for the begetting of a favourable opinion of themselves and their children which are more to most then demonstrations out of Gods word do gain an easie assent And though I am not out of hope that those who have opposed the truth I assert with impetuous zeal will be especially the most tender conscienced who examine their wayes and review their doctrines awakened and see and confess their errour yet I fear the obloquy and perhaps detriment in repute and outward estate and peace which mâ—n either are likely or doubt they may incur by owning the truth I hold forth or the seeming inconsistency of the reformation I seek to promote with the peace of the Churches of God will divert the thoughts of many from an exact consideration and an equall judgement of what I shall write either of my self or the matter under debate What was wont to be opposed against the reformation of Popish and Prelatical corruptions shall we go against all antiquity Be wiser then our Fathers condemn all the Churches make rents in the Church and such like objections though they be upon examination but vain yet like Gorgons head they are apt to turn men into stones and to make men not see what they do or might see and to be insensible of the evil of that practise which otherwise their Consciences would be affrighted with And truely though it be the wise and just contrivance of Divine provâ—dence and congruous to his end that the vanity of all things under the Sun might appear yet is it an humane irregularity that not onely for evil labour but also for all travel and every right work a man is envied malignâ—d or disliked of his neighbour Eccl. 4.4 chiefly when it crosseth self ends and conceits Nor is it incident onely to the prophane and unbelievers to dislike and oppose such acts as are rightly done but also to the godly until their mistakes are discovered to them The building of the Altar of Ed Josh. 22.12 was likely to have been an occasion of war beetween the rest of the Congregation of Israel and some Tribes till the intention of the builders was cleared to Phinehas and Peter's going in to Cornelius Act. 11.2 occasioned contention with him though it were from God till his warrant was shewed Paul knew that his promoting the collection for the poor Saints at Jerusalem might be distasted of the best and therefore he prayes that his service which he had for Jerusalem might be accepted of the Saints Rom. 15.31 Even holy upright men have their weaknesses passions mis-prisions prejudices which oft times hinder a right understanding of tenents and actions of Christian Brethren and thereby no small contentions arise God would have us discern thereby humane imperfection and keep our spirits humble and heedfull how we manage the rightest actions Surely no action is more necessary then the discovery of truth in the things of God nor should any endeavours be more acceptable to holy persons then such as tend thereto yea though there should be imperfection in actings and defect in the success Yet too much experience hath shewed that such attempts meet with much opposition and are ill entertained even by those who are or seem friends to truth It is unnecessary to give instances in the Scripture Acts 15.2 c. in the Ecclesiastical Story there are so many as verifie it beyond all contradiction If there were no other example but what hath befaln me about the point in this writing discussed yet it were sufficient to verifie what I said of the difficulty to gain entertainment of that truth against which men are prepossessed and of the ill usage of them that in a due manner endeavour to cleer it That Infant Baptism was not according to Gods will I thought might be made manifest by the silence of it in Scripture and the Writings of the two first Ages and by shewing how it was counted but an Ecclesiastical humane tradition unwritten induced upon such reasons by the Leaders of the Churches in after ages as are now judged erroneous and how false and dangerous the grounds are on which it is made a Divine institution to wit an imagined Covenant of grace to a Believer and his seed natural the nature of Sacraments to be seals of the Covenant of grace the inference of duties about positive rites of the new Testament from analogy with abrogated Ceremonies of the old the command of Circumcision to have been in the extent of it commensurate to and derived from the Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. as the adequate reason the succession of Baptism into the room and use of Circumcision all which or most of them are so contrary to the Scripture and Protestant doctrine as that I presumed they would quickly have been discerned by those who are acquainted with the controversies of Divines and sought reformation in Discipline and removal of humane inventions in Gods worship and had entered into a solemn oath and Covenant to that end And for my way of manifesting my doubts first to the Ministers of London and then to the Committee of the Assembly then sitting at Westminster and after to a prime man in it in the years 1643 1644. and what opposition I found is so manifest in my two Treatises and Apology published 1645 1646. as that it were but actum agere to say any more thereof Which I hoped would have taken off such prejudices as my Antagonists writings had raised against my writings and person that I might securely apply my self to review the Dispute wâ—thout hearing of any more personal objections But when I found the like usage continued by Mr. Robert Baily of