might be said to be grounded liable to repeal is in my apprehension a dream Laws repealeable determine not of essences but things to be existent to wit particular actions to bee done or omitted Nor do I conceive that the essential form of the Church is grounded upon a Covenant For though God separate or call a people to himself by a Covenant single or mutual and so may bee of the existence of a Church yet if God do separate or call by authority preaching power or any other way without a Covenant they will have the essence of a Church The Jewish Church I never conceived to be a species but an individual and of it I grant that it might be and was dissolved without the change of the nature species or essential form of the Church unto which the having of infants visible Church-members did not belong For if so without infants and that as visible Church-members it could not have been a Church What the priviledges Jewish infants had as visible Church-members except preservation as part of that people such inheritance and other benefits in part which their parents had which they must needs lose with their parents breaking off I do not well understand Nor do I know any priviledge which the believing Jews infants did lose by being left out of the Christian Church visible which they should have had if they had been taken in For the priviledges of the Jewish infants by being visible Church-members were as I conceive to cease upon the comming of Christ and the erection of the Christian Church not by any punitive execution of a Law but a wise dispensation of God as he conceived fittest for his own glory and the enlarging of the Kingdome of his Son The species as Mr. B. speaks that is the whole order rank series or sort of men in infancy was never in the visible Church but onely the infants of the Jewish Nation Nor were they cast out of the Church visible by any judiciary sentence but by altering the Church-state from Jewish into Châ—istian as God thought best 7. Saith Mr. B. Again you must distinguish betwixt breaking off primarily and morally onely by Covenant breaking and merit as an adulterous woman doth break the marriage bond and so cast out her self or else breaking off in a following act by punishment both morally and physically as a man that putteth away his adulterous wife In the former sence all the Jews that were unchurched did unchurch themselves and their children and God onely unchurched them in the later sence And therefore the children of believing Jews who did not adulterously violate the Covenant were never unchurched God casteth out none but those that first cast out themselves Answ. If this last speech were true absolute Reprobation should be an errour But perhaps he means it of casting out by judiciary sentence and so I grant it true of persons of age But in the present business the leaving out infants out of the visible Church was neither by any sinfull voluntary dissertion or transgression of Gods Law morally deserving it nor by any act of judiciary sentence legally or punitive act executing or physically ejecting But by a free act of his Soveraignty altering the Church-state from a more carnal to a more spiritual without any detriment to believers or theit children Mr. B. applies his distinctions thus Let us now review Mr. Ts. arguments 1. He saith their Church constitution is taken down and therefore their membership To which I answer 1. By constitution is meant either the essential nature or some ceremonial Accident And by taking down is meant either by repealing the Law which takes down the wholeâ—species or by meer punitive execution taking down that individual Church In the first sence of constitution and taking down I utterly deny the Antecedent and may stay long enough I perceive before he prove it 2. By their membership either he means the individual infants of unbelievers unchurched Jews which I grant or else the whole species of infants which I deny 3. Besides the argument concludeth not for what he should bring it That which it should conclude is that the mercifull gift and ordinance of God that some infants should be Church-members is repealed This is another thing from what he concludeth Answ. 1. By constitution I neither mean the essential nature nor some ceremonial accident but the composing of the integral parts which make up a Church an entire whole or totum integrale I do not find by such notes as I have of the Dispute at Bewdley January 1. 1649. that I used the term of taking down but rather the term altered which even Mr. Bs. setting down my argument shews to have been the term I used And this alteration I conceive was made neither by repealing the Law which takes down the whole species nor by meer punitive execution taking down that individual Church but by a free act of his Soveraignty as Rector or Lord who may at his pleasure alter the frame of his Church as he pleaseth As when a Lord or Governour one while takes inâ—o his house men and their wives and children another while onely single men he neither perhaps repeals a Law which made the whole species members of his house nor punisheth the individual persons that were in his house but because it likes him better to have his house onely of strong able men alters the state of his house in respect of the members so it is in this case 2. By their Church-membership I mean not either the individual infants of unbelievers unchurched Jews nor the whole species of infants but the individual infants of the Jewish Church-members whether believing or unbelieving 3. If I conclude as I did that the Church-membership of infants was altered in the visible Church Christian from what it was in the visible Church Jewish I prove the pretended gift and ordinance of God that some infants should be Church-members is repealed Let 's view his answer to my proof He proveth saith Mr. B. that their Church constitution is altered because their Church call is altered To which I answer 1. Here is still nothing but the darkness of ambiguity and troubled waters to fish in As we know not what he means by constitution as is said before so who knows what he meaneth by their Church call Is it meant first of Gods Law or Covenant enacting making and constituting them a Church 2. And if so then is it meant of the essential parts of that Covenant or Law giving them the essence of a Church I will be to thee a God and thou shalt be to me a people Deut. 29.11 12. 3. Or is it meant of the lesser additional parts of the Law or Covenant giving them some accidentals of their Church as the land of Canaan the Priesthood the Sacrifice c. 4. Or is it meant of Gods immediate call from heaven to Abraham or any others to bring them into the Covenant 5. And if so whether
of Abraham onely or Moses onely or both or whether Aaron and all other be excluded or not And what he means by a Church call to infants that cannot understand I know not except by a call he meaneth circumcising them And 6. whether he mean that call by which particularly they were at first made a Church or that also by which in every generation their posterity were so made or entred members 7. And if so whether that which was proper to the Jews posterity or that which was proper to converted proselyted members or some call common to both and what thâ—t was When I can possibly understand which of all these calls he means that is altered then it may be worth labour to answer him Answ. The speeches are inept of the essential parts of the Covenant and the accidental the essential parts of that Covenant or Law giving them the essence of a Church I will be to thee a God and thou shalt be to me a people Deut. 29.11 12. Which suppose either God could not make a Covenant without that promise or that a Church could not be without that promise or that Covenant might be without the promise of the land of Canaan which was as essential to that Covenant as the other they being both but integral parts of which each is essential to the integrity of the whole And for the essence of a Church which consists in the association or union of the members it is not given by a Covenâ—nt of God promising what he will be to them and they to him for the future for that assures them onely of continuance doth not give their present essence but by such transeunt fact as whereby he separates them from others and unites or incorporates them together which I call as usually Divines do the Church call agreeably to the Scripture Rom 9.24 25 26. 