Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 75

Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3 · Section 75

p. 565SECT. LXXV. My Arguments to prove the ingraffing Rom. 11.17. to be into the invisible Church by giving faith, are vindicated from Mr. Bls. exceptions Vind. …aed. chap. 38. and Mr. Sidenham's Exercit. chap. 8, 9.

ALthough Mr. Bls. manner of disputing hath been shewed to bee such as requires not any full answer, and would learned men compare, as men that sought truth, mine and his writings together, they would perceive the insufficiency of his reply, yet because I perceive some learned men do yet value his writings (without good reason) which oppose mine, I shall add somewhat more to shew how short his writings are of weakening any thing of mine.

Vindic. …aed. ch. …8. sect. 1. Having made an analasis of part of Rom. 11. from v. 16. he takes on him to ground several undeniable positions. The third is the root of this tree (viz. the first supreme universal root) is Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not Abraham alone so Ishmaelites would bee of the body. Nor Abraham with Isaac alone, so the Edomites from Esau would have been taken in. But the Apostle in this Chapter (from Old Testament authority) excludes both of these, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are therefore joyntly the root.

Answ. 1. That Abraham onelyonly is the root meant Rom. 11.16, 17, 18. I prove from Rom. 4.11, 12, 16. where Abraham onelyonly and no other of the Patriarchs is termed the Father of believers. But to bee the root Rom. 11.16, 17, 18. is all one with the Father of believers. That the root notes a Father Mr. Bl yeilds, that it notes not barely a natural father, is proved in that the Gentiles should not be in that root, if it not…d barely a natural father, and that believers onelyonly are branches of that root is proved from the text. 1. In that their standing is by faith. 2. That by unbelief some were broken off, vers. 20. which do plainly prove that they who were branches were believers, who were unbelievers were not branches. 3. That the partaking of the root could bee no otherwise then by faith, nor any other way ingraffing can bee meant is manifest▪ in that the Gentiles (who had no other relation to Abraham as a father then by believing as hee did) partake of the root and are ingraffed into the Olive. Secondly, To Master Bls. Argument, I answer by denying that the Apostle doth in that Chapter or any other exclude the Ismaelites or Edomites from the body. Job, and other believing Edomites were in the root and Olive. Yea if it were meant of the visible Church and natural descent, Ishmael and Esau must be of the body who were of Abraham by natural descent and circumcised, and so visible Churchmembers. If Mr. Bl. deny they were in the body, because they were not of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by this reason Isaac and Jacob should be excluded. p. 566For they were not from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: they were not from themselves and yet were branches, and consequently they were not the root, but Abraham alone, the root noting such a Father as from whom all branches have descent.

His fifth position is, the fatness of this tree is the glory of ordinances, of which the whole Church partakes. Answ. By ordinances hee means outward ordinances, as Baptism, the Lords Supper, preaching the word, &c. By the whole Church hee means the Church visible. For that is his tenet all along, that the olive tree is the Church visible, not the inv…sible. This is then Mr. Bls. position, that when it is said Rom. 11.17. and wast partaker together of the root and fatness of the olive tree, the meaning is, thou Gentile Church or believer art made partaker of outward ordinances of which the whole Church partakes. Now under the whole visible Church he undoubtedly comprehends infants, and sure there is no ordinance of which infants are partakers according to Mr. Bls. tenet but Baptism, so that then the Apostle according to Mr. Bls. exposition, should mean no more by the fatness of the tree, of which the whole Church partakes, but Baptism. Which is of it self so manifestly frivolous an exposition, as that I shall not need of set purpose to refute it. Though, it is true, there is a glory and beauty in the ordinances of the new Testament: Yet first some of them, as the preaching of the Gospel (which is the most glorious) those that are out of the visible Church may partake of, and those wh…ch Mr. Bl. counts within may not partake of, I mean infants and some others. Secondly, that fatness which is meant Rom. 11.17. passeth from the root to the tree, and thence to the branches, and therefore he that is said to bee partaker of the fatness of the olive tree, is first said to bee partaker of the root, but be the root Abraham or as Mr. Bl. would have it Isaac and Jacob with him ordinances pass not from them. It is true Circumcision was first begun in Abraham, but all the rest of the Jewish ordinances are according to Scripture rather derived from Moses then Abraham, and to say they were partakers of the root, that is of Circumcision (which was the onelyonly ordinance Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did partake of) is both false, for they were not circumcised; and being so empty a thing as that it's termed with all the Jewish ordinances, a shadow Col. 2.17. Heb. 10.1. it had no glory then at all. And for Baptism, the Lords Supper, &c. they passed not from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; nor were they partakers of them, but were instituted by Christ in the New Testament. Thirdly, the partaking of the root and fatness of the olive tree was by the ingraffing and consequent of it. But the ingraffing according to Mr. Bl. doth not make them partakers of outward ordinances. For the chief of ordinances, to wit, the preaching of the Gospel, was the instrument of their ingraffing, as his own allegation shewes pag. 278. from Acts 11.21. and so was antecedent to the ingraffing, nor by the ingraffing were they partakers of the other outward ordinances. For though the heart were wrought to a professed subjection to the way of God in ordinances (which is Mr. Bls. ingraffing) and so ingraffed. Yet they might bee never partakers p. 567of outward ordinances such as Baptism and the Lords Supper, if either sickness or death prevented the administration or want of an administratour, or the elements, &c. hindered. Fourthly, the fatness of the olive tree makes the partakers fresh and fruitful. But that is not outward ordinances, but the spirit of God, righteousness by faith, &c. of which I shall speak more in vindicating my fourth argument.

Mr. Bl. saith farther, That the holiness Rom. 11.16. is such as is communicable from parent to childe, that is, necessarily communicated, as a root communicates to branches. This is so plain, that if it be denied all the Apostles dispute falls.

Answ. It is true, that if the holiness bee not communicated from Abraham to all his children by faith, who are believers as he was, the Apostles dispute fals, but the Apostles dispute holds though it bee not communicated to every childe of every believing father, which is Mr. Bls. conceit, as his following words shew. Yea hence is a good argument to prove the holiness not to bee meant of meer visible Churchmembership, nor the root of every parent professing faith, because many of their children are never Christian visible Churchmembers, as experience abundantly proves, and so have not this holiness communicated to them. Yea, Mr. Bl. saith, who knowes not that holy fathers have unholy children? regenerate parents have issue unregenerate? I may add, abortives, natural fools, still-born, bred up in Mahometanism, renegado's, unbaptised, excommunicated, and consequently not visible Churchmembers or federally holy. And it is most false in this holiness of visible Churchmembership, or as Mr. Bl. cals it federal that the proposition holds, as is the Father so is the childe, the Father being without the childe is without; the Father being within the childe is within in regard of Church estate, Covenant holiness, eo nomine, because a branch of such a root, a childe of such a Father; which Mr. Bl. dictates here, but proves not, and hath been often refuted by me, nor is there any thing in Rom. 11.16. for it. Yea Mr. Bls. own interpretation overthrowes this position. For if the root bee (as his position is) Abraham, Isaac and Jacob] then it is not every believing Father, and if the root bee every believing Father then all the branches of the tree are natural, and they derive their holiness by descent of nature, whereas it is plain from the text (and Mr. Bls. fourth position is to the same purpose) that the Jews onelyonly are natural branches, the Gentiles are all ingraffed branches.

Mr. Cuthbert Sidenham in his exercit. ch. 8. takes upon him to demonstrate holiness and Churchmembership of the children of believing Gentiles from Rom. 11.15, 16, 17. and to answer my arguments ch. 9. Against my opinion of the ingraffing into the invisible Church he urgeth, then persons may be broken off from the invisible Church, and takes notice of my answer in my Examen p. 64. but saith nothing to my answer in my Apology p. 76. though he could not but know of it, taking on him to answer my arguments in the next pages before. The rest he brings is from Mr. B. and is answered by me in my Review part. 1. sect. 6. &c. I agree with him in the position, that Abraham is the root meant Rom p. 56811.16. and that he is a root exemplary onelyonly, nor do I deny that the Apostles arguing is from a special prerogative to Abraham to whom the promise was given Gen. 17.7. and that the promise did comprehend the elect of his natural seed, and that God had a more special regard to his natural seed in that promise then to other men… natural seed: yet not universally to his seed, nor is it true that the Apostle makes the branches holy Rom. 11.16. by a prerogative of grace grounded on the promise of God made to believing Fathers and their seed▪ which is the same in the New Testament and the Old, as hee urgeth out of Dr Willet. For there is not that promise in the New Testament, or old. And therefore the Argument upon this conceit can have no strength in it.

Pag. 71. he layes down this position, Wee believing Gentiles are ingraffed into Abrahams Covenant in the room of the natural branches which were broken off.

Concerning which I say, that though I deny not the believing Gentiles to have interest in Abrahams Covenant Gen. 17.7. that is, God is their God, and they have righteousness by faith as Abraham had: yet the Apostle doth not speak of their ingraffing into Abrahams Covenant, that …s Mr. Sidenhams mistake, but into the olive tree, that is as Mr. Bl. the whole body of the Church, which he would have meant of the visible, I of the invisible. Now to Mr. Sidenhams arguments to that position; I yeeld the conclusion of the first, that believing Gentiles and their children are graffed in, but not all, or any as their children, and that the ingraffing is sutable to the breaking off, that is, that as the Jewes and their children were broken off from the invisible Church, in which the elect Jewes and their children who were elect in former ages were for the greatest part, so the Gentiles believers and their children are graffed in. Yet Mr. Sidenham himself pag. 75. confesseth a very great disproportion, taking it as he doth for ingraffing into the visible Church.

For, saith he, there is this difference between the conveyance of priviledges of the Jewes as natural branches, and the engraffed Gentiles; That the whole body of the Jewes good and bad, were called branches; now onelyonly believers of the Gentiles, who are called by the Gospel, with their children, are ingraffed into that root. Which is enough to shew that the Gentiles were not ingraffed into the root or tree, as the Jews by natural descent, but by calling of the Gospel, and that the body of the Gentiles or any nation of the Gentiles is not ingraffed, but so many as are called. The ingraffing of the infant children with their parents into the visible Church by an outward ordinance is but his own dream, and is overthrown by this, that the Church Christian visible is not by descent but calling; not national but Congregational, by voluntary Covenant; nor can the Churches called Independent hold this, which Master Sidenham, and Master Cobbet, and others of their way hold, that the ingraffing of the Gentiles into the visible Church is sutable to that of the Jewes as being in their stead, but they must hold a national Church, whi…h quite overturns the p. 569frame of their Churches, and the Reformation they contend for. To his second argument, the some that were broken off might be parents and children, or parents and not children, or children and not parents; and of these there might be infants broken off without their own sin, or their parents, according to Gods good pleasure onelyonly. But of this I have said enough in answer to Mr. Geree and Mr. Baxter, in the first part of this Review, sect. 4, 6. The conclusion of the third argument is granted, understood of ingraffing into the Church invisible, not into the visible. To the fourth, that [the fatness of the Olive] should note priviledges and outward advantages such as this, that the child should be visible Churchmember with the father in the Christian Church, or that any other parent then Abraham should have a seminal vertue to convey such Church priviledge or fatness as the root mentioned Rom. 11.17. is a meer fancy; nor is there any thing Ephes. 3.6. or any where else in Scripture for it.

To the objection, That now believers are onelyonly branches, Abraham onelyonly the roote, and therefore the argument holds not, If the parent be holy so is the childe, being understood of other then Abraham and his seed; hee answers, That yet the branches well ingraffed become natural branches, and receive as much from the roote as those which grew naturally on it, so Gentile believers must have the same priviledge, and that there are sprigges which grow out of branches which may bee termed immediate rootes. But hee doth not shew that the Apostle or any wise man ever termed greater boughes of trees rootes to lesser; neither dare hee say, the Apostle meant every believing Father by the root, Rom. 11.16. and therefore all this is impertinent to answer the objection, which was to invalidate the inference concerning the holiness of every believers infant, because the Apostle saith, if the roote bee holy so are the branches, because Abraham onelyonly is the roote there. As for Mr. Bls. saying, I value it not, it being without Scripture. It's sufficient for present to shew the insufficiency of Mr Bls. and Mr. Ss. proofes. I pass on to vindicate my arguments from their pretended answers.

How the Dispute concerning the proof from Rom. 11.16, 17. for infants of believing Gentiles visible Churchmembership and Baptism, was brought to this issue, Whether the ingraffing Rom. 11.17. into the Olive tree, be meant of joyning a person to the invisible Church of the elect by giving faith according to electon, so that none are ingraffed but true believers or elect persons as I assert, is shewed in the first part of this Review ▪ sect. 1. Mr. Bl. and Mr. Sydenham take on them to answer my arguments.

The first is, That act of ingraffing to the Church which is made Gods act by his sole power with such an Emphasis as implies it hopeless and impossible without the intervention of his omipotency, is, and can be no other ingraffing then into the invisible Church by giving of faith according to election. But such is the ingraffing Rom. 11.17. as appears from v. 23. Ergo.

Mr. Sydenham answers, that to argue from Gods power to his will, or p. 570to election, or from his power in general to the putting it forth absolutely in such a determinate act, is strange, unsound in Divinity, and reason. But this is no answer. For there is no such arguing made by me. My arguing is none of those ways he mentions, but from the ascribing the act to God as done by his sole power, without which it were hopeless and impossible, to prove that it is more then man by his ordinary power can do, which can in this business be no other then the working of faith in the heart. And this the Contraremonstrants thought sound arguing in the conference at the Hague, and so do generally pleaders for irresistable conversion. And Mr. Sydenham makes it like to the resurrection of the dead, from v. …5. which sure no act of man can perform. But admission to the visible Church may be performed by men, therefore the ingraffing cannot be admission into the visible Church, but an higher act of giving faith according to election.

But saith he, It is a work of mighty power to take away the prejudice against Christ, in Jews and Gentiles, to bring to outward confession. To which I reply, it is no such work but may be done by moral suasion of Orators or Preachers, specially backt with the encouragement and commands of Kings and Emperours, as experience hath often shewed, therefore this cannot be all which is meant by the ingraffing.

But saith he, It will require an act of power to gather them but visibly once again, and bring them into one entire body to make a visible Church, when they are so scattered up and down all nations. To which I reply, 1. The gathering them together into one place, is not ingraffing them into the visible Church; for ingraffing them imports joyning them to others, but this gathering is a making them a distinct body of themselves; the gathering into one place is accidental to their ingraffing i… to their own Olive, he ingraffing may be without it; and if they go together, it is likely the ingraffing will be before that gathering, and therefore that gathering and this ingraffing cannot be the same. 2. That gathering may be by the power and favour of Emperors and Kings, as it was by Cyrus his Proclamation heretofore in their return to Jerusalem, and therefore is not this act of ingraffing which is ascribed to God by his sole power with such an Emphasis as implies it un…easable but by his omnipotency.

Mr. Bl. saith, that I do vainly make this engraffing to be in their sense▪ no more then baptizing. But 1. whether I wrong my Antagonists, may be perceived from Mr. Ms. words in his Def…nce, p. 135. To what I said, the Jews infants were graffed in by Circumcision; therefore ours are to be ingraffed by Baptism. You answer, by demanding whether in good sadness I do think the Apostle here means by graffing in, baptizing, or circumcision, or insition by outward ordinances; for if that were the meaning, then breaking off must be meant of uncircumcising, or unbaptizing. To which I reply, that in good sober sadness I do think that graffing in is admission into visible membership, or visible communion with the Church of Christ; and that the external seal of their visible graffing in was Circumcision, and of ours Baptism. And he disputes against the ingraffing into the invisible Chu…ch, therefore he can understand it of no more then baptizing. 2. Nor p. 571can Mr. Bl. conformably to his tenet. For if the ingraffing be such a… is common to infants and parents, and it be admission into the visible Church of both, and infants are no way else admitted then by baptizing, the ingraffing is no other.

