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 which 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 oâ— 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 faiâ—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 repâ—obation I never asserted nor ascribed to Contraremonstrants who onely 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 onely 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 the 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. 'T is 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
ad dictum simpliciter is â—allacious As for my speech which he saith symbolizeth with Bellarmine if it be true it is not the worse for that nor did I blame Mr. M. for symbolizing with Arminius in a truth but for agreeing with him in that explication which doth undermine the true explication of Rom. 9.8 which the Contraremonstrants prove from the Text. If Bellarmine did by mystical sense mean the same which I did by the more inward sense of the Holy Ghost and by the Letter what I express by the outward face of the words I see not that either Chamier or Mr. Bl. have or can prove it false The sense in the outward face of the words I call that which a Linguist who knows what words signifie would conceive upon reading without any other revelation from the Holy Ghost But I cannot believe that any Linguist without other revelation than what the bare words hold forth would ever have understood these promises A father of many Nations have I made thee I will be a God to thee and thy seed Thus Gentiles as well as Jews shall believe in Christ I will justifie raise thee up and all that are my Elect or who believe as thou dost to eternal life I grant Chamiers conclusion In this Covenant here is a promise of Heaven and yet deny that the outward face of the covenant Gen. 17. is all Evangelical nor is there a word in Mr. Blakes that proves it Mr. Blake proceeds thus Lastly Mr. T. yet knows not how to bring any thing home were all granted to serve his interest And then sets down what he conceives to be my meaning which he thus opposeth First that orthodox Divines both ancient and modern have made Circumcision to be of the same signification and use as Baptism and till Anabaptists closed they had no Adversaries but Papists who to advance their opus operatum in the Sacraments of the New Testament will have them as far to exceed the Old as Heaven doth Earth and the substance doth the shadow and then cites a speech of Chamier Panst. Caâ—h tom 4. lib. 2. cap. 9. sect 58. and prosecutes his calumnies of my borrowing my weapons I use against infant-baptism from the Jesuits to all which I answer 1. That I grant that Circumcision and Baptism are in part of the same signification and use nor did I ever deny it but in as many and more things they differ which I have shewed Exercit. Sect. 2. Examen part 3. Sect. 9. in this part of the Review Sect. 11. and those disparities I prove out of Scripture and the best learned and approved Protestant Writers Nor do I agree with the Jesuits in holding Baptism to confer grace ex opâ—re operato nor do I undervalue the Covenant with Abraham and his seed as no Gospel-covenant nor do I deny Circumcision to have been the seal of a Gospel-promise As Mr. Blake doth calumniate me and to make odious doth faâ—sly and injuriously suggest I took from the Jesuits But this I confess I hold Exercit. Sect. 1. that there is not the same reason of Circumcision and Baptism in signing the Evangelical Covenant nor may there be an argument drawn from the administration of the one to the like manner of administring the other of both which speeches I have given an account in that place which I finde not yet invalidated and if they hold the analogy between infant-circumcision and infant-baptism is evacuated there being difference between the covenant made with Abraham and the new covenant though both be in some sort Evangelical and therefore the mixture of the covenant will serve my interest in this point 2. It is false which Mr. Blake saith That my conformity with the Jesuits about the difference between Circumcision and Baptism to maintain the opus operatum of the one to the disparagement of the other as if Baptism exceeded Circumcision as far as the substance the shadow did put me upon it to affirm that what all Protestant Divines defend against the Papists must be truth undeniable is no undeniable axiome for neither do I conform to Jesuits inâ— that point nor was such conformity any reason of that speech but the words of Mr. M. in his Sermon as the reading of the words of my Examen pag. 113. shew And I say still that speech is a truth and necessary to be avouched by all those who ascribe onely authentick authority to the holy Scripture Nor is it reasonable to require that I should shew any such errour as is maintained by all Protestant Divines against Papists For 1. it is not possible for me to shew what all Protestant Divines hold against Papists 2. Nor is it necessary to verifie my speech which avoucheth not any such errour in act but onely the possibility of it which is sufficiently made good by pâ—oving them not infallible And to the demand how Popery should be known if that be no Popery which all Protestant Divines defend against the Papists I answer 1. it may be counted Popery and yet perhaps a truth which all Protestant Divines oppose 2. What is Popery which we have engaged our selves to extirpate is better known in the ways I set down Ap. p. 133 134. Sect. 13. than in Mr. Blakes way For 1. it is not possible