1 Cor. 1.2 24. c. Which Church call is either inward by his Spirit and is still the same or outward and was thoâ—gh by various acts of his providence yet most manifestly by the authority of Abraham and Moses not by meer perswasion and begetting of faith as in the Christian Church when the preachers of the Gospel called the Christian Church But the authority and power of Rulers who did as well by coercive power as by perswasive words draw all in the compass of their jurisdiction into a policy or Commonwealth which was called the congregation or Church of Israel in which the infants were included and by vertue of the settlement by Abraham and Moses it so continued to the time of the dissolution This Mr. B. might have understood easily to be my meaning by my instances which he sets down that the way means or manner of outward Church call into the Christian visible Church is altered from what it was in the Jewish For the Christian Church outward call was onely according to institution and primitive practise by the preaching the Gospel to each member of the visible Church Christian and by that means perswading persons to receive Christ and not by any coercive power of Rulers whereas the Jewish was otherwise Mr. B. proceeds In the mean time briefly thus I answer 1. The additional lesser parts of the Covenant giving them the ceremonial accidents of their Church is ceased and so are the ceremonies built thereon 2. The Essential part of the Law or Covenant is not ceased God yet offers the Jews to be their God and them to be his people If they heartily consent it may be done onely the World is taken into this Covenant with them and neither Jew nor Gentile excluded that exclude not themselves 3. Gods immediate call of Abraham and Moses did quickly cease when yet the Church ceased not 4. And for the Ministerial call 1. That which was by the person of Abraham and Moses numerically did cease when their act was performed yet the effect ceased not Nor did the Jews cease being a Church when Abraham and Moses were dead and gone 2. If he mean it of that species or sort of Ministerial call then what sort is that And indeed for ought I can possibly learn by his speeches this is that he drives at God then called by Magistrates but now by Ministers And secondly then he called all the Nation in one day but now he calls heâ—e one and there one Answ. The Reader may hence easily perceive that Mr. B. might have understood or rather did understand me well enough that I meant it of the sort of Ministerial call which he could learn by my speeches that drive at it But whether he heeded not my words at first when he wrote the questions or whether he thought it best to make shew of not understanding what he could not well answer he hath chosen to pretend ambiguity where all was plain But for what he saiâ—h that the essential part of the Law or Covenant is not ceased because God yet offers the Jews to be their God and them to be his people he therein shews two mistakes 1. That he makes that promise to be the essential part of the Covenant as if God could not make a Covenant without it which is false the Covenant Gen. 9.9 10. with Phinehas Numb 25.12 13. with the Rechabites Jer. â—5 19 being without it 2. That the Covenant did not cease because God still offers which implies either the Covenant to be all onâ— with an offer or that there is a Covenant when there is an offer whereas there may be an offer yet no Covenant and there may be a Covenant and yet no offer upon condition of consent as Mr. B. means But Mr. B. proceeds thus Let us therefore see what strength lies in these words 1. What if all this were true is there the least colour for the consequence from hence It is as good a consequence to say That when God judged Israel by Debora a woman which before was judged by men that then Israel ceased to be a Commonwealth or the constitution of the Commonwealth was altered Oâ— when the Government was changed from Judges to Kings that then the essential constitution of the Commonwealth was changed and so all infants lost their standing in the Commonwealth What if the King inviting the guests to the marriage feast did first send one kind of Officer and then another first a man and then a child and then a woman doth it follow that the feast is therefore altered If first a man and then a child and then a woman be sent to call you to dinner or to any imployment or company doth this change the nature of the company or imployment What if a Bishop call one man to the Ministery and a Presbytery another and the people a third is not the Ministerial work and office still the same What if a Magistrate convert one man now and a Minister another and a woman a third doth it follow that the Church or State that they are converted to is therefore not the
a great light there were onely invisible members Matth. 4.15 16. Answ. My answer to this objection was in two things 1. That terms appliâ—d to Christians in the New Testament with allusion to passages in the Old yet are not always to be applied to Christians in the same latitude they were to Jews 2. That in that place such a calling is meant as is from darkness to his marvellous light by his vertues or powers which therefore deserve to be shewed forth and which they do shew forth that are thus called And both these I confirmed from Rom. 9.24 25 26. which is manifestly said of them who were called v. 23. vessels of mercy Nor is this a denomination a parte praestantiori for it is expresly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the same whom he called vessels of mercy And the same place of Hos. 2.23 is alluded to in Rom. 9.25 and 1 Pet. 2.10 and can be understood of no other then the elect And therefore if the places Hos. 1.10 Hos. 2.23 Deut. 32.21 should be understood which I grant not of any other then the elect or members of the invisible Church yet 1 Pet. 2.10 can be understood of no other sith no other have such a calling as is there meant v. 9. nor any other obtain mercy as there is meant That which Mr. Bl. replies after his flirting fashion goes on this false insinuation that I took it for granted that there is no marvellous light in visible Churches which he would refute from Matth. 4.15 16. and that this was the force of my reason whereas my reason did not suppose that at all but that none are so called from darkness to light in that manner the Apostle there describes the calling but onely the elect which is true though there be marvellous light in visible Churches yea and in meer visible professors yet none so called as Peter describes 1 Pet. 2.9 but onely members of the invisible Church 4 ly Saith Mr. Bl. As honourable titles as these are frequently given in Scripture as shall be shewen to visible professors why should then these be limited to invisible members Answ. 1. No titles so expresly noting elect persons as those 1 Pet. 2.9 are given any where to meeâ— visible professors 2. If they should be in any plâ—ce given to the visible Church yet they are to be restrained to the elect onely as when a heap of corn is so called whicâ— hath much chaffâ— or a fieâ—d of corn which hath mâ—ch tares the denominatioâ— is from the better part and is to be applied â—s verified onely of it 5 ly Saith Mr Bl. Mr. T. in his Letter made this Text to be parallel with those Texts Gal. 6.10 1 Tim. 3.15 1 Pet. 2.10 And those Texts I have demonstrated to be meant of visible Churches to which Mr. T. â—eplies nothing Answ. I do not find that in my Letter I made 1 Pet. 2. â— parallel with those Texts Gal. 6.10 1 Tim. 3.15 1 Pet. 2.10 But in my Exercit § 12. I do alledge to â—rove that onelâ— belâ—evers may be meant by a holy Nation as they are by a family or kindred Ephes. 