But, saith he, We understand a discipling of Gentile nations, working the heart to a professed subjection to the way of God in ordinances tendered, and assent of heart unto all that is there promised, and acknowledge it a work above the power of man, and confess it to be solely in the hand of God, as Gen. 9.27. Acts. 1.21. We do not speak of the bare admission of one that stands intituled, but the working of them to such a title; and if an outward profession bee in the power of mans will, yet to bring men or nations to such a profession cordially to embrace the Gospel so farre as to assent to the truth of it, is above man, and a worke of no such ease.

I reply, 1. If it be not bare admission, but such a work as he saith, then infants are none of the branches ingraffed, nor doth the ingraffing belong to them, sith they have onelyonly bare admission into the visible Church by Baptism. 2. If the profession be onelyonly from fear, or carnal hopes, this may be wrought by Teachers, Orators, especially the favour and power of Princes concurring, and then it is no act above mans power to ingraff. But if the heart be brought to assent cordially, and so to profess Christ in sincerity (as some of Mr. Bls. words seem to mean) then it is by giving faith according to election, and the ingraffing into the invisible Church: And so Mr. Bl. while he seems to answer my argument, doth unawares confirm it, through the irrefragable force of the truth. Which might have been further cleared from the Text, Rom. 11.23. where it is said, they also if they abide not in unbelief shall be graffed in, for God is able to graff them in again. Whence it follows, while they abide in unbelief they are not graffed in, when they believe they are; Ergo, God ingraffs by giving faith according to election.

My second argument was from v. 15, 16, 17. where the ingraffing is termed reconciliation opposite to casting away.

To this Mr. Sydenham answers, 1. If I mean reconciliation in the strictest sense, as it denotes pardon of sins, and being made friends with God by Christs atonement and mediatorship, then many absurdities may follow: 1. That the Jews and their rejection was the ground of the Gentiles? reconciliation unto God. 2. That no reconciliation was obtained for the Gentiles before the Jews were broken off. 3. That those which are reconciled and their sins pardoned, may be cast off; for so were the Jews and the Gentiles threatned with the same misery on the same ground.

Answ. 1. If by [ground] be meant [cause,] I deny that to follow on the exposition of reconciliation in the strictest sense; if by [ground] be meant onelyonly [occasion] I grant it follows, but count it no absurdity, it being the plain d…claration of the Apostle. 2. I grant the second, … understood of the fulness or body of the Gentiles, and count it no absurdity; after the time of Gods separating of Israel to be his people, there were onelyonly some proselytes reconciled to God, but no full and ample number, so as to make any numerous Church of themselves. 3. p. 572The third I yeeld as no absurdity, understanding the casting off of the same people, not the same persons, from what their ancestors were, not themselves.

But Mr. S. answers 2ly. by distinction of reconciliation into ou…ward and inward, and he would have it meant of outward reconciliation, by bringing them in under the means of the Gospel and the outward dispensation, of the Church, which is Gods common way to salvation, and is to some effectual to inward grace, unto others onelyonly to outward privil…dges.

Answ. 1. This reconciliation would exclude infants, for they are not so reconciled and consequently not ingraffed, and so the argument for their ingraffing hence is evacuated, if the reconciliation (which is confessed to be the same with the ingraffing) be such as agrees not to infants. 2. He doth noth not so much as offer to produce one place of Scripture in which reconciliation is so taken, nor one approved writer so expounding it. 3. Nor can it be expounded so. For it is no reconciliation at all which he describes. In reconciliation there is still taking away enmity, but in the bringing under the meanes of the Gospel there may be no taking away of enmity, either from them to God, for they may hate him as much, yea more then before; or from God to them, for he may ha…e them as much or more then before. 4. Nor in this place can it be the meaning. For the reconciliation of the world, v. 15. is v. 1…. the riches of the world, of the Gentiles. But their riches imports something opposite to their fall, diminishing, or detriment; and their fall must be to damnation, for it is v. 11. opposed to salvation, their riches must needes therefore bee to salvation, so termed vers. 11.

But, saith he, The body of the Gentile world (which I mean) are not so reconciled as by election and saving grace, though the sound of the Gospel hath gone through all the world.

Answ. The body of the Gentiles, that is a full ample part of them incomparably greater then the number of the proselytes to the Jewish Church is reconciled, and hath been for many ages to God by election and saving grace.

Mr. Bl. also answers by distinction of reconciliation gradual, either to take in, or hold a people in visible communion; or total, to receive them with an everlasting delight in them. The former he exemplifies out of Exod. 32.10, 11, 12, 13, 14. And thus applies it. Reconcilia…ion is opposite to casting away. The Jews then by reconciliation are brought into that state, out of which they were once cast; but they were not cast out of the Church invisible; not out of election and justification, but out of a visible Churchstate and fellowship. Breaking off, as Mr. T. well saith, is the same as casting away, and reconciliation the same as ingraffing. Their reconciliation or ingraffing is then into that condition from which they were broken, out of which they were cast; now they were cast out of the Church visible, not out of the Church invisible; when they were in a Churchstate they were nigh unto God, Deut. 4.7. Psal. 148.14. Ephes. 2.17. Their reconciliation p. 573brings them into the same Churchstate, which is a reconciliation gradual not total.

Answ. The casting away v. 15. is the same with the casting away v. 1, 2. which is opposite to Gods fore-knowledge v. 2. to the election of grace v. 5. which obtained, and the castaway were hardned or blinded v. 7, 8, 9, 10. which he that understands of any other casting away then from the grace of election, and effectual calling, and the invisible Church seems to me to pervert the Apostles meaning very grosly. Nor do I conceive it any absurdity to say that the Jewish people in Pauls time were broken off or cast away from that election, and state in the invisible Church which they never had in their own persons, but their ancestors had, and they in course had obtained but for their unbelief. As for the reconciliation in all places where he mentions it in his Epistles, hee means it of that reconciliation which is by effectual conversion, and justification, through Christs death, on which followes salvation, Rom. 5.10, 11. 2 Cor. 5.18, 19, 20. Col. 1.22. and not of Mr. Bls. gradual reconciliation, of which hee hath not brought one instance for the use of the word in his sense, nor is his example any thing like to the business in hand: For it was not a reconciliation so as to bring them to the priviledges of a visible Churchstate, but so to pardon the sin of worshipping the golden Calf, as not utterly to destroy that people, though the sinners fell in the Wilderness: which was onelyonly an abatement of punishment, not an estating in priviledges as Mr. B. would have it.

But Mr. Bl. to my urging any one to shew mee in Scripture or any approved Protestant Writer, such use of the word reconciliation as his is, and my alledging Protestant approved Writers for my exposition, thus saith.

1. When Mr. T. pleaseth, hee can heap up phrases which are onelyonly once used in a select sense in Scripture, and that to uphold his interpretation of holy and unclean, 1 Cor. 7.14. when the context clearly evinces the contrary. But that this is false, and that the text clearly evinceth my interpretation is fully proved in the first part of this Review. Section 22, &c.

Secondly, sai…h hee, Master T when hee pleases, dare undertake the defence of an opinion held unanimously by all Papists, and as unanimously opposed by Protestants, as in that of Covenant holiness.

But this also is another of Master Bls. calumnies and unbrotherly taunts which hee frequently useth instead of answers, and if there had been in him any candour of minde towards mee he had been satisfied with my answer in my postscript, Sect. 13. But sith hee writes against me in a Cynical humour, I pass by his snarlings, and leave the cause to the Lord.

Thirdly, saith he, Gomarus, T…m. 1. p. 111. observes that world is taken in tha… sense, in Rom. 11.12, 15. as in no other Scripture. But I think this is not true, it is taken in the same sense 1 Tim. 3.16. and I think 2 Cor. 5.18, 19. 1 Joh. 2.2.

Fourthly, saith he, if recontiliation in no other place be so used, yet little is p. 574gained; seeing as wee have seen there are paralel phrases that hold out the same thing to us.

Answ. 1. Those paralel phrases were never yet seen by me. 2. The thing is gained which is here contended for, if reconciliation still signifie total reconciliation in the Scripture when it speakes of Gospel reconciliation, and there is no cogent reason to move us to recede from that sense here, and reconciliation be the same with ingraffing, surely ingraffing is by giving faith according to election, and the Church into which the ingraffing is, is the invisible.

Mr. Bl. produceth a speech of Ravanelius (which I have not) for his sense. But the words as hee produceth th…m seem not to mee to have that sense which Mr. Bl. alledgeth them for, but rather my sense, and a passage in the Annotations, and another in Dr. Featley the Author of them on those Epistles. But in neither doth Dr. Featley say by the reconciliation to God Rom. 11.15. is meant bare vouchsafing a visible Churchstate; and by c…sting away, and breaking off a loss of visible priviledges, nor do Peter Martyr or Euc…r say so. And however I finde Protestant Writers do expound the ingraffing and breaking off in many of their writings of the visible Church, yet those speeches which I alledged out of Mr. Ball and Dr. Ames are full to prove the reconciliation Rom. 11.15. to be saving, and they that understand by breaking off there, more then the loss of visible priviledges, may notwithstanding Mr. Bls. censure without any shift in that point be acquitted from Arminianism.

My third arg. was from v. 20. ingraffing must be by giving faith, because it is by faith that the branch stands in the tree. To this Mr. S. and Bl. both answer by granting the conclusion, that it is by giving faith. But this faith Mr. S. makes profession of faith, Mr. Bl. a faith of profession.

To which I reply. 1. If it were faith professed by which the branches stand in the tree, yet infants are excluded from being of the branches, for they stand not by faith professed. 2. That it is not profession of faith, or faith barely dogmatical which is meant Rom. 11.20. I prove 1. thus. That standing which is a perseverance unto salvation is not by bare profession of faith, but true justifying faith. But the standing Rom. 11.20. is that stand…ng which is a perseverance unto salvation, ergo. The major is manifest; for it is not a bare profession of faith whereby a man perseveres to salvation, but that which is justifying. The minor is plain from the text. The standing which is opposed to falling in which God shews his severity, is standing by perseverance unto salvation. This I presume will be yeilded, direct opposite termes being according to Logick rules to bee understood in a direct opposite sense. But the standing Rom. 1….20. is opposed to falling in which God shews his severity vers. 2…. Ergo. 2. The standing which was to bee prevented by beeing not high minded but fearing, and the losing of which was to bee feared, is not a bare standing in the visible Church, nor by bare profession of faith, But the loss of the standing was to be feared, and to be prevented by not being high minded but p. 575fearing, v. 20. For the loss of standing in the visible Church needs not bee so much feared, and a less care would serve turn to prevent it. 3. That standing which would not prevent Gods not sparing, is not the standing meant Rom. 11.20. For that would prevent Gods not sparing, v. 21. But the standing onelyonly in the visible Church by profession of faith, would not prevent Gods not sparing, Matt. 7.23. Ergo. 4. That faith and standing are meant here, which in o…her places in that and other Epistles are meant by the Apostle, when hee speakes of the same thing. But in those places standing so as to persevere to salvation, and justifying faith are meant, as Rom. 5.2. and 14.4. 2 Cor. 1.24. Ergo. 5. That standing and that faith is not meant of which it may bee said the root beareth them not, verse 18. But of them who onelyonly stand in the visible Church by a profession of faith, it may bee said the root beareth them not. For the roo… is Abraham, and hee is a root or father to none but those who have justifying faith, Rom. 4.11, 12. Ergo. 6. By that faith the branches stand which is directly opposite to the unbelief by which others were broken off, vers. 20. But that was unbelief of heart, and not of mouth onelyonly, ergo, the faith is in the heart, and not in the mouth onelyonly by which the branches stand. 7. That …aith the branches stand by v. 20. by which they are partakers of the root and fatness of the Olive. But that is justifying faith, as shall be shewed in the vindication of the next argument, Ergo.

Mr. S. takes upon him to prove it meant of the visible Church by profession of faith by some of Master …s. arguments, which because they are answered already in the first Part of this Review, Sect. 6, &c. I let pass: onelyonly whereas hee saith, Can any man conceive that they should boast because the branches the Jewes were broken from election and true faith, that they might be graffed in by a new act of God… election, and by true and saving faith?

I answer, though they might not thus boast, yet they might boast that God having broken off the Jews, had in their stead ingraffed them, by giving saving faith according to his eternal election.

And to what hee saith from v. 20, 21, 22, 23. What, are they exhort…d to look least they bee cut off from Gods election, &c? Will M. T. turn a downright Arminian, that hee may have any plea against the baptising of poor infants?

I answer, 1. that I scarse think that scribler did well know what Arminianism was, and that I have sufficiently acquit…ed my self from that which is indeed Arminianism, and better then his magnified Aurthor Mr. B. 2. That …e might with as good reason impeach the Apostle of downright Arminianism, in that he exhorts us to give all diligence that we make our calling and election sure, 2 Pet. 1.10.

Mr. Bl. when he cannot untie this knot, endeavours to cut it asunder by this assertion, after many words which need no answer; That there is no such thing in all Scripture as ingraffing into the Church invisible by faith; all ingraffing is into the body visible, and therefore by a faith of profession. And yet his three first arguments whereby hee would p. 576prove this proposi…ion, do conclude no ingraffing but into Christ, and consequently neither into the invisible nor visible, which is directly to contradict his own saying, All ingraffing is into the body visible. But let's view his proofs about this position con…erning which it pleaseth Mr. Bl. to enter into the lists with me.

1. Saith hee, All ingraffing is into that subject, which immediately receives what is ingraffed, as the stock receives the syens, but it is CHRIST, and not the Church invisible that receives the elect believer; Christ dwels in us by faith, so wee in Christ, Ephes. 3.17.

Answ. …his argument is made by Mr. Bl as if hee on purpose meant to refute himself. For 1. he wou…d prove there is no ingraffing of elect believers into the invisible Church but into Christ, because hee onelyonly receives the elect believers; which if true it would follow; First, that elect believers are not ingraffed into the visible Church, but onelyonly non-elect professours of faith who are hypocrites, and so the visible Church should have no elect ones in it, but all reprobates. Secondly, i… the reason were good there should bee no ingraffing of prof…ssors of faith into the visible Church contrary to his assertion, that all ingraffing is into the body visible. For it is Christ that immediately receives, that is owns or acknowledgeth bare professours of faith as visible Churchmembers, as well as he receives, that is owns and acknowledgeth as his invisible members, them who are ingraffed into his invisible body. 3. If wee be ingraffed by that faith by which Christ dwels in us and we in Christ, Ephes. 3.17. then we are ingraffed into the olive by that …aith which is justifying (for by no other …aith doth Christ dwell in us nor wee in him, nor is any other meant Ephes. 3.17. as is apparent from the text, the prayer of the Apostle being not for a bare dogmatical faith, which they had already, but justifying, persevering, whereby Christ might dwell in their hearts by his spirit, &c.) and the ingraffing is into Christ, and consequently into the invisible Church. But so it is by Mr. Bls. argument, ergo.

2. I answer ingraffing is a metaphor and it notes uniting or joyning, and this joyning is not natural but spiritual or moral, and may bee at a remote bodily distance, and without the knowledge of those to whom the person is ingraffed, and may be to Christ, and to his invisible body or visible, without any act of the Church visible or invisible which may bee termed receiving; yea if Mr. Bs. position bee right, Plain Script. proof, &c. part. 1. ch. 27. that a man living alone in America may yet bee a member of the visible Church. For hee hath that which constituteth him a visible member though there bee none to discern it, a man may bee ingraffed into the Church visible though neither hee know any other Churchmember, nor any other know him, and therefore I deny Mr. Bls. major proposition in his argumen…, if understood (as it must be if it be to the purpose) of that metaphorical ingraffing which is Rom. 11.17, &c.

