Antipaedobaptism, OR No plain nor obscure Scripture-proof OF INFANTS BAPTISM, OR CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP, Being the first Part of the full Review of the Dispute about Infant-baptism: Containing an ample Disquisition of the engraffing, Rom. 11. 17. the Promise, Acts 2. 39. the holinesse of Children, 1 Cor. 7. 14.  
Whereby the Expositions of those Texts, and Arguings thence for Infant-baptism by Mr. Stephen Marshall, Mr. John Geree, Mr. Richard Baxter, Mr. Thomas Cobbet, Mr. Thomas black, Mr. Josiah Church; and the Arguments of Mr. Nathaniel Stephens for the Convertibility of a Word of Promise and Command, are fully refuted.  
By JOHN tombs, B. D.  How forcible are right words! But what do your arguings reprove? Job 6. 25. 
LONDON, Printed by H. hills, and are to be sold by H. Crips, and L. Lloyd, in Popes-head Alley. 1652.   

To his Excellency the Lord general cronwell, Chancellor of the University of OXFORD.  
THe Divine providence hath so ordered it, that while your Excellency hath been prosperously employed in vindicating the public Liberty, others have been necessitated to contend for truth once delivered to the Saints. Among whom the Lord hath allotted me that part, which concerns the recovery of the prime ordinance of Christianity, the Baptizing with water believers in the name of the Lord Jesus to which with faith in him the Lord himself annexed Salvation, Mar. 1●. 1●. which heretofore had a great tie on mens consciences, when persons made Christians by Preaching the Gospel did solemnly and understandingly bind themselves to the profession and practise of Christianity; But now instead of it there is used the corrupt Innovation of Infant-sprinkling, a fruitless or rather pernicious rite to the souls of many, who are hardened in deadly presumption, as thereby sufficiently made Christians, and of ill influence on the Church of God by taking in ●gnorant and unclean persons, even the dregs of a Nation, to be Church members. For reforming of which those writings which I published afore my necessitated removal from the Temple in London because of them, I presumed to present to your hands in the year 1646 not only in testimony of my observance of a person so highly dignified by the Lord; but also that there might appear some reason why the hard Laws and dealings against those that opposed Infant-bap●ism should be at least suspended until Truth( the daughter of Time) might be brought to light. Since which time God hath gone forth mightily with you, and I assure myself the more, because of your Excellencies most noble aim to stop the violent proceedings of those spirits, who would suppress dissenters from them, without allowance of liberty for them to pled for themselves. It were too long to tell your Excellency what devices Satan hath used to hinder the restoring of the ordinance of Baptism, not only by those who are rigid asserters of Infant-baptism, but also by others, who of their own heads, without the least warrant from holy Scripture, do most presumptuously and dangerously evacuate,& many of them contemptuously deride the plain and holy institution of the Lord Jesus. The most eminent opposition to the work of restoring the right use of water-baptism necessary to an orderly forming of Christian Churches, hath been by those learned men, who maintain in still by their arguings and colourable pretences the corrupt innovation of Infant-baptism. The discovery of whose fallacies I have with the Lords assistance made one part of my business, as conceiving myself engaged thereto both by the necessity of the thing, and the providence of God calling me to it. This part I have thought convenient to be published afore the rest, being the most knotty part of the dispute,& in which my Antagonists lay out most of their strength. And forasmuch as your Excellency hath been eminently instrumental in maintaining the public liberty, through which I have had freedom to debate this point,& your relation to& care of the University of Oxford( of which I was once a member) bind me gratefully to observe you, I presume to prefix your Excellencies name to this writing, and to subscribe myself  
Your Excellencies humble and devoted Servant JOHN tombs.   

The Contents.  
Sect. 1. About stating the point in difference concerning the engraffing, Rom. 11. 17. what it is.  
Sect. 2. the arguments in my Apology to prove the engraffing, Rom. 11. 17. to be by giving faith according to Election, are vindicated from Mr. Gerees Answers.  
Sect. 3. The Objections of Mr. Geree against my interpretation of the engraffing, Rom. 11. 17. are answered.  
Sect. 4. Mr. Gerees Arguments for Infant-baptism from Rom. 11. 11. &c. are answered.  
Sect. 5. A Digression about the nullity of connexion between the Covenant and Initial seal( as it is called) and the invalidity of proof for it from Gen. 17. 7. 9. Act. 2. 38, 39. the mistakes about which texts are shewed, and Mr. Stephens his arguments for the convertibilty( as he speaks) of a word of promise and command, are answered upon occasion of Mr. Gerees words.  
Sect. 6. That the breaking off, Rom. 11. 17. was not by repeal of an ordinance concerning Infants visible Churchmembership, as Mr. Baxter conceives.  
Sect. 7. That the words Rom. 11. 20. of breaking off by unbelief, prove not that believers children have visible Church-membership and title to the Initial seal( as it is called.)  
Sect. 8. Mr. Baxters arguments are answered, whereby he attempts to prove that the breaking off and graffing Rom. 11. 17. 20. 24. are meant of the visible Church as such.  
Sect. 9. Mr. Baxters arguments for Infants visible Church-membership unrepealed, from Rom. 11. 17. 19. 2●, ●6, ●7. in ch. 9, 10, 11. of the first part of his Plain Scripture proof &c. are answered.  
Sect. 10. Animadversions on the second chapter of the second part of Mr. Cobbets Just Vindic. whereby is answered what he further endeavours to draw from Rom. 11. 16. &c. for Infant-baptism.  
Sect. 11. Of the agreements and differences between me and Mr. Marshal concerning the sanctification and holiness mentioned 1 Cor. 7. 14.  
Sect. 12. Mr. marshals first argument against my exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. as meant of matrimonial sanctification and holiness, from the use of the words[ sanctified and holy] is largely answered.  
Sect. 13. The sixth and seventh of Mr. Marshals additional arguments about the words[ sanctified and holy 1 Cor. 7. 14.] are answered.  
Sect. 14. Mr. Marshals second argument, to prove the sanctification 1 Cor. 7. 14. to be meant of instrumental sanctification and holiness federal, because the person in whom the other is said to be sanctified was a believer, is answered.  
Sect. 15. Mr. Marshals fifth and eighth arguments, being the last of his additionalls against my exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. in that the sanctification and holiness could not be except one were a believer, are answered  
Sect. 16. The third argument of Mr. Marshall, urging that by my exposition the Apostle is made to prove the same by the same is answered.  
Sect. 17. Mr. marshals fourth argument, that after my exposition the Apostles resolution had not taken away the doubt of the Corinthians from the fact in Ezra 9,& 10. is answered.  
Sect. 18. The insufficiency of what Mr. Marshal, Mr. Geree, Mr. black bring to avoid my exception, that it is without proof supposed, that the doubt answered 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13, 14 did arise from reading the fact Ezra 9,& 10. and not from the Epistle mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 9. is manifested.  
Sect. 19. My objections against instrumental sanctification, that it fits not the case of persons disabled for procreation, that it makes the Argument of the Apostle to be from a future contingent, that the act of producing a holy seed is not from any special designation by God, are vindicated from Mr. marshals answers.  
Sect. 20. That the proposition included in the consequence of the Apostles argument 1 Cor. 7. 14. is not true of instrumental sanctification and federal holiness, but true onely of matrimonial.  
Sect. 21. It is at large shewed that neither Mr. Marshall in his Serm. nor his Defence, hath answered the objection from the inconsistency of the Apostles included proposition with his exposition.  
Sect. 22. The objection in my Apology, that according to Mr. marshals exposition, the Apostles reason would prove a fornicatrix believing may live with an infidel fornicator▪ as well as a married wife with her husband, is not answered by Mr Geree or Mr. Church.  
Sect. 23. Mr. Baxters premised grants, various expositions, distinctions, and explications of the words[ sanctified and holy] are examined.  
Sect. 24. Mr. Baxters first argument from the constant use of the word[ holy] to prove that 1 Cor. 7. 14. it is understood of a state of separation to God intituling to visible Church-membership, is answered.  
Sect. 25. That if holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. had allusion to Ezra 9. ●. it were better intelligible of legitimation than of federal holiness, contrary to Mr. Baxters second argument.  
Sect. 26. Mr. Baxters 3d. argument, that if my sense stand, Pagans being legitimate might be termed holy, is answered.  
Sect. 27. Mr. Baxters 4th. argument, that the unbelieving husbands sanctifying cannot be meant in respect of lawful continuance in mariage-use, is answered.  
Sect. 28. Mr. Baxters 5th. argument, that the Apostle by my exposition should not argue from a thing more known, is answered.  
Sect. 29. Mr. Baxters 6th argument, that the Corinthians doubt was not that their continuance was fornication, but impiety, is answered.  
Sect. 30. Mr. Baxters 7th. argument, from the preferring a proper and usual sense before an abusive, is answered.  
Sect. 31. Mr. Baxters 8th argument, from the impurity of all things to an unbeliever, is answered.  
Sect. 32. Mr. Baxters 9th hinted argument from this, that the Apostle makes the childrens uncleanness an horrid consequence, is answered.  
Sect. 33. My speech, that it is not enough for Mr. Baxter to overthrow my sense except he prove his own, is vindicated,& the interpretation of the holiness 1 Cor. 7. 14. to be real qualitative holinesse which certainly saves, is overthrown.  
Sect. 34. That the terms[ sanctified and holy] are often used in a sense different from Mr Marshals and Mr Baxters descriptions, and agreeably to my explication:  
Sect. 35. The objection is made good, that according to the Apostles words, as expounded by Mr Baxter, no Infant is to be baptized, sith the reality of the parents faith is not known.  
Sect. 36. That Mr Baxter while he seeks to relieve Mr Marshall against my objection[ that by his exposition of the Apostle might be concluded the lawful living together of fornicators,] vents many wild conceits, and falls into gross absurdities.  
Sect. 37. The objection, that in Mr Baxters sense children may be holy who are born of infidels, is vindicated from Mr Baxters answer, and the nakedness of Mr Baxters opinion about that point, is discovered.  
p. 217. l. ulr. d. it. p. 218. l. 1. d. this. p. 225. l. 13. r. deny. p 234. l. r. in. p. 238. l. 5. r. Scheibler. 239. l. 37 r. {αβγδ}. p, 241. l. 31. r. Magus p. 244. l. 9. agrees. p. 246. l. 6. r. they had. p. 250. l. 13. r. whereas p. 252. l. 15. r. ye.   

An ample disquisition of the meaning of the engraffing of branches Rom. 11. 17. and the holiness of Children, 1 Cor. 7. 14. being one of the chief parts of the intended Review of the dispute concerning Infant-Baptism.  
AMONGST the texts that are brought by the asserters of Paedobaptism there are two, the meaning of which seems to have more difficulty than others, and therefore occasion more dispute, to wit, Rom. 11. 17. &c. Concerning the engraffing, whether it be into the invisible Church by an act of giving faith according to election of grace, or into the visible Church, so as that thence may be inferred, the admission of infants with their parents into the visible Church by the outward ordinance of an initial seal. The other is about the meaning of the holiness of Children 1 Cor. 7. 14. whether it be holiness from the covenant of Grace, whereby they are in a state of separation to God so as to be accounted visible Church-members and capable of the initial seal by virtue of one of the parents believing in Christ, or whether it be meant of holiness matrimonial, so as that this should be the meaning, that the use of marriage continuing lawful though one of the yoke-fellows remain an unbeliever, yet the Children are lawfully begotten or legitimate notwithstanding the unbelief of the one parent. For which reason I have conceived it might tend both to the shortening and elucidation of the dispute between me, Mr. M. M. B. and others, if those two texts were by themselves examined, and therefore thereunto I address myself.  

SECT. I.  
About stating the point in difference concerning the engraffing, Rom. 11. 17. what it is.  
THe proposition which Mr. M. would prove from those texts is thus expressed by him, That upon the Parents visibly owning God and his Covenant, their Children had this privilege that they should be reputed to belong to Gods kingdom, that is, that they should be baptized: Mr. Bs. That the ordinance of Infants visible Church-membership is not repealed. What Mr. M. brought from the former text in his Sermon for Infant-baptism was answered in my Examen, which was vindicated from what Mr. M. replied to it in his Defence in my Apology Sect. 14. from page. 67. to Sect. 15. excepting what I revoke there pag. 76. and the words I said pag. 68. that Mr. M. opposed personal inherent holiness to derivative as inconsistent. This Mr. M. denies, conceiving I had meant, that he excluded personal inherent holiness from all those though true believers to whom he ascribes a derivative holiness, whereas my words twere to this sense, That he conceived such a derivative holiness, with which the personal inherent holiness was in some of the branches there spoken of not consistent, that is not together with the other, which the words in my Examen, pag. 68. next following show to have been my meaning, The truth is, the holiness the Apostle speaks of is, &c. And this Mr. M. avoucheth again in his Defence pag. 142. And I say again the whole nation was called holy, not personally inherent, but federal. wherefore presumming that those who search for truth will take notice of this intimation, I am not willing actum agere, to do what is already done, but to leave the reader to view the passages in those books. But whereas Mr. Ms. conceit of that text as serving for his purpose restend mainly on this, That he thought the engraffing there meant by the Apostle is admission into visible membership, or visible Communion with the Church of Christ, and that the external seal of their visible graffing in was Circumcision, and of ours Baptism, and that breaking off is a casting out of that visible membership, whereof this sacrament is a symbol, and that as the Jews and their Children were engraffed in together, so we and our Children should be engraffed by Baptism; this conceit I conceived and still think is so far from the Apostles expressions that there seems to be no show of such a sense in the words. For there is not a word of taking any into the Olive but by faith, vers. 19, 20. not the least hint of infants taking in with their parents, not a word that sounds to any such sense as if the engraffing were by admission into visible membership by an external seal; which if it were so, should have been made the act of the administrator of that seal, whereas this is made Gods sole act by virtue of his power v. 23. with out which it would never be done; Besides, the Jews afore they were broken off are said to be natural branches, not engraffed: therefore the engraffing cannot be meant of the admission by Circumcision into visible membership: for that they had. Besides, if the engraffing be admission into the visible Church by an external seal, the breaking off should by the rule of opposites be either disannulling Circumcision, or some sentence of excommunication or the like, which made voided their standing in the visible Church: But their breaking off is by reason of their unbelief, and this is ascribed to their being blinded and hardened, v. ●0, 25. and that from Gods severity. And I conceived the words of Mr. M. himself in his Sermon pag. 43. alleged by me in my Examen pag. 64. so plain to show that elsewhere Mr. M. himself understood by engraffing into the Olive the effectual conversion of the Gentiles, by giving them faith in Christ, that I imagined it might be easily made plain that the engraffing is meant of giving faith by election into the Church invisible, and that only elect persons are said to be engraffed. And therefore( though I conceive that if Mr. M. could prove that the engraffing were admission into visible Church-membership, it would not follow that infants must be accounted visible Church-members and baptized with their parents, unless he could prove that our admission is to be according to the same rule with the Jews, which is apparently false in the non-admission of women by Circumcision &c.) when Mr. M. offered to put it to this issue, whether the engraffing were into the visible Church by an external seal, or into the invisible by giving faith, to cut off dispute, as much may be, I accepted the offer in my Apology pag. 71. and accordingly produced there ten arguments, eight from Rom. 11. the ninth from parallel places, and the tenth from Protestant writers interpreting it to that sense, to prove it must be meant of engraffing into the invisible Church by election, and giving faith, and answered the only or main argument against it, to wit, that then election would be revocable, and apostasy of true believers would follow, which were Arminianism. I know not that Mr. M. hath made any reply to what I have said in my Apology. But Mr. John Geree in his Vindiciae Vindiciarum chap. 6. pag. 26. takes upon him to answer for M. M. And first he excepts that in the repetition[ that the engraffing is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith] I leave out the word[ onely] wherein the whole emphasis of Mr. Ms. offer lies; and after Mr. T. brings many arguments to prove that the engraffing is meant into the invisible Church by election and faith, which I shall examine and discover, if he put in the word[ onely] they are too light, if not, they reach not the thing in question. And pag. 28. And it is to be observed that in all his Conclusions he leaves out the word[ only] which is the hinge of the Controversy; for we do not only deny, but also positively affirm, that in some the engraffing was by faith and election into the invisible, as well as by calling and profession of faith into the vible. So Mr. M. pag. 137, and 138. of his Defence; But where Mr. M. interprets it onely of bare admission into visible Church-membership, excluding the engraffing into the invisible, I profess I cannot find, and therefore believe Mr. T. hath in that imputation wronged him. To which I reply, that the question is merely about the meaning of the Apostle in the phrase of engraffing into the Olive( from which is Mr. Ms. argument) whether it were by giving of faith according to election, and so the Olive-tree into which the engraffing is, be the invisible Church of elect persons; now though Mr. M. used the word [ onely] yet I thought it not necessary to put in that word in the repetition of the Question, or Conclusions of my arguments, because I used it not in my Examen, and what ever Emphasis Mr. M. might put in the word [ onely] yet the thing in controversy is not in the word [ onely:] For though it be granted that the term do note both putting into the invisible and visible Church by consequent, yet if the phrase notes[ giving faith according to election] only true believers elect are engraffed, and consequently not all professors of faith and their Children, which onely will serve Mr. Ms. turn to prove, That Children of professed believers are to be admitted into the visible Church by an external seal: nevertheless it is manifest that if the engraffing be giving of faith, it cannot be admission into visible membership by Baptism, or any such act of man, because this act of engraffing is made peculiar to God v. 24. and so the acts must needs be different, sith the agents are different, and the persons also different, those that are admitted to Baptism and visible membership, being many of them never engraffed, and on the other side many engraffed as Catechumeni, elect infants, &c. who are never admitted to Baptism and visible Church-membership, and thereupon it will follow that[ engraffing] is not admission by Baptism to visible Church-membership, but only giving faith according to election, and that onely elect persons are engraffed, the terminus of giving faith being onely faith, and it being according to election none but elect persons have it given them, and so no other engraffed. It behoved Mr. M. to prove that by engraffing into the Olive-tree is meant admission into visible Church-member-ship of parents and children by an external seal, as he speaks, if he would have that text serve his purpose, therefore if I prove that it is another thing that is meant there by engraffing, a man of an ordinary capacity will perceive that it is impertinently alleged by Mr. M. And this it seems Mr. M. and Mr. G. saw, and therefore Mr. M. endeavours to prove that it cannot be meant of giving faith according to election, for this reason, that then by breaking off there must be apostasy from true faith, and revocation of election; and Mr. Geree when he answers my arguments doth answer them as if he would have it believed, that they prove none of them that the engraffing is by giving faith according to election. But Mr. G. tells me, sure I wrong Mr. M. in saying that I cannot but admire that Mr. M. should interpret the engraffing of bare admission into visible Church-member-ship: To which I reply, It is no wrong to hom: For he plainly interprets it pag. 135. of his Defence, of admission into visible Church-membership, and pag. 136. disputes against the sense of engraffing by election and faith, and therefore he interprets the engraffing of bare admission into visible Church-membership. But saith Mr. G. we also positively affirm that in some the engraffing was by faith and election into the invisible, as well as by calling and profession of faith. I reply that I also in my Apology pag. 71. premised this caution, That I did not deny but that the same people might be and were engraffed into the visible Church by profession and baptism, hereby declaring plainly that the question between us was not whether the engraffed persons were also in the visible Church, but what the act of engraffing was, and what the phrase did import; and therefore notwithstanding Mr. Ms. or my grant of the persons that they were engraffed both into the invisible and visible Church, yet Mr. M. might conceive the engraffing Rom 11. 17. to be bare admission into visible Church-membership, and I, to be giving of faith: Mr. Pemble of precious memory in his Vindiciae Fidei, to which Mr. G. himself prefixed an Epistle, Sect. 1. chap. 2. answering Becanus who alleged Rom. 8. 30. to prove that either by justification is meant sanctification, or else it is left out of that Golden Chain, proves that by calling there is meant inward calling and not outward alone, and so sanctification, because otherwise many should be called who are not justified and glorified, and many levied and glorified, as infants, who are not called. He denies not, but that many so inwardly called, were outwardly called, yet determines, that there is meant only inward calling. Doth it therefore follow that Mr. Pemble took the calling Rom. 8. 30. to be outward calling, and not more or another thing than outward calling, or inward calling only excluding always the outward? The case is just the same with mine: I hold that engraffing, Rom. 11. 17. is meant of giving faith according to election, and consequently none but elect persons are engraffed, and yet deny not that engraffing into the visible Church is a concomitant or consequent of it in some, and may be meant by that term: doth this prove, that I assert that the engraffing is meant of making all to be of the visible Church who profess faith? Mr. Geree proceeds. And this is enough to carry the cause, that at least the elect Gentiles by engraffing obtained the visible Church-state of the broken off: and so they and their Children are in covenant as the broken off were; and therfore I should not be so liberal in my grant as Mr. M. to Mr. T. in this, wherein he is an adversary. I answer, Mr. M. granted no more than truth enforced him. For if the engraffing be by giving faith according to election, and all the engraffed are elect ones, then that text belongs not to admission into visible Church-membership, nor the infants of believers as such are engraffed in the Apostles sense, except they have faith given them That Mr. G. was not willing to be so liberal shewed his pertinacy in opinion through inconsiderateness. If it be thought what I there yield will carry the cause, I am willing to put it to that issue: let any make the best advantage they can of it, I retract it not. If Mr. G. meant by visible Church-state such an outward form of policy and rites as the Jews had, or that the visible Church of the Gentiles is national as the Jews was, so as that all of the nation or in the Families, whereof some, or a great or eminent part, are believers, were to be accounted within the visible Church, as with them, I deny such a visible Church-state, and that the Elect gentiles did by their engraffing obtain the visible Church-state of the broken off: it being contrary to Gods way of gathering Churches, to wit, by preaching of the Gospel, and contrary to all Gods proceedings therein, and all rules he gives to Ministers. But if by visible Church-state he meant no more than this, to be accounted openly the people of God, to have Gods ordinances, word and worship amongst them, I grant that the elect Gentiles, yea and non-elect, did by their engraffing obtain the visible Church-state of the broken off. As for that which follows, And so they and their Children are in Covenant as the broken off were; If this speech be meant of the Covenant of Grace, or promise of saving grace, to wit, regeneration, justification, adoption, and eternal life, neither were all the Children of the broken off, nor of the elect Gentiles as their natural children, graffed in the Covenant of Grace: if by being in Covenant be meant according to the modern phraseology to be baptized, or to have right to be baptized, or to be reputed visible Church-members, I deny the proposition, and if an argument be thus made, the elect Gentiles by engraffing obtained the visible Church-state of the broken off( in the sense I allow) Ergo, they and their Children have right to be Baptized as the Jews and their Children were to be Circumcised, I deny the consequence, and expect to have it proved by him ad Graecas Calendas. But Mr. G. pag. 26. upon my grant that the same people might or were graffed into the visible Church, but the engraffing is more than that which is into the visible Church by outward profession and ordinances, speaks thus. But what is this but what Mr. M. and myself have again and again asserted, that it is meant of making all to be of the visible Church that profess, and those to be of the invisible Church that are elect and truly believe. I answer, M. G. by his gloss endeavours to pervert my words as he did the words of the promise Gen. 17. 7. and the words of the directory, thus, [ All thy seed shall be reputed visible Church-members till they discover the contrary, and the elect have the promise really] which is to make God promise to be a God to them, who have not the promise really, or God to be a God to them to whom he ceaseth to be a God upon the discovery of their hypocrisy. But neither of my Speeches is the same with this, that the engraffing is meant of making all to be of the visible that profess. I said not that the engraffing Rom. 11. 17. is meant of making all or any to be of the visible Church that profess, but have proved before it is meant of an higher or another act, to wit, giving faith: yet I deny not the same persons to be made of the visible Church who are engraffed, and that this making to be of the visible Church follows upon it. The rule in logic is obvious. Quae Conveniunt in eodem subjecto,& quorum unum est causa alterius, non sunt idem formaliter. Mr. G. passeth to the answer of my arguments, but first premiseth an observation which is nothing to the present business, there being no question between us about it. I yield that non-elect persons had in the Churches termed Saints by the Apostle, and Golden Candlesticks by Christ, a standing in the visible Church, and not in the invisible, and that the expressions are used synecdochically, the whole put for the more Noble part, as Austin long since answered the Donatists, nor do I gather any thing for my purpose, from the term Saints; or Golden Candlesticks, and therefore Mr. G. might have spared his pains in setting down that observation. But this is the question between me and Mr. M. whether the engraffing be meant of giving faith according to election, and so the Olive-tree be the invisible Church of the Elect, and consequently the branches engraffed only true believers or elect persons, which I hold; or whether the act of engraffing note bare admitting into visible Church-membership, and the Olive-tree the visible Church as visible, and the branches Fathers and Children, and their engraffing admission into visible Church-member-ship by an outward ordinance, after the manner of the Jews infant-Children with the parent to be made thereby visible Church-members. This I deny, and still hold that the engraffing meant Rom. 11. 17. is not by any outward ordinance after the manner of the Jews into the visible Church, but the giving of faith according to election of grace, whereby the branches are in the in visible Church of the Elect, though by consequent they are also of the visible Church by profession of faith. Now whether my arguments in my Apology prove this determination will appear by considering Mr. Gerees answers.   

SECT. II.  
The arguments in my Apology, to prove the engraffing Rom. 11. 17. to be by giving faith according to election, are vindicated from Mr. Gs. answers.  
TO the first Mr. G. speaks thus. 1. Because it is by Gods sole power, Rom. 11. 23. I answer, the ground is weak: for no man can give a power so far to believe as to profess, especially one blinded and hardened of God, but God alone: and was not the visible Church-state of the Jews, when all other Nations were without, an act of Gods power onely, nor could it be by man? so then also their re-ingraffing, though many come to be members of the visible Church onely.  
To which I reply. It's easy for Mr. G. to say my ground is weak, when he hath hewed off the arms of my argument by his maimed repetition: But I allow him not to be {αβγδ}, as the Athenian said, to hack my words at his pleasure. My argument was grounded on this, that the engraffing is said to be Gods act( which Mr. G. leaves out) nay this sole power, God is able, saith the text, to graft them in again, intimating that were it not that God did by his power graft them in again, the thing were hopeless or impossible: whereas if the engraffing were meant of admission into visible Church-membership by an outward ordinance, this being done by the admiministrator, is his act, not Gods, I mean as the subject denominated, though he be the supreme efficient of every act as it is an act; it is the administrator of Baptism that admits into visible Church-membership, and it is an easy act, and the same may be said of an outward profession, it is the easy act of the professor, that may be wrought by moral persuasion. It is one of the arguments of the Contra-remonstrants at the Conference at Hague on the third and fourth articles, that conversion is not a moral suasion of men, or from the power of free-will, but effectual and irresistible, because it is ascribed to Gods power, Ephes. 1. 18, 19. Col. 2. 12, 13. 2 Thes. 1. 11. 2 Pet. 1. 3. why then should it be accounted a weak ground for me to argue that therefore the engraffing is not an admission to visible Church-membership by an outward ordinance, or by an outward profession( which are in the power of a mans will) but an effectual giving faith according to election, sith it is ascribed to God as his doing, and that proceeding from his power alone, with such an Emphasis as if it were hopeless otherwise? It is true every act we do is by Gods power: but this act of engraffing is made Gods peculiar act, not mans, and by his sole power; and therefore cannot be understood of admission into visible Church-membership( For then the engraffing might be mans act performed by the weakest of men) but of giving faith according to election, and so none engraffed but the elect into the invisible Church.  
2. To the second Mr. G. speaks thus. 2. He argues because the engraffing is called reconciliation, opposite to casting away, v. 15. which is called breaking off v. 17. But this is also too weak. For the casting away and breaking off being but a loss of what they had, that is visible privileges, the reconciliation might be& in many Gentiles was but a vouchsafing them a visible Church-state, no longer to be reputed dogs as they had been.  
I reply. When any shall show either a Scripture wherein by reconciliation to God is meant bare vouchsafing a visible Church-state, and by casting away, and breaking off, a loss of visible privileges; or any approved writer in the Churches of Protestants, so expounding it, I shall begin to suspect that I am mistaken: but till then I shall remain confident I am in the right, and shall wonder that any that loves not to wrangle, but fears to pervert the Scripture and the truth of God, should dare so to interpret it. That many in the Churches of the Gentiles were hypocrites, and had only a visible Church-state is not denied, but under the phrase of reconciling the world, is so manifest that only true believers are meant, that not only the terms [ riches of the world, v. 12. and reconciliation of the world, v. 15.] are alleged in answering the Arminians argument for universal redemption, from the phrases of Gods loving the world, John 3. 16. and Christs being a propitiation for the sins of the World, 1 John 2. 2. to prove that the word [ World] though a general Term, yet is taken restrainedly for believers, elect and saved persons, as Ames fully in his Coronis art: 2. c. 10. towards the end, Ball of the Covenant part 2. chap. 2. pag. 222. but also the Citati Remonstrantes themselves defence. sentent. circa eum art. pag: 307. do yield that vox mundi per prolepsin fideles gentiles denot at. But that by reconciliation should be meant baptizing or admitting to visible Church-membership, or by casting away or breaking off should be meant putting out of the visible Church-membership( as the law of opposition requires) by excommunication or other like act, is scarce a sober conceit.  
3. To my third Mr. G. speaks thus. 3. He argues from v. 20. By unbelief they were broken off, but thou standest by faith. I answer. The elect by faith and profession was both in the invisible and visible Charch: the formal, by appearance of faith stood in mens esteem, and as members of the visible Church. And to his purpose Calvin, part of whose speech you afterward applaud; Praecipuè notandum Pauli sermonem non tam ad singulos homines quam ad totum Gentium Corpus dirigi in quo multi esse poterant frust a inflati fidem potius profitentes quam habentes.  
I reply. Is this to answer? 1. not to repeat so much as the medium of my argument; 2. not so much as to deny any proposition, or to distinguish any term, or show any fallacy in it? That which Mr. G. says, I deny it not, yet the argument stands unshaken, that the engraffing is not barely into the visible Church by an outward rite( which onely agrees to infanrs) or by bare profession, but into the invisible by giving faith, sith it is by faith whereby the branch stands in the root, and by unbelief is broken off.  
4. Saith Mr. G. He argues from v. 17. That engraffing is meant whereby the wild olive is Co-partner of the root and fatness of the Olive-tree, and then much stir is kept what the root is. But I answer. If the Olive give fatness, I know no other Olive, but he that is the Vine into whom all Christian Gentiles were engraffed by profession, and the elect of them really also, and hence this expressi n v. 17. in regard of what in profession and show belonged to all, and in reality was verified of the better part, the elect.  
I reply. However Mr. G. content himself to skip over matters of such moment, yet it repents me not to have taken pains to examine thoroughly what is meant by the root, which Mr. G. calls keeping much stir. And I marvel Mr. G. taking upon him to answer my arguments, and so seriously commending this Scripture to me, should be so slight in weighing my arguments. To this argument he gives no answer at all: but rather doth grant the thing to be proved, to wit, that the engraffing is into Christ, and the fatness his Grace: only he will have these to belong to all by profession( which infants cannot make) to the elect in reality. Concerning which I say, that the question is not how the Graces of Christ may belong to all and some: but what the phrase of engraffing imports, whether giving faith according to election or admission into visible Church-membership by an outward ordinance. I say still it is giving faith, because by faith only the branches are partakers of the root and fatness of the Olive-tree. Ames Coron. art. 2. c. 10. opulentiam Gentium in eo consistere palam est, de quo Apostoli& fratres glorificâsse Deum dicuntur Act. 11. 28. nempe quod et iam Gentibus dedit Deus resipiscentiam ad vitam. Apostolus ipse in eodem capite v. 17. diserte explicat opulentiam istam,& quorum sit, eorum nempe qui insiti sunt oleae& participes radieis& pinguedinis e●us facti, id est fideles. What I said about the root was necessary to clear the text. I say still, Abraham is the root there v. 17. and partaking of the root is following Abrahams faith and being levied as he was. Willet Comment. in Rom. 11. q 21. Abraham then is the holy root, but by the holiness of Christ: and he is the root only {αβγδ} by way of example: {αβγδ} effectually Christ is onely the root. Diodati annot. in Gen. 17. 5. Father] not only by Corporal Generation of numberless people of Israel: but chiefly by his engraffing of all Nations indifferently into the body of the Church through the imitation of Abrahams faith, whereof he was an exemplary and borrowed Father, Rom. 4. 12. 17. Pareus Comment. in Genes. 17. 4. sunt filii Abrahami tum fide, quia eadem fide justificantur, quâ ille svit justificatus: tum imitatione, quia vestigiis ejus insistunt. Why Mr. G. speaks of an olive giving fatness I know not, I used not that phrase: By the Olive is meant the believing Church or people, by the fatness spiritual blessings called the fatness of the Olive, not as the cause but as the subject of them: Christ there cannot be made the Olive three, who doth not receive from another root fatness as this Olive-tree, but impart it.  
5. Saith Mr. G. He argues because the breaking off is by blinding, but that is weak, for then engraffing may be by illumination to profession, which may be without election, Heb. 6. 4, 5, 6.  
I reply. It is easier to censure than to answer, {αβγδ} blinding or hardening is v. 7. opposed to that State which the election obtained, by which v. 8. they had a spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, ears that they should not hear, v. 10. whereby their eyes were darkened that they might not see, from which Anti-Arminians gather absolute reprobation. Ames animadv. in Remonstr: script. synod. art. 1. c. 16. Hoc ipsam ad reprobationem spectare Apostolus Paulus clarè Ostendit, Rom. 11. 17. now according to the rule of opposites, oppositorum opposita sunt attributa, if the blinding be the effect of reprobation, and the breaking off be by blinding, then the engraffing is by enlightening, and that enlightening is according to election, and so is all one with giving of faith. It is not denied but that there is an illumination to profession which may be without election Heb. 6. 4, 5, 6. but it is certain there is an effectual illumination which gives faith Eph. 1. 18. This must be meant by the engraffing in that place, sith the breaking off is blinding whereby the decree of reprobation takes place.  
6. saith Mr. G. He argues because re-ingraffing brings salvation' but that is to some of the engraffed, not all, unless he thinks at the Jews restauration there shall be none of them Formalists and Hypocrites.  
I reply. I think at the Jews restauration, there shall be some of them Formalists and Hypocrites, but none of the re-ingraffed. For the re-ingraffing produceth salvation, is by turning them from iniquity, taking away their sins according to Gods Covenant, v. 26, 27. which cannot be said of hypocrites. Mr. G. still shoots wide from the mark, which is not whether among the Jews engraffed there will be hypocrites, but whether any of these are said to be engraffed, and what the engraffing is, whether giving faith according to election, or admission into visible Church-membership by an outward ordinance.  
7. Saith Mr. G. He argues because the engraffing is by virtue of Gods election, his love, his gifts of calling v. 30, 31, 32.( misprinted for v. 28. 29.) But I answer, the election, love and gifts, being such here as belong to bodies or nations, it is not such as M. T. means, which is elestion unto salvation; sith that belongs not to whole bodies or nations, or not to all of them, and so is atttributed in regard of the better part.  
I reply. Mr. G. it seems rather than he would lose this text for engraffing a whole Nation Fathers and Children by an outward ordinance, as of Baptism, into the visible Church, will enervate all that the Anti-Arminians dispute from Rom. 11 28, 29. to prove irrevocable election and certain perseverance of true believers, as may be seen by their several Judgements in the Acts of the Synod at Dort on art. 5. To these purposes the Contra-remonstrants alleged it in the Conference at Hague art. 5. arg. 3. and Ames in his Coronis art. 5. defends their allegation of it for the immutability of the decree of election unto life, and the perseverance of the truly called to salvation, and allegeth Suarez the jesuit as acknowledging that the gifts there are meant of gifts which come from election to life. Mr. Perkins alleged by Mr. Geree on Rev. 2. 4. allegeth Rom. 11. 29. for perseverance, and on v. 9. to special election, to which place Mr. G. refers me, and Mr. Bolton, Instructions for comforting an afflicted conscience, pag. 477. that is, as best interpreters affirm, the gifts of effectual Calling, and yet Mr. G. will not have the election, love, and gifts to be such as belong to election, but understands it of such outward privileges or Church-state as are confessedly {αβγδ}, such as God doth revoke: so violently was he carried in alleging this text for his baby-baptism, that he headed not what service he did to the Arminians by his interpretation, nor how palpably he abused this Scripture in which he placed most of his strength. How election may belong to Nations will be considered in answering the objection against my interpretation. I make no question but all Anti-Arminians that understand the Controversy will disclaim Mr. G. in this answer, and aclowledge that the election, love, gifts, and calling, meant Rom. 11. 28, 29. are by faith unto salvation: whence must needs follow, that the engraffing from thence to be giving of faith according to election, and not such a poor thing as admission into visible Church-membership by an outward ordinance, as by Baptism, the which the Scripture no where makes the fruit of election, Gods love, gifts, and calling without repentance.  
8. Saith Mr. Geree. Lastly because the engraffing is the fruit of Gods mercy, and breaking off shutting up in unbelief: But neither is this last cogent, sith there is general mercy to make members of a visible Church as well as special to make members of the invisible, and their unbelief was not onely want of saving faith, but historical faith to profess, which later if they had had, they had not been broken off, and therefore they that have it are engraffed into their rooms to enjoy that visible standing, which for want of it they lost. Thus Mr. Ts. army of arguments are routed.  
I reply. Be it that there is a general mercy as well as a special, and unbelief is a privation of historical faith, and not only of saving, yet here the showing mercy being opposed to their former hardening, the unbelief, the not believing or obeying God in times past, which was a want of saving faith in the Gentiles who were as it is said Ephes. 2. 12. without Christ, without God, without hope, Gods shutting up all in unbelief that he might have mercy on all occasioned the exclamation, O altitudo! v. 33. and the whole scope and tenor of the Apostles words as I said in my Apology, do so fully show that the engraffing is by giving of faith according to election, that as then I did so now I do much more admire, that Mr. M. Mr. G. should endeavour to oppose so clear a truth, and that like Plautus his miles gloriosus Mr. G. should boast of routing my army of arguments, when there is not one of them by all his answers hath lost an inch of ground, and that the Assembly at Westminster in their Confession of faith, chap. 25. art. 2. should so impertinently allege Rom. 11. 16. to prove that the visible Church consists of the Children of them that profess the true religion. What Mr. G. says, If the Jews had had an historical faith to profess, they had not been broken off, is said without proof: I conceive that there is no numerous Church wherein none are of the invisible Church, but if there were there would be none graffed-in in the Apostles sense.  
To these eight arguments from the text I added in my Apology two other, one from some parallel places, which I conceived to express the same with that which is said of the engraffing, Rom. 11. 17. and must be understood of implanting into the invisible Church, as Ephes. 3. 6. 1 Cor. 12, 13. Gal. 3. 14. 26. 28, 29. the other from the testimonies of H●pperius, Bucer, Calvin and Mr. M. himself expressing the engraffing by taking away the heart of ston, creating a heart of flesh. This last Mr. G. lets pass here, and Mr. M. in his Defence answers not to my objection of his own words in my Examen pag: 64. but to the parallel places Mr. G. speaks thus. For the places Mr. T. makes parallel 1 Cor. 12, 13, Ephes. 3. 6. Gal. 3. 14. 26. 28, 29. they are so far from confirming his opinion, that they manifestly confirm my observation touching the expressions of Scripture, when they speak of the visible Church in which there are good and bad: they in regard of the profession of all, and the reality in the elect, speak as though all were elect: but it is by a synecdoche. For let Mr. T. tell me, doth he think all and every particuiar person baptized in Corinth or Galatia were really engraffed into the body of Christ, or had put him on? &c. yet this is spoken of all in regard this was true in all in professien and appearance, and there were some elect among them of whom it was true really: even so we do and are to interpret many phrases urged by him in Rom. 11. in this present business.  
I reply. I like it not that Mr. G. alters the order wherein I put parallel places. I put first Ephes. 3. 6. which I conceived clearest for my purpose, and alleged it only in my Examen pag. 65. nor doth Mr. G. deny it to he parallel. Now sure the Gentiles were made fellow-heirs, of the same body, and copartakers of the promise of God in the Gospel, not by an outward ordinance, but by giving of faith according to election, Ergo, the engraffing, Rom. 11. 17. parallel to it is not by an outward ordinance, but by giving faith according to election, The like might be said of the other places. Mr. Gerees observation I deny not, but acknowledged before to be true and useful in many places, but to the present business impertinent, the Question being not now how the Gentiles or Churches may be said to be elect or believers though many be hypocrites, but what act the engraffing, Rom. 11. 17. was, whether an act of God giving faith according to election, or whether it be an act of admission into visible Church-membership, which is the act of an administrator if by Baptism, or some other act of man, and whether that phrase of engraffing prove that infants of believers are to be admitted by Baptism into the visible Church as the Jews infants by circumcision, as Mr. M. would infer, or whether it prove onely that the Gentile-believers are partakers of the promise of the Gospel, to wit, justification and salvation by Christ, as well as the Jews, as I affirm, and the parallel place, Ephes. 3. 6. plainly interprets the phrase. Nor doth Mr. Gerees observation infringe this interpretation, sith the synecdoche doth not alter the meaning of the engraffing, but onely makes a trope in the subject of the proposition [ the nations are engraffed] where the Nations are put for a part, and the term engraffed expounded of engraffing by election, which is onely true of some that are elect: which indeed confirms my exposition, as may appear by Mr. Gerees own instance, 1 Thes. 1. 5. Knowing beloved your election of God, and saith it must be understood synecdochically of the whole for a part. Where there is no trope in the term election, its not meant of bare admission to visible Church-membership, burr of Gods decree of saving grace, onely that which is said of the Church is limited to some of them: so when it is said the Gentiles are engraffed into the Olive-tree, this being understood by a synecdoche of the whole for a part, shows that it is not every gentle professor that is engraffed, but onely the more Noble part of real believers, and the phrase imports giving faith according to election, nor any engraffed but elect, however many in appearance to us seem to be engraffed which were not. And therefore Mr. Gerees question to me makes nothing for him, but against him. For it being granted that every baptized person in Corinth and Galatia were not really engraffed in Christ, and that the places 1 Cor. 12, 13. Gal. 3. 14. 26. 28, 29. are not to be understood of every particular person baptized, which Mr. G. by his question would evince, it follows that engraffing contains more than admission into visible Church-membership by Baptism, and that the baptizing by one spirit into one body, making to drink into one spirit, having the blessing of Abraham, receiving the promise of the spirit through faith, being Children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, all one in Christ Jesus, Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise, are not meant only of admission into visible Church-membership by an outward ordinance, but of saving benefits according to election. Yea me thinks he that reads Mr. Gerees own words, when he speaks of really engraffing into the body of Christ, and expounds the phrases, Rom. 11. so as that some where elect, some only in appearance, might well conceive that he himself understood the proper meaning of the metaphor of ingrassing Rom. 11. 17. &c. to be of uniting into the invisible Church of true believers by giving faith according to election, and not of admission to visible Church-membership by an outward ordinance, if it be allowed that Mr. G. understood his own words.   