3.15 the houshâ—ld of faith Gal. 6.10 the house of God 1 â—im 3.15 a people 1 Pet. 2.10 Now saith Mr. Bl. these texts I have demonstrated to be meant of visible Churches But he hath not demonstrated them to be meant of meer visiâ—le Churches or meer visible Professors in them who are not also of the invisible Church and therefore I thought in my Postscript and think still I need make no further reply Mr. Bl. considers my arguments to prove 1 Pet. 2.9 meant of the invisible Church 1. I argue saith Mr. T. from the terms chosen generation royal priesthood an holy nation a peculiar people that is by Christs death Tit. 2.14 which cannot be affirmed of any other then elect and true beleevers Ergo. Answ. 1. Such a way of arguing would not pass with Mr. T in his adversary as peculiar people is takâ—n in one place of Scripturâ— so it must be taken in all places but in one place it is taken for the elect regenerate If this would â—old much labour might be spared in finding out the various acceptation of words in Scâ—ipture Reply M. Bl. it seems hath such a spirit of Divination as to foresee what I would do in a contingent thing But thiâ—â—olly of his I impute to his Satyrical vein which makes him that he can neither relate nor answer any tâ—ing of mine candidly My argument was not drawn onely from the term peculiar people but also from the terms chosen generation royal priesthood an holy nation which with thâ— oâ—her term a peculiar people or as in the Margin of our last Translation a purchased people have been applied to the elect onely by these interpreters whose words I here set down Beza analys Loci oppositum membram electorum videlicet summam excelienâ—tiam describit c. Piscat analys Hortatur commemoratione duorum maximorum beneficiorum Dei electionis ad vitam aeternam vocationis efficacis Electionem indicat his verbis vos autem estis genus electum vocationem vero illis regale sacerdotium gens sancta c. Dicson Vocantur autem regale sacerdotium quia sunt regni Christi sacerdotii participes imo per Christum sacerdotes reges constitutâ— vocantur genus electum quia Deus eos prae aliis populis sibi adoptaverat Gens sancta quia eos sibi dicaverat Deus in vitae puritatem Populus in acquisitionem quia Deus eos redemerat sibi in thesaurum haereditaâ—em asciverat Diodati v. 9. A royal that is to say a company of Priests who are likewise Kings Exod. 19.6 Priests to Godward to whom believers do yield spiritual worship v. 5. and Kings over the creatures over which Christ their head hath given them the dominion which they had lost in Adam and hath made them fellows in the glory of his Kingdome Matth. 19.28 1 Cor. 6.2 3. Revel 1.6 2.26 27. 3.21 5.10 20.6 A peculiar which he hath purchased with a price and made his by a soveâ—aign title to hold them for his own people New Annot v. 9. A chosen that is whom God hath effectually called out of the would see Chap. 1.2 Deut. 7.7 Royal that is Kings and priests See Exod. 19.6 Revel â— 6 5.10 Kings beeause of that power which they have through Christ over their lust see Phâ—l 4.13 Priests because separated to the service of God see v. 5. Holy nation see Exod. 19.6 Deut. 7.6 c. A peculiar people or a purchased people peculiar or a people for possession that is a people 〈…〉 God hath purchased to be his own See Exod. 19.5 Deut. 4.2 7.6 26.18 Psal. 135.4 Tit. 2.14 Act. 20.28 Ephes. 1.14 1 Thes. 5.9 Dr. John Rainold Apolog. â—hes § 21. Nam primâ— nomen populi sanctorum Dan. 7.27 ex Daniele satis clarè indicat significari
electos 1 Pet. 2.9 Gentem sanctam populum Dei peculiarem Exo. 19.5 Mal. 3.17 Tit. 2.14 Eximiè nuncupatos quandoquidem hic est populus cui soli regnum amplissimum in Christo cum Christo ut ibidem Dan. 7.27 promissum est ita da uâ—iri testantur sacrae iterae Apoc. 5.10 20.6 22.5 § 20. ad designandum populum electum 1 Pet 2.9 qui Deo cedit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in possessionem seu peculium By which allegations it may be perceived 1. that the interpretation I give is the common interpretation of most learned Protestants 2. that it is proved no by one title onely but by four titles whereof not one of them can be applied in the sense Peter useth them to any but the elect 3. that this interpretation and application is confirmed not by one only place of Scripture but by many 4. that though I alledged but one place to wit Tit. 2.14 yet being so manifestly paralel and so clearly pregnant for my purpose it was enough and such as I would allow the like in any adversary for good proof though do not take it that in all places the sense is proved by the alledging one scripture in the sense conceived nor do I think it unnecessary to finde ouâ— the various acceptation of words in scripture 2. Saith Mr. Bl These termes and others equivolent to these are given to the Israelites Deut. 14.1 2. Deut. 7.6 Deut. 32.9 not as a church invisible but as visible members Their qualifications are often a low as their appellations by reason of their relation to God raise them high And setting apart Christs death I would know how they came to this honour Answ. These termes are given in the places cited to Israelites yet that they are given to them as visible members and not as a church invisible or as I would say to the church visible of Israel in respect of and with limitation to the elect or members of the invisible church as a field of corn in respect of the good grain is not proved Yet if it were the titles 1 Pet. 2.9 spoken of christians cannot be verified of them but in a sense appropriate to the elect They are no way a royal priesthood but as priests that offer spiritual sacrifices to God acceptable to God through Jesus Christ v. 5. which none but the elect and true beleevers can do no other way royal but in that they are Kings to God râ—ign ovâ—r sin Satan c. through Christ which none but the elect do a chosen generation but by Gods election to life eternal a holy nation but by regeneration of the spirit a peculiar people but by Christs purchasâ— which can be verified of none but true believers and elect persons And to Mr. Bls. demand I answer setting apart Christs death I know not how Christâ—ans should come to this honour which is expressed 1 Pet. 2.9 3. Saith Mr. Bl. The gift of Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastours and Teachers were the gift of Christ and purchase of his death These are for constitution of â—â—sible Churches visible members enjoy these priviledges in common with regenerate persons to which more is already spoken Answ. Though I finde Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastours and Teachers termed Ephes. 4.11 the gift of Christ yet I do not finde them said to be the purchase of Christs death as such nor do I know how they can be truely said to be the purchase Christs death as is meant 1 Pet. 2.9 Tit. 2.14 so as that every Apostle c. should be redeemed from iniquity be of the people of Gods possession to shew forth the vertues of God c. nor do I conceive to what purpose this is brought in here by Mr. Bl. except he mean that the titles 1 Pet. 2.9 are given to the visible Church in respect of the Ministers which is so frivolous that I am unwilling to imagine it of him 2. Saith Mr. Bl. Mr. T. objects from that which is said of them they are called by God by his power and vertue into his marvellous light and v. 10. that now had obtained mercy which they had not before which cannot be affirmed of any but true believâ—rs and elect persons Answ. Men brought into a visible Church-state are brought into a marvellous light The seven golden candlesticks Rev. 1.20 had a marvellous light in their lamps and yet in some of those there were onely a few names that had not defiled their garments And this light is a mercy the fruition of it a great mercy Psal. 147.19 20. Yea it is applied by the prophet Hos. â— 23 whence the Apostle gathers it unto the mercy enjoyed in a visible Church communion as is not denied by Mr. T. himself Reply Where it is that I deny not that Hos. 2.23 is applied unto the mercy enjoyed in a visible Church communion I remember not yet if I did grant it any where I might understand it of saving mercy proper to the elect for that is mercy enjoyed in a visible Church communion But Mr. Bls. answer is not to the argument as by me urged For I did not form it thus they who have marvellous light who have obtained a great mercy are elect But thus they who are called by Gods power or vertue which therefore they are to shew forth out of darkness into his marvellous light which in time past were not a people but are now the people of God which had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy are the elect which I confirmed from Rom. 9.23 24 25. where the same place of Hos. 2.23 is alledged and applied onely to the elect But these things are said of those 1 Pet. 2.9 Ergo. Which argument is confirmed by the words of Piscator above cited and of Beza in the place cited where he saith Simulque ne quis ambigat sit electus necne revocat nos Apostolus ad vocationem efficacem ex qua aeternum illud alioqui occultissimum electionis nostrae decretum certò intelligamuâ— idque ex una Dei gratuitâ— eligentis vocantis misereâ—ordia The new Annot praises or vertues That is that we might glorifie God in our conversations thereby shewing forth the abundant mercy and great power of God in calling us Isa. 8.13 Darkness that is ignorance ch 1.14 whereby is meant our sinfull and miserable estate by nature under which men are kept through ignorance of the Gospel Eph. 4 18. 