2 Saith he, All ingraffin… is into that which gives sap and juyce to the ingraffed, as the stock from the root to the syens; now Christ gives sap to the p. 577elect believing, not the Church; and therefore it is not into the Church, but into Christ.

Answ. 1. This argument also gainsays Mr. Bls. proposition▪ that all ingraffing is into the body visible; for it is not the body visible that gives sap to the elect believing, or professors of faith, but Christ; and therefore by this argument there is no ingraffing into the body visible. 2. Christ onelyonly gives sap and juice effectively, Abraham exemplarily; the Church doth it onelyonly as a vessel receiving it, as the stock receives it first, then the branch; the veins receive the bloud, then the other parts of the body: And if Mr. Bls. major be understoood of any other giving juice, it is denied; if of this, the minor.

3. Saith he, If saving faith ingraff the branch into the Church invisible, then the Church invisible is the proper object of such faith; but the Church is no such object of faith, but Christ.

Answ. 1. The same argument holds thus, If profession of faith ingraff into the Church visible then the Church visible is the proper object of such profession: But the Church visible is no such object, but Christ; therefore there is no ingraffing by profession of faith into the Church visible, contrary to Mr. Bls. tenet. 2. To say the Church invisible is the object of faith, is no more then to say, to believe the Holy Catholick Church is an Article of the Creed, and this I think Mr. Bl. counts no absurdity. 3. The consequence of the major proposition is denied. Fai…h that saves hath the object Christ, and as it respects Christ doth unite or ingraff us to him as to our head, and to the invisible Church as his body.

4. Saith he, That supposed ingraffing into the invisible Church, is either known to the body invisible, or unwitting; if known, then it is not invisible. They have no light to discern an invisible work if unknown, then there could not be such a dispute about the new ingraffing of Gentiles, nor complaint of breaking off of the Jewes, all being done by an invisible translation, and so the subject of the question is taken away.

Answ. It was known to some of the invisible, to others not; though it were known yet it might be invisible, they had light to discern an invisible work: Though the work were unknown to some, yet there might be a dispute about the new ingraffing of Gentiles, and complaint of breaking off the Jews, as there was Acts 11. though all were done by an invisible translation: So that there is no truth or strength in this rope of sand Mr. Bl. makes, and the subject of the question still remains. There is as much futility in the rest of his dictates. Scheibler saith in his Topicks, A not-being cannot be a part dividing; yet he sai…h, in case any defend that to be which yet is not, in controversies such a division is to be supposed. But how vainly Mr. Bl. hath disputed against an ingraffing into the invisible Church, may be discerned and thereby how frivolously … compares it to a mountain of ayr. And what he saith, that the access of the Gentiles in the Acts was an ingraffing into the Church visible, may be granted, and it may be true that it was into the invisible Church also▪ One new man, Ephes. 2.15. is true onelyonly of the invisible p. 578Church; for the Gentiles were never one visible Church with the Jews, except some few proselytes of them. That the visible Church communicates sap and juyce which is the fatness of the Olive in ordinances, and that saith dogmatical looks upon the Church (meaning the visible) as the partial object, are di…tates, which I need not refute, sith there is no proof brought for them. As I concei…e he means them, they are false; so much for the vindication of my third argument.

My fourth argument is from v. 17. thus, That ingraffing is meant v. 17. whereby the wild Olive is co-partaker of the root and …atness of the Olive tree: But such is onelyonly by giving faith according to election; Ergo. I proved the minor by shewing that Abraham is there the root as the Father of the faithfull, and the fatness of the Olive not priviledges of outward ordinances, but righteousness.

Mr. Sydenham answers it by referring to Mr. Bl. and censuring my answer to him as a poor evasion, which I shall free from this censure in my reply to Mr. Bl. Yet Mr. S. scribles somewhat besides, which I shall reply to. He begins with questions, 1. …ere not the natural branches which were broken off partakers of the fatness of the root? Answ. No. And were they all elected and partakers of saving graces, or outward priviledges onelyonly? Answ. None of the branches broken off were elected or partakers of saving graces, though some were of outward priviledges. And why then should it be thought absurd for the Gentiles by ingraffing to p…rtake of the fatness of the root onelyonly in outward priviledges, seeing it was so with the natural branches, and they all grow on the same root? Answ. The natural branches as natural did not grow on the same root with the ingraffed; Abraham was not a natural Father to the ingraffed branches, they descended not from him by natural generation, nor did the natural branches which were broken off grow on the same spiritual root with the ingraffed. Abraham was indeed the Father of the faithfull Gentiles, and they his seed spiritually; but so he was not …o the Jews broken off▪ nor they ever in their own persons in the Olive tree, as it notes the Church of true believers, or in Abraham the root as is meant Rom. 11.17. nor were ever partakers of the fatness of it, but the Gentiles were; nor did the Jews fall from election and saving graces which they had in their own persons, but which they had in course been partakers of if they had believed, which I have cleared more fully in my answer to Mr. Cobbet, in the first part of this Review, sect. 10.

He tels me further, It's improper to call a root an exemplary cause; there is no harmony between them; and example conveyed nothing; here is a conveyance of fatness.

Answ. It is improper to term an exemplary cause a root, for it is a metaphor; but it is no more improper then to term an exemplary cause a Father, as the Apostle doth Abraham the Father of believers, Rom. 4.11, 12. when yet the Text makes him only such by his exemplary believing; and if there were harmony between a Father and …n exemplary cause, though Abraham conveyed not faith or righteousness, but as an example; there is harmony between a root and an exemplary cause, p. 579though it convey nothing but as an example: Nor is it unsuitable to good language to say, the ingraffed branches are partakers of the fatness or fulness of Abraham as an example. That fatness the Jews had from Abraham which is meant Rom. 11.17. they had not from him as a natural father, nor did God make the Evangelical Covenant with him and his natural seed, nor do the ingraffed branches ever become natu…al branches, though they partake of Evangelical benefits as well as the believing Jews, who were natural branches. What Mr. S. adds in answer to my objection, that if it were meant of outward priviledges it were false; for the Gentiles were not partakers of the outward priviledges of Abraham, that Abraham is a root in the New Testament as well as in the Old, I grant; but deny what he adds, and still stands by vertue of the Covenant to believers and their children: For neither is there such a Covenant, and if there were, yet Abraham could be a root onelyonly to his natural seed, not to Gentiles by vertue of that Covenant. And what he adds, that though old Testament ordinances were taken away with the Jews and that Church-state, yet the root is not taken away; but the New Testament priviledges grow on the same root; and our ingraffing in gives us to be partakers of the fatness of them, as well as it gave to the Jews the participation of former priviledges until they were broken off; letting pass the vanity of the speeches, that our ingraffing gave to the Jews the participation of former priviledges, which they had not by our ingraffing, but their own propagation from the root, and that the Jews had the priviledges till they were broken off, whereas the persons broken off never had the fatness meant Rom. 11.17. all this answer avoids not the objection, but plai…ly grants the argument. For if the Old Testament ordinances and the Jewish Churchstate were taken away (which all that are against a national Church-frame must aver) then if by fatness be meant outward ordinances and Churchstate, the Gentiles cannot be said to partake of them, nor they be meant by the fatness, Rom. 11.17. Let's examine what Mr. Bl. saith to this argument.

1. He denies that he ever said every believing parent is the root, a root he makes them, not the root. But by his leave I charge him with nothing but what doth plainly follow from his words. For that is the root according to him which communicates Covenant holiness and Churchstate, and of whom it is verified if the root be holy so are the branches. But this is said by him in his Vindic. Faed. p. 277. and elsewhere, of every believing parent; therefore if Mr. Bl. avouch his own arguings, he makes every believing parent the root, Rom. 11.16, 17.

What Mr. Bl. speaks, that other parents are roots to their posterity, is granted, and needed not to be proved by Mr. Bl …ut that they being holy persons are holy roots communicating Covenant holiness to their children, is not pr…ved by Mr. Bl. That the Covenant or promise of God made to Abraham, Gen. 15.5. & 17 4, 7. did assure and …o constitute Abraham to be the root of the Church of true believers, is not denied, nor that Circumcision did seal to him the righteousness of faith as a believer and the father of believers, Rom. 4.11, 12. But the form denominating him Father of believers, or root of the Olive, is propagating them by his exemplary p. 580faith: Nor was David by his Covenant, or Jesse, or any other believing parent a root or father in the sense Rom. 4.11. & 11.16, 17. Though they were natural roots to their posterity, and builders of the house of Israel, and the Fathers 1 Cor. 10.1. by natural generation; yet none are said to build as Abraham, from whom the fatness, Rom. 11.17. is derived, and not from any other intermediate father. For Abraham had been father though he had had no child by natural generation, Mat. 3.9. descending from him: Nor can it be t…ue, that he is termed the root by reason of natural generation; For then the Gentiles had not been bran…hes and children, and …ll the branches had been natural, contrary to v. 21, 24.

To this saith Mr. Bl. He makes them wild onelyonly at their first ingraffing, and so was all Terahs race wild likewise, till that change of faith wrought in Abrahams call, and the Covenant God entred with him; we now are natural as they were, and cannot be called wild, but in our first original.

Answ. They that were ingraffed were still branches of the wild Olive, and so are we that are believers of the Gentiles, for that title is by nature and natural descent, Rom. 11.24. which is not changed by grace, though the fruit and sap be changed that is the qualities and actions by ingraffing: We that are believers of the Gentiles are not the branches according to nature, for that is plainly meant of the Jews onelyonly, Rom. 11.24. when it is said, they that are according to nature shall be graffed in their own Olive. Which shews that the term they that are according to nature i… proper to the Jews: But if every believing parent should be the root, Rom. 11.16, 17. then every Gentile believers child should be a natural branch, contrary to v. 24. for they are all besides nature, and no believing Gentile nor his child is now or hath been a natural branch in the sense the Apostle means, Rom. 11.24.

But Mr. Bls. chief objection is this, If the ingraffing be by a saving faith onelyonly, to derive saving graces personal…y inherent, as a fruit of election from Abraham, then it must needs be that we are elect in Abraham▪ Abraham may say, without me ye can do nothing, and he that believeth in me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water: And we may say, the life that we live in the flesh, we live by faith in the son of Terah. This must necessarily follow, if Abraham be the root, no… onelyonly respective to a conditional Covenant, but to the graces under condition covenanted.

Answ. 1. This objection may be thus retorted, If the ingraffing be by a faith of profession onelyonly, to derive onelyonly outward ordinances, outward priviledges, Covenant holiness, visible Churchmembership, as a fruit of the Covenant from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob the root, then we are i… Covenant in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: They may say without us ye cannot be visible Churchmembers, &c. he that professeth faith in us, shall have outward Church priviledges; the priviledges we have in the visible Church, we have by profession of faith in the son of Terah. This must necessarily follow, if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob be the root respective to the Covenant and Covenant holiness, as Mr. Bl. asserts. p. 581when Mr. Bl. hath freed himself from these absurdities, I shall have somewhat more to answer him. 2. In the mean time my answer in my Apology is, that the absurdities follow not on my opinion, who make not Abraham a roo… as communicating faith by infusion or impetration mediatory as Christ, but as an exemplary cause of believing, in which sense he is stiled the father of believers, Rom. 4 11, 12.

To this Mr. Bl. in his flirting fashion replies thus, A root not by communication, but example; an ingraffing not to have any thing communicated from the root, but to imitate it, is such a Catachresis as may well make all Rhetorick …shamed of it; and if the Sun ever saw a more notable piece of non sense, I am to seek what sense is. A root is too low in the earth to have its examples followed, and a syens sucks in juyce, but knowes not how to imitate.

Answ. 1. Mr. Bl. grosly abuseth me by insinuating as if I mentioned a root not by communication, but example: and ingraffing not to have any thing from the roo…, but to imitate it: But this I said, that Abraham is not termed the root as communicating faith by infusion, or impe…ration mediatory as Christ, but as an exemplary cause of believing, and the ingraffing I make to bee Gods act of giving faith after Abrahams example, whereby righ…eousness is communicated from Abraham as the precedent or pattern, according to which God gives both, though the branches do not themselves imitate Abraham. Now this is no more non-sense then to term him a father without any other begetting or communicating then as an exemplary cause, which the Apostle doth, Rom. 4.11, 12. and (as I shew in the first part of this Review, Sect. 2. pag. 1….) Dr. Willet, Diodati, Pareus, do so expound the root and father of the faithfull; so that if there bee non-sense, these learned men with the Apostle are to bee charged with it, as well as my self, which may redound more to Mr. Bls. then to the shame of Rhetorick. And if a root bee too low in the earth to bee as an example, so is a fathers begetting too hidden a thing to bee our example, yet Abrahams believing and justification may bee Gods example according to which hee gives faith and righteousness. 2. When Mr. Bl. makes Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the root as communicating Ordinances, visible Churchmembership, &c. I would know how hee makes them communicating roots of these to believing Gentiles infants. Sure not by natural generation, for neither mediately nor immediately are they roots to them that way: not by teaching or example, for they are not things imitable, nor are they to them teachers, or visible examples: not by communicating to them the Covenant, that is, Gods act. What way soever hee make them the root according to his opinion there will bee as much non-sense and shame to Rhetorick, and less truth in his explication then in mine. What hee adds, that whatsoever kinde of root I make it, yet it is a communicative root, vers. 17. I grant it in the sense expressed, not of communication by infusion or mediatory impetration, but as an …dea.

And what hee saith further, that the term Father and root are not full synonyma's, yet in the main they agree; is as much as I need to shew p. 582that it is no more non-sense to term him a root who communicates sap onelyonly as a pattern, then it is to term him a Father who begets onelyonly as an example.

And whereas hee saith, both metaphors aptly set forth what the branches as from a root, the children as from a Father receive, namely their title to the Covenant from him; and therefore as to Abraham, so to all Israel pertained the Covenants and the Adoption, Rom, 9.4, 5. And so to all that are become children and branches with them. I grant the metaphors set forth what the branches and children receive from the root and father: But that the thing received is title to the Covenant in Mr. Bls. sense, that is to be partakers of outward ordinances (which is more truly non-sense then my expression of a root by exemplarity, or that to Abraham and so to all Israel pertained the Covenants and adoption, Rom. 9.4, 5. or that to the ingraffed branches or Gentile children of Abraham, belonged the Covenants and adoption and other p…iviledges which are there appropriated to Israel after the fl…sh, though not imparted to all) there alledged, is denied. Title to the Covenant of grace is not communicated to Gentile believers any otherwise, then in that they are made Abrahams seed by faith, and this is communicated to them no otherwise from Abraham then as an example, and therefore he is a root no other way …hen I assigne, if there bee any other way it is more then yet Mr. Bl. hath shewed.

Yet hee adds, the title Father is yet extended to a greater Latitude, as hee doth impart to his issue (as before) so hee is a pat…ern and example as even natural parents are likewise according as Rom. 4.…2. (quoted by Mr. T.) is set forth, yet that place is too palpably abused.

Answ. Though Fathers bee examples and patterns to their children in their actions, yet not all nor onelyonly parents are such, nor is Abraham called a Father there because hee was a good pattern onelyonly, but because hee as the A…chtype or primitive pattern begat Jews and Gentile believers as his seed to faith, nor in this or any thing have I abused the Apostle.

Mr. Bl. tels mee. The steps of the faith of the Father Abraham is the doctrine of faith which Abraham believed, or the profession of faith which hee made. All that were professedly Jews, and all that were professedly Christians, w…lk in the steps of that faith: All circumcised believers had not that faith that just…fies, nor yet all the uncircumcised; and Abraham is a father of both. Hee could bee exemplary as a pattern to bee followed, onelyonly in that which is external; his faith quà justifying could not bee seen to bee imitated.