SECT. III.  
The Objections of Mr. G. against my interpretation of the engraffing Rom. 11. 17. are answered.  
BUt Mr. G. objects against my exposition, That the Apostle speaks not of particular persons, but of the hody of the Jews, and the body of the Gentiles that were Christians, collectively received into the room of the Jews broken off; and the body of the gentiles that received Christ by profession were not all elect, but good and bad drawn together by the Drawnet of the Gospel.  
Ianswer. This Mr. G. calls an objection against my interpretation of the engraffing, Rom. 11. 17. to be by giving of faith according to election, and not of admission into visible Church-membership by an outward ordinance, and he saith this is as forcible as that other objection which I account only of weight: now what he objects I myself had observed as being for my purpose in my Apology pa. 76. and said, by the branches are not meant singular persons, but the people from whom they are descended, following therein Hyperius, whose words I have alleged, or the body of them, using Mr. Ms. and Mr. Gs. own term, who therein followed Calvin, whose words I there allege. Mr. G. conceives this, viz. that the body of the Gentiles are engraffed, to be meant of Christians collectively, and to comprehend the body of the Gentiles that received Christ by profession, not all elect, but good and bad drawn together by the Drawnet of the Gospel. Now he brings nothing to prove this, nor doth he form any argument from hence, nor if it were granted would prove infants to be in this body, or to be engraffed, sith they receive not Christ by profession, nor are drawn together by the Drawn et of the Gospel. But sith I grant the branches in graffed are not singular persons as such, that is distributely taken for every one, but the body of them collectively taken, it is needful to clear myself in this thing, and answer Mr. Gs. inference I conceive he makes. To this end it is to be considered, that when I say the body of the Jews were broken off, and the body of the Gentiles engraffed, I understand this speech as Bucer speaks, de Gentibus univer sim, non de singulis hominibus, as when it was said Acts 11. 18. Then hath God granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life, the meaning is not as if every particular person of the Gentiles, or the whole number of any Nation of the Gentiles had granted to them repentance unto life; though the word be general and might comprehend all, yet in that speech it is put for any indefinitely, not for all universally, and in the application of it notes only some particular persons amongst the Gentiles: so when I say, the body of the Gentiles were graffed in, though this term [ body] might be conceived to comprehend every particular person, or the assembly of them, yet I understand no more than this, that the branches are not particular persons as such, but a full, ample, indefinite number of them, which must be taken, if applied to particulars, onely to the elect. And thus Anti-Arminians answer the Arminians, alleging Gods loving the world, John 3. 16. to prove universal love to every man, That the word[ world] is taken for mankind in Common, yet so as that properly the love there is terminated only on the elect of them: so when I say the body of the Gentiles indefinitely, or in common, was engraffed, yet it doth not follow that I mean good and bad are engraffed, but 
Ames. animadv. in Antisynod. Remonst. art. 2. c. 3. mundus Joh. 3. 16. potest commode accipi pro genere humano in communi: ita tamen ut propriè terminetur dilectio hujus mundi in electis ex illo.  onely the elect. And such kind of expressions are frequent, wherein an indefinite common term inconsufo genere, notes onely a sort of persons in confuso genere, neither taken universally for all, nor particularly for some, and yet in application verified onely of some, as when James saith, ch. 2. 5. God hath chosen the poor, the term [ poor] is taken indefinitely neither of all, nor some, but the sort of men, yet in application it is verified onely of some, and so 1 Cor. 1. 27. The weak things of the World, though an indefinite term, is verified onely of some, and so that the Gentiles might glory God for his mercy, Rom. 15. 9. is verified onely of some: and in like manner when I say the body of the Gentiles, or their aggregate number are engraffed, this is verified onely of that part who are elect, though Gentiles be a general term, and the speech indefinite. But if this speech of mine be incongruous, I am willing to alter it, though in using it I followed such authors. However Mr. G. hath no advantage by that term so expounded, and other proof for his objection I find none.  
I therefore pass to the consideration of the other objection, which I said was onely of weight: to wit, That if engraffing be meant of giving faith according to election, and the engraffing be into the invisible Church, th●n some branches of the invisible Church are broken off, and so election made revocable, and apostasy from Grace maintained. To this waving the answer in my Examen, though backed by somewhat alike instance out of Scripture, and authority of some Protestants, in my Apology I answered, that the branches broken off are meant of them that were in the invisible Church, which yet I conceived, I acquitted from the Arminian error of falling away from Grace.  
Mr. G. hereupon writes thus. He boldly affirms, that the breaking off was of the branches that were truly such, and of the ingaffing that was truly such, into the invisible Church. But may we not change the verse and say— pictoribus atque sophistis, Quidlibet audendi, &c. But he brings an alloy, That by the branches are not meant singular persons, but the people; why then the people that were engraffed into the invisible Church were broken off, so yet the invisible Church was prevailed against in his sense: therefore I know not what help this limitation will do him. That which is said of people in a body must be true of some particulars of that body: so if the body of the people truly engraffed into the invisible Church were broken off, this must be true in some particular persons. Besides how apparently across is Mr. Ts. assertion to the Apostle Rom. 11. 2. Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. God hath not cast away his people that he fore-knew. So you see the people that make the invisible Church are not broken off.  
I reply, my words carry no such show of boldness as Mr. G. would insinuate they do, and for his verse he might change it, as he pleased: neither he nor any else have ptoved me an adventurous Sophister. I spare to recriminate, yet say, that if there be any sophistry in this dispute it may appear by his repeating my arguments, and otherwise Mr. G. had his share. But to the point. I affirmed, that the branches were broken off from election and true faith, and the invisible Church in which they were, with this limitation, understanding it not of the same singular persons, but the same people or Nation. And to explain I said that a Nation or People are not a consistent but a fluent being, denominated the same not from the same persons, but from the same descent, as a River from the head in the same Channel is the same River in one age that it was in a former, yet not the same Water, and having applied it, alleged the Words of Hyperius, Bucer, Calvin, to that purpose, and confirmed it by a reason from the text Rom. 11. 2●. 24. in all which if there were error or mistake surely there was no sophistry Lets see what Mr. G. excepts against i●. 〈…〉 1. saith he, I know not what help this limitation will do him. I r●ply, I conceive it will free me from the Arminian tenant, which is that the same particular persons that are elect and true believers, may be non-elect and non-believers. 2. But in that sense the invisible Church was prevailed against. I reply no; but the branches in the invisible Church, yet not the same persons, but the same people or Nation. 3. But saith Mr. G. that which is said of people in a body, must be true of some particulars in that body: so if the body of the people truly engraffed into the invisible Church were broken off, this must be true in some singular persons: I reply, that which is said of a Nation may be true, and yet not true, of the particular persons of one and the same time. Grot. annot. in Num. 14. 16: said notandum jurâsse hoc Deum Israelitico populo qui semper idem censetur, non his vel illis de populo: in v. 30. vos] ad totum populum referendum est sine temporis restrictione; loca similia vide de jure belly ac pacis, l. 2. c. 9. Sect. 3.& cap. 13. 4. Sect. 4. See to like purpose Ainsworth annot. on Exodus 13. 14. Deut. 29. 25. For instance. God saith Micah. 6. 3, 4. O my people I brought thee up out of the Land of egypt, and yet no one person to whom Micah spake was brought up out of egypt; so it may be said, the Nation that in Davids time was a branch of the invisible Church is now broken off, yet this is true of never a particular person in Davids time, because a nation being a fluent body is the same nation still, though not the same persons: even as a man may say, this Jordan which now runs was divided and stood still, it being true of the same River, though not of the same Water. The Jews in Pauls time were broken off, who were a branch of the invisible Church in Davids time, not the same persons, but the same Nation. And so it is true of particular persons which is said of the Nation; yet one proposition denying is true of particular persons in one age, and another affirming true of particular persons in another age,& both true of the Nation which is the same in different ages. God gave a divorce to the same people he brought out of the land of Egypt, though not to the same persons, he broke off that people which in respect of particular persons of Davids time was the invisible Church from the invisible Church in respect of particular persons in Pauls time. So that it may be true, none of the invisible Church are broken off, and some are, understanding the former of particular persons of one time and the later of particular persons in another age, of that people who were in a former age the invisible Church of true believers. 4. How apparently across is Mr. Ts. assertion ●o the Apostle, Rom. 11. 12. I reply, There's no contradiction in my assertion to the Apostle. My proposition is true. People who were elect and true believers are now non-eelect and non believers, and the Apostles true also, God casts not off the people whom he fore-knew, I understanding by the people the same Nation not in respect of the same persons in the same age, the Apostle understanding his speech of the same particular persons: now it's no contradiction if the term be understood {αβγδ} of a different part at a different time.  
5. It is not good sense, saith Mr. G. to say the body of a people is engraffed into the invisible Church, whereas the invisible Church is comprehended under a visible body as chaff under Wheat. I reply, the term [ the body of a people] I used following Calvin, Mr. M. Mr. G. &c. if it like not it may be omitted: the people, or nation, or as the Apostle speaks branches will serve my turn: yet why it should not be as good sense to say the body of a people is engraffed into the invisible Church, as to say the body of a people is engraffed into the visible Church, which Mr. G. useth, I see not. As for Mr. Gs. reason [ whereas the invisible Church is comprehended under a visible body as chaff under Wheat] I find little either sense or reason in it. For 1. Men use to say that wheat is under chaff; not, chaff under wheat. 2. That wheat is hide, covered, or rather mixed with chaff in the same floor, not, comprehended under chaff. 3. Divines use to compare the invisible Church to wheat, not to chaff, nor do they compare the visible Church which consists of good and bad to chaff, but the evil persons in it. 4. How the invisible Church is comprehended under a visible body needs some explication. It is true a great part of the invisible Church is existent in the visible body of the Church on earth, yet a far greater part is not existent in it: the Saints departed, the elect infants, the elect not yet created are part of the catholic invisible Church; yet not comprehended under a visible body, nor is a visible body a genus or species to comprehend the invisible Church under it, for then the invisible Church should be defined to be a visible body. All that can be said is, that the present visible Church comprehends as a totum integrum part of the invisible Church, the elect now existent, and part of them that are not of the invisible, to wit, the reprobate. But why for this cause it should not be good sense to say a Nation or the body of a people in respect of the generality, or a great part of them is engraffed into the invisible Church, I do not perceive.  
6. Saith Mr. G. And to say a Church is broken off from that election which is special and to grace, which was once elect, and from being the invisible that was once the invisible Church, is sure a most grand error. For special election to grace and glory which makes any people of the invisible Church is a foundation of God that remains sure, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. I reply. It is none of my speeches, to say, A Church is broken off from that election which is special and to Grace, which was once elect, and from being the invisible Church, which was once the invisible Church. I said the Nation, people, branches or body of a people( which last expression I had rather now omit) that were elect to grace and glory, and were of the invisible Church, may be broken off, I say not, the Church. And that which I say is no error at all. I grant that Gods election is a foundation of God that remains sure: yet the people who in respect of persons of one age were elect, may be truly said to be broken off in respect of particular persons in a later age, from the election that people had, in respect of the people of the same descent in a former age.  
7. Saith Mr. Geree. The thing which occasioneth Mr. Ts. error is want of consideration of a distinction, which Mr. T. very well knows, but through eagerness to maintain his tenet( as I conceive) doth not consider. Election is either general or special, so is reprobation: general election is of bodies or societies, and this is only in reference to visible Churches, in which is contained the invisible: Thus God is often said to choose the Nation of the Jews, De. 4. 37.& 10. 15. That is the body of his people, to be his visible Church, in which indeed was contained the invisible. Now opposite to this general election is general reprobation, whereby a people are cut off or cast out of the honour of being Gods visible kingdom, and so without hope to be of the invisible: so then the breaking off of the Jews was onely from this general election, and their reprobation general to cease to be Gods visible people; But now there is a special election of singular persons to be the invisible Church, and this is never attributed to a visible body( unless synecdochically) and of this we deny the broken off to be partakers of, or to fall from. The Apostle Rom. 11. divides the Church of the Jews into two bodies, one of the people th●t God fore-knew, the other opposite, the one were of the invisible, the other of the visible Church only; those opposite were broken off the whole body of them, but it is only from what they had to be visible members, not from what ●hey had not, to wit, to be of the invisible: and therefore here his argue simile from the River Euphrates will not serve his turn, f●r we in juire not here what the Isra●lites had been, nor have we to do wi●h the species of Israel, but with th●se numerical branches broken ●●●: The numerical branches graffed in mentioned by him: For proof 〈…〉 ●7. from v. 23, 24. were not they graffed in his opinion into the invisible Church, and then if in the same sense the numerical branches be broken off they are broken off from the invisible Church, and then they fell from grace. The Apostle shows not there, that the branches were broken off, from what the species of the people had had in former times, but from what they had at the time of breaking off, and that was only a visible standing in the Church by virtue of Gods general election which then they lost.  
I reply. I do thankfully take Mr. Gs. endeavour to clear truth to me: nor do I reject his distinction of general and special( I should rather say particular) election and reprobation, the one of bodies, societies, or nations; the other of singular persons: nor do I deny that there is a difference to be made between election to be Gods visible people, and to be the invisible Church. But whereas Mr. G. conceives through eagerness to maintain my tenet I did not consider it, he is mistaken: I did consider it, but did not use it as Mr. G. applies it, because I conceived formerly and do still that it is insufficient for untying the knot in this controversy about the Apostles meaning. 1. Because the engraffing or standing in the three, or partaking of the root, seemed and still seems undoubtedly to be meant of giving or having faith according to election, as the arguments here vindicated prove, therfore the breaking off which is opposite to it, must be meant of hardening or blinding according to reprobation, as v. 25. is expressed, blindness is happened. 2. Because however it be in other places yet in that chapter the election mentioned v. 5, 7, 28. is to grace and glory, and so in the only places besides in that epistle chap. 9. 11. yea and in all other in the epistles, as 1 Thes. 1. 4. 2 Pet. 1. 10. and the conjugate words [ choosing, chosen] in that and other Epistles, as Rom. 8. 32. Ephes. 1. 4. 2 Thes. 2. 13. speak of it onely. 3. Because by Mr. Gs. exposition that breaking off the Jews mentioned Rom. 11. 17. should be only from the visible Church, though it be that state which was opposite to those he foreknew v. 2. shutting up in unbelief v. 32. for which the Apostle Paul expresseth so much grief, Rom. 9. 2. as to wish himself Anathema for their recovery. 4. I follow the interpretation I gave, because the words of v. 23, 24. as I said in my Apology pag. 77. did led me to that interpretation. For it is said v. 23. {αβγδ}, they also if they abide not in unbelief shall be graffed in: for God is able again to ingraff {αβγδ}, them, and v. 24. how much more {αβγδ}, those which are according to nature shall be engraffed in their own Olive. the pronouns {αβγδ}, they, them, these, whether relative or demonstrative have for their Substantive {αβγδ}, or the branches mentioned v. 16, 17, 18, 19, 21. which are said to be broken off, not spared by God: Now I knew not how to clear it, that the same branches be graffed in which were broken off, understanding it of the same numerical persons in the same age, unless they should arise from the dead, considering that the Apostle speaks of the branches which in his age were broken off, and says that those branches shall be graffed in again in some after-age: which knot is not resolved by Mr. Gs. explication of the phrase of engraffing into the visible Church, any more than by my explication of it into the invisible. For the difficulty seemed not to me to ly so much in the meaning of the phrase of engraffing, as in showing how the same branches that were broken off, those very branches, are again graffed in, the breaking off being meant of the Jews in Pauls time, and the again graffing-in meant of them in after ages, when the Jews in Pauls time were long before dead: This knot I knew not how to untie any otherwise than by saying, that they were the same that were broken off, not the same singular persons, which is the Arminian tenet, but the same Nation or people, who are broken off from what they were in Davids or Abrahams time. And this I endeavoured to clear by the distinction of a fluent and consistent being, and by the simile of the River Euphrates: in the application of that I did not take the branches for the species of Israel( For I do not take Israel to be a species that is said in quid of more Israels differing in number, as Mr. G. seems to have conceived me) but I conceived Israel or the branches to be the same numerical people or nation in respect of their descent from Abraham, and distinguished the same numerical people from the same numerical persons of one age, as the same numerical River from the same numerical Water. Now this though sufficient to answer Mr. G. yet I confess there are some difficulties that stick with me upon more exact consideration, to wit, how to fit the Apostles words to my exposition. For 1. the Apostle seems not by the branches, but by the Olive-tree to understand the people of the Jews as descended from Abraham the root as a spiritual Father, partly because the Jews onely are called natural branches as it is said {αβγδ} to their own Olive v. 24. which yet must note the invisible Church of true believers, not the people of the Jews as such by natural generation: For it is not good sense to say, the branches, that is the people of the Jews, shall be again graffed into the People of the Jews, sith they were still the People of the Jews, and not broken off in respect of their natural descent, but it is the genuine meaning to say, the Jewish people in after ages shall be graffed into the invisible Church of God( which was once their own Olive by reason of the propriety they had in Abraham the Father of the faithful) and so the branches not rightly made as the fluent being, that is the Nation, but the people of that nation in some ages. 2. Because it is said v. 17. But if some of the branches were broken off, which intimates that the branches note not the whole nation or people, but a part, to wit, the people of some age. But then the difficulty continues still, how [ those, they, these] could in another age be reingraffed. Mr. Gs. answer removes not the difficulty, it being the same, whether the branches broken off be said to be engraffed again into the visible or invisible Church. To say that some of the branches, that is the people of the jews distinct from the Ten Tribes, as they are distinguished Ezekiel 23. 3, 4. shall be graffed in again, is to intimate that the ten tribes were not broken off with the Jews, nor are to be restored again. Therfore I rather choose to say, that the branches broken off the people of one age shall be graffed in again not in their persons but in their posterity, who are called those branches that were broken off, by reason of their consanguinity, as the Apo●●le calls the Jews his own flesh, Rom. 11. 14. because of their consanguinity, and as Pareus Comment. in Hos. 1. 10. speaks iterum hirecipientur in gratiam, aliquando in suis posteris. However, whether the branches be made the Nation or the people of some age, and the simele be rightly fitted or not, my answer to the objection stands good, that the branches the people of the Jews in Pauls time were broken off from that election and faith which Abraham and other Israelites had in their time. But Mr. G. saith, they were not broken off from what Israel had in former time, but from what they had a visible standing in the Church. But this is not true: For the Jews in Pauls time which were broken off had their visible standing in the Jewish Church they had before; only they were broken off from the faith in Christ which Abraham had, and that election which the Jews in former ages had. And to be broken off from the visible Church of the Jews in which they were, what was it but to revolt from judaisme? which would have been to the better a fruit of faith rather than unbelief. Nor were the Gentiles graffed into the visible Church of the Jews, but separate from them, and expelled by them: yea the Gentiles were manifestly exempted from the Jewish visible Church-communion, Act. 15. Gal. 2.& 5. 1. &c. onely they were engraffed into the root and Olive, that is Abraham and the Israel of God in respect of that faith and promises in Christ they had, as Ephes. 3. 6. is expressed. I deny not but that the Apostle Rom: 11. divides the Jews Gods people into two sorts, some the people he foreknew, others that were Israel after the flesh onely: the one obtained, the other were blinded, and in that respect broken off from the invisible Church, in which they were not in their own persons, but in their Ancestors. Hyperius his words alleged by me I conceive are plainly meant of election and reprobation to life and grace, because he saith plainly, alioqui singulos electos de populo Judaico vel de populo Gentili reprobari impossibile est, which Mr. G. I imagine would not have conceived true of his general election and reprobation onely into or out of the visible Church. Bucers and Calvins words are plain to the sense I give. Bucer expounds insitus fuisti illis, thus, Gentes per fidem Christi sactae sunt seemen Abrahae, Gal. 3. 29. Calvin, Gentium insitio per fidem facta est. The distinction in Calvin l. 3. institut. c. 21. Sect. ult. Perkins exposit. of Revel. 2. 9. of general and special election, I allow as above, yet suppose it cannot cleat the Authors I allege, nor solve the doubt of the Apostle. Mr. G. had still liberty to expound his own meaning: but I still conceive that he mistook the Apostle, and that notwithstanding his opinion of it, there is nothing for Infant-baptism to be extracted from Rom. 11. as I shall show further by answering his arguments in that which follows.   

SECT. IV.  
Mr. Gs. arguments for Infant-Baptism from Rom. 11. 11, &c. are answered.  
MR. G. conceived my Complaint of his non-syllogizing in his Vindic. Paedobap. from Rom. 11. needless, there being fair mediums for syllogisms held out. But finding it so frequently objected by writers that the respondent forms the argument otherwise than the Author, as for instance Dr. Homes in his animadv. on the first argument of my exercitation, and Mr. G. desiring Vind. Paedop. pag. 5. to have choice and liberty of ordering his own weapons, and having found so much trouble in answering Mr. M. for not syllogizing from the places he allegeth, I conceived it fit to require M. G. to form his medios terminos into syllogisms, which being done, I answer to them, having first premised, that I do not take these to be all one, to be under the Covenant with the parents, to be reputed members of the same visible Kingdom, and to be sealed with the parents: the last is that which is nearest the point: but if Mr. G. would have concluded plainly what is to be proved, he should in these plain terms thus have concluded, The Children of Christians have the privilege of being baptized, as the Jews of being circumcised. But let us examine his arguments as he forms them.  
That Church-state( saith Mr. G.) and those out-ward Church-privileges, which the Jews had by virtue of a pure Gospel-promise, that the Christian Jews retained: But that the Jews and their seed should be Gods visible Church and enjoy outward Church-privileges was a benefit that they had by a pure Gospel-Covenant. Ergo. The mayor is clear from the sevententh verse of Romans 11. whence my second conclusion is proved, that the Jews that obtained me●cy kept their station. The Minor I prove. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed in their generations, Gen. 17. 7. is a pure Gospel-promise. But by virtue of that the jews had this Church-state that they and their seed were the visible Church of God, and enjoyed outward Church-privileges.  
I answer. 1. The Conclusion, The Christian Jews retained this that they and their seed should be Gods visible Church and enjoy outward privileges, is not either formally or equivalently the thing to be proved, which is, that the Christian Jews and their seed even in infancy were to be baptized, or in Mr. Gs. language sealed. For the Christian Jews and their seed are not all one with the Christian Jews and their infant-seed, nor is it all one to be Gods visible Church and to be baptized: for persons may be of the visible Church by profession as the Catechumeni, who are not yet baptized, or perhaps to be baptized, and they may enjoy an outward Church-privilege as Ex. gr. prayer and laying on of hands as Christ did on little children, and yet not be baptized. 2. The mayor of the Prosyloogism is palpably false, that the Jews that obtained mercy kept their station, if by station be meant their place or condition of Church-membership in the jewish Church: for they were both cast out from it, and both did and were to leave it, at least after the time of the full promulgation of the Gospel; yea they could not continue their profession of Christ, and yet retain their station in the jewish Church, by reason of the professed enmity of the potent party of that Nation to the name of the Lord Jesus. As for Rom. 11. 17. it speaks not of outward Church-privileges, but saving benefits through faith. 3. I deny the Minor, and in the later syllogism brought to prove it, I deny the mayor, and say, that though the promise Gen. 17. 7. be according to the inmost sense a Gospel-covenant, yet in that sense it is not a promise to Abraham and his natural seed, but to his spiritual seed elect and true believers, Rom. 9. 8. and 4. 11, 12, 16, 17. Gal. 3. 8. 9. 16. 29. Mat. 3. 9. John 8. 39. But in this sense the promise is not to any children of believers, but such as are believers or elect persons as Abraham was. But in that sense which is most patent it is a promise to the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh, and so it is no promise to our natural children, who are never called Abrahams seed till they be believers; and in this sense it is so far from being a pure Gospel-promise, that it is rather to be counted a pure Law-promise of peculiar inheritance in Canaan, and other privileges upon their keeping the law God gave them. 4. I deny also the Minor, that by virtue of that( meaning if as the formal reason, adequat cause propter quam res est) the jews had this Church-state( understanding it de jure, of right, which is in question, not de facto, of fact or event) that they and their seed( that is infant seed) were the visible Church of God, and enjoyed outward church-privileges: particularly of infants. This is imagined but nothing brought by Mr. G. to prove it.  
Mr. G. goes on. Again thus: What Gospel privilege the Nation of the Jews had before their rejection, that they shall recover with advantage at their restauration. To have their seed to belong to Gods visible kingdom with them, and enjoy outward Church-privileges was a Gospel-privilege belonging to the Jews before their fall. Ergo. The mayor is clear from, Rom. 11. 25, 26. Hos. 1. 10, 11.& 2. 23. By which my fourth principle, which is in effect the mayor here, is confirmed. The Minor appears. For by being Gods visible kingdom Christ and all his benefits were offered to them all, and made good to the elect, which ordinarily were among them, and none else, and therfore this was a Gospel-privilege being it conduced to salvation.  
I answer. 1. To the mayor. Gospel privileges of the jews are of two sorts: some Personal that belong to the Gospel by virtue of the Evangelical covenant, as to be levied, sanctified, adopted, saved, heard, &c. by God: of these I grant the mayor: Other Gospelprivileges( if they may be so called, and not rather Legal) were National, which were temporary belonging to their minority or pedagogy, as to have Christ come in the flesh from that Nation, to have their male infants circumcised, to be taught by types and shadows, &c. and of these I deny the mayor. Nor do the texts prove it, but speak onely of the first sort of Gospel-privileges. Now among the later sort I reckon, that the Children with the parents or the whole Nation should be Gods visible kingdom. And for the Minor I deny it; if it be understood of the Gospel-privileges of the first sort. As for the proof of it I wish it had also been put in form. However I answer to it as it is. And except 1. that Mr. G. proves not what he affirmed, because he changeth the Subject of his Minor proposition to be proved, which was, that the seed of the Jews did belong to Gods visible kingdom with them, but in the proof it is, the Jews or the Nation of the Jews being Gods visible kingdom. 2. I know not how to conceive it conduced to salvation, that the Jews seed did belong to Gods visible kingdom with them, and enjoyed outward Churchprivileges, nor how by it Christ and all his benefits were offered to them all and made good to the elect. 'tis true that in some sort the jews being Gods visible kingdom did conduce to salvation, in that by that means they had the teaching of the Law and Prophets and Levitical rites, whereby Christ was offered in a dark manner. But this was not in that the jews Infants had the outward privilege of Circumcision, but from the merciful provision God made for that Nation being his visible kingdom. And though it be true that by being Gods visible kingdom they had this offer of Christ in the manner acknowledged by me, and so it was in a sort or in some respect a Gospel-privilege, yet the manner of offering Christ by the Law, Prophets, Circumcision, Levitical Rites, was but a temporary Gospel-privilege, belonging to the pedagogy which is now done away, Gal. 4. 1. Col. 2. 17. Heb. 8. 12.& 10. 1. and rather in the Epistles of Paul and other parts of the N T termed Law than Gospel, and this the jews shall not recover in their restauration.  
Mr. G. adds, Again thus, what Church-state and privileges belonged to the Chistian jews in Pauls time, and shall belong to the body of the Iewes when restored( degrees only excepted) that belongs to all Christian Gentiles. But to the former belongeth to have the covenant with them and their seed, so that the Children belong to the visible kingdom of Christ. Ergo. The mayor is my third principle grounded on Rom. 11. 17. And thus I have answered Mr. Ts. desire with syllogisms.  
I answer, The mayor is not proved by Rom. 11. 17. which speaks nothing of outward Church-state. And for the Minor, understanding it as Mr. G. doth, that it belongs to them to have the covenant, that is in his phraseology the outward covenant or the initial seal of baptism, and to belong to the visible kingdom of Christ as members to be baptized in infancy, I deny it, nor find I any thing brought to prove it. And thus I have also prevailed with myself to answer Mr. Gs. syllogisms, though deemed by me not worth so much labour. I will add a little more to vindicate myself though wearied with Mr. Gs. superficial writing.  
Mr. G. of me. Now what saith he to all this. Why? 1. If I mean by the Gentiles assumed into the place of the jews of the same Church-state, and by partaking of privileges belonging to that Church-state it is denied. I answer. I do mean the same Church-state and Church-privileges that are not typical, and this is plainly proved by Rom. 11. 17. they are in their place in the Olive and so must enjoy at least what they had: neither hath he nor can he disprove it: for though he hold the engraffing is more than into the visible Church, yet he denies not that they had thereby a visible Church-state too.  
I reply: if he mean the Church-state and Church-privileges that are not typical, then he doth not mean the outward privileges of the Children of the jews belonging to the jewish Church as it was in that state before Christs coming, to wit, male-infant Circumcision. For that was typical, it signified Christ to come, as I have shewed in my Examen part 3. Sect. 9. pag. 90. and in my Apology Sect 14. pa. 66. confessed by Pareus Comment. on Genes. 17. 11. and the generality of Protestant Writers, nor do I think it will be ever shewed that in the Circumcision of male-infants of the jews there was any thing moral and perpetual. As for Rom. 11. 17. if because the Christian believers are in the Olive in the place of the jews, they must enjoy at least what they had in the same outward Church-state and privileges, then must they have a Stately Temple, High-Priest, a place to have Gods name perpetually put, a peculiar Tribe for Priests, their children to succeed them, a year of Jubilee, none to be bondmen, &c. for all these they enjoyed; And if these be proved to cease as ceremonial and typical, I make no doubt but the like will be proved of male-infant circumcision. And for my grant if he had recited my words rightly the impertinency of them to his purpose had appeared: which were these, that I do not deny that the same people might be or were engraffed ●nto the invisible Church by profession of faith and baptism. But this is nothing to prove that by my concession the Gentiles infants upon the conversion of the parents were to have the same outward Church-state and privilege that the Jews had.  
Mr. G. goes on. Neither saith he, is a believing Jew a loser in his seed by the coming of Christ: sith this was a peculiar privilege in the time of that Church-state, which now ceaseth to be a privilege: which he saith he hath further discussed Examen part 3. Sect. 11. which I have viewed again, and there find, that as here so there he barely dictates without proof, which learned men cannot count satisfactory, thus to defalk the covenant of grace in the extent of it in a thing where nothing typical is shewed or can be.  
I reply, my work in examining the Sermon of Mr. M. was not to oppose but to answer, and of an answerer proofs are not required, but solutions of objections. My disputing in my Examen is approved by as able as any of my Antagonists, which I spare to allege. For the 11th. Section of the 3d. part of my Examen, when any tells me in what learned men cannot count it satisfactory it will give me the more occasion to revise it. All learned men are not of one size, many are best satisfied with that which is slightest, and all are apt to magnify that which they affect, as I find by Mr. Leys vaunt, Doctor Downams magnifying Mr. Husseys piece, Mr. Calamy and Mr. Vines Mr. Blakes answer to my letter, Mr. Geree and Mr. Roberts Mr. Church his Treatise. In that which, if God will, is intended to be done, I shall discuss Mr. Ms. Defence. In the mean time for that which Mr. G. says I defalk the Covenant of grace in the extent of it in a thing wherein nothing typical is shewed or can be, I answer, To defalk is to cut off as with a sickle: the thing I do is denying of Baptism to infants, though male-infants of jews were Circumcised. Circumcision Mr. M. acknowledgeth in his Defence pag. 187. belongs to the Covenant of grace, not as a part of it, but as a means of applying it: nor do I think either Mr. G. or Mr. M. would have said it was a necessary means of applying the covenant of grace to all in the covenant, or so as that an infant without it should not have had the covenant of grace applied to it. I know not well in what manner it is meant, that Circumcision and Baptism are means of applying the covenant of grace, whether ex opere operato, or ex opere operantis, whether morally or physically, or otherwise. By denying infant-baptism, I know not wherein I cut off any part of the covenant of grace in the extent of it. I grant elect infants have or shall have the things promised it it, and further if Mr. G. stood to his own words in his Vindiciae Paedop. pag. 13. he durst not extend them. To deny infant-baptism, withholds not infants from the covenant of grace either expressively or by good consequence: neither are all baptized in the covenant of grace, nor all unbaptised out of it, nor is the interest of a person in the covenant of grace the reason why he should be baptized, nor the want of it, the reason of denying baptism according to the administration of that ordinance by ordinary rule. Mr. G. says, in the thing in which I defalk the Covenant of grace nothing is or can be shewed to be typical. Setting aside his affencted phrasifying( which I count but vain, if it be good sense) his meaning I conceive to be, that in the circunctsing of male-infants of jews nothing is or can be shewed to be typical. I answer. If by [ typical] be meant that which did foresignify Christ to come and something belonging to the Gospel, then though it could not be shewed from Scripture that there was any thing typical in circumcision of male-infants, yet it may be proved to be wholly evacuated now. Typical and Ceremonial I do not take to be all one: The ark of Noah was a Type 1 Pet. 3. 20. yet it is not to be reckoned among ceremonies; so the land of Canaan, Jonah being in the Whales belly, and other things. And there are hundreds of things in the Ceremonial Law, which are now acknowledged to cease, whereof few can be shewed to be Typical, however Interpreters take liberty to make them typify some this thing, some that, according to their various fancies. It is enough that Circumcision in every part and circumstance of it was merely positive belonging to the ceremonial law now evacuated; I do imagine by the reading of the first part of Mr. Cawdrey and Mr. Palmer their Sabbatum Redivivum chap. 2. pag. 36. that they conceive some general Laws of Seals of the Covenant to be moral not abolished, but are perpetual, though no where expressly laid down in the general, but under the particular seals of each age, and I imagine that one of these laws is, that the initial seal belongs to the infants of believers, and this may be proved from infant Circumcision. I confess the wit of man may do much: but till the Philosophers ston be gotten I expect not to see it proved, that there is any thing in Circumcision moral and perpetual: when ever it is attempted, I doubt not some learned man or other will sift it to the bran. I presume it will be found that other laws about ceremonies confessed to be abolished will be as substantially profitable in all ages as an initial seal to the infants of Covenanters, as that of Tithes, of an ecumenical or national Bishop in answer to the High-Priest among the jews, &c. Such an attempt I should look upon as the last but feeble prop to uphold the ruinous cause of infant-baptism.  
2. Mr. G. might have known that there want not learned men who make almost every thing of Circumcision to typify something about Christ, as the circunctsing the infant to foreshew he should be an infant, a male, that he should be a male, in the member for generation, to show that he should be from the seed of Abraham, which perhaps cannot be demonstrated out of Scripture( nor can hundreds of institutions in the Ceremonial law which Divines make typical) yet circumstances and consent of Writers make them very probable. And therefore if I mistake not Mr. Gs. meaning, his speech seems to me to have no likeness of truth:  
Mr. G. goes on. For my fourth sectary if it be understood of pristine Church-state he denies it, but he grants the promise will be extended to them and their seed as the text imports Isa. 59. 20. Why then say I, he grants that now under the Gospel children shall be under the promise( which is but a branch of the Covenant) and what is this, but that which he hath so stiffly denied, and which we assert as the ground of the seal annexed to it.  
I answer, it is true, I granted of the Iewes when they shall be called under the Gospel, that the promise shall be extended to their seed, nor did I ever deny it, much less stiffly deny it, as M. G. falsely chargeth me; yea in my Examen page. 66. I say, I think at the calling of the Jews there shall be a more full taking in of the children of the Jews than is now of the Gentiles; according to that Rom. 11. 26. And so all Israel shall be saved. But how this shall be done I express in my Apology page. 70. not by an outward Ordinance or initial seal, as it is called, applied to Infants, but by communicating the Spirit and word of God to them and their seed, as the text alleged by M. G. imports Isa. 59. 20. which M. G. leaves out, as if he had not been willing I should be understood: Which was his and other of my Antagonists frequent dealing with me. But that which I grant I yield only concerning the Elect, not the children of the jews as their children, and so not belonging to every Infant of a believing jew. And thus I expound the promises in my Examen pag. 53, 54. nor will Mr. G. assert the promise of saving grace made to every child of a believer, nor doth he expound the promise, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, in respect of saving graces any otherwise than of the Elect. But to make this, to wit, that the promise shall extend to many of the Jews Children at their calling, and in like manner to many of the believing Gentiles children in several ages, the ground of baptizing every believers( though but such by profession) child, whereof few perhaps are elect, and whether any now living be elect is unknown to us, seems to me to be an attempt like the building of a Castle in the Air, that is a vain endeavour to establish a thing without a foundation. As for that which he saith the promise is but a branch of the Covenant, if he mean it( as is most likely) that the promise of saving Grace is but one part of the Covenant, the outward seal another, he opposeth Mr. M. who in his Defence pag. 187. denies it to be a part of the Covenant, nor is it true. For the seal, as they call it, hath no other relation to it then as an outward adjunct: the Covenant itself contains no parts but the promises, it being nothing else but an aggregate of mutual promises: If he mean that the Covenant is the root, that is the cause, the promise the branch as an effect, in that sense his speech is not right, the Covenant being nothing else but an aggregate of mutual promises: nor do I know in what other sense to conceive of that parenthesis of Mr. Geree, except he means, that this is but one part of the Covenant, that to children besides the promise of Gods Spirit being in them, there are other promises of other graces, as of justification, adoption, glorifying: which were true, but nothing to Mr. Gs purpose: nor is it likely that this is his meaning, that besides childrens being under the promise, there is another branch of the Covenant, that is their own promise to be Gods, for this were not true of infants.   