5.8 Col. 1 13. His marvellous hereby is meant our estate of grace through the effectual calling of God by the knowledge of the truth See 2 Cor. 4.6 Acts 13.47 26.18 called marvellous because of the great mystery of godliness which is revealed in the Gospel and called his because God revealeth it Dr. John Rainold Apol. thes· § 15. Neque soluni è tenebris in admirabiâ—em Dei lucem vocati 1 Pet. 2.9 sed electi 1 Pet. 1.2 nuncupantur atque genus electum 1 Pet. 2 9. Now though meer
all the nation was called in one way even servants and all but now God calâ— here one and there one Besides he shews that the Temple Priesthood sacrifices are taken down and therefore the Church constitution This is the very strength of all that Mr. T. hath to say to prove the repeal of Gods merciful Ordinaâ—ce of infants Church membership And I cannot chuse but say They are silly souls and tractable to novelâ—y and easily seduced from the truth of God and far from the stability of judicious tender conscienc't Christians who will be drawn by such misty cloudy arguing without any Scripture proof yea and against so much Scripture Answ. And I cannot chuse but say that Mr. Bs. dealing is disâ—ingenuous and Sopâ—istical in sore â—aâ—ling Readers by such censures which are the mere evaporations of his own ignorancâ— and confidence and I might add arrogance But to the argument I deny that this is the very strength of all that I have to say to prove the repeal or that it is cloudy misty arguing against any Scripture But from it The argument is taâ—en from the notation of the word Church put into the definition of it by the generality of Divines yea by Mr. B. himself plain Scrip. proof c. pag. 71 8â— that the Greek word for Church is from calling out and that the Church is a peoâ—le or a society of persons called out of the world Whence it follows that they who are not called out of the world are not of the Church they that have not an outward call are not of the visible Church But infants have not the outward call of the Christian Church therefore are not visible members in the Christian Church The minor is proved from the proper call of the Christian Church which is proved negatively not to be as the Jewish Church 1. by authority 2. of a whole people together 2. affirmatively by assigning 1. the onely way of outward call in the Christian Church to be by preaching the Gospel 2. that this call is of single peâ—sons severed in their habitations relations c. The former is proved by story Two remarkable outward calls there were of the Church of Israel one by Abraham and that was Gen. 17. perhapâ— there was some other but no other occurs to me and that was according to Gods direction by authority taking in all his house together not by preaching as the Apostles did The other of Moses Exod. 19 c. which was done in like manner The later is proved by institution and practise to be seen in these and many more Scriptures Ephes. 4.11 12 c. Acts 2.41 47. Act. 8.12 c. But of this which is the onely outward churchcal infants are not the subjects therefore neither of visible churchmembership which is always this way and no other in the Christian Churches This is further confirmed from those Scriptures which deny the new-birth necessary to admission into the Christian Church to be by humane generation which it must bee if it bee as the Jewish church-membership was as Joh. 1.13 and ascribe it even in Jews themselves to the word Jam. 1.18 1 Pet. 1.23 It is further confirmed in that the distinction of the Church visible and invisible is from their different calling They are not of the invisible who are not inwardly called they are not of the visible who have not the outward call Primum illud quod actu Ecclesiam constituit est vocatio unde etiam nomen suuâ— accipit definitionem Hudson vindic p. 67. exteâ—nal vocation and submission gave right in foro Ecclesiae to be admitted members of the Church Ecclesia enim est caetus hominum vocatorum 1 Cor. 1.24 cum 10.32 Ames Medul Th. l. 1. c. 31. § 6.7 But infants have not the outward call they are not brought into the Church by the word Therefore they are not visible Church-members What saith Mr. B. now 1 You must distinguish between the particular Church of the Jews and the universal visible Church And here I lay down these three proposâ—tions 1. The Jews Church was not the whole universal visible Church that God had then in the world And this he alleageth as my opinion with others and confirms it by sundry arguments Answ. Though the Assembly at Westminster say Confess of faith ch 25. art 2. The visible Church which is also Catholick or universal under the Gospel not confined to one nation as before under the law consists c. yet I agree with Mr. B in his proposition though not in all his proofs For the text Gen. 18.19 proves not the continuance of the Church in any of Abrahams posteriâ—y but those by Isaac nor do the instances of Bethuel Hiram the Ninivites Candace Queen of the Ethiopians evince a Church of God distinct from the Jewish His 2d proposition is if the Jewish Church had been the whole visible Church yet it would have been conâ—â—derable in both respects both as the Jewish Church and as the universal whic◠〈◊〉 pass His third is There is no member of any particular Church who is not also a member of the universal Church Therefore infants were members of the universal visible Church as well as of the Jews particular Church so that if it could be proved that their membership in that particular Church is overthrown yet that is nothing to prove that they have lost their standing in the universal Church But this shall fullier improve and vindicate her after Answ. It is much to prove they have lost their standing in the universal if they had no standing in the universal distinct from that in the particular as an excommunicate Apostate c. hath lost his standing in the universal visible Church if he have no standing therein distinct from that in the particular Church which he hath lost And this was the case of infants they had no standing in the universal distinct from that which they had in the Jewish Church and therefore if that particular Church-state or frame be dissolved in which alone infants are reckoned as members as it is and another erected in which they are not reckoned infants are not any longer to be reckoned as visible Church-members And â—his I shall make good when I come to Mr. Bs. fuller improvement of this 2. Saâ—th Mr. B. You must distinguish between the essentials and some accidentals of the Jewish Church The Priesthood Temple Sacrifice c. were meerly accidental and might be repealed without the reâ—eal of the essentials or the ordinance establishing the Church it self Answ. I grant the distinction but find it of no use till it be shewed what are the essentials and what not what the ordinance is that established that Church that it is of the essentials of that Church that infants be visible members is of the essentials of that Church which to assert were all one as to say the Jewish Church had been no Church visible without infants which I take to be absurd 3. Saith