for any man no not the greatest Reader in Controversies to know what all Protestant Divines defend against Papists 2. If that be the Rule to know Popery by many things will not be taken for Popery which are there being many Tenents which are counted Popery which Protestants Divines and those of good note have not opposed but have granted many things favourably to them as not onely the Collections of Brerely and such like Papists but also the Treatises of the Cassandrian writers and late Episcopal Protestant do shew which yet I do not approve of I agree with Mr. Blake that there is less likelihood that the truth should be with the Papists than with the Protestants and yet there may be some truth which some Papists may discern which many Protestants do not It is the saying of Doctor Twisse Vind. Grat. lib. 1. part 2. sect 25. digress 8. num 3. But I would not that those things should be rejected of us because the Schoolmen hold them for neither do the Cretians fain all things Augustines judgment was esteemed better than the Pelagians as being the oracle of his time yet he is censured as the hard father of infants for maintaining their damnation if they died unbaptized Calvin was in high esteem as the great Light of the Protestant Churches who have many of them followed him in the point about usury yet the Popish and Prelatical Divines are generally counted by our most zealous Preachers more right in that point than the transmarine Calvinists It is a wicked calumny which Mr. Blake vents whe he saith of me that I 〈◊〉 in upon the party of these sons of Anak meaning the Jesuits Had he any other
the world are either Heathens that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Nations or Jewes but me thinks he should not say we have to deâ—l wiâ—h Jews therefore we have to deal with Heathens and consequently our practise is the way of the Apostles by Mr. Bls. own confession To confine the term heathens onely to them that are not Christians in name is indeed according to the vulgar speech but besides the Scripture use which Mr. Bl. me thinks in his writing should have followed But if Mr. Bl. mean iâ— in the vulgar sense it is easie to make it good that no Englishman or his child is a Christian till he be made a disciple by preaching the Gospel sith to be a disciple of Chrâ—st and a Christian are terms of the same sense Acts. 11.26 Yet in bâ—ptizing by Christs commission and the Apostles practise thâ—re is no difference made between Jews and Heathens boâ—h are to be baptized upon their believing Mark 16.16 neither the one nor the other were or were to be bapâ—ized by the Apostles without their own personal profession of faith Our way then by Mr. Bls. own confession is the way of the Apostles His coâ—fession also is true that our way is of more colour then theirs that set up new Churches and retain the old baptism for acknowledging them church members at Bapâ—ism and not admitting them as church-members though without scandal is after their own principles to contradict themselves and to set up Churches in a congregational way disclaiming the National and Parochial and yet to admit infants to Baptism by vertue of Circumcision and Abrahams covenant and church-gathering what is it but to dissert that in practise which they plead in dispute and to make the frame of the national Church Jewish the rule of the Christ an Church catholick Nor have Presbyterians any colour for their reformation of Baptism or the Lords supper if they will stick to their allegations of taking a rule for Baptism from Circumcision or of the Lords Supper from the Passeover for to them all sorts whether ignorant or scandalous were admitted and if we must retain whom the Jewish Church reâ—ained as visible church-members there will be no Ecclesiastical juridicaâ— excommunicatâ—on for moral miscarriages there being 〈◊〉 â—uch among them As for what Mr. Bl. chargeth the baptized Câ—urches with of the unholinâ—ss of their members though I can say littâ—e of those near Mr. Bl. if there be an yet I am able to say of some and Mr. Baxter himself hath in print said somewhat of one of the Churches which might refute this calumny and I think there are many able to testifie of the holy conversation of many of the Churches of baptized persons however Mr. Baxter imagines they in the end prove wicked However we do neither in practise nor opinion maintain such impure Churches of ignorant and vicious persons as Mr. Bl. Vindic. Faed ch 47. doth and Presbyterians commonly do Nor is it likely the worst of the baptized Churches should be worse then the ordinary sort of the Paedobaptists Churches of Mr. Bls. way Chap 29. Mr. Bl. answers to some objections against his assertion 1. That regenerate persons onely are in New Testament times honoured with the name of the people of God they therefore onely are in Covenant To which he answers 1. That there are terms equivalent Beleevers Saints Disciples and Christians which are given to the unregenerate To which I reply that though this argument be not mine yet it may be said that the term Gods people doth rather imply being in Covenant wiâ—h God then the other terms But I think the argument not cogent sith the term my people doth not in the force of the word necessarily import a Covenant of God and men maâ— be conceived his people by election or purchase without a Covenant and therefore own it not 2 ly Saith he It is not often that that phrase is found in New Testament Scriptures with such restriction onely to regenerate persons He denies not Tit. 2.14 