Answ. I abhor it to abuse the Apostle so palpably as Mr. Bl. doth here. For it appears not onelyonly from the main drift of the Apostle in the whole Chapter precedent, specially v. 9, 10. but also from the very words v. 11. that righteousness might be imputed …o them also, that the Apostle speaks of that faith onelyonly which is justifying, which is believing with the heart, Rom. 10 10. And therefore those speeches are palpably false, that the steps of the faith of the Father Abraham is the doctrine of p. 583faith which Abraham believed (which may be by a Teacher that neither believes nor professeth) or the profession of faith which he made (which a Judas or Simon Magus might have, and so should have righteousness imputed to them as Abraham had) that all professed Jewes or Christians walke in the steps of that faith, that Abraham is Father of those uncircumcised believers who had not that faith that justifies. As for Mr. Bls. reason, it is against himselfe; for Abrahams profession could no more bee seene to bee imitated in the Apostles dayes then his faith as justifying: both might be known by Gods word, and be followed as a pattern, though I conceive the Apostle makes those to walk in the steps of Abrahams faith, who do believe as hee did, though they never saw or heard of Abrahams b…lieving, as he may be said to write after a Copy who writes the same, though he never saw the Copy.

He adds, And the like he hath pag. 78. I make Abraham onelyonly the root, as he is onelyonly the …ather of believers exemplarily; and that which made him the Father of believers, was not the Covenant, but his exemplary faith, as I gather from the words of the Apostle, Rom. 9.16, 17, 18, 19, 21. Did none but Abraham give an example unto others of believing? The Apostle to the Hebrews sets him out, chap. 11. as one example among many▪ we find many that went before him, Abel, Enoch, Noah; and more that followed after him. And I should rather think that the Text by him produced, proves without any contradiction, that the Covenant made Abraham the father of believers; he is the called three Father of us all, and a Text quoted for it, which is Gen. 17.5. A Father of many nations I have made thee: And whether that be not by vertue of Covenant, let the context be consulted, together with the Apostles words, Rom. 4.11. He closed with God in Covenant, and accepted the seal of the Covenant, that according to Covenant he might be the Father of all them that believe.

Answ. 1. If Abel, Enoch, Noah, be set out as examples of believing with a faith justifying, Heb. 11.4, 5, 6, 7. by which Noah became heir of the righteousness which is by faith, then it is not true which Mr. Bl. …aith a little before, that Abraham could be exemplary as a pattern to be followed onelyonly in that which is external. 2. Many before and after did believe as Abraham, and they are examples to us, Pleb. 6.12. Yet we find not any whose faith was remarkably tried and approved as Abrahams, and therefore none deno…inated the Fat…er of believers besides him. 3. It is granted the promise or Covenant was the object of Abrahams faith, and that it did assure that he should be the Father of believers both of Jews and Gentiles; yet the reason of the denomination of Father of believers is made onelyonly his eminent faith, and the form denominating him is … relation to them, the foundation of which was his begetting believers exemplarily▪ 4. Rom. 4.11. It is neither said Abraham closed with God in Covenant, nor that he accepted the seal of the Covenant, nor is there in that v. any mention of the Covenant, or of the seal of the Covenant, but …. 16▪ the Apostles having termed Abraham the Father of us all, v. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. he sets out his faith as most eminent, and that as the reason of his Fatherhood.

p. 584Mr. Bl. to what I said, the fatness of the Olive tree, Diodati said truly, is the blessing and promise made to Abraham and to his seed, and so the Apostle expresseth, Gal. 3.14. saith. This we grant, and priviledge of ordinances contained this blessing and this promise; we know the Gospel to be the power of God to salvation. To which I reply, The blessing, Gal. 3.14. is j…stification, v. 8, 9. and the promise is of the spirit through faith, which a man may be without, though he have the outward …riviledge of ordinances, and therefore are not contained in it: Nor is the Gospel the power of God to salvation without faith; and therefore if the ingraffing be onelyonly into the visible Church▪ and a person have onelyonly the priviledge of ordinances, he may be without the blessing and promise made to Abraham and to his seed, Gal. 3.14. which is granted by Mr. Bl. to be the fatness meant Rom. 11.17. and therefore the fatness is more then outward priviledges and ordinances, and I said truly it is too washy and frigid an exposition which doth so expound it, and this washes away the dust Mr. Bl. casts on Rom. 11.17.

But he argues thus. That wherein the Jews exceeded the Gentiles, is the fatness whereof the Gentiles partake, when they are ingraffed instead of the Jews; this none can deny, for this makes them their equals and co partners: But it is priviledges of ordinances (how frigid and washy things soever Mr. T. little better then profanely makes it) is the priviledge wherein Jews exceeded Gentiles, Rom. 3.1. Deut. ….7, 8. Psal. 147.19, 20. Therefore this is the fatness of the Olive.

Answ. The major is not true, if universal: and Mr. Bls. reason proves it. For the Gentiles when ingraffed, were not made equals and co partners in many things wherein the Jews before exceeded the Gentiles. All those things mentioned Rom 9.4, 5. were prerogatives of the Jewes never imparted to the Gentile believers, yea that priviledge mentioned Rom. 3.1. the committing the Oracles of God, the Christian Gentiles were never made equals and co partners with the Jews in, God did never give oracles and answers to the Christian Gentiles, nor the Tables of the Covenant, and the Book of the Law to be kept, as hee did to the Jews. But that wherein the Jews and Gentiles were made equals and co partners, was justification by faith, and union with Christ by his spirit, as Ephes. 3.6. Gal. 3.28, 29, &c. and therefore this argument is rightly retorted thus on Mr. Bl. That wherein the Gentiles ingraffed were equals and copartners with the Jews is the fatness meant Rom. 11.17. But this is not the priviledges of Ordinances, but justification and oneness in Christ, ergo that is the fatness meant Rom. 11.17.

To what I said, that the Gentiles were not partakers of the outward priviledges and ordinances of Abraham and the Jews, they being tak… away, hee saith, if that of the Apostle bee true, that the Gospel was preached to Abraham, Gal. 3.8. then this cannot bee false. If the Rock and Manna in the Wilderness bee the same, as that on which w… seed, 1 Cor. 10.2. the outward priviledges of that people may well the … the same with ours.

Answ. 1. If the outward priviledges and ordinances of Abraham and p. 585the Jews be the same with ours, then not onelyonly the preaching the Gospel, but also Circumcision, the Passeover, the Temple, High Priest, sacrifices, &c. must be the same to us as to them. 2. Though the Gospel be preached to us which was preached to them, yet not in the same manner; it was preached to them …s future, to us as accomplished; nor by the same ordinances, not by the slaying the Paschal Lamb, the High Priests going into the most Holy place with bloud once a year, &c. 3. No… is it true that the Rock and Manna in the wilderness is the same as that on which we seed, 1 Cor. 10.3, 4. though it be true the same Christ or spiritual meate and drinke was signified by the Manna they ate, and the water out of the Rocke which they dranke, which is signified by the Bread and Wine wee receive in the Lords Supper: But this doth not shew the same outward priviledges of the Jewes and us, but the same spirituall benefits signified to them which are to us.

He next tels me, I have taken pains for my own full refutation; for if Abraham be the root, then the natural posterity of Abraham must of necessity be the natural branches which were cut off: which he endeavours to prove from Rom. 9.2, 3. & 11.1, 14. though the conclusion be not denied, but oft asserted by me; and then brings in Paul thus disputing, Pauls kinsmen after the flesh were the Church visible, not invisible: But Pauls kindred according to the flesh were the branches cut off; Ergo, the Church visible not invisible was cut off: Which conclusion doth not contradict any thing I assert, who never made the Church invisible cut off, but some branches broken off from the Church invisible which was formerly in that people. So that Mr. Bl. hitherto hath m…de no answer to my arguments, but talk…d at randome quite besides the matter urged in them.

My 5th. argument was▪ If the breaking off the Jews were by blinding, then the ingraffing was by giving faith; but the former is true, v. 25. Ergo, the later.

To this Mr. S. saith, There is not the s…me reason, seeing …e takes i… of giving saving faith; their blinding was judicial, a punishment for their unbelieving rejecting of the Gospel, though they had not saving faith to embrace the Gospel; the giving of faith is not on such terms; neither is saving faith so absolutely antecedent to make a man a member of the visible Church, as blinding to Gods final rejection.

Answ. He sai…h there is not the same reason, but shews not why if the breaking off be by blinding, the ingraffing should not be by giving a saving faith. Sure according to all the Logick I ever learned it is as clear an a…gument as can be in this case, that where opposite effects are put, the one effect being from one cause, the other should be from the opposite cause Tis true, I take the inlightning opposite to blinding to be the giving saving faith: yet do not think the blinding v. 25. to have bin judicial a punishment for their unbelieving, rejecting of the Gospel, but as it is v. 32. the vety shutting up in unbelief, the antecedent to unbelief▪ consequent on reprobation opposite to election, as v. 7, 8, 9, 10. do plainly shew, not consequent to unbelief. What he means by the giving p. 586of faith is not on such terms, I cannot readily divine; the speech seems to me to be either non-sense, there being no terms forementioned that I can perceive to which it may be referred, or else it is impertinent to the answering the objection, and so as that which follows. For though the giving of saving faith be not on such terms as Mr. S. means, or that it be not so absolutely antecedent to make a man a member of the visible Church as blinding is to Gods final rejection, doth it follow, that if the breaking off be by blinding, v. 25. the ingraffing is not by giving faith, v. 24? But Mr. S. adds.

2. Blindness came but in part on Israel; it fell onelyonly on the meer visible members, not the invisible and elect: therefore the ingraffi…g must be onelyonly of visible members into the visible Church, v. 7. The election hath obtained it, but the rest were blinded.

Answ. There is no shew of consequence that I know in it, that if blindness fall not on the elect, therefore ingraffing is not of the elect onelyonly; the argument is plain on the contrary even from vers. 7. alledged by him, the rest to wit the non-elect were blinded, therefore the ingraffed who obtained were onelyonly the elect, and their obtaining the ingraffing was by such enlightening as wrought saving faith in them.

Mr. Bl grants the conclusion, that the ingraffing is by giving faith, but a faith of profession into a Churchstate, as he answered to the 3d. arg. To which I reply, 1. If it were giving of such a faith, yet infants would be excluded, sith they are not so ingraffed. 2. The ingraffing notes more then admission by an outward ordinance. 3. I proved from the Text v. 7, 8, 10. that the blinding was of those who are not elect; and therefore the inlightening by which the election obtains, or the Gentiles are ingraffed is that, as Dr. Ames saith Antisynod. animadv. in art. 1. c. 16. whereby they obtain faith and salvation from election. And I used these words, If the blinding be the effect of reprobation, and the breaking off be by blinding, then the ingraffing is by inli…htening, and that inlightening is according to election, and so is all one with giving of faith, by which I mean justifying or saving faith.

At this passage Mr. Bl. lays about him thus, Here is Divinity which calls for patience in a degree above all that is Christian; which one of the Contraremonstants, worthy the name of an adversary of the Arminians, hath taught this Doctrine? It is that which their adversaries indeed charge upon them, but that which they unanimously do disclaim. I have heard that reprobation is the antecedent of sin, but never that it was the cause; and that sin is a consequent of it, but never an effect. Reprobation is the act of God; and in case it be the cause of blindness, then God is the cause: So that the Contraremonstran…s have got a sweet Advocate to cast that upon them, that none of their adversaries (though they have turned every stone to it) could never prove by them.

Answ. 1. I did onelyonly use this expression [if the blinding be the effect of reprobation] which causeth all this insulting, which doth not positively assert it, onelyonly Mr. Bl. gathers it from the assumption which he p. 587supposeth I would have put, which is not very candid dealing. 2. The assumption he sets down thus, then his assumption can be no other, but that blindness is the effect of reprobation: But herein he doth grosly abuse me. For I did not say, if blindness be the effect of reprobation, but if blinding be the effect of reprobation, between which there is a great difference. For blindness is mans sin, but blinding is Gods act, ascribed to God v. 8. when it is said, God hath given them a spirit of slumber, eys that they should not see. And Job. 12.40. He hath blinded their eys, and hardened their heart. And this act being no other then the certain permission of sin, is commonly made by Protestants an effect and means executing the decree of reprobation, which is no other then blinding. Potav. synt. l. 4. c. 10. Reprobation is effectus est permissio lapsus. Ames. med. Theol. l. 1. c. 25. §. Tertius reprobationis actus est intentio dirigendi media illa, quibus justitia possit in reprobas manifestari. Media hujus generis maxime propria sunt permissio peccati, derelictio in peccato, Rom. 9 18. 2 Thes. 2.11, 12. Calvin Instit. l. 3. c. 23. §. 1. unde (from Rom. 9.18.) sequitur absconditum Dei consilium obdu ationis esse causam. Yea, § 4. he saith, Cujus rei (defectionis Angelorum) causa non potest alia adduci quam reprobatio, quae in arcano Dei consilio abscondita est▪ Vide Andr. Rivet. sum. contro. tr…ct. 4. q. 6, 7. And Piscat▪ observ. 9. e Rom. 9.10, 11, 12, 13. Erram igitur qui putant praedestinationem pendere a praevisis operibus, vel a praevisa fide, vel incredulitate. Imo haec omnia praedestinationis effecta sunt: quomodo igitur possunt statui praedestinationis causae? So that if I had taught (as Mr. Bl. misreports me) that Gods reprobation causeth blindness; yet I had Authours worthy the name of adversaries to the Arminians so saying: Nor have I done any such high dis service to the anti-Arminians as in the Table at the …nd of his Book he chargeth me with. 3. If Mr. Bl. had not minded to pick a quarrel, he might have interpreted (as indeed I meant) the term effect not strictly or rigourously, as Scheibler speaks, but in the sense in which Logicians call the Eclipse of the Moon, the effect of the inter position of the Earth between it and the Sun, though it be rather a consequent, then an effect; after which manner I explained the term cause in the same Book; Review, part 1. sect. 35. p. 238. 4. Let the word [effect] be left out, and let the word [consequent] be put in, my argumen hath the same force; and therefore this was in Mr. Bl. a meer wrangling exception.

Let's view what he saith in answer thereto. He saith, Mr. T. lays all upon God, Gods reprobation causes blindness, and their breaking off is by blinding; here is no hand but Gods in their destruction. And now the blasphemy of the consequence being denied, so that blindness is no effect of reprobation, breaking off being not by blinding; what becomes of the rule of opposites here produced? And Mr. T. should not be ignorant, that election and reprobation in the work of salvation and damnation do not per omnia quadrare, otherwise as election leads to salvation without any merit of works, so reprobation should lead to destruction without any merit of sin; which Contraremonstrants unanimously deny, though Mr. T. here will have them to affirm, having before quoted v. 8. & 10. of this chapter, he saith from p. 588which Anti-Arminians gather absolute reprobation, and then explains himself what this absolute reprobation in his sense is in the words spoken to. And then in opposition to me cites Gomarus denying absolute reprobation in my sense, that God absolutely reprobates any man to destruction without subordinate means, to wit, sin; that God doth not effect sin, or decree to effect it: And Dr. Prideaux, that sin follows not on reprobation as an efficient, but deficient; is a consequent, not effect of reprobation: And Mr. Ball, that Gods decree is not the cause of mans sin.