Glasgow in Scotland I published an Addition to the Apology 1652. though it were framed before and sent in a letter Manuscript to him Yet the hottest charge was behinde After my necessitated removal from the Temple in London to Bewdley in Worcestershire anno 1646. it happened that a publike Dispute was between Mr. Richard Baxter of Kidderminster near to Bewdley and my self at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. which how it was occasioned managed injuriously divulged may be perceived by the writings on both sides his Epistle before the first Edition of the Saints Everlasting rest his Book of Baptism Praefestinantis Morator and my Antidote printed 1650. and Prâ—cursor anno 1652. By Mr. Baxters book of Baptism my self doctrine answers practise have been so unwoâ—thily dealt with as that they have been painted out in deformed shapes quite besides their true feature and thereby exposed to the unrighteous censures and contempt of so many that Mr. Blake in his Preface to his Vind. faederis thought he might without controul say Mr. Tombes is generally lookt upon low enough under hatches It is indeed too manifest that upon the publishing of Mr. Baxters Book of Baptism which was often printed and very much dispersed floods of reproaches were cast on me and those who are of my judgement in that point triumphant boastings of that
had the Jews understood that their children were in that condition worsted for want of a priviledge equal to their circumcision they would have been glad to accept of Christ to take away that horrour that then lay on their Spirits The third exception is that it is not said the promise is to the Gentiles and their children now if this be not made good the argument fals because we are Gentiles by nature To which he answers 1. If believing Gentils live under the same Covenant that Abraham and his seed did which has been proved then though they were none of his seed t is safer to apply the whole promise to them I am thy God and the God of thy seed then to cut off and circumcise the tenor of the Covenant and to say unto believers now God onely is your God not the God of your children is not this to make a main and substantial alteration in the Covenant and to rob believers of one of the most precious comforts they have by promise even Gods owning their seed Which they cannot be assured of as the Jews were without the children be admitted to the first sign or seal of the Covenant which is baptism now under the Gospel as I shall prove by its succeeding circumcision by and by To which I reply The Covenant Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. is mixt and in respect of the temporal promises believing Gentiles live not under the Covenant made to Abraham Gen. 17.7 but in respect of the spiritual part that is they are justified and saved now or God is a God to them as they are Abrahams seed Gal. 3.29 But neither did God promise to be a God in respect of Gospel grace to Abrahams natural seed as such the contrary is delivered Rom. 9.7 8. nor now to any believers seed as such but the elect whether believers or unbelievers children as is proved at large by me Exam. part 3. Sect. 4. not by denying the Covenant of grace to be made with a believer his natural seed do we cut off or circumcise the tenor of the Covenant or make any alteration much less a main and substantial alteration in the Covenant the Apostle expressly determining and whole Juries of the ablest Protestant writers even paedobaptists expounding Rom. 9.8 as resolving that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 to be a God to Abraham and his seed was not made to all Abrahams natural seed no not to the circumcised not to Ishmael and Esau but to the elect onely and therefore there is no safety to apply the whole promise I am thy God and the God of thy seed to every sincere believer and his child it being expressly contradictory to Rom. 9.8 which determines some onely to be children of the promise And yet we need not say as M. Drew injuriously makes us say God onely is your God not the God of your children but onely this you may assure your selves that he is your God for ye are believers and so Abrahams seed and ye may hope by reason of general indefinite promises and frequent experiences that God will be a God to your children But God hath not promised that he will be certainly a God to every or any one of your children definitely but is at liberty to shew mercy to your children or to an infidels as it shall please him And this you must be contented with sith God afforded no more to Abraham himself when he had made Isaac the child of the promise and not Ishmael nor to Isaac when he loved Iacob and hated Esau. It is fit you should remember God to be no debtor to you that he is the potter ye and yours are the clay and accordingly acquiess in his will blessing him for his love to you which is the most precious comfort you have by promise and not being anxious concerning your children Nor is there any truth in it that either the Jews were assured that God would own their seed that is be their God nor that by being admitted to circumcision they had that assurance nor that without admission to baptism we cannot be assured of our children that GOD owns them nor that baptism succeeds circumcision or if it did such assurance as Mr. Drew speaks of cannot be inferred thence So that all this passage is but a fardel of mistakes Le ts consider the next 2. saith M. Drew Are not Gentiles the seed of Abraham Then I would fain