is taken for a people separate by grace out of the state of nature But he is not resolved whether Revel 21.3 serve to purpose it being in dispute whether to be fulfilled on earth or in heaven if on earth then it sets out a singular glory in the Church through Ordinances in purity yet with a mixture of close hypocrites â—nd for Christs personal reign on earth that he lets go as the opinion of others of a considerable part of whom he is not very well conceited it seems Answ. His not denying Tit. 2.14 to 〈◊〉 pregnant and being alledged by me as the parallel place to 1 Pet. 2.9 confirms mâ— restriction of the titles there used â—o â—he regenerate And â—e thinâ—s the promises Revel 21.3 4. That God would be their God with them that he would wipe away all tears from their eys there should be no more death nor crying nor labour should be sufficient to prove the people of God there meant to be onely the regenerate And me thinks Matth. 1.21 2.6 Luke 1.17 68 77. 2.32 7.16 Acts 15.14 18.10 Rom. 9.25 11.1 15.10 2 Cor. 6.16 Heb. 4 9 8.10 1 Pet. 2.10 Revel 18.4 the term my people or Gods people should be restrained to the elect 3 ly Saith he My people or people of God is usâ—d more frequently in the N. T. without restriction to the elect regenerate He alledgeth three places 2 Cor. 6. â—6 which with him is plain quoted from Levit. 26.16 where it is a national promise to be understood of Gods visible abode in ordinances being tendered to those that were over buâ—â—e wâ—â—h Idols from which he disswades with this argument that they were the temple of the Lord separate of God for his worship and servicâ— and the promise is no more then is made good to visible Churches Revel 2.1 whereof some members were not regenerate Answ. To dwell in them to walk in them to be their God and they to be his people the temple of the living God 2 Cor 6.16 whom he receives to whom he is a father and they his sons and daughters cannot be meant of any other then the elect For they onely are the temple of God in which he dwels who have hâ—s â—pirit 1 Cor. 3 16 17. 6.19 a bare separation by outward calâ—ing to his worship service is not enough which is the most foâ—cible argument to dissâ—ade frâ—m medling with Idols However it be Levit. 26.16 here iâ— is not a national promise but a promise to particulaâ— persons separate from the rest of the nation v. 17. Nor can it be understood of Gods visible abode in ordinances but in persons who were holy nor is it made to every visible Church in râ—spect of every visible member Nor is the promise of Chrst walking Revel 2.1 so much as this of Gods dwelling in them The 2d he alledgeth is Rom. 9.25 which is to be understood no otherwise where the
Rom. 11.11 12. that through their fall salvation is come to the Gentiles the fall of them is the riches of the world the diminishing decay or loss of them the riches of the Gentiles Which happened not through the wickedness of infants above other men but partly through the wickedness of the Jewish people of which the infants were a part and onely Churchmembers there and while that nation were Gods Church partly through Gods contrivance which was that the Gentiles should have their course of mercy while the Jews were broken off and at last both have mercy in their season Mr. B. goes on in his cavilling vein If this doctrine be true why may we not expect to be taught that infants must also be cast out of heaven in mercy to the whole catholick Church Answ. Becaâ—se we find no such taught by the Apostle as the other doctrine of mine concerning the mercy to the catholick Church is by breaking off â—he Jewish Church If iâ— be saith he no carnal Churchstate to have infants in heaven why is it a carnal Churchstate which containeth infants in it on earth Answ. That any are infants in heaven it s not likely 2. If there should be yet being fully sanctified they should not be carnal but spiritual and the Church there onely consist of spiritual persons by spiritual regeneration whereas if the Church Christian should consist of infant visible Churchmembers by carnal generation the state of it would be carnal as the Jewish was and not spiritual by faith as the Scripture makes it Joh. 1.12 13. 3.5 6. Gal. 3.26 27. Again saith Mr. B. And if it be no benefit to the Catholike Church to have infants kept out of heaven nor no hurt to the Church to see them there why should it be a benefit to the whole Church to have them kept on earth or any hurt to the Church to see them here members Answ. It were no hurt if God had so ordered it their non-visible Christian Churchmembership is a benefit to the Catholike Church in the manner before said because God hath so ordered it But yet saith Mr. B. let us come a little nearer what ever it may be to enemies or to man-haters of which sort the Church hath none yet me thinks to those that are love as God is love and that are merciful as their heavenly faâ—her is merciful and who are bound to receive little children in Christs name and who are become as children themselves to such it should seem no such mercy to have all infants unchurched But such are all true members of the Church and therefore to the Church it can be no such mercy Answ. I wish it were true that the visible Church of which we are speaking hath no enemies or man-haters It is not true that wee are bound to receive little children in Christs name nor do I say that it is a mercy to have all infants unchurched or that they are all unchurched nor do I think it true thâ—t all true members of the Church visible are such