Answ. In all this there's not a word that takes away the force of the argument; if that word [effect] had been left out, as it was left out in the first framing of it, and [consequent] had been put in, though the argument had been as strong if that word had been used, or, as it was in the first framing, neither used. He accuseth me of blasphemy▪ here as asserting blindness to be the effect of reprobation, that I lay all upon God, no hand but Gods in mens destruction; that I make Contraremonstrants to affirm an absolute reprobation without any merit of sin; and that I explain absolute reprobation gathered by them from Rom. 11.8, 10. in this sense, of all which charges there is not one true; so that here is nothing but a fardel o… manifest calumnies. And as for what he alledgeth, that breaking off is not by blinding, because blindness was their guilt, and casting off their just sentence, and the guilt and punishment are not one, it doth no whit infringe my argument. For these may well stand together, that Gods reprobation is executed by blinding, and yet blindness their guilt, and upon their unbelief or blindness God breaks them off by a just sentence; as on the other side, election is the cause of Gods enlightening, whereby the ingraffed branches believe, and through fai…h they are by Gods act of grace ingraffed into the invisible Church of true believers: And in this manner the rule of opposites holds evidently, although election and reprobation in the work of salvation and damnation do not per omnia quadrare, nor there be any such absolute reprobation as leads to destruction without any merit of sin. Which kind of absolute rep…obation I never asserted, nor ascribed to Contraremonstrants, who onelyonly make reprobation absolute, in that the reason why God in his eternal decree or purpose did choose one to life and not another, is not the foreseen belief and obedience of one, or the foreseen unbelief or disobedience of the other, but his own will, Rom. 9.11, 12, 13, 18. Nor do I make sin in proper or strict acception the effect of Gods act; I never said, blindness is the effect of Gods reprobation, as Mr. Bl. misreports me, nor that God doth by any positive influx work it in man as an efficient; but I said, blinding was the effect of reprobation in a larger sense, as effect is taken for a consequent, and that it was by blinding, which doth not at all gainsay the sayings of those learned Writers alledged by Mr. Bl. And if Gods severity in not sparing the natural branches were explicitely no more then what Christ threatned, Matth. 21.43. yet my argument holds good. For the taking away of Gods Kingdome is not onelyonly the taking away of the preaching of the Gospel, but also the being of the Church of true believers among them as heretofore; and so p. 589the breaking off was by blinding, and the ingraffing into the invisible Church of true believers by giving of faith according to election, which was to be proved.

My 6th. arg. was, If reingraffing of the Jews produceth salvation, is by turning them from iniquity, taking away their sins according to Gods Covenant, then it is into the invisible Church by giving faith; But the former is true v. 26, 27. Ergo, the later.

Mr. S. saith, To which I give a fair answer, that doubtless according to those promises, when the Jews shall be called in to be a visible Church again, there shall bee abundance of more glory brought in with them, then ever yet the world saw; and the new heavens, and the new earth, the coming down of the new Jerusalem and all those glorious things are fitted to fall in with that time. And from these considerations many do interpret v. 26. litterally, And so shall all Israel bee saved. But get 1. they shall be ingraffed in as a visible Church, else Abraham and the Fathers would never be mentioned as roots. 2. They shal be ingraffed as they were broken off: now they were broken off as a visible Church. 3. All that can be gathered is this, that the fulness of salvation, and the vertues of the promises shall more fully and universally take effect on the Jews, even to the salvation of all of them; and so the invisible & visible Church be more pure and as one in the earth; but this fulness shall be to them as a visible Church and on the earth.

Answ. 'Tis a fair answer, but such as hath nothing to weaken the argument, there being neither of the premises denied, but the minor granted expresly, that the vertues of the promises shall take effect on the Jews even to the salvation of all of them, which if true, then none are ingraffed but elect persons, and their ingraffing into the invisible Church, now the ingraffing of the Gentiles, was the same with the re-ingraffing of the Jews, if then the Jews re ingraffing were into the invisible Church according to election, so is the ingraffing of the Gentiles. What hee saith, yet they shall be ingraffed as a visible Church, and this fulness shall be to them as a visible Church, taking [as] reduplicatively cannot bee true, for then every visible Church should have all in it saved, and for the reasons he brings to prove, they are answered before, the fathers are nor mentioned as roots, but Abraham, who is a root not of the visible Church a… such, but of the invisible of true believers, and they are ingraffed as the other were broken off from the invisible Church.

Mr. Bl. saith, This arg. well husbanded, might have made three; to the first I say, that a Churchstate in Scripture phrase is salvation, Job. 4.22. seeing Churchmembers are partakers of saving ordinances; And the fruition of ordinances under Gospel dispensations is a great salvation, Heb. 2.3. And so that text Rom 11.26. And so all Israel shall be saved, must be understood as I told Mr. T. p. 67. of my answer out of the last annotations, and so Diodate.

Answ. This then is the meaning of Rom. 11.26. All Israel shall bee saved, that is, they shall be in a visible Churchstate partakers of saving (outward) ordinances under Gospel dispensations. But can Mr. Bl. or any sober man think this to be the meaning, they shall be saved, that is, they p. 590shall be in such an estate in which they may bee damned, and in which many are damned? or that God where hee mentions the effect of his his great Covenant of the Gospel, means no more but such an estate? Is this all or any part of the new Covenant Heb. 8 10, &c. Heb. 10.16, 17. to have a meer visible Churchstate? I did alwayes think the Covenant of Grace had promised the spirit of Christ, th…t the Ministery thereof was of the spirit, 2 Cor 3.6, 8. of righteousness, v. 9. not of a meer visible Churchstate. And sure if we look to the place whence these words are quoted (as Mr. …l saith) Isai. 59.20. Jerem. 31.34. there is an express promise of the spirits continuance upon them, which is sure much beyond a visible Churchstate. As for what he brings out of Scripture, it is shamefully wrested. For Joh. 4.22. a meer visible Churchstate is not termed salvation, but whether by it bee meant by a metonymy, the doctrine of salvation▪ or the authour of salvation Christ himself, it is certainly another thing then a meer visible Churchstate, yea in that sense the speech were absurd to term a meer visible Churchstate salvation, and false to say tha… the visible Churchstate was of the Jewes. And for the other text …eb 2.3. it doth not term the fruition of outward Ordinances under Gospel d…spensations great salvation, but the great benefit purchased by Christ termed eternal salvation, Heb. 5.9. declared and offered in the Gospel. Diodati annot. on Heb. 2.…. So great] namely everlasting redemption, revealed and communicated by the Gospel, and impl…citely opposed by the Apostle to the temporal deliverance out of Egypt, for the contemning of which the Israelites were punished in the wilderness. And though the new Annot. and Diodati paraphrase Rom. 11.26. by [put into the way of salvation] yet they do not restrain this to a meer visible Churchstate; yea both add, that by [all Israel] may be understood the Israel of God, Gal. 6.16. of Jews and Gentiles, which is the invisible Church. And Di…son thus parap…raseth the words, And so all Israel, that is, the multitude of Jews comprehending the body of the people dispersed shall be converted. And Piscator in his Scholie, The fulness of Israel shall be saved, to wit being effectually called by the preaching of the Gospel, and justified by faith in Christ. But what is said of all Israel, is not to be extended to each, but to be understood of the greatest part, from which the denomination is wont to be made.

Mr. Bl adds, And such men brought into a Churchstate are turned from iniquity partially, from their former way of iniquity, their contradicting and blasp…eming; having escaped the pollution of the world, 2 Pet. 2.6. of the world …hat remains out of the Church of God.

Answ. 1▪ Were this the meaning, yet infants should be excluded, who are not thus turned. 2. That such a partial turning cannot be meant, is manifest, in that the term is foreign, ungodlinesses, that is, all sorts of ungodliness from Jacob, that is, as Piscator in his scholie, by pardoning or remitting and justifying by faith, and this to be done by the redeemer which shall come out of Sion who so turns from iniquity as to bless them whom he turns, Acts. 3.26. which doth not agree to Mr. Bls. partial turning. More rightly Di…son thus paraphraseth the words. He foretelleth that so it should be, that the true redeemer should free his nation from p. 591the guilt and servitude of sin, the iniquities of that people being pardoned; and that it should be, that he would receive them into the Covenant of grace to the full abolishing of sin.

But, saith Mr. Bl. Their sin is pardoned quoad hoc: and when Moses, prayed for the pardon of the sin of Israel, Exod. 32. and God promiseth it, 2 Chron. 7.14. it is so to be understood of a national pardon.

Answ. A partial pardon quoad hoc of some particular sin, and releasing onelyonly of some particular evil, cannot be meant Rom. 11.26, 27. sith it is a taking away of their sins, by the agency of the redeemer that comes out of Sion, and according to Gods Covenant to them; which 1. the same with that, Jer. 31 33. Heb. 8.12. & 10.16, 17. in which eternal redemp…ion and inheritance are assured, Heb. 9.12▪ 15. I grant it shal be a nationa… pardon, understanding by nation the greatest or chiefest part of the nation, but different from the pardon obtained by Moses, Exod. 32. or prom… sed, 2 Chron. 7.14.

To what I said in answer to Mr. Geree, that I thought at the Jews restauration there shall be some of them formalists and hypocrites, but none of the re-ingraffed, Mr. Bl. replies, The re-ingraffing here is in their stead that fell away by multitudes, and therefore were hypocri…es and formalists, and the ingraffed such as might fall, which is not spiritual Israel, but carnal. But the Text doth not say, the Jews shall be re-ingraffed in their shead that sell away by multitudes ▪ but onelyonly that the Gentiles be graffed into the Olive in stead of the Jews broken off, v. 17. and the Jews shall be re-ingraffed when the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in, and both be ingraffed together, not the one broken off to make room for the other, as in the calling of the Gentiles, v. 19. Yet were it so as Mr. Bl. saith, how doth it follow, the re-ingraffing here is in their stead that fell away by multitudes, Ergo the re-ingraffed were some of them formalists and hypocrites? I conceive it follows rather on the contrary, those that fell away were hypocrites, therefore they that are ingraffed in their stead are living branches, or sincere believers. As for what he said before about the falling away of the ingraffed, is answered before.

But Mr. Bl. yet adds, There is a national pardon, and a personal: pardon i… o…t applied to a national return, as 2 Chron. 7.14. & Jerem. 18.7, 8. there it is the removal of drought, locusts, pestilence; here their judgement was the vail of blindness, not assenting to the Gospel light; and they shall be saved from this blindness, as the Text expressly hath it, v. 25, 26.

Answ. This blindness is no way removed but by giving of faith, as is proved before; and therefore this proves for me, the ingraffing to be giving faith according to election, and all the ingraffed to be elect.

Yet once more saith Mr. Bl. The words quoted out of v. 26, 27. are partly from Isa. 59.20. and partly from Jerem. 31.34. as I conceive, which in the Prophets are directly spoken of a national return, and national pardon, as Mr. B. of one of them hath well observed: but in New Testament Scriptures variously applied, as all know that text of Habakkuk is, ch. 2.4. That of Jeremy is applied personally: but here, as the context p. 592is clear, it, must bee applied nationally to Israel according to the flesh. The vail shall be taken from them on whom it lies; it lies on Israel according to the flesh: what mystery had the Apostle revealed in case he had onelyonly shewed that all elect b…lievers should be saved?

Answ. Though that were no mystery, yet it was a mystery, that God shou…d contrive it so that Israel Gods people formerly should now be blind, and the Gentiles see, and when their fulness is come in, then all Israel should be saved, who were then broken off. And this salvation is to be national, and yet spiritual, there being a national effectual conversion to God, although all of the nation be not converted, as well as there is a national return from captivity, and yet not all return. The words being quoted from …sai. 59.20. Jer. 31.34. there being no reason to the contrary they shoul… be applied personally here, as …hey are Heb. 8.12. & 10.…6, 17. I shall close up the vindication of this argument with the words of Dr. Owen of perseverance Ch. 7. §. 24. The force then of this promise, Isa. 59.…0. and the influence it hath into the establishment of the truth we have in hand, the perpetual abiding of the spirit with the Saints, will not be evaded and turned aside, by affirming, that it is made to the whole people of Israel. For bes…des, that the spirit of the Lord could not bee said to bee in the ungodly rejected part of them, nor his word in their mouth, there is not the least in text and context, to intimate such an extent of this promise as to the object of it, and 'tis very weakly attempted to bee proved from Pauls accommodation, and interpretation of the v▪ fore going in Rom. 11.26. For it is most evident, and indisputable to any one, who shall but once cast an eye upon that place, that the Apostle accommodates and applies these words to none, but onelyonly those who shall be saved, being turned away from ungodliness to Christ, which are onelyonly the seed before described. And those hee cals all Israel; either in the spiritual sense of the word, as taken for the chosen Israel of God, or else indefini…ely for that nation, upon the account of those plentiful fruits, which the Gospel shall finde amongst them, when they shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter dayes.

My seventh argument was, If the re-ingraffing bee by vertue of Gods election and love, his gifts of calling▪ then it is into the invisible Church, by election and giving of faith; But the former is true v. 28, 2… Ergo, the latter. Mr. S. answers, 1. It's said, that as touching election the Jews are beloved for their fathers sake; hence it follows, God hath a love of election to believers and their natural seed; for so the Jews were the natural seed of Abraham.

Answ. It followes not of believing Gentiles and their natural seed, for this is spoken peculiarly of the Jews. Nor doth it follow of all the natural seed of Abraham, the contrary is determined Rom. 9.6; 7, 8. nor of any at all times, as in the time of their great Apostasie. Much less doth it hence follow, as it hath been pleaded for Paedobaptism, that because God loved the Jews for the fathers sake, therefore wee are to take in the parcels, all the infants of inchurched believers, to bee elect and in the Covenant of Grace, and thereupon to baptise them, this to my apprehension hath not a shadow of consequence.

p. 593But saith Mr. S. 2. It's granted that the calling of the Jews shall be according to Gods election and first love; and that Gods election shall more fully take hold of the Jews at their recalling, then of any nation: but yet still the argument is of no force to prove that their re-ingraffing and so ours is onelyonly or firstly into the invisible Church; for they are elected as well to be a visible Church, as to be partakers of inward graces; and their re-ingraffing must be specially and firstly into the visible Church from which they were broken off, or else there will be no correspondence between their rejection and re-ingraffing.

Answ. Yet the arg. is of force to prove it is into the invisible Church, so as none are re-ingraffed but the elect and partakers of inward graces, though it were granted that their re-ingraffing be specially and firstly into the visible Church: Yea, Mr. Ss reason is against himself, for if their re-ingraffing be not firstly and specially into the invisible Church by faith, there wil be no correspondence between their re-ingraffing and rejection, which was firstly and specially from the invisible Church by unbelief.

Mr. Bl. answers thus. His election, love, and gifts of calling, did at the first put them into a visible Churchstate and condition, Deut. 7.7, 8. And the same love, election, and gifts of calling, now they are broken off, doth re-ingraff them; if this argument hold, it was an invisible Church that was brought out of the land of Aegypt.

Answ. According to Mr. Bl. the Apostle should mean that the election and love, Rom. 11.28. are meant of such election and love as may be to them that perish, and such a calling and gifts as may be lost, for such the election into a meer visible Churchstate and condition, and calling, and love, and gifts are, which Mr. Bl. p. 302. will have to be the meaning of the Apostle here. But this is not meant here, 1. because that election, love, gifts and calling are here meant, as are from the Covenant of the Redeemer, v 26, 27. and whereby all Israel shall be saved; this is manifest from the connexion, the words v. 28, 29. being a confirmation of the proposition all Israel shall be saved, v. 26. from the Covenant to turn away impieties from Jacob, and to take away their sins, for this reason, because they are beloved according to the election and calling of God ▪ which are unchangeable. But such salvation, election, love, gifts and calling never happen to them that perish, the Covenant, turning away from impieties, and taking away sins, belong onelyonly to them who are eternally saved; therefore they are not an election, love, gifts, and calling which put into a meer visible Churchstate and condition.

2. Such gifts and calling of God are not here meant which are revocable, or of which God repents; for to be without repentance is to be without revocation, or change: But the gifts and calling which are into a mee… visible Churchstate, are revocable and with repentance, as both the Scripture and experience shews, therefore they are not here meant.