which I delivered that Magistrates had their power from Christ the mediatâ—uâ— and not onely from God as creatour I doubt by this arguing of his that he will not allow the Magistrate to call all his people together and propound the Covenant of God to them and command them to obey God You finde not Moses by prison or fire forcing any man to consent And if he had you must have a little further work to prove that it was that which made them a Church or that the Magistrates may not still do as much as was done herein then Answ. Mr. B. herein doth most shamefully wrest my words and meaning For whereas to shew the different call of the Jewish and Christian Church I alledged onely matter of fact that the one was by the Magistrates authority the other by Ministers preaching the Gospel which could not take in infants Mr. B. wrests my speech as if I had said Magistrates might not do what Moses then did and goes about to insinuate as if the Magistracy were less beholding to me then were meet and endeavours to encrease the suspicion of my lessening his power by my Doctrine in the Pulpit at Bewdley But of my judgement in this thing I haâ—e given account in the same Pulpit on occasion of the Swearing of the Magistrate there on Rom. 13.4 in these Positions 1. That all power is committed to Christ to manage as Mediator Mat. 28.18 Joh. 5.22 27. 1 Cor. 15.24 And consequently what they do for or against the Church it is from Christ enabling or permitting even as Mediator 2. That Magistrates as well as others are subject to and are to yeeld obedience to Christs commands as he is Mediator Mat. 17.5 Act. 3.22 3. That they have power authority in many things which concern the Church of God and are bound to use their power for Christ and his Church so far as their power extends 1 Tim. 2.1 2. And in this sence it is that Christ exerciseth some of his Government by Magistracy under him as also by Parents and Husbands Ephes. 6.4 But I conceive it a business of much difficulty to set the right bounds of their power Many things few or none but Papists restrain them in as the calling of Assemblies judging of Ecclesiastical persons for civil crimes ordering the maintenance and estates of such persons with many more such things as are to be done circa Ecclesiam not in Ecclesia On the other side few or none but Erastians allow them power in the Church so as to act as civil Magistrates in that which is by special commission appointed to proper Officers viz. the preaching of the Gospel administring the peculiar Rites of the Christian Church ordination of Elders government by Ecclesiastick censures and such like things The chiefest difficulty hath been how far they are to use their power for making men profess Christianity accept of Teachers punishing of Hereticks and excommunicate persons and such like acts in which fâ—r the most part Magistrates by instigation of Popish Priests Prelates and others have much miscarried and been unhappy instruments of much oppression Yet for my part I do not deny altogether their power about such things as these especially if they go no further then what Mr. B. here speaks of the commanding them to obey Gods commands propounding the Covenant of God to them restraining pernicious Teachers and go upon very sure grounds that they urge nothing but what is certainly Gods command or agreeable to it nor punish or restrain men for that which is questionable whether it be an errour or pernicious But this I hold should a Magistrate as Moses did by his authority upon fears or hopes or other compliance draw all the people of the Land into a Covenant to engage themselves and posterity to be Christians yet this would not make the whole Nation to be a Christian Church the infants visible church-members capable of Baptism sith Christ hath not appointed this way but another to wit by preaching the Gospel to call his Church and the preachers of it to baptize believers so called 4. I say that a civil Magistrate is not an Officer of Christ as Mediator sith he hath no new Commission from him as the Apostles John 20.21 and others Ephes 4.11 And I conceive to hold the affirmative is of dangerous consequence it will follow 1. That a civil Magistrate is bound to produce a further commission from Christ as mediator besides the appointmen of God as creatour which I neither think Mr. B. hath shewed nor can shew 2. That he who shews commission from Christ as mediator to rule hath the authority of a civil Magistrate which puts both Swords into Elders hands 3. That if a civil Magistrate be an Officer of Christ as mediator he is in the Church in which alone Christ as mediator sets Officers and then he must be a Christian or no Magistrate yea a church member and then he hath rule in the Church and power to do Ecclesiastical acts 4. Then dominion is founded in grace which it seems Mr. B. holds Praefestin Mor. sect 19. as most certain that it is founded in the grace of redemption and universal and brings for it plain Scrip. proof c. pag. 229. Rom. 14.9 which v. 8. shews plainly to be meant onely of those that live and die to him and are his own peculiar people and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes not such a Lordship as is over enemies as Devils and children of perdition by power and force but such a Lordship as is with property over them as his possession to whom he hath right as his own 1 Cor. 6. â—0 such as a wife an obedient child or servant The other Texts prove â—ut my first Position The Reader I presume will pardon this excursion being necessitated by Mr. Bs. frequent and continued malâ—gnant suggestions tending to make me accounted an adversary to Magistracy I now return to the point in hand And in answer to Mr. Bs. demand I say the peculiar call of the Church of the Jews by Moses the Magistrate was in his bringing them out of Aegypt into the Covenant at mount Sinai setling them under Laws Priesthod Government whereby they were fashioned or established as a national Church But in the Christian Church the Apostles and other holy Teachers did gather and fashion and establish the Church Christan by preaching of the word without such a way of authority and power as Moses exercised It is true he did as we read Deut. 30.19 but not so as the Apostles who when the Gospel was refused exercised no power over the refusers for Moses would suffer none to live in the Commonwealth of Israel who did not own the God of Israel and if they worshipped an Idol he put them to death Mr. B. adds 5. This argument if good would help the Seekers to prove that we have no Church on earth because not called by Apostles and so the Church Constitution taken down
entring them into the Jewish Church by Baptism Circumcision and an Offering and with them wives and children and this was done by authority of Elders imposing on them the precepts of Moses Law and acting according to rules of their own In which how much their Church call differs from ours is shewed in the 2d Part of this Review sect 24. in answer to Dr. Hammond Now though they were joyned to the Jewish Church one after-another and the infants of the Jews as they were born yet the Jewish-Church whether at the first erection or after estabâ—ishing were constituted of the whole Family and Nation together by the authority of Abraham and Moses differently from the call of the Christian Church visible in so material a point as excludes infants from church-membership 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which thing I was to demonstrate Mr. B. goes on thus But yet one other argument Mr. T. haâ—h to prove the Church constitution altered and consequently infants now cast out or their church membership repealed And that is this They were to go up three times a year to the Temple they had their Sanedrim and High Priest Now he appealeth to all whether these be not altered And therefore the Church constitution must needs be altered and so infants put out Answ. My argument is this If that which had the same reason with infants church-membership be altered then infants church membership is altered But that which had the same reason with infants visible church-membership is altered Ergo. The consequence is made good by the rule of