be resolved in this whether Christ took upon him onely the nature of the Jews or of the Jews and Gentiles both If only of Jews how must the Gentiles be saved If of both then how you will construe this text Heb. 2.16 He took upon him the seed of Abraham if you will not allow the Gentiles by any means to be Abrahams seed Answer I grant believing Gentils are Abrahams spiritual seed descending from him as the Father of the faithfull by imitating his faith And as for M. Drews frivolus or captious question which goes upon a supposition as if Christ might take on him the nature of the Jews only that the nature of the Jews were one and the Gentils another I tell him though I think such a Dr. might have resolved himself for his resolution that Christ took on him the nature of both that is the same specifical essence or kinde of being that both had to wit the being of a man common a like to Jews and Gentiles meaning by nature his individual and numerical Existence which is all one with that our Lord sprang out of Judah Heb. 7.14 not from Levi or from Lot and yet the Gentils are saved by his name he dying and arising again both for Jews and Gentils And for the Construction of Heb. 2.16 thought there are learned men that expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus he takes hold or helpeth the seed of Abraham that is believers of Gentils as well as Jews yet I think the meaning there to be no more but this that he took on him or received the nature of man by a natural descent from Abraham 1. because the seed of Abraham is opposed to Angels and therefore Abrahams seed signifies the nature of man contradistinct to Angels 2. because the author saith ver 17. thence he ought to be like to his brethren to be a mercifull high Priest which comes not from his helping believers but his assumption of the humane nature whith fits him to be like to men and to be a mercifull high Priest And therefore I like best the reading of our transtators in the text not that in margin And thus haye I answered M. Drews douty question in which he would so fain be resolved But what is this to prove that Acts 2.39 the promise is not yet to the Gentils that are called but also to their children I see not it being neither proved that Acts 2.39 the promise is the promise Gen. 17.7 I will be a God to thee and thy seed ot that the children of Gentils called
the Apostle saith he are those who by the works of the Law follow after righteousness and salvation The soâ—s of the Promise are those that seek after righteousness and salvation by faith in Christ and he thus frames the principall Syllogism of the Apostle for confutation of the Jewes arguing from the rejection of the Jewâ—s Gods failing in his promise If the word of God comprehend onely the sons of the promise shutting out the sons of the flesh then it follows that the word of God doth not fail â—hough the sons of the flesh be rejected But the word of God comprehends onely the sons of the promise shutting out the sons of the flesh Therefore the word of God doth not fail though the sons of the flesh be rejected Armin. Anal. cap 9. ad Rom. pag. 781 Let any now judge whether he can interpret this of the Law and not of the Promise Answer 1. The mention of my examining of Arminius his Analysis of Rom. 9. is little less than vapouring as Mr Blake in his spitefull fashion terms it but a necessary allegation with modesty to clear my self from his false charge That I had lately preached this as a Gospel â—ruth that this is one of the promises of the Covenant of grace that God will be the God of beleivers and their seed and that now I was suddenly otherwise perswaded If the Reader view my words he wil discern a spirit of malice or waywardness in Mr Blakes misrepresenting of my actions 2. To his Quaere I answer That I have not now Arminius his book to discern whether it was Arminius his conceit or not nor need I prove it was not alleging it as of my own search but upon the credit of Bain and Ames And I find in that Edition I have of Bain on Ephes 1. Anno 1618. pag. 134. on vers 5. that he saith that Arminius was deceived in this among other things that the objectors whose objection Paul preventeth vers 6. do by the word of God conceive the word of the Covenant legall which he refutes 136 as one of those mistakes which did mislead Arminius Nor doth Mr. Blake at all acquit Arminius from this mistake which Mr. Bain charged him with For Mr. Bain did not charge him with that mistake in the framing of the Apostles principal Syllogism for confutation of the Jewes arguing from the rejection of the Jewes Gods failing in his promise but in the framing the objection v. 6. as if the Jewes objection That if they were rejected who by the works of the Law sought righteousness then Gods word in the Legall Covenant to take them to be his people who kept the Law did fail which Mr. Bain refutes and shewes That the objection did arise concerning Gods word about their naturall descent as being Israel and Abrahams seed which is the same which I alleged And the same is the observation of Ames concerning the cited Remonstrants Animadv in Remonstr script Synod de praedest ch 8. sect 4. where he hath these words Remonstr autem pro confesso concesso habent agi hic de sermone legis sicut apparet ex illis verbis Si legem Moses non violarint qui legem sequuntur Sed in textu agitur de sermone promissionis qui efficax est in populo praecognito de quo praecipâ—e gloriâ—bantur Judaei semetipsos Abrahae filios haerâ—des promissionis