as Mr. B. describes But this I say the non-visible Church-membership Christian of infants is such a mercy as I describe however it seem to the Church But yet nearer saith Mr. B. Whatsoever it may be to strangers yet me thinks to the parents it should seem no such mercy to have their children put out of the Church Hath God naturally planted such tender affections in parents to their children and doth grace increase it and the Scripture encourage it and yet must they take it for a mercy that their children are put out when Mr. T. will not say it is a mercy to the children Answ. To the parents notwithstanding their natural affection it is a mercy and ought to seem a mercy that God hath dissolved the Jewish National visible Churchmembership and by consequent their infant visible Churchmembership and hath freed them and their infants from the legal bondage and hath out of all nations gathered his Church by preaching the Gospel without admission of infants into the visible Church Christian. And surely if this reason were good parents might complain that their children are not admitted to the Lords supper as the Jews children were to the Passeover Yet further saith he why then hath God made such promises to the parents for their seed as if much of the parents comfort lay in the welfare of the children if it be a mercy to them that they are kept out of the Church may not this doctrine teach parents to give their children such a blessing as the Jews did His bloud be on us and our children For their curse is to be broken off from the Church and if that be a mercy the Jews are then happier then I take them to be And how can we then pray that they may be graffed in again Answ. I find no promises in all the New Testament much less Evangelical promises made to believing parents for their seed nor any whit of the comforts of parents in the New Testament in the welfare of their children but in Christ and in the fellowship of the spirit Phil. 2.1 Yea whereas in the Old Testament most of the promises were of increase of children their prosperâ—â—y rest and peace in their dwellings c. in the New Testament an unmarried estate if without sin is rather preferred as more happy 1 Cor 7.14 and the poor and persecuted rather adjâ—dged blessed then the rich and those that live in pâ—ace Matth 5.4 10. However parents have as much comfort by my doctrine rightly understood as they can have by Mr. Bs. Nor doth it teach parents to curse their children as the Jews did The curse of the Jews was not in being broken off from the Jewish Church national but in being not in the Olive that is the Church of true believers but in the national Church Jewish and that they were not broken off from it was their unhappiness and we are to pray not that they may be graffed in again into the national Church Jewish but into the invisible Church of true believers and elect persons 6. Saith Mr. B. But what if all this were true Suppose it were a mercy to the whole Church to have infants put out yet it doth not follow that God would do it He is the God of infants as well as of the aged and is mercifull to them as well as others all souls are his He can shew mercy to the whole Church in an easier way then by casting out all their infants And his mercy is over all his works Answ. God is the God of the spirits of all flesh yet he hath not mercy on all flesh all souls are his yet he did not take any one nation for his people besides the Jewish his mercy is over all his works yet he hath broken off the Jews from being his people he is naturally mercifull yet sheweth mercy freely as he will I say not he casteth out all infants of the Church
though which I somewhat marvel at they follow therein the vulgar Latine For the Tigurine Divines note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 fâ—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 Answ. 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 Jadâ—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 SECT LXXVI My sense of matrimonial holiness 1 Cor. 7.14 is vindicated from Mr. Blakes exceptions Vindic. Faed ch 39. and Mr. Sydenhams Exircit ch 7. MR. Bl. ch 39. avoucheth still his sense of federal holiness 1 Cor. 7.14 I proceed to view what he saith Sect. 1. he sets down the Apostles resolution and the reason of it rightly which because it will tend much to the clearing of the sense which I give I shall here transcribe it Let him not put her away let her not leave him unbelief breaks not the marriage bond â—enders it not a nullity Religion being not of the substance of marriage But what he saith that their scruple and ground of their fear was the condition of their issue lest that they should not be reckoned with the Saints but of the fellowship of the unclean Gentiles is fictitious For the resolution of it rightly given before by Mr. Bl. himself shews that their scruple arose not from fear of their childrens condition but the nullity of their marriage or unlawfulness of continuing in it by reason of the unbelief of the one party else the Apostle had not made his resolution apposite to the removing their scruple Yea Mr. Bls. own speech is against his own conceit when he saith Reason is strong for this for they well knew as it is with the parent so it is with the child for Church state and condition being a priviledge communicable and descendable from parent to child If the parent were without and of the Gentiles the child was ever such and in case they were of the people of God their children were reckoned so in like manner Now parents being divided the one holy the other unclean they feared that the issue would follow the worser part a sâ—ain would lie upon them they would be accounted unclean with the unbelieving parent In a like case it had been so determined Ezra 10.3 For if they well knew as it is with the parent so it is with the child for Church-state they knew that the