Logick Where there is the same reason of things there is to be the same judgement De paribus idem est judicium The minor is proved thus The High Priest Sanhedrim repair to their Feasts had the same reason with infants visible church membership But they are altered Ergo. The major is proved thus Infants church membership was no where but in the Jewish Church we read of it no where else nor upon any other reason but their being part of the Nation which God had made his Church they were visible church members upon no profession of their own nor from any general determination of God Law or Ordinance that the children should be reckoned of his Church with the parents in any countrey whatsoever there being no such Law but meerly from hence because he would have the Nation of Israel to be his fixed people out of whom the Messiah should come and so a National Church till then And for the same reason he would have one High Priest Temple repair thither at solemn Feasts a Sanhedrim their genealogies kept their possessions by lot c. But all these are altered now the Church is not National no one High Priest Temple Sanhedrim c. therefore neither infants visible Church-membership which had the same reason and no other What saith Mr. B. Alas miserable Cause that hath no better arguments are any of these essential to their Church constitution How came there to be so strict a conjunction between Priesthood Temple Sanhedrim c. as that the Church must needs fall when they fall may it not be a Church without these Answ. Alas miserable Cause that hath no better answers Is infants church-membership essential to Church constitution How came there to be so strict a conjunction between the Church and their membership as that the Church must needs fall when they fall mayâ—it not be a Church without these If the Temple c. might be altered and and were because noâ— essential to the Church infants Church-membership did cease too which was no more essential then those and which hath been proved to have the same reason with these to wit Gods making his Church National out of which the Messiah was to come Hitherto nothing is indeed answered and what is said is retorted The rest is according to Mr. Bs. vein of frivolous putting impertinent questions to me I would intreat Mr. T. or any Christian who hath the least good will to truth lest in him considerately to answer me to these 1. Was not the Jewish people a Church before they had either a Temple or Sanhedrim or High Priest or any of the ceremonies of the Law of Moses Ans. I think not there was no time they were a Church but they had a Priest an Altar Sacrifices distinction of clean and unclean beasts c. Were they not a Church in Aegypt and in the families of Abraham Isaac and Jacob Ans. They were 2. Did the adding of these Laws and ceremonies take down any former part of the Church Ans. No. Or did every new ceremony that was added make a new Church or constitution of the Church Ans. No. 3. If the adding of all these ceremonies did not make a new Church or overthrow the old why should the taking of them away overthrow it Ans. Who saith it doth 4. If the Jews Church constitution before Moses time was such as took in infants why not after Moses time Ans. Who denies it Or if infants were Church-members long before either Temple or Sanedrim or High Priest c. Why may they not be so when these are down why must they needs fall with them when they did not rise with them Ans. Because if they did not rise with them at the same time yet they were erected upon the same foundation the Jewish National Church as the walls fall with the roof though they rise not together because they rest on the same foundation 5. And if the very specifical nature of their Church be taken down then men are cast out and women too as well as children Ans. I say not the specifical nature of their Church was taken down but the particular Church constitution Jewish altered and I grant it that men and women under the consideration as they were in the Jewish Church are left out I will not say cast out for they were never in of the Christian visible Church as well as children If it be said that Christ hath appointed men and women to be church members anew I answer What man can imagine that Christ first repealed the Ordinance that men and women should be members of the Church and then set it up anew Ans. And what man can imagine otherwise who reads the New Testament but that if there were such an Ordinance that men and women being Jews by birth should be members of the Jewish Church Christ repealed it when neither John Baptist nor Christ nor his Apostles admitted any Jew because a Jew into the Christian Church by Baptism without his personal faith and repentance Mr. B. saith I will wast no more time in confuting such slender arguments but shall willingly leave it to the judgement of any understanding unbyassed man whether Mr. T. have well proved that God repealed his Ordinance and revoked his mercifull gift that some infants shall be Church members Answ. It is my burthen that I must waste more time in refuting such empty scriblings as these
deserved not an answer Ch. 19. he saith thus My 14 th arg is this If the law of infants churchmembership were no part of the ceremonial or meerly judicial law nor yet of the law of works then it is not repealed But it was no part of the ceremonial law nor meerly judicial nor part of the law of works as such therefore it is not repealed The consequence is evident seeing no other laws are repealed The antecedent I prove in its parts 1. None will say it was part of the law of works for that knows no mercy to those who have once offended But churchmembership was a mercy Answ. 1. Mr. B. should have first proved any such law at all which he hath not proved yet distinct from the law of Circumcision and this is my answer to this argument that there is no such law at all and this is enough Yet I add 2. If his preâ—ended law of infants visible churchmembership be no part of the law of works then it is not of the law of nature which before and after he asserts for the law and Covenant of nature is the law and Covenant of works which I think Mr. B. wil not deny surely it is not of grace in Christ Ergo. That is not of grace in Christ which was afore the fall but such is the law of nature Ergo. 3. That the law of works knows no mercy to those who have once offended is a dictate of Divines which needs proof That the law at mount Sinai was a law of works is proved before sect 43. But that yeelded some mercy Levit. 4.2 20 26 31 35. Numb 15.22 23 24 28. Ergo. 4. How far and in what manner visible churchmembership of infants was a mercy and how it is otherwise now is shewed before sect 64 66. 2. Saith Mr. B. If it were part of the ceremonial law then 1. let them shew what it was a type of and what is the antitype that hath succeeded it and prove it to be so if they can Answ. 1. I do not take every thing typical to have been ceremonial nor every ceremonial thing to be typical Or if it be so yet I am sure of every thing ceremonial which was typical Mr. B. cannot shew what was the antitype in particular at least he cannot prove it When Mr. B. hath shewed and proved what was the antitype to all the dishes bowls snuffers and other utensils about the tabernacle and of every thing appointed concerning them their colour fashion mettal c. and of every rite prescribed Israel by Moses there may be some equity in Mr. Bs. task But till then it is enough to tell him that to it with other things typified Christ Col. 2.17 succeeded The churchmembership by birth hath had churchmembership by faith to succeed it as is before proved from Gal 3. and if that be not enough let Mr. B. answer and not slight what Mr. Samuel Fisher writes in his Baby baptism meer Babism about the ceremonial holiness of the Jews infants pag. 112.113 114 115 116 c. 2. Saith he If the very materials of the Church were a ceremony then the Church it self should be but a ceremony And so the Church in Abrahamâ— family should be more vile then the Church in the family of Noah Melchizedech Sem Job Lot c. which were more then ceremonies Answ. The Levitical priesthood was ceremonial and yet not the materials