SECT. V.  
A digression about the nullity of connexion between the Covenant and initial seal as it is called, and the invalidity of proofs for it from Gen. 17. 7, 9. Acts 2. 38, 39. the mistakes about which text are shewed, and Mr. Stephens his arguments answered upon occasion of Mr. Gerees words.  
MR. G. adds of me; Neither( saith he) will there be two distinct estates, one of the Jews, of holy Fathers and Children, another of the Gentiles who have only personal privileges, none for their seed; But by his leave this will follow unless he grant that the promise or Covenant is to Christian Gentiles and their seed too: and if he grant that, whether the seal of initiation will not follow the Covenant I leave to be weighed by proofs set down in their places.  
I answer. Mr. G. still maims my words, leaving out both my tenet from which I say the absurdity he conceives will not follow, and the reason I give to avoid that absurdity. 1. He supposeth I grant that the promise or Covenant is to Christian Jews and their seed at their Conversion, and therefore unless I grant that the promise or Covenant is to Christian Gentiles and their seed too, there will be two distinct estates of Christians, one of Jews, another of Gentiles. To which I say, I never granted that the promise or Covenant of grace is universally to he jews and their seed at their calling, but that perhaps there shall be a more ample taking of them and their children into Covenant than of the Gentiles and theirs: nor did I ever deny that the Covenant of grace is made to believing Gentiles, and such seed of theirs as are elect, with which limitation the indefinite promises Deut. 30. 2. 6. Isa. 54. 13. and the rest are to be limited: nor ever yielded that the Covenant or promise did belong to either of them as their natural seed, and so to every of their children, but to the elect only: And therefore it will not follow from my grants, that I make two distinct estates( except in degrees) of Christian Jews and Gentiles. 2. He supposeth that the seal of initiation will follow the Covenant, and so the Jews children are to be sealed at their calling, and consequently the Gentiles, unless I will make two distinct estates of them. To which I answer, the seal of initiation is but a late devised term, which the Scripture useth not, and because so much abuse is made of it, to wit, from a mere Metaphor that's not once used in Scripture to infer laws and rules to bind mens consciences, I therefore take liberty to reject it. Baptism is the word the Scripture useth, and that is a proper term; and for proofs proving this consequence. The promise or Covenant of Grace is to a person, therfore he is to be baptized, I find none in any of my Antagonists writings which require much weighing. Mr. M. in his Defence when he should have shewed the connexion between the Covenant and the Seal declines the proving it, and wrists my words, as if I had granted it, though I plainly argue against it, in my Examen part 3. Sect. 1. If there be any proof in him it is from the particular institution of Circumcision, because it is said Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee,& v. 9. Thou shalt[ therefore] keep my Covenant, whence he would gather, that the reason why Abrahams infants were to be circumcised was their interest in the Covenant, and hence it is endeavoured to form a general rule thus: To them belongeth the initial seal whether of the Jewish or Christian Church who have interest or title to the Covenant of Grace. But 1. all the force of this proof hangs on the particle [ therefore v. 9.] which is {αβγδ} in the Hebrew, and may be rendered, And thou, or but thou, as well as thou therefore, and is by others rendered Tu autem, and Tu vero, which are neither of them illative terms. 2. If it were granted that [ therefore] is the best reading, yet that the inference v. 9. should be made from the promise onely v. 7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee, and not as well, if not rather, from the promise v. 8. of giving to him and his seed the Land of Canaan, I find no sufficient reason given. 3. But if it were yielded that the inference were made peculiarly from the promise, v. 7. to be a God to Abraham and his seed, it must be proved that every believers infant-child is Abrahams seed, afore it be proved that promise belongs to them, and so that covenant shall be made to every believers child which was not made to every child of Abraham, as appears v. 19. concerning Ishmael,& Heb. 11. 9. As for a visible Church-seed of Abraham, that is neither his seed by nature, nor by saving faith, nor by excellency, in whom the Nations of the earth should be blessed, to wit Christ, I know none such in scripture, though some men have fancied such a kind of Church-seed, as it is called. 4. Lastly were all these things yielded that it is to be red [ therefore] and that the inference v. 9. were from the promise, v. 7 and not at all from the peculiar promise to the Jews, v. 8. and that the promise, v. 7. did belong to the Church-seed as they call it of Abraham, yet the proposition could not be made good from hence, sith the inference is not concerning title or right of infants to the initial seal, as if the Covenant or promise of itself did give that, but the inference is concerning Abraham, duty, that therefore he should be the more engaged to circumcise his posterity, and yet onely those that are males, and not afore eight daies, and not onely those that were from himself but also all in his house whose children soever they were; which apparently shows that the giving Circumcision was not commensurate to the persons interest in the Covenant, but was to be given to persons as well out of the Covenant as in, if of Abrahams house, and not to all that were in the Covenant, to wit, females: which doth clearly prove that right to the initial seal, as it is called, of Circumcision did not belong to persons by virtue of the Covenant, but by force of the command: which Mr. M. was forced to confess in his Defence pag. 182. when he granted the formal reason of the jews being circumcised was the command, and the Covenant he makes only a motive. All which doth fully show, that the proof of the connexion between the Covenant and the initial seal without a particular command for it is without any weight at all in it. Mr. Robert Bailee▪ in his Anabaptism dictates without proof something to prove a connexion between the initial seal and the Covenant, from the nature of the terms, which I have shewed to be of no weight in my letter to him, both because it is vain to make the Metaphor of a seal to be the genus of a rite, it's like to the defining man [ a three turned upwards] to call a sacrament a seal is not to show what it is, but to what it is like, and also because there being the same nature[ of seal of the covenant] agreeing to the after-seal as well as the initial, if the argument be taken thence it will prove infants must have the one by virtue of the nature of the terms as well as the other. But his dictates are so fallacious and feeble when they are discovered, that I need add no more to refute them. After these Mr. Nathaniel Stephens in a book entitled A precept for the Baptism of Infants out of the New Testament, to which two ministers of Coventrey have prefixed an Epistle wherein they judge the book as judiciously written, and therefore seems to be of some account, having abused sundry texts of Sceipture, to make good the title of his book, he asserts as he calls it pag. 29. a Convertibility between the word of promise and the word of command. Concerning which position it is to be observed that Logicians do distinguish between convertibility, convertency and conversion. Conversion is of propositions, convertency of Relatives, convertibility of simplo terms, whereof one may be predicated reciprocally on the other in the Nominative case, as when we say, A man is a reasonable living body, and a reasonable living body is a man. Now in this sense I know not convertibility to be of any terms, but of words that are synonymous, as to say Israel is jacob, and jacob is Israel, or when the one is the definition, and the other the thing defined; one is the most proper difference or most proper accident, the other the kind or subject thereof: But how absurd it would be to say the word of command is the word of promise, and the word of promise is the word of command, any man understands, that knows a word of command to be a speech not enunciative in the Imperative Mood, but a word of promise is a speech enunciative in the Indicative Mood. But the Author it seems means this, that to whomsoever Christ is promised▪ or God hath promised to be their God, to them there is a command to be baptized, and that they should baptize their infants. Concerning which I grant if the persons be believers, or disciples of Christ, that they having the promise are also commanded to be baptized: but they are not commanded to be baptized barely in that they have the promise, but in that they are believers or Disciples. But to have the promise to belong to a person, and to be a disciple or believer are not all one. A man is not a disciple or believer till he is called, but to be a child of the promise, Rom. 9. 8. is all one with to be an elect person, as Isaac and jacob, v. 10, 11, 12. were Children of the promise, to whom the promise was made afore they were born, and so at this day thousands not only of infants but elder persons, not onely among believers but also infidels, particularly the jews, Rom. 11. 26, 27. some not yet born, some not yet called, are in the Covenant, have the promise of grace made to them, and yet are not commanded to be baptized till they believe and are disciples. Nor can a persons being in Covenant be the direction to a minister whom to admit to baptism, sith it is unknown to him who be in the Covenant of Grace, who not; nor is a judgement of charity to be a ministers rule whom to baptize, but a judgement of ministerial prudence to discern who are disciples by their profession according to Christs institution, nor is there any place for a judgement of charity in infants who neither speak nor do any thing which may show them to be rather believers than unbelievers. Out of which I infer that all these kinds of speeches are but vain speeches, that the Covenant of Grace without any other command is a command to baptize an infant, that to deny infants right to baptism is to defalk the Covenant of Grace, that the command to baptize disciples is all one as to command to baptize persons in Covenant, with many the like frivolous suggestions still inculcated in writings and Sermons of Paedobaptists, though the vanity of them is often demonstrated as by others so in my writings. As for Mr. Stephens his assertion of the Convertibility as he calls it between a word of Promise and a word of Command, which in plain words should be they to whom the promise or covenant of grace is made, they are commanded to be baptized and their natural children even infants by virtue of the promise without any other command, it is chiefly grounded on Acts 2. 38, 29. in the expounding of which there are almost as many palpable mistakes as there are words in the 39th. v. For  
1. The exposition is commonly carried as if the promise there meant were the promise Ge. 17. 7. to Abraham& his seed: and this expounded as if it were meant, that God would be a God to every believer and to his seed in respect at least of visible Church-membership, which children they call Abrahams Church-seed( which exposition of the promise Gen. 17. 7. hath no footing in Scripture, nor is there any thing from the Scripture to prove visible Church-members of the Gentiles, which are not true believers, to be called Abrahams seed, much less their infants) whereas the promise from Peters words Acts 3. 25. seems to be that Gen. 12. 3. In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed, which verse 26. expounds of Christ Jesus, or that to David Acts. 2. 30.  
2. They expound[ {αβγδ}, is, Acts 2. 39.] as if it were a promise of a thing to come, some outward privilege to be conferred on them and their children, 
Cobbet just. vind. part 1. ch. 2. sect. 4. the promise in praesenti is to you in respect of external right.  whereas the chief thing meant in the speech is, that as it is expressly said by Paul Acts 13. 32, 33. we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the Fathers God hath fulfilled the same unto us their Children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again. So that the sense is not The promise is, that is, there is some outward privilege promised to be conferred on you and your children: but The promise is, that is, is fulfiled now at last after long expectation, in that God hath raised up his son Jesus and sent him to bless you in turning away every one of you from your iniquities, Acts 3. 26. And by consequence remission of sins is to be enjoyed by them that repent upon their calling.  
3. It is taken as if [ to you] were meant of those persons to whom he spake as then believers, and under that formal consideration. But 1. it may seem probable from the partitive article v. 41.[ {αβγδ} They that gladly received the word, and v. 44. All that believed] all to whom Peter spake did not after believe, though it is said v. 43. fear was upon every soul. 2. However, it is clear that they were not believers till after Peters speech. Nor is the contrary proved from their being pricked in heart v. 37. which it is said they would not have been if they had not believed that Jesus was the Christ. For though this prove that they had some sense of the greatness of Christs person, yet this faith was onely with horror, as in the Devils, from the conscience of the evil of their sin in crucifying him, not such a faith as whereby they did embrace Christ and the profession of him, and addict themselves to him, till Peter had spoken the words v. 38. 39. 40. now the promise is not made to a person and his seed that believe Christs greatness with horror without embracing him and the profession of him. And this might be confirmed in that after the expression of their horror v. 37. Peter exhorts them to repent v. 38: and v. 40. with many other words to save themselves from that crooked generation. 2. It is most probable that [ to you] is meant[ to you as Jews] to whom Christ was first sent and exhibited, according to that Acts 13. 46. It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you, especially those of Jerusalem, according to the prophesy Micah 4. 2. And therefore they are called Children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant, that is the people to whom the Prophets came, and to whom the Covenant was at first assured and made known, and to whom first Christ was sent Acts 3. 25, 26. which is strengthened by the distinction between [ you] and [ those a far off] by which term if the Jews in the dispersion be meant, then [ you] notes those then present who were Jews, if the Gentiles, then [ you] must be expounded of the Jews as Jews, not as believers; for so they a far off from whom [ you] are distinguished being Gentiles [ you] notes Jews as contradistinct.  
4. [ Your Children] v. 39. is expounded of their infant-children, yea it is carried as if of them onely. For they would have the promise to be to their children as theirs whether they be called or no, which can be verified onely in their sense of their infants, sith they maintain that even the Children of believers are not in Covenant, the promise is not to them, they are not visible Church-members when they come to years of discretion except they be called in their own persons, and accept the call. By which means they are necessitated to expound it thus, The promise is to you being called, to your children whether they be called or no, to all that are afar off as many as the Lord our God shall call, as if the limitation [ as many as the Lord our God shall call] were to be put at both ends, but to be left out in the middle, to salue their fancy.  
5. Whereas it is urged that when it is said The promise is to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, which is expounded of the Gentiles, it is not added[ to their children] Dr. Homes in his animadv. on my Exercit. Sect. 4. is not afraid to add it, and when he foresaw that it would be objected to him, he answers that Translators put in many words in their translation, to which there are no words answerable in the original text, as if because they add words necessary to make up the sense, it might be allowable to him to add to the texts when there is no such necessity. His reasons are only why he thinks it should be added, but he brings no copy to prove that ever it was added.  
6. Mr. Stephens hath an interpretation of the word [ repent] which I know not that any else hath, as if when it is said [ repent v. 38.] it were as much as to say [ covenant for yourselves and Children] as if repentance were all one with covenanting, and repentance for their own sins were covenanting for their Childrens good.  
7. And in like manner he holds the command [ be baptized every one of you] in a Covenant-sense as he calls it( that is a new devised non-sense, such as we have no Dictionary yet to interpret words by) be baptized you and your Children.  
8. Some would possess people with this conceit as if Peters scope were to take away by v. 39. an objection or scruple they would make. If we be baptized ourselves our Children shall be in worse case in respect of the privilege our children had in the former dispensation of the Covenant, when they had the seal of the Covenant, if they be not to be baptized also, and that he answers them, by assuring them that in this dispensation also their children were in Covenant and were to have the seal of the Covenant. whereas there is not a word of any such scruple in the text, nor is it likely that they were solicitous about such an imaginary poor privilege of their children, when their consciences were so oppressed about the grand crime they were guilty of in crucifying the Lord Iesus. I may use Mr. Cobbets words Just. Vindic. par. 2. chap. 2. Sect. 6. with some alteration, They were not troubled for want of such outward Church-privileges, and to tell them of such external right to the promise was both impertinent and unsatisfactory, and it could minister but little comfort to sin-sick souls to promise them such privilege, which they might have, and yet die in their sins, mat. 7. 23. More likely to take off the fear they had from the imprecation mentioned Mat. 27. 25. Peter tells that in Christs crucifying and raising from the dead, was fulfilled the promise which would in the event save them and theirs if they and theirs did believe; somewhat like unto the comfort Joseph gave to his Brethren in a like streight Gen. 45. 5. and 50. 19. 20.  
9. They all do most grossly abuse the meaning of the Apostle in interpreting the inference of the Apostle signified by the particle[ {αβγδ}, for, v. 39.] which they would have to be this, you have right and warrant to be baptized. For the promise is to you and your Children, as if the illative particle did infer a warrant or right for them and theirs to be baptized. Whereas the thing inferred is not any kind of right which in a legal way they might claim, but is a plain motive in a moral way urged to persuade them to be baptized. And this is manifest from the form of words v. 38. which if they had expressed a right to Baptism by virtue of the promise, should have been in the Indicative Mood in such a form as this, You are to be baptized, you may be baptized, you have right to it, the Minister ought to do it: but the words are in the Imperative Mood exhorting them and persuading them to it, {αβγδ}, be baptized every one of you, that is, be ye persuaded to perform this duty. Which is confirmed from the first duty he urgeth them to, which is urged in the Imperative Mood {αβγδ}, repent ye, and to which baptizing is joined by the copulative particle [ and] which cannot be expounded without non-sense of a right they might claim, but of a duty they were to practise. Which is confirmed from v. 37. to which v. 38 is an answer. Now v. 37. they ask what shall we do? And Peter answers v. 38. repent and be baptized, which to interpret of a right they might claim, and not of a duty they were to do, had been ridiculous, as when the question is about onions, to answer about garlic, as the Latin Proverb hath it.  
10. And lastly, in the paraphrases which usually in their disputes Paedobaptists make of Acts 2. 38, 39. they put not in any thing to answer the term [ repent] as if it stood for a Cipher, but paraphrase it thus, Ye may be baptized you and your Children, for the promise is to you and your Children, whereas the putting the word [ repent] first, and [ be baptized] after, do manifestly overthrow their paraphrase of a right to Baptism from the word of Promise; and show that the particle [ For] doth not prove a right to Baptism, but press to a duty, and such a duty as is to have Repentance precedent, and that in every person that is to he baptized. For first they are bid every one to repent, and then every one to be baptized. I hope by this time the intelligent Reader will easily perceive how frivolously Acts 2. 38, 39. is alleged by Paedobaptists to prove as it is called the convertibility of a word of Promise and a word of Command to baptize infants. To show which I was the more incited by the speech of Mr. John Goodwin in his Preface to the Reader( a 4) before his Thrasonical book entitled Redemption redeemed, in which after his fashion of wording things he thus speaks. They who suffer their judgements to be encumbered with the error of Antipaedobaptism must upon the account of their inthralment under the said error, maintain many uncouth, harsh, irrational, venturous and daring interpretations and expositions of many texts and passages of Scripture, and particularly of these, Gen. 17. 7. 1 Cor. 7. 14: Acts 2. 39.& 16. 15. 1 Cor. 1. 16. 1 Cor. 10. 2. besides many others, which frequenly upon occasion are argued in way of Defence and proof of the lawfulness of Infant-baptism. I forbear to recriminate, I doubt not but there are and will be found men that will sift his book, and show the monstrosity of his conceits about Gods decrees, knowledge, intentions, &c. of his expositions of Acts 4. 27, 28. &c. But for my exposition of the texts he mentions, when he hath red and seriously weighed this writing with my former, me thinks he should be ashamed, if not recant that censure of his. His seven erroneous and Anti-evangelical opinions he chargeth the holding Anti-paedobaptism with shall be examined in their place, and his many mistakes therein shewed. For present I refer the Reader to this Treatise to consider whether Paedobaptists or Anti-paedobaptists do bring the more plain and fair expositions of the Scripture; and return to Mr. Stephens, who pag. 29. speaks thus. I endeavour to prove the convertibility between the word of Promise and the Word of Command first from particular examples; in the Sacrament of Circumcision, the word of promise is, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed; in relation to this promise the Lord did command Abraham to circumcise all his males Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9. In this institution there is a mutual relation and convertibility between the word of Promise and the word of Command. For as many as had a right to be circumcised by the word of promise, had a right to be circumcised by the word of command. Againè converso, there must needs be then a convertibility between these two in the sacramental action. Again in the Institution of the Passeover, Exod. 12. 13, &c.  
I answer. If this be his meaning by his convertibility of the word of promise and command, that whoever hath right by the initial seal by the one, hath right by the other, I know none would deny it, for it would follow that there should be a command to deny a person his right if it were not true. But however this his phraseology may take with them that know not how to distinguish between chalk and cheese, this is it he must prove if he will prove any thing to his purpose, that to whomsoever there is a promise of grace, or of Gods being their God, they are to have the initial seal by a word of command, and 'vice versa. Which how false, it is shewed above. And for his proof it is but from two particulars, and therefore not a full induction; and neither of the instances he gives serve his turn. Not the former. For the promise was to the females as well as the males, they were Abrahams seed, God was their God, they were to inherit the Land of Canaan, as the daughters of Zelophehad, and yet were not to be circumcised: but of this enough before. The other is less to the purpose, for the sacramental action as it is called of striking the blood Exod. 12. 13. was upon the posts, not on the persons, either parents or first born sons to whom the promise of saving their lives was made, nor did all or only those eat the paschal Lamb, and unleavened bread, to whom the promise was made: as for instance, not the infants first born of a day or two old. Therefore these very instances are so far from proving his convertibility, that they plainly prove the contrary, that without a particular command distinct from the word of promise, a person hath not right to the initial or after-seal as they call it, though he have the word of promise, sith in both these instances persons had no command to partake of the rite, though they had the promise signified by it. I go on to the next.  
Secondly, saith he, This is made manifest by the general nature of the Covenants between men and men: There must needs be a convertibility between these two parts that do contract, as may appear by the Indentures between them. If this be so in the general nature of Covenants, it must necessary hold in the sacramental Covenant betwixt God and man. There must needs be between the word of promise, which is Gods part, and the word of Command that doth contain the duty of man in the sacramental action, there must needs be( I say) between these two a near relation.  
I answer, It is true, in Covenants usually there is a mutual contract, and there are mutual performances to which persons are engaged thereby. And if it be true that such a Convertibility must needs be between those persons that do contract according to the general nature of sacramental Covenants, then there can be no Covenant between God and an Infant, sith an Infant cannot contract, and so this very argument is against the baptizing of Infants. If any say, Parents do contract for them, to it I say, be it so, then according to this arguing they should also seal or be sealed for them. But as I say in my Examen Part 4. Section 4. I insist not on this Argument, it proceeding only according to Paedobaptists hypotheses, and serving onely to show the vanity of them. But for the thing, it is certain that however the words of faedus, pactum in Latin, {αβγδ} in Greek, Covenant in English, be used, the Hebrew {αβγδ} and the Greek {αβγδ}, used in the old and new Testament do not always import a mutual contract, and mutual performances. God is said to establish a Covenant with all living, Gen. 9. 9, 10. between whom and God there neither is nor can be mutual contract and performance. And the term sometimes rendered [ Covenant] is not onely rendered [ Testament] but also the Holy writers do illustrate the new Covenant rather by the metaphor of a Testament than of a Covenant, 1 Cor. 11. 25. Gal. 3. 15. Heb. 9. 16, 17. and where the promises are set down without any reciprocal contract or duty expressed, Heb. 8. 10, 11, 12. and 10. 16, 17. Rom. 11. 26, 27. So that it cannot be proved to be the general nature of Covenants that there should be such a convertibility as that both must seal or contract or perform. In Testaments or Wills which have the name of {αβγδ} or {αβγδ}, sometimes translated [ Covenant] there is no such mutual contract or duty, or sealing: there is a single Covenant as well as a mutual. So that this argument from the general nature of a Covenant, to prove that they to whom God promiseth to be God, they are commanded to be Baptized, is of no weight.  
But saith Mr. Stephens, there must needs be between the word of promise, which is Gods part, and the word of command that doth contain the duty of man in the sacramental actions, there must needs be( I say) between these two a near relation. To which I answer, Though in mutual Covenants between God and man, there be a word of command inferring duty, yet this is not from the general nature of Covenants between men and men. For in mutual Covenants between men and men who are equals, there is no word of command, but onely of promise on both sides: And therefore the word of command conjoined with Gods promise is not from the general nature of Covenants, but the superiority that God hath over men. And be it granted there is between the word of command, and promise, in the sacramental action a near relation, yet it proves nothing to his purpose that to every one to whom the promise is there is a command he should be baptized. There are many sorts of relations, of those that are not onely secundùm dici, but also secundùm esse, relatives between which there is a near relation, and a command too of something to be done in relation to promise, yet no command that the person to whom the promise is should be tied to something. As in the promise that is name by Mr. Stephens himself, the first born was not commanded to do any thing, though the promise were to save his life, and what command can there be to a still-born infant in the Covenant of grace? So that in these dictates of Mr. Stephens there is a mere emptiness of any solid proof.  
Thirdly, saith he, this is evident from the very definition of a Sacrament: For the form and being of a Sacrament by and through which it is defined doth stand in the analogy, proportion, correspondence, mutual relation between the outward sign set forth in the word of command, and the inward grace contained in the word of promise: now then, if there be no mutual habitude and relation between these two, we shall take away the very being and form of a Sacrament.  
Answer: I aclowledge two rites of the Christian Church-Baptism and the Lords Supper, and that the Jews had many more rites appointed them: But the term Sacrament,& what is delivered by Protestant writers about the definition of a Sacrament, and many things they infer thence, I think are not found in Scripture. If M. Stephen▪ would have argued from the definition of a Sacrament, he should have set down a fixed definition of it out of Scripture. The name Sacrament, and the definition Mr. Stephens alludes to [ a visible sign of invisible grace] so far as I can find, began much about Augustines times, whose sayings we regard with liberty of examination. But the visible sign is not the word of command, but the duty of him to whom the command comes; nor is the inward grace the promise, but the thing promised, so that the proof concludes not a covertibility between the word of promise and the word of command, but between the thing promised and the thing commanded. Besides, if it be granted that there is a mutual habitude and relation, so as that the one is a sign of the other, and it may be said that the sacramental action commanded, or the word of command is the sign of the promise or thing promised, and that is signed by it, yet this proves not the convertibility Mr. Stephens should prove, for this notwithstanding, it remains to be proved that to whom soever the promise belongs, to them the Sacrament belongs. Yea to show how inconsiderate this arguing is, sith by the grants of the Author the definition of a Sacrament doth as well belong to the Lords Supper as to Baptism, if it take away the form of a Sacrament to deny that to whom the promise belongs to them Baptism belongs, it will upon the very self same ground prove, that to deny the Lords Supper to Infants( which I suppose Mr. Stephens doth) to whom the promise belongs, takes away the form of a Sacrament.  
Fourthly, saith he, this doth appear from the weakness of that which is usually alleged to the contrary: and therefore though it may be true( as some say) that a promise may be without a seal; yet when men have once put their seal, it is necessary that there must be a correspondence between the seal, and the Covenant. In like manner it is not absolutely necessary that the Covenant of grace or the word of promise should be set forth with outward signs that appear to the senses: yet the Lord having once in the word of Institution appointed the outward sign to signify the inward grace, in such a case as this is it is necessary that there should be a mutual relation between the word of promise and the word of command. They that deny this( to my understanding) do not onely go against the experience of Believers, but also against the common sense of men.  
Answer. It is true they that deny a relation between the sign and thing signified go against common sense of men, and they that deny there is benefit and comfort at least in doing our duty in the holy use of Baptism and the Lords Supper, they go against the experience of Believers. But there is no such thing as either of these in denying▪ Mr. Stephens his convertibility between a word of promise, and command, contained in such propositions as these, Every person to whom God hath promised inward grace is commanded to be baptized, and every person that is commanded to be baptized, hath a promise of inward grace from God. For the truth of this( if it were true) is not known by experience of Believers, but by reason, nor can it be against common sense of men, Sacraments being onely positive rites, they are not natural signs, but instituted, and so without revelation of Gods mind no man knows but it may be as well a Sacrament to shave a mans hair, as to baptize him in water: so that in this speech of his is mere vanity. And in the rest there is heedlessness or unskilfulness. For first he doth ignorantly confounded the word of promise which is Gods act, with the inward grace which is effected by God many hundreds of years sometimes after the promise, Rom. 11. 26, 27. and the word of command which is Gods act, with the duty of man, and the sign of Gods grace and promise: whereas a word of command may be, and yet the duty or thing commanded not done, and words being signs of the things they express, a word of command can onely express a command not a promise, which is expressed by other words.  
2. Most unskilfully as one that understood not himself, he thinks when he hath concluded there must be a correspondence between the seal and the Covenant, a mutual relation between the word of promise and the word of command, this is all one with his asserted convertibility: whereas there may be a relation between the Covenant of grace and Baptism either as a memorative or sealing sign, and this may be mutual, and there may be a relation& correspondence( though what he means by it I cannot well tell his expressions are so indistinct and obscure) between a word of promise and command, and yet these propositions not true, every person to whom God hath promised inward grace is commanded to be baptized, and every person that is commanded to be baptized hath the promise of inward grace, which is the onely convertibility that is any thing for his purpose.  
He is pleased to censure it as weak which is usually brought to the contrary. Me thinks he should not be ignorant that in my Examen of Mr. Ms. Sermon Part 3. Sect. 1. there is a formed dispute about it: Of which when Mr. M. replied to my Examen in his Defence, he hath rather thought good to possess mens minds as if there we●e no such disagreement as my words bear show, between him and me therein, when the very title of the Section, and the whole series of my discourse, shows it is my drift to overthrow the imaginary connexion between the Covenant and seal, which is the hinge on which Mr. Mr. first and main argument turns. If Mr. Stephens think it so weak it will be no hard matter for him to answer it: But then let him not nibble at it, but in a scholastic way set upon it, and overthrow it, and he will say something to his purpose. Otherwise to mention onely one thing, to wit, that a promise may be without a seal, and then to bring in an answer which is in that place overthrown, is but to shift, and not to dispute. There are many reasons which moved me to prosecute this large digression being once entered into it, I now return to Master Geree.  
Mr. G. yet adds, And unless he grant this privilege to Christian Gentiles, there will follow a partition-wall thus far to make distinct Conditions of persons under the Gospel, contrary to Eph. 2. 14. where Christ hath made Jews and Gentiles equal.  
I answer, it is true Christ hath made believing Jews and Gentiles equal, and now and wherein is expressed Ephes. 2. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. But it is no whit contrary to Ephes. 2. 14. to affirm that though the Infant-males were circumcised, yet the gentle believers infants are not to be baptized, there being no command for this as for that. Nor by making their condition distinct in this, any part of the partition Wall which Christ broke down is made up: but in very truth by this inference, The Jews infants were to be circumcised, therefore ours are to be baptized, is the partition Wall made up again in the Apostles sense: sith it supposeth that the command of Circumcision in some sort bindeth upon which that inference is made.  
Mr. G. saith in the close. Thus have I answered Mr. tombs his large dissertation which I again seriously commend unto him; being not a little grieved to see so much ability and industry cast away to darken manifest truth in my apprehension.  
I reply. Thus I have examined Mr. Gerees answer, being much wearied with his unconcocted writings, and sorry to see so much want, I will not say of ability but of industry in him, and so much darkness in not apprehending so manifest a truth as this, That the engraffing Rom. 11. 17. &c. is by giving faith into the invisible Church according to election. Against which I pass on to examine what Mr. Richard Baxter of Kederminster, and Mr. Thomas Cobbet of lin▪ in New-England, have said to the contrary.   

SECT. VI.  
That the breaking off Rom. 11. 17. was not by repeal of an ordinance concerning Infants visible Church-membership as Mr. B. conceives.  
MR. Richard Baxter in his Book entitled Plain Scripture-proof of infants Baptism and Church-membership, part 1. ch. 7. begins thus. I come now to my second argument to prove[ that the merciful gift and ordinance that some infants should be Church-members is not repealed] and it is( from Rom. 11. 17. And if some branches be broken off, &c.) Whence I argue thus: if it be onely some that were broken off from the Church, then to the rest that are still in it, the merciful gift of Church-membership to them and their children is not revoked: but it is onely some that were broken off from the Church: therefore to the rest that remained in, the gift was not repealed. The Antecedent is the plain words of the text, the strength of the Consequence lieth here, 1. For the parties not broken off; the breaking off from the Church is an unavoidable consequence of the revoking of the gift of Church-membership, and the repealing of the ordinance: therefore where there is no breaking off from the Church, there is no such revoking or repealing. This is most evident, and yet Mr. T. denied this consequence.  
Answer. The Church is either invisible, and the breaking off from it is by non-election or hardening: or visible, either Christian or jewish, and the breaking off from it is either by non-admission, non-circumcising, non-baptizing, or by drawing up the fore-skin, or excommunicating or such like act. Mr. B. says in this chapter, that The Apostle says it of the Jewish Church that some were broken off from the Church. The merciful gift and ordinance Mr. B. means is onely this, That the Infants as well as the Parents should be accounted visible Church-members and have the initial seal. This merciful gift and ordinance I find no where, nor hath Mr. B. yet shewed it any where but in the institution of Circumcision, Gen. 17. The some that were broken off, Rom. 11. 17. were some of the jewish Nation, and the rest remaining in must be understood of the same pepole. What else can be the meaning of Mr. Bs. conclusion but this, to the believing Jews who by believing continued in the olive-tree the visible Church of the Jews, the gift that they and their infant-children should be accounted visible Church-members, and Circumcised according to the institution Gen. 17. is not repealed, but to unbelieving Jews, who are broken off by not believing it is repealed? If any say the gift and ordinance is not meant of that particular institution, but of a visible Church-membership of infants perpetual in all ages, and of an indefinite initial seal, not of that particular initial seal of Circumcision, I reply, such a gift and ordinance is a mere figment like an Idea Platonica: all institutions of mere positives, are of such a rite in particular, and an initial seal is merely positive as signs that are not natural, but by the will of the appointer, and therefore there is no initial seal indefinite. Now if this be Mr. Bs. meaning, I take his Conclusion to be the assertion of a man that dotes: in any other sense it is yet untelligible to me. As for the argument: The antecedent( though he use the Apostles words) is in his sense palpably false. For he conceives the some that were broken off were the unbelieving jews, and that they were broken off from the visible jewish Church, as he saith after. But that is palpably false: For they continued in the visible jewish Church, and the believing jews were broken off from that Church, and the Gentiles were not to be graffed into the visible Church of the jews, but were to be broken off from them And for the Consequence, though Mr. B. thinks it strange that I denied it, yet I am so far from revoking that denial, that I now conceive the Consequence is rather good to the contrary, that if some were broken off, then the ordinance of infants visible Church-membership is revoked. For the some broken off being the people of the jews, and the policy of the jewish Church thereby dissolved, the ordinance of Circumcision and the visible Church-membership depending thereon, are dissolved or revoked to all, even them that did believe, as Gal. 4. 1. &c. is determined. And as for that which Mr. B. saith, the strength of his Consequence lies, it hath no strength in it. The breaking off in that text is so far from being an unavoidable consequence of the revoking of that ordinance, that if that ordinance in Mr. B●. sense had been repealed, yet the jews might have been still Gods visible Church: For what connexion is there between these, The ordinance that parent and child should be visible Church-members together is repealed, Ergo, the people of the jews must necessary be broken off from being Gods visible Church? I conceive of such a consequence so far from being unavoidable, that it rather seems to me to be à baculo ad ang●lam. But the breaking off is in the text, v. 7. 20. expressedly made a consequent of their non-election and unbelief, and the whole chapter shows it: Now because these ( some) were the most and chiefest part of the jewish Church, and in a sort the body of that nation, therefore the national Church-frame of the jews was dissolved, and therewith the infants visible Church-membership, which came by virtue of Legal descent from Abraham, or by associating themselves to the policy of Israel. Mr. B. pag. 101. confesseth, that if any say one part of the Ordinance Gen. 17. concerning circunctsing infants of infidels brought into Abrahams family was proper to the Jews, he hath somewhat to justify it: I infer that somewhat which justifieth so much, will justify this also, that the taking the whole Nation and so the sort of infants of natives or others into the visible Church was proper to the jews depending on the national Church-frame of the jewish policy, and the command suitable thereto. Mr. B. adds. If any say that the some that were broken off were[ all the infants among others] as the whole chapter will confute them, so specially consider, that the Apostle saith it of the Jewish Church, whereof the infants were members with their parents, that it was but some that were broken off from the church; so far is the whole church from being dissolved. An: To say the unbelieving jews were broken off from the visible Church jewish, is a palpable dotage of Mr. B. refuted before: The Church from which they were broken off, was the invisible Church of true believers of which Abraham was the root by exemplary believing: which being first in the Israelitish nation after Abraham, from whom it had a double descent natural and spiritual, is called their own olive, v. 24. they natural branches, the Gentile-believers the wild olive by nature, engraffed by faith. Now from this I say not that all the infants were broken off: Breaking off is by non-election, which whether it reached to all or some I know not. The some that were broken off, were a great part of the Jewish Nation, and therewith was dissolved the jewish Church visible with its peculiar national frame and policy, by reason of which the infants were accounted visible Church-members, and with it ceased to be so: yet infants might remain in the visible Church by election of grace. Mr. B. adds. Also consider that as the infants come in with their parents, so they are not cast out while their parents continue in: except when they are grown up they cast out themselves by their personal sins. Who can imagine that God should cast out the infant( that came in for the Fathers sake) while the parents remain in the same Church? Answ. The infants came into the visible Church of the Jews, not for their immediate parents fake by reason of their faith: though their parents were Idolaters, yet were they reckoned to the congregation of Israel, as the children of Ahab, Ahaz, &c. it was from the will of God in taking that Nation to be his people till Christ came to inherit all Nations. The infants of the Jews came into the invisible Church by election merely of Gods grace, v. 5. and by reason of his Covenant first made to their fathers, by reason of which their posterity are yet beloved v. 28. and shall in some of the branches be re-ingraffed, v. 23, 24. In the whole chapter there's not the least hint of infants being visible Church-members by an initial seal. 'tis true, in the Jewish policy they were reckoned to the congregation of Israel with their parents, and Circumcised by virtue of Gods command, and his good pleasure to take that Nation for his peculiar people till his Son came. He being come, takes to him disciples of all Nations, and breaks off the Jewish Nation through unbelief, and so dissolves their policy, and therewith the visible Church-membership of infants which depended thereon, though there were a remnant according to the election of grace among the Jews, yet there infants were not visible Church-members, not because God would punish them thereby, it was no punishment nor hurt to them( notwithstanding Mr. Bs. vain exclamations of I know not what loss by it) but because it seemed good to him now to gather his Church by his word and Spirit, not by legal descent. Mr. B. closeth the chapter thus. But the answer that is here given is, that this place speaketh of the invisible Church, which I shall reply to, when I have laid down my next argument, because it is from the same chapter. Answ. That is indeed the answer, and I shall attend to the reply.   

SECT. VII.  
That the words Rom. 11. 20. of breaking off by unbelief prove not that believers children have visible Church-membership and title to the initial seal as it is called.  
CHapter 8. Mr. B. speaks thus: My 3d . argument to prove that this is not repealed is from Rom. 11. 20. [ well: because of unbelief they were broken off:] whence I argue thus: If none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief, then believing Jews and their seed were not broken off; and consequently the gift of Church-membership was not to them revoked: but none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief: Therefore believers and their seed were not broken off; and consequently the gift to them is not repealed. The mayor or antecedent is plain i● the words of the text; the Consequence I think is undeniable. For I hope none will affirm that God broken off all the infants of believing Jews, for the sins or unbelief of other men. He that will not punish the children for the Fathers sins, will much less punish them for a strangers.  
Answ. 1. The text saith, [ by unbelief they were broken off] but not as Mr. B. says, is plain in the words of the text [ none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief] These are not equipollent. 2. Yet waving that, I say, there's a breaking off in purpose, and in execution; in respect of this later, the meaning must be understood, unbelief is not a motive or antecedent to the decree of Gods reprobation, but a consequent of it. But it is a means of the execution of the decree, and so the term is fitly rendered {αβγδ}, by unbelief they are broken off: it is not {αβγδ}, for unbelief, as the motive of Gods purpose, but by unbelief as the means by which they came to be broken off. 3. The Unbelief here meant appears from Ch. 10. 21. to be not onely negative, but also contrary of them that rejected the Gospel: therefore if none were broken off but unbelievers here meant, no infants, no not of infidels that never heard of Christ were broken off, but by Mr. Bs. argument, must be visible Church-members: For such were not gainsaying unbelievers. Wherefore to the argument I answer, 1. By denying the antecedent to be in the text: it saith Jews were broken off by unbelief, not that none were broken off but unbelievers: infants of the Jews might be broken off, Rom. 9. 11, 12, 1●, 18. though they were not such unbelievers as the Apostle speaks of Rom: 11. 20. 2 Nor is there a word in that place, Rom. 11. 20. of breaking off any infant either of a believer or unbeliever, neither here nor elsewhere do I find Gods purpose expressed concerning them. For such texts as these Mark 16. 16. John 3. 5. 18 36. 1 John 5. 11. &c. are to be understood of adult persons. 3. the breaking off is not revoking of an ordinance about visible Church-membership( it's wonder to me that any man that seriously reads the chapter should imagine it) but the execution of the decree of reprobation in excluding them from the invisible Church. Therefore I deny both the antecedent, if it be understood of infants as well as grown persons, and the the consequences. For though none should be broken off but unbelievers among the Jews, yet it follows not that of believing jews their infant seed were not broken off from visible Church-membership, nor that the imagined gift of title to the initial was continued: sith the breaking off was of another kind, and the revoking of the intial seal, was from another cause common to jews and Gentiles believers as well as unbelievers, to wit, Gods will in altering the jewish Church-frame. Mr. B. mistakes in conceiving the taking it away to be a punishment. And his reason is against himself. For if God will not punish the children for the Fathers sins, then he should not punish the children of the unbelieving Jews with deprivation of visible Church-membership for the parents unbelief, which nevertheless he holds God did to the jews children.  
But Mr. B. goes on thus. All that I know that Mr. T. saith to all these is, that they speak of the invisible Church. But I pray you mark: he doth not say of the invisible onely: nay, he confessed in our dispute, that it spoken of the visible also: And that is as much as I need, and indeed, a yielding of the cause.  
Answ. That which I say is this: that when the Apostle speaks of the Gentiles being graffed into the olive-tree, or the jews being graffed in again, the meaning is not of admitting into the visible Church by an outward ordinance, such as Circumcision and Baptism are, but into the invisible onely by given true faith according to the election of Grace, and when it is said, the branches, that is the most part of the jewish Nation distinguished from the remnant according to the election of Grace, v. 5. and the people which he foreknew, v. 2. were broken off, the meaning is not that they were broken off from the visible Church by Excommunication or defect of title to Baptism( which is Mr. Bs. vain conceit if I understand him) but that they were by Gods purpose of reprobation hardened in unbelief, and so broken off from the olive, taht is the Universal invisible Church of Gods elect and true believers; of which Abraham was the root by his exemplary believing. And because this olive-tree was first after Abraham in the jewish people to whom Abraham was a Father in a double relation, as their natural progenitor, and the Father of the faithful, therefore the jewish believers are called the natural branches, and the universal visible Church, their own olive, the Gentiles the wild-olive by nature, engraffed by emulation of them in believing. Now when I say the phrase notes onely graffing into the visible, and breaking off from it, yet I add that they who were engraffed into the invisible or broken off from it, were also graffed into and broken off from the visible, though the phrase of graffing in, and breaking off, express more or another thing as I say in my Apology page. 71. Now if Mr. B. need no more, and this be a yielding of the cause, let him make his best of it, I still avouch it. But it seems to me to overthrow Mr. Bs. cause. For Mr. Bs. cause is grounded on this, that by not breaking off, is meant not repealing the ordinance of visible Church-membership and initial seal, and that the engraffing is by an initial seal into the visible Church, and that parents and children were so graffed whether elect or not, true believers or not, if the parents professed faith, upon which it must follow, that non-elect, nor true believers were engraffed in according to his sense. Now if it be proved that the engraffing be of giving faith according to election, so as that none are engraffed but elect persons and true believers, and the breaking off be by hardening according to reprobation, so as that none are broken off but reprobates, I appeal to any mans understanding, whether this be not impertinently alleged by Mr. B. who brings it to prove such a breaking off as may agree to elect persons( for they may be excommunicated or not admiitted into the visible Church) and such an engraffing as may agree to reprobates( for they may be visible Church-members and admitted by Baptism) though it be granted that the same persons who were graffed in, were also in the visible Church and baptized, and the persons broken off, were not in the visible Church nor baptized.  
Mr. B. goes on. But he saith, It speaks not of the visible Church as visible: How then? Doth it speak of the visible Church as not visible? This is an answer like the rest.  
Answ. To which I reply; This kind of refuting is like the rest of Mr. Bs. refuting, slight and superficial, fit onely for shallow understandings, of which sort did not Mr. B. presume the most of his Readers would be, he would not handle things so lightly and contemptuously. He brings in my words in this imperfect manner. It speaks not of the visible Church as visible: whereas that which I say is this, that the engraffing Rom. 11. 17. and the breaking off v. 20. are not meant of graffing in, or breaking off from the visible as visible, by Baptism or Excommunicarion, or defect of title to Baptism, and therefore there is no such thing meant as continuing or repeal of an ordinance about visible Church-membership and initial seal as Mr. B. would draw hence: but into or from the invisible Church by giving faith or blinding; though the same persons that are in or out of the invisible, be in or out of the visible. As when Rom. 8. 30. the Apostle saith, whom he hath called, them he hath justified, though the same persons be outwardly and inwardly called, yet the calling there is not meant of bare outward calling( for so many are called who are not chosen, Mat. 20. 16.) but of inward, of which onely the speech is true. Now how doth Mr. B. refel this? Forsooth by a question: Doth it speak of the Church as not visible? To which I answer, if such a frivolous question need answer, The Apostle when he speaks of the olive-tree, he means that Church which was visible as well as invisible, yet he doth not speak of it barely as visible, that is, the engraffing into it and breaking off from it, are not meant of such engraffing or breaking off from it as respect it as visible, but as invisible.  
But Mr. B. says of me, He brings many reasons in his Apology, to show that the invisible Church is here meant, but not of force though nothing to the purpose.  
Answ. I brought 10. arguments in my Apology page. 71. &c. to prove that the engraffing Rom. 11. 17. is meant of giving faith according to election, and consequently none engraffed but elect persons, and so by the olive meant the Church invisible, not the visible as visible consisting of good and bad, of what force they are may appear by refelling Mr. Gerees answers now herewith printed. That they are to no purpose, is most in considerately said by Mr. B. sith they overthrow the very foundation of Mr. M. Mr. G. Mr. B. and others in their disputes, for visible Church-membership to infants of Christians from hence, that we have the same engraffing by an initial se●l for our children which the jews had: which is most false: for then ours must be Circumcised as theirs, and if it were true, yet this text speaks nothing of engraffing or breaking off opposite to it, but of an engraffing and breaking off of a higher nature, and consequently this text is most palpably abused by Mr. M. Mr. G. Mr. B. and the Assembly in their confess. of faith, ch. 25. to vindicate which, every one that desires to understand the Scriptures aright will think to be to good purpose.  
But Mr. B: tells me. The truth is, it is the same Church in several respects, that usual●y is called visible or invisible. It is specially for the sake of true believers, that all seeming believers are called the Church: And to say therefore, that the Jews are broken off from the Church invisible only, and we planted in their stead, is vain.  
Answ. I grant all this: for it hurts not me, who never denied that the jews were broken off from the visible Church, and not from the invisible only: but do expressly premise it page. 71. and Mr. G. acknowledged it, and Mr. B. himself here confesseth I acknowledged it in the dispute between us: Nor did I ever deny that we who are planted in their stead are planted into the visible as well as the invisible Church. And therefore his similitude to illustrate his meaning, and his reasons to prove that the Gentile-believers do come in stead of the Church jewish, not only as invisible but also as visible, is to prove that which is not denied. That which is indeed to be proved, is, that the engraffing or breaking off is meant of graffing in or breaking off from the visible Church by an outward ordinance, and not into or from the invisible Church by giving faith according to election, or not giving it according to reprobation, so as that any may be said to be engraffed who are not elect, which might if it were meant of the visible Church as visible, sith in it are many reprobates, who are taken in by Baptism, or any broken off who are not reprobates, whereas many are broken off from the visible Church, as such by Excommunication who are not reprobates but true believers. But let us consider Mr. Bs. plain arguments from the text to prove that Paul speaketh here of the visible Church.   

