…imes they are termed believers, who are meer visible professors, but here the believers are such as to whom Christ is pretious, and are contradistinguished to them that were disobedient and stumbled …t the word, unto which also they were appointed (which Mr. Bl. did ill to leave out) which shews they were reprobates appointed to perish, and consequently the contradistinguished believers are such as are saved, which cannot be said of them that ma…e shipwrack of the faith, or Simon Magus. Which is confirmed from v. 9, 10. which Mr. Bl. confesseth is understood of the same men, v. 3. and under the same notion a… these, v. 9. the Apostle brings his speech to no full period till v. 11. which reasons are confirmed by the note of Diodat… on 1 Pet. 2.7. It is that precious thing, namely, that precious foundation whereof Isaiah speaks, p. 256which the text leads to, and is verified onelyonly of the elect, to whom alone Christ i… the precious foundation. And the other by the note of Beza on v. 8. Preterea particula foreign adjuncta & quod mox subjicit, vos autem genu… electum nonne manifestam antithesin ostendit rosorum ad d…cus & ad d…deeus conditorum, sicut credentes & immorigeros ante opposuerat? Nor is what is said, that they disallowed Christ, v. 7. any thing against this▪ that they that beleeved, v 7. were true beleevers and elect, any more then it follows all that are meer visible professors are termed beleevers ordained to eternal life, Acts 13.48. because they are contradistinguished to those who re…ected the word of God, and judged themselves unworthy of eternal life, v. 46▪

4. Saith Mr. Bl. They are said to be built as living stones, &c which can agree to none, but elect persons and true beleevers. Answ. That is left out in the quotation of this t…xt, which would wholly spoil the argument, and carry it on the other h…nd; namely those words, to whom comming as unto a living stone. The Apostle shews them the way, and points out the condition called for; which being done, they are then built as living stones: And this implies that it was so with some, but not with others. Here is that which is done by some and and neglected by others, and their happiness upon discharge of their duty; so that if Mr. T. his confidences were not far higher then his arguments, he might well sit down, and fairly acknowledge that these titles are giv…n to visible Church-members.

Repl. Mr. T. his confidences are strengthened by Mr. Bls. slight answers to his arguments. His argument was, They who are said to be built as living sto…es on Christ the living stone, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, they are true beleevers and elect persons. But such are those v. 5. who are termed a holy nation, v. 9. Ergo. The major is proved from this, that these things can agree to no other; the minor from Mr. Bls. own words cited be…ore, that they are the same, v. 3. & 9. the Apostle not bringing his speech to a full period till v. 11. Thus Dr. John Rainold, the… 4. § 24. ap…lies this passage onelyonly to the elect. And Mr. John Geree, Vindic. Vind. calls it a misapplication of 1 Pet 2.5. to the visible Kingdome, which expresly note the spiritual house, ch. 5. pag. 20, New Annot. on v. 5. lively stones] that is, as having life from him. See v. 4. Diodati annot. on 1 Pet. 2.5. Lively stones] namely participating of that foresaid life of Christ; and therefore opposite to the dead stones of the material temple. Are built up] or be ye built up. An holy priesthood] that is to say, a multitude and company of priests. By Jesus] whose perfect righteousness and intercession gaineth all Gods grace to beleevers and to their works. Now what saith Mr. Bl to this? He neither denies major nor minor; But tels us, that those words, to whom comming as unto a living-stone, if they had been cited would wholly spoil the argument, and carry it on the other hand; which is very strange to me, who find those words thus intepreted by the new …nnot. v. 4. Comming] that is by faith▪ See Joh. 6.35. & 5.43, 44, 45. Heb. 10.22. By Diodati, v. 4. To whom] that is to say, being united to the Lord Jesus, and made his members by a lively faith, that they should prove p. 257that the titles 1 Pet 2.5. are given to meer visib…e Church members, as i… any meer visible Church-member did come to Christ as a living stone by a lively faith, and were a living stone, built up a spiritual house, &c. But let's view Mr. Ils reasons. 1. The Apostle shews them the way, and points out the condition called for; which being done, they are then built as living stones. But 1. it is plain that the Apostle speaks of them as built up already, foreign, ye are built up, as our translation best reads it, not as of a thing to be done: and this is confirmed in that v 2. they are said to …e new born babes, ver. 3. to have tasted how gracious the Lord is, ch. 1.22. to have purified their souls, v. 23. to be born again. And for foreign, it may be as well read unto whom being comen, as unto whom comming. And so Piscal. in anal. loci. Argumentorum unum est a pari, videl a vocationis initio, quod significat qu…m ait, eos jam ad Dominum accessisse, id est fide eum recepisse, atque it a super eum adificari caepisse, and therefore notes more then the way and condition called for, even the thing already begun. 2. But had the Apostle shewed onelyonly the way and coodition called for, what had this been to prove that the titles, v. 5. are given to meer visible Church members? Sure nothing at all; for were they comen, or comming, or to come, their comming must have been by faith, and they had not been living stones, built up a spiritual house, nor a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, without a lively faith and election: And therefore neither Mr. Ils. concei… being granted, i… it proved that any oth…r then elect and true beleevers are meant 1 Pet. 2.…. 2. Saith Mr. Bl. And this implies that it was so with some, who did their duty and were happy, but not with others who neglected. But 1. how those words, unto whom comming as unto a living stone, implies the neglect of duty, I am yet to learn: If they did note a condition, yet they could imply onelyonly a possibility of neglect, not that some did neglect. 2. If some did neglect, yet this is nothing to prove that ver. 5. which is said onelyonly of those that did come and so were happy, the titles are given to meer visible professors. The rest of the Chapter is to vindicate himself from what I said, that I ha…dly beleeve any approved Writer joyns with him in his interpretation. To which he saith, 1. It is not like my confidence, who dare affront the body of protestant Divines … Tenents that ex professo they have handled against the Papists. Answ. That I do so is not shewed; that I dare do so when I have truth on my side, is no vice. If Mr. Bls. reasons had been good, his singularity had not been culpable. 2. He would insinuate that in my interpretation I follow Escius and Gerhard, whom I neither have, nor ever made use of about this text. 3. That he hath Mr. Ball, whose book I now have not, and his words cited by Mr. Bl. seem not to speak any thing of 1 Pet. 2.9.10. 4. That A Lapide, is wholly for him, to whom he saith I use to be beholding. But I think the words of A Lapide cited by him, are not clear for him; nor do I use to be beholding to A Lapide, he being an Author I have not, nor do I remember that I have made use of him but in the first part of the Review, § 22. onelyonly about 1 Cor. 7, 14. 5. That Gerhard mentions others that understand 1 Pet. 2.9. of common and general ele…ion. But whether approved Writers p. 258or not, he doth not say, so that my words stand good, notwithstanding Mr. Bls. vindication of himself, his injurious insinuations of me, and his futile arguments and answers about 1 Pet. 2.9.