that is the men a ceremony so churchmembership might be a ceremony yet not the churchmembers But I do not term either the one or the other a ceâ—emony it is sufficient that it was a meer positive thing alterable and that it was altered 3. Saith he And that it was no part of the meerly judicial law appears thus 1. As was last said then also the Church in Abrahams family should be more vile then the aforesaid for their churchmembership was not a piece of meer policy as we call the judicials Answ. Iâ— it weâ—e by any law that infants were Churchmembers it is more likely to be 〈◊〉 judicial law then any other of the â—hree sorts of the Mosaical laws which Divines do so distinguish And to the argument I say 1. By making infants Churchmembership to be by a mixt or meer judicial law in Abrahams family it is not made a piece of meer civil policy not Ecclâ—siastical for the Jewâ— Commonwealth was a holy policy and the members of the State were members of the Church and consequently it is rather made more excellent by referring it to the meer judicial laws as the constitution of the Sanhedâ—in and other things are and the admitting of the proselytes and their children was by the Elders of the Jews 2. How to say concerning the families of Noah c. we cannot resolve sith we find little or nothing of them no mention of Noahs infants or Melchizedecs Sems Jobs or Lots except Ammâ—n and Moab nothing said of their Churchmembership or of the government of the families what it was or by what law 2. Saith he It cannot be shewn that it hath any thing of the nature of a meer judicial law in it except we may call the moral laws or Gospel promises judicial upon which meer judicials are built why is it not as much of the judicial law to have women Churchmembers as children yet who dare say that this is meerly judicial Answ. It can be shewn that if there be such a law it is a meer judicial law because it belonged to the ordering of the Commonwealth or policy of Israel as it is termed Ephes. 2.12 and the entring of proselytes was to be done by the eldership of the people and not by the priests And this we daâ—e say of the womens visible Churchmembership as well as the infants and that neither of them were by a moral law oâ— Gospel promise as Mr. B. fancies 3. Saiâ—h he It is of the very law of nature to have infants to be part of a Kingdome and the Kings subjects And Mr. T. hath told me his judgement that the Jews Church and Commonwealth was all one therefore according to Mr. T. his grounds it must needs be requisite even naturally that infants should then be Churchmembers I thinke this is past denial Answ. Kingdomes themselves are not of the law of nature no nor of the law of nations if they were all other government then of Kings were against these laws much less can it be oâ— the law of nature to have infants to be part of a Kingdome and the Kings subjects According to my judgment the Jews Church and Commonwealth were not all one naturally but by institution and therefore according to my grounds it is not requisite even naturally that infants should then be Churchmembers So that I find none oâ— these things past denial 4. Saith he The promise that took them in and the seal were both grounded on the righteousness of â—aith as is proved before therefore not a meer judicial Answ. Neither were they
visible Church-members may have marvellous light and obtain great mercy yet they cannot be said to be thus called to be a people of God and to obtain mercy as Peter there describes 3. Saith Mr. Bl. It is said that those persons did beleeve contradistinguished to them that were disobedient and stumbled at the word but such are onely the Elect Ergo. Answ. So did all they that made shipwrack of the faith 1 Tim. 1.19 So did Simon Magus Act. 8.13 So did the hearers compared to the rocky ground Luk. 8.13 And whereas it is said these believers are contradistinguished to them that were disobedient and stumbled at the word it fully makes against him Those disobedient ones are those that disallow Christ as we see v. 7. that reject Christ upon tender that persist in Judaism or Gentilism All others noâ— professed Jews nor Gentiles are in that place beleevers and in all other Scriptures respective to visible prerogatives which are all visible church-members Reply It is true someâ—imes they are termed believers who are meer visible professors but here the believers are such as to whom Christ is pretious and are contradistinguished to them that were disobedient and stumbled â—t the word unto which also they were appointed which Mr. Bl. did ill to leave out which shews they were reprobates appointed to perish and consequently the contradistinguished believers are such as are saved which cannot be said of them that maâ—e shipwrack of the faith or Simon Magus Which is confirmed from v. 9 10. which Mr. Bl. confesseth is understood of the same men v. 3. and under the same notion aâ— these v. 9. the Apostle brings his speech to no full period till v. 11. which reasons are confirmed by the note of Diodatâ— on 1 Pet. 2.7 It is that precious thing namely that precious foundation whereof Isaiah speaks which the text leads to and is verified onely of the elect to whom alone Christ iâ— the precious foundation And the other by the note of Beza on v. 8. Preterea particula 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adjuncta quod mox subjicit vos autem genuâ— electum nonne manifestam antithesin ostendit rosorum ad dâ—cus ad dâ—deeus conditorum sicut credentes immorigeros ante opposuerat Nor is what is said that they disallowed Christ v. 7. any thing against this that they that beleeved v 7. were true beleevers and elect any more then it follows all that are meer visible professors are termed beleevers ordained to eternal life Acts 13.48 because they are contradistinguished to those who reâ—ected the word of God and judged themselves unworthy of eternal life v. 46 4. Saith Mr. Bl. They are said to be built as living stones c which can agree to none but elect persons and true beleevers Answ. That is left out in the quotation of this tâ—xt which would wholly spoil the argument and carry it on the other hâ—nd namely those words to whom comming as unto a living stone The Apostle shews them the way and points out the condition called for which being done they are then built as living stones And this implies that it was so with some but not with others Here is that which is done by some and and neglected by others and their happiness upon discharge of their duty so that if Mr. T. his confidences were not far higher then his arguments he might well sit down and fairly acknowledge that these titles are givâ—n to visible Church-members Repl. Mr. T. his confidences are strengthened by Mr. Bls. slight answers to his arguments His argument was They who are said to be built as living stoâ—es on Christ the living stone a spiritual house a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ they are true beleevers and elect persons But such are those v. 5. who are termed a holy nation v. 9. Ergo. The major is proved from this that these things can agree to no other the minor from Mr. Bls. own words cited beâ—ore that they are the same v. 3. 