there is no fear of non-federation of their issue the minor is thus expresly after Mr Bls. minde But the unbelieving fornicatrix is sanctified by the faith of the believing fornicator so as that there is no fear of non-federation of their issue Ergo they may live together according to Mr. Bl. and consequently Mr. Bl. blasphemously by his exposition makes the Apostle justifie the living together of a believer with an unbeliever in fornication which is enough to shew the falshood of that exposition yea and of any other which ascribes the sanctifiedâ—ess v. 14. which is the reason of their lawful living together v. 12 13. to the faith of the one party and not to the conjugal relation The rest of Mr. Bls. talk of my willingness to have him waste his time his falling on my sapless tree the readiness of his axe his pains in applying it is vain and frivolous talk sith the tree still stands after all his hacking and hewing at it and his axe appears to bee very blunt or else he strikes besides the tree As for my sixe years space Mr. Bl. might have understood that the reason of my not publishing the first part of my Review till 1652. six years after the printing of Apology was besides my constant labours and extraordinary publike and private employments from the necessity of my removing my dwelling from the Temple to Bewdley from Bewley to Ledbury thence to Lemster besides my frequent flittings by reason of the wars travels to regain my plundered goods difficulty to get my treatise printed the variety of Antagonists I had to answer which is yet the reason of my slowness in publishing this part of the Review and comes from the venemous spirit of such as Mr. Bl. Mr. B. and other Paedobaptists who would never comply with me in the fair motion in the Epilogue of my Examen to joyn together in a brotherly way of ventilating the point but what they can bait me with calumnies tending to discredit me as covetous arrogant c. with multitude of replies and magnifying them though frivolous vilifying my writings that men might not reade them and discern the truth nor Book-sellers be willing to print or sell them stirring up Parliaments and Rulers to remove those of our way out of all places which have publike salary that our hands may be weakned which I may truly call wicked practises of which too many of them have been guilty and for which God will judge them I go on Mr. Bl. sect 6. to my argument against his instrumental sanctification that barren persons cannot be said to be instrumentally sanctified for producing an holy seed pressed by me in the 1. part of this Review p. 150 151. sect 19 saith thus And I will appeal to any yea the meanest Christian whether persons that have children born in wedlock bonds in such disparity may not have their fears and scruples about them notwithstanding others in the same condition of marriage are childless or unable to bring forth children Whether the seed which came of those marriages Ezra 10. were not unclean notwithstanding many so married had no children Many of the Priests had herein transgrest and it was but some of them had wives by whom they had children Ezra 10.44 All which I grant but there is not a jot in all this which answers my objection that the barren by accident or nature could not bee said to bee sanctified to produce an holy seed and yet the reason of the Apostle must bee conceived to reach to the proof of the lawfulness of their living together in disparity of religion as well as the fruitful and therefore the sanctifying must be expounded in another sense then Mr. Bls. which agrees not to their case But hee adds And because this is the medium for proof of the Apostles determination v. 1â— that they might live together pag. 152. hee will have it to be from a future contingent but when this is no medium for proof of the Apostles determination as hath been sufficiently shâ—wn it is not this fals with the other Answ. That it hath been sufficiently shewn that the first part of v. 14. is not a medium for proof of the Apostles determination is said without any colour of truth All the reason I finde given is v. 16. is not a formal reason ergo neither v. 14. to which answer hath been given by denying both the antecedent and the consequence it is a formal reason though not â—s Mr. Bl. frames it and if it were not yet the term for else but now being argumentative terms shew there is formal reasoning v. 14. v. 14. and the producing an holy seed being a contingent event if the Apostle should as Mr. Bls. exposition makes him prove their lawful living together because the unbeliever is sanctified instrumentally to produce an holy seed hee should argue from an uncertain event which Chamier tom 4. paustr. Cath. lib. 5. chap. 10. sect 46. disapproved in another case as I shew in my Examen pag. 7â— To my argument against instrumental sanctiâ—â—cation that it cannot be meant oâ— it sith the barren cannot bee said to bee Gods instrument â—or that always effects and when God sanctifies hee specially designes some whereas this is common to all husbands and wives and the unbeliever is said to bee sanctified whereas it is the believer according to them who is the instrument of producing a holy seed Mr. Bl. saith I am sure they bring â—orth children unto God Ezek 16.20 and this they do not independently of themselves so Christ would not have warned Matth. 