Mr. Bl. ch. 28. proceeds in proving. That the Covenant of grace in Gospel times admits Christians in profession, in a state of unregeneration, and is not limited in the bounds of it to the elect regenerate▪ And 1. he argues from four terms, beleevers, saints, disciples, christans, which he proves out of Scripture to be g…ven to persons not elect (which is not denied) and they imply a Covenant undeniably: and this he proves from my confession, that the titles men ioned by Peter 1 Pet 2.9. from Moses, argue a people in Covenant, and therefore I am so shie to confess them to belong to visible professors: But those titles are as high as these, and as undeniably implying a Covenant are given to visible professors; those then even according to me are on this account in Covenant with God.

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

2. Mr. Bl. argues from some absurdities. 1. This restriction of the Covenant makes an utter confusion between the Covenant it self and the conditions of it; or the Covenant it self, and the duties required in it; between our entrance into Covenant, and our observation of it, or walking up in faithfulness to it: For there are that enter and keep Covenant with God, Psal. 44.17, 18. Psal. 103.17, 18. And there are those that break Covenant, Psal. 78.10, 37. Jer. 34.18, 19, 20. Levit. 26.2…. Isa. 24.5. Now according to this opinion, regeneration is our entrance into Covenant, and regeneration is our keeping of Covenant; before regeneration we make no Covenant, p. 259after regeneration we break no Covenant, there is no such thing as Covenant breaking: All this makes an utter confusion in the Covenant.

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

The 2d. absurdity Mr. Bl. would fasten on the tenet that the Covenant of grace in Gospel times is limited to the elect, is; that then there is no such thing as an hypocrite in the world, as in reference towards God; For an hypocrite is one that personates the man that he is not, an hypocrite respective to religion and in Scripture use of the phrase, is one that pretends for God, and is not Gods; now according to this opinion, that onelyonly regenerate men are in Covenant, there is no such thing as an hypocrite, no such sin as p. 260hypocrisi; where the Gospel is preached, God makes tender of himself in Covenant, and in case none but regenerate persons enter Covenant, then onelyonly they take upon them the persons of people in relation to him.