SECT. VI.  
Mr. Bs. arguments are answered, whereby he attempts to prove that the breaking off and graffing Rom. 11. 17. 20. 24. are meant of the visible Church as such.  
ANd( saith Mr. B.) 1. I argued from v. 24. For if thou wert cut out off the olive-tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive-tree; how much more shall these which be the natural branches be graffed into their own olive-tree? Hence I argued thus: That Church whereof the jews were natural branches, was the visible Church: But the Church that Paul speaks of, was that whereof the jews were natural branches: therefore it was the visible Church. Here an ordinary man would think there were nothing to be denied, But Mr. T. denied the mayor; whether according to his conscience or against it, he best knows. For can any man believe that the Jews are called natural branches of the invisible Church onely?  
Answ. The word [ Church) is not in the text: there is only the word ( olive-tree) that I know that answers to it. Now as Abraham being the root hath a double habitude or relation expressed by the Metaphor of a root, one that he is Father of the faithful, another that he is the Father of the jews: so the olive-tree hath a double habitude or relation, one as it notes a race of men descending from Abraham as a natural Father, another as it notes a race of men issuing from him by imitation of his faith as a Spiritual Father. The Jewish people who shall be graffed into their own olive, shall be branches in both considerations, and in respect of one called natural, but branches of the olive from Abraham the root in both considerations. They then shall be natural branches, as men descending from Abraham of the jewish nation, which being formerly the Church of believers, they being believers, shall be branches of the olive-tree, not as it notes a race of men descending( for so they are now in it afore their re-ingraffing) from Abraham by natural generation, but as it notes the Church invisible, or the Church of true believers, which once in the first place they were, descending from Abraham by faith as well as natural generation. Whence in answer to the argument I say: if the Conclusion and mayor be meant thus, the olive-tree is the visible Church only, or the visible as visible under that formal consideration, so as they should be branches who are only in the visible by profession or an outward ordinance, the Conclusion is denied, and the mayor without any reluctancy of conscience. If they be understood of the visible without exclusion of and invisible, so as that the meaning should be( as the words [ for can any man believe that the Jews are called natural branches of the invisible Church only?] do import) the believing jews were natural branches not only of the invisible but also of the visible, and that the Church Paul speaks of under the similitude of the olive-tree was the invisible and also the visible, though not precisely considered as visible, so as the being in, should note admission by an outward ordinance, then I grant the mayor and Conclusion as not repugnant to my tenet, who as Mr. B. acknowledgeth confessed that Paul speaks of the Church, not only invisible but visible also.  
Mr. B. adds. I prove the mayor therefore thus: If Paul here speak of the main body of the jewish nation, and that body were all members of the visible, but not of the invisible Church, then is it the visible Church, and that most directly that Paul here speaks of: But Paul here speaks of the main body of the jewish nation, who were all members of the visible Church, but not all of the invisible: therefore it is the visible Church, and that most directly that Paul here speaks of. Me thinks this is plain: can any man imagine that Paul speaks only of the Elect jews, who only are members of the invisible Church? that they are cut off, that we might be graft into the invisible Church in their place? This argument might prove the main by itself.  
Answ. Mr. B. undertook to prove the mayor of the former syllogism, but as a man hasty to utter himself, heedlessly forgets what was to be proved, and instead of proving the mayor [ that Church whereof the jews were natural branches, was the visible Church] he proves the Conclusion, with some addition, that it is the visible Church, and that most directly that Paul here speaks of. What he means by [ most directly] and where it is that Paul speaks of the main body of the jews, who are all members of the visible Church, but not all of the invisible, by reason of his obscurity, whether affencted or through heedlessness, I am put to guess. I think he means not v. 20. alleged in the beginning of the chapter, though that be the place in question, of which alone can be meant those words [ but I will give you divers plain arguments from the text to prove that Paul speaks here of the visible Church] now the text mentioned next before is v. 20. But I know no word in that verse that expressly mentions any term answering to the Church: and however the branches by unbelief broken off, were the main body of the jewish nation, and in that it is said they were broken off is implied the olive, that is the Church, yet most directly or in the first place they were broken off from the invisible Church of true believers: for they were broken off by unbelief, and were none of them of the visible Church of Christians, for they were professed unbelievers; nor can the visible Church be meant of the Jewish in opposition to the Christian: for from that they were not broken off, but continued in by unbelief, or rather were that Church itself, and therefore could not be said in any good congruity of speech to be broken from it. But it is more likely he means v. 24. produced when he concludes [ it is the visible Church Paul here speaks of] For there is mention of the natural branches, not v. 20. However the Reader may observe how heedlessly he writes, who undertaking to prove from v. 24. that Paul speaks v. 20. of the visible Church, concludes not at all that Paul v. 20. speaks of the visible Church, but from v. 24. concludes hat there, to wit v. 24.( which was not to be proved) Paul speaks of the visible Church. Yet to that place his words cannot well be fitted. For if he mean by[ here] v. 24. he says not right, that [ Paul speaks of the main body of the Jewish Nation, who were all members of the visible Church, but not all of the invisible.] For though he speak of the main body of the Jewish Nation, yet he doth not speak v. 24. of the main body of the Jewish Nation that [ were] members of the visible Church, but of them that shall be hereafter engrafted into their own Olive, And of these it is false that they shall be all members of the visible Church, but not all of the invisible: for they all that shall be engraffed shall be saved, v. 26. There is one thing here by the way to be observed, that when he says, that Paul speaks here of the visible Church, an ordinary reader would imagine that he meant of the visible Church Christian, for who would imagine that Mr. B. should conceive Paul maketh it a matter to be feared to be broken off from the visible Church Jewish, as he doth v. 20, 21. or that he should conceive it were such a mercy to the Gentiles, a wild Olive, to be graffed into the visible Church Jewish? Yet both his words Chap. 7. [ the Apostle saith it of the Jewish Church, that it was but some that were broken off from this Church] and here [ the main body of the Jewish Nation were all members of the visible Church] which can be true onely of the visible Church Jewish even after they rejected Christ, show it to be his meaning: which what absurdities it draws with it, hath been in part shewed before: Here onely I note it that Mr. Bs confusedness and darkness in this may be discerned. But to return. I should have thought that I had found the words Mr. B. means when he says [ Paul speaks here of the visible Church] were it not that the words whereby he confirms his argument [ me thinks this is plain: can any man imagine, that Paul speaks onely of the elect jews, who only are members of the invisible Church? that they are cut off that we might be graft into the invisible Church in their place?] do intimate the place to be v. 17. alleged by him ch. 7. Now if he mean that place, I answer him if he ask for my imagination it is this, that Paul is so far from speaking of the elect jews, who only are members of the invisible Church, that they are cut off, that we might begraft into the invisible Church in their place, that I think he speaks of the reprobate jews, who were cut off from the invisible Church of true believers by not giving them faith, that we might be graffed in {αβγδ}, for or instead of them, or in their place, as Beza, that is the place which they should in course have had, if they had continued in the faith as their ancestors did. And thus whereas Mr. B. saith, that this argument might prove the main by itself, I have shewed his magnified dispute to be so mis-shapen, that it can serve only to prove this one thing, which the Reader needs observe, that Mr. Bs. disputes seem somewhat afar off, but at a nearer view are shapeless and feeble lumps, hastily brought forth, but never licked over with any accurate study. But however it is my task to examine them, and I proceed.  
Mr. B. adds. Further thus: If there be none known to us to be of the invisible Church immediately, but by first knowing them to be of the visible, then it must be principally or first the visible Church whereof Paul saith, the jews were natural branches. But the former is true, therefore the later. Who dare say that Paul spake here from some revelation extraordinary when he calleth the jews natural branches? But if it had been of the invisible Church directly, Paul could have known no man to be a member of that but by extraordinary revelation.  
Answ. If the Conclusion be granted it hurts not me, who never denied that the natural branches mentioned v. 24. shall be graffed into the visible Church, nor do any where meddle with it as any thing material whether they are first or principally of the visible or invisible Church. The thing to be proved is, that any of the engraffed branches v. 24. shall be bare visible Church-members, or that their engraffing shall be onely by an outward ordinance into the visible Church, or that Paul speaks of any other engraffing or breaking off than in or from the invisible Church by giving or not giving faith according to election and reprobation. Yet to show how slightly Mr. B. argues, 1. It is to be observed that there is no connexion between the antecedent and consequent, there being no necessity that Paul should speak there v. 24. of that which is first known. 2. There is as little necessity that Paul must not speak that of the jews which is not known to us immediately, but by first knowing them to be of the visible Church. As for the question, who dare say that Paul spake v. 24. from some revelation extraordinary, when he calleth the jews natural branches? Answ. To know the jews to be natural branches requires no extraordinary revelation, it's known by their descent: but if the meaning be, who dare say that Paul knew by extraordinary revelation, that these natural branches should be graffed in again into the invisible Church? I reply, who dare say otherwise, that acknowledgeth he wrote by inspiration of the Spirit, that which is a prophesy, and he calls a mystery, v. 25?  
Mr. B. adds. Further I argued thus:( but chiefly ad hominem, because Mr. T. stands so much on Rom. 9. 7.) If the jews were not natural branches of the invisible Church directly, but onely of the visible, then it is the visible Church that Paul here calls them natural branches of: But the Jews were not natural branches of the invisible Church directly: Therefore it is the visible Church that Paul here speaks of. Mr. T. denied the minor, which I proved out of Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8. They are not all Israel which are of Israel( but they were all natural branches) neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called; that is, they which are children of the flesh, these are not the children of God( therefore not natural branches of the invisible Church) but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. To this Mr. T. answered by a learned distinction[ that they were the natural branches of the invisible Church, but not by nature.] To which I replied, that the very express words of the text v. 24. of Rom. 11. confuteth his distinction, using both terms[ natural and by nature] He then added[ that as men they were of Abraham, and so were natural; but not as branches] Ah, what a pack of poor shifts are here? 1. The Apostle speaks of natural branches, and not natural men? 2. He opposeth them to the Gentiles, who were natural men as well as the jews; but not natural branches. The rest of the heap of words that were here used, had no senee in them that I could understand, and you shall find them in the dispute if published.  
To which I reply( though it be answered in my praecursor in clearing myself from the 14th absurdity in the dispute, which Mr. B. would fasten on me) The term branches in the Apostle v. 17, 18, notes two razes of men, which had a state in the olive( which is the Church of true believers) and were from the root of Abraham, the one were men descended by natural generation, and therefore called natural branches and the olive their own, as being firstly from Abraham the Church of believers) the other gentiles who were a wild olive by nature, that is a race of men descended from Idolaters,& by preaching the Gospel being made believers, were graffed into the good olive besides nature and so were branches partaking of Abraham as a Spiritual Father, and the blessings of the oliv●-tree called its fatness, to wit, the promises of Gospel-remission of si●s, adoption, &c. The natural branches, to wit, the most part of the jewish na●ion being broken off from that station in the olive their Ancestors had, through their unbelief: yet so as that at length these through the power of God in some of their posterity shall be brought to the faith of Christ, and again engraffed into the olivetree, the Church of believers, which is not merely the visible, but also the invisible. Now to Mr. B●. arguments I answer. That the jews were neither natural branches of the invisible Church, nor of the visible directly in this sense as they were by nature descended from Abraham, so as that all descended from Abraham, by Isaac and jacob, must be Church-members, either invisible or visible: yet they are natural branches of the visible and invisible in contradistinction to the Gentiles, who were also branches, but not natural, but besides nature. In a word, the jews are called natural branches not to imply the cause of their being branches in the olive, that is members in the invisible Church; for they were by the same cause both jews and Gentiles alike in the invisible Church, to wit, by election of grace and by faith, v. 20. but to note their original in birth, and so to difference their descent from the Gentile-christians descent. The text Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8. doth not say the elect jews were not natural branches of the invisible Church, as [ natural] notes not a cause of being branches in the invisible Church, but a bare qualification of the persons that are branches, in which sense I take it. The distinction I gave was right. The elect jews were natural branches of the invisible Church as [ natural] notes onely a qualification of their persons in respect of their descent: and yet not [ by nature] as the cause of their being branches of the invisible Church. There are no words v. 24. that confute this distinction: though in our translation there is [ by nature] and [ natural] v. 24. yet it is, in both in Greek[ {αβγδ}, in according to nature] in neither[ {αβγδ}, by nature] as the cause, nor is that [ by nature] in the translation said of the jews, but of the Gentiles, that they were a wild-olive by nature or according to nature, that is according to their descent from their ancestors, who were Idolaters. What I added was right, that the natural branches were [ natural] as men from Abraham, but not as [ branches] to wit of the invisible Church. Nor are these poor shifts, but the reply to them is poor. The Apostle, saith Mr. B. speaks of natural branches, and not natural men. To which I return. I presume Mr. B. doth not conceive the branches were boughs of a three without a Metaphor: that were to imagine a metamorphosis of jews into boughs of trees like to those in Ovids fables: and if the speech be borrowed, I know no other meaning in the Apostle by natural branches, but natural men descended from Abraham by nature, and so the Gentiles were not natural men as the jews were. If any thing fell from me in the dispute which was not good sense, Mr. B. might have had so much humanity as to let it pass as from human infirmity: And perhaps if Mr. B. had been to speak without premeditation, and with such altercation of words as were then, he would have uttered words as empty of sense as mine. Some things have been counted absurd and nonsense by Mr. B. through defect of his own understanding. This answer of mine will I doubt not vindicate me and the truth, if I meet with candid Readers: if not, I expect but what I have found, nothing but injurious censures, and contempts. The words of my Examen pag. 108. if I were to reprint that book, I would alter, and not say that the term [ natural branches] did import, that they had this privilege to be reckoned in the outward administration as branches of the olive-tree by their birth. For though I deny not that they had that privilege of being members of the jewish Church by their birth, yet I would not say, it were imported by the term [ these according to nature] because I now think it imports only their descent by natural generation from Abraham: which is a plain answer without shifting. Mr. B. saith. Furthermore I add: those that were not branches of the invisible Church at all, were neither naturally, nor by nature branches of it: But many thousand jews were no branches of that Church at all: And those that Paul saith Rom. 9. 8. [ that they were not the children of God because the seed of Abraham] then they were not members of the invisible Church, either naturally or by nature: but yet they were members or natural branches of the visible Church, as the seed of Abraham, because the Covenant made over that privilege to his seed.  
An. It is granted that many thousand jews were neither naturally, nor by nature branches of the invisible Church, and that Rom. 9. 8. proves it: And this is a good argument for me to prove that the Covenant of grace was never made to Abraham and his natural seed, though that be the basis of the Paedobaptists tenet for Infant-baptism. But if Mr. B. would have proved any thing to the present purpose, he should have proved that some of the elect believing jews were not natural branches of the invisible Church. But whereas he saith, yet all the jews were members or natural branches of the visible, as the seed of Abraham, because the Covenant made over that privilege to his seed, if he mean by [ the visible Church] the visible Church of Christians( of which alone is the question) and [ the seed of Abraham] his natural seed, it is not true: nor was there ever any Covenant by which God bound himself perpetually to make over that privilege to Abrahams natural seed to be members of his visible Church, much less of the visible Church of Christians; the Apostle Rom. 10. 19, 20, 21. proves the contrary. It is granted that the infant-Iews were because of their natural desceat reckoned as part of the congregation of Israel, who were the v●sible Church of God, till the body of the jewish people, their Priests, Lawyers, Rulers, and the generality of the commons did reject Christ, and so they continued after, and do at this day members of the jewish Church. But this they have not by privilege, but by curse, and it comes not from Gods Covenant, but their Unbelief, and is so far from making them branches of the olive, that indeed their continuing members of the jewish Church opposite to the Christian, shows they are broken off till they be re-ingraffed into their own olive.  
2. Saith Mr. B. I further prove that Paul speaks here of the visible Church, thus. If the breaking off be visible, then it must needs be from the visible Church( yea and directly from it alone) But the breaking off the Jews was visible; therefore it must needs be from the visible Church. The antecedent( that it was a visible breaking off) I prove thus, From Rom. 11. 22. Behold the goodness and severity of the Lord, on them which fell severity, &c. That breaking off wherein Gods severity was to be beholded by the Gentiles, was sure visible: But this was such a breaking off, wherein the severity of God was to be beholded by the Gentiles: therefore it was visible. Paul would not call them to behold that which could not be seen. 2. That breaking off which the Gentiles were in such danger of boasting of against the Jews must needs be visible( For they would not boast of that which was undiscernible). But this was such as appears ver. 18. 20. Boast not against the branches: be not high-minded, but fear. Yea, 3. Paul himself could not else have known that the Jews were broken off, but by revelation extraordinary, except it had been a visible breaking off: therefore certainly the breaking off was vible. 2. And then the Consequence is evident( that if the breaking off be visible, it must needs be from the visible Church) For to be visibly broken off is to be visibly removed from the terminus a quo ( or the Church from which they are broken) But there can be no visible removal or distance from an invisible terminus: therefore there can be no visible removal from an invisible Church, and consequently it is the visible Church which they are directly visibly broken off from: Though it's true, that their breaking off from the invisible Church, may from thence in the second place be rationally concluded.  
Answ. Mr. P. in this argument would prove that the breaking off Rom. 11. v. 17, 19, 20. must needs be from the visible Church, yea, and directly from it alone, though their breaking off from the invisible Church may from thence in the second place be rationally concluded, and yet his sixth argument is to prove that the breaking off must be from the visible Church, because there is no breaking off from the invisible. How can breaking off from the invisible be rationally concluded, which cannot be? This tome seems a contradiction. But to the argument. The visible Church is either of the jewish Nation, opposite to the Christians, or the visible church of christians consisting of jews and Gentiles owning ●hrist: The visible breaking off is either by an Ecclesiastical censure, as Anathematizing, or Casting out by Excommunication, or such like, or else by their own act of Apostasy from the Christian Communion. Had Mr. B. distinctly  told us from which of these visible Churches, and by which of the acts the visible breaking off is of which he speaks, my answer might have been shorter and more easy. But I am sure none of them is the truth; not from the visible Church of the Jews, for the unbeliving-Jews stood still in it, and the believing-Iews were broken off from it: not from the visible Church of Christians by an Ecclesiastical censure, for they were never within, and therefore not liable to it, according to that 1 Cor. 5. 12. what have I to do to judge them that are without? nor by their revolt from the Christian Communion, for they were never joined to it, and yet that only is opposite to Mr. Bs. purpose as being directly opposite to admission by a visible ordinance, which is the thing contended for in behalf of infants: nor was the visible breaking off any other act of theirs: For though it is true, they were broken off by their not believing, v. 20. yet the breaking off was not their visible act, but Gods, he broke them off, he spared not the natural branches, v. 21. it was his {αβγδ}, v. 22. his cuttingness, sharpness, or as it is translated severity, and therefore it was a judicial act of his according to his purpose of reprobation, which broke them off from the invisible Church of Gods Elect, who are a certain body having an existence in all ages; and because they were after Abraham the root for many ages in a sort appropriate to the Common-wealth of Israel, therefore called their own olive, yet not as a rock that abides the same, but as a river which is in flux, some water coming, other water flowing away though the same river, yet I say, that the jews when they were broken off from the invisible Church, they also by consequent did break themselves off from the visible Church of Christians by denying Christ, and persecuting Christians. But the act of breaking off Rom. 11. 17. &c. taken formally and precisely, notes only Gods judicial act of blinding and hardening, or his not giving faith according to his purpose of reprobation. Now to the argument I answer, 1. Concerning the antecedent I distinguish: The breaking off the Apostle speaks of may be said to be visible, either in itself, or as the Schools speak in the act, as when David slay Goliath, or in the effect or consequent of it, as when the Angel of the Lord slay Senacheribs host. If the antecendent be understood of visible breaking off the former way, I deny it, if the later way, I grant the antecedent, that it was a visible breaking off in the Consequent their denying Christ, as the conversion of the Ephesians, by the Spirit of God was invisible in the act by a secret work like the winds blowing, John 3. 8. upon their hearts, yet it was visible in the effect the burning their books, Acts 19. 19. Now if Mr. B. mean it of this visibility, I deny the Consequent. And to his several arguments I answer. To the first. The term[ {αβγδ} Rom. 11. 22.] is often used concerning that which is not visible in the Act, but in the Consequent, 1 John 3. 1. John 11. 36. &c. and so Paul might call them to behold that which could not be seen in itself, but in the Consequent. And yet the truth is, the thing the Apostle calls on them to behold is not the act of breaking off, for that is presupposed as known, but the goodness and severity of God, which can be seen only in the Effects or Consequents. The same answer serves to the second argument: they might boast of that which was not visible in itself, but in the Consequent, though it seems to me Mr. B. takes [ visible] for any thing that may be known by any way of discerning without extraordinary revelation, whereas that only is visible which is to be discerned by sense, as it is usually taken in the dispute about the visible Church: otherwise visible and invisible might be confounded, a member of the invisible Church being discernible by reason or faith, though not by sense. To the 3d. Paul might know that the jewish people were broken off by their obstinate continued gainsaying and persecuting christianity, yet the breaking off be from the invisible Church, and an act in itself invisible. Nevertheless I make no question but Paul knew their breaking off by special revelation. For it is termed by him a mystery Rom. 11. 25. and as a Prophet he foretells their restitution. If the visible breaking off be so termed in respect of the Consequent as being visible in the event, I deny the Consequence. For a breaking off from the invisible Church, may be visible in the Consequent, though not in the act itself. Yea to show you how weak Mr. Bs. Consequence is, though it were true that the act of breaking off were visible in itself, yet it follows not that the Church from which the breaking off is, must be the visible. For it is not true which he saith, there can be no visible removal or distance from an invisible terminus. In local motion if an Angel be present at a place as Luke 2. 9. he may be said to be a terminus à quo, when the person departs from the Angel, the motion visible from an invisible term. But it is much more manifest in moral and legal removals, as when men depart from God by serving Idols, by express renouncing God as Job 22. 17. when Christ declared Iudas to be a son of perdition, John 17. 12. there was a visible breaking off from the invisible Church.  
Mr. B. proceeds. 3. Again: The Conclusion before-said I prove thus:( viz. That Paul here speaks of their breaking off from the visible Church) If every visible breaking off from the invisible Church be also a visible breaking off from the visible Church: then the breaking off which Paul here mentioneth must be from both( if it be from the invisible) but the former is certain, therefore the later: The Antecedent I prove thus. To be visibly broken off from the visible Church is to be visibly out of Covenant with God, out of his favour, and in a known state of damnation;( I speak not here of casting out of one particular Church onely, or with limitation or of mere non-communion) but all that are visibly out of Covenant with God, and out of his favour, in a state of damnation, are visibly broken off also from the visible Church;( I will not dispute whether de facto or onely de jure, whether in se or quo ad nos:) therefore breaking off visibly from the visible Church is inseparable from visible breaking off from the invisible:( nay, it is the same thing in another notion.)  
An. M. B. seems to conceive a visible breaking off from the visible Church which may be de jure, and not de facto, in se, and not quoad nos: but I conceive there is no visible breaking off from the visible Church but it is always de facto and quo ad nos: but this onely by the way. The Conclusion M. B. infers is, that the breaking off which Paul mentions Rom. 11. 17, 19, 20. must be both from the visible and invisible Church( if it be from the invisible) concerning which I have often granted that the Jews mentioned under the term [ branches] Rom. 11. 17, 19, 20. were broken off from the invisible Church of true believers, and the visible Church of professors of true faith: but that the phrase imports breaking off from the invisible formally, the breaking off from the visible followed on the breaking off from the invisible. But for the Argument I deny the consequence. For though every visible breaking off from the invisible Church were also a breaking off from the visible Church, yet the breaking off which Paul here mentions is not thereby proved to be from both, till it be proved that the breaking off Paul mentions was visible in the act, and not onely in the consequence of it, which is not yet done. Nor indeed doth M. B. offer to prove this consequence, but supposeth it as if it were proved before, to which I have here answered. As for the proof of his Antecedent, it is not true which he saith, that breaking off visibly from the visible Church is inseparable from visible breaking off from the invisible, much less that it is the same thing in another notion, nor that all that are visibly out of Covenant with God, and out of his favour in a state of damnation, are visibly broken off also from the visible Church. For a person who is excommunicated for a seeming contumacy in evil or error, but mistaken, is visibly broken off from the visible Church, and yet not from the invisible; and a person that lives in a state of impenitency in some gross sin, or damnable error, and yet is not excommunicated( which experience shows may happen, from many causes) is visibly broken of from the invisible by his open evil life, yet not from the visible in which he still continues. Nor can the visible breaking off from the invisible, be the same thing with visible breaking off from the visible, sith there may be a visible breaking of from the visible merely by the censure of others, but no visible breaking off from the invisible, but either by a visible declaration of God, or some visible act of the person of apostasy, denial of faith, open impenitency, and contumacy in error or sin that cannot stand with true grace. But Mr. B. adds, Further if God should break of from the invisible Church onely and directly, then it would be by an invisible act: But this was by a visible act: therefore it was from the visible Church.  
To which I answer, The Minor is that which is to be proved, yet not a word brought to prove it. Yea all along the chapter the act of God by which the Jews were broken off is expressed by terms that note invisible acts of God in themselves, though in the consequent visible: as rejecting, v. 1, 2. blinding or hardening, v. 7. giving a spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and eans that they should not hear v. 8. making their table a snare v. 9. darkening their eyes not to see v. 10. casting away v. 15. which either note the immanent act of Gods reprobation or the not giving of faith, which is visible onely in consequent not in the act.  
Mr. B. goes on. 4. Again you have heard before from v. 17. That God broken off but some of the Jews, and so the rest remained in the Church: now if some remain in the invisible Church, then much more in the visible, for if God should break off all from the visible Church, and but some from the invisible, then he should take those for his true servants and in a state of salvation, who do neither profess to be his servants, nor are in Covenant with him; but the consequence is absurd, therefore so is the Antecedent.  
To which I answer, I grant his Conclusion, that they which remained in the invisible, to wit, the remnant according to the election of grace v. 5. of which Paul was one, were also in the visible Church, and that they who by harding or blinding were broken off from the invisible Church were also broken off from the visible: But all the question is what the terms [ breaking off and engraffing] import in those places v. 17, 19, 20, 23. whether a breaking off from the invisible by not giving faith according to reprobation, and an engraffing into the invisible by giving it according to election, or breaking of directly from the visible alone, which is wont to be by some Church-censure, and the engraffing into the visible alone directly by an initial seal. Now this later is not proved by proving they were in the visible Church as well as in the invisible, no more than it is proved that the calling Ro 8. 30. doth note their outward calling, because they that were inwardly called were also outwardly called. The rule in logic is true, that quae conveniunt in eodem subjecto non sunt eadem formaliter. Yet because there is something observable in that which follows I shall examine it. That this absurd consequence( saith Mr. B.) would follow appears thus, from the nature and properties of both sorts of Church-members: for visible being in Covenant or professing true Religion( explicitly or implicitly) makes a visible member; and sincerity in the Covenant makes a member as invisible; and all these are in the state of salvation: now to say that one is a member of the invisible Church, and not of the visible, is to say, he is sincere in the Covenant which he is not known to be in at all; and that he is in a state of salvation before he be in a state of common profession, or any thing equivalent, which is absurd. And I shall show you afterward, that without this abjurdity Mr. T. cannot in his way affirm that any Infant is saved.  
To which I answer. Mr. B. supposeth an implicit profession of true Religion or some thing equivalent to common profession makes a visible Church-member. The implicit profession, and the thing equivalent to common profession is the parents real actual believing in Mr. Bs. judgement, as his words ch. 29. show, or some ones who hath the disposing of a person. But we must take this upon Mr. Bs. word, that in the Christian Church parents real actual believing is equivalent to the infants explicit profession to make it a visible Church-member. No Scripture says so, nor is it much unlike to the Popish doctrine of the Colliers implicit faith in the Church as sufficient to save and to admit into Church-Commnnion, though the person himself know nothing of Christ. Credit in altero qxi peccavit in altero, is a saying of Augustin without proof. The invisible Church is sometimes described the number of elect persons, according to Heb. 12. 23. The Church of the first-born, which are written in heaven. And so all elect persons are members of the invisible Church though unborn, or if born yet either make no profession or profess contrary to the faith, and so are no visible Church-members of Christ, but visibly members of Satans kingdom for the present: nor are all such members of the invisible Church in the state of salvation for the present. But because as Dr. Ames Med. Th. lib. 1. c. 31. sect. 4. 5. the elect afore they are engraffed in Christ are not actually, but onely in possibility in the Church, therefore that definition of the invisible is of it not as existing actually onely, but also as future, therefore others define it, a company of true believers elect. But then this must be understood of true believers in the seed or extraordinary exercise of faith, or else infants will be excluded, which must be acknowledged to be true of infants in the womb, or else all they be out of the invisible Church: But infants in the womb cannot be said to be visible Church members before they be visible men, therfore it follows, that one is a member of the invisible Church and not of the visible, and in the state of salvation afore he be in a state of common profession, or any thing equivalent, which Mr. B. counts absurd. And thus without any absurdity Mr. T. can in his way affirm that many infants are saved, and yet deny them visible Churchmembership. And for what Mr. B. tells us, he shall show afterward when I come to examine ch. 27. of this book of his. I doubt not to show the vanity of his arguing grounded upon his mistake, that to be a visible Church-member is to seem to be of the invisible according to a judgement of probability without any visible act of theirs, and that by denying infants visible Church-membership we deny the seeming though but in a judgement of probability to be of the invisible, and consequently we can have no true ground of hope of their salvation. Which is falsely by him ascribed to me, who do take visible Church-membership to be that which is discernible to sense, and deny not a probability of infants being elect, but expressly grant it, and that from thence there is a good ground of hope of the salvation of infants, though none of them be visible Church-members of the Christian Church, which consists not of a nation by generation, but of disciples made by preaching of the Gospel. But I must follow Mr. B. who thus proceeds.  
5. Again you heard before, that they were broken off only for unbelief: now if unbelief onely break off from the invisible Church; then it onely breaks off from the visible; and therefore it must needs follow both that the visible Church is also here meant, and that none but for unbelief are broken off from one( rightly) any more then from the other:( I run over these hastily, because I would have done with this which is so plain already.)  
Answ. It seems Mr. B. doth run over things hastily, because for the most part like Ahimaaz he runs without his errand. Canis festinans caecos parit catulos. But if he would have done with that point, why did he trouble the reader with his medium, which is the same he urged before, and so hath answer before? To which I add, that it is not said by the Apostle, that the jews were broken off onely for unbelief, much less that none are broken off but for their own unbelief, such as was in the jews; nor if it were granted, will it follow, that if unbelief onely break off from the invisible Church, then it only breaks off from the visible. For there may be a breaking off of true believers from the visible Church, by a just Excommunication. Nor doth it follow that by the olive-tree must be meant the visible Church, as visible consisting of good and bad, or that none but for unbelief are broken off from one( rightly) any more than the other. Yea, if this be true, then Excommunication must be taken away. For that breaks not off any such for such unbelief as is meant Rom. 11. 20. which was contrary unbelief of them that voluntarily refused and persecuted the Gospel: now such are not the subject of Excommunication according to the received Exposition of 1 Cor. 5. 12. And if none but for unbelief are rightly broken off from the visible Church, then it is against right that any professed believer be Excommunicated though he be scandalous: which overthrows the use, and condemns the practise of of Excommunication by taking away the subject of it. But Mr. Bs. dictates deserve not so many words to refute them, saving for the credit he hath gotten among the inconsiderate, to the prejudice of the truth.  
6. Lastly, saith M. B. I argue thus. That Church which men may be and are broken off from, is the visible Church( for Mr. T. will confess that no man is broken off from the invisible Church): But this Church is it that men( the Jews) were broken off from: therfore this is the visible Church. Mr. T. hath 2. answers to this, 1. That they are broken off in appearance, as those branches in John 15. 2. are said to be in Christ in appearance: But this is to add error to error. It is bold expounding to say, that when Christ saith they were branches in him, the meaning was, they were not in him, but onely seemed so; They were really in Christs visible body. To which I reply, the interpretation if it be bold, yet it should be favourably censured for Chamiers sake whom I city in my Apology page. 76. and other Protestant authors as thus using it. Nor indeed is Mr. Bs. sense any other than it. For Mr. Bs. being in the visible body of Christ really is no other than the being in Christ in appearance, not in reality as before God, as Rom. 8. 1. it is taken. So that in that answer is no adding error to error. But because the other answer is that I stick to, let's see what Mr. B. says to it. But 2. ( saith Mr. B.) This answer in his Apology he after dislikes upon the discovery of one that he thinks better, viz. That it is the Collective body of the Jews, not taken as at that one time, but as the river that runs to day, is the same river that ran long ago, though not the same water. But this shift will never serve his turn. 1. For if the Church be constituted of individual persons, then if none of those individual persons were broken off, the Church was not broken off: But the Church is constituted or composed of individual persons, therefore if none of them be broken off, then the Church is not broken off:( but that is false.)  
An. Mr. B. hath so imperfectly and obscurely set down my answer, that the Reader without looking into my Apology page. 76. will not rightly understand it. For 1. the Subject of the proposition in my answer, as he sets it down is [ it] by which it is uncertain whether he mean the Olive-tree or the branches, the Church invisible or the people of the Jews who are branches from Abraham, and are one and the same people though not the same persons in several generations: this later is my meaning, the former it seems Mr. B. conceived my meaning to be. 2. The Predidicate of my proposition is quiter left out, which was [ is broken off]. Now he seems to have conceived my answer to be, that the Church is broken of from the invisible Church: whereas my meaning was not that the Church of God is broken off from the invisible Church, but this, that the Nation of the Jews, of which the body or most part in some ages were in the invisibie Church, as branches in the Olive, in a continued succession, in the time of the Apostle that people, to wit, the most part of that Nation, were broken off from the invisible Church or Olive-tree in which that people in the individual persons of a former age did stand. Now that this is no shift, that by the branches natural and engraffed were meant the collective bodies of Jews and Gentiles appears by the 6 Arguments Mr. Cobbet in his Just vindic. Part 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 1. proves it by: though I conceive he doth not so fully explicate and adapt the Apostles similitude as had been requisite, as may appear from my answer to M. G. before, and the examination of that chapter in that which follows. But to answer Mr. Bs. arguments, he would prove that the Church( which in a direct opposition to me, should be meant of the invisible) is not broken off, which contradicts not my words, who never said that the Olive-tree, that is the invisible Church of Believers, is broken off: but that the branches, that is the people of the Jews of Pauls time in respect of the greatest number and prevailing party were broken off from the invisible Church, in which were the same people or branches in former generations. Nor do I deny that the Church consists of individual persons, or that individual persons were broken off from the invisible Church; but I deny that the branches do note individual persons as singularly and distributively considered, but collectively as the body of a people, and I say not that the same individual persons were in the invisible Church, and were broken off from the election, faith, and place they had in the Olive-tree in their own persons: but that the individual persons of one age, are broken off from that election and faith which the same people had in another age in their progenitors.  
2. Saith Mr. B. Again, if they were broken of for unbelief, then for the unbelief of some particular persons, and consequently it was some individual persons that for that unbelief were broken off: Now sure God would not break off the Church for the unbelief of any foregoing age, without their own.  
An. The Conclusion being granted hurts not me, who speak not of the breaking off a Church, but a people or Nation, and that by the unbelief of particular persons, and those particular persons of that age in which that people were broken off from the invisible Church, though they were not broken off from what those particular persons were afore their breaking off, but from what their ancestors were.  
3. Saith Mr. B. Again, If but some were broken off, then those some must needs be individual persons, and not all the nation in a sense containing no individual persons.  
Answ. When I say the Jewish Nation broken off, I mean some individual persons, even the greatest part of the individual persons of that time, and therefore Mr. B. in this fights with a shadow of his own.  
4. saith Mr. B. According to Mr. T. his conceit, they must be in breaking off a long time, at least an age, viz. by the death of all the true believers, and succession of unbelievers: But this was not so; There was a time when the same Church( for the greater part) which was a Church before, did immediately cease to be, viz. when Christ added a new fundamental article to their creed, without which before they might have been saved, but after could not[ if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins] They that were of the Church before, immediately upon the rejecting of this article, were all unchurched, this being now made essential to their Sonship or Church-membership, and of absolute necessity to their salvation, which was not so before to the same individual persons: their unbelief which was but negative was now privative. Either they were a Church immediately before this breaking off, or not. If they were not, then they were broken off before this breaking off, and so this could be no breaking off: If they were a Church, then it was individual persons that were broken off; and consequently it must needs be from the visible Church, seeing from the invisible there is no breaking off in Mr. Ts. own judgement.  
Answ. According to my conceit rightly understood, there is no need of such a continued breaking off by the death of some, and succession of other. Their breaking off was as Mr. B. truly says, when the Jewish people in the generality, chiefly the builders, rejected Christ the corner ston;( which is a good argument to prove the breaking off to be from the invisible Church by unbelief) These persons were not before in the invisible Church, they never looked for the redemption by Christ, as those Luke 2. 38. but trusted in themselves that they were righteous, Luke 18. 9. received honour one of another, and sought the honour that cometh from God only, John 5. 44. It is true they were of the visible Church of the jews before, but never of the invisible Church of God: The visible Church of the jews had in it the invisible Church before, which was never broken off. Individual persons, even the greatest part of the jews in that age were broken off from the invisible, not from what they in their persons were in before, but from what the people of the jews in foregoing time were. It is not true, that in my judgement their is no breaking off from the invisible Church, nor doth it follow if individual persons be broken off from the Church, it must needs be the visible, not the invisible. And to Mr. Bs. confident affirmation, I return as confident a denial, that either he hath proved, that the Apostle Rom. 11. doth speak of breaking onely, or graffing in only to the visible Church, much less of graffing into, or breaking off from the visible Church of the jews by an initial seal, according to the frame of that Church, or of the continuing the state of infants with believing parents, as visible members in the Christian visible Church. I follow after Mr. B.   

SECT. IX.  
Mr. Bs. arguments for Infants visible Church-membership unrepealed from Rom. 11. 17, 19, 24, 26, 27. in chap. 9, 10, 11. of the first part his book are answered.  
CHap. 9 My 4th arg.( saith Mr. B.) to prove Gods ordinance for infants Church-membership is not repealed is from Rom. 11. 24. [ how much more shall these which be natural branches be graffed into their own olive-tree?] whence I argue thus. If it be into their own olive( even the olive which they were broken off from, and of which they were natural branches) that the jews shall be re-ingraffed at their recovery: then Gods ordinance for their infants Church-membership is not repealed. But they shall be re-ingraffed into their own olive; therefore the said ordinance is not repealed. The antecedent is the words of the text. The reason of the Consequence lieth here; in that their own olive is their own Church; and their own Church did ever contain infants as members: therefore when they are re-ingraffed into their own Church, their infants must needs be re-ingraffed with them. I know nothing that can be said against this, but the old objection of Mr. T. [ That it is the invisible Church that is here meant] to which I dare say, I have given an answer sufficient to prove that it is the Church visible. And one more argument to that end let me add from the text. That Church which is called the Jews own, must needs be the visible Church: But this Church which Paul speaks of was the jews own; therefore it was the visible. If I thought any would deny that the visible church was more properly called[ the jews own] than the invisible, I would waste some time to prove it; in the mean time I take it for granted.  
Answ. The Consequence of this argument is to be denied. Nor doth the reason of it prove it, no not though it were granted the olive noted the jewish visible Church( which yet is apparently false, sith the jewish visible Church, is quiter taken down by Christ his death, who hath freed us from the law having a shadow of good things to come, Heb. 10. 1.) which had infants Church-members. For neither doth it follow that the same sort of persons shall be engraffed again, nor have the same way of engraffing by an initial seal: For this should suppose they are now broken off by uncircumcision, and shall be graffed in again by restoring male-circumcision at the 8th. day of their birth: which are the genuine issues of this exposition of Mr. B. of engraffing into the visible Church of jewish infants. If this be a good reason, because the Church into which the Jews at their calling shall be re-ingraffed is their own olive, therefore their infants shall be visible Church-members, they having still infants visible Church-members, then it is a good reason they shall have either the first-born Priests or the Levits, instead of them, one High-priest, &c. because these were in their own visible Church. But my old objection that the engraffing is into the invisible Church by giving faith according to election stands still, and therefore all these arguments of Mr. B. and others are impertinently brought. And as for his additional argument in this chapter, it is like the rest. The invisible as well as the visible Church is called the jews own, the reason of that term being neither from the invisibility nor visibility of the Church, but from the jews peculiar relation to Abraham the root, from whom not only by spiritual imitation of his faith, as the Gentile-believers, but also by natural generation they were descended, which the Gentiles had not. And indeed the term[ {αβγδ} v. 24. their own or proper olive] opposed to the Gentiles wild olives by nature, must be from some thing peculiar to the jews, as their proper descent from the root, and relation, at least in priority if not in propriety, to the olive from that root, and not barely from the common notion of the Church either as visible or invisible, which do alike belong to Gentiles as well as jews, who are all alike in Christ Iesus, Gal. 3. 28. Col. 3. 11. And therefore the mayor proposition [ That church which is called the jews own must needs be the visible church, meaning it as visible] is rightly denied, and if Mr. B. waste time to prove it, he will but keep his old wont. I follow him.  
Ch. 10. My fifth argument( saith he) to prove the ordinance for infants Church-membership not repealed is from the same v. with the 2 following[ they shall be graffed into their own olive. Blindness in part is happened to Israel, till the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, and so all Israel shall be saved] with a multitude of the like places in Scripture which speak of the calling of the jewish Nation. from whence I argue thus. If all Israel shall be graffed again into their own olive, and all be saved from their off-broken state, then infants shall be graffed in and saved with the parents: But the text saith, that all Israel shall be graffed in again, and saved from their off-broken state: therfore infants shall be graffed in and saved.  
Answ. The Conclusion is granted: but this proves nothing to the present question, except it be against Mr. B. For that which he is to prove is, that infants shall be accounted members of the visible Church at the calling of the jewish nation, and graffed in by an initial seal: but the Conclusion is for me: For the graffing in which is accompanied with salvation is by giving faith according to election, and is of none but true believers or elect persons. As for the phrase of saving from their off-broken state, if Mr. B. mean by it as it's likely, to be saved onely from their not being a visible Church, it is a manifest abuse of the Apostle, who as appears v. 26, 27. understands such a saving as turns away ungodliness, and takes away sin, which is by giving faith according to election.  
But Mr. B. tells us thus. I know but two things that can be said against this. First some may say that by all Israel is meant some onely, excluding all infants. To which I answer. I had rather say as God saith, than as they that thus contradict him: upon such expositions you may contradict any thing in the Bible as well as this. If God say all, at least I think it is the safest way to believe it is all. But me thinks those men should not reject the plain letter of Scripture, that so exclaim against us from want of plain Scripture.  
Answ. Though we be not necessitated to expound [ all Israel Rom. 11. 26.) by some only, excluding all infants, yet they that exclaim against paedobaptists for want of plain scripture for infant-baptism may do it justly: nor are they to be charged with rejecting the plain letter of Scripture, or contradicting God, or saying otherwise than he saith, or opening a way to contradict any thing in the Bible as well as this, who expound [ all] by a great part, not including every man woman and child descended from Adam or from Israel.  
Sure I am all those Ancients, and later Protestant Divines( who are exceeding many) who in the point of universal grace and redemption do expound in many Scriptures [ all] of a limited universality, or a great part, and those in particular that so expound [ all Rom. 11. 26.] must be chargeable with all these evils, if Mr. Bs. censures be right. But I am not now a whit moved by Mr. Bs harsh expressions, being well acquainted with his rashness and vanity, though I did not Imagine half so much inconsiderateness in him before I red this Book of his as I have done since. But for the thing itself Rom. 11. 32. It is said that he might have mercy on[ all] will Mr. B. say [ all] notes every man woman and child? The like may be said Rom. 5. 18. John 12. 32. &c. They that please to see instances of the word [ all] limited to a select number may find many in Mr. Rutherfurds Sermons on John 12. 27. &c: from page. 400 to 410. As near as I can guess by my reading the Bible, the places wherein [ all] is taken for every particular dictributively are fewer than those wherein it is taken synecdochically for some, though many, or with some limitation. And I may justly retort on Mr. B. his words, that he that will expound [ all] by every particular individual, shall be necessitated to reject to the plain letter of the Scripture, to contradict God, and open a way to contradict many things in the Bible, yea, and pervert I am assured all sorts of writers sacred and profane: But enough of this wild passage of Mr. B: though it is necessary considering the advantage it gives to the tenet of universal redemption. But Mr. B. adds. 2. Paul saith not all believers, but[ all Israel] showing fully that it will be a national recovery. Now if you can prove that any are excepted: yet if it be national, certainly infants are part of the Nation; and it is not the Nation if all the infants be excluded.  
Answ. I conceive that [ all Israel Rom. 11. 26. imports a National recovery; nor do I go about to prove the sort of infants excluded: yet do I not think that [ all Israel] notes every jew whatsoever, but the fullness of them, as Beza observes in his annot. in locum. But Mr. Bs reasoning however is most vain, that because infants are a part of a nation, therefore where any thing is said of a nation it is appliable to infants. I will not now repeat what is to be seen in my Postscript to my Apology s. 14. in answer to Mr. black, who objects the same. I need go no further than the same Epistle to the Romans ch. 15. in which the word we translate Gentiles, that is Nations, is used 10. times, and I think he that reads the chapter with any consideration will confess that scarce in any of those 10 the things said of Nations can be understood of infan●s. The like may be said of many other places, but I shall reserve them till I examine Mr. Bs. and others ridiculous expositions of Mat. 28. 19. to prove infants discipleship and baptism thence. I go after Mr. B.  
2.( Saith he) If the old ●bjection( that it is the invisible Church) be brought in by Mr. T. besides what is said against it already, I yet further add from the text this strong argument. That Church which all Israel shall be saved into or re-ingraffed or recovered into is the visible and not the invisible Church: but this Church which Paul speaks of is it which all Israel shall be saved or re-ingraffed into: therefore it is the visible and not the invisible Church.  
Answ. The phrase of saving into a Church visible or invisible is Mr. Bs. own, not the Apostles, nor any ap roved writers that I know: nor is it I conceive good sense: Being in the Church as in Noahs Ark preceding salvation, whereas that phrase makes salvation to precede, and the Church to be the terminus to which it tends. Therefore laying aside that phrase, I confess the medium Mr. B. useth yields a strong argument, but not for his Conclusion but mine, and is my sixth argument in my Apology pag. 73. to prove that the ingrassing is into the invisible Church, which is so manifest, that whereas Mr. B. saith of me, I can hardly imagine Mr. T. so charitable, as to say that all Israel men women and children shall be certainly saved eternally, as they must be if they be saved into the invisible Church, I reply, 1. That I perceive Mr. B. when he wrote this, did not heed my words in the place of my Apology last quoted, else he would never have suggested this of me. 2. That I could hardly imagine Mr. B. so inconsiderate, but that I find it so, as to conceive that those of whom it is said Rom. 11. 26. that they shall be saved v. 27. be turned from ungodliness, have their sins taken away, should not be engraffed into the invisible Church of Gods elect and true believers: which will infer, that there shall be some turned from ungodliness, have their sins taken away according to Gods covenant with them, and b● saved, who are not elect or true believers, which Arminians themselves I think will disclaim, and all save such as incline to Origens reputed opinion of saving all at last.  
But Mr. B. adds. If he should so judge, yet at least this will hold, that if the whole Nation, infants and all, be so visibly saved into the Church invisible, then they are much more saved into the Church visible. But according to Mr. T. all Israel shall be saved into the Church invisible, therefore much more into the Church visible.  
Answ. 1. Mr. B. puts upon me such expressions as I count little better than non-sense, of saving into the invisible and visible Church: which would intimate the saving Rom. 11. 26. to antecede their being in the invisible Church, which I conceive follows on it. 2. In his mayor conditional proposition in the antecedent the term is [ so visibly saved] which is not so expressed in the Minor, and thereforethe Syllogism is illogicall, having four terms. But if the argument were rectified thus or to like purpose, If the infants shall be saved or engraffed into the invisible Church, much more into the visible, I would deny this argument if it be applied to infants in their infancy. For the one may agree to them, and not the other. And if it were good, it would prove that either abortives and still-born infants are not of the invisible Church, or else must be in the visible: which is to me no small absurdity. And whereas Mr. B. wisheth I would chew a little upon his plain arguments, I tell him that I think I have better chewed upon his and Mr. Gs. arguments about this text, than either of themselves have done, though I confess, but that Gods providence puts me on it, it is a grievance to me to spend my time about such superficial writings, and chew upon such insipid meat. And I return Mr. B. this plain answer. That though I knew all the jews infants at their recovery shall be saved( which I do not) yet I should dare to deny them to be members of the visible Church Christian till they believe. Nor am I ashamed to say I am grown much bolder by examining my Antagonists writings to deny any thing I conceive untruth that is against my way: and that I find so much inconsiderate boldness in my Antagonists, as that they are not ashamed both on this text, and in other points of their dispute, to unsay usually in their writings against Anabaptists what they elsewhere aver against Arminians.  
Ch. 11. My 6th arg saith Mr. B. is also from the same text, v. 17, 19, 24.[ If some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild olive-tree wert graffed in amongst them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive-tree, &c.] The branches were broken off that I might be graft in, &c. so v. 24. Whence I argue thus. If it were the same Church that the Jews were broken off from, which we Gentiles be graffed in, then our infants have right of membership as theirs had( and consequently the ordinance that some infants should be Church-members is not repealed) But it is the same olive or Church which they were broken off from, that we Gentiles are graffed in: therefore our infants have the same right of membership, &c. If their Church admitted Infants members, and our Church be the same, then ours must admit of infant-members. This argument concludeth not only that the gift and ordinance is not repealed to believing jews, but also that it continueth to the Gentiles; what may be said against it is answered before.  
Answ. If the same olive be the invisible Church( which is manifest by parallel places, Ephes. 3. 6. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 14, 26. 28, 29. as I allege in my 9th argument page. 74. of my Apology) then this onely proves, that elect infants of Gentiles are in the same invisible Church of true believers( which I prove in my Apology page. 71. 72. in my 3d and 4th argument, from their standing by faith, partaking of the root and fatness of the olive three, to be here meant, and have in this writing vindicated from Mr. G.) and then Mr. Bs. argument falls. And to speak truth, it is manifestly false, that the Christian Gentiles were graffed into the same visible Church with the Jews: for then they should have been circumcised, &c. contrary to the determination Acts 15. Yea this was the cause of breach between jews and Gentiles, that the Gentiles were Churches by themselves, not proselytes to them, but that they forsook the Temple and Law of Moses. They were as Cornelius, proselytes of the gate, who received the faith of the believing Jews, but were not of visible Church-Communion with them, as it appears of Cornelius whom Peter counted unclean, and was not to go in and eat with him, Acts 11. 3. therefore not of the jewish visible Church. Yet were it granted that the Gentiles were graffed into the same visible Church with the Jews, except only the ceremonial accidentals, Mr. Bs. argument will not follow, if the infant visible Church-membership were from that peculiar Church-state of the jews which is abolished, which I have in part proved in my Apology page. 66. and shall much more fully do in my reply to Mr. Bs. 5th ch. What he further saith, Another argument I might bring here from the same text: in that it maketh the olive, that is the Church itself, to remain still, and onely some branches broken off, and others of the Gentiles engraffed in their stead: And if the Church itself were not broken but onely some branches, then it is not taken down except onely ceremonial accidentals: therefore the Apostle saith, blindness in part is happened to Israel, that is, to part of Israel: it makes for me, who conceive the invisible Church of the Jews to remain still, some branches to be broken off, to wit, that part of Israel to which blindness happened, and the Gentiles to be engraffed in their stead: which are none of them true of the visible Church of the Jews, which remained not; the branches broken off to whom blindness happened, were not broken off from the visible Church of the Jews, nor were the Gentiles graffed into the visible Church of the Jews in their stead. And whereas he saith he doth purposely omit those other arguments which Mr. Cobbet and others use to prove that the Apostle speaks of the visible, I have red Mr. Cobbets Just vindic. part 2. ch. 2. and do add to what is before said for clearing this Scripture, those animadversions, which with what is said before I take to be abundantly sufficient to show the Paedobaptists misallegation of Rom. 11. 17. &c. for infant-baptism.   