23.10 call no man father upon earth for one is your father who is in heaven All natural parents are instruments of God to produce a seed to people the world according to that blessing of Gen. 1.28 Gen. 9.1 Bee fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth All believing parents are instruments of God for an holy seed it being of his free grace that the promise is to them and their seed Answ. What is said Ezek. 16.20 was said onely of Israelites and those manifest idolaters as well as true believers and the words do import no more but this that the Israelites children were born of right to him that is to be at his disposal for his service Levit. 25.42 because hee brought them out of Egypt and therefore it was unjust in them to alienate them from him by offering them to idols which is not to be said of the Corinthian believers children Matth. 23.9 is as impertinently alledged for it speaks not of Gods being a Father in respect of natural generation nor forbids calling any man a father in that respect but in that manner in which the Jews termed their teachers fathers and themselvâ—s their children in respect of absolute subjection of their consciences to their dictates as Diodati rightly in his annot This teacheth the believers not to yeeld that absolute reverence nor power over their consciences to any living man which
relation unto Christ his ceasing from his works and entring into his rest as the 7th day Sabbath was in relation to God his ceasing from his works after his making the first creaâ—ion and entring into his So iâ— followeth v. 10. Which to be meant of Christ and his entrance into his rest which he makes to be his passing into heaven v. 14 inferred from his entring into his rest v. 10. he endeavours to prove by 5 reasons Answ. 1. The coherence beâ—ween Heb. 4.9 and v. 10. doth rather intimate that he that is entred into his rest v. 10. is a term common to all the people of God mentioned v. 9. and the exhortation v. 11. doth also import tâ—at the person that enters into his rest v. 10 is meant every believer Nor is any one of Mr. Cs. reasons convincing of the contrary For 1. let the translation be mended as Mr. C. would have it yet it may be true of every believer that he also hath ceased from his worâ—s as God did from his own works 2. Seeing then v. 14. may point out to what is said Heb 3. â— 2 3. 3. If Heb 4 10. cannot be meant of ceasing from sin yet it may be from labâ—rious works and sufferings as Revel 14.13 and such rest may be 〈◊〉 with refreshing and looking upon them as good 4. That v. 10. should be taken for a proof of v 9. is not necessary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being not always causal or ratiâ—nal yet if it were it might be thus The rest of the people of God in heaven shaâ—l be a Sabbatism like Gods for such of them as shall enter into their rest shall cease or have ceased from their sufferings and painfull works as God did from his in the beginning 5. What he saith that Christ were not Lord of the Sabbath as he saith Mark 2.28 Luke 6.5 unless he had entred into his rest or as p. 75. he could not be Lord of the Sabbath unless he also had a rest which he entred into as God did into his iâ— without proof and is false sith Christ speaks of his being Lord of the Sabbath at that time afore he entred into his rest and doth imply that which some would call blasphemy that Christ as God had not been Lord of the Sabbath unless he had entred into his rest as man But were it granted that Christ by reason of his entring into his rest as man was Lord of the Sabbath doth that prove that Heb. 4.10 is meant of Christs entring into his rest or is it not rather a baculo ad angulum But were it granted that Heb. 4.10 were meant of Christs entring into heaven yet the rest before mentioned is rather thereby confirmed to be meant of rest in heaven with Christ then rest on earth on a weekly sabbath sith the argument is strong thus Christ is passed into his rest in the heavens therefore there is a rest remaining for the people of God there but hath no strength thus Christ is entred into the heavens to rest therefore there remains to the people of God a weekly day of rest on earth Lastly this very reason quite overthrows Mr. Cs. building For he would ground the week day Sabbath upon Christs entring into his rest and this day he would have to be the first day of the week and the reason for inferring a week day Sabbath upon Christs entring into his rest is taken from the rest of God after the first creation whereby the 7th day Sabbath was sanctified Now if there be the like reason of keeping a week day Sabbath because of Christs rest as there was of keeping the 7th day Sabbbath because of Gods rest then it will not be the first day of the week which must be the Sabbath for that was not the day of his entring into his rest but another day to wit the fifth day of the week as may be gathered from Acts 1.3 Mr. C. himself p. 76. though he say that it is very probable that the ascension day was on the first day of the week yet confesseth it not to be clear and the reason of the probability from Act. 1. by the computation of the forty days from his resurrection and the mention of a Sabbath days journey from Mount Olivet to Jerusalem occasioned as is likely from their making that journey then upon that day v. 12. is so slender that