ipsi factae jactitantes sicut ex Pauli responso patet So that if the Reader do conceive that Arminius in the words cited by Mr. Blake meant by the word of God the word of Promise not of the Law yet Arminius might conceive the word of God in the objection of the Jewes to be the legall Covenant or word of the Law in which Mr. Bain and I after him took him to be deceived 3. Whereas he saith That Arminius speaks in mine own Dialect as though the ones Comment had been spit out of the mouth of the other alleging Arminius his words and afâ—er his third Quaere is when he affirms that to be born after the flesh is all one with the Apostle with legal Justiciaries Apolog. pag. 114. which is Arminius his interpretation how then can he by that distinction of children of the flesh and children of the promise shut out the naturall seed of Abraham Are the nâ—â—urall seed of Abraham and legall justiciaries one and the same He continues his spitefull language and calumniating course For 1. though it is true that Apol. pag. 114. I sâ—y one born after the fleshâ—s all one with the Apostle as legal justiciaries yet I limit this speech to the Apostles speech Gal. 4.22 c. And therefore it is a meer calumny that in the explication of Rom. 9 6 7 8 I spâ—ke in Arminius his Dialect as if my Comment had been spit out of his mouth Yea it might easily have been deprehended by Mr. Blake that I rejected Arminius his explication of children of the flesh and children of the promise Rom. 9 8. in that I excepted Exam. part 3. sect 2. against this very thing in Arminius his exposition did recite Mr. Bains words who grants that elsewhere sons of the flesh are put for legal justiciaries yet denies it of the phrase Rom. 9.8 where he proves it notes barely natural descent from Abraham page 138 139. 2. To this question I answer 1. I shut not out the naturall seed of Abraham universally from the promise but only do not include them universally this I do from the Apostles distinction not understood in Arminius his sense 2 To his second question Are the naturall seed of Abraham and legall justiciaries one and the same I answer No. for saith Mr. Blake if the Apostle exclude all the naturall seed of Abram from this covenant of God with Abraham as Mr. T. from Stapleton argues and take in onely his spiritual seed how can he be reconciled to himself Answ. There are divers untruths in this passage First it is untrue that I do argue that the Apostle excludes all the natural seed of Abraham from this covenant of God with Abraham 2. That I argue this from Stapleton which I am sure is most false nor would have been said by Mr Blake if he had any care to refrain from calumniating me 3. Nor do I think by Mr. Blakes own allegation of Stapletons worâ—s in this chapter from whence he imagines I borrowed my arguing that Stapleton himself did so argue but Mr. Blake misreports him also My assertion is and if Stapleton do agree with me I like it not the worse that in the promise Gen. 17.7 as it is Evangelical assuring regeneration justification and life eternall all the naturall seed of Abraham are not included but grant that many have been and shall be included yet say that as they are his naturall seed so they are his spirituall seed by believing or election and that to the elect onely that promise as Evangelicall is made by God and that this the
the Covenant and Seals in generall are the root of his error about baptism or at least much strengthen it and there he takes upon him to refute them Since that time Mr. Bl hath renewed his exceptions Vindic grat ch 7. to which as touching upon Mr B. about the thing sealed and manner of sealing Mr B. hath replied in his Apologie against Mr. Blakes Exceptions Sect. 60 c. pag. 115. Because of Mr Bs censure I have received the passages in Mr Blakes answer to my Letter ch 15. in my Postscript Sect. 21. and leaving Mr. B. who is no competent judge of my Writings by reason of his prejudice against me and the cause I maintain and others to conceive of my books as they please I am not ashamed to profess 1. That I discern no such true worth in Mr Blakes mentioned passages which open the nature of the covenant but rather sundry that darken it the shewing of which now would be but a digression 2. That there is not one of the three positions set down by Mr Blake which doth contradict anything I said in my Examen part 4. Sect 5. For I said not the Sacraments are Seals absolute not conditionall but that God seals not upon condition persons agnize the covenant as Mr M. said in his Sermon pag. 49 nor did I deny that the entrance into covenant and acceptation of iâ— is common to elect and reprobate but that Gods covenant of grace or as I said before his promise in the covenant of grace is common to the elect and reprobates and this was it which I termed symbolizing with Arminians not that which Mr. Blake sets down 3. That I do not find that I have need to make any further reply to Mr. Blake therein nor to the six arguments he brings Vindic. Foed ch 7. to prove Sacraments sealing conditionally And for the flings Mr Blake hath at some speâ—ches of mine I shall briefly return answer Those words of mine I like not to call the Sacrament a conditionall Seal for that which seals doth assure and supposeth the condition In my apprehension that which is called conditionall sealing is not sealing but offering or propounding or representing but about this I will not contend Mr. Bl. leaving out the later words thus opposeâ—h Then our Lawyers have a long time decived