SECT. X.  
Animadversions on the 2d chap. of the 2d part of Mr. Cobbets Just vindication, whereby is answered what he further endeavours to draw from Rom. 11. 16. &c. for infant-baptism.  
TO the first section I say, that I Grant that the Jews and Gentiles collectively taken for a great or greatest, or chiefest part of the people, are said to be broken off and engraffed: yet no necessity of understanding these acts as meant of removing from, or admission to outward feder all and Church-ordinances, and privileges of the visible Church, but may be and are meant of breaking of from, or engraffing into the invisible Church. And though it be frequent to understand such collective terms, as nation, people, world, house, generation, &c. as particularly Rom. 10. 19, 21. Rev. 11. 17.& 14. 6. Mat. 16. 4. John 12. 19. Acts 2. 36. onely of persons of age of discretion, yet I do not deny that infants may be said to be broken off and engraffed Rom. 11. 17. &c. and that the engraffing of the Jews that shall be is by virtue of the Covenant God made with the Fathers, and yet this makes nothing to the admitting infants to an initial seal, which is not by virtue of the Covenant as the proper immediate cause of right to it, but by virtue of the institution to those to whom it appoints it.  
To the 2d, that which is said, that the root and first fruits, Rom. 11. 16. are not onely Abraham, but also Isaac and jacob, I conceive is not proved. Abraham is called a root not only in respect of natural propagation, but also in respect of spiritual, as being the Father of the faithful, which term I conceive is no where given to any but to Abraham, Rom. 4. 11. 12. 16. Nor do I know how the Gentiles are said to partake of the root, v. 17. to be born by the root, v. 18. but in that they follow Abrahams faith, and are fixed upon him as an example, by believing as he did. I deny not, that the Covenant was made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: but I conceive that the making of the Covenant with them was not the reason of the denomination of the root, but propagation and descent, which being onely appropriate to Abraham both ways as a Matural father of the Israelites, and Spiritual father of believers, the term [ root] can I think be meant onely of him.  
'tis true, Abraham onely cannot be called [ Fathers v. 28.] but then it is not proved that these Fathers are the same with the root v. 17, 18. or that the reason of the term [ root] is from the Covenant: which if it were it might as well be meant of David as of the other patriarches: whence the things promised in Christ are called the sure mercies of David, If. 55. 3. Luke 1. 69. and for whose sake they are said to be beloved as well as Abraham and Isaac and jacob. It is proper enough to call Abraham the first fruits, Rom. 11. 16. it is in the Greek {αβγδ} first fruit in the singular number, which is applied only to Christ a singular person, 1 Cor. 15. 20. to Epaenetus, Rom. 16. 5. And yet if it were in the plural noting one individual basket, sheffe, or what ever other things were presented as first fruits, it might be applied to one person as well as it is applied to a collective in the singular, 1 Cor. 16. 15.  
To the 3d it is supposed that the fatness of the olive cannot be meant of spiritual saving graces; for they flow not immediately from the olive, that is the Church visible or invisible, nor is it theirs but Christs to convey. But this reason might as well prove that Abraham Isaac and Jacob are not the root in respect of the Covenant: for they could not make the Covenant, or convey Covenant-privileges: yea by this reason neither shall the fatness of the olive note external federal interest or right to the initial seal, or Church-privileges. For though these are given to them in the Church, yet they are given by God or Christ by whom the Covenant is made, and confirmed: the sign may be used by the administrator, the right and interest which is the fatness according to Mr. Cobbet, as I conceive, is from God, Therefore I conceive it is called the olives fatness as the subject, not as the efficient, and in that sense it may as well be applied to spiritual graces as outward privileges. Nor is in a Metaphor such exactness to be expected, as that because from the olive the fatness flows into the branches, so spiritual graces must from the Church to the members, no more than in the Metaphor of a head and membets there is a necessity that some members give enlightening, quickening abilities, as the heart and liver give vital spirits and blood. Nor is Abraham the less a root or Father of the faithful, because he begets not by infusion but only is a pattern to believers.  
To the 4th in the six comformities there's little but dictates upon false suppositions and palpably impertinent allegations of Scripture. In the first the Conclusion might be granted concerning infants, without any hurt to my cause, being understood as I conceive is meant Rom: 11. 17. 19. of inserting into the invisible Church by giving faith according to election. But if understood of engraffing into the visible Church by an outward ordinance, or as he calls it page. 160 a Church act, the mayor is not true, nor is there a word Rom. 11. 17, 19. to prove it. And though the Minor were granted in Mr. Cobbets sense, yet the texts are never a one of them to the purpose. The first Isa. 44. 3. speaks of powring his Spirit on the seed of Jacob, which is not all one with admission to an outward ordinance: nor true of all their buds and sprigs as Mr. Cobbet calls them. The 2d Isai. 18. 5. is a prophesy of cutting off the Ethopians young ones by the Assyrians, as the New Annotations explain it. What is this to prove the jews infants were inserted into the visible Church by an outward ordinance? The next Isai. 61. 9. is as impertinent, not speaking of infants, but such as shall be known among the Gentiles and among the people, so that all that see them should aclowledge them to be a seed which the Lord hath blessed, which cannot be understood of all infants of the jews who are not so known or blessed, but is truly understood of the elect converted, called Priests of the Lord, v. 6. the New Annot. The seed of the Church which shall so thrive and prosper as others shall take notice of Gods blessings on them, Acts 5. 13. The last is Psal. 128. 3. which speaks not of new-born infants, but such as sit about a table, nor of any admission into the visible Church by an outward ordinance, but of sitting at table in common meals.  
In the 2d conformity, The Conclusion might be granted understood of the inserting the Apostle means Rom. 11. 17, 19. but understood of infants and their engraffing by a Church-ordinance into the visible Church, it is denied. The mayor may be granted, the Minor is to be denied understanding it of the breaking off meant Rom. 11. 17. &c. The proof from this, that the Gentiles are spoken of collectively, therefore their infants meant, is answered already in answering Sect 1. of that chapter.  
In the 3d. If the cutting off from Church estate be meant of cutting off by an outward ordinance, to which engraffing by an outward ordinance answers, then I know not what outward ordinance the cutting off should be by but Excommunication, and so the mayor is false, and the Minor is false, speaking not de facto, which is not in question, but de jure, a child is not Excommunicated because his parents are so; yea Mr. Cotton way of N. England, ch. 4. sect. 6. acknowledgeth Godly learned Divines hold that the children of Excommunicate persons should be baptized, though he think otherwise. If the cutting off be meant of that which is by Gods hardening or blinding according to reprobation, as was indeed the case of the Jews, Rom. 11. 17, 20, 21, 22. and might be, was and is the case of Gentiles at this day, it is not denied but God usually cuts off children when the parents apostatise from the invisible Church, and consequently from the visible. But this is meant of another kind of cutting off than Mr. Cobbet would have( which stands in direct opposition to engraffing by baptism, or admission into Church-Communion) and so cannot infer the Conclusion Mr. Cobbet would gather, that the Gentile-parent and infant-child were graffed into the visible Church of Christians by the outward ordinance of baptism,  
In the 4th The mayor, Minor, and Conclusion are granted in the sense the Apostle means by remaining in the Root, and abiding in the Covenant-estate by the parents and childrens believing in Christ: but if understood of remaining and abiding in the visible Church by an initial seal belonging to children, whether believers or no, even in infancy,( which is Mr. Cobbets business to prove) neither of the propositions is true, nor is any such thing in the least manner hinted in the Apostles words, but it seems to me a mere dotage to imagine it. As for Mr. Cobb●ts question, How come believing Jews children being once in Covenant in their ancestors, yea, and parents right also, and not being then of years to reject Christ at present, to be cut off? I answer, Mr. Cobbets question is expressed in such language as is used by paedobapt●sts, but the Scripture useth it not: which because it deceives themselves and others, without disparagement to the worth of the users, I reject as a piece of late-minted gibberish, by which is insinuated, as if denying infants baptism were all one as to cut them off from the Covenant of grace, and that infants of believing parents are eo ipso in the Covenant of grace, and that the Covenant of grace must needs instate them in a title to baptism in the Christian Church. Which Hypotheses with many mote, Mr. Cobbet with othe●s have not yet proved, though he spends many leaves in his indistinct dictating way to prove them in his just vindic. part. 2. ch. 1. which so far as I find any thing needful of further examination than what I shall do in examining others w●itings, shall be examined by me, when I examine the paedobaprists suppositions about the Covenant and seal, as they call it, in my review of the dispute. But for present, laying aside his darkening terms, the question plainly expressed is, whereas jewish male-infants were circumcised, how come the jewish infants of believing parents to be denied baptism? The answer is: By the taking away of circumeision and appointing baptism onely to disciples of Christ who profess faith in him.  
In the 5th there is the same kind of mistake as in the former, as if the engraffing Rom. 11. 17. &c. were meant of admitting into the visible Church by an initial seal: whereas it is manifestly meant of engraffing by faith into the invisible church according to election, not a word of any ingrassing but of believers, nor the least hint of engraffing any barely by the parents faith. That because the engraffing again the jews, is meant in a collective sense, therefore infants must be included, is a dictate without proof, the falsity whereof is shewed before. That Isai. 61. 9. and 65. 23. are impertinently alleged to prove infants title to baptism is shewed before. The text Isai. 65. 20. is misalleged by Mr. Cobbet and Mr. Cotton in the beginning of his Dialogue, and others, to prove infan●s to be disciples, it being a prophesy of the long life of the jews after their return from captivity, rightly explained by the New Annot. on that place thus, He that is now a child shall attain to those years ere he die, and is to the same purpose as the prophesy of Zachariah ch. 8. 4, 5. Ezech. ●7. ●0. &c. is an express prophesy of the redeeming out of captivity, and uniting the jews and the 10 Tribes, not a word that hath any show of proof for infant-baptism; jer. 30. 19, 20. is a prophesy of the flourishing estate of the jews upon their return from captivity; Acts 2. 38, 39. is nothing to the purpose, as hath been proved in my Exercitation, Examen, Apol●gy, and more fully in this Disquisition, s. 5. Nor is there any thing either ●n Mr. M. or Mr. C. or any other I have met with, but mere dictates to prove either that the promise is v. 39. mentioned to show that the right to baptism follows bare interest in the promise, or that they were considered as believers in●itled to baptism, and entitling thereto their children in that speech according to the state they were in, in that instant when Peter spake those words, or that the promise doth belong to the infant-children whether called or no. But notwithstanding all that hitherto is said, it stands yet good which I have alleged, 1. That v. 39. is not a proof of their right to baptism, but a motive encouraging them to repent and to be baptized into the name of Christ. 2. That [ the promise is] is as much as the promise is fulfilled, as the parallel place Acts. 13. 32, 33. shows. 3. That it is said [ to them] in their dayes, and for them, not as then believers, but as jews of jerusalem to whom Christ was first sent and exhibited, Acts 3. 26. 4. That it neither is said to belong to them or their children or any afar off without calling, and so not to their infants as the infants of believers. Ezech. 16. 20, 21, 36. the jews children are said to be born to him and his children, not in a sense common to all believers children, but in a respect proper to the jews; if as Iunius in his note on v. 21. which he compares with Ierem: 20. 26. it be meant of their first born because they were Gods by special title, or any other of their children Daughters as well as Sons, as v. 20. shows, yet in either it was in a sense peculiar to the jews, whose children were Gods in a sense that proselytes children were not Gods, being brought out of Egypt, as is apparent from Levit. 25. 40. 46. &c. and their land called his land, Hos. 9. 3. in a peculiar respect, and therefore it is impertinently alleged both by Mr. Cobbet here and elsewhere often, and by the Assembly in their Confession of faith, ch. 25. art. 2. for believing Gentiles infants Church-membership. The conceit of Divines on Cantic. 6. 11. 13. of baptisms being the navel of the Church for infants is pretty, and may be sit for a Sermon to illustrate by it a thing otherwise proved, but not for a proof.  
In the 6th there is in like manner nothing but dictates upon mistakes, as if the fatness of the olive were Church-privileges, and these were Communicated from parents to children, as sap from greater boughs to lesser sprigs, and that if this were not, it would be poor and sad with believers, contrary to Rom. 11. 12. contrary to natures law, and the law of the tenor of the Covenant of grace. To all which as containing no new proof, I need say no more than what is said by me here and elsewhere.  
In the 5● section he answers objections, and first he answers to that which I allege in my Exercit. s. 5. page. 10. that federal holiness of itself entitles not to baptism, because Rom. 11. 16. the elect Israelites yet uncalled are federally holy, and yet not to be baptized, and therefore federal holiness( if that were granted to be meant 1 Cor. 7. 14.) would not entitle of itself infants to baptism. To this he answers, That the passage is meant of the body of the Jews collectively taken, yet not distributively meant of all parts of the Nation, but of the choicer part: which indeed takes not at all away the force of the objection, which urgeth that even the choicer part elect and in Covenant, yet either unborn or uncalled, are federally holy, but not baptizable. Therefore he flies to another distinction of federally holy, seminally and actually: in the former a person may be federally holy, yet not baptizable, but in the later he is; and so are the children of believers actually federally holy, and have a right to baptism: And then says it follows not, persons not in being which are federally holy only semnially and intentionally they have not actual Church-right, nor can actually be baptized; therefore persons existing and living which are federally holy actually they may not be baptized. To which I reply, 1. Mr. Cobbet proves not that 1 Cor. 7. 14. must be understood of federal holiness actual, and not intentional or semnial. Tertullian understands it as if it were as much as designati sanctitatis. Mr. Cobhet should have  told us when persons are federally holy actually in his sense, whether he means it to be as soon as they are existent, or as soon as they are called. If the former be meant, then it will follow the elect Jews, who shall hereafter be called, are federally holy actually as soon as they are in being; which doubtless will be many years afore they are called, and so professed infidels descended from professed unbelievers, which if granted, then when they are professed unbelievers, they are actually federally holy, and yet not baptizable, unless a professed infidel be to be baptized. If the later be said, that then persons are actually federally holy, and to be baptized when they are called, I agree. But then it will follow, though not as Mr. Cobbet forms the argument, yet thus. A person existent and federally holy actually may not have right to baptism till called, therefore a child may be holy federally actually, and yet not baptizable till called, and consequently federal holiness of persons existent will not prove right to baptism till they be called; the contrary whereto is supposed by them that infer the baptizability of persons existent from their actual federal holiness though yet uncalled.  
The 2d objection is not mine, yet because it is not well answered by Mr. Cobbet I shall not let it pass. The objection is to this purpose. The Jews onely are natural branches of that root, Rom. 11. 16. not the Gentiles, therefore if Church-privileges be communicated by natural propagation from the root, there the Gentiles children cannot by that passage challenge them as not coming by natural descent from Abraham. The answer is, that they are however in the root by grace and proportion. To which I reply, to be in the root by proportion is a new phrase. I know of no other way for Gentiles children to be in the root, to wit, Abraham, but by grace, believing as he did, and so the objection is strengthened, that no Gentiles children are in the root there, till they be believers. As for that which is said that the Jew branches were broken off that the Christian collective Gentiles might by grace be graffed in sc. in their stead, Rom. 11. 19. I grant it; but for the inference made in these words, Look then what Covenant and Church-right the Jewish parents had for their children in an hereditary way, the same hath the inchurched gentle for his children through grace, there is nothing that I know of in the text, or in the Antecedent, to infer this Conclusion. The text though it speak of the Gentiles collectively as engraffed, yet as Mr. Cobbet himself confesseth, it is not meant distributively of all the parts, but only of the choicer, and so no other are engraffed in the stead of the jews but the choicer part, to wit, believers: nor is the engraffing any other than by faith as is expressly declared v. 20. and this is not by any hereditary way, but by grace of election or mercy, v. 28, 29, 30, 31. Nor is it true that what Covenant and Church-right the jewish parents had for their children in an hereditary way, the same hath the inchurched gentle for his children through grace: For the jewish parents had the Covenant of the land of Canaan for their children in an hereditary way, Gen. 17. 8. but so have not the in churched Gentiles for their children; the Church-right of male-infant Circumcision, of the Passeover, &c. the jewish parents had for their children, which the Gentiles have not. Besides( which Mr. Cobbet foresaw) this were to make way for all children of Christian Gentile-nations to have right to Church-privileges: Nor is this inconvenience prevented by this answer, It sufficeth that thus far it holds, that as all and onely Church-members children were Ecclesiastically privileged among the jews, so all and onely Church-members children are Ecclesiastically privileged among the Gentiles. For 1. It is nothing but a dictate which is said. He saith it sufficeth that thus far it holds, but he doth not prove it thus far holds, nor doth he give any reason why it should not hold further, yea if he do not revoke his universal proposition, and unsay his own speech [ what Covenant and Church-right the jewish children had, the same gentle believers children have] he must aclowledge that it holds further, and aclowledge a national Church and Church-right, which Mr. Cotton in his way of New-England denies, and others of that judgement in point of Church-government. 2. Nor is is true that all and only Church-members children were Ecclesiastically privileged among the jews, sith the children of Israelites who were Apostates and Idolaters had the privilege of Circumcision and the Passeover, as the children of Ahab, Manasseth, &c. Nor is it true that all and onely Church-members children are Ecclesiastically privileged among the Gentiles. For the children of those that lived and died in the worship of Idols, in witch-craft, &c. have had right to baptism, &c. upon their conversion, as well as Christians children.  
The answer also to the third objection, which is [ that the Gentiles are engraffed in a way contrary to nature, and therfore this is nothing to the federal estate of Gentile-infants as coming of believing parents, and so in a way of nature] is insufficient. For neither the first converted Gentiles, nor their children, though their ancestors for many generations were believers, can be said to be natural branches in the Apostles sense, but besides nature. For it is clear that the term natural branches is appropriate to the jews: all Gentile-believers and their children are said to be engraffed besides nature, that is besides the natural course of descent from Abraham by natural generation.  
The answer also to the 4th objection is insufficient. For though the Gentiles that stand by faith are collectively taken, yet according to Mr. Cobbet himself, the Nation of the Gentiles is said to be engraffed onely in respect of the choicer part, which are believers. And when he saith the faith mentioned is not a bare personal faith respecting this or that gentle, but the Covenant of grace as it was held out to them and theirs jointly, and not barely as made to themselves personally, but as in reference to families and kindreds of the earth so embracing it: this is nothing to the objection, which is not from the object of faith by which persons are engraffed, that it is a personal promise, and therefore none but such believers are engraffed, but this, that those onely are said to be engraffed who believe, and therefore not infants, who believe not the promise either personal, or as in reference to families and kindreds of the earth so embracing it. Yet that men may not swallow down Mr. Cobbets dictates without heed I would warn Readers to observe, 1. That it is dangerous to say faith ingraffs, which looks to Gods Covenant as in reference to families and kindreds of the earth so embracing it. For thereby the object of faith as engraffing is made the Covenant not simply, but as embraced by kindreds, so as to believe that kindreds embrace it is made necessary to engraffing faith. Then suppose a person should believe the Covenant, and know not any else that embraceth it, he should not be engraffed by his faith; then onely knowledge of the Gospel is not sufficient to make known the object of faith, but narrations of others facts are necessary; then the first converted gentle, as for instance Cornelius, could not have engraffing faith, for then the families of the earth did not embrace the Covenant, with many more such absurdities. 2. That he saith, the unbelief of the jews for which they were broken off, was not barely the rejecting of the Covenant of grace as made to themselves personally, but as it was held out in Christ to them and theirs jointly. Which if true, then suppose a jew should have rejected Christ and the promise of grace as personally made to him, he should not have been cut off for this unless he rejected it also as jointly made to him and his; on the other side, suppose Christians believe in Christ and the promise of grace as made to them personally, but not as held out in Christ to them and theirs jointly, they should be by this doctrine not engraffed but cut off. For my part I have said often, and still say, it is a new Gospel that the Covenant of grace in Christ is made to a believer& his natural seed, nor do I find it in any of the texts name by Mr. Cobbet, jer. 31. 1. Acts 3. 25. Acts 13. 46, 47. Mat. 21. 41, 42, 43, 44. Rom. 9. 31, 32, 33. and 10. to the end. Rom. 10. 21. with 11. 1. &c.& v. 20. For though I find in these texts terms collective, yet I have learned from Mr. Cobbet to understand them distributively onely of the choicer part, which the passages themselves, for many of them, show onely to be meant of believers or elect persons, and so the Apostle expounds the nations to be blessed, Gal. 3. 8. of them that are of the faith of Abraham, v. 9. And whereas Mr. Cobbet saith, it is a gross mistake that none are subjects of the lump, Rom. 11. 16. but elect ones, nor any branches which were not such by faith in Christ, I presume I have proved it in my Apology page. 67. &c. to be no mistake at all; which I have vindicated from Mr. Gs. and Mr. ●s. objections here, that then some of the invisible Church should be broken off.  
The 5th objection recites the words of my Examen, and in answering it, Mr. Cobbet endeavours to overthrow my sense, 1. He objecteth that the branches broken off were really in Christ, because they that came in were in the place of the broken off; therefore if the broken off were not really in, neither were the engraffed. To which I answer, waving the dispute about the rendering {αβγδ} Rom. 11. 17. and allowing the reading [ for them.] If [ them] do refer to the branches broken off, then it doth not note that place which they had, but which they should regularly in course have had if they had not by unbelief been broken of. If[ them] do refer to the nation of the jews, then the meaning is, the Gentiles now engraffed were in the place which the nation of the Jews had in a former age, though now in that age that nation was branches broken off. 2. That the branches broken off are said to be partakers with them of the root and fatness of the olive three. I answer. The term[ {αβγδ} fellow or joint-partaker, if it refer to the branches broken off, it doth not intimate that the partaking was such as they had, but might have had if they had stood by faith in the root; if to the jewish nation, they were partakers in the branches of a former age. 3. That Abraham, Isaac and jacob were Fathers of the visible Church. Answer. I find not any evident ground to make any other than Abraham the root, who is the Father of the faithful, and so of the invisible church of true believers by his exemplary faith, no where said to be Father of the visible church. 4. That the fatness cannot be meant of saving graces, but Church-ordinances, because the former are not derived from the Church, but the later. To this I answered before: both are in the Church as the subject, neither from the Church as the cause: spiritual graces are said to be the olives fatness as the subject, though not as the cause of them. My words alleged by Mr. Cobbet out of my Examen page. 106. do not prove that I confess the fatness of the olive to be onely of Church-privileges,( which is denied by me page. 68.) yet I conceiving the olive to be meant of the People as well as the Church, said they were branches of the olive by birth, in which I confess I spake not so inconsiderarely as I hope I should do now having better I conceive understood the text by much discussing of it. I have now fully ventilated that text, omitting nothing of moment about clearing of it, that hath occurred to me; and I hope Mr. M. will remember his promise never to urge this text more for engraffing children with parents by an initial seal into the visible Church, to which it is impertinent, and others also will desist from the like urging it hereafter. However I have done my work about this text, I hasten to the other part of my present task to show that 1 Cor. 7. 14 is not meant of Covenant-holiness or state of separation to God derived to infant children from the faith of one parent believing, whereby they might be entitled to baptism.   

SECT. XI.  
Of the agreements and differences between me and Mr. Marshall concerning the sanctification and holiness mentioned 1 Cor. 7. 14.  
THe last text which M. Marshall allegeth to prove his second Conclusion in his Sermon, which in his Defence he thus expounds, That upon the parents visibly owning God and his Covena●t their children have this privilege that they should be reputed to belong to Gods kingdom, by which he means they should be baptized, is 1 Cor. 7. 14. which I called in my Examen his principal hold, and did therefore more largely examine what he said about that Scripture, than any other. In his Defence Mr. Marshals spirit seems to have been much moved that I said so much of it, interprets it as if I thought some strength in it, chargeth me with thrasonical vaunting &c. All which words I should not think worth the taking notice of, were it not that I am thereby misrepresented to them that know me not, as if I were some vain Glorioso, like a Fencer playing a part to show my skill, rather than seriously contending for truth, which had been abominable profaneness to play with holy things, and madness considering the detriment which then and sithence hath happened to me by reason of my engaging in that argument. Then he brings the matter of my discourse to three heads. First Our Agreements, Secondly, my Impertinencies, Thirdly, Our Differences. I inrend to follow Mr. Marshall foot by foot, though it be to mine and the truth's disadvantage, in that Mr. Marshall hath changed my method, and the sorting of my Arguments, which much tended to the right understanding of the Dispute: of which I complain in my Apology Sect. 13. page. 59. which I presume the Reader who searcheth for truth will heed being premonished.  
First, saith Master Marshall we agree, that Sanctified may have many senses, and that of those many, two onely are appliable in this place, either the matrimonial sanctification which you insisl upon, viz. chastity in the wife and husband, or lawful matrimony between them, and legitimation of the children, or else instrumental sanctification in the husband and wife, and federal holiness in the children, which I insist upon.  
An. It is true, for abridging the dispute, and bringing it to an issue, I say page. 72. of my Examen, there remain only two senses of the word sanctified: that is, there remain only two senses in question between us, that of instrumental sanctification, which was expressed thus in Mr. Marshals Sermon, the unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband quo ad hoc, so far as to bring forth a holy seed, the other matrimonial, which I did not express, as Mr. Marshall sets it down, Chastity in the wife and husband, or lawful matrimony between them, but thus, the other of Matrimonial sanctification, whereby the one is enjoyed as a chast yoke-fellow by another without fornication: So that by matrimonial sanctification here I understand not so much the lawfulness of the marriage in the first contract, as in the continued use and enjoyment, and expound [ The unbeliever is sanctified] by [ is lawfully enjoyed by his wife as a husband, notwithstanding his unbelief] which however Mr. Marshall headed not, it was necessary for him to observe, and would have prevented some of his objections, as I shall show afterwards.  
The second agreement he thus expresseth, that {αβγδ} may signify by, as well as in, whereas my words were, It is agreed that {αβγδ} may be red in, to, or by, so that he leaves out[ to] which he had acknowledged page. 24. of his Sermon, and was by him confirmed by the texts I brought in my Exercit. page. 15. Now though I mislike not the reading of[ in] if it be expounded as Beza and Piscator do, respectn uxoris, in respect of his wife, yet I agree with Beza that it is not to be rendered per uxorem, by the wife, which Mr. Marshall following the vulgar Latin and our last translation, for the most part useth, which reading will alone serve for Mr. Marshals exposition of instrumental sanctification, and therefore should have been proved to be the onely right reading: for he makes the faith of the believer the instrument or instrumental cause of the unbelievers sanctification for bringing forth a holy seed: which would not have been expressed by[ in] as Beza expounds it, or[ to] which barely note an object, no causality. And therefore unless he can gain that reading [ by the wife] as necessary, his sense of instrumental sanctification, will not agree with the phrase. For my part I conceive that the best reading is to red [ to the wife] as best expressing an object. And to clear it I alleged sundry places where {αβγδ} hath that sense. Dr. Homes Animadv. page. 52. 53. endeavours to elude them, but without success. mat. 17. 12. is so plain to my purpose, that what is there {αβγδ}, is Mark 9. 13. {αβγδ}, without the preposition; 2 Pet. 1. 5. is so plain that Dr. Homes his elusion can be taken for no other than a cavil; Col. 1. 23. {αβγδ}, is so plain, that unless we wiil run into Dr. Denn's wild conceit of preaching of the Gospel in the Sun, Moon, &c. we must needs red it [ to every creature] whereto I add, that of Grot. defence. fidei Cathol. de satisfac. c. 7. apud 
Pemble on Zach. 1. 9. {αβγδ} doth signify [ ad] as well as [ in] as Ps. 19. 5.& 91. 12  Hebraeos frequentissima particularium {αβγδ} & {αβγδ} permutatio, and that of Mr. Gataker Dissertat. adv. Pfoch. c. 18. where he observes in the Greek of the old Testament, Deut. 28. v. 60. {αβγδ}, et Reg. lib. 4. ch. 5. v. 27. {αβγδ}, adhaerebit in te, pro tibi, with sundry others: Yea Mr. Cobbet in his Just vindicat. page. 4. ch. 1. sect. 2. saith of this very place, by the particle[ {αβγδ}] in, to or by.  
To that Mr. Marshal saith of our third agreement I except not, nor to the fourth, saving that I wish when Mr. Marshal confesseth it to be an argument he had declared whether with me following Piscator in his scholy on the place, he takes it to be an argument from an absurdity which he knew the Corinthians would not grant. The 5th agreement I gainsay not, but deny the sixth, and though I grant the 7th yet deny Mr. Marshals collection from it, from the abuse of which I have cleared myself in my Apology s. 13. page. 58, 59. For the 8th I take his concession, that some interpreters both ancient and modern, do interpret this text as I do: nor do I deny that it were easy for him to bring ten for one, who interpret this text as he doth, if he understand it of those who are termed Calvinists, but if he comprehend Papists and Lutherans, I conceive he would fail of performing his undertaking, of Papists Chamier Panstrat. Cath. Tom. 4. lib. 5. c. 10. names onely Salmeron, and of the Ancients, Augustin peremptorily rejects it as impertinent. Tom. 7. de peccat. merito et remis. c. 26. Ac per hoc et illa sanctificatio cujuscunque modi sit, quam in filiis fidelium esse dixit Apostolus ad istam de baptismo et de peccati origine vel remissione quaestionem omninò non pertinet.  
As for the particulars wherein we differ, but the cause depends not at all upon them, to that of misciting Beza, I answered in my Apology s. 13. page. 59. To the testimony of Tertullian as interpreting this text of federal holiness, I have answered in my Apology s. 16. page. 85. To that of Athanasius in the Praecursor of this Review. To Mr. Blakes paralleling this place with Gal. 2. 5. I have spoken in the Postscript of my Apology, s. 9. My exception against Mr. Cooks, or Mr. Woodcocks speech, as if none afore Bellarmine had given the interpretation I give of 1 Cor. 7. 14. was not to show my reading, as Mr. Marshall it seems conceived, but to remove the prejudice which that speech if not answered might create against the truth, I hasten to that wherein the knot of the dispute lies, whether [ sanctified and holy] be meant of that santification and holiness which I call matrimonial, or of that sanctification which Mr. Marshall calls instrumental, and the holiness which he calls federal. Mr. Marshall speaks thus. The sense which you undertake to justify is, that it is a matrimonial sanctification, where the Apostle saith, the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, &c. the meaning is, their marriage is lawful, and their children are not unclean, but holy, the meaning is, they are not bastards, but lawfully begotten.  
Answ. 1. Mr. Marshall apprehended not rightly my mind, in that he sets, as according to my mind, the speech thus, The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife. It is true page. 75. it is thus printed once, If the unbelieving husband were not sanctified by the wife. But that was an error in the print, my written Copy which Mr. Marshall had by him having it otherwise, as I conceive by that first Manuscript of my Examen which I have yet by me; and though it were not put among the Errata by me, whether through mine or the Printers inadvertency, I now know not, yet the conclusion there, and the next page., and my use throughout that Section, and chiefly my determination page. 14, 15. of my Exercitation, might have occasioned Mr. Marshall to have otherwise recited my expressions as usually they are, the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife, or in the wife, that is in respect of his wife, if he had studied my writing exactly, and dealt candidly, which would have prevented his fifth argument.  
2. When Mr. Marshall expresseth my sense of matrimonial sanctification thus, their marriage is lawful, he doth not rightly express my mind. It is true page. 75. I speak thus, for no other holiness follows necessary to the children in that their parents marriage is lawful, and they born of such parents, but legitimation. But that expression was not for an explication of what I mean by marrimoniall sanctification, but to show the causes of legitimation. And all along where I express what I mean by matrimonial sanctification in the Apostles words, I still mean it not of the first entrance on marriage, but the continued lawful use of it, As page. 72. I say, the other of matrimonial sanctification, whereby the one is enjoyed as a chast yoke-fellow by the other without fornication page. 74. so that the sense is, the unbelieving husband is sanctified to his wife, that is lawfully or chastened used as a husband without fornication in respect of his own wife, whether believer or unbeliever; and after, yet marriage continues still, they are husband and wife, and so sanctified to each others use, in respect of their chast enjoyment of each other, and it is no sin for them to accompany together, notwithstanding the unbelief of the one party; and page. 76. I expressly deny the doubt was whether their wedlock were unlawful, but whether the believer might continue with the unbeliever in conjugal use. And page. 80. the sanctification of the unbeliever is meant of lawful conjugal copulation. Which if headed might have prevented Mr. Marshals inference Arg. 3. and some other of his mistakes.  
My meaning is this, the unbelieving husband, though an unbeliever, and so an unholy person, yet is sanctified to the wife, that is in conjugal use is as if he were sanctified, and so lawfully enjoyed as her husband: else were your children unclean, that is, if it were not so, that the unbelieving husband and wife might lawfully accompany together, your children which you have, or shall beget, would be unclean, that is base-born, but now, that is the lawful copulation of the parents being put, the children are holy, that is lawfully begotten. Mr. Marshals sense is, The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife as a believer, that is, by virtue of her faith is fitted, or made capable to beget a holy seed, else your children were unclean, that is, they should not belong to the Covenant of grace, so as to be taken to be members of the visible Church of Christ, and to be admitted to baptism: But now they are holy, even the infants upon their birth, by reason of the faith of the one party belong to the Covenant of grace, so as to be taken to be members of the visible Church of Christ, and to be admitted to baptism, Now the Reader may observe that neither Mr. Marshall, nor others that have opposed me in this point prove this sense of theirs, by showing the use of the words [ sanctified, unclean, and holy] in their sense elsewhere, or by showing by the analysis of the text, and the matter of it, that the sense they give must be the sense which should have been done by them bringing this text to prove Infant-baptism by it. Whereas on my part it had been sufficient to overthrow their interpretation, without giving any interpretation of my own. Yet because I desire to have truth cleared, I shall re-examine what hath passed in the dispure about this place, and add what I further conceive useful for the clearing of the text.   

SECT. XII.  
Mr. Marshals first argument against my exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. as meant of matrimonial sanctification and holiness from the use of the words[ sanctification and holiness] is largely answered.  
FIrst Mr. Marshal disputes against my sense of the words thus. Uncleanness and holiness when opposed one to another, are never meant of civilly lawful or unlawful, but are always used in a sacred sense, alluding to a right of admission into or use in the Tabernacle or Temple, which were types of the visible Church, and holiness is always taken for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred use.  
Answ. The argument I conceive stands thus. Those terms which are never meant of civilly lawful or unlawful, but are always used in a sacred sense, alluding to a right of admission into or use in the Tabernacle or Temple, which were types of the visible Church, and holiness is always used for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred use, cannot be taken for lawful use of marriage, bastardy or legitimation of children. But uncleanness and holiness when opposed one to the other are never meant of civilly lawful or unlawful, but are always used in a sacred sense, alluding to a right of admission into or use in the Tabernacle or Temple which were types of the visible Church, and holiness( or sanctification) is always taken for a separation of persons or things from a common to sacred use, Ergo. Hereto I say,  
1. That Mr. Marshall doth not prove that the Tabernacle or Temple were Types of the visible Church: its rather plain from John 2. 21. that it was a type of Christs own body; and Heb. 9. 24. the Holy place is made a type of Heaven, and if the Tabernacle or Temple be types of any Church they seem to be types rather of the invisible than visible Church, 1 Peter 2. 5. Nor doth he prove that ever a person is said to be holy for his right of admission into the Tabernacle, though I deny not but persons are called[ holy] being admitted to the service of the Tabernacle, from their relation to it; nor doth he prove that ever the word sanctified or holy was used to signify right of admission into the visible Church, though I deny not but from their admission they are denominated holy; nor do I believe Mr. Marshall can find in Scripture the word sanctified used in his sense, either for being designed, made capable, fitted, or made an instrument to bring forth or beget a holy seed, or the word holy for one that hath right to be admitted to the initial Seal as he speaks.  
2. I deny that the word sanctification or holiness is always taken for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred use, meaning as he doth by sacred use such as is about Gods immediate worship contradistinct from civill matters. I find indeed the words sanctified and sanctify to note some discretion and distinction from other things by way of exaltation, and p●e-eminence,( except when it is used {αβγδ}) as Mr. meed in his discourse on Mat. 6. 9. observes: but not always relating to Gods immediate worship. The Cities of Refuge are said to be sanctified Jos. 20. 9. yet not to the immediate worship of God, but the preservation of mans life, {αβγδ} Act. 21. 24. is meant of the Nazarites vow. See Ainsw. on Num. 6. 2, 3. Diodat. on Numb. 11. 18. sanctify yourselves] by abstinence and purification of any impurity, corporal or spiritual. The Medes Isai. 13. 3. are called Gods sanctified ones, yet not for any use about the Tabernacle, or Gods immediate worship, but as the New Annot.( which I am informed were made by Mr. Gataker) men prepared and appointed to execute judgement, Jerem. 51. 27, 28. and 1 Sam. 21. 5. when it is said, The vessels of the young men are holy, if by the vessels be meant the bodies, as the New Annot. expound it, referring to Acts 9. 15. 1 Thess. 4. 4. the holiness there seems to be only a freedom from the company of women. See Ainsworth on Levit. 15. 18.  
3. Though sanctification or holiness should be taken for separation of persons or things from common to sacred use, yet by conceiving an Acyrology, or Catachresis, that is impropriety or abuse of speech, the sense might be, as I conceive it most likely, to be thus understood, The unbelieving husband, though an unbeliever, is sanctified, that is, is all one to his wife, in respect of the lawful enjoyment of him as her husband, as if he were indeed sanctified to God. Piscator observes in his Scholy on the next verse before 1 Cor. 7. 13. Ne eum dimittito, {αβγδ} vel {αβγδ}, pro ne eum deserito, ne se ab eo separato, ne ab eo discedito, ut locutus est snpra 10. et infra. 15. Grot. annot. ad 1 Cor. 7. 13. {αβγδ} hic usurpat de muliere non dur â admodum {αβγδ}, quia etiam {αβγδ} potest dici {αβγδ}. Or nearer to my purpose 1 Cor. 10. 2. when it is said they were baptized, it is as Grot. in his annot. Baptizatisunt, id est quasi baptizati sunt, as if they were baptized. The New Annot. Because they were that unto them in type, which baptism is to us in truth, the Apostle saith by an Analogy, they were baptized unto Moses. Becman. Exercit. Theol. 11. Analogia quadam baptizari dicuntur. As for Mr. Selden desyned. Hebr. l. 1. c. 3. page. 42. though he conceive the baptism there to be meant of that which was oppointed by God, Exod. 19. 10. Yet saith it is wont to be understood of a figure of baptism, and as Grotius understood it, and cites Cyprian Ep. 16. Aug. tract. 11. in Joh. Hieron. Epist. 127. which I allege to show the vanity of Mr. Jo. Goodwins censure beforecited. As for Mr. Ainsworths conceit in his censure on a Dialogue of Anabaptists from Psa. 77. 16, 17, 18. that the Israelites were baptized with water, because the clouds rained then, it is but a conceit. For however that proves nothing for the sea, the Israelites were not washed with it, nor is it said that the clouds poured out rain on the Israelites: but as Junius, Piscator, Mr. Ainsworth himself in his Annot. on Exod. 14. 24. Psal. 77. 18. refer it to the horrible tempest of rain, hall-stones, thunder, lightning which fell on the Egyptians. The Israelites are only said to be baptized by an abuse or impropriety of speech. Which is by the way a sufficient answer to what Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Baillee, Mr. Philips, Mr. Cobbet and others bring from this text to prove Infant-baptism.  
4 If sanctification be always taken for separation from common to sacred use, then Mr. Marshals sense of instrumental sanctification is overthrown. For in his instrumental sanctification there's no separating of an unbeliever from a common to a sacred use. For in the unbelievers begetting a holy seed is no sacred use, it's as common and as carnal an act as any other he doth that is not in its nature sinful, neither in the nature of the act, nor intention of the agent having any thing of holiness in it: if the child be holy either internally or externally, it is merely by an accident to the unbelievers act. Nor doth the faith of the wife sanctify, that is separate the husband from a common use to a sacred. For then it must be either the presence of faith in her that doth it, or the actual exercise of it. If the presence or inexistence habitual of faith in the wife do sanctify the unbelieving husband, then either in the reality of it, or bare profession, if the former be said, then except there be faith in the reality of it, there's no sanctification, if the later, then the bare profession without reality can really sanctify an unbeliever to produce a holy seed; which is to make a false faith have a real effect. If the exercise of faith only do sanctify ( which Mr. Marshall seems to embrace, making the sanctification to be in the use in his Sermon) then it sanctifies by some vow, or prayer, or the like, and then the husband is not sanctified instrumentally by the faith of the believing wife, except she exercise such an act; which would make it uncertain to any baptizer, whether there were such a sanctification or separation. If it be said, he is separated in common estimation, then this sanctification is the fruit of common estimation, rather than of the faith of the one party, sith without faith he may be said to be sanctified, but not without this common estimation. I do thus argue to show how inconsistent Mr. Marshals description of sanctification is with his exposition of sanctification here. And besides the words of Mr. Cobbet in his just vindic. part. 1. ch. 1. sect. 2. pag. 5. do in my apprehension plainly make the sanctification here to be by exercise of faith. For he will have this phrase to note not only a lawful use, but also a holy use as believers, such as is meant 1 Tim. 4. 5. according to that Tit. 1. 15. Prov. 21. 4. which cannot be true of any inchurched professor, but onely of a true believer, and that too onely when true faith is exercised, whence no children will be holy, but those who have one parent a true believer, if this sense be good. But I return to Mr. Marshal.  
First, Whereas Mr. Marshall saith uncleanness and holiness when opposed one to another are never meant of civilly lawful or unlawful. To this I excepted. Nor do I like the calling it civil holiness or civilly lawful: for it is not from the laws of men, but the institution of God. I reply, saith Mr. Marshall, this is a poor shift. I answer, it was not used for any shift at all, but to prevent an advantage which my adversary might think to have by an incommodious expression, if it were allowed him. Mr. Marshall goeth on; By holy and civil we distinguish things belonging to the first and second Table. All second table duties are civil things, though their institution be of God: Civil Magistracy though instituted of God; obedience to Parents though instituted of God; and all the judicial laws given to the Jews about Meum& tuum; Were they not therefore civil because they were Gods institutions? or is marriage a business more concerning religion than these are? is it a sacrament? or how else is it more holy than these other civil things?  
Ans. Divines usually distinguish the duties of the two Tables into religious and civil, yet I know not that either they or the Scripture deny civil duties to be a part of holiness: which onely would prove that marriage because belonging to civil duties, is not to be denominated holy. Holiness and Righteousness are not so exactly distinguished, but that they interchangeably are applied to duties of both Tables. As for marriage I stick not at the calling of it a civil thing in some sense, as being among men regulated by civil laws, and serving for a civil end; yet considering that Beza, Mr. Marshall and others, use this as a seeming advantage to overthrow my interpretation, urging that according to it the Apostle should resolve the Corinthians conscience from the laws of civil policy, and that marriage being a civil thing, it cannot be termed holy, nor the use of marriage said to be sanctified, nor holy be as much as legitimate; I was willing to prevent that disadvantage. Mr. Marshall would not have marriage called holy, but thinks some inconsistency to be in my phrase of matrimonial holiness. He asks me Is marriage more holy than other civil things, as Magistracy, obedience to Parents, judicial laws about meum& tuum? I answer, Though I do not take marriage or Magistracy to be holy in Mr. marshals sense, for a state of separation to religious or sacred use, yet Magistrates being called Gods, and sons of the most high, Psalm 82. 6. even Cyrus is said to be anointed of God, Isa. 45. 1. they are called ministers of God, Rom. 13. 4. it is no strange or absurd thing to term Magistracy or Magistrates holy, or sacred, though a civil thing. And for marriage, besides what I said in my Examen page. 77. out of the English Liturgy. Mr. Ralph Cudworth, that of Grotius in mat. 19. 5. Matrimonium rem esse sacram magno consensu gentes crediderunt, it may be aded, that in Pagnins Thesaurus on the root {αβγδ}, it is observed by Mercer that Sponsalia Hebraei à sanctitate& castitate {αβγδ} & verbo {αβγδ} utuntur pro desponsare; and Illyricus in his Clavis Scripturae voice Sanctus, Mal. 2. 11. videtur sanctum vocari matrimonium sanctum Jehovae, id est matrimonium quod ordinavit& sanctificavit Dominus. The Helvetian Confession ch. 29. makes it a satanical doctrine to forbid marriage, quasi non sanctum vel mundum sit. Jewels Apology ch. 8. Divis. 1. We say that matrimony is holy and honourable in all sorts and states of persons: The Augustan Confession calls the Covenant of marriage most holy. The general Confession of the reformed Churches in Polonia exhibited September 1. 1645. We affirm that Matrimony is holy, and a divine institution. Zanch. in 1 Thes. 4. 4. sunt autem corpora nostra destinata ad sanctum conjugium. Ain●w. on Deut. 24. 5. Holy wedlock. Zuinglius de vera& falsa religione C. de matrimonio, Matrimonium sanctissima res est. Beza himself in his annot. on Mark 10. 9. Other contracts are merely human and civil, but marriage is a more Holy thing, and is therefore established in the Assembly itself of the Church the authority of God himself as it were coming between. And indeed our Saviour saith, that God himself joined the married, Mark 10. 9. And Solomon calls the marriage Covenant the Covenant of God, Prov. 2. 17. so that however magistracy, obedience to parents, judicial laws about meum& tuum be of Gods appointment, yet because of Gods special institution in Paradise, and not because it was, or is counted a Sacrament in the popish sense, marriage hath gained the appellation of holy before other ordinances of things pertaining to the second table. And forasmuch as the Assembly in the Directory for worship( as in like manner other reformed Churches and former people) have thought good to appoint the minister to direct the solemnity of marriage, and impart a marriage blessing, it should me thinks be allowed that marriage in some qualified sense, be rather termed holy than some other civil institutions, concerning which no such direction is given.  
Mr. Marshal goes on. You except secondly, Uncleanness may be taken for bastardy in allusion to a tabernacle use, bastards being numbered among the unclean. I reply, this is spoken without any proof, for although the Lord saith, Deut. 23. 2. that a bastard shall not come into the congregation of the Lord, it cannot be meant that bastards shall be numbered among the unclear, or having nothing to do about tabernacle or temple services, for there was the same law for Eunuchs, who were not excluded as unclean; no unclean person might eat the Passeover, might no Eunuch nor bastard eat the Passeover? It is needless to enter into a further discourse about that place Deut. 23. how or in what sense a bastard might not come into the congregation, whether by the congregation be meant the Sanhedrin as some, or whether his not entering be of bearing office as others, or of not marrying a wife an Israelitess as others; it matters not, it's sufficient they were not numbered among the unclean.  
Answ. Mr. Marshal had said, uncleanness is always used in a sacred sense alluding to a right admission into, or use in the tabernacle or temple, which were types of the visible Church, and he had said, that not coming into the congregation of the Lord Deut. 23. 2. is meant only of bearing office in the Church, or some such like thing, and not of being under the Covenant belonging to the Church. Now hence I inferred uncleanness for bastardy might be taken allusively to the Tabernacle, if the exclusion of bastards from the congregation of the Lord were an exclusion form the Tabernacle, which I supposed Mr. Marshall would grant of all that were excluded from bearing office in the Church, sith the offices of the Church were executed at the Tabernacle. To which I add, if unclean be taken allusively to the Tabernacle as a type of the visible Church, much more to the Commonwealth of Israel, sith the congregation or whole people of Israel were a type of the visible Church more expressly than the Tabernacle, as may appear by Gal. 6. 16. Ephes. 2. 12. 1 Pet. 2. 9. Yea Mr. Marshall himself in his Sermon page. 19. had mentioned the mongrel kind in Nehem. 13. 24. &c. as accounted unclean, and so to be put away, and the reason of the putting away as unclean is fetched Nehe. 13. 1. from Deut. 23. 3. in the next verse to which mention is made of putting away a bastard from the congregation of the Lord, and Ezra 9. 2. they are opposed to the holy seed: now the opposite term to holy is unclean, therefore if the mongrels by reason of that law Deut. 23. 3. were not a holy seed, they were unclean, and consequently bastards alike separated from the congregation of the Lord were not a holy seed, but unclean. The New Annot. on Deut. 23. 2. calls bastards a polluted posterity. But Mr. Marshal reasons thus, No unclean person might eat the Passeover, bastards might, therefore they are not reckoned among the unclean. I answer, I find Num. 9. 10. that the unclean that were defiled by a dead body, were not to keep the Passeover in the first month, but afterwards: and though the jewish rabbis do extend it to some other defilements, as Ainsworth in his Annot. on Num. 9 10. yet it is not likely to be extended any further than to transeunt defilements, not to permanent, sith it was not a denying of the Passeover but for a time. Therefore if there be such a law that no unclean person might eat the Passeover( which I have not found yet in those words) it is to be understood, not of all unclean persons in any sort, but of such as were accidentally and transeuntly made unclean for some dayes or moneths. It is a mistake, which Mr. Marshals reasoning supposeth, that a person was denominated unclean only by reason of defilement removing from the Passeover. There were sundry moral and legal uncleannesses among the jews, for which a person was not to be kept from the Passeover. Salmasius ad Colrium page. 587. Lex Mosis immundos dixit, qui alieni sexus uterentur vestibus. Deut. 22. 5. Levit. 21. 14. For the High-Priest to mary a widow had been to defile him, yet not to keep him from the Passeover. The like v. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. Whatever the exclusion were from the congregation of the Lord, it was for some uncleanness that bastards were excluded, and therefore they were reckoned among the unclean, which is enough for my purpose. Besides, saith Mr. Marshall, when you thus construe else were your children unclean, you make there a bastard and unclean to be termini convertibiles, consequently every unclean child must be a bastard; Now if any man would suppose, that bastards might be reckoned among the unclean, yet all unclean children must not be reckoned amongst bastards; all the children of the gentiles, were unclean, yet they were not bastards.  
I answer, my words plainly show the conrrary to that which Mr. Marshall here obtrudes upon me. I do not say bastards were the only unclean, but were numbered among the unclean, therefore I conceived other sorts of unclean persons than bastards. Nor is there a word in my Examen or any where else in my writings, wherein I make a bastard and unclean to be termini convertibiles. Yea, but you construe, Else were your children unclean, thus, else were they bastards. Answ. Be it so; how doth this follow that therefore I make every unclean person a bastard? Doth he that saith with the Apostle, to distribute is a sacrifice, infer therefore every sacrifice is to distribute? or he that saith fornication is uncleanness, say, every uncleanness is fornication.  
This is a slip of Mr. Marshals pen through inconsiderateness, or his and my logic are not the same.  
But saith Mr. Geree, bastards were not unclean in that sense, when the Apostle wrote this, and therefore the Apostle would not express bastardy by a word that was so obsolete, that the use of it was unwarrantable.  
Answ. 1. Bastards were unclean in that sense when the Apostle wrote this among the jews, who still conceived the Law of Moses in that sense to bind them.  
2. If this reason were good, that because bastards were not unclean to Christians, therefore the Apostle would not use a word allusively to a jewish use abolished, then neither would he use the word unclean and holy in allusion to a Tabernacle use in Mr. Marshals sense, for that was abolished to Christians; so that this reason is as much against Mr. Marshall as me.  
3. When Mr. Geree says that the Apostle would not use an obsolete word, that the use of it was unwarrantable, if he mean by unwarrantable that the use of a word is unwarrantable because obsolete, he insinuates a strange position, as if the using an obsolete word were unwarrantable, and so sinful, which how he will make good I know not: sure they that use Plautus, Ennius, Chancers, and others obsolete words may be taxed perhaps as offending against Priscia●s rules, but I do not imagine they offend against Gods law. If he mean that the Apostle would not use a word that alludes to an obsolete use of the jews unwarrantable to Christians, besides that it is to me a new notion of an obsolete word to call that an obsolete word which alludes to a custom grown out of use, whereas I always took that to be an obsolete word which is grown out of use among modern persons, the position of Mr. Gerce in that sense is palpably false, for in the same Epistle 1 Cor. 5. 7, 8. and else-where frequently Rom. 12. 1. Philip. 2. 17.& 4. 18. &c. he useth such allusive words: yea the holy writers in the New Testament throughout do usually speak with Hebraisms, and with allusions to the customs of the jews, as Mr. Gataker hath fully proved in his Exercitation against Pfochenius.  
Thirdly, saith Mr. Marshall, you refer me to the 1 Thess. 4. 7. God hath not called us to uncleanness but unto holiness, and desire me to tell whether uncleanness be not there meant of fornication, and by holiness chastity.  
Answ. Mr. Marshal sets not down for what purpose I referred him to that text, though I expressed myself plainly that I opposed the texts against his two positions, 1. About the use of the word uncleanness, of which he affirmed that when uncleanness is opposed to holiness, it is always taken in a sacred sense, referring to a Tabernacle use, to a right of admission into, or use in the Tabernacle or Temple, which were types of the visible Church. Against this assertion I opposed, 1 Thes. 4. 7. 2 Cor. 7. 1. 2. That holiness is always taken for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred use. Against this I opposed 1 Thess. 4. 3, 4. 1 Cor. 7. 34. Let us see what Mr. Marshall replies hereto. I answer, saith he, I prevented this in my Sermon, and shewed that chastity among the heathen is never called sanctification. The holy Spirit onely is the Spirit of sanctification, and the bodies of the heathens are not the Temples of the holy Ghost: but among believers it may be called so, because it is a part of the new Creation, a part of the inward adorning of the Holy Ghost, and though the Chastity of believers is only a moral virtue in respect of the object, yet in respect of the root, principle, end, it's a Christian virtue, and its an act of our religion to keep a mans self unspotted from the flesh, as well as from the world, Iam. 1. 27.  
Answ. 1. Mr. Marshall in all this, and that which follows, answers not a word to my allegation of 1 Thess. 4. 7. 2 Cor. 7. 1. against his first position, where plainly uncleanness opposed to holiness is taken for fornication, and so not in a sacred sense allusive to Tabernacle, or Temple, right, or use.  
2. All this discourse, in which he spends many words as if he were preaching not disputing, is to prove that chastity among the heathens is never called sanctification, and his reason is because it is not an effect of Gods sanctifying Spirit. To which I answer. The position may have two senses, one that chastity is never called holiness by heathens, and of that I shall say somewhat anon. The other, that the chastity of heathens is never called sanctification or holiness.  
This sense he seems to intend: But grants it may be so called in believers, which is enough for my purpose to overthrow his position, and reasoning. For if that be true which he grants, it will follow, that holiness is not always taken for a separation of persons, or things from common to sacred use, for in the chastity of a believer is not such a separation. Let any man tell me what sacred use a chast believing woman is separated for, in that she is chast, more than an unbelieving chast woman. Besides, when Mr. Marshall reasons that[ holiness or sanctified] cannot be taken for Matrimonially lawful, because marriage is a civill thing, no business of religion, a second table duty, these reasons are as well against the marriage and chastity of a believer, as an unbeliever, and therefore if they prove, that holiness cannot be taken for chastity in an unbeliever, they will prove it cannot be so taken in a believer, contrary to Mr. Marshals concession.  
2. Mr. Marshals reason to prove that chastity in a heathen cannot be called holiness, because the person is not truly sanctified, is vain. For vis et norma, the rule and measure of words, and their sense, is use, as Horat. de arte poetica: nor is the use of words always according to special reason, but ex placito, as pleased the users or beginners. Otherwise no reason can be given why from {αβγδ} the same root should come a noun signifying a Saint and a whore, {αβγδ} should signify to bless and to curse {αβγδ}, a crime, thing polluted, and a pious fact, {αβγδ}, a medicine, and a poison, sacer, holy and detestable, with many more the like. It is sufficient, that uncleanness doth plainly signify fornication, and then holiness opposite to it must signify chastity, for terms standing in direct opposition must have opposite senses. Besides Mr. Marshals reason supposing no virtue could be called holiness, but what comes from the Spirit of sanctification, is thus to be formed. That which comes not from the Spirit of sanctification cannot be called holiness, the chastity of an unbeliever comes not from the Spirit of sanctification, Ergo: If the mayor be good, it will overthrow Mr. Marshals own interpretation of federal holiness, which according to him comes not from the Spirit of sanctification, sith it may agree to children who neither themselves nor parents were ever truly sanctified. If it be said the Apostle will not call that holiness which is not, besides the falsity of it, that holiness is never meant but of saving holiness, it is against the frequent use of Scripture and other authors, that call the faith of hypocrites by the name of faith, the virtues of heathens by the names that signify such virtues, the righteousness of the Pharisees by the name of righteousness: though they be not in truth that which they are called.  
Mr. Marshal goes on. Besides, I now add there is no reason that that place 1 Thess. 4. should be restrained to fornication, because many other sins are name in that place besides fornication. Mark the words in the third verse, the Apostle tells them, that the will of God is their sanctification that every one should abstain from fornication, that no man go beyond, and defraud his brother in any matter. And then he gives this as a reason common to all the particulars, because God hath not called us to uncleanness, but to holiness: so that by holiness there is meant not only chastity but justice also; and what kind of consequence were there in such an argument, let no man go beyond his brother in bargaining, because God hath not called us to fornication, but to chastity?  
Answ. If holiness notes not only chastity, but justice also, then holiness may be taken for that which is civilly lawful, a second table duty, and is not always used in a sacred sense alluding to a right of admission into, or use in the Tabernacle or Temple which were types of the visible Church: nor is holiness always taken for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred use: but for a second table duty, which is civilly lawful, not only for chastity but also for justice, contrary to his former assertions. So that after much cavilling he is forced at last to yield that which I produced the text for, that holiness is taken for chastity. As for his dispute that holiness is not restrained to chastity, it hurts not me, who did not say it noted only chastity. Nevertheless I know not how to understand holiness in the 4th verse of any other virtue than chastity, when the Apostle saith, that every one of you know how to possess his vessel in holiness and honour. Sure most of the interpreters I have met with restrain it to Chastity. Piscator in his scholy on 1 Thess. 4. 4. is express, Hic Nomen {αβγδ} accipitur specialiter de castitate, ut liquet ex anti●hesi.  
The Comment ascribed to Hierom, suum corpus unusquisque castum servando sanctificet et honoret; Illyricus in his clavis Scripturae on the word sanctus, Aliquando haec novae obedientiae sanctificatio ad solam castitatem restringitur, 1 Thess. 4. 3, 4, 7. 1 Tim. 2. 15. Revet. in Exod. 20. 13. Castitas 1. ad Thess. 4. v. 4. aptissimo nomine vocatur {αβγδ}, & Gal. 5. v. 22. {αβγδ}; Beza, Zanch. Grot. refer us to that which is 1 Cor. 6. 18. Rom. 1. 24. which show they took the sense to be, to possess our bodies in chastity. And according to them that by his own vessel understand his own wife, as Aug. de nupt. c. 8. which Heinsius in his Exercit. confirms from 1 Pet. 3. 7. and otherways, it is much more plain, that holiness is referred to chast copulation in opposition to adultery, and such like uncleanness. And though I did not in my Examen restrain holiness v. 7. to chastity, as Mr. Marshall seems to construe my words, yet there want not learned men who restrain the holiness there to chastity: yea after Chrysostom, Theodoret, the greek Scholiast, Diodati, Daniel Heinsius in his Exercit. on the New Testament lib. 13. c. 2. doth largely dispute the thing, and determines that going beyond v. 6. is going beyond the bounds of marriage, and defrauding the brother is by adultery, as David did Uriiah. But if it be granted that the going beyond and defrauding is in respect of goods, yet the Apostles consequence may be good, let no man defraud his brother in bargaining, for God is the avenger of such things, and let a man possess his vessel v. 4, 5. because God hath called us to holiness, that is to chastity. v. 7.  
For it is not always necessary that the reason should be understood as referring to that which is next to it: instances may be given to the contrary in which is inversion of order, as 1 Cor. 7. 16. is a reason to persuade to the resolution v. 13. 1 Tim. 5. 24. is a reason of the precept, v. 22. not of that which comes between as Diodati observes. Dr. Hammond in his treatise of the power of the keys makes it frequent. And before him Illyricus in his tract of Schemes in the Scriptures.  
Mr. Marshal goes on. Whereas you allege Beza thus interpreting this text v. 3. This is the will of God even your sanctification i. e. saith Beza, that you abstain from fornication, and upon this ( id est) you build much, therefore I shall consider it. Sir id est put in by Beza, hath reference not only to that which doth immediately follow, namely that you abstain from fornication: but to the 6. verse also, that no man go beyond and defraud his brother. Beza saith, id est ut abstineatis, ut ne quis opprimat et habeat quaestui. It being ordinary to have instances given in the second table, when the duties of the first table are principally intended; that the Holy Ghost might meet with hypocrites, who are apt to put all their holiness in outward performances. Yea Beza in the same place in his Annotations upon the word {αβγδ} refers him to John 17. 17. and his note upon John 17. 17. is this, sanctum autem dicitur quod Dco peculiariter devotum ac consecratum est; an expression agreeable to the Hebrew notion, and therefore Beza addeth, est autem hoc vocabulum profectum ab Hebraeis: so that by Beza we are brought back to the notion of devoting and consecrating things to God.  
Answ. That which I build on Beza's id est was onely this, that holiness is not always taken for a separation of persons and things from common to sacred uses, as Mr. Marshall affirmed. And that truly follows from Beza's id est. For though he comprehend also oppression and defrauding v. 6. under holiness v. 3. yet he doth also comprehend under holiness as a branch or part of it the abstaining from fornication, v. 3. the possessing the vessel in holiness and honour v. 4. not in the lust of concupiscence, v. 5. which are enough to prove that chastity is a part of holiness and that holiness is not always put for a duty of the first table, or for a separation from common to sacred uses.  
If that which is added by Mr. Marshall tend to this, that these duties of the second table are not brought as branches or parts of holiness, but as properties of a holy man, and so make the instances here like that of James 1. 27. I answer, The matter there is not like to this; it is true james chap. 1. 27. as likewise chap. 2. 14. &c. doth of purpose apply himself to discover an hypocrite by his unmercifulness, but here the Apostle makes it his business to direct and mind them how to walk answerably to their calling v. 1. 2. 7. and accordingly tells them that the will of God was their sanctification, and instances wherein it consists, to which Beza puts in id est, than which a plainer expression cannot be to show those to be branches or parts of the Commandement concerning holiness, and not properties or adjuncts onely of a holy person. As for the referring us to John 17. 17. by Beza, there is nothing either in that text or Beza's annotation on it to prove Mr. Marshals position, or disprove my allegation of 1 Thess. 4. 3, 4, 7. against it. It is true, he says that is holy which is peculiarly devoted and consecrated to God, but he doth nor say that nothing is called holy, but what is thus devoted and consecrated, and when he saith that the words[ holy and sanctify] come from the Hebrew, how little advantage that gives to Mr. Marshall for his position, and how much to the contrary, hath been shewed already.  
Mr. Marshall proceeds. But you yet endeavour further, and turn and wind the words every way, and run over all words that are of the same tribe or kindred {αβγδ}, because you cannot find {αβγδ} among the heathen, and in the end you have found an instance in Stephanus Thesaurus where {αβγδ} signifies Castimoniam servo( I am chast.)  
Answ. I know not what Mr. Marshal calls turning and winding words every way, or the running over all the words that are of the same tribe or kindred. This I did: I inquired as much as my time and means would permit about the use of the word {αβγδ} among the heathen, because Mr. Marshall said chastity among heathen is never called sanctification; which might have this sense, that the heathens never called chastity {αβγδ} or sanctification. And this I thought necessary for examining Mr. marshals position about the words[ uncleanness and holiness.] And I alleged( not as Mr. Marshall miscites my words {αβγδ}, but) {αβγδ}, coming from the same root, with {αβγδ}, as used for holiness and chastity very frequently, both in Scripture and all sorts of Greek Authors. And put in the margin Grot. Annot. in Mat. 5. 8. solent pro eodem usurpari {αβγδ} et {αβγδ}. And if it had then occurred, I should have added this of George Pasor in his Lexic. in voice {αβγδ} castus, 1 Thess. 5. 26. {αβγδ}, osculo sancto, hoc est casto. Now to this nothing is said by Mr. Marshall but only to the allegation of the verb {αβγδ} which Stephanus renders castimoniam servo, and confirms it out of Demosthenes, against which Mr. Marshall speaks thus.  
But first Stephanus speaks but doubtingly, he puts in videtur, which you leave out.  
I answer, I have not now Stephanus to examine this, but Scapula his abbreviator in voice {αβγδ} hath {αβγδ}, item castimoniam servo, and I might be allowed to city Stephanus as he doth.  
Mr. Marshall adds, Besides, {αβγδ} is usually meant {αβγδ}, So Suidas.  
Answ. Be it so, yet that it is used at any time for castimoniam servo is enough for my purpose.  
He adds, and the very instance which you from Stephanus have brought out of Demosthenes makes directly against you. For the Priest saith, I offer sacrifice, and I am in case to do it, for I am pure from the company of man, {αβγδ}, and all other things which might pollute me: that is I am holy according to my order, and therefore fit to do my office. These last words which give the full sense of the place, you have( not very fairly) left out of your quotation.  
Answ. Whether[ {αβγδ}] be to be rendered [ I am chast] as Stephanus and Scapula, or [ I offer sacrifice] as Mr. Marshall, I cannot well judge, having not that oration of Demosthenes to peruse. My allegation of that passage was upon Stephanus his credit which is very great for his exact skill in the Greek. That I left out some words serving to give the full sense of the place, was done fairly by me, sith being put in, as they would not have furthered my purpose, so neither do they hinder it: but still it appears, that Chastity among heathens was reputed to have something of holiness, which this place confirms, in that the Priest counts her self holy, and fit to offer sacrifice, because she was clean, and chast or pure, as from other defilements, so from the company of man. Which shows the company of men was counted to have somewhat of uncleanness, and chastity of holiness. Which conceit is agreeable to what we find in Scripture, Exod. 19. 15. 1 Sam. 21. 4, 5. Grot. in Exod. 19. 15. Pars haec sanctificationis. 1 Sam. 21. 5. 1 Cor. 7. 5.  
Mr. Marshall proceeds. Yet you make another supplement out of 1 Cor. 7. 34. That she may be holy in body and spirit, and demand whether the meaning be not that she may be chast. I answer, the plain meaning is that she being free from worldly distractions is at more liberty to give her self wholly to godliness, than others can, who have these worldly avocations: and in truth it is a pretty odd sense which you have invented of this place, the unmarried cares for the things of God that she may be chast; but she that is married cares for things of the world how she may please her husband. I wonder what learned man concurs with you in this? I doubt in this rare interpretation you are all alone.  
Answ. All I said was this; And when the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 7. 34. that she may be holy in body, is it not meant that she may be chast? not to make any supplement as if there were a defect in the tex●s alleged, but because I thought that holiness there had been opposed to sin, as 2 Cor. 7. 1. and then chastity had been a part of holiness of body.  
But I stand not upon this place, conceiving Mr. Dicksons observation to be right, that holiness is opposed not to sin, but to civil and common, and so holiness of the body is restrained to praising of God and such like holy exercises of the body. Yet because Mr. Marshal puts me to it, I might tell him that the Commentary among Hieroms hath this note, sancta corpore ac usu conjugali, which is by chastity or ꝯtinence, and that sanctity notes a separation of the body from conjugal use, and a separation of the spirit from worldly cares, as well as dedication of both to God. And Rivet. in Exod. 20. 13. applies it to chastity. But there's no need to make use of this text, holiness being so manifestly used for chastity, 1 Thess. 4. 4.  
Mr. Marshall adds. When I added that even the meat and drink of believers sanctified to them serves for a religious end and use to refresh them who are the Temples of the Holy Ghost; You answer me, it seems in eating and drinking they do an act of Religion; to which, I need no other reply than your next words, that they are sanctified to them by the word and prayer, they receiving them after an holy manner with faith, supplication and thanksgiving, &c. And that this place of Timothy doth hold out more than a lawful use is most apparent, because it is such a use of the Creatures, as the heathens had not, who yet had a lawful use of the Creatures; and it is such a use as is appliable onely to believers, and such a use as is procured by the word and prayer; and although wicked men do not do an act of religion in feeding the bodies of the Saints, because all their actions are unclean; yet believers have an holy use of those Creatures which heathens feed them with, having the word not only to warrant the use of them, but prayer to procure Gods blessing to that end for which they eat and drink, which is to live to God.  
Answ. Had Mr. Marshall dealt rightly, he had set down my words, which were, Is it a religious end and use to refresh them who are the Temples of the Holy Ghost?( as Mr. Marshals words in his Sermon plainly imported.) Then the Godly in eating and drinking do an act of religion, because they refresh themselves. And after, If refreshing the Temple of the Holy Ghost be a religious use and end, then the inordinate eating of a godly man, or the feeding of a godly man by a profane person, is a religions use and end; wherein the thing I excepted against was not that which Mr. Marshall spends words unnecessarily to prove, though I expressly granted it in my Examen page. 81. that the meats and drinks of believers sanctified to them, serve for a religious end and use, so that they have not only a lawful but a holy use of their meat and drink, which unbelievers have not: but this I excepted against, that Mr. Marshall makes it a religious use and end to refresh them who are the Temples of the Holy Ghost, from whence the absurdities I inferred follow, Nor hath Mr. Marshall a word in his reply to evade them.   