I know not that ever any learned man did conceive so with him and the computation of forty days from his resurrection being on the first day of the week though the day of the resurrection contrary to the common computation should be excluded will not fix the Ascention day on the first day of the week but two days at least short of it And for the mention of a Sabbath days journey Act. 1.12 it is clear from the words that it was onely to shew the distance of the place from Jerusalem not to shew that day to have been the Sabbath day I list not to trouble my self about the reason of using that expression rather then another it being not material Yet were it granted it had been on the Sabbath day it had not been the first day of the week for that is not termed in Scripture certainly not in the Acts of the Apostles the Sabbath day What Mr. C. adds But albeit his rest was not compleated till he passed into the heavens yet he first entred into it at his resurrection which being upon the first day of the week there needeth no more to fix the command of the Sabbath on that day doth overthrow his arguing from Heb. 4.7 9 10 14. whence he would deduce the Christian Sabbath because of Christs entring into his rest at his passing into the heavens Which hurts not others as Mr. Cawdrey Sabb. Rediv. part 4. sect 23. who confesseth the words Heb. 4.10 not to be spoken of Christ though he allude to them I have insisted on this point by the way because Mr. C. makes use of it for infant Baptism but to how little purpose the sequel will shew Mr. C. for proof of infant Baptism p. 20. layes down this position that what the Lord confirmed by oath to Abraham he confirmed it to us even to all believers after Christ to the worlds end which I grant if understood of spiritual Evangelical promises which accompany salvation but not if meant of those peculiar blessings and priviledges which were promised to Abrahams natural seed Yet in his proof of that position I conceive sundry things not right which are vented by him as p. 28. that the voice of Christ meant Heb. 3.7 is an inviting us to celebrate his day of rest in his house in the worship of the Gospel which he means of a weekly Sabbath and a particular Congregation and outward worship as sundry passages following shew and this he makes a part of the Gospel p. 31. and the believer that neglects it comes short of the promise of entring into Gods
conceive by the date of his Epistle however whether alive or dead a man very reverend and however he conceived of me one of the most learned and accurate writers specially in such things as this of his age and while he slights him discover so much folly and ignorance in Hebrew and Greek as an ordinary â—rammarian or student in the Bible would hardly have shewed certainly it 's unsuitable to his undertaking of a Schoolmaster The phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is word by word the son◠〈◊〉 hundred years for without of it would be non-sense it being the sigâ—◠〈◊〉 Genitive case nor is old substracted but included in that expression it being the Hebrew expression of old or aged as M. Gataker shews from Gen. 11.10 21.5 5.32 7. â— 12.4 16.16 17.1 25.20 26. 37.2 41.46 45.26 and elswhere and the same he might have learned from Ainsworth Annot. on Gen. 5 â—2 c. Hebr. son of 500. years that is going in his 500. year An usual speech in the Hebrew Scripture of mens age or of beasts Gen. 17.1 Exod 12.5 And for he and when how can they be said to be superadded when the very term shall die is all one with when he shall die which shews it is not for Mr. Crs. purpose for then it should have been shall be born as an hundred years old as well a churchmember as if he were but is agreeable to the Prophets meaning to express long life And therefore his jeer of excellent Arithmetick shews his folly in deriding that which was right And for his prattle it shews his excellent ignoranâ—e of the Hebrew and Greek of the â—ible Buâ—torf Thes Gram. Hebr. l. 2. c. 3. p. 360 in that piece which is termed by Amama c. admirandum opus 〈◊〉 nomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filius periphrases Hebraismos facit insâ—gnes ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filius areus Iob 41.19 id est sâ—gitta similes innumeri Sic Iâ—â—an 17.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Apud Latinos Horat. 1. carm od 14. Terrâ— filius should one scribble as Mr. Cr. doth here Here 's a new creation of a new generation son of the bow of perdition of the earth who evâ—r heard such a syntax did the son beget tâ—e bow perdition the earth or the bow perdition the earth the son or whether is elder Would not a Scholler say he played the fool For this I leave him to Mr. Vaugâ—ans correction But he seems to be more considâ—rate in what follows According to which interpretation the words must carry this sense There shall no more infants diâ— when they are young nor an old man till he 〈◊〉 filled his days for he that now is a child shall not die till he be an hundred years old I wonder in what age this was performed that no man died till he had compleated his century no mortal disease nor use of Physitians but every man might certainlâ— know the day of his death Answ. The words contain not such an absolute universal longaevity as Mr. Cr. would make to be the consequent of our interpretation but a length of days opposite to former troubles v. 16. in which so many died by war famine and pestilence which therefore comparatively is reckoned as universal as in like manner Ieremiah