3. That calling and election are meant here which are ascribed to God in the passages where there is speech of Gods election and calling of persons before in the 8th. 9th. and 11th. chapters; for it is manifest▪ that the dispute about election and calling of the Jews and Gentiles, ch. 9, 10, 11. arose from the words of the Apostle, Rom. 8.28, 29, &c. But p. 594the election and calling in all the passages signifies such an election and calling as is to eternal life and righteousness, as is manifest from Rom. 8.28, 30, 33. Rom. 9.7, 11, 24, 25, 26. Rom. 11.5, 7. Therefore not an election or calling into a meer visible Churchstate.

4. That calling and election is meant here, which is usually, if not always, meant by the Apostles in their writings. For it's likely Paul would speak here in the sense in which the word is commonly used, there being no cogent reason to the contrary. But the words election and calling in the Apostles writings are taken usually, it not always, for election and calling to righteousness and eternal life, as may appear by these places, 1 Cor. 1.2, 9, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29. & 7.15, 18, 20. Ephes. 1.4, 18. & 4.1, 4. Gal. 1.6, 15. & 5.8, 13. Phil. 3.14. Col. 3.12, 15. 1 Thes. 1.4 & 2.12. & 5.24. 2 Thes. 1.11. & 2.11, 14. 1 Tim. 5.21. & 6.12. 2 Tim. 1.9. & 2.10. Tit. 1.1. Heb. 3.1. & 9.15. James 2.5. 1 Pet. 1.1, 15. & 2.9 & 5.10. 2 Pet. 1.3, 10. Jude … Revel. 17.14. Therefore the meaning is in like manner, Rom. 11.28, 29.

That which Mr. Bl. alledgeth from Deut. 7.6, 7. doth not weaken this. For though it prove that which is not denied, that there is an election of a people to a visible Churchstate; yet it proves not such an election and love to be meant Rom. 11.28. nor by my argument doth it with any colour of reason follow, that the Church brought out of Aegypt was the invisible Church, because they are said to be chosen, Deut. 7.6, 7. any more then because Judas is said to be chosen by Christ, John 6.70. therefore election, Rom. 11.28. is into a meer visible Churchstate or Apostleship.

But Mr. Bl. after his calumny of my dis service to the Anti Arminians ▪ wiped away before, tels us that the Apostle there delivers an universal proposition, and ap…lies it to such election, love, and gifts that belongs to bodies or nations▪ yet it is a truth that equally holds, when it is applied to election to salvation, and with just warranty is applied by Divines to that purpose.

Answ. It is not true that the Apostle delivers, Rom. 11.29. an universal proposition concerning any election, love, calling▪ gifts, for then It would be false, there be many gifts and callings of God which are not without repentance in the Apostles sense; but a proposition of the gifts and calling which are to salvation, according to that love and election which are to everlasting salvation according to the Covenant mentioned v. 26.27. and therefore those Divines who understand it of election, love, gifts and calling to a meer visible Churchstate and condition, have no warranty to apply it to prove that election and perseverance which the Text, if they speak true, speaks not of; and the argmuent from thence for that purpose is utterly enervated by that interpretation, sith the assumption is by it made confessedly false, if the argument be thus framed, That decree is immutable, and that gift and calling of God do certainly continue which the Apostle saith are without repentance. But the Apostle saith the decree of election to eternal life, and the gift of taking away sins▪ and the calling which is inward are without repentance. Ergo. As for Pareus his forming it as from the less to the greater, it p. 595is, as for the most part such arguments are, liable to many exceptions; and in this matter hath no strength; for then it would follow, that if Gods gift and calling to visible Churchstate is without repentance, calling to the office of a Presbyter, which is more, is without repentance. I deny not but Commentators do speak some of them as Mr. Bl. alledgeth, and some doubtfully of which election and calling to understand it, and some speak disjunctively as if it were meant of either; and some one while means it of the one, and another while of the other. But it is not worth while to search into or set down their words. It is sufficient that I have demonstrated that i… must be meant of such election, love, gifts and cal…ing as are to saving holiness, and righteousness, and eternal life. Yet those which I alledged as writing against the Arminians, and understanding it of the decree of election un…o life and perseverance in saving grace, Mr. Bl. denies not that I have …ightly cited them, onelyonly he will not have Ames so peremptory as I am, by reason of some words of his, from which Mr. Bl. doth most falsely infer thus, [so that it appears according to him that they spake truth in the denial of this to be meant of the unchangeable decree of eternal election,] which they who read Ames his words in his Coronis, art. 5. cap. 4. may easily discern. I add to tho…e I cited in the first part of this Review, sect. 2. pag. …5. Dr. Owen, of perseverance, c. 2. §. 7. &c. Dr. Kendal, of redemption, ch. 8. pag. …20, &c. The reason why some wil not have it meant of election and effectual calli…g to salvation is their mistake, that particular persons may not be said to fall away from such ele…ion and cal…ing. For though it be true, that the particular persons never fall away from their personal election and calling, yet they may fall away from that election and calling to eternal life which they in their ancestor… had; which sense I have shewed to be agreeable to the Apostles meaning, in the first part of this Review, sect. 3. And Dr. Twiss in his Vind. Grat. l. 3. err. 8. sect. 3. acknowledgeth that when the Apostle saith, Rom. 11.23. they shall be graffed in, he means it not of those individuals in their persons, but their posterity.

But Mr. Bl. argues thus. The Fathers for whose sake they are beloved are the ancient Fathers from whom after the flesh they did proceed, specially Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the word is for the Fathers: Then election must needs be understood of an external grace of the Covenant, whereby God chose this nation to himself, according to that of Moses, Deut. 7.6. unless we are elect in Abraham to salvation and not in Christ. And Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are our mediators of reconciliation: and when the Apostle saith, We are …ccepted in the beloved, Ephes. 1.6. it is to be understood of acceptation in Abraham: and we are to conclude our prayers, not in and through Christ but Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; we are not for their sakes beloved to salvation.

Answ. 1. That the election, Deut. 7.6. must be understood of an external grace of the Covenant, needs bettr proof then Mr. Bl. brings. For God may be said to choose a nation, and yet not choose every one of the nation, it being usual, as Mr Cobbet observes, Just. vindic. part 2. ch. 2. that things said of a people collectively are meant of the greater or better part distributively. 2. The absurdities will press Mr. Bl. as p. 596well as me. For if, as Mr. Bl. saith, the election and love be to a meer visible Churchstate and condition, we may say by the same reason which he useth, We are elected in Abraham to Churchstate, and not in Christ; he is our mediator of reconciliation; we are accepted in Abraham the beloved; we are to conclude our prayers not in and through Christ, but Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which are absurd: We are not beloved for their sakes in the sense in which we are beloved in Christ, to visible Churchstate, any more then to salvation. 3. Though we are not for their sakes or for them beloved to salvation, yet the Jews are. 4. We are elect in Christ as the first-born among many brethren, Rom. 8.29. as the head of many members, as the mediator, the second Adam, by whom the life we are elected to is conveyed, in which sense we are said to be accepted or favoured, he is the mediator of reconciliation by his bloud, we conclude our prayers in and through him as the High Priest of our profession: But they that say, the Jews are beloved to salvation for the fathers sakes, or for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, need not, nor do mean it in these senses; but thus, they are beloved to salvation by reason of Gods Covenant to them, Exod. 32.13. Levit. 26.42. their fidelity to him, Nehem. 9.8. so that Abraham was called the friend of God, James 2.23. which are no whit derogatory to the prerogative of Christ, in whom alone we are elected, reconciled, favoured, heard, as the onelyonly begotten son of God, and the alone mediator between God and man.

What Mr. Bl. desires me to consider that Moses interceded for the whole body of Israel, Exod. 32.13. and that God promiseth to remember the whole nation under suffering, Levit. 26.42. is nothing for Mr. Bls. purpose. For if it were granted, that Moses interceded for the whole nation, yet it follows not, that Gods promise was to every individual of that nation, Levit. 26.42. And if it were, yet it follows not that it must be so Rom. 11.26, 27, 28, 29. Nor if it were granted (though the contrary is to me more probable) doth it follow, that the election, love, gifts, calling, cannot be to salvation, but must be into a meer visible Churchstate and condition, or, as Mr. Bl. terms it, external grace of the Covenant, sith there is no absurdity, that I know of to conceive, that at the calling of the Jews every individual Jew shall be a true believer, and saved. Nor doth my opinion impute any errour to Moses or Paul, but Mr. Bl. doth in this as in other things, egregiously triffle as one that writes without heed of what he saith.

My 8th. argument is this. If the ingraffing both of Jews and Gentiles be the fruit of Gods mercy, the breaking off by shutting up in unbelief, then the ingraffing is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith: But the former is true, vers. 30, 31, 32. Ergo, the later.

Mr. S. rather flights then answers this argument. For he takes no notice of that part of the medium, [the breaking off by shutting up in unbelief,] which shews what mercy it was by which they were ingraffed, to wit, converting and reconciling mercy proper to the elect, as the very opposition of the terms shews. v. 32. they were before shut up in unbelief by severity, now by mercy they are brought to faith and favour, p. 597but tels me, this proposition is unsound on which the argument is built, what ever is a fruit of Gods mercy is from election and ingraffing into the invisible Church, because that health, &c. are fruits of Gods mercy. But …t is not true, the proposition on which the argument is built is as hee …ith, but thus; That mercy which doth take away the shutting up in unbelief, is converting reconciling mercy from election, whose effect is the ingraffing into the visible Church by giving saving faith, ergo, if the ingraffing, &c. And this Mr. S. hath not disproved, nor do I think can be disproved.

Mr. Bl. saith, He hath answered this before, and onelyonly desires mee to give him a Comment on Hos, 1.6, 9.

But first if he have answered this before, then his answer is also refelled, and it is shewed that the mercy here is more then the priviledge of a visible Churchstate. 2. Mr. Bls. desire I shall not re…use to yeild to, when I finde any argument drawn by him from Hos. 1.6, 9. to make void my argument from Rom. 11.30, 31, 32.

But to my additional confirmation of my arguments in my Apology p. 73. that the whole scope and series of the Chapter and the frequent mention from v. 1. to 13. of termes importing election, reprobation and their consequents, with the Apostles exclamation v. 33. do fully shew the ingraffing to be into the invisible Church, by election and giving faith; Mr. Bl. replies thus.

Mr. T. might do well to tell us what ingraffing is by election: I take that to be an immanent act in God, which is terminated in himself, and not on the creature; such expressions do not sute with Mr. T. his high pretendings to scholastical learning.

Answ. Where and when I made high pretendings to scholastical learning, if Mr. Bl. had informed mee it might have done mee good to humble mee for such folly, but this dealing of Mr. Bl. by …uips to mis-represent me as an arrogant man, hath no better appearance then a shew of a malevolent minde in him towards mee. I hope I have so much scholastical learning as to vindicate my own writings, from his and others Cavils, and sure I am that what …ver my learning bee, Master Bl. hath shewed more of a surcostical bitter spirit in his writings against mee, then of scholastical learning, in which how much hee is defective, I had rather Mr. B and such birds as are of the same feather should tell him then my self. As for this exception it's so frivolous, as that it deserves not a reply.

I did not say the ingraffing is by election alone but by election and giving faith, which sometimes I do express sutably to Ephes. 1.4. thus [by giving faith according to election] and even in the first part of this Review, pag. 14. where I repeat this very thing, and do often tell what the ingraffing is which is by election, to wit effectual calling, converting, reconciling, giving saving faith, so that Mr. Bl. were hee not disposed to quarrel, might have omitted this exception. As for that hee takes election to bee an immanent act in GOD, so do I, and conceive that the will or counsel of God Acts 13.36. is an immanent act in God, and yet it is said that p. 598David having served his generation by the will or counsel of God fell asleep, and though election as the will of God be not in another subject then himself, yet it is terminated on the creature as the object, it being one of those acts of God that are ad extra though not extra, which mee thinks Mr. Bl. should understand, if age and disuse have not worn out his Logick and Theologick notions.

Mr. Blake saith of me, To have made up his argument he should have taken in by way of assumption; The Jews in their fall from Church-fellowship, cannot bee said to be rejected, hardened, given to a spirit of slumber, or that their eyes are darkened, or that they have stumbled; And that for their call into Church-fellowship, neither election or grace shall have any hand in it: This must bee his reasoning if there bee any shew of reason in his heap of words, and then all men will admire Mr. …. while he is in his admiration of Mr. M. I shall say no more but that hee is very weak both in Divinity and Logick, that cannot presently upon the first …ight discover the weakness, and return a satisfying answer to this flourish of words.

Answ. The words were as few as the matter would bear, without any flourish at all. The assumption would not have been as Mr. Bl. makes it, but thus, that the Jewes by bare fall from visible Church fellowship, cannot bee said to be rejected, hardened, given to a spirit of slumber, or that their eys are darkned, or that they have stumbled. (For a person may fall from visible Churchfellowship onelyonly by excommunication, putting out of the Synagogue, and yet bee neither rejected by God, nor hardened, nor given to a spirit of slumber, or his eys darkened, or he stumble, as in the case of the man born blinde, Joh. 9.34, 35.) and that the election and grace mentioned Rom. 11.5, 7. are meant there or in any part of the Apostles discourse of these thing…, Rom. 8, 9, 11. ch. of election into meer visible Churchfellowship, or grace that extends to no more then outward priviledges of Churchstate is not likely. And if any do take this reasoning to bee weak, I must needs say that I or hee are stark blinde in Divinity and Logick, and omitting my admiration of Mr. M. who I think after his edition of his Defence gave over the dispute, I admire not that Mr. Bl. (who…e superficialness I perceive plainly enough) but that any man that accurately studies Rom. 11. should interpret the ingraffing there meant of the bringing of persons into a meer visible Churchstate by a dogmatical faith, or outward ordinance without giving saving faith according to Gods election.

Mr. Bl. proceeding to vindicate Mr G. recites the words of the first part of this Review pag. 14. and then saith, It is well that Mr. T. yeilds so much, and being n…w imbarqued in this business, if hee did not not plus consulere …amae quam conscientiae, hee would yeild more, and freely confess that the mercy here is no other, nor no more then that which is general, and that the faith here is historical and not saving; I am sure there is enough to convince but it is God alone that must perswade.

Answ. If Mr Bl. had never known me, this censure might have been the more excusable, but his many criminations and censures, and misreports of me in his preface to his Book of the Covenant and p. 599throughout his Book do fully assure me he hath an evill eye towards me, and that he is indisposed to put any fair construction on what I do or write. Of which malignity in him I know no reason, but my opposing his da…ling of infant perfusion, for sprinkling it seems he ownes not, and baptism he useth not. As for what hee here saith o… me, if this reply of mine acquit me not, I have no remedy but to appeal to my witness in heaven. I do again protest, that I see no reason to convince me of that Mr. Bl. here saith, but abundant reason to the contrary, if Mr. Bl. or any other shall detect my errour, I am willing to be convinced and perswaded; but such fli…ting, quipping answers as Mr. Bl. makes, I shall hereafter pass by as the froth and some of an angry satyrist, not the dispute of a scholastique.

He saith of me, His reason to assert it to bee meant of saving faith, is worthy of consideration, being opposed to their former hardning, &c. And is there not a hardning that reaches so high to hold men from so much as faith historical … dogmatical, as well as there is an hardning to hold men from that which is saving?

Answ. There is, but no hardning meant Rom. 9. or 11. which doth not deprive of saving faith together with historical, and consequently the shewing mercy opposite must bee not a giving an historical fai…h onelyonly, but also a saving faith.

Mr. Bl. adds, The va…l is (as the Apostle tels us) on the heart of the Jews to this day, when Moses is read 2 Cor. 13.15. And does not this vail so far blind their eyes that they see not so much as with faith historical? That which the Jews to this time want, is that from which they fell, let Mr. T. take that into consideration; But to this day they want even a faith historical, had they kept faith in Christ so far as an assent in their whole nation, so that they had past in name and dignity for Christians, and had yet wanted among them that faith that was saving, then there had been colour for what Mr. T. saith. But their being as it is, and as it is here affirmed, I cannot but wonder at the vail before Mr. T. his eyes, that what is thus clear, should be thus held from him.