SECT. XIII  
The 6th and 7th of Mr. Marshals additional arguments about the words[ sanctified and holy, 1 Cor. 7. 14.] are answered.  
I think it most convenient for elucidation of this point to answer here Mr. marshals 6th. and 7th. additional arguments page. 155. 156. of his defence, as being about the use of the words[ sanctified and holy.]  
Secondly, saith Mr. Marshall, my second I take from your own words page. 73. where you say, the sanctification of the unbeliever here is such a sanctification as is parallel to 1 Tim. 4. 5. where the Creatures are sanctified to the pure by the word and prayer, therefore there must be more meant than the heathens are capable of, therefore another sanctification than matrimonial sanctification, for that the heathens had: if therefore this must be such a sanctification as that place in Timothy means, it must be a sanctification peculiar only to believers.  
Answ. Mr. Marshall misrecites my words, and mistakes my meaning, I do not say in the place he cites, that the sanctification here is such a sanctification as is parallel with that 1 Tim 4. 5. but only say, that this may be the sense I gather from the like use of the word {αβγδ}, 1 Tim. 4. 5. which likeness I make, not in asserting the sanctification here to be such a sanctification as that place in Timothy means, but that as 1 Tim. 4. 5. it signifies lawfully enjoyed, so here, though in a different manner, and from a different reason or cause.  
Mr. Marshall goes on page. 156. Thirdly, yet a third argument I take from your own words: you have endeavoured( though in vain) to show that bastards may be called unclean, and holy may be called chast; but you do not, and I believe you cannot, produce out of the Scripture the least show of a proof that holiness signifies legitimation; you are holy, id est, you are lawfully begotten; if you can, pray let us have it in the next.  
Answ. Whether I have endeavoured in vain to show that bastards may be called unclean, and holy chast, I am willing the unprejudiced Reader should judge. If I do not produce out of the Scripture the least show of proof that holiness signifies legitimation, the same may be said of Mr. Marshall and all others that I have met with, they do not, and I believe cannot, produce out of the Scripture the least show of a proof that holy signifies federally holy in their sense, that is, by virtue of defcent from a believer to be capable of an initial seal or first sacrament as they use to speak: if they can, I pray that they would let us have it in the next.  
The texts brought by Mr. Cobbet in his Just vindic. part. 1. ch. 1. sect. 5. do none of them prove that the term [ holy] signifies federally or Ecclesiastically holy in the sense wherein they would have it here taken, to be capable of an initial seal or first sacrament. Many of the texts have not the word [ holy] in them, sundry are brought to prove that which is not denied, that the visible Church may be called holy, to have the adoption, to be chosen, though there be tares as well as wheat. Ezra 9. 2. [ holy seed] doth not note that which is capable of the initial seal. For both the holy seed, to wit, Israelitesses were uncapable, and the unholy or unclean seed were capable of Circumcision, as all born in Abrahams house, Gen. 17. 12. But[ the holy seed] there notes that seed which was descended from both parents Israelites, and not by mixed marriage of women of impure Nations, and therefore [ the holy seed] is no other than a legitimate seed, according to Moses law, and consequently if the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. did allude to Ezra 9. 2.( as it seems somewhat likely) there is a plain place to prove that [ holy is as much as [ legitimate] that is, a seed allowed now by God, however it were heretofore when the Gentiles were strangers from the Commonwealth of Israel. Dan. 8. 24. {αβγδ}, Junius populum sanctorum, the people of holy ones, notes the jews destroyed by Antiochus Epiphanes mentioned 1 Mac. 1. 24. &c. who are called the people of holy ones, because of Gods Covenant, worship, laws, love, favour to that people, not precisely from right to an initial seal; if in any relation to Circumcision, it was, not because they had title to it, but because they had it. Deut. 14. 2.& 26. 18, 19.& 28. 2. 9. prove not that holiness doth note barely a right to the initial seal, but a distinction from other people by Gods love, choice, laws, and their obedience to them. Ezek. 16. 8. 20, 21, 23. compared with Jerem. 2. 2, 3.& 3. 1. Isai. 54. 4. 5. prove not that holiness notes a right to Circumcison, but a peculiar state of separation to God by virtue of his Covenant with them, and love to them. Their children are called his, and said to be born to him, because of that claim he had to them jure dominii& jure faederis saith Piscator in Ezek. 16. 20. not from their right to Circumcision. 1 Pet. 2. 9. alludes to Exod. 19. 5, 6. but it is not said of any but the invisible Church of the elect, as I prove in the Postscript to my Apology in answer to Mr. black s. 8. not yet refuted by any I know.  
And for the urging me to bring a place in Scripture, where the word is in the same sense, or else it must not be so construed here, i● is an unreasonable thing to require it. For it is acknowledged commonly by learned men, that words are found sometimes in such senses in all sorts of Authors as they have no where else. Meric. Casaubon in his Diatriba de verborum usu, page. 67. &c. to Grotius on Phil 2. 6. saying that {αβγδ} in our books signifies not some inward or hidden thing, but that which appears to the eyes, and therefore it signifies not the essence of God, but divine power of doing miracles, he answers, Rectè, modo nihil obstet, quò minus usitata verbi significatio retineatur. Tum enim certè usitatam significationem minus usitatae praeferre rectum est. Nam alioquin nullum non scriptorum genus earum vocum exempla suppeditat, quae vel rarò vel sortasse apud eundem scriptorem non omninò nisi semel tali notione, quam con extus ibi ratio manifestò requirit, occurrent, Imò non pauca, quae longè diverso vel etiam contrario sensu una eademque paginâ, non dicam sententiâ: qua'e quod apud Thucydidem {αβγδ} arma sumere et deponere, intra unius ambitum sententiae à do●t is notatum. Ita fert communis loquentium usus. He gives instances in the use of {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} in the same place according to Grotius his own mind, and in the use of {αβγδ} John 17. 17. 19. by the agreeing consent of interpreters. Mr. Seaman of Ordination pag. 36. And it is as certain that many Greek words are used in the New Testament in such a sense as they are no where else to be found: those common words of {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, are enough to prove it. He allegeth this to justify the expounding of {αβγδ}, Acts 14. 23. of laying on of hands Mat. 18. 17. being alleged for Church-censures committed to Church-officers in the Confession of 
Norton resp. ad quaest. Apollon. c. 4. page. 63. adhuc serio desideramus, ut edatur locus in Novo Testamento ubi presbyterium vocatur Ecclesia.  faith advised by the Assembly ch. 30. Art. 2. I conceive they understand by the Church the Presbytery or Church-officers, and by let him be to thee as an heathen and a Publican, excommunication, yet I think they cannot show in Scripture where the Church is taken for the Presbytery or Church-officers, and Mr. Gillespy in his Aarons Rod, &c: 3d book ch. 2. pag. 365. let him be to thee an heathen and a publican is a phrase never used else-where in Scripture. Many more such instances might be given out of other places: but I will confine myself to the same Epistle 1 Cor. 7. 3. the Apostle in this very chapter useth {αβγδ}, the giving due benevolence, for conjugal copulation, following therein the manner of all Nations using seemly forms, {αβγδ}, commended in Gellius noct. Att. l. 9. c. 10. in matters of marriage duty, and yet Mr. Gataker advers. Pfoch. c. 11. saying undecunque id hauserit, intimates, he knew not where else it is so used 
meed paraph. on 2 Pet. 3. p. 15. it would be long to show in how many words the Apostles and the Greek Scriptures written according to their dialect use notions, which the Greeks used not, viz. respecting some conformity or other with their own language.  in any Greek Author, unless following him. Salmasius ad Colrium pag. 693. says, 1 Cor. 11. 10. per {αβγδ} Apostolum intellexisse velamen extra controversiam est, cum de eo inter omnes constat, and yet, no where else is it found to be used in that sense. All that singularly learned man could bring for it besides the context, is an allusion to Levit. 13. v. 45. which is far more obscure and unlikely than my confirming the use of unclean for bastards, by allusion to Deut. 23. 2. The sense of the word {αβγδ} v. 14, 15. the same Author both there and in the Dialogue de coma, after a large and exact examination of it, makes a womanish dress of hair, distinguishing the sex, though he find onely something in Hesychius Artimedorus, and some other conjectures not just in that sense in any place else, because it best suits with the matter. More such examples might be brought both out of that Epistle and other Scriptures where the sense of a word or phrase is only gathered from the context, and cannot be confirmed by the use thereof in that sense elsewhere. Now whether I have proved that the sense of the word holy is most rightly, yea necessary, to to be understood of legitimation, as from the concurrence of interpreters, so from the matter and Analysis of the words, will appear by perusing my Exercitation and Examen, and this review, compared with the contrary writings, specially by weighing the argument which Mr. Marshall calls my 8th. exception. Besides, when Mr. Marshall confesseth that I have endeavoured to show that bastards may be called unclean, sure there is brought by me a show of proof, that holiness signifies legitimation, which Mr. Marshall denies. For it followeth plainly by the rule of direct Opposites in logic, which is, that they are to be understood in opposite senses, if by unclean be meant bastards, by holy must needs be meant legitimate: yea Mr. Marshall acknowledging my Analysis of the Apostles argument to be right, page. 46. and that those words Now are they holy to be the Assumption of it, Holy must needs be all one with not unclean, or else the Apostles argument hath four terms. Wherefore I infer, that if I endeavoured to show bastards may be called unclean, in doing this I did also make a show of a proof, that holy signifies legitimate, which Mr. Marshall denied, but I added also something from Mal. 2. 15. which whether it yield a show of proof to prove holy signifies legitimate, comes now to be examined.  
Mr. Marshall saith thus, Sure I am, that place Mal. 2. 15. That man might seek a holy seed, or rather a seed of God, will give you no help: for though a seed of God in that place might be interpnted( as Mr. Calvin would have it) for legitimate, because( as he says) that uses to be called divine, which is excellent, as a legitimate seed is in comparison of a spurious, yet that is nothing to holiness. The word in the Hebrew there used is not a holy seed, but a seed of God, an eminent, and excellent seed, as all eminent or notable things use to be called; great Armies are called the Armies of God; great and high hills are called the hills of God; great and tall trees are called the trees of God; so that take a seed of God in that place for a legitimate seed, yet there is nothing to prove that holiness may signify legitimation, though for my own part( place tanti viri) I humbly conceive the Prophet intended not a legimate seed onely( as Mr. Calvin would have it) but to show what was Gods chief end in the institution of marriage, viz. The continuance of a seed of God, wherein the Church is to be propagated to the end of the World.  
Answer, I deny not but that as many interpreters read [ one] in the Nominative Case, and apply it to Abraham, so they make a seed of God such as might serve God and not Idols, nor that sundry of those that read [ one] in the Accusative, as our Translators do, make a seed of God to be more than a legitimate, to wit, a just or godly posterity. Yet there are together with Calvin other learned men that do extend it no further than legitimation. Thus of late Theodorus Strackius hypomn. in Heresb. Hist. Anabap. page. 64. Mr. Cobbet in his Just Vindic. part 1. ch. 1. sect. 4. when he saith, the children of each man and wife are a seed of God, or of his institution in general approbation, as Mal. 2. 15. truly proveth. And the reason is, that which I set down in my Examen page. 77. to wit, that the text speaks of the first institution of marriage, the proper end of which was, not a seed of God distinct from the wicked, but a lawful seed distinct from spurious by loose and uncertain copulation. As the proper genuine end of marriage, as such, was in respect of the parties their natural solace and help by society; though God intended also that as his Creatures they should serve him, an end agreeing to them as Creatures, and common to Angels that mary not: so in respect of their posterity, though God intended also that they should be godly, yet the proper and genuine end of the marriage was only the having them lawfully begotten, which very thing was it which the Prophet intended in opposition to he jews Polygamy and divorces upon insufficient causes.  
Now this reason Mr. Marshall hath not at all answered, though he tells us what he humbly conceives, which little satisfies his Reader without giving reason of his judgement. Now if this be granted, then it is much to the business of holiness, a seed of God and a holy seed being terms of the same sense here: And so Piscator in his Analysis of Mal. 2. 15. Institutio conjugii declaratur ex fine, quod volvit ut per tale conjugium procrearentur liberi sancti: in his scholy, seemen Dei id est liberos sanctos ex Dei institutione in legitimo conjugio nato●. Diodati and the New Annot. He might seek,] Gods chief end in this proce●ding was that the posterity might be sanctified being born in chast wedlock according to his appointment, whereas it is defiled by all manner of unlawful conjunction: And even the confession of faith advised by the Assembly ch. 24. art. 2. marriage was ordained for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with a holy seed, and in the margin no other text is alleged to prove this proposition, but Mal. 2. 15. which evidently shows that a holy seed, and seed of God, are terms equipollent in the Assemblies judgement. Whence I infer, that if by [ seed of God] be meant no more than legitimate, Malac. 2. 15. and that a seed of God, and a holy seed, is all one, it is no mere imagined sense, but such as hath show of proof, yea and strength too, the matter itself leading to it, to interpret holy by legitimate, 1 Cor. 7. 14.  
As for that which Mr. Marshall adds. Now according to your interpretation of holiness for chastity, the Apostles argument must run thus, If your marriage were not lawful, your children would be bastards, but now they are chast, which serse were too ridiculous, which to av●id you are compelled instead of chast to say legitimate, without any example of such a use of the word holy.  
Answ. All this runs upon Mr. marshals mistakes of my forming the Apostles reason, which is not, If your marriage were not lawful at first entering, but in the continued use of it in cohabitation and conjunction, your children would be bastards, nor do I say, but now are they chast, but legitimate, nor am I compelled to expound holy by legitimate from any other thing than clear evidence of reason in Analysing the text, and whether I or Mr. Marshall have shewed better example of our use of the word [ holy] let the Reader be judge. The word [ holy] Ezra 9. 2. to me is all one with legitimation.  
Mr. Geree in his Vindic. Paedobap. page. 27. speaks thus. Besides( as I think) Mr. black hath well observed, Who call children unclean or holy for the parents act? The accident denominates the subject where it is, not another. Now uncleanness and chastity are not in the children, but in the parents, and therefore to call the children unclean or holy for their parents chastity or unchastity is most uncouth and unproper; and therefore not to be adm●tted in the Apostles words.  
Answ. If none call children unclean or holy for the parents act, how is it true which Mr. Geree and Mr. black make children federally holy or unclean for the parents believing or not believing?  
Formal denominations are, to speak exactly, always from the form denominating: which is not always an accident, but sometimes a substance, as from a head headed; 
Kecker. syst. Log. lib. 1. p. 2. c. 1. Burgersd. Instit. Log. lib. 1. c. 25. n. 7.  and not only from an accident inherenr, but also adjacent, as from a coat coated. And sometimes men use a causal denomination, as from heating hot. I call not children unclean or holy, from the parents chastity or unchastity as from a form formally denominating: But when I say from the parents lawful copulation a person is holy or legitimate, from their loose and unlawful copulation unclean or illegitimate, I mean such copulation is the cause, and the denomination( if the term befit) caussal: but formally children are unclean, that is illegitimate, for their uncleanness of birth or illegitimation, and holy, that is legitimate from, their holiness of birth or legitimation. But these are niceties. I hasten to examine Mr. marshals arguments from the matter of the Apostles discourse.   

SECT. XIV.  
Mr. Marshals second argument to prove the sanctification 1 Cor. 7. 14. to be meant of instrumental sanctification and holiness federal, because the person in whom the other is said to be sanctified was a believer, is answered.  
MY second argument saith Mr. Marshall was. Had this been the meaning else were your children unclean, but now are they holy, else had your children been bastards, but now are they legitimate, the Apostles answer had not been true, because then if one of the parents had not been a believer, and so by being a believer had sanctified the unbeliever, their children must have been bastards, whereas we know the children born in lawful wedlock are legitimate though both the parents were unbelievers. To which you answer, this privilege comes not from the faith of the believer, but from the relation of marriage; and your reason is, because the Apostle saith not the unbeliever is sanctified by the believer; but from the husband or the wife; although one or two old copies have the word believer, yet the rest have it not, and the reason cannot be conceived rightly to be any other, but that although the person meant were a believer as well as an husband or wife, yet in this passage they are considered as husband and wife, and not as believers, to intimate that the sanctification did not come by the faith of the parents, but conjugal relation.  
Answ. Mr. Marshall doth vary my words in three particulars to my disadvantage.  
1. He sets down my words thus,[ this privilege comes not by the faith of the believer] which intimate an acknowledgement of some privilege asserted by the Apostle to a believer, which I had expressly denied in the very next words before the alleged, and my words were, The holiness here expressed is not from the quality of faith.  
2. Mr. Marsh●ll sets down these words as mine, and that in a different letter, that they might be marked[ your reason is because the Apostle saith the unbeliever is sanctified from the husband or wife] by which recital I may seem to the unwary reader to aclowledge this reading, The unbeliever is sanctified from the wife, whereas I still contend it should be red[ in] or[ to] rather, and deny that {αβγδ} notes any causality, which either[ by] or[ from] would import, but only the terminus, object, or correlate, to which the other relative refers.  
3. Whereas I said in this passage they were considered only as husband or wife, and not as believers, expressing it disjunctively, because I meant it only of the believer, not denying that the unbeliever is considered as unbeliever, Mr. Marshal recites my words as if I had expressed myself conjunctively[ as husband and wife] which is an incommodious expression for the reason given. Having thus set my answer right, though not so full as it is in my Examen, to which I hope the Reader will have an eye, let us consider what Mr. Marshall replies, and so much the rather because in this Argument is his chief strength.  
I reply saith he, this expressly crosseth the Apostles confessed scope; for the question was not whether an husband might leave his wife, or a wife her husband, the Apostle had resolved that case before, v. 10. but whether a believing husband might leave or separate from an unbeliever; No[ saith the Apostle] if the unbeliever be content to dwell together,( if not, let them go, a brother or sister is not in bondage in such a case) why? for the unbeliever is sanctified in or by the wife; but now in your sense, the Argument had been as good to say, the unbeliever is sanctified in or by the unbeliever, or the believer is sanctified in or by the unbeliever, which had been nothing to the question in hand.  
Answ. Scope is a greek word, and signifies a mark at which an archer shoots: In the Metaphor the Apostles scope was that which he intended to do, which was to resolve the question, Whether the believer might still dwell with the unbelieving yoke-fellow. The Apostle resolves, the believing party may, and the reason is because the unbelieving party is sanctified: Now if the Apostles argument had been as Mr. Marshall would have it conceived, it might have been according to my sense( which yet I deny) that the unbeliever is sanctified in or by the unbeliever, or the believer is sanctified in or by the unbeliever, yet the scope had been attained, and not crossed; For that was only the resolving of the question from this reason, because the party unbelieving, who occasioned the doubt, is sanctified, which sanctification effected resolves the question, whether it be understood in Mr. marshals or my sense, whether truly mine, or imagined to be mine, and therefore this reason of Mr. Marshal that my answer crosseth the Apostles scope comes to nothing, sith the Apostles scope is not crossed by it expressly or implicitly; but attained by it as well as by Mr. marshals. Nevertheless sith an absurdity seems to follow if in my sense the Apostles argument had been as good to say as Mr. Marshall conceives. I answer, 1. Mr. Marshall supposeth that according to my opinion the sanctification is meant of some sanctification properly so called, whereas I make the sanctification by an impropriety or abuse of speech, thus, The unbelieving husband is sanctified, that is, is as if he were sanctified, it is all one to the dwelling together, as if he were sanctified, they may lawfully couple and continue together, as if he were sanctified. 2. Mr. Marshall supposeth, that in my sense one party is made a cause of the others sanctification, whereas I make the one onely as object, or terminus, or correlate to the other: but the reason or cause of the sactification to come from the common conjugal relation between them, and accordingly I grant, that in my sense it might have been truly said( though not pertinently) the unbelieving husband is sanctified to his unbelieving wife, that is, lawfully enjoyed as if he had been sanctified, and the believing wife sanctified to the unbeliever in the same sense: the Apostle not speaking of any sanctification here, but what might agree to them though neither were a believer. 3. Nevertheless I say that in my sense the Apostles argument had not been framed as Mr. Marshall makes it, because I do not understand the sanctification properly, but improperly, or Catachrestically, as I have said, and I deny the reading[ by] or[ in] in such a sense as Mr. Marshall makes it to have; to wit, to make it imply a causality from one party to another, but only I allow a reading[ in the wife] so as to note a termination or objective respect. 4. I deny that the Apostles argument had been as good if so framed, because it had not aptly answered the doubt, which was, Whether the believing wife might dwell with the unbelieving husband; whence the Conclusion to be proved was this, That the believing wife may dwell with the unbelieving husband. Now let the argument be framed according as Mr. Marshall saith by my interpretation it will be as good. That wife who hath her unbelieving husband sanctified to her may dwell with him; But the unbelieving wife hath her unbelieving husband sanctified to her. The Conclusion that follows is, Ergo, the unbelieving wife may dwell with the unbelieving husband: which is another proposition than what was to be concluded. But if the right Conclusion be put, The believing wife may dwell with the unbelieving husband, and the same Premises retained, then there will be four terms[ believing wife] the Subject in the Conclusion, but not in the Minor proposition,[ the unbelieving wife] the Subject in the Minor,[ may dwell with the unbelieving husband] the Predicate in the Conclusion and the mayor terminus, and[ the wife that hath her husband sanctified to her] the medium. In like manner if it be made thus, The wife who hath her believing husband sanctified to her, may dwell with her believing husband, But the unbelieving wife hath her believing husband sanctified to her, Ergo, the unbelieving wife may dwell with her believing husband: this is not the Conclusiuon to be proved. But if the right Conclusion be put, The unbelieving wife may dwell with the believing husband, the same Premises being retained, there are five terms[ the believing wife] the Subject of the Conclusion,[ the unbelieving wife] the Subject in the Minor,[ may dwell with her unbelieving husband] the Predicate in the Conclusion,[ may dwell with her believing husband] the Predicate in the mayor,[ the having her husband sanctified to her] the medius terminus, which would be monstrous in logic; and therefore it is most false which Mr. Marshall saith, In my sense the argument had been as good to say the unbeliever is sanctified in or by the unbeliever, or the believer is sanctified in or by the unbeliever; sith either of these medium's in my sense would either have inferred another Conclusion than was to be made, or if the right Conclusion were made, the syllogism would have four or five terms, which is monstrous in logic, and not be a scribed to the Apostle. As for that which Mr. Marshall saith, that the Apostle had resolved before, v. 10. whether a husband might leave his wife, or a wife her husband, to psove that it was not the scope of the Apostle, v. 13, 14. to resolve that doubt but another, I answer: Nor do I make the Apostles scope to be to resolve that doubt v. 13, 14. which he had resolved v. 10. but I make the Apostle to resolve v. 13. the same doubt which Mr. Marshall doth, Whether the believer might dwell with the unbeliever; And v. 14. I make the argument, whereby he confirms his determination in v. 13. which argument, if according to my sense of it, it be the same with that which he had determined v. 10. is so much the fitter for the Apostles scope, sith it being not the Conclusion, but medium to prove it by, it was to be ex notioribus, by things more known, there being no good proof ignoti per ignotum, of a thing unknown by an unknown, but of a thing unknown by a known.  
Mr. Marshall goes on. Again the Apostle expressly names the unbeliever in opposition to the wife or husband who is a believer; of which there had been no use if he had intended only a matrimonial sanctification, he might have said, the wife is sanctified by the husband, and the husband by the wife, let them be what they will, which cannot be spoken truly, when the Scripture says plainly, nothing which pure or holy to the unbeliever, as Beza well observes upon this place.  
Answ. There was use of expressing the unbeliever distinctly for an express resolving the doubt, though the sanctification be meant of matrimonial sanctification; nor had the Apostle clearly resolved the doubt if he had said only, the husband is sanctified to the wife, and the wife to the husband, without expressing the unbeliever. For the argument then had been thus.  
The wife which hath her husband sanctified to her, may dwell with him; any wife hath her husband sanctified to her, Ergo, any wife may dwell with her husband. This Conclusion would resolve the doubt only implicitly, or by consequence to be gathered by them, and therefore not so plainly as was either fit for a Casuist, or needful for the Corinthians, especially women of tender consciences, not so quick witted as to perceive a Consequence, the doubt being of cohabitation with the unbeliever, precisely for that reason because he was an unbeliever. As for that which is said, that it cannot be spoken truly of any husband that he is sanctified by his wife, because nothing is pure or holy to the unbeliever; I answer, it may be truly said in my sense according to the reading I use, that any husband is sanctified to his unbelieving wife, that is lawfully enjoyed without fornication. As for the sanctification proper to believers, it is neither mine nor Mr. marshals sense. For his instrumental sanctification is not by the word and prayer, he acknowledgeth that his instrumental sanctification is in those that have no: true faith, but are only professors of the faith, and not onely when they pray actually, but also when they pray not, but neglecting God follow their lust, yet they beget a seed federally holy in Mr. Marshals sense; else he will be hard put to it to be assured the child is federally holy when he is to baptize it. Whereas when it is said Tit. 1. 15. to the defil●d and unbelievers nothing is pure, it is plainly meant v. 16. of them that profess they know God, but in works deny him, and the sanctification 1 Tim. 4. 4, 5. is only then when it is with thanksgiving and prayer. For which reason it is likely that Mr. Cobbet in his just vindic. though page. 5. he would have the sanctification to be by virtue of true faith, yet where he sets down what he conceives of the Apostles inference and argument page. 16. mentions only the holding forth interest in the Covenant of grace, and professing faith therein in a Church-way, which is enough to prove it is not meant of such a sanctification as the Apostle means Tit. 1. 15. 1 Tim. 4. 4, 5.  
Mr. Marshall adds. And though the word[ believer] be not in the text, yet it is necessary implied, and therefore some copies have it in the margin, not only one old copy, and a copy of Clermont, and the vulgar latin so red it, but Augustine also in his book wherein be expounds the sermon on the mount, and Tertullian in libro secundo ad uxorem. For as Beza rightly observes, the question is concerning a believer what he is to dowi●h an unbeliever.  
Answ. Though Augustine and Tertullian put in the word[ believing] yet it may be true that all the copies besides those I name read it without the Epithet of believer, for a citation in an author is not accounted a copy of a book, nor is always exactly done, though I deny not but there may be good use made of such citations to rectify the reading in Copies. I grant that the believer is necessary and plainly implyed, for the reason Beza gives, nor do I mislike the putting it expressly in a commentary or citation, as Augustine and Tertullian, though not in a copy. But this doth the rather confirm my conceit, sith it being so necessary and plainly implied, and yet not expressed, it is to me more than probable, that the sanctification of the unbeliever is not from the believing. For who doth ever( specially in an argument) leave out the word in which is the chief Emphasis on which all hangs, and not rather in pronouncing speak it more remarkably, and in writing express it more discernibly than other words? Now Mr. Marshall and those that expound that text this way, make the sanctification of the unbeliever, and the holiness of the children, to be the fruit of the faith of the believer, and ye● although the term[ believer] be necessary and plainly implyed, it is not expressed at all. Surely in reason, if that the Emphasis, energy, medium, or force, had been in the term[ believer]( as they would have it) it would have been expressed, though[ wife] had been left out. But when that is left out, and wife and husband twice expressed so distinctly and remarkably, it cannot in reason be conceived, but that the Apostle would thereby led us to conceive that the sanctification is from the conjugal relation, and not from the faith of one of the parties conjoined.  
Mr. Cobbet in his just vindic. part. 1. c. 1. sect. 2. Finally when in the 16. verse the case is understood of a person which is as well a believer, as an husband or wife, by whom it's said the infidel party may come to be saved, yet that party is barely name wife or husband, not believing wife or husband, will any now say that there can be no other reason thereof rendered but this, that albeit the party intended were both an husband or wife, and a believer; yet in that particular the party is considered not as a believer, but as an husband or wife? I suppose here the absurdity would be so gross that none would own it, no more let any truly judicious speak that way of that here mentioned, the unbelieving husband is sanctified by, or ●●, or in the wife.  
Answ. Mr. Cobbet I conceive from some words in Mr. Cottons letter to me meant me in this passage, and opposed it to those words in my Examen( page. 75) the reason cannot be conceived rightly to be any other but that although the person meant were a believer as well as a wife or husband, yet in this passage they were considered only as husband or wife, and not as believers; to intimate that the sanctification did not come from the faith of the party, but from conjugal relation, and therefore I thus answer, that Mr. Cobbet doth not fully set down the force of my reason, because he leaves out that which I alleged, that when the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. speaks of the unbelieving party, he doth expressly say [ the unbelieving husband] but not when he speaks of the believer: Whereas had he made sanctification a fruit of faith, he would have remarkably expressed the believer. Now that he doth v. 16. mean the believer, and yet say only, O wife, O man, serves not to avoid the force of my reason, which was not barely from this that the person though meant to be a believer, yet is not expressed with that epithet under that notion, but that even where the Emphasis lay in that word, yea after my Antagonists interpretation, all the strength of the Apostles argument lies in it, yet it was left out, even then when the unbeliever was twice name distinctly. Now neither was any such Emphasis, v. 16. in the term[ believer] to require the express mention, it was enough to name the person so as that it might be understood who was meant. For v. 16. is not argumentative to prove the lawfulness of cohabitation as v. 14. wherein is requisite exactness, so as that no part at least not the medium of the argument be left out, but v. 15. 16. are motives to make them yield to the resolution v. 13.& delivered Retorically not Logically: they are not arguments drawn from something certain in being as v. 14. The unbelieving husband is sanctified, but only inducements from things future and contingent, as from future peace and conversion of the infidel: nor is the unbelieving person expressed v. 16. by a term importing that notion as v. 14. 2. Mr. Cobbet seems not to apprehended my meaning in that expression, that in that passage v. 14. the believer was considered not as a believer, but as husband or wife, which he takes as if I had meant that the Apostle had taken wife or husband with precision or abstraction from believer and unbeliever, and so the Apostle meant it of any husband or wife though an unbeliever. But that was not my meaning, my words being plain[ although the person meant were a believer] so I conceived no other person there meant than a believer, nor could be according to the Apostles mind. Yet in that passage the believer is not considered as a believer, that is, as sanctifying the unbeliever in that he was a believer, but as a wife or husband; to intimate, that the sanctification is by reason of conjugal relation, as I plainly express myself in that place. Now my reason being thus framed and understood, I leave to Mr. Cobbet or any mans judgement that is acquainted with mens writings, whether it be likely the Apostle would have left out a word so emphatical, as they would make it, if he had laid the same stress, which my Antagonists do, upon it.  
Mr Marshall goes on; and when he says the unbelieving party is sanctified in or by the other party, it plainly implies the one party sanctifies the other, viz. the believer sanctifies the unbeliever( not retro) which needed not be said of Matrimonial sanctification as you call it, for in that sense both parties were sanctified in themselves, not in or by one another, marriage being honourable amongst all, and the bed( the coitus) undefiled.  
Answ. I still except against the reading [ sanctified by the wife] and deny any causality implied by the particle {αβγδ}, and when I allow the reading[ in] I expound it onely as Beza, respectu uxoris, but prefer the reading[ to] conceiving it clear that {αβγδ} notes only a terminus, object, or correlate, to which the other party refers, and that the sanctification as it is only by an acyrology, catachresis, impropriety or abuse of speech ascribed to the unbeliever, so whatever it be it comes not from one party to another, but from the common relation between them both, because as Mr. Marshall rightly allegeth, marriage is honourable among all, and the bed( the coitus) undefiled. If Mr. Marshall will make good his reason, he must prove that {αβγδ} must be rendered[ by] and no otherwise, contrary to his own grant, and that it notes a causality, and that the one sanctifies the other, by the inexistence or act of faith, and that the one is sanctified to the other by reason of their common conjugal relation.  
Besides, saith Mr. Marshall, there are words which plainly denotate it a little before, a brother or sister, which are taken for believers v. 12. if a brother have an unbelieving or infidel wife, v. 15. a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such a case.  
Answ. That the Apostle did express before and after the believer, and not here, makes against Mr. Marshall: for it is a plain argument that the Apostle did not place the Emphasis or medium of his argument in the word believer, nor make believing the cause of sanctification, sith he left it out where it would best have fitted that purpose, and yet expressed it in other places on both sides.  
Mr. Marshall concludes thus. And if you should say the believing party sanctifies the unbeliever, not quà believer, but by the word and prayer. I answer, this would make the argument stronger, for it is such a sanctification as heathens are not capable of.  
Answ. I neither say, the believing party sanctifies the unbeliever quà believer, nor by the word and prayer, but the unbelieving husband is sanctified, that is, is as if he were sanctified, to his wife, and so may be lawfully used by her by virtue of the conjugal relation between them.   

SECT. XV.  
Mr. Mashalls 5th and 8th arguments being the first and last of his additionals against my exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. in that the sanctification and holiness could not be except one were a believer are answered.  
I Shall here answer Mr. Marshals 5th and 8th arguments against my interpretation, being the first and last of his additionals, sith the answer already given serves for those also.  
First, saith Mr. Marshall page. 155. you say the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and sanctification you here take for chastity, which is a most incongruous speech, to say the one party makes the other chast, if he or she were not unchaste how are they made chast by the husband or wife? and if they be unchaste, how doth this make them chast? marriage is then honourable or chast when the bed is undefiled, this argument is onely from the unseemliness of the expression.  
Answ. I do not say that either sanctification is here taken for chastity, or that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, or that the one party makes the other chast, but the unbelieving husband is sanctified to his wife, that is, is as if he were sanctified, so that he may be enjoyed lawfully as a chast husband, without fornication, notwithstanding his unbelief, and this hath no unseemliness of expression: nor do any of Mr. Marshals inferences follow on it, that either the one was unchaste before, or that the one makes the other chast, by my doctrine, and that it is unexplicable how being unchaste they should be made chast. These questions arising merely from Mr. Marshals mistake of my meaning, are impertinent; though in some sense they may be made chast by marriage, who were unchaste before, as when two fornicators mary, they now chastened live together, though before unchaste. Perkins exposition of Revel. 2. 15. Hosea took a wife of fornication not to maintain her in her sin; but to make her a chast woman.  
Lastly saith Mr. Marshall page. 156. Yet one argument more I propound, Your sense makes the Apostles argument wholly inconsequent, if the unbelieving party were not sanctified[ viz. matrimonally) then were your children unclean, that is( in your sense) bastards, which follows not; for if they were both unbelievers, yet their children were not bastards, and if they were both chast( yet being infidels) their children were unclean, id est, infidels and pagans; so that to close this, I retort your own words page. 75. That let it be granted( that it is meant of matrimonial sanctification( as of necessity it must) then the uncleanness must be meant of bastardy, and holiness of legitimation, but I say è contra, let this be granted( as of necessity it must) that it is not meant of matrimonial sanctification or lawfulness of wedlock, then uncleanness must not be meant of bastardy nor holiness of legitimation, but of some other holiness, which what that is, is next to be inquired.  
Answ. This argument also is upon the same mistake as if the sanctification must be by virtue of the faith of the one party as the cause, which is still supposed but never proved. The Apostles Consequence is good as I make it, and Mr. marshals retortion vain, as will appear in the issue of the dispute.   