9. the Apostle not bringing his speech to a full period till v. 11. Thus Dr. John Rainold theâ—â— 4. § 24. apâ—lies this passage onely to the elect And Mr. John Geree Vindic. Vind. calls it a misapplication of 1 Pet 2.5 to the visible Kingdome which expresly note the spiritual house ch 5. pag. 20 New Annot. on v. 5. lively stones that is as having life from him See v. 4. Diodati annot on 1 Pet. 2.5 Lively stones namely participating of that foresaid life of Christ and therefore opposite to the dead stones of the material temple Are built up or be ye built up An holy priesthood that is to say a multitude and company of priests By Jesus whose perfect righteousness and intercession gaineth all Gods grace to beleevers and to their works Now what saith Mr. Bl to this He neither denies major nor minor But tels us that those words to whom comming as unto a living-stone if they had been cited would wholly spoil the argument and carry it on the other hand which is very strange to me who find those words thus intepreted by the new â—nnot v. 4. Comming that is by faith See Joh. 6.35 5.43 44 45. Heb. 10.22 By Diodati v. 4. To whom that is to say being united to the Lord Jesus and made his members by a lively faith that they should prove that the titles 1 Pet 2.5 are given to meer visibâ—e Church members as iâ— any meer visible Church-member did come to Christ as a living stone by a lively faith and were a living stone built up a spiritual house c. But let 's view Mr. Ils reasons 1. The Apostle shews them the way and points out the condition called for which being done they are then built as living stones But 1. it is plain that the Apostle speaks of them as built up already 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye are built up as our translation best reads it not as of a thing to be done and this is confirmed in that v 2. they are said to â—e new born babes ver 3. to have tasted how gracious the Lord is ch 1.22 to have purified their souls v. 23. to be born again And for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it may be as well read unto whom being comen as unto whom comming And so Piscal in anal loci Argumentorum unum est a pari videl a vocationis initio quod significat quâ—m ait eos jam ad Dominum accessisse id est fide eum recepisse atque it a super eum adificari caepisse and therefore notes more then the way and condition called for even the thing already begun 2. But had the Apostle shewed onely the way and coodition called for what had this been to prove that the titles v. 5. are given to meer visible Church members Sure nothing at all for were they comen or comming or to come their comming must have been by faith and they had
not been living stones built up a spiritual house nor a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ without a lively faith and election And therefore neither Mr. Ils. conceiâ— being granted iâ— it proved that any othâ—r then elect and true beleevers are meant 1 Pet. 2. â— 2. Saith Mr. Bl. And this implies that it was so with some who did their duty and were happy but not with others who neglected But 1. how those words unto whom comming as unto a living stone implies the neglect of duty I am yet to learn If they did note a condition yet they could imply onely a possibility of neglect not that some did neglect 2. If some did neglect yet this is nothing to prove that ver 5. which is said onely of those that did come and so were happy the titles are given to meer visible professors The rest of the Chapter is to vindicate himself from what I said that I haâ—dly beleeve any approved Writer joyns with him in his interpretation To which he saith 1. It is not like my confidence who dare affront the body of protestant Divines 〈◊〉 Tenents that ex professo they have handled against the Papists Answ. That I do so is not shewed that I dare do so when I have truth on my side is no vice If Mr. Bls. reasons had been good his singularity had not been culpable 2. He would insinuate that in my interpretation I follow Escius and Gerhard whom I neither have nor ever made use of about this text 3. That he hath Mr. Ball whose book I now have not and his words cited by Mr. Bl. seem not to speak any thing of 1 Pet. 2.9.10 4. That A Lapide is wholly for him to whom he saith I use to be beholding But I think the words of A Lapide cited by him are not clear for him nor do I use to be beholding to A Lapide he being an Author I have not nor do I remember that I have made use of him but in the first part of the Review § 22. onely about 1 Cor. 7 14. 5. That Gerhard mentions others that understand 1 Pet. 2.9 of common and general eleâ—â—ion But whether approved Writers or not he doth not say so that my words stand good notwithstanding Mr. Bls. vindication of himself his injurious insinuations of me and his futile arguments and answers about 1 Pet. 2.9 Mr. Bl. ch 28. proceeds in proving That the Covenant of grace in Gospel times admits Christians in profession in a state of unregeneration and is not limited in the bounds of it to the elect regenerate And 1. he argues from four terms beleevers saints disciples christans which he proves out of Scripture to be gâ—ven to persons not elect which is not denied and they imply a Covenant undeniably and this he proves from my confession that the titles men ioned by Peter 1 Pet 2.9 from Moses argue a people in Covenant and therefore I am so shie to confess them to belong to visible professors But those titles are as high as these and as undeniably implying a Covenant are given to visible professors those then even according to me are on this account in Covenant with God Answ. Mr. Bl. doth but mock the Reader and abuse me by speaking of a confession which he doth not shew and by assigning a reason of my not confessing the titles 1 Pet. 2.9 not to belong to visible professors which is never given by me but imagined by himself As I said before so I say again though I hold those who are as 1 Pet. 2.9 the the terms are used a chosen generation a royal priesthood a holy nation a peculiar people are in Covenant with God as having Gods Covenant of Evangelical grace made with them yet I deny that the terms imply a Covenant And as for the other four terms Mr. Bl alledgeth to prove meer visible professors being in Covenant he doth in like manner mock his Reader 1. not telling what Covenant those terms imply 2. nor how they imply it 3. nor on whose part they imply it whether on the persons part thus intituled or on Gods which is the onely thing in question Whether God have made his Covynant of grace in Gospel times with any non-elect which sure those terms imply not sith they imply either the act as Beleevers and Disciples or the state as Saints and Christians of the persons intitled not any act of God covenanting or promising to them Gospel grace 4. The proof likewise from my confession if it were so is as vain For the terms Christ holy Angels onely begotten Son of God c are as high as those 1 Pet. 2.9 yet they do not imply a Covenant by my confession and therefore I may well deny his inference to be my confession though I should have yeelded that which he saith I confess to be mine 2. Mr. Bl. argues from some absurdities 1. This restriction of the Covenant makes an utter confusion between the Covenant it self and the conditions of it or the Covenant it self and the duties required in it between our entrance into Covenant and our observation of it or walking up in faithfulness to it For there are that enter and keep Covenant with God Psal. 44.17 18. Psal. 103.17 18. And there are those that break Covenant Psal. 78.10 37. Jer. 34.18 19 20. Levit. 26 2â— Isa. 24.5 Now according to this opinion regeneration is our entrance into Covenant and regeneration is our keeping of Covenant before regeneration we make no Covenant after regeneration we break no Covenant there is no such thing as Covenant breaking All this makes an utter confusion in the Covenant Answ. They that hold that the Covenant of grace in Gospel times is limited to the elect regenerate do not think either regeneration our entrance into Covenant or our keeping of Covenant or that before regeneration we make no Covenant or after regeneration we break no Covenant or that there is no such thing as Covenant breaking all these are Mr. Bls fictions and so is his imputation of making an utter confusion in the Covenant But this they hold that God enters none into his Covenant of Evangelical grace but regenerate persons and that they do all keep Covenant and that though many before regeneration make Covenant with God and break that Covenant they make and so there is Covenant breaking on their part yet that God keeps the Covenant of Evangelical grace with those he makes it and that no regâ—nerate person doth so break it as to be ever cast out of Gods Covenant And for Mr. Bls. texts they are impertinent to prove that after regeneration any do break the Covenant of Evangelical grace God hath made For Psal. 78.10 37. Levit. 26.25 Isa 24.25 do speak expresly of breaking the Covenant of the Law made with the people of Israel in mount Sinai which is another Covenant then the new or Evangelical Covenant Heb. 8.9 10. But our question is