us who have given us presidents as they call them for obligations under seal to run in these words The condition of this obligation is such and after an indication of the condition to conclude and close up all then this present obligation to be void and of none effect or else to stand in full force and vertue Seals we see leave the condition to me doubtfull Whereto I reply Neither I nor the Lawyers do deceive Mr Blake but he deceives himself the words of the president do intimate that the validity of the obligation is conditionall and is left doubtfull not that the seal is conditionall which doth absolutely assure or testifie the obligation or as the Lawyers speak the act and deed of him that seals which is not future but present and so not conditionall Mr Baxter Apol. against Mr Blake Sect. 77. I never heard of nor knew a conditionall sealing in the world though I have oft heard of the effects of obligation and collation of right to be conditionall which are not onely separate from the terminus proximus of sealing but also are directly the effects of the covenant promise testament c. onely and but remotely of the seals inasmuch as that seal is a full owning of the testament of conveyance yet such a thing as a conditionall sealing may be imagined In a word a conditionall engagement or obligation is one thing and frequent a conditionall seal or sealing is another thing but unknown There are other things at me as calumniating Mr. M. concerning his words as symbolizing with the Arminians which I shall acquiâ— my self from in answering Mr B. and that Mr Bs questionist and my self are both of one pitch both for knowledge and ignorance and stand equally affected to Mr. Bl. both in respect of his person and opinions which intimate as if he were perswaded I were that questionist whom I profess to be unknown to me and were disaffected to Mr. Blakes person though I knew not wherein I have shewed any disaffection to him and for my knowledge or ignorance be it more or lesse I hope it will appear in the conclusion that God hath given me so much knowledge as to shew the vanity of Mr Blakes and Mr Bs pleas for Infant-baptism And for his flirt or scoff at the wide standing open of the door in my night Sacraments I think my actions justifiable in celebrating the Lords Supper at night as Christ did with such notes as the Apostle made thereon in calling it the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.20 and relating it so distinctly v. 23 25. My admitting none but bapâ—â—zed persons after profession of faith is justified by Mr Blakes own words though somewhat misrepresenting my tenent Vindic. Foed ch 23. nor do I admit any one other profession to baptism than was done in the first times by men who had the Spirit of God to guide them and if any be baptized in the night it 's justifiable by Pauls action Acts 16.33 His flings also which he hath Vindic. Foed ch 17. p. 126. shew the same Satyricall vein when he saith I establish a new conditionall covenant against the New Testament light which I shall shew I establish in that sense I do it according to plain New Testament light and censures these words the not teaching one another spoken of Heb. 8 11. is meant of that obscure teaching which was under the Law Apol. pag. 154. said somewhat Magisterially after my manner whereas neither could I well dilate then being straitned in time and the exposition of that place there was but on the by and enough was said by me in those words answerably to the occasion and I conceived understanding men would gather the reason of my interpretation from those few words which is that the new covenant being there declared coÌ„tradistinct to that in Horeb as the writing the laws in the heart is mentioned to distinguish it from the writing in stone so the teaching is mentioned to distinguish it fâ—oÌ„ that obscure teaching which was under the Law which I said not magisterially nor any thing else as Mr. Bl. mis-censures me This is enough if not too much to answer these flirts of Mr. Bl. Fourthly I add That I find sundry passages in Mr. Bl. which seem to me to speak to the same purpose with my words as Answer to my Letter pag. 99. that Baptism assures actually when men doe believe pag. 102. out of Mr. Ball They that be truly in covenant obtained the highest blessings p. 106. This covenant of Jeremies is no more than that promise Deut. 30.6 The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed that thou
same What a powerfull argument is here for a man to venture upon to unchurch all the infants in the world The efficient cause enters not the essence or if it did yet not every less principal inferiour cause such as the Messenger or Minister of our call is If you had proved that God had repealed his Law which is the Charter of Church membership then you had said something else you say nothing to the purpose Answ. I neither attempted nor needed to prove the essence nature or essential constitution of the Jewish Church to be altered and therefore if the different call I assign prove it not yet what I was to prove that the Church constitution in respect of the integral parts and consequently of infants being included is altâ—red might be and indeed is firmly concluded from thence For as Alsted suppl Chamier de naturae Eccl. ch 2. § 3. The matter of the Church are men called Mat. 20.16 The form is the call it self and that is either simple that is either externâ—l onely or internal onely or conjunct that is external and internal together § 7. The