SECT. XVI.  
The third argument of Mr. Marshal urging that by my Exposition the Apostle is made to prove the same by the same, is answered.  
I Return to consider Mr. Mar. third and fourth arguments. My third argument, saith he, was, the Apostles argument had had no strength in it, supposing the text were to be interpnted as these men would have it: their doubt( say they) was, their marriage was an unlawful wedlock; and so consequently their children bastards; which kind of argument( said I) were but idem per idem. Your answer to this is such a one as I know not what to make of it: you say I do not rightly set down my adversaries explication of the Apostle, the doubt( say you) was only whether they might live in conjugal use, but there was no question of their children whether they were legitimate or not; they were assured their children were not bastards, but legitimate, and this the Apostle uses as his medium to prove they might lawfully live together.  
Answ. My answer was plain enough for a man less acute than M. Marshall to have discerned it; but it seems, either want of leisure, or some perturbation of mind or distraction of thoughts hindered him.  
My answer was, 1. By denying that the adversaries he opposeth make the doubt which the Apostle resolves to be that which Mr. Marshall made it, whether their marriage( to wit, at their entering) were an unlawful wedlock: and I said plainly the doubt was, not( as Mr. Marshall curtals my words, and makes them obscure) whether they might live in conugal use, but whether the believer might continue with the unbeliever in conjugal use. Between that which Mr. Marshall says they make the doubt, and that which they do make the doubt, there is a manifest difference, the later doubt might arise from sundry causes not incident to the former. As suppose a Papist that holds that heresy makes voided a marriage, should doubt whether he is to live any longer with a wife with whom being then a catholic he conceives his marriage at first lawful, doth he not at the same time take his marriage undoubtedly lawful at first, and yet doubt of his present continuance? So I conceive the Corinthian Christians did doubt of their continuance in conjugal use with the unbeliever, and yet doubted not of the lawfulness of their marriage at their first entering on it.  
2. I answered( which Mr. Marshall leaves out in the repetition, and so darkens my answer) that the reason whereby the Apostle resolved the doubt was, for they were sanctified each to other, notwithstanding the unbelief that was in one party: which did directly take away the occasion of the doubt, which arose from the opinion, that the unbeliever being an unsanctified person, did pollute the believer, the Apostle answers no, the unbeliever is to his wife notwithstanding his unbelief as if he were sanctified, and so may still be lawfully enjoyed as her husband; By which answer he plainly resolves that the marriage and the lawful use of it still continues between them.  
3. I answered by denying that his adversaries conceived the Corinthians to doubt whether their children were bastards, which Mr. Marshall charged on them, and  told him that the legitimation of their children was out of doubt wi●h them, yea, that the Apostle makes this the medium, whereby he proves that the unbelieving husband was sanctified to his wife, and that it is an argument ab absurdo, which Piscator rightly observes in his scholy on the place. Argumentum ab effectu, videlicet consequent absurdo. Now if it be an argument from a consequent absurdity, then he knew they took it as an absurdity that their children should be unclean, which Mr. Marshall must also aclowledge if he stand to his fourth agreement page. 146. where he grants my Analysis of the Apostles argument to be right. Now let the question be according to this stating of it, may the believing wife continue to dwell with her unbelieving husband? and the answer thus, she may, for the unbelieving husband, though such, is to his wife in respect of conjugal use as if he were sanctified, the Apostle resolving by his Apostolical authority, that Christianity takes not away the continuance of natural& civil relations according to a known principle among all that marriage was lawful among all sorts of people, persons, and this confirmed by an argument ad homines, from that which themselves counted absurd, that their children whether begotten before the conversion of the one party( taking {αβγδ} as Beza, not for an Adverb of time, but for a particle of reasoning, as much as [ atqui but] as Piscator in his scholy, and is rightly acknowledged by Mr. Cobbet in his just vindic. part. 1. ch. 1. sect. 1. where he cites for {αβγδ} as in like sort used, 1 Cor. 12. 18, 20. Rom. 3. 21. Heb. 8. 6& 9. 26.& 11. 16. which to me is most probable, and that [ your children] is changed from the third to the second person, not as Mr. Cobbet ibidem sect. 2. to note that this belongs to them as inchurched believers as a privilege; but to note they were once unbelievers, your children, which you begot in unbelief) or since conversion( taking {αβγδ} now, for an adverb of time) should be accounted bastards, which they must needs be if the unbelieving husband though an unbeliever were not to his wife as if he were sanctified( which is the right interpretation of the Apostles meaning by Mr. marshals adversaries) I appeal to any man of competent understanding, whether it be not far from a trifling proving of the same by the same, and not rather a solid and demonstrative satisfactory way of arguing, the position being resolved by answering the reason of the doubt, the unbelief of the one party, and therefore unsanctified, and so unlawful for a believer to company with, and this answer proved by a consequent absurdity in the judgement of the doubters if this were not true. Yea I say further, were our frame of the Apostles argument as Mr. Marshall says, were you not lawful man and wife, your children were bastards, it were not a proving of idem per idem, but from differing things whereof one is at least antecedent to the other, for not being lawful man and wife is not the same with bastardy though they are connex. And yet every proof when the same is proved by the same, is not always trifling, when there is a formal difference though not real, as when an argument is from the definition to the thing defined, from the notation of the word to the thing noted, from one conjugal term to another, as Mr. Marshals logic I presume may inform him. But let us hear his reply.  
To which saith he, I reply, take this for granted which you say, and( if I want not common sense) you plainly and fully answer yourself; for if they were out of all doubt that their children were not bastards, then it was not possible for them to doubt whether their own marriage were lawful; take this to be his argument, Your children are legitimate, this you all grant; Ergo, your marriage is lawful, of which you doubt: risum teneatis amici? they received the one as a supposed principle, that their children were lawfully begotten, which could not be but in lawful wedlock, yet had not light enough to know that their wedlock was a lawful wedlock, if they doubted not of the later how could they of the former?  
Answ. The thing that Mr. Marshall in this passage would evince is, that if the Corinthians did not doubt of their childrens legitimation, they could not doubt of the lawfulness of their own wedlock, and thereby that I plainly and fully answer myself; but to what objection or expression of mine I answer, he tells me not. But he supposes I make the doubt this, whether their own marriage were lawful? though I expressed myself plainly enough in these words, The doubt was only whether the believer might continue with the unbeliever in conjugal use, between which two there is an apparent difference, as I have often shewed. Now saith Mr. Marshall, if they were out of all doubt their children were not bastards, then it were not possible for them to doubt whether their marriage was lawful. If Mr. Marshall had said they could not reasonably or probably doubt, it might have passed, but to say, they could not possibly doubt, is both against reason, sith that may be done that implies no contradiction, and against the experience of too 
Mr. Baxter the Saints everlasting rest edit. 1 page. 409. they will aclowledge the Premises& yet deny the apparent Conclusion.  many it may be acuter than the Corinthians were, that have granted the Premises, and denied the Conclusion in things of plain connexion, especially in doubts of conscience, when made by tender consciences, and by women, whom non persuaseris etiam si persuaseris, you shall not persuade them when you have persuaded, nor convince them when you have convinced, nor settle them when you have resolved. But I need no such exception, my answer plainly is, they might doubt whether they might continue still in conjugal use, by reason of the unbelief of one party, from some prohibition of the Apostles, though they doubted not of their former or later childrens legitimation; as a Papist may doubt whether she is to live with her Lutheran husband, though she neither doubts of her childrens legitimation, nor of their wedlock at first. So that what ever become of Mr. Marshals common sense, whether it were bound up by sleep or awake, his friends invited to laugh will find in these passages little matter ridiculous, unless it be to observe him striking at his own shadow.   

SECT. XVII.  
Mr. Marshals 4th argument that after my exposition the Apostles resolution had not taken away the doubt of the Corinthians from the fact in Ezra 9.& 10. is answered.  
I Proceed. My fourth argument saith Mr. Marshall was, according to this interpretation, the Apostles answer could no way have reached to the quieting of their consciences; their doubt was, whether they were not to put away their wives and children as not belonging to God, as being a seed whom God would not own among his people, and this answer could never have quieted their consciences to tell them their marriage was lawful, and their children legitimate. To which you answer, this argument is grounded on a mistake, the question was not say you about putting away their wives and children as not belonging to God, but something else; I reply, but if it be not grounded upon a mistake, and that( as Beza says) Paul is not here arguing about civil policy, but arguing a case of conscience, whether because of the idolatry of the wife or husband religion did not require that they should be put away, because God would not have his holy seed mingled with them, even by your own confession, the argument stands good: which whether it will not be made out shall( God willing) by and by appear.  
Answ. Mr. Marshall keep stills his wont of leaving out the chief thing in my answer, which was that it was a mistake in Mr. Marshall, that the question was whether according to the example in Ezra they were not to put away their wives& children as not belonging to God. So that the chief strength of the objection then was that the doubt in the Corinthians did arise from the fact in Ezra, and according to my interpretation the answer could not take away the doubt. To which I answered 4. things, 1. That it is but a conjecture that they had any relation in this matter to the action mentioned in Ezra. 2. That some other occasion is as likely, as I shewed before. 3. That there was no doubt about putting away their children. 4. That I had shewed before what the doubt was, and how the Apostles answer fits it. Now Mr. Marshall in his repetition leaves out the chief words in this objection, [ according to the example in Ezra] and all my reasons to the contrary, and sets down his reply as if the mistake I meant were, that he conceived amiss, that Paul is not here arguing about civil policy, but arguing a case of conscience: Whereas there is not a word about this in Mr. Marshals objection in his Sermon, nor in my answer to it. Nor will I own such misshapen expressions, which intimate by the opposition, that he that argues about civil policy argues not a case of conscience, as if no case of conscience were about civil policy. As for that which Mr. Marshall says, if it be not grounded upon a mistake, then the argument stands good, I marvel Mr. Marshall hath so little regard to his conscience or reputation, as to say that is my own confession, of which there is not a word in my Examen, or any other writing of mine: nor can be gathered from them. But whether that which he says, be made out( as his phrase is) by him, I shall consider in his answer to my first exception as he calls it, page. 157.   

SECT. XVIII.  
The insufficiency of what Mr. Marshall, Mr. Geree, Mr. black, bring to avoid my Exception, that it is without proof supposed that the doubt answered 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13, 14. did arise from reading the fact Ezra 9.& 10. and not from the Epistle mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 9. is manifested.  
HAving thus plainly( saith Mr. Marshall) overthrown your interpretation, it remains that I make good my interpretation against your exceptions; I said their doubt seems to arise from the law of God, which was in force in Ezra's time, where Gods people were ordered to put away their infidel wives and children, as a polluted seed which God would not have mingled with his own. You answer, first you see very little agreement between this case and that, and that the cases are very far different of two persons under the law, the one a Jew by profession, the other a stranger; secondly, in that none of the phrases, except the word( holy) are used in the one place which are used in the other; thirdly, you rather think their doubt arose from a former Epistle which he had written to them, mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 9. wherein he commanded them not to keep company with fornicators or Idolaters, hereupon they might doubt whether they should continue with their unbelieving yoke-fellows.  
Answ. It is true, these things Mr. Marshall here sets down, were in my exception against his setting down the occasion of the Corinthians doubt, and in answer to Mr. Thomas Goodwins reason for it, Examen page. 71. But when Mr. Marshall made this the ground of his 4th. argument, I answered as I said before, 4. things, to the first of which Mr. Marshall says nothing, but by his own phrase [ their doubt seems to arise from the law of God] and Mr. Gerees page. 20. [ it might probably arise] my answer is confirmed that it is but a conjecture that the Corinthians had any relation in this matter to the action in Ezra. Now this is answer enough to Mr. Marshals 4th argument, which is grounded on this, that the doubt arose from that fact. But if that be but an uncertain guess, then how can Mr. Marshall conclude thence that the answer must be fitted to the resolution of that or the like case, and because according to my interpretation it is not so fitted, therefore my interpretation is not the Apostles meaning: For my part I am so far from confessing( as Mr. Marshall imputes it to me) that if the occasion of the doubt were the reading that story of putting away their strange wives in Ezra and Nehemiah, Mr. Marshals argument must stand good against my interpretation, that I think if it were the occasion of the doubt, yet my interpretation of the Apostle would as well svit with the doubt so occasioned as Mr. Marshals, nor do I think Mr. Geree could make good that speech of his in his vindic. Paedobapt. page. 20. that if the scruple were occasioned from the fact Ezra 10. 3. that then it doth carry the sense quiter to him and overthrow mine; it being remembered that the doubt was as Mr. Marshall rightly puts it in his 3d agreement, page. 146. whether the believer were to retain the unbelieving yoke-fellow. Yea I say now, that if the Apostle did allude to the term [ holy seed] Ezra 9. 2. it there signifying a legitimate seed, it serves well to prove my exposition of [ holy] for [ legitimate.] As for the doubt whether their children were to be put away, neither hath Mr. Marshall brought a word to prove that it was the doubt, nor hath he said any thing in answer to my reason to the contrary from the Analysis of the words, to wit, the particles[ {αβγδ}, else were] showing it to be an argument ab absurdo consequent, it is implied they counted it out of doubt their children were not unclean, but an absurdity to imagine so. But what saith Mr. Marshall to my exceptions against Mr. Thomas Goodwins confident conceit, that the occasion of the doubt, 1 Cor. 7. 13. must arise from the fact Ezra 9,& 10. by reason of the agreement of matter and phrase?  
I reply, saith he, first, that the cases were the very same when their scruple arose, for though they were both unbelievers when they were married, and at that time neither of them both belonged to the Church of God, yet when one of them was converted, and the other remained an infidel, one of them was now become a Church-member, the other remaining an alien, their case was the very same, and they finding their condition parallel with that in Ezra might very well apply that case to themselves to make this their doubt.  
Answ. He that would make their case the same must not vary it in one particular: all Casuists and Lawyers determine a case to be varied when one material circumstance is varied. And yet Mr. Marshall a vouches the cases were the very same, though he says not a word to that material disparity I made between them, the jews being under the Law of Moses and professing it, the Corinthian Christians not so, and yet that doubt if it were occasioned by that fact must arise from the doubted force of the Law of God, as Mr. Marshall rightly allegeth. As for that which Mr. Marshall says, they were the one an unbeliever, the other a believer, when the scruple arose, it takes not away the disparity in the cases as I set it down, which is material to show there was not agreement in the matter, and so not one likely to be the occasion of the doubt of the other. For this difference at their first marriage varied the case in order to the doubt, the jews fact being occasioned by Gods law, which did condemn as well the first entering on marriage with the unbeliever, as the continuing in it, but it was not so with the Corinthians, who did not question their first entering into marriage when both were unbelievers, which they would have done if their doubt had risen from that law, but onely they doubted of their continuance in it one being an unbeliever. But to show it to be more unlikely that the doubt of the Corinthians arose from that story, sith my Antagonists place so much to their purpose in this supposed parallel of their condition, which they prove not, I shall to the disparities before alleged, which vary the case, add some more. As that the case of the jews was not of the wives putting away of her husband, but of the husbands putting away his wife; but here the doubt is as well of the believing wifes leaving her unbelieving husband, as of the believing husbands putting away his wife, and this leads to another disparity, the jews case was about a divorce in way of authority or power in the hu●band putting away his wife, but this of a wives leaving of her husband, was never by way of authority or power, but only of will, there the fact was not simply for Idolatry or unbelief, but chiefly because of their descent from the people whose affinity the Lord had forbidden, but here no scruple arose from the strangeness of the nation, but from the unbelief only of the one party. More of these might be alleged to show that there is not such agreement in the cases as to conclude the doubt of the one to arise from knowledge of the fact of the other. Nevertheless by the way it may be observed, that if the cases of the jews and Corinthians were the same, and yet the law that bound the Jews did not bind the Corinthians, how will it follow that the same command which tied the Jews to circumcise their infants, binds us to baptize ours, when the command of putting away wives did not bind the Corinthians, though less proper to the Jews than that of circumcision?  
Secondly, saith Mr. Marshall, although the phrases used in Ezra differ from those used here, that makes nothing against this collection, because phrases are used according to the different administrations, each speaking according to the received dialect belonging to the administration they lived under.  
Answ. My exception was against Mr. Thomas Goodwins confident assertion, that the occasion of the doubt 1 Cor. 7. 13. arose from Ezra 9.&. 10. by reason of the agreement in matter and phrase: so then if the phrases differ as Marshal confesseth, my exception against that assertion of Mr. Goodwin was right, and for the matter, let Mr. Cobbet commended by Mr. Goodwin himself be heard in his just vindic. part. 1. ch. 1. sect. 4. as for the paralleling of that Ezra 10. 44. with this case it is very unsuitable, that was a case of persons inchurched, having an express prohibition to the contrary, not to join with such, as persons betwixt whom and themselves there was a partition wall, yet doing it. This is a case of persons all of one sort, pagan, when first married, and under no such prohibition; onely after they were married one embraceth the faith. But saith Mr. Marshall, it makes nothing against his collection.  
Answ. Mr. Marshall tells not what collection he means, but this I suppose is the collection, that the occasion of the Corinthians doubt was the reading or hearing of the relation of the fact Ezra 9.& 10. If this be the collection, I conceive it makes much against it, that the Apostle in answering the doubt occasioned thence should use none of the phrases there, though he had an eye on the story there.  
But saith Mr. Marshall, the reason might be, because phrases are used according to the different administrations, each speaking according to the received Dialect belonging to the administration they lived under.  
I answer. Phrases it is true are used much after the customs in use, but that it should be likely the Apostle would not use phrases allusive to jewish customs or laws in the old Testament when he wrote to the Corinthians, especially when he resolves a doubt occasioned by a jewish law, is so contrary to the constant use of the Apostle, whose phrases are many of them Hebraisms, and allusive to the passages and rites in the old Testament, yea in this very Epistle 1 Cor. 5. 2, 3, 7, 8, 13. and 6. 16. and 7. 3.& 9. 13. &c. and to the use of the holy writers in the New Testament, as Mr. Gataker Mr. marshals colleague hath proved at large again Pfochenius in an entire tract of that point, that neither is there any probability in what Mr. Marshall saith, nor do I believe that when Mr. Marshal hath red that book of Mr. Gataker, will he urge this any more. As for that which he saith, each speaking according to the received Dialect belonging to the administration they lived under, if by Dialect be meant as Grammarians use the word for diversifications of the same language, as in the attic, doric, Ionick Dialects among the Greeks, it is a new piece of learning, which I never met with before, that Dialects belong to the administration they live under, and are diversified thereby, which I always took to be diversified by the use of the several tribes or people of the same nation and language, in the same time in which the administration, that is( if I mistake not Mr. Marshals meaning, which is easy in so obscure a speech) Ecclesiastical rites and policy are the same, as at this day there's a different Dialect in the Northern and Southern English, though they have had the same Church rites and policy.  
But Mr. Geree hath another reason to prove that the occasion of the doubt was from the fact Ezra 9.& 10. which he expresseth in his vindic. Paedobapt. ch. 1. sect. 4. page. 20. thus. And that the scruple and resolution were of this nature( that is from Ezra 10. 3.) there is evident presumption in the text itself v. 12. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord, which hath reference to that before verse 10. And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, that is, as I once learned from that reverend Divine( whom for honour I name) Mr. Dod, the Doctrine of those equally joined in marriage the Apostle delivered as from the Lord, that is, from the plain relation of God in the old Testament. But to the doubt of remaining together where one is a believer, the other an infidel, I say, not the Lord, That is not to be taken as though Saint Paul did resolve any thing against the mind of God. But this resolution he gave as an Apostle under the N. T. which was different from the dispensation of the Lord under the Law. For then an alien, if not a proselyte, did defile the jew and the seed, as appears Ezra 9. Neh. 13. 23, 24. but now the Apostle resolves otherwise.  
Answ. Mr. Dod was a man of very reverend esteem for holiness of life; but as for his conceit about this text, as if the Apostle when he saith v. 10. not I, but the Lord, should mean the doctrine against separation of those equally joined in marriage, the Apostle delivered as from the Lord, that is, from the plain relation of God in the Old Testament, the contrary is rather true. For the doctrine for separation of the equally joined in marriage seems plainly delivered Deut. 24. 1. and was so taken by the 
Vide Seld. uxor. Heb. l. 3. c. 18 &c.  Pharisees Mat. 19. 7. and divorces frequently used among the jews upon small occasions. And on the other side the doctrine for separation of the unequally voked by reason of different religion seems plainly delivered in the Old Testament, Deut. 7. 3.& 23. 3. as it was interpnted Ezra 9. 11. Nehem. 13. 1. And for my part I rather conceive( as Mr. Cobbet in his just vindic. part. 1. c. 1. sect. 1.) the meaning to be v. 10. not I, but the Lord, that is, not by any new revelation, but the Lord Iesus Christ expressly, Mat. 5. 37.& 19. 6. 8. 9. Mark. 10. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Lu. 16. 18.& v. 12. Not the Lord, that is Christ Iesus by express determination in the New Testa. but I by special revelation with apostolical authority. But were Mr. Dods interpretation current, yet it would be so far from evident presumption, that the scruple arose from Ezra 9.& 10. that it would be a good argument to the contrary. For then the words v. 12. Not the Lord, but I, must have this sense, that the Lord in the old Testament had not determined the doubt of remaining together where one is a believer, the other an infidel, but the Apostle under the new, which were not true, for the Lord had expressly resolved for their separation: but if it were true that he had not, then is it not likely the doubt should arise from Ezra 10. 3. where there is an express determination, whereas by Mr. Dods interpretation the Apostle is made to say, the Lord in the old Testament had not determined that doubt. As for that of Mr. Geree, that the resolution of the Apostle was different from the dispensation under the law, by reason of the different state of the jewish policy, it serves very well to show, that as that law of separating an alien, so the law of Circumcision, and other laws, were from a peculiar respect to the state of the jews afore Christs coming, and not from a common reason belonging to both jews and Gentiles by virtue of the Covenant of grace, which is brought to make a perpetual rule serving for us in Baptism.  
Thirdly, saith Mr. Marshall, and as to that you say, that it might arise from 1 Cor. 5. 9. I answer, should that be granted, yet my sense remains as strong as before.  
Answ. Mr. Marshall denies not but that the doubt might arise from that which is 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. Mr. Geree vindic. Paedobapt. ch. 1. sect. 4. page. 20: says thus. And for my part I dislike not your conceit of that occasion if you take it not exclusively to exclude ours; for I conceive the doubt might arise from both; and one of them would add strength to the other, and the doubt having appearance of ground from both would be more strong. I confess, if the occasion of the doubt were from both, the doubt would be more strong: yet if it be granted the doubt to arise from 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. Mr. Marshals 4th argument in his sermon would not be more strong, for it restend on this, that the Corinthians doubt arose from the fact in Ezra; which is weakened, yea comes to nothing if there were another occasion of the doubt, though Mr. Marshall say, his sense( he would say argument) remains strong as before. But let us hear his reason.  
For if this scruple now rose, that if believers because of the infidel condition of the husband or wife might not by the rule of the Gospel continue in mariage-society with them, it must be from some rule of religion which must strike upon the conscience; and from what rule could they gather that their marriage which before was lawful, was upon their conversion turned into fornication?  
Answ. The thing that Mr. Marshall brings this as a reason for, is, that if it be granted the Corinthians doubt to arise from 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. yet his sense remains as strong as before; Now what coherence this hath with the thing it is brought to prove I do not understand, but rather in this, and that which follows in this paragraph, the discourse of Mr. Marshal seems to be entangled as if he had been puzzled, and headed not whereto he spake. For if it be granted that the doubt came from that 1 Cor 5. 9, 10, Why doth he frivolously ask from what rule they could gather their marriage,( he should say continuance in marriage) which was before lawful, now upon their conversion was turned into fornication, he should have said made unlawful? sith if the doubt be granted to come from thence, the rule of religion is plainly expressed to be, that a believer is not to keep company {αβγδ}, to be mingled with Idolaters, which was a rule of religion, that might strike upon a believers conscience,& make the believer think it unlawful to continue in marriage society, though they did thence not conceive their marriage turned into fornication, as Mr. Marshall doth incommodiously express the question. So that the reason of Mr. Marshall( if there be any reason in it) strengtheners not Mr. Marshals sense against mine, but serves as well the occasion of the doubt as I make it, as it doth Mr. Marshall. But perhaps ther's more to the purpose in that which follows.  
And if their doubt were( as yourself grant) whether it were lawful for a converted party or a believer still to retain their infidel wife or husband( not of unbelievers whether they be sanctified matrimonially one to another) the doubt must necessary arise from something in religion, some case which was peculiar to believers, now( as Mr. Beza says truly) the doubt being in their consciences of an unlawfulness to continue in their married condition from something peculiar to Gods people, the Apostle should have used a most indirect argument to pacify their consciences, in referring them to the civil laws of other Nations, by which their marriage is proved lawful.  
Answ. Mr. Marshal undertook to confirm his sense by granting that the doubt of the Corinthians resolved 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13. might arise from that 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. now I see not any word tending to any argument from this concession of the occasion of the doubt to confirm his sense, but what he brings is from the Apostles resolution of the doubt as he conceives me make it. And therefore it is apparent Mr. Marshall as a puzzled man had forgotten what he was to prove. But perhaps he hath however some good new argument against my interpretation, let us examine it then. That which he would evince seems to be, 1. That by my interpretation the Apostle should refer the Corinthians doubting from something in religion to the civil laws of other Nations to pacify their consciences. 2. That the Apostle so doing should have used a most indirect argument to pacify their consciences. I answer, The Corinthians were Greeks, and what civil laws of other Nations it should be meant they should be referred to, except the Romans to whom they were then subject, I do not apprehended. This then Mr. Marshall would insinuate, that according to my interpretation the Apostle should refer the Corinthians to the civil laws of the Romans to pacify their consciences. But Mr. Marshall doth not show the least hint of such a consequence from my interpretation, nor indeed can. I said expressly Exercit. page. 16. and Examen page. 77. that the Apostle resolves them by his apostolic authority, as himself declares v. 12. As for that which Mr. Beza says it would be a most indirect argument to pacify their consciences in referring them to the civil laws of men, I grant, taking[ indirect] for an argument unsuitable to the doubt, and so unlikely to satisfy. But no such thing is done by my exposition, yea my exposition of the forepart of the 14th v. in which is the medium which confirms the resolution v. 13. is the very same with Mr. Bezas, as I have often shewed, nor is it yet disproved. But Mr. Marshal goes on thus.  
And to what purpose should he discourse of bastards or the like, when their consciences were scrupled in something which began to concern them upon their conversion? and to tell them they were sanctified in their unbelief could never have reached the scruple arising after they began to be believers, because their marriage might be firm and good while they remained unbelievers; yet the infidel might now become impure in that relation of marriage to the other which was converted.  
Answ. To what purpose the Apostle should discourse of bastards, and whether that which I make the meaning could reach the scruple arising, is best perceived by the Analysis of the Apostles reasoning, which as framed by me is not excepted against by Mr. Marshal, and therefore this question of Mr. Marshals he might easily have answered himself, if he would have headed my words, which distinctly tell him the forepart of the 14. v. yields a medium to prove the Apostles resolution v. 12, 13. and the later by an argument ab absurdo consequent confirms that medium. Whether my interpretation be true hath been discussed. Now whereas Mr. Marshal concludes, And therefore it remains that it must be resolved from some rule which must reach believers as they were the people of God, and not be common to infidels with them: Now what is that argument which Paul here uses to satisfy them?( which must reach them as they were believers) yourself grant it is this, else were your children unclean, which is the medium, because your children are not unclean but holy, therefore the unbeliever must be granted to be sanctified to the wife or husband; this argument must therefore necessary infer some kind of holiness, which is appliable only to the state of religion, therefore it must be federal holiness.  
I answer, The apostle resolved the Corinthians by his apostolical authority, which was a rule reaching believers as they were the people of God. As for the argument, though it be not so rightly framed by Mr. Marshal as I use to do, yet that which he saith, I grant to be part of the argument as I make it, but I deny that this must necessary infer, that the holiness there meant is appliable onely to the state of religion, till Mr. Marshall doth not onely say, but prove it, and therefore federal holiness is not yet proved from this text by Mr. Marshall or any other that I know.  
Mr. black in his answer to my letter ch. 7. pag. 33. will not have it likely that the occasion of the doubt should be from the command, 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10.  
1. Because it's not yielded by many that any part of divinely inspired Scripture is lost. And he says, that Chrysostom finds the precept 1 Cor. 5. 9. in the same chapter, v. 2.  
Answ. As there be that deny any part of holy Scripture to be lost, so there be that grant it, conceiving it no more impeachment of the providence of God, 
Vide Camer. praelect. de verbo Dei Glasc. c. 13.  or faithfulness of the Church, than that which all must grant, that all copies extant are so corrupted in some passages, that there is no way to restore the right reading, but by conjecture: nor do they conceive it such a damage to the Church as is inconsistent with Gods care of them, though some books be lost, if that the same doctrine be in these now extant. As for the Epistle mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 9. Beza in his annot. on that place, not onely conceives, but proves from the particle {αβγδ} but now, that the Ep. v. 9. distinguished from that he then wrote, must needs be another Epistle which is now lost. To which may be added that v. 10, 11. are plainly for an explanation of what he had written before, which they were apt to mistake, and therefore there was some other Ep. which he thought needful to explain by this. As for Chrysostom, because Mr. black quotes him not, I cannot tell where to seek what he allegeth. I do not find the thing in his Homily on 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10, 11. where else to seek it I know not.  
But saith Mr. black, if granted that v. 9. mentions a former Epistle, yet v. 10. seems to be his present further explanation, and no part of the contents of that Epistle formerly written, and so there is no room left for your conjecture.  
Answ. It follows rather on the contrary, that if v. 10. be a further explanation of the former Epistle; then it is part of the contents of the former Epistle, though not fully understood, otherwise it should not be an explanation but an addition. Which is furrher confirmed in that the new explanation seems to be not so much about the object or sorts of persons with whom he had forbiddden them formerly to keep company, as about the extent of the act of keeping company, concerning which his prohibation was to be limited. And therefore there is room left for my conjecture, that the doubt resolved 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13, 14. might be occasioned by the Epistle mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 9. yea I say further, if that v. 10. were no part of the contents of the former Epistle, yet if the Corinthians( whom Mr. Blakes conceives to be rational men, and thence( though vainly) collects that they must doubt of their childrens case as well as their own) did conceive it a like reason, they should not keep company with Idolaters as with fornicators, they might raise their doubt from the prohibition which did not contain the thing doubted of: which hath the more likelihood, if it be true which Heinsius mentions in his Exercit. on that verse, that an interpre●er conceives the Corinthians under the name of fornicators in the former Epistle understood idolaters.  
Mr. black goes on. And put the case further that the 9.& 10. v. do both express the contents of that Epistle, why do you take both the ends, and leave out the middle? making their scruple to be their converse with husbands or wives fornicators or idolaters, and not as well with covetous or extortioners?  
Answ. I left out the middle terms [ covetous and extortioners] in my Examen page. 71. because I conceived it superfluous for me to put them in. Their onely scruple I mentioned was there conversing with the Idolatrous or un believing yoke-fellow, because the Apostle only resolves that doubt 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13, 14. about which the dispute I held was. Whether or no they scrupled conversing with covetous or extortioners, I could not tell, because the Apostle is silent about that doubt. The alleging of 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. by me, was not to show what was their scruple 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13, 14. but what might be the occasion of it, and that was expressed by me only as a conjectute, not asserted by me to be likely, but only to be far more likely than that the occasion of the doubt was from the fact mentioned Ezra 10.  
But Mr. black adds. If this conjecture of yours hold, the Apostle thus writes to the Corinthians, if any brother hath a wife that is an idolater, fornicator, a drunkard, or extortioner, let him not put her away.  
Ans. My conjecture was, that possibly the occasion of the Corinthians doubt resolved 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13, 14. might be from that which he had written before to them, 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. but how, if this hold, the Apostle must writ to the Corinthians thus, if any brother hath a wife that is an Idolater, fornicator, a drunkard, or extortioner, let him not put her away, I cannot imagine. For neither doth it follow that if that passage ministered occasion of doubt about the one sort,( viz.) the unbelievers, it must also raise doubt of necessity about the other. Wise men not always seeing the consequent of that principle which they are possessed with, or if they had the occasion of the doubt from 1 Cor. 5. 9. doth it follow that the Apostle must either know that to have been the occasion, or resolve their doubt with reference to it? and if he did, yet there was no necessity he should resolve it in like manner concerning fornicators as idolaters. Yea but saith Mr. black, it must needs be that the Apostle takes in every part and piece of their scruple, and so the question about divorce so much agitated, would have been determined.  
Answ. It is likely the Apostle took in every part and piece of that which was propounded to him as the Corinthians scruple indeed, but there was no necessity he should take in every part of that which Mr. black may imagine would have been their scruple if my conjecture hold. But if the Apostle had taken in every part of their scruple, yet the question about divorce so much agitated might have been undetermined. The question so much agitated I think from the following words is that which was once in Oxford agitated between Dr. Howson, Mr. Banny and others on the one side, and Dr. pie, Dr. Rainolds and others on the other side, which as I remember was principally whether upon a lawful divorce for adultery the innocent party might mary again; Howson holding with Bellarmine the negative, Dr. Rainolds and others the affirmative. I do not suppose they held now no lawful divorce, for then they should have destroyed the thing supposed in their question; and though it might be they held Moses permission was to put away a wife in case of adultery only, that the nakedness or uncleanness mentioned Deut. 24. 1. is adultery, yet I think that was not the main question. Now if the Apostle had taken in every part of the Corinthians imagined scruple, and resolved as Mr. black would have it, that if my conjecture hold then he must writ to the Corinthians if any other brother hath a wife that is an idolater, fornicator, a drunkard, or extortioner, let him not put her away, yet this doth not determine the controversy so much agitated, whether the innocent party might mary after a lawful divorce, except by destroying the thing supposed, that there is a lawful divorce, and if it did determine that which Mr. black makes Dr. Howsons tenet, he needs not wonder they did not hit on this text for their purpose, sith such a resolution of the Apostle is bread only in Mr. Blakes brain.  
As for that which Mr. black adds about my Uncle Whately, of precious memory, his retraction, I doubt whether Mr. black adds it in jest or in earnest. 'tis true he did ingenuously retract in a passage before his Carecloth the positions in his Bridebush, The sins of adultery and wilful desertion dissolve the bond of matrimony, acknowledging it would follow then that a husband might not lawfully use his wife having played the adulteress if that were true, for they should be no more husband and wife, if the bond of wedlock were broken: But if I had been acquainted with him sooner, and held the same conjecture I do now, yea and the Apostle must have resolved as Mr. black imagines would follow if my conjecture hold, yet the suggestion of this would have been so far from saving his retraction, that it would rather have necessitated him to it. For if the Apostle should writ thus, If any brother hath a wife that is a fornicator, let him not put her away, would it not the rather follow that fornication dissolves not the marriage knot, and so my Uncle Whately must the rather have retracted that position, that it did, if by my acquaintance with him sooner this had been suggested to him? What follows is answered in my Postscript, which I thought then, and still think, is answer enough to Mr. Blakes answer to my letter. In which I find so many absurd glosses, dictates, flirts, incoherent, inconsequent, impertinent passages, and so little solid nervous disputing, that as I had not said so much as I have done heretofore had not Mr. Vines and Mr. Calamy by their vain crackings necessitated me to it, so neither would I have added this, but to stop the mouths, if it may be, of those that call on me to answer him, who I think is sufficiently answered, till some judicious person shows me wherein my answer to him in my Postscript is defective. I am afraid my judicious Reader will give me little thanks for troubling him with so much. I pass now to the vindicating of mine own exceptions against Mr. Marshals interpretation.   

SECT. XIX.  
My objections against instrumental sanctification, that it fits not the case of persons disabled for procreation, that it makes the argument of the Apostle to be from a future contingent, that the act of producing a holy seed is not from any special designation of God, are vindicated from Mr. Marshals answers.  
MR. Marshall speaks thus. But against this you except many things. First this could not have resolved the doubt in the case of those who by age could not be sanctified to this end, or by reason of accidental inabiliry for generation, they might still depart each from other notwithstanding this reason. I answer, it follows not, this is a laying down of their right which they may claim when they are capable of it; this is their privilege, which remains firm though it should never come into act, as if a freeman of a City should have right to have all his children born freemen, that is to be numbered among his privileges, though he should never have a child; this reaches to men and women married and unmarried, yea even to children yet unborn: besides, the first part of it reacheth to the bed, even the coitus is not only undefiled, but sanctified.  
Answ. This exception or reason of mine was meeely against the expounding of this phrase the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband, thus, the unbelieving wife is sanctified instrumentally, that is as Mr. Marshall expressed it quoad hoc, so far as to bring forth an holy seed. Now I truly said they could not be said to be sanctified for the bringing forth a holy seed, who are disabled for bringing forth any seed at all, and so it could not have resolved the doubt of such; whereas the Apostles determination is concerning any husband and wife, the one an unbeliever, the other a believer. Now in answer hereto Mr. Marshall says, this sanctification is a laying down of their right, or privilege, which remains firm though it should never come into act. I reply, the instrumental sanctification of Mr. Marshall was thus expressed in his Sermon page. 19. the unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband, quoad hoc, so far as to bring forth an holy seed, and in his defence page. 162. the ones being sanctified in the other, quoad hoc, so far as to make them capable to bring forth a holy seed. Now I appeal to any Logician and Grammarian whether a person may be said to be instrumentally sanctified for such an effect which he neither doth nor can produce? whether a woman may be said to be sanctified quoad hoc, so farrè as to bring forth a holy seed by virtue of the faith of her husband, who is by age or accidental impotency utterly disabled naturally from bearing any children, and hath no supernatural power enabling her thereto? whether she may be capable to bring forth a holy seed who is not capable to bring forth any at all? Bringing forth a holy seed cannot be without bringing forth a seed, and therefore the woman uncapable to bring forth a seed is uncapable to bring forth a holy seed. Yea, Mr. Marshals own words [ when they are capable of it] do impliedly aclowledge that such persons are not then capable of the right of being sanctified instrumentally for bringing forth a holy seed. I deny not but there may be a privilege which never comes into an act, but I utterly deny that this speech by which Mr. Marshall paraphraseth the Apostles words, the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the believing husband, quoad hoc, so far as to bring forth a holy seed, can be true of such a woman as is altogether disabled from child-bearing. And therefore the Apostles argument, understood after Mr. Marshals sense of it, had not resolved the doubt concerning them that were past generation, whereas it is not denied that the resolution reacheth even unto such in case of disparity of religion. As for what Mr. Marshall adds, Besides the first part of it reacheth to the bed, even the coitus is not only undefiled but sanctified, I do not understand either what that [ it] refers to, or what he means by [ reacheth to the bed] nor of whom he means it, nor what he means by [ the first part] sith I find no partition of any thing in this answer, nor in what respect or manner the coitus is said to be not onely undefiled but sanctified also, nor to what purpose that is added [ even the coitus is not only undefiled but sanctified] and therefore till Mr. Marshall expound, it I must let it pass as the speech of a man between sleeping and waking.  
Mr. Marshall goes on. Secondly say you, this reason would then run thus, you may live together, for you may beget a holy seed; and so their consciences should have been resolved of their present lawful living together, from a future event which was uncertain; and here( as I touched before) you bring in Chamier nothing to the purpose: I answer, it is not from a future event but from a positive real truth; if Pauls reason be framed thus, The children which believers beget upon their infidel yoke-fellows are a holy seed, therefore believers have a sanctified use of their infidel husbands or wives, had this been a reasoning from a future Contingent? As for what you here city out of Chamier, I answer only this, I persuade myself you are by this time ashamed of your impertinent quotation, I assure myself if you be not, your friends are.  
An. 1. Mr. Marshall opposeth to a future event a positive real truth ineptly, for to a future event is opposed a thing past or present, not a truth which is a right affirmation or denial of something; if he would have spoken aptly he should have said[ but from a thing present or past] Besides when he saith it is from a positive real truth, not from a future event, he intimates some truths not to be real or positive, but every truth, I conceive, though from a future event is real, that is, not imaginary onely, and every truth is positive, that is, puts things as they are, truth of speech being an agreement with that which is indeed, except he mean by[ positive] determinate, according to that which Logicians say, de futuris contingentibus non est determinata veritas.  
2. Mr. Marshall quiter changeth my reason, and mistakes the point in question which was Whether the sanctification of the unbelieving wife spoken of by the Apostle be meant of instrumental sanctification for the bringing forth a holy seed, which I proved that it could not be so, because then the Apostle should resolve them of their lawful living together from a future event which was uncertain, which had been absurd and contrary to the very expressions of the Apostle, which imports a thing very certain, yea a thing present or past, as Chamier observed; where the future event is made this, to be sanctified for this purpose, to wit, to be an instrument for bringing forth a holy seed, now to be an instrument to bring forth a holy seed is a future event and uncertain, it may be or not be; and this is the medium for proof of the Apostles determination v. 13. that they might live together.  
Now what saith Mr. Marshall? he tells me if Pauls reason be framed thus, the children which believers beget upon their infidel yokefellows are a holy seed, therefore believers have a sanctified use of their infidel husbands or wives, had this been a reasoning from a future contingent? which is a ridiculous kind of answering, never excepting against my framing the reason, but rather allowing it after, nor denying that the begetting a holy seed was a future contingent, but substituting another reason instead of that framed by me, wherein he makes the Conclusion that which I made, and that rightly, the Apostles medium according to Mr. Marshals interpretation to prove the apostles determination, v 13. and he makes the latter part of the 14th. v. the medium to prove the former part, and then asks me had this been a reasoning from a future contingent? which is just as in the proverb, to answer about Onions when the interrogation is about garlic.  
3. Chamiers words were cited by me to confirm my reason, that the sanctification is not to be understood of a future contingent. And for this the words are so pertinent, that it is the express speech of Chamier, and therefore however Mr. Marshall or my friends in their mistake conceive of my citation, I know no reason to be ashamed of it. But I assure myself Mr. Marshall hath much cause to be ashamed, and to be humbl●d before God and men for his so heedless and overly handling a point of such importance, and thereby not onely greatly wronging me, but much more the truth, and Church of God, of which the Lord give him repentance.  
But he goes on. Thirdly say you, s●nct●fication is here not ascribed to God as selecting some from other● for such an use, but is common to all unbelieving husbands in respect of their wive, and comes from that commo● relation, not special designation. I answer, this argument is a plain setting down the question in controversy, as an argument to prove itself, and I have already proved the contrary, that it is a privilege not common to all who are married, but peculiar to believers.  
Answ. My reason is this, Instrumental sanctification is by Gods special designation of some selected by him for special use: this is proved from those places which speak of instrumental sanctification, of which I alleged two, Jerem. 1. 5. Is●i. 13. 3. to which I might have added Gen. 2. 3. John 10. 36. and it is confirmed by reason. For to be sanctified instrumentally is to be set apart to be an instrument for bringing forth a holy seed, now an instrument must be the instrument of a principal agent, which can be no other than God, nor be sanctified any other way than his special designation; But in this speech of the apostle there is no special designation of one to be an instrument of God, which is proved in that this sanctification comes from the common relation between them and if it came from the faith of one party, yet it is not from special designation of God, therefore here is not meant instrumental sanctification. Now I appeal to any whether this be a setting down the question in controversy as an argument to prove its self, and not rather an argument drawn from the genuine description of instrumental sanctification, else where to show how it agrees not with the sanctification here meant. What he says he hath proved before, I have examined before, of which the Reader may judge.   