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

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

Answ. Paedobaptists do usually plead, that infants are in the Covenant of grace, therefore they are to be baptized. The antecedent can be meant of being in the Covenant of grace no otherwise then by Gods act of promise, to be the God of a believers seed; therefore they make the being in Covenant by Gods act of promise to be a persons God, the rule of baptizing. Now I assert, that God hath not promised to be a God to any man or his seed in respect of Evangelical grace, but the elect. Therefore this absurdity is justly charged on the Paedobaptists, p. 261that according to their hypotheses, no Minister can baptize any infant in fait…. Fo… he must …aptize according to them, onelyonly those infants that are in Covenant, and whom he knowes to be in Covenant; but those infants onelyonly are in Covenant who are elect, and no Minister can know which infant is elect, or in Covenant with God, which not, all infants are not, no not of believers, not all Abrahams, or Isaacs, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Therefore according to this rule no Paedobaptist can baptize any infant in faith, and a judgement of charity Mr. M. Mr. Bl. and others agree and that according to truth, is not it we are to baptize by. So that this absurdity doth unavoidably follow on Paedobaptists opinion, which Mr. Bl. endeavours, but in vain, to fasten on us, who do often disclaim baptizing persons upon their being in Covenant with God by his act of promise to be their God, as our rule; and do continually assert our baptizing persons, because disciples by profession, and by reason of their own covenanting to follow Christ (which Mr. Bl. confesseth to be according to Christs Commission, and the Apostles way in dealing with Heathens) and therefore the absurdity follows not our opinion, but the Paedobaptists, who can baptize no infant by their rule, because they cannot know any infant whom they are to baptize to be in the Covenant of grace. As for Mr. Bls. confession, that our practise is the way of the Apostles in case we would make good that we have to deal with Heathens, I wonder Mr. Bl. a learned man, should require us to make good that which of it self is so manifest. For sure we have to deal with Heathens or with Jews, si…h all the men in the world are either Heathens, that is foreign of the Nations, or Jewes: but me thinks he should not say we have to de…l wi…h Jews, therefore we have to deal with Heathens, and consequently our practise is the way of the Apostles, by Mr. Bls. own confession. To confine the term [heathens] onelyonly to them that are not Christians in name, is indeed according to the vulgar speech, but besides the Scripture use, which Mr. Bl. me thinks in his writing should have followed. But if Mr. Bl. mean i… in the vulgar sense, it is easie to make it good that no Englishman or his child is a Christian till he be made a disciple by preaching the Gospel▪ sith to be a disciple of Chr…st and a Christian are terms of the same sense, Acts. 11.26. Yet in b…ptizing by Christs commission and the Apostles practise, th…re is no difference made between Jews and Heathens, bo…h are to be baptized upon their believing, Mark. 16.16. neither the one nor the other were, or were to be bap…ized by the Apostles, without their own personal profession of faith. Our way then by Mr. Bls. own confession is the way of the Apostles. His co…fession also is true, that our way is of more colour then theirs that set up new Churches, and retain the old baptism, for acknowledging them church members at Bap…ism, and not admitting them as church-members though without scandal, is after their own principles to contradict themselves; and to set up Churches in a congregational way, disclaiming the National and Parochial, and yet to admit infants to Baptism by vertue of Circumcision, and Abrahams covenant and church-gathering, what is it but to dissert that in practise which they plead in dispute, p. 262and to make the frame of the national Church Jewish, the rule of the Christ an Church catholick Nor have Presbyterians any colour for their reformation of Baptism or the Lords supper, if they will stick to their allegations of taking a rule for Baptism from Circumcision, or of the Lords Supper from the Passeover; for, to them all sorts whether ignorant or scandalous were admitted; and if we must retain whom the Jewish Church re…ained as visible church-members, there will be no Ecclesiastical juridica… excommunicat…on for moral miscarriages, there being … …uch among them. As for what Mr. Bl. chargeth the baptized C…urches with, of the unholin…ss of their members▪ though I can say litt…e of those near Mr. Bl. (if there be an) yet I am able to say of some and Mr. Baxter himself hath in print said somewhat of one of the Churches, which might refute this calumny, and I think there are many able to testifie of the holy conversation of many of the Churches of baptized persons, however Mr. Baxter imagines they in the end prove wicked. However, we do neither in practise nor opinion maintain such impure Churches of ignorant and vicious persons as Mr. Bl. Vindic. Faed. ch. 47. doth, and Presbyterians commonly do: Nor is it likely, the worst of the baptized Churches should be worse then the ordinary sort of the Paedobaptists Churches of Mr. Bls. way.

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

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

Answ. His not denying Tit. 2.14. to … pregnant▪ and being alledged by me as the parallel place to 1 Pet. 2.9. confirms m… restriction of the titles there used …o …he regenerate. And …e thin…s the promises, Revel. 21.3, 4. That God would be their God with them, that he would wipe away all tears from their eys, there should be no more death, nor crying, nor labour, should be sufficient to prove the people of God there meant to be onelyonly the regenerate. And me thinks Matth. 1.21. & 2.6▪ Luke 1.17, 68, p. 26377. & 2.32. & 7.16. Acts 15.14. & 18.10. Rom. 9.25. & 11.1▪ & 15.10▪ 2 Cor. 6.16. Heb. 4, 9▪ & 8.10. 1 Pet. 2.10. Revel. 18.4. the term [my people or Gods people] should be restrained to the elect.