inward call is that in which God calls inwardly by his spirit the outward in which he calls outwardly by the ministery of the Church And this is the call of the Church which as it is the action of God calling is in God himself but as it is received of the Church is it's form Or as Ames med Th. l. 1. c. 31. § 6 7. That first thing which in act constitutes the Church is calling whence also it receives it's name and definition For the Church is a company of men called 1 Cor. 1.24 with 10.32 And Cameron in his praeiect of the Church in his definition of the Church makes it to be a society of men called by the ministery of the word and saith called and believers are the same in Scripture Mr. B. confes of Faith pag. 284. The Church is Caetus vocatorum vel fidelium If then infants be not called by the word which is the onely way of calling into the Christian visible Church nor believers then they are no part of the visible Church Christian and consequently the Church constitution is altered and the Law of visible church membership of infants if there were such a Law is repealed And this argument is powerfull enough if there were no more to venture upon to unchurch though I like not the expression all the infants of the world that is to prove none of them to be members of the visible Church Christian. That which Mr. B. objects doth not invalidate the consequence For the consequence is not grounded on this onely that the Magistrate called then and the Minister now then all together now here one and there another but on this the Magistrate did it then by his authority though without perswading one after another but in the Christian Church the Minister doth it by preaching the word teaching and perswading one after another as the word takes and not by any commanding power or outward force or legislative or coercive vertue And this is sufficient to alter the constitution of the Church in this respect because if none be called but those that receive the word and none be members of the Church but the called and infants be uncapable thereof they are not members of the visible Church Christian. And therefore Mr. Bs. frivolous questions all run upon the mistake which out of negligence he runs into as his own words shew as if I had argued onely from the different persons and their different office and not also from the different way manner or sort of call whereas he acknowledgeth that my speeches do drive at this that my meaning was of the species or sort of ministerial call and so I might answer them all negatively and graâ—t what he would have me and yet my proof stands good And for what he saith that the â—fficient cause enters not the essence I find to the contrary in Keckerm syst log l. 1. par 2. c. 2. That in the definition of accidents the notion of distinction or the difference is taken from the subject efficient end and object Yet this if true were nothing against me who do not make the Messenger or Minister of our call of the essence of the Church no nor of the existence though the Apostles woâ—ds Rom. 10.14 speak near to it But this is that which I hold no person is ordinarily a member of the visible Church Christian but who is called by the outward preaching of the word who ever be the Messenger or Minister of the call and sith infants are not so called they are not members of the visible Church Christian. Mr. B. adds 2. I utterly deny that there is any more truth in the Antecedent then in the consequent God hath not altered the nature of the call in any substantial point but in meer circumstances Answ. What Mr. B. means by the nature of the call and what points he makes in the call substantial what near circumstances is not easie to tell but that God hath so altered the Jewish Châ—rch call as to exclude infants from the Christian visible Church is so apparent that I know not how to conceive of the denial of it but as a fruit of oppositeness without reason For all the way that John Baptist Christ the Apostles and other teachers took and appointed to be taken for gathering the Christian visible Church was by preaching the Gospel to all that would hear it to make them disciples or believers and so by baptism to joyn them to the Church But that the Jewish Church call was different is apparent in that there were no such teachers sent out to unite them but that by the authority of the Magistrates whether houshold or national they were imbodied Rightly saith Mr. Hudson vindic ch 4. sect 5. pag. 94. Gods method of conveying Church-priviledges used in the national Church of the Jews being in populo Israelitico must needs differ from the method in populo Catholico And the same is true of Gods call But what need we any other to shew the proper call of the Christian Church visible then Mr. B. himself in his Saints Everlasting rest part 2. ch 6. sect 1. Edit 1. pag. 223 224. he is so ample and his words so plain that I think if there were no more to shew his perverse stiffness in this thing it were enough I will transcribe some passages Consider in what way Christ spreads his Gospel to bring men in from the world into his Church from Paganism Turcism or Judaism to Christianity he never gave the sword any such Commission he never levied an army to advance his dominion nor sent forth his followers as so many Commanders to subdue the Nations to him by force and spare none that will not become Christians He will have none but those that voluntarily list themselves under him He sent out Ministers and not Magistrates or Commanders to