SECT. XX.  
That the proposition included in the consequence of the Apostles argument 1 Cor. 7. 14. is not true of instrumental sanctification and federal holiness, but true onely of matrimonial.  
MR. Marshall proceeds. Fourthly, say you according to this exposition the words following could not be true, else were your children unclean, but now they are holy, because in this form of reasoning this proposition is included, their children could not be holy without that sanctification: which you say is false, because children may be in covenant, and be regenerate, though their parents had never been thus sanctified the one to the other, the children of infidel parents may be sanctified. I reply, not while they are infants, they are not by any birth-privilege to be accounted as belonging to the Church of Christ, which is the only thing about which we are disputing, no man ever went about to prove out of this text that none can ever be converted whose parents are not sanctified the one unto the other.  
Answ. Mr. Marshall leaves out in his repetition sundry words which were of moment to be inserted, to wit,[ the proposition had been false understanding it of instrumental sanctification and of federal or real inherent present holiness] and after[ for the begetting of a holy seed] and[ may be in the covenant of grace] are left out. The reason is this. That interpretation which makes the proposition included in the Apostles argument, which is the hinge upon which it turns, to be false, is not right, but the interpreting sanctification of instrumental sanctification for begetting a holy seed, and holiness of federal or real inherent present holiness makes the proposition included in the Apostles argument( which is the hinge upon which it turns) to be false; Ergo, it is not the right interpretation. The mayor needs no proof: the Minor is proved by showing, 1. That this proposition is included in the Apostles reasoning [ without the sanctification there mentioned, cheer children could not be holy.] 2. This proposition to be false understood of instrumental sanctification and federal or inherent holiness: for then the proposition would be thus[ without sanctification to beget a holy seed by the faith of one of the parents the children could not be holy, so as to be in the covenant, that is, to be accounted belonging to the Church of Christ] But this proposition were false in this sense. For the children may be accounted belonging to the Church of Christ without that sanctification. Now what saith Mr. Marshall to this? he denies not that proposition to be included in the Apostles reasoning as set down by me, nor doth he deny the proposition in that sense to be false: onely he says the proposition is true while they are infants they are not by any birth-privilege to be accounted as belonging to the Church of Christ, which is the only thing about which we are disputing.  
Whereto I reply, it is not to the present business what is the only thing about which Mr. Marshall and I are disputing, nor what any ever went to prove out of the text: but what is the proposition included in the Apostles reasoning, and whether true in Mr. Marshals sense. Mr. Marshall denies not the proposition to be as I set it down, nor will he avouch it to be true except the words [ your children] be restrained to them while they are infants, but the word the Apostle useth is [ your children] which is not here or elsewhere restrained to infants, except some other thing so limit it. They were their children when they were of twenty years, as well as when they were of two dayes old: nor is there any thing in the text that restrains it to infants. Now then if the proposition include children of riper years, and they may be accounted visible members of the Church of Christ, though neither parent be a believer, then is the sense which makes this false proposition to be included in the Apostles reasoning a wrong interpretation, nor doth it solve it to say, they are not by brith-privilege to be accounted as belonging to the Church. For the Apostles proposition is not, without that sanctification their children could not be holy by birth-privilege, but they could not be holy at all; yet I add, that the proposition if [ children] were restrained to infants in Mr. Marshals sense, were false. For infants bought by money of any stranger, were circumcised, Gen. 17. 23. and therefore in Mr. Marshals sense federally holy, and usually Paedobaptists in the Reformed Churches do account foundlings and others, whose parents are neither of them a believer, such as are to be baptized, which is that they mean by federally holy.  
Mr. Marshall proceeds. Next( after another impertinent bringing in of Chamier) you reason thus, take it in my sense, and it is no satisfactory reason, you may live together, for you may beget a holy seed; I answer, this is the same with your second argument answered before; and wherein I pray you lies the weakness of it, you may live together and have a holy use of your unbelieving yoke-fellows, for God esteems the seed of such to be an holy seed as truly as if both were believers, is this a slight or unsatisfying answer?  
Answ. That which I alleged out of Chamier, was very pertinent to the matter for which I produced it, viz. to prove that to argue from an event, which might possibly not be at all, to resolve the Corinthian Christian▪ that he might lawfully continue with his unbelieving wife, had been unsatisfactory. But I am  told this is the same with my second argument answered before, which I aclowledge, and therefore did not make it a distinct argument by itself, but added that and the 6th and 7th so called exceptions only as amplifications of what I said before But Mr. Marshall asks wherein lies the weakness of it? I answer, I  told him plainly enough wherein it had been unsatisfactory, in that it would have been a resolution of them of their lawful living together, from a future contingent, the begetting a holy seed, which some of them perhaps knew would never be, as being disabled from generation. As for that which Mr. Marshall makes his paraphrase of the Apostle, and then asks me is this a slight and unsatisfactory answer? I answer, Mr. Marshals paraphrase here neither agrees with the Apostles words, nor with his own exposition, nor is it a satisfactory answer as he makes it. It agrees not with the Apostles words, 1. Because the apostle doth not use v. 14. a conjunction copulative[ {αβγδ}, and] but a causal[ {αβγδ}, for] whereas the paraphrase useth a copulative, you may live together, and have a holy use of your unbelieving yoke-fellows: but the Apostle saith, let her not put him away: for the unbelieving husband, &c. making the latter the medium to prove the former. Now Mr. Marshall by using [ and] instead of [ for] makes one copulative proposition of both, and so quiter mars the Apostles reason. 2. Mr. Marshall puts nothing in his paraphrase to answer to those words [ else were your children unclean] though it be a main part of the Apostles reason. Nor doth this paraphrase agree with Mr. Marshall● own exposition. For 1. His own exposition is, the unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband quoad hoc, so far as to bring forth a holy seed: but this is not all one with his paraphrase, you may have a holy use of unbelieving yoke-fellows. Forasmuch as there may be an holy use of unbelieving yokefellows, otherwise than by bringing forth a holy seed. 2. Mr. marshals exposition of those words [ but now are they ho●y] is, that they are to b● accounted by men belonging ●o the Church of Christ: but here he paraphrase●h them thus [ God esteems the seed of such to be an holy seed, as truly as if both were believers] so that Mr. Marshall doth but wast paper by a frivolous question nothing to the purpose, sith my exception was not against this new paraphrase as unsatisfactory, but against that other which I conceived, and Mr. Marshall denies not to express his meaning, and I have often  told him it had been unsatisfactory, and I gave him my reason for it, which he hath not yet refuted. And yet as I said, so I conceive this new-shaped paraphrase yields not a satisfactory reason to prove that the believer may live with the unbeliever, because God esteems their children holy, sith the doubt was about their own cohabitation, not of retaining their children: yea Gods esteeming the child holy only for the believers sake, and not the unbeliever, might rather increase their doubt whether they might then live with the party not esteemed holy by God. But Mr. Marshall hath yet more to say about this exception, and he thus speaks.  
Nay I add further, had the Apostle gon about to prove that a believing wife& a believing husband have not only a lawful enjoyment one of another( as heathens have) but a sanctified, as they have of other creatures, because else their children were unclean, but now they are holy, all your exceptions would lye as strong against this last as against the former: for you might have said this only reaches those that are of age. Secondly, this depends upon a future contingent. Thirdly, this depends upon their common relation. Fourthly, and children may be holy, that is, afterward regenerate, though this be denied, let the Reader consider of it.  
Answ. When the Reader hath considered this observation of Mr. Ma●shall, he shall only find Mr. Marshall continuing to talk at random. He first makes a new supposition of another case of two believers, and then speaks of their having not onely a lawful enjoyment of one another( as heathens have) but a sanctified, as they have of other creatures. Which neither expresseth what I or himself meant by [ the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife] and then adds, the rest of the Apostles reason v. 14. and then tells me my exceptions would lye as strongly against this last as against the former; which it seems he accounts an absurdity sufficient to invalidate my exceptions. Wherein he doth but beat the air; my exceptions were not against the word [ sanctified] used in the sense here expressed, but against the understanding by it instrumental sanctification for bringing forth a holy seed, which is not all one with having a sanctified enjoyment of one another, as they have of other creatures: now if my exceptions lye as strong against that exposition of instrumental sanctification, if the Apostle had spoken of two believers as well as now when he speaks of one believer and the other an unbeliever, I know no absurdity therein nor any thing to infringe the strength of them, but rather to confirm them. And therefore I see not how he should trouble the Reader with this new supposition and the inference thereupon, except it be to puzzle him, as himself seems to have been. But he proceeds further and tells me,  
You go on, and say that in your sense the reason is plain and satisfactory, let them live together though one be a believer, the other an unbeliever, for notwithstanding this difference in religion they are husband and wife, marriage being honourable among all, and the bed undefiled. I reply, but this had been no satisfaction to their scruple; their doubt was not whether their marriage were lawful while they were heathen, but whether now their consciences would not be defiled in remaining joined to Idolaters, and the Apostles resolution must remove that which your sense doth not; you granted they doubted not the legitimation of their children, and therefore your sense could not have removed the scruple as is above shewed.  
Answ. Though Mr. Marshal by maintaining my words detracts from the clearness of them, yet, letting that pass, lets view what he replies. He tells us that their scruple was not whether their marriage were lawful while they were heathens. To which I assent, there is no difference between us about the scruple, nor about the Apostles resolution, v. 12, 13. and therefore if it be the Apostles resolution that removes the doubt, my sense being all one with Mr. Marshals, if that removes the doubt, my sense removes it well as his. All the difference is about expounding v. 14. which whether it be more satisfactory according to my sense, or his, may be judged from that which is above shewed. As for that which he adds, that I grant they doubted not the legitimation of their children, and therefore my sense could not have removed the scruple as is above shewed, I know not where he shewed this above. I confess he took on him to show that if they doubted not of the legitimation of their children, they could not doubt of the lawfulness of their marriage, which hath been sufficiently answered already. But I am yet to seek that which he saith here, he hath shewed above, that because they doubted not of the legitimation of their children, therefore my sense could not have removed the scruple.  
Mr. Marshall adds. And whereas you add the like resolution he gives v. 17. concerning circumcised and uncircumcised servants, they might still continue with their masters, their Christian calling did not dissolve these relations, I answer, in one word this like hath no likeness at all in it, there is no parallel betwixt these two cases, he speaks not one word about believing servants continuing with unbelieving masters, but of servants in general, whether their masters were believers or unbelievers, he tells them that they might continue servants though they were Christs freemen, yet if they can fairly obtain their freedom let them choose that rather.  
Answ. Mr. Marshall tells me, this like hath no likeness at all in it, there is no parallel betwixt the two cases. But what though the cases be not parallel, yet the resolution may be like, yea the cases may be like though not parallel, sith parallel being a term taken from Geometry by which are meant lines equally distant, it in the Metaphor imports a more exact and even answerableness than the term likeness. And though there is no express mention of unbelieving masters, yet they being included in the general term masters, the resolution is, that they might, though the Lords freemen, continue with their unbelieving masters. Which resolution I am sure hath some likeness with this here, that the believing wife might continue with her unbelieving husband.   

SECT. XXI.  
It is at large shewed that neither Mr. Marshall in his Sermon, nor his Defence, hath answered the objection from the inconsistency of the Apostles included proposition with his exposition.  
MR: Marshal proceeds thus. One argument more you bring against this interpretation, if the sanctification were meant of matrimonial sanctification, and the uncleanness of federal uncleanness, so as to exclude them out of the Covenant, whether of Saving graces or Church-privileges, then the proposition was most false, because children of parents not matrimonially sanctified one to the other were within the Covenant, as Pharez, Jephta and others. I answer, First, I desire the Reader to take notice that you take the Covenant here in this place, as I do, for Church-privileges. Secondly, indeed if sanctification be taken for matrimonial sanctification, or lawfulness of wedlock, and uncleanness of federal sanctification, the proposition may be granted to be false, and let them who so take it undertake the defence of it if they can; but let it be meant of that other sanctification which I have justified, then the proposition is most true, I say again, all the children of those parents the one whereof is an unbeliever are unclean, that is, federally unclean, excluded out of the Covenant, in respect of Church-privileges at least, if not of Saving graces( which is a secret left to God) unless the one be sanctified in the other.  
Answ. 1. What Mr. Marshall desires the Reader to take notice of, that I take the Covenant here in this place as he do●h for Churchprivileges, because I speak thus, so as to exclude them out of the Covenant, whether of Saving graces or Church-privileges, is frivolous, sith the Reader might easily perceive the meaning of it to be whether of Saving graces as it ought to be taken, or of Church-privileges as Mr. Marshall though abusively takes it. So that it is so far from being true, that I take the Covenant there for Church-privileges, that the contrary is rather true, sith I express it so only to recite Mr. Marshals use of it, not mine own.  
2. Mr. Marshall, as in other things, so in this, through hast( as I conceive) handles this reason of mine so indistinctly and imperfectly, that the Reader cannot from his words or mine, as they are by him recited, know what the proposition is, about the falsity or truth of which we are disputing, because both that which leads to it, and the proposition itself included in the Apostles reason, and not denied to be so by Mr. Marshall, is omitte● by him. Wherefore because the chief point of the dispute about the meaning of the text lies in this, it is necessary before I answer the rest of Mr. Marshals wrangling( as I may truly call it rather than disputing about this text,) to put the Reader briefly in mind of the state of the point in difference between us, desiring him, if he seek the truth, to weigh better my words in my Examen, than I think Mr. Marshall, or Mr. Geree, or any of those that have taken upon them to answer me, have done. Briefly thus, after I had shewed that when the Apostle says [ the unbelieving wife is sanctified in or to the husband] the meaning is not as Mr. Marshall,[ the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband so far as to bring forth an holy seed] which after Mr. Thomas Goodwin I call instrumental sanctification, but thus,[ that the unbelieving wife though an unbeliever, is lawfully enjoyed by her own husband as a wife without pollution, as if she were sanctified] which I called for distinction sake matrimonial sanctification, and then having shewed that the words [ else were your children unclean, but now they are holy] are an argument ab absurdo consequent, if that were not true that the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the husband, I shewed by reducing it into syllogistical form that this Hypothetical proposition being the mayor [ if the unbelieving wife were not sanctified to or in the husband, your children were unclean if the Consequence be good, this proposition must be true [ all the children of those parents whereof the one is not sanctified in the other, are unclean] which I confirmed by alleging rightly and pertinently Chamiers words against Augustines interpretation, Panstrat. Cathol. tom. 4. lib. 5. c. 10. s. 67. which show that he avers the Apostles reason to include these two propositions [ omnes nati ex iis pa●entibus quorum alter non sanctificatur in altera, sunt impuri, nunquam parentes quorum alter non sanctificatur in altera gignunt liberos puros sieve sanctos] I inferred that this proposition [ all the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other, are unclean, or no such children can be clean] cannot be true of matrimonial sanctification( which I had first demonstrated to be the sense) and federal uncleanness, whether by it be meant exclusion from the Covenant of saving graces or Church-privileges, forasmuch as Pharez, and Zara, Jephta and others were in the Covenant, though the one parent were not sanctified to the other. Now what saith Mr. Marshall to this? First he saith the proposition if understood of matrimonial sanctification( not rightly expressed by him according to my mind of lawfulness of wedlock) and uncleanness of federal sanctification( it should be uncleanness) may be granted to be false, he will not undertake the defence of it. So then all rests on this, whether I have proved my sense of matrimonial sanctification, which whether I have done or no let the Reader judge. Sure I am Beza annot. in locum paraphraseth it thus. Fidelis uxor potest 
Andr. River. sum. controv. tract 3 q. 3. s. 8. Apostolus docet conjugem infidelem sanctificariin fideli non per infidelem ut Jesuita interpretatur. Id vero nô intelligitur de sanctificationae, personâ said ejus usu in vinculo conjugali, &c.  cum infideli marito bona conscientia consuescere. Piscator sch: in 1 Cor. 7. 14. Sanctificatus est, id est usus illius ut sanctus et conscientiam uxoris non laedens concessus est. Zegedin. loc. come. page. 357. Rationem sumit a licito usu matrimonii, ac totius vitae, neque enim copula infidelis fidelis inquinatur. Sanctificatur infidelis à fideli quo ad usum et communionem thori, ab effectu, si immundum esset vestrum conjugium, et libri qui ininde nascerentur immundi essent, at non sunt immundi. Menochius, Sanctificatur matrimonium, et conjunctio haec Sancta est, unde non profanatur neque polluitur fidelis per contractum infidelis. Grot. annot. Hic {αβγδ} & {αβγδ} dicuntur {αβγδ}, pro usu viri aut uxoris, id est consuetudine conjugali. I confess divers do conceive the sanctification to be the fruit of the faith of the one party, and that the unbeliever is said to be sanctified by the other either because the believer leads the other to the faith, or that the prayers of the believer make the conjugal use holy to the believer( which sense I observed above to be embraced by Mr. Cobbet, but neither to be right, nor for his advantage) and other conceits there are about this. But the most common I have met with in Protestant Divines, who yet avouch hence federal holiness of children, is to understand the sanctification of the unbeliever to be in the lawful continuance of conjugal use without fornication, so that the sanctification excludes no other impurity than unlawful use of marriage. As for instrumental sanctification for begetting a holy seed I still say, as the first I ever heard use the term was Mr. Thomas Goodwin, so likewise he was the first I observed so expounding it. And therefore there is good cause of suspicion of it for its novelty as well as for its falsity.  
But saith Mr. Marshall. Let it be meant of that other sanctification which I have justified, the proposition is most true. I say again, all the children of those parents the one whereof is an unbeliever are unclean, that is, federally unclean, excluded out of the Covenant in regard of the Church-privileges at least, if not of Saving graces( which is a secret left to God) unless the one be sanctified in the other.  
Answ. Though it had been fit he had in this place expressed distinctly what he means by being sanctified, or the sanctification which he hath justified, yet I am content to make supply of that defect from the bottom of the same page. 162. where he thus speaks, there is no such bar to be removed by the ones being sanctified in the other quoad hoc, so far as to make them capable to bring forth aholy seed. This then is the proposition which according to Mr. marshals exposition is included in the Apostles argument [ all the children of those parents the one whereof is an unbeliever, or whereof the one is not sanctified in the other, quoad hoc so far as to make them capable to bring forth a holy seed, are unclean, that is, federally unclean, excluded out of the Covenant in regard of Church-privileges t● least, if not of Saving graces.] This Mr. Marshall avers to be true, I aver it to be manifestly false, even according to Mr. Marshals own hypotheses. For 1. They who were to be Crcumcised were not excluded out of the Covenant in respect of Church-privileges. But children were to be Circumcised of whose parents neither was a believer nor the one sanctified in the other, quoad hoc, so far as to make them capable to bring forth a holy seed in Mr. marshals sense. Ergo some children whereof neither parent was a believer, nor sanctified the one in the other in Mr. Marshals sense, were not excluded out of the Covenant in respect of Church-privileges, which is contradictory to Mr. Marshals proposition, and consequently the proposition conceived by Mr. Marshall in the Apostles reasoning is not true: nor his exposition of the Apostle, right. The mayor needs no proof, to be of right Circumcised being in Mr. Marshals sense one way of being included in the Covenant in respect of Church-privileges. The Minor is proved by sundry instances, In the first institution of Circumcision God appointed Gen. 17. 12. 13. that the male child of eight daies old who was bought with money of any stranger which was not of Abrahams seed, should be Circumcised. Now such had neither parent sanctified in the other in Mr. Marshals sense, sith neither parent was a believer; And accordingly the practise of the Jews was when they took any children captive, or bought servants, they did Circumcise them though neither parent was a believer, 1 Mac. 2. 46. See Selden de jure Nat.& Gent. Juxta discip. Heb. l. 2. c. 2. 3. Besides the proselytes of the Gentiles had been excluded from being Circumcised if the proposition included in the Apostles reason were to be understood in Mr. Marshals sense, sith they had neither parent a believer; nor doth it avail to say they were not excluded when they embraced the Covenant, but they were not by birth-privilege included, for the Apostles proposition hath not that limitation in it [ all the children whereof neither parent is a believer are excluded from Church-privileges by birth] but simply [ are unclan] that is, excluded from Church-privilege( if that were the meaning of the term unclean) anyway, yea so as to make it impossible they should be ever clean, Mr. Marshall not denying page. 160. nor Mr. black in his answer to my letter pag. 36. this proposition to be included [ without that sanctification their children could not be holy] now such a speech excludes holiness from such at all times, and therefore Chamier as conceiving the exclusion to be perpetual expressed himself thus, nunquamne infidels utuntur uxoribus nisi menstruatis? 2. They who are to be baptized are not excluded out of the Covenant, in regard of Church-privileges, but the children of those parents whereof neither is a believer, nor sanctified the one in the other, in Mr. Marshals sense, may be baptized. As for instance, all the believers of the Gentiles newly converted, the Eunuch Acts 8. Cornelius Acts 10. the children of the jews whose parents were hardened against the doctrine of Christ, were children of parents whereof neither was a believer, and so not sanctified the one in the other, in Mr. Marshals sense, and yet baptized. Nor is it of any moment to say they were not infants; for neither doth the word [ children] note only infants, nor doth any thing in the text restrain it to the time of infancy, yea many interpreters that conceive the holiness would be by receiving the faith, do thereby show that they understand it of them when of grown years. Besides according to the doctrine of Mr. Rutherfurd both in his temperate plea ch. 12. concl. 1. arg. 7. and in his due right of Presbyteries ch. 4. sect. 6. page. 260. 261. &c. the infants are capable of baptism whose nearest parents are professed unbelievers, and the Grave confutation of Brownists published by Mr. Rathband part 3. page. 50. makes children capable of baptism if any of their ancestors in any generation were faithful. And the practise of Paedobaptists is usual to baptize infants whose parents are uncertain, if born in a country where the faith of Christ is professed. Yea however Mr. Cobbet in his just vindic. part. 1. c. 1. sect. 2. would( though vainly) that the changing of the person when the Apostle saith [ your children] notes the children of inchurched professors by Covenant, whence it would follow that they onely( if his exposition were good) should be capable of baptism, yet Mr. Cotton who so much commends him in his Epistle before Mr. Nortons answer to Apollonius saith in his way of the Churches of Christ in New England c. 7. s. 2. what hindereth but that if the parents will design their infant to be educated in the house of any godly member of the Church, the child may lawfully be baptized in the right of its household governor, according to the proportion of the law. Gen. 17. 12, 13. Therefore certainly according to the Paedobaptists hypotheses the proposition included in the Apostles reason were in Mr. Marshals sense most false, and consequently his exposition not right.  
But to follow Mr. Marshall. This argument( saith he) I answered in my sermon and framed it thus, that holiness is here meant which could not be unless one of the parents were sanctified to the other, but federal holiness of children may be where parents are not sanctified one in or to the other, as in bastardy, Davids child by Bethsheba, &c. in which case the children were federally holy, and yet the harlot not sanctified in or to the adulterer or fornicator though a believer. My answer was, that the Apostles scope in this argument is to show that the children born of an unbeliever would not be holy unless the other parent could remove that bar, but hath no force of an argument where both the parents are believers, which was the case of the Jews, the case of Hargar, Bersheba, &c. All the reply you make to it page.( 80) is to bestow a few scoffs upon it, that my answer is to deny the Conclusion, that I show no fault either in the matter or the form of the argument, that the scope which I mention is but a mere figmen●; that I do as good as say, that the objector can make no argument out of it, and that therefore I need make no answer; and that in one place I grant the Minor, then the mayor, and thus you most gallantly vapour upon me; I reply, were it not that some Readers are prove to think him to have the truth, that speaks most bravingly, I durst( without adding a word more) leave all scholars to judge whether my answer deserves all this scorn.  
Answ. To the imputation of scorn, vapouring, braving, I have answered in my Apology, sect. 5. page. 24. I say still that Mr. Marshal in answering the argument in his Sermon did not follow the rules of logic I have learned in the Schools in which I was bread, which were to show some fault in matter or form, of which Mr. Marshal doth neither. I add now that I have red Aristotles elenches, Keckermans system, Fasciculus praeceptorum Logic. and many other Logicians who give rules about answering, and I am confident Mr. Marshall cannot show that his pretended answer is agreeable to the rules which either those or any other Logician gives. Mr. Geree to help out Mr. Marshal here says in his vindic. paedobapt. pag. 29. he tells you, you frame not your objection right, id est, you dispute not ad idem: you dispute fallaciously, ex ignoratione Elenchi: for the question is not of the holiness of children of parents in general not sanctified to one another, but where one is an unbeliever and not sanctified to the other. I answer, Keckerman, Syst. Log. lib. 3. sect. 3. c. 2. saith truly, that there is an ignoratio Elenchi in a syllogism when the Conclusion doth not directly oppose the position of the adversary, an Elench being as Aristotle in his elenches, a syllogism with contradiction of the Conclusion. Now the position of Mr. Marshall was that federal holiness was meant 1 Cor. 7. 14. And my Conclusion was, federal holiness is not there meant. If this be not a direct opposition or contradiction of Mr. Marshals Conclusion, let it be shewed what condition is wanting; He tells me the question is not of the holiness of the parents in general, &c. whether he expressed well Mr. Marshals conceit will appear by that which follows. For the present, the question to be concluded was neither the one, nor the other, but this, whether federal holiness be meant in the words [ but now are they holy] and the Conclusion in the argument denying it, there was a direct disputation ad idem, and no ignoratio Elenchi as Mr. Geree unskilfully allegeth. What I said, that it is a mere figment, that the Apostles scope in this argument is to show that the children born of an unbeliever would not be holy unless the other parent could remove that bar, was truly said by me, there being no such scope in the Apostles words. But the scope is plainly to show they might lawfully live together, notwithstanding the unbelief of one party; nor is there a word in the Apostle of a bar against producing a holy seed, nor of removing such a bar, or removing it by the believership of one party: all these I again a vouch to be mere figments and Chimaeras imagined in Mr. Marshals fantasy, not gathered from the apostles words. And when he saith [ hath no force of an argument] if he means the Apostles scope, which seems to be the Nominative case to [ hath] I know not how to make good sense of it; nor did I ever place the force of an argument in the Apostles scope; but in the argument of the Apostle and the proposition which the Apostles argument presupposeth as true. And I say still Mr. Marshal made no answer to it at all, but both granted mayor and Minor without denying the form of it to be good. But perhaps he hath mended the matter in his defence; let's hear then what he saith.  
But lest you go on in your vain boasting, I shall apply my answer more particularly to the argument which you aclowledge to be your own, And I say plainly that the mayor proposition is not true if taken universally, viz. that holiness of children is here meant, which could not be unless one of the parents be sanctified in or by the other, what ever those parents be, though both of them be believers. This proposition( say I) is not true, because when both the parents are believers, there is no such bar to be removed by the ones being sanctified in the other, quoad hoc, so far as to make them capable to bring forth a holy seed, they being both in the Covenant, and that sinful defiling of one anothers body, doth not deprive them of that privilege of the Covenant to have their children accounted to belong to the Church of God, but when one of the parents being an unbeliever or infidel must have their children accounted out of the pale of the Church, unless that bar be removed to them, it's true, that unless the one be sanctified in the other( the unbeliever in or by the believer) their children would not be holy; If therefore you make not your mayor so universal, but limit it as the Apostle doth, and make the argument thus, That holiness of the children is here meant which could not be unless the one were sanctified in or to the other, the one of the parents being an infidel, but this was the case of Hagar, Bersheba, Jephta, Pharez, &c. now your Minor is false, this was not their case, neither of their parents were unbelievers, though sinful in that act: And now I pray you where lies the absurdity or weakness of my answer; all this I said before, only you would not see it; and thought to carry it with more advantage to you by scoffing than by solemn refuting.  
Answ. No other refuting of an answer to an objection is necessary than to show that it is no answer according to logic rules, which I did concerning Mr. Marshals answer, by telling him that he neither shewed faultiness in the matter, nor form of the objection. What refuting Mr. Marshall calls solemn, and what solemnity is required in refuting, I do not well understand; [ solemn] is a term of law, and then a thing is done solemnly when it is done according to certain words or rites prescribed. If my refuting were not in set words or rites( though I know not what solemnity in refuting Logicians prescribe other than I have used) it's not material, if it were right. I neither used scoffing, nor thought to carry any thing with more advantage by it. I do not think Mr. Marshall said all before, that now he doth, and I would both then and now see his answer if it were to be seen, which yet is to me either non-sense or non-apparens. Wherein the absurdity and weakness of his answer lies, I shall tell him the rather because he preys me. Mr. Marshal tells me I aclowledge the argument to be mine own. And it is true for the matter of it, I owned it, but as for the form, it being not framed by me, but Mr. Marshall, as he acknowledgeth, It liked me not well when I wrote my Examen, and when I wrote my Apology I less liked of it, as may be perceived by my mending of it in my Apology sect. 5. page. 24. where I say the truth is, the argument should be thus framed. That holiness which might be though one of the parents were not sanctified to the other, is not here meant; but federal holiness might be though one of the parents were not sanctified to the other; Ergo, federal holiness is not here meant: or thus, that uncleanness which doth not agree to all the children of those whose parents are not sanctified one in or to another, is not here meant; but federal uncleanness doth not agree to all the children of those parents who are not sanctified one in or to another, Ergo, federal uncleanness is not here meant; but because these two propositions are in a manner equipollent[ that holiness of the children is here meant, which could not be unless one of the parents were sanctified to the other] and this[ that holiness which might be though one of the parents were not sanctified to the other, is not here meant] therefore in my Examen I did not alter the Ma●or proposition, but saith Mr. Marshall the mayor is not true if taken universally, viz. That holiness of children is here meant which could not be unless one of the parents be sanstified in or by the other, what ever those parenes be, though both of them be believers.  
Answ. I deny not that I take it so universally, or more universally, whether the one parent be a believer and the other an unbeliever, or neither of them a believer, or both them are believers, their children are not, cannot be holy in the Apostles sense, unless the one be sanctified in or to the other, and this proposition is included in the Apostles argument as I have above demonstrated. But Mr. Marshall saith it is not true when both of them are believers. Answ. This then is not true according to Mr. Marshall, that if two parents be believers, the one is sanctified by the other for bringing forth a holy seed, and their children federally holy. But I had thought, it had been more certainly, and undoubtedly true according to Mr. marshals hypotheses, the reason proceeding à fortiori, if the belief of the one party sanctifies the other unbeliever, for bringing forth a holy seed, the belief of both parties much more, and if the children of the one parent being a believer, are in the Covenant in respect of Church-privileges, much more the children of both parents being believers: else the children of both parents being believers have less privilege than when on only is a believer, and Mr. Marshall doth ill to baptize any children whereof both their parents are believers, they being according to him not sanctified to bring forth a holy seed, and so consequently their children not federally holy: which I presume his fellow asserters of Paedobaptism will disclaim as very absurd. But let us hear Mr. Marshals reason.  
This proposition( I say) is not true, because when both the parents are believers, there is no such bar to be removed by the ones being sanctified in the other, quoad hoc, so far as to make them capable to bring forth a holy seed, they being both in the Covenant, and sinful defiling one anothers body, doth not deprive them of that privilege of the Covenant to have their children accounted to belong to the Church of God.  
Answ. Mr. Marshall upon his figment of the Apostles scope to remove a bar conceives this proposition not to be true[ the children could not be holy unless one of the parents were sanctified in or by another, when both are believers] because then there is no bar to be removed. A bar is but a metaphor, and in proper sense is nothing but a let or impediment: what let or impediment for begetting a holy seed is to be removed when one is an unbeliever, which is not to be removed when both are believers, I cannot conceive: if the bar be the parents not being in Covenant, it is surely removed as well when both are in Covenant, as when one: if to have their children accounted out of the pale of the Church( as the words after seem to mean) that bar is removed, and to be removed, as well when both parents believe, as when one onely, according to Mr. Marshals hypotheses. And if there be no bar to be removed which should hinder their holiness, then it is much more certain they are holy according to Mr. Marshals hypotheses.  
When Mr. Marshall adds, And that sinful defiling of one anothers body doth not deprive them of that privilege of the Covenant to have their children accounted to belong to the Church of God; I understand not what this makes to prove the proposition not to be true universally taken, or that there is no bar to be removed when both parents are believers. The speech itself as I understand it is the assertion of the Minor in the objection, That the children may be holy with federal holiness where one of the parents is not sanctified to the other with matrimonial sanctification, which is lawful use of each other.  
But saith Mr. Marshall, when one of the parents being an unbeliever or infidel must have their children accounted out of the pale of the Church, unless that bar be rem●ved to them, it's true, that unless the one be sanctified in the other( the unbeliever in or by the believer) their children would not be holy.  
Answ. Neither is the proposition in this manner true according to Mr. Marshals sense, as I have proved above, where I have shewed, that children whereof neither parent was a believer were to be Circumcised, and according to Paedobaptists hypotheses to be baptized.  
Mr. Marshall goes on. If therefore you make not your mayor so universal, but limit it as the Apostle doth, and make the argument thus, that holiness of children is here meant, which could not be unless the one were sanctified in or to the other, the one of the parents being an infidel.  
Answ. If the argument be mine, it is not Mr. marshals part to frame it as he pleaseth, but to answer it as he finds it made by me.  
But saith he, the Apostle doth so limit it.  
Answ. It is true that the truth of the mayor proposition in the objection doth depend upon the proposition implied in the Consequence of the Apostles argument, which is, [ if the unbelieving wife be not sanctified to the husband, your children are unclean]; which depends upon the truth of this proposition [ all the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other, are unclean] or this, [ none of the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other, are holy.] These propositions neither are limited by the Apostle as Mr. Marshall says, nor did Chamier Panstrat. Cath. tom. 4. lib. 5. c. 10. s. 78, conceive they were to be limited otherwise than I do, when he said, omnesne na●i ex iis parentibus quorum alter non sanctificatur in altera geniti sunt in menstruis? Ita oportet sanè, aut hanc ridiculam esse interpretationem. Nor is it necessary they should be so limited, for though the Conclusion be only of one believing parent, and another unbelieving, yet the proposition proving it must be larger, of all parents sanctified or not sanctified one in or to another, as I answered Mr. black in my postscript to my Apology page. 123. If a man will prove this, if an English-man be noble, he is honourable, he is to prove it by this[ all noble men are honourable] nor is he to add[ English-men] unless the reason of the honourableness were from the being an English-man, and not barely from being noble: so here, this Consequence[ if the unbelieving wife be not sanctified to the husband, your children were unclean] is proved by this[ all the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other, are unclean] and there's no need, nor fitness to put in[ all the children of the parents whereof one is an unbeliever not sanctified to the believer, are unclean] and the reason hereof is, because the force of the sequel depends not at all upon this, that one was an unbeliever: yea the unbeliever is put by the Apostle, not to show that his being an unbeliever was the reason of the sanctification or holiness, but it is added as if he had said [ the unbelieving husband though an unbeliever] to intimate, thatash is unbelief is no cause of the sanctification, so neirher is it a hindrance, though doubted to be so by the Corinthians. And the term [ believer] is omitted quiter, because the force of the sequel lay in this, that the one patent is sanctified to the other, whether they be believers or unbelievers, one or both. But if the proposition were to be limited, as Mr. Marshall would have it, thus [ unless the one be sanctified in the other, the one of the parents being an infidel, their children would not be holy] it would be most false according to Mr. Marshals doctrine. For then it would be true, that the children of both believers are federally unclean, none of them holy, that is, in the Covenant, in respect of Church privileges, for then there is no bar to be removed, then they are not sanctified the one in the other, whereas according to his own doctrine the children of both believers are more certainly in the Covenant. Yea, page. 160. of his defence he himself saith thus: For God esteems the seed of such to be an holy seed, as truly as if both were believers. Which speech supposeth it undoubted that the children of both believers are a holy seed. And this( though I find him rather a confused disputer than subtle) yet there is reason to conceive Mr. Marshall saw: for having made this the mayor in the argument [ that holiness of the children is here meant, which could not be unless one were sanctifi●d in or to the other, the one of the parents being an infidel] whereas he should have assumed [ but federal hol●ness could be though one of the pa●ents were not sanctified in or to the other, the one being an infidel] and then have denied it, foreseing( as it is likely) this would be false with this limitation [ that federal holiness of children could not be unless one of the parents were sanctified in the other, the one beeng an infidel] he thrusts in for the Minor another proposition than was in the objection, whether fraudulently or unskilfully I leave it to his own conscience to judge, and saith thus.  
But this was the case of Hagar, Bathsheba, Jepthta, Pharez, &c. now your minor is false, this was not their case, neither of their parents were unbelievers though sinful in that act.  
Whetein Mr. Marshall after he had mis-shaped the mayor of my argument after his own mind, leaves out the proposition, which a Logician would have expected to have been put as the Minor, and puts another instead thereof▪ which would make the objection a monstrous syllogism, and then calls it my Minor, and tells me, now your Minor is false, this was not their case, neither of their parents were unbelievers though sinful in that act, whereas the Minor in the argument I owned was[ but federal holiness of children may be where parents are not sanctified one in or to the other] which had been true whether both parents were believers, or one onely, though the copulation were unlawful.  
But saith Mr. Marshall, now your Minor, the case of Hagar Bathsheba, Jepthta, Pharez, &c. is false, this was not their case, neither of them were unbelievers though sinful in that act.  
Answ. Whether Hagar, or Thamar, or Jephtas mother were unbelievers, I know not: M. Marshall after calls Thamar a gentle. The thing I alleged was not that they were unbelievers, but that those women,& the fathers of the children name, were not sanctified one in or to another, and yet the children according to Mr. Marshals hypotheses federally holy; yet If I had put the instance in a child of the Ammonitess wife of Solomon, of whom mention is 1 Kings 11. 7, 8. that she sacrificed to Molech, yet that child had been federally holy notwithstanding Solomon and that woman were not sanctified one in or to another; yea the children of Ahab and Jezabel, or any concubine unlawfully used by him, though a worshipper of Baal, being born in Israel, and descended from Abraham, had been federally holy in M. Marshals sense, that is to be Circumcised, though the parents were both gross Idolaters, worshippers of Baal, and such as persecuted the Lords Prophets, being manifest unbelievers. And therfore let Mr. Marshall fashion the argument how he will, it would be false in his sense of instrumental sanctification and federal uncleanness and holiness which the Apostles argument presupposeth that all the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other are unclean, or none of them holy: much more if by [ sanctified] be meant matrimonially( which I conceive I have demonstrated) and true only of matrimonial sanctification and holiness: and therefore do conclude that Mr. Marshals interpretation is manifestly false, and mine true {αβγδ} which I was to demonstrate.  
But Mr. Marshall tells me; In the close I added indeed, if a believer should adulterously beget a child upon a Pagan, this objection in that case deserves to be further weighed, but here it comes not within the compass of the Apostles argument; upon this also you bestow two or three scoffs, you call it a wise remedy, nothing to the purpose;& you construe it as if I had said, I will not answer the objection which is made, but if you will make it thus and thus I will answer it. Truly Sir, I am persuaded, all learned men either laugh at or pitty this vanity of your disputing; in sober sadness tell me, was this the scruple of the Corinthians? or doth the Apostle here meddle with this case of believers and infidel harlots? doth he not confine himself to answer cases betwixt believers, and their unbelieving wives and husbands? or do both these cases require one and the self same answer?  
Answ. To that of scoffing I have answered in my Apology s. 5. page. 24. Of my construction of Mr. Marshals addition there was reason. However Mr. Marshall be persuaded all learned men laugh at or pitty the vanity of my disputing, yet my disputation hath had the approbation of as learned in this kind as Mr. Marshal, and perhaps any other of the Assembly, and though I do not think it any matter of laughter, yet I conceive it cause of much pitty to them, and mourning to the Church of God, that there is such vain overly disputing in Mr. Marshall, and I fear by the texts added to their confession of faith, and other things I have heard in the Assembly about this matter, which I am confident would appear to any intelligent man, if from the texts alleged by them for infants baptism and Church visibility arguments were framed in a syllogistical way. Sure it is no laughing matter, but lamentable, that men should for not apprehending doubtful disputations be adjudged unfit to live at liberty in the Commonwealth, or in employment of preaching the Gospel, or enjoyment of Christian Communion. But Mr. Marshal falls a posing me, and asks me four questions, which lest the Reader should take the not answering to be tergiversation, I will answer. The first is, Was this the scruple of the Corinthians? Answ. This, what? belike whether believers and infidel harlots might live together. I tell him in sober sadness I know not all the scruples the Corinthians had, but the scruple here answered I have often  told him is, whether the believing yoke-fellow might live with the unbelieving yoke-fellow: The second, or doth the Apostle here meddle with this case of believers and infidel harlots? I answer him, no. To the third, doth he not confine himself to answer cases betwixt believers and their unbelieving wives and husbands? I answer Yea. To the fourth, or do both these cases require one and the same answer. I answer, it may be they do, it may be they do not. I shall tell him more distinctly whether they do or not, if I can, when he distinctly sets down the cases, and the questions upon the cases, if he think fit to make use of me for his Casuist. In the mean time I crave the Readers pardon for answering such trifling and impertinent questions; yet Mr. Marshal hath not done with me but adds.  
To speak plainly, I could name Divines who are no whit inferior to yourself, who conceive that a believer, even when he commits fornication with an infidel, doth so far remove the bar in the unbelieving party, as that the child is( in the believing parents right) to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant of grace, and Church of God; but because I knew that question fell not within the Corinthians case, and was a question which the text and controversy in hand did not tie me to give a resolution to, I purposely baulked it, not once suspecting I should have met with an adversary so uningenuous, to say no worse, who would have said the baulking of this question had been the yielding of the cause; and I say again, this case of bastards concerns not the Apostles case, who speaks not of parents adulterers, but of husbands and wives, the one a believer the other not; yet this advantage may be made of those instances, that if among the Jews, the true Church of God, the children of one parent a Jew, the other a gentle( forbidden to be married) were federally holy, as in the case of Pharez and Thamar, then may one party a believer interest their children in the same Covenant; and if bastards among the Jews were partakers of Church-privileges, much more reasonable may it seem, that the children of both chast parents, whereof the one at least is a believer, should be federally holy, it being Gods rule in this case, partus sequitur meliorem partem.  
Answ. It is easy for Mr. Marshall to name Divines superior to me every way: but concerning the baulking of the question of which he speaks, what ever he did in his Sermon, he hath spoken plainly enough in the same page. to it in his defence, where he saith, and that sinful defiling of one anothers body doth not deprive them of that privilege of the Covenant to have their children accounted to belong to the Church of God. If he mean me by his adversary( as I know not whom else he should mean) whom he chargeth with want of ingenuity to say, no worse( though perhaps he thinks worse) for saying the baulking of this question had been the yielding of the cause, I wonder where he finds those words of mine; his speech to me seems like the talk of a man in a dream; what he adds, that this case of bastards concerns not the Apostles case, yet some advantage may be made of my instances, I answer. 1. The case of bastards as by me alleged concerns the Apostles dispute as by Mr. Marshal interpnted. 2. The advantage will not be worth his labour, till he prove that there is the same reason of baptizing our infants now, as of circunctsing Jews infants then, which will never be done till Mr. Marshall can show a command for baptizing infants, sith he confesseth truly page. 182. of his defence, in these words [ and though the formal reason of their being circumcised was the command of God; Yet the Covenant of grace, or their Church-state was the motive to it, and the thing it related to] that the formal reason of the Jews circumcision was the command of God: and therfore till alike Command be shewed for infant-baptism as for infant-circumcision, there is not parity of reason for one as the other, and so the argument for infant-baptism from analogy conceived between Circumcision and Baptism is evacuated, as I truly a verre in my Apology s. 18. page. 97. 98. Nor is the asserting a thing as Gods mind in positive rites without a command, though seeming reasonable to us, any other than a seminary of superstitions, as I often in my Exercitation and Examen have observed concerning Popish superstitions. As for that which he speaks of Gods rule in that case, partus sequitur meliorem partem, it is for ought I know a rule of Mr. Marshals invention. In Law they say, partus sequitur ventrem, but in Divinity I know no such rule that any parent under the Gospel, communicates by birth any Covenant-holiness or Church-privilege, but the rule is now and still hath been, God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens, Rom. 9. 18. And thus is Mr. Marshal again beaten from his chief hold.   

SECT. XXII.  
The objection in my Apology, that according to Mr. Marshals exposition the Apostles reason would prove a fornicatrix believing may live with a fornicator, as well as a married wife with her husband, is not answered by Mr. Geree or Mr. Church.  
YEt one thing more is to be vindicated which Mr. Geree saith is only a cranck I have. I had said in my Apology s. 18. page. 96. If the reason of the lawfulness of the living of two persons together in disparity of religion be taken from the virtue of faith in the one party, not from the relation of husband and wife as Mr. Marshals exposition makes it, the medium of the Apostle to prove the lawfulness of the living of a believing wife with an unbelieving husband, will as well prove the lawfulness of the living of a believing fornicatrix with an unbelieving fornicator, as may appear by a syllogistical analysis of the Apostles argument. To this Mr. Geree in his vindiciae vindiciarum ch. 7. page. 34. thus speaks, I answer, if all the reason of the lawfulness of a believing wife living with an unbelieving husband were from the faith of the believer, there were some strength in this Consequence; but that we make not all the reason: for the scruple was in the Corinthians, whether notwithstanding their lawful marriage, they might lawfully live together; yes saith the Apostle, the unbeliever( in the use of marriage) for so it must be understood, is sanctified to the believer, else &c. so chast marriage is the ground-work, which satisfied not their consciences, for so were they Ezra 9.& 10. yet was the holy seed polluted, but now saith the Apostle, the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer, &c. so then the parties that may lawfully live together on this ground are supposed to be man and wife; And his mayor proposition must be, That man and that wife may lawfully live together whereof one is sanctified to the other, and so his fornicators will be excluded, not concluded.  
Ans. It is true, according to the Apostles argument, as he frames it, it is necessary that[ husband and wife] should be inserted, but according to Mr. Marshals and others exposition concurrent with his it is not necessary, for they fetch all the reason of the lawfulness of living together from the ones being sanctified to the other, and that they ascribe only to the faith of the one party. Mr. Marshall in his defence page. 153. The believer sanctifies the unbeliever. Mr. black in his answer to my letter ch. 7. sect. 2. pag. 36. that sanctifying which the Apostle mentions is a result of the faith of the believing yoke-fellow. Dr. Homes Animad. on my Exercit. page. 53. the believers faith hath the only stroke under Christ and his Spirit to sanctify the unbelieving husband, as sanctifying is here meant. Yea the sanctifying is so entirely ascribed to the faith of one party, that Mr. Marshall who understands by being sanctified made capable to bring forth a holy seed, asserts page. 163. that sinful defiling of one anothers body( by which he means fornication) doth not deprive them of that privilege of the Covenant to have their children accounted to belong to the Church of God, and tells me in the same page., he could name Divines who are no whit inferior to myself that conceive so. And accordingly so Paedobaptists commonly hold and practise. Now if the sanctification of one by another to beget a holy seed be the only reason why the believing husband might live with the unbelieving wife, and this sanctification be by the faith only of one party, insomuch that even an unbelieving fornicator is sanctified by a believing fornicatrix for begetting a holy seed, which Mr. Marshals exposition avers, then according to the same exposition the Apostles reason will as well hold to prove the lawfulness of such fornicators to live together as well as such yoke-fellows.  
But saith Mr. Geree, that we make not all the reason, for the scruple of the Corinthians was about married persons, and accordingly the Apostles resolution, and therefore man and wife must be inserted into the mayor proposition.  
I answer, it is true, the Corinthians scruple, and the Apostles medium were only of the sanctifying of the husband and wife, as such according to the genuine exposition, and therefore I still contend that the reason of the sanctifying is from the relation of husband and wife, and not from the faith of one p●rty, and so according to my exposition,[ husband and wife] necessary to be inserted in the mayor. But my argument proceeds from the Apostles reason, not as made by him, but according to Mr. Marshals exposition, who makes the sanctification to be from the faith of one party only, insomuch that he acknowledgeth, that even a fornicator and fornicatrix, if either be a believer, are sanctified to produce a holy seed, and therefore according to his exposition of the Apostle, all the reason of living together is from the faith of the believer, and consequently[ husband and wife] not necessary to be inserted in the mayor, and so the reason as he expounds it will as well serve to prove that two fornicators may live together, as well as two married persons.  
But saith Mr. Geree of me, He saith it is not necessary to insert[ being husband and wife] sith the sanctification is not ascribed by him to the relation between them, but to the faith of the one. But I answer, this is no good ground; for though the marriage be no cause of this sanctification, yet it is a ground supposed to make the Apostles resolution ●rue, and on that ground it is made. There's two things required to satisfy spiritual conscience in the use of a thing; First, that it be lawful in itself. Secondly, that it be holy to us. The former is common to Heathens and Christians( in moral things) The last is the peculiar of believers: if either be wanting, conscience is defiled, and will be disquieted. Now the sanctification here to quiet their consciences, is an addition to the law of marriage common with them to heathens, and so we ought not to sever the later from the former which the Apostle supposed.  
I answer, Mr. Geree roves from the point, and makes a discourse to prove that which I contend for, that the Apostle supposed that the sanctification was of married persons. But he should, if he would have answered any thing to the present point, have shewed, that according to Mr. Marshals exposition it is necessary that the persons sanctified one to another be husband and wife that they may lawfully live together, according to his framing the Apostles reason. Till he do this, my argument stands good, and Mr. marshals exposition deserves to be exploded.  
Mr. Josiah Church in a book entitled, The divine warrant of infant-baptism,( commended by Mr. Geree and Mr. Roberts beyond truth and it's desert, it being nothing but a superficial and velitary dressing in a new and that often ambiguous phraseology and fashion old arguments with frequent tautologies, but without distinct stating the point) argum. 1. page. 12. takes upon him to answer this reason.  
And first he saith, the Apostle would not have answered such a question, whether a believing person might live in fornication with an unbeliever.  
Answ. Nor did I say he did or would: but that after Mr. Marshals exposition the words would serve turn to resolve the lawfulness of their living together in fornication, which being an absurd thing, the inference that I make is good, that Mr. Marshals exposition is nought.  
2. Saith he, he meant not that faith and the Covenant exclusively were the cause of the sanctification of the infidel in the Christian: As where he saith, every creature of God is good if it be received with thanksgiving, &c. He means not that it is good without a legal right to it, though it be received with thanksgiving( which is usual in thieves and robbers) but in the case of civil right only: one cause produceth not the effect, una causa non producit effectum.  
Answ. If by [ he] Mr. Church understand the Apostle, as the words following, as where he saith, &c. which is meant of Paul, seem to import, it is true, the Apostle meant not that the faith and Covenant either exclusively or inclusively were the cause of the sanctification of the infidel in the Christian. But if he meant it of Mr. Marshall it is most false, as is proved before, he makes the faith of the believer the sole cause of the sanctification, so that by him the infidel harlot is sanctified according to his sense by the believing fornicator, and whereas he saith one cause produceth not the effect, though it be true of some Causes, as of remote causes, and not in act, yet, in the sense I used the speech, positâ causâ ponitur effectus, it is always true of the adequate cause in act, which Mr. Marshall acknowledgeth the faith of the believer