ch 50.20 speaking of the same times saith the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for there shall be none that is as formerly to provoke God to cut them off by gâ—ievous deaths as before the captivity And according to this iâ— that of Zech. 8.4 and I said without any vaunting Nebuchadnezzar like language as Mr. Cr. abusively chargeth me with Isa. 65.20 was rightly made by me answerable to Zech 8 4. which doth not intimate that the Text was made by me and not by the Holy Ghost but made answerable or correspondent which arrogates no more to me then if I had said made clear made manifest c. Nor is any experience or History contrary to this that the Iews after their return from Babylon 〈◊〉 prosperity increase and long life in Canaan a great while together and were honoured by divers Persian Kings Alexander the Great and some of the â—recian Kings and the Nations near them iuâ—ject to them The Contents of the Chapter were never by any Synod or Parliament interpretatively entitled to the Church of England nor are to be accounted any more valid then Mr. Gatakers notes who though a single man yet had his notes approved by other Annotators and in some sort by the Assembly at Westminster Yet the Contents of the Chapter being v. 17. The blessed estate of the new Ierusalem and in the Margin at v. 19. Revel 21.4 being put shew that Mr. Crs. conceit is no more favoured by them then mine And the speech being to be understood comparatively to the former times was true of the Jews after their return from the captivity at Babel V. 25. expâ—essing the Jews peace notwithstanding the Samaritan neighbours was true at the same time although both were accommodated to the Gospel times and the calling of the Jews yet to come Nor is it any strange thing in that Prophet to make thâ— restitution of the Jews from Captivity as answering to making new Heavens and Earth as Isa. 51.16 44.24 25 26. 45.12 13. Yet I deny not that 2 Pet 3.13 Revel 21.1 the words are rightly applied to some other great work of God resembled by this and to be yet accomplished That the Israelites 1 Cor. 10.2 were actually baptized or washed under the cloud it raining upon them and in the Red Sea the water touching their feet at least after the dividing of the waves in such a sudden passage and blowing upon them with thâ— sprinkling thereof is no where set down Exod 13. and 14. Nâ—r will such wetting be ever found in any Greek Authour to be termed Baptism formally and therefore it can be no other then similitudinary Baptism which is there meant as the eating Manna and drinking Water was a similitudinary partaking of the Lords Supper and Grotius did rightly expound 1 Cor. 10.2 were baptised by were as if they were baptisâ—d and yet Isa. 65 20. is not rightly so expounded shall die as an hundred years old there being no need of such an interpretation nor any thing leading to it in the Text but the expression is of long life nor if it were meant so iâ— it proved that infants must be Churchmembers and capable of some seal under the Gospel unless there were no other wâ—y then that in respect of which he might be as one an hundred years old Had Mr. Cr. sought the clearing of truth he had been willing to read out the whole that his dealing might not be taken for deceitfull By my refutation of Dr. Savage in Latin some years since Printed it may appear whâ—tâ—er Text Dr. Savage or the Dr. of the Chair did avoid my argument The rest of M. Crs. argumenâ—s are the same with what others have urged and have been answered in this and the former parts as this Review nor do I find that Mr. Cr. hath added any thing of moment to them to which I need make further reply As or his â—â—â—nts quips misrecitals or mistakes of my words mis-reports of my actions together with his own mistakes in Logick Grammer Divinity thâ—y are otherwise discernable then by a particular answer in Print to each part of his Book I presume the Christian and equal Reader will think it unnecessary to make any more reply to what iâ— written of infantâ— Baptism till some thing be found written which better defends it then those have done who are here answered If any other think it fiâ—â— I should answer him also in particulaâ— he may conceive that if I did pâ—rceive any thing that might not have an answer in that which is already written or had in it any difficulty I should have done it But being conscious to my felâ— that I have not declined the answering of any out of contempt of the person or sense of the difficulty of doing it but because it is thought that I have been too large already and that to answer every meer quirk of wit is unnecessary as knowing that however light witâ— that love to shew their skill in disputing be taken with them yet solid conscientious men will be led onely with good proofs out of Scripture which may shew the institution of Christ I do here supersede from this work and commend it to his blessing of whom and through whom and for whom are all things to whom be glory for ever AMEN FINIS Mr. Gatakers Annot. on Jer. 31.30 The former Covenant comprehended together with those spiritual promises which yet were the principal part of it many temporal blessings as the possession of the land of Canaan and multiplicity of issue and outward prosperity Gen. 15.5 7 18. 17.2 7 8. Psal. 105.8 Deut. 28.1 19. Whereas this later runneth wholly upon the Spiritual and Celestial blessings Rom. 3.24 25. 5.1 2. Eph. 1.3 Heb. 8.6 See Ainsworth Annotations on Gen. 21.12 Vide Gatâ—k Discept de vi effic inf baptism pag. 243.