Answ. I shall forbear wondering hereafter, forasmuch as I discern the reason of Mr. Bls. wrangling, prejudice out of his affection to his brat termed Birth-priviledge, makes him imagine a vail over mine eyes, which is indeed over his own. What colour or proof rather is for my saying is shewed before. My argument is no whit infringed though the state of the Jews were such as that they wanted both historical and saving faith, hardning being opposed to giving saving faith, and no person said to be hardned but he that wants saving faith, and he that wants being hardned though hee should have historical, so that if hardning be a privation of both, yet it hath its denomination onelyonly from the privation of saving faith. And for Mr Bls. reason hee would have me consider, first the conclusion of it is not to the present point. For if the Jewes might not bee said to fall from a saving faith, yet their unbelief mentioned Rom. 11.30. might bee and was a privation not onelyonly of historical faith but also a saving (else Mr. Bl. must say they had a saving faith though not historical, which is a palpable absurdity, p. 600for then a person may have a saving faith and not an historical, and the unbelieving Jewes had a saving faith) and consequently the shewing mercy must bee not onelyonly a conferring an historical faith, but also a saving. 2. The ma…or is not true universally taken. All that which the Jews to this time want is that from which they fell; For they want their Temple, sac…ifi…es, Priesthood, &c. and yet they fell not from them. Third the argument is thus retorted, That which the Jewes to this time want, is that from which they fell, let Mr. Bl. take that into considera…ion. But to this day they want even a saving faith, Ergo, they fell from a saving faith. Such ill hap hath Mr. Bls. arguing: yet as one whose fingers did itch to bee dealing with mee hee scribbles further.

Whereas I alledged Ephes. 2.12. to prove the unbelief of the Gentiles in times past mentioned Rom 11.30. was not onelyonly a privation of historical, but also of saving faith, Mr. Bl. puts these frivolous questions to mee, Were they not without a dogmatical …aith? Were they not aliens and strangers so much as from the Commonwealth of Israel?

To which I answer, they were; and ask him, Whether they were not without a saving faith? And if so the shewing mercy is opposed to the no… giving a saving faith, and Mr. Bls. position most absurd, that the faith here (to wit Rom 11.20 where alone the word faith is used in that Chapter) is historical and not saving.

Mr. Bl. adds, And though in some sense every regenerate professing Christian is without CHRIST, without God, without hope, respective to saving fruition, and acceptable communion with him, yet that text is manifestly abused when it is applied to any of Christian profession. The whole must be carried on in a due application of it, Gentiles in the flesh, aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel.

Answ. Though I finde no emendation of it in Mr. Bls. Table of Errata, yet I do conceive [regenerate] is printed for [unregenerate] otherwise the speech were more grosly false then I shall imagine Mr. Bl. would thus deliver. And it beeing so, I conceive no abuse of it to have applied it to meer visible professors of Christianity among the Gentiles, if the words were added to it which Mr. Bl. would have joyned. For they were Gentiles in the flesh, aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, without Christ, without God, without hope. Nevertheless I know not what this makes to infringe my inference from Ephes. 2.12. to prove the unbelief Rom. 11.30. to have been a privation of saving faith.

Master Bl. denies not this sense of the words, that the Ephesians in their infidelity were without Christ, without God, without hope, respective to saving fruition and acceptable communion with him, and sure they that were thus were without saving faith, except Mr. Bl. imagine they had a saving faith, who had not so much as an historical: Nor is it denied the same state to bee described Rom. 11.30. which is described Ephes. 2.12. and therefore my inference stands notwithstanding this passage of Mr. Bl.

p. 601He further saith, And for his observation, that it occasioned the Apostles exclamation, O altitudo! O the depth, &c. v. 33. Sure the goodness of God bringing the Gentiles who were dogs, Matth. 15.26. unto the glory of children, and the severity of God in casting out the children of the Kingdome, Matth. 8.12. might well occasion this exclamation in the Apostle, as he had called to behold the goodness and severity of God, on them which fell severity, but towards the Gentiles goodness He might well cry out upon the greatest turne of providence that ever the world saw (which in ages past had beene hid, and the Angels desired to looke into) O the depth! &c.

Answ. True: but was this goodness or severity in respect of a meer visible Churchstate? or was it not also in respect of their state in the invisible Church? Sure the thing had not been so admirable, if it had not been in respect of the later as well as the former; and Writers and Preachers usually apply it to silence the objection against absolute election and reprobation concerning their everlasting state, as if it imported unmercifulness and injustice incompetent to God; and it seems so like the passage, Rom. 9.19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. that me thinks if Mr. Bl. did compare them, he should judge both places meant of the same thing: and which i… an irrefragable argument, it is clear Rom. 11.33. hath reference to what he said before, v. 11, 12. which is manifestly meant of their estate of salvation and reprobation, and therefore must be so meant v. 33.

What Mr. Bl. adds concerning my speech about Mr. G. and the Assembly, is through mistake, as if I had censured Mr. G. as like Plautus his miles gloriosus in his disposition; whereas I censured him onelyonly in respect of those words there used, which was right however in other things he were without gall, from which nevertheless that in his writings against me he was not altogether free, is shewed in my Apology, sect. 6. And for Mr. Bls. conceit, that where one degree of boasting is ascribed to Mr. G. one hundred will be ascribed to me by them that read our writings▪ it is not unlikely, if they see through Mr. Bls. spectacles, which make things seem black that are white, and make small …illocks seem hills: But I find cause to make it part of my Letany, From the unrighteous and hard censures of Mr. Bl. Mr. B. and others of my Antagonists, good Lord deliver me.

What I said of the Assembly shewed no more boldness then was meer, It is too apparent by the dealing with Mr. Coleman, my selfe, and others, that the stream of voices in the Assembly went to establish all after the Scottish mode, without a through examination of what was alledged to the contrary, except what was objected were backed by a very considerable party in Parliament, or Army, or City of London. It is no more boldness in me to assault such an Assembly, then it was in a particular dissenting brother. My weapons I ass…ult them with▪ are such as the Holy Scriptures yeeld, and my interpretations such as my adversaries themselves give, and my arguments and answers are the very same which they use in other disputes against Prelates and Arminians; and with th…se weapons which M. Bl. disdainfully like a Goliath, terms p. 602reeds or bulrushes, I am no more afraid to assault the Assembly of Divine at Westminster, then to assault Bakewel, Hussey, and such like scriblers.

To my 9th argument from parallel places, Mr. Bl. tels me, Mr. Hudson, pag. 132. hath not onelyonly affirmed, but proved, that the Text 1 Cor. 12.13. is meant of the Church as visible.

Answ. I have viewed the place, and find Mr. Hudson speaking thus in answer to the objection: But this is meant of the invisible company of believers he saith, it is true, but it is spoken of them as visible. So that Mr. Hudson affirms the same with me, that 1 Cor. 12.13. must be understood of the invisible Church, yet in respect of that which is there said of them, something is spoken of them as visible.

To my allegation of Ephes. 3.6. that the Gentiles were made fellow-heirs of the same body, and co-partakers 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, b…t by giving faith according to election: Mr. Bl. thus in his flirting fashion answers, Oh that Mr. T. spake truth; then (as the Apostle saith of Israel at their restauration, all Israel shall be saved, Rom. 11.26.) All England in statu quo, should be saved in the sense that Mr. T. would understand salvation, whether we be by descent Brittains, Saxons, or Normans, we are Gentiles, and consequently by his Divinity partakers of the Gospel by faith according to election.

Answ. Not so, unless by Gentiles were meant every Gentile, which a fre…h man in the University would correct Mr. Bl. in, who knows an indefinite proposition not to be equipollent to an universal incontingent matter. It is said, Acts 11.18. th…n hath God given to the Gentiles repentance unto life; yet it follows nor, he hath done so to every Gentile. Mr. Bl. adds. Sure I am this Text is meant of Gospel glory in ordinance dispensed by the Apostles ministery. Answ. Sure I am, that to be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers together of his promise in Christ by the Gospel, imports more then a meer visible Churchstate, even an estate of righteousness, union with Christ, and inheritance of eternal life: And I doubt not but many of his Auditors would correct Mr. Bl. if he taught otherwise at any Lecture of Christians of ordinary understanding.

Yet he he saith further, And as to the Jews appertained the glory and the promises, Rom. 9.4, 5. so now the glory and promises belong to the Gentiles: And as many Jews as fell not off, still enjoy this glory with the Gentiles, and so both make one new man, Ephes. 2.15. The visible state of the Jews was a distinct body from the Gentiles: Now upon this glorious call they are one new man, or new body.

Answ. The glory and promises meant Rom. 9 4, 5. did never belong to the Gentile believers in the Christian Church, nor do the believing Jews still enjoy that glory with the Gentiles, though both make one new man, yet not the meer visible Church is that one man, or body, but the Church invisible reconciled to God by Christs death, as the Text it self shews, Ephes. 2.15, 16, 17, 18, 19.

p. 603Mr. Bl▪ tels me, The ingraffing is not by giving faith of election, nor is it an act of admission into the visible Church by an outward ordinance; but it is by Gods giving of faith in and by Gospel ordinances, to give assent to Gospel mysteries, and make profession of them.

Answ. I have proved before it is more then the giving of an historical faith, however this concession in the close serves my purpose. For if this be the ingraffing, then they onelyonly that thus do assent and make profession, are ingraffed: But infants do not thus assent and make profession; Ergo, they are not ingraffed, and consequently the Text Rom. 11.16, 17. alledged by the Assembly, Mr. G. Mr. M. &c. for admission of infants with parents as with the Jews, is brought obtorto collo plainly against the meaning of it.

What Mr. Bl. adds, that Gal. 3.14, 26, 28, 29. there is an ingraffing into Christ mentioned, but none into the Church, is as vain as the rest, there being no ingraffing into Christ by faith, but it is also into the Church invisible, who is Christ mystical, 1 Cor. 12.12 The Scriptures I have produced are proved to be meant of the Church invisible, because the things said in those Scriptures are such as agree to none other; and they appear to be parallel by the indentity of the matter, all expressing the state of Gentile believers upon their effectual cal…ing. It is Mr. Bls. false charge, that the Reader will hereafter find me reasoning with my full strength against the force of all arguments a pari: This calumny is re…elled in the 2d. part of this Review, sect. 3.

As for my 10th. argument, whether the faith in the testimonies cited be meant of justifying, and the election to eternal life, needs no other decision then the very words, which I took from Marlorat without searching into the Authors own books because I had them not of my own, and I saw it needless to look further. If the words be ambiguous, the Authors intended to deceive; if elsewhere they speak against me, they gainsay themselves: neither of which Mr. Bl. should charge them with, if he regarded their credit.

In Mr. Bls. arguments, sect. 3. the first is answered before in vindicating my 4th. argument. I deny the major of the 2d. which is answered in the 2d. part of this Review, sect. 6. pag. 66, 67. In the 3d. the minor is false, that the priviledge of ingraffing is the priviledge of every member of the visible Church: in that which is added to prove it to be the priviledge of ordinances, if the major be universal, it is false; besides, the argument may be retorted. In the 4th. I deny the major, and have often answered the inference [that then I must maintain falling away from true faith] that by my exposition the falling away of particular persons from the true justifying faith they had in their own persons, is not maintained; but the falling away of the people of one age from that which their predecessors in a former age had. In the 5th. if the minor be meant of a casting onelyonly out of a visible Churchstate, it is denied; nor is it proved, Matth 21 43. For the Kingdome of God not onelyonly notes the outward Churchstate, but also the rule of Christ in their hearts, and protection of them by his spirit. In the 6th. the conclusion is granted. That p. 604which Mr. Bl. saith, that the body of believing Jews and Christian Gentiles, called by the Apostle one new man, Ephes. 2.15. are capable of no other ingraffing then that which is visible, and the body of them entitled new, as the Jews before, onelyonly to priviledges of ordinances, is not true. Nor is it true, that in my speech recited by him pag. 312. is taken for granted, 1. that the whole visible body of Christian nations are truly ingraffed into the Church invisible, i… by whole body be meant all the parts, o… every part. 2. Nor is it true, that it is taken for granted by me, that in after ages the same body, though not the same persons, may be cast off, and yet no particular person rejected, without this explication, that no particular person who was an elect person or true believer, is rejected.

But against this 2d. imagined grant of mine, Mr. Bl. thus argues. The 2d. must be examined; this Church thus cut off, either continues in the invisible body as before, or else is degenerate by the death of those numerical persons, that made up a body invisible, and succession of others that are no more then v…sible members. If it continue in the invisible body till the time of breaking off, then Mr. T. is not holpen with his distinction of a consistent and a fluent being, nor with hi… similitude of Euphrates; for so a Church invisible is still broken off and rejected, and falling away is maintained. If it be degenerate, then 1. they fall off themselves, and are not broken off by God; their own sin th…n should be noted, nor Gods act as their punishment: But their breaking off, or rejection is the act of God laying waste his Vineyard, Isa 5. taking away his Kingdome, Matth. 21 43. removing the Candlestick, Ephes. 2.5. (it should be Revel. 2.5.) All noting the act of God punishing upon the peoples act of sinning, which is of the Church, not invisible, but visible. 2. For the similitude of Cyrus his turning of Euphrates, that he turned the same River that God created, this will not serve Mr. T. his purpose; for Euphrates continues a River of the same kind and nature as it was at the first creation, and the Church in his expression is changed from the invisible body of Christ, to a visible company of bare professors. The Church had changed her own channel. 3. Mr. T. indeed grants the question, for he confesses that the Church is visible that God breaks off; and whatsoever it had been, now it hath no more then a visible interest; so that a visible Church falls off, and Gentiles are ingraffed into that which is visible. Sect. 4. M Bl. adds these words That wild assertion pag. 19. 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, is a thread that runs through almost the whole, and enough I suppose is spoken to it: And when he shall shew me an invisible nation (of which he speaks) from which there may be a breach; I will either yeeld …p all, or he shall hear more. Till then I shall look on his words as such a—unworthy the pen of such a Writer; an invisible nation it must be, a visible nation cannot be cut off from the Church invisible.