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

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

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

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

The 3d he all…dgeth is Revel. 18.4. where all professors of faith are included in that exhortation, and so all Ministers are to press it ▪ B…t though it wer… the duty of all, yea of them that were n…t professors of f…ith, to qui… Babylon; yet the invitation is a fruit of Gods special care by a voice from heaven, and therefore is more …hen an exhortation to a p. 264commoh duty, to wit, a special effectual call, whereby Gods people, that is his elect ones; shall be brought out of Babylon as Lot out of Sodom, and is to be conceived of the elect onelyonly, not of hypocritical professors of faith. So that Mr. Bl. hath not brought one Text out of the New Testament, in which [Gods people] is applied to meer visible professors; and yet if these had served his turn, his assertion had been false, as is shewed by the number of places wherein [Gods people] is limited to the elect.

Another objection is out of Jer. 31.31, 32, 33. which he saith is set up against all New Testament light, to prove that none must be of the called of God in…o Covenant, for fruition of Church priviledges, but those …hat are r…generate: Men in Old Testament Covenan… broke Covenant, as is there exprest; men in th… new Covenant shall keep Covenanant, and these are onelyonly the elect and regenerate.

Answ. The Text joyned with Heb 8.6, 7, 8, 9, 10. proves that God makes his new Covenant with none but those who keep it, who are the elect onelyonly. I prod…ce it not to prove (as Mr. Bl. suggests of some) that none must be of the called of God into Covenant, for fruition of Church priviledges, but those that are regenerate; nor to prove …hat none shall enter Covenant and transgress it ▪ that the Covenant that now is, is not in any possibility to be transgrest: but to prove, that no…e to whom God makes his new Covenant do break it; which the Author to the Hebrews doth affirm, in that he differences this from the former Covenant, that the former was faulty, or occasioned God to complain that it was broken; but this is such as that to take away occasion of complaint for breach of it, God makes provision by better promises, that it shall not be broken by those to whom it is made. Nor doth it hence follow, as Mr. Bl. speaks (this being the characteristical difference) that as none in New Testament times enter Covenant, but they keep Coven…nt; so none in Old Testament times were in Covenant, but did transgress it: For we do not say as he perverts the position, that none in New Testament times enter Covenant but they keep Covenant; we know many have by their profession and baptism entred into Covenant, and have no… kept i…: but this we say, that God mak…s with none his new Covenant, whether in New Testament times, or in Old Testament times, but they do keep it; and that this is the characteristi…al difference between the Old and New Covenant (not Old and New Testament times) which are in the Epistle to the Romanes and Galatians called the Law and the Promises; that the one might be and was broken, yet the other is and shall be kept by those to whom it is made, because of Gods undertaking to write his Laws in their hearts. As for an outward Covenant made by God distinct from these and yet in force, it is Mr. Bls. figment as Mr. B. hath proved in his Apol. against Mr. Bl. pag. 66, 67, …03, &c. As for the answers, 1. that the Covenant, Jer. 3….31, 31, 33. is not a Covenant …roperly so called, it is refuted before, Sect. 33. as I remember. 2. That it is not the whole of the Covenant. But if it be but a part, it is made onelyonly to the elect, the other part whatever it be being made to none other. 3. If the new Covenant be another Covenant, then there must be two distinct Gospel Covenants. p. 265But this is said upon …he mi…take refuted Sect. 43. that the Covenant at Mount Sinai with the Jews was the Gospel Covenant. I have again viewed pag. 105, 106, 107. of Mr. Bls. answer to my Letter, and do not find any explication of the promises Jer. 31.31, 32, 33. which may sh…w that the promises there are made to any but the elect; nor do I find an explication of them, whereby to know how he would have them understood, but of the term [new Covenant] which he would have understood as if it were meant onelyonly of a clearer explication of the old Covenant not well understood before, as Joh. 13.34. the new commandment is a clearer explication then was formerly. But neither is true: For the new commandment Joh. 13.34. is not so called from a new explication, but a new motive, his own example, as the very words shew: And the new Covenant is so called, Jer. 31.31, 32, 33. not from a clearer explic…tion, bu… better promises, Heb. 8.6. And I still profess, that I find not that Mr. Bls. answer is quit from enervating the argument for effectual grace and perseverance in it, sith he makes the Covenant to be to the non-elect; nor doth he demonstrate, that I cannot bui…d effectual grace and perseverance on that text, making it a distinct Covenant from the first, without the o…erthrow of effectual g…ace and perseverance in Old Testam…nt times. Thus much for answer to those three Chapters of Mr. Bl. he that would see more of Mr. Bls. mistakes about the Covenant, may read Mr. Baxters Book afore quoted.