Answ. Speak out man, let me know the worst you can say, I expect p. 605no favour from you having found neither charity nor equity in your writings against mee. The assertion is such as will endure your strongest battery, what you say here is merre wrangling, like a Sophister perverting my words when they are truly repeated, though thy are very plain. The Argument is quite from the matter. The Conclusion is, that the Church cut off is not the invis…ble Church but visible, which is not contradictory to my asserti…n; who never asserted that the Church cut of… was the invisible Church, but often asserted the contrary, alwayes making the Olive tree the invisible Church to abide the same, though some branches were broken off, others were ingraffed, as in the first part of this Review Section 9. page 83. with this explication page 66. yet not as a rock that abides the same, but as a river which is in flux, and I often deny in express termes, as pag. 22, 74. that my meaning was that the Church of God is broken off from the invisible Church; but this I say, that the Nation of the Jews, of which the body or most part in some ages were in the invisible 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 individual persons of a former age did stand. Which thing having been so often and so plainly expressed by mee in that book which Mr. Bl. takes on him to answer, it is an extremely shamefull abuse hee offers mee in going about to refute that as my assertion which is disclaimed by mee. Now this being premised and the term [this Church] (as it should be) being changed into [this people or nation] that is a great or the greatest part of them, I answer they are broken off from the invisible Church, in that the numerical persons that made up the invisible Church in a former age being dead, the successors degenerated from their faith, and were neither visible professors nor invisible believers in Christ: which not believing was their own act from their own will, yet consequent on Gods act of rep…obation, and the breaking off, to wit the deprivation of them from the membership and priviledges of his invisible Church, was Gods act of punitive justice for their unbelieving. And thus the similitude of Cyrus his turning Euphrates, serves my purpose, to shew how I am free from holding Arminian Apostasie, the same people like that river beeing turned from their old channel, though not the same persons; not as Mr. Bl. falsly chargeth mee, that in my expression the Church is changed from the invisible body of Christ, to a visible company of bare professours, or that the Church had changed her own channel. Nor do I grant the question, or confess that the Church is visible that God breaks off, and whatsoever it had been, now it hath no more then a visible interest; so that a visible Church falls off, and Gentiles are ingraffed into that which is visible; but what I say is of the Jewish people, who had not so much as a visible interest when God brake them off, or they fell off, and the Gentiles are ingraffed into the invisible Church in their stead. Nor need I shew an invisible nation broken off, it being neither true that I spake of an invisible nation, nor that a visible nation cannot bee cut off from p. 606the Church invisible, but these are Mr. Bls. dotages for want of heeding mine and his own words (as I conceive) through hast to insert some thing against me in that book ere it was printed. Which is so far from being enough to answer me, that a… Solomon said of him that answered a matter afore he heard it, so it may be said o… Mr. Bl. answering me afore he had studied my writings, he hath said enough to shew his folly and to work his shame. My candour p. 23. is ordinary where there is the like cause: I conceive the election of bodies, societies, or nations, in the sense I have often given, may bee as well into the invisible Church of true believers, as into the visible Church of true professors, and that the election of the Gentiles, by which they were ingraffed, was into the invisible Church of true believers. Of Calvins and B…cers words I shall say no more having not …he books. Mr. Bl. p. 314. adds.

Mr. G. syllogistically concluding that the seed of Christians by a pure Gospel Covenant should enjoy outward Church priviledges, Mr. T. sect. 4. replies, that it is not either formally or equivalently the thing to be proved, which is, that the Christian Jews and their seed were in infancy to be baptised. But by his favour, he that concludes the whole; concludes the parts of the whole. Outward Church-priviledges is the whole, baptism is a part of the whole; concluding Church priviledges he concludes baptism, as hee that can conclude Mr. T. is at Lempster or Sudbury, concludes also that his head and shoulders are. And if any priviledge bee concluded, then baptism is concluded, which is the leading one among Church-priviledges.

Answ. Omitting Mr. Bls. snarling at my dwellings in Lemster and Ledbury (for so hee means) I observe how well he pleads for Mr. G. who would have him conclude, that the seed of Christians by a pure Gospel Covenant should enjoy in infancy outward Church-priviledges as a whole, and consequently Baptism as a part. Which if it were Mr. Gs. arguing, hee should by the same reason have concluded their enjoying the Lords Supper, and Church office. Nor is the other plea much better: For some priviledge may be concluded, as laying on hands for a sign of prayer as Christ did, and yet not baptism. For though baptism be the leading priviledge after a person is brought to the faith, yet afore a person is a believer, if there be any leading Church-priviledg competent to infants, it must be laying on of hands, the Scripture giving no hint of any other.

The distinction I give in the first part of my Review, sect. 4. p. 28. is handsome, being set down as it is by me there, though Mr. Bl. carp at it, for those priviledges which Mr. G. termes Gospel priviledges, and I term so in answer to him as keeping his term, I may say of them (if they may be so called, and not rather legal.)

Mr. Bs. words, the breaking off from the Church is an unavoidable consequence of the revoking of the gift of Churchmembership, and the repealing of the ordinance: therfore where there is no breaking off from the Church, there is no such revoking or repealing; do justifie the title of the 6th. sect. of the first part of my Review. That the breaking off Rom. 11.17. was not by repeal of an ordinance concerning infants visible Churchmembership p. 607as Mr. B. conceive, which Mr. Bl. opposeth with me. And his first reason, the deserving cause of that breaking off is unbelief▪ now unbelief is not in infants, much less proper to infants, serves to prove that the infants of unbelievers are not broken off, for unbelief is not in them, and that infants of believers are not graffed in. For as the deserving cause of breaking off i… unbelief which is not in infants, so the means of graffing in by the rule of opposites is faith, which is not in infants. And when in his 2d. reason he saith, this breaking off was of the general body of the Church of the Jews, that is the major part. Now infants were not the generality, they made not up the major part of that body, this serves to answer what Mr. Bl. before p. 307. and elsewhere would infer, that if the Gentiles or the body of them be elect then all must be so, whereas the body according to himself may stand for the major part or generality, which he denies infants to be, and therefore the body and gen…rality may be ingraffed and not infants.

Mr. Bls. exceptions against my distinctions of breaking off because breaking off implied a former union are vain, for there may be a breaking off from that union which they had not in their own persons, specially when the breaking off is of a people, nor is it usual to term th…se acts privations of habits which take not away habits that were, but might have been, as when we are said to be redeemed, delivered from hell, to be cast out into outer darkness, Matth. 8.12. though never in heaven. But were not this right but non-sense, yet Mr. …ls exceptions against the distinctions is frivolous. For in those distinctions I do not set down the wayes of breaking off that were actually, but such as are imaginable, which is necessary when we go about to argue by a disjunctive syllogism, as all Logicians know.

Yet what Mr. Bl. saith, excommunication is not the breaking off meant Rom. 11.17, 20. For that is the act of the Church on some particular member; But this here is the act of God, which is by taking away the Kingdome, by removing their Candlestick, departing with his presence, is right, if understood of the subtracting of the presence of his spirit, as well as his word. Which is to be conceived, for the word was offered and preached to them when they were broken off, and therefore they were not broken off barely by subtracting that. Besides the ingraffing is not by bare outward ordinances, for they were vouchsafed even to the broken off, and consequently the f…tness of the Olive is not the bare priviledge of outward Ordinances. And if it be not the Churches act, but Gods by which there is ingraffing, then infants are not ingraffed, who have no act of God to ingraff them, but onelyonly that of the Church or administratour of Baptism.

Mr. Bls. talk of the Ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership, begun in the great Charter of heaven, and continued, is but vapouring; Mr. Bl. mis recites Mr. Bs antecedent which was not as hee repeats it, That the Jews were cast off for unbelief, but that none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief, which I denied, and Mr. Bls. exceptions is frivolous. But the text assignes unbelief, Mr. T. assignes no other cause, then that must stand. To which I reply, and so it doth by my answer, and yet I do assign another cause, Gods act of executing his decree of reprobation.

p. 608To what I said, that the unbelief being positive Rom. 10.21. if none were broken off but unbelievers here meant, no infants no not of infidels that never heard of Christ were broken off, he saith we easily yeild his conclusion, if he frame it in a syllogism; that the infants of infidels that never heard of Christ were never broken off. They could never be broken off that were never taken in, A branch of a bramble was never broken off from a vine or olive. Answ. 1. They may be said to be broken off who were never taken in in their own persons, sure the abortives and stil-born were never taken into the visible Church of the Jews, and yet if other infants were broken off so were they, and if they were broken off though they were never taken in in their own persons but their ancestors, then the infants of infidel Edomites might be said to be broken off, who were in Esau, Isaac, and Abraham taken in: But they were not positive unbelievers, therefore other then positive unbelievers are broken off, which opposeth Mr. B. 2. If infants of infidel Edomites be not broken off, then according to Mr. B. the ordinance of visible Churchmembership is not in respect of them revoked and repealed, and consequently they are visible Churchmembers according to the tenour of Mr. Bs. arguing. 3. If God will not punish the children for the fathers sins (as Mr. B. sai…h) much less for a strangers, then he would not break off the unbelieving Jews infant children, then they are visible Churchmembers if Mr. Bs. arg. hold. 4. Mr. Bls. reason is answered before, by shewing how there may be privations of habits not in being; And if his reason were good, and unbelieving Jews infant could not be broken off, for that it was never in the visible Church Christian, and is the branch of a bramble. To my words, that the breaking off is not revoking of an ordinance about visible churchmembership, but the execution of the decree of reprobation in excluding them from the invisible Church, M. Bl. replies 1. By demand; Is there any such decree as to cast out of the Church invisible? I am sure that chapter hath no such thing. Answ. There is a decree of breaking off from the Church invisible, and that decree is plainly exprest in that chapter, v. 7, 8, 9, 10. For what comes to pass in time that God decrees. But they were broken off in time from the invisible Church of believers, v. 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17, 19, 22. 2ly. Saith he, I demand did they continue in the Church visible, when upon execution of such a decree they were cast out of the Church invisible? or was their station in the visible Church lost, and that of the invisible Church never gained, and therefore they were not broken off from it. Answ. They continued in the visible Church Jewish in opposition to the visible Church Christian, which they persecuted when they were cast away and broken off from the Church invisible of true believers, according to Gods decree of reprobation, though they never gained a station in the invisible Church in their own persons. Mr. Bl. adds 3ly. The Jews adhering to circumcision, &c. though God changed the rites Moses gave them, refused the way of God, rejected the counsel of God in not being baptised, doting upon elements beggerly, and so their eys are held, that they see nothing into glorious Gospel mysteries; And this their unbelief is their breaking off from that visible Church station, in which they sometimes stood, upon which account they are kept out from interest in the Church invisible. And when this blindness shall be removed, they shall then be saved.

p. 609Answ. Their unbelief was the means of their breaking off, but not of their breaking off from that visible Church-station in which they sometimes stood; the visible Church-station in which they stood, is, as Mr. Bl. himself describes it, their station in the Jewish Church visible in the way of Church ordinances, Circumcision, Sacrifices, &c. changed by God; yet, as he himself faith, the Jews stuck thereto, and therefore stood still in their former visible Church-station. Besides, their unbelief was not their breaking off from it. For 1. as Mr. Bl. said before the breaking off was Gods act, so was not their unbelief. 2. According to Mr. Bl. breaking off was Gods act of punishment, but it was no punishment but a mer… to be broken off from that visible Church station. Nor upon the account of their breaking off from that visible Church station in which they sometimes stood, were they kept out from interest in the Church invisible, but for their unbelief, and their keeping that Church station. However, if they were kept out from interest in the Church invisible, their breaking off is more then depriving of a visible Churchstate, y…a the same which I assert, a breaking off from the invisible Church.

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

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

2. Because they are one sheep-fold, Joh. 10.16. and to the objection that it's meant of the invisible Church, because Christ gives notes of those that were indeed his sheep, he saith, Christ speaks to those that were Disciples onelyonly according to profession, and gives notes, Joh. 8.31. of Disciples indeed; and it is against all reason, that Christ should in discourse point out the invisible Church with the demonstrative This, and that to those that were malignant enough in the Church visible, the Pharisees, as appears in the close of the former Chapter. And the mention of thieves creeping into it, hirelings employed in it, doth contradict it. The visible Church of the Jews and Gentiles in which Christ hath true sheep for whom he dies, and others that thieves and hirelings do deceive, makes up one sheep-fold.

Answ. The Text rather proves the contrary as Mr. Bl. expounds it▪ For if the fold be the visible Church, and the other sheep are not of that visible Church, then there is not one fold or Church of Jews and Gentiles, but some sheep are of one fold▪ or visible Church, and some of another. As for Mr. Bls. arguments, they are of no force. For Christ might well enough in his discourse point out the invisible Church with the demonstrative [this] it being usual to point out invisible things by it, as Joh. 6.29, &c. This God is our God: And yet I do not think [this fold, John 10.16.] notes the invisible Church, but the people or nation p. 610of the Jews, as Piscator, Grotius, &c. expound it, or rather the place. For the fold, foreign, notes not the sheep, and therefore not the Church, but the place or country where or whence they are▪ Nor were deceivers, hirelings, thieves, or wolves, in or of the Church meant Joh. 10.15, 16. though they might get into the place and company of them. Nor is it truly translated by our Translatours [there shall be one fold,] though (which I somewhat marvel at) they follow therein the vulgar Latine: For the Tigurine Divines note, foreign in Greek signifies the flock, not the fold. And Beza excepts against the vulgar for it, and against the Romanists, who would have that one f…ld to be Rome. And Grotius observes that the speech is proverbial, One flock one shepheard, to which he makes Ezek. 37.24. to be like. Now that the one flock is not the meer visible Church, but the invisible, it appears from many things in the Text, that Christ laid down his life for them, that they follow him, hear his voyce, his Father and he knows them distinguishingly from others who do not believe because they are not of his sheep, that he gives them eternal life, none can pluck them out of his Fathers hands, v. 14, 15, 16, 26, 27, 28, 29. out of which many Protestant Divines gather absolute election, particular redemption, effectual conversion and perseverance, against Arminians. And Diodati in his annot. on Joh. 10 16. hath it thus. Other sheep] namely, the elect among the Gentiles, who are to be called by the Gospel, and incorporated into the Church with the elect of the Jewish nation. One body, 1 Cor. 12.13. one new man, Ephes. 2.15. are the invisible Church as is shewed before. Matth. 8.11. The Kingdome of heaven is the Kingdome of glory. Matth. 21.43. The Kingdome of God is either the Gospel by a metonymy, or the rule of God in their hearts, which was taken from them, that is that people, with whose ancestors it was, though not in those persons from whom it was taken. The visible Church cannot be meant by the Kingdome, for the fruits of the Kingdome are not the fruits of the meer visible Church, they are not bare profession, but real faith, holiness, and obedience, which are fruits of the spirit, not of the Church; or if of any Church, of the invisible, not the meer visible. And though all invisible members bring forth fruit, yet that nation which had invisible members bringing forth fruit in a former age, may in an after age not bring forth fruit, and for that reason the Church invisible may be taken from them, with whom it was in respect of their ancestors.

To what I said, If the Christian Gentiles were graffed into the same visible Church with the Jews, then they should have been circumcised, &c. contrary to the determination Acts 15. Mr. Bl replies, That is of no force, as though we may not be in the same Kingdome, and yet under a new way of administration. Law-givers on earth are sometimes pleased to change their Laws, and so doth the Law-giver of Heaven; or if he will limit his instance to Circumcision, taking in no other Laws. The same house may have a new door or porch. Let Mr. T. then know that he is in the same visible Kingdome as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their posterity after the flesh in Israel were.

p. 611Answ. That which Mr. Bl. saith of the lameness of a Kingdome under a new way of administration, of Law givers changing their laws, of Gods doing so, the identity of a house with a new door, is all granted; but doth not take away the force of my reason, unless he could shew that any were graffed or to be graffed into the visible Church Jewish without Circumcision, if he were a male. Doth not Mr. Bl. maintain here in answer to my 4th. argument, that we are partakers of the same outward priviledges and ordinances with the Jews, as he expounds Rom. 11.17. which opposeth his speech here of a new way? Doth not Scripture term the Jewish Church or people, the Circumcision, because those that were in that Church, if male, were circumcised? Was not Cornelius taken for unclean, and not of that Church, because uncircumcised? or was he ever in the Jewish Church after his Baptism? God might admit into the Jewish Church another way then by Circumcision; but Mr. Bl. cannot shew he or the Jews did so. We are in the same invisible Kingdome of true believers, and elect persons, with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: but I do not yet know by any thing Mr. Bl. hath hitherto said, that I am in the same visible Kingdome with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their posterity after the flesh in Israel. Every one in the visible Kingdome of Israel after the flesh, did partake of the Passeover; the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 10 18. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the the sacrifices partakers of the altar? Which intimates that Israel after the flesh did then when he wrote eat of the sacrifices, which Christians did not, and therefore were not adjoyned to Israel after the flesh, but in that very place, v 16, 17. distinguished from them. I take Mr. Bls. assertion to infer Jad…ism: and if he or any other be not satisfied by my answer to Mr. Cobbet, I have more reason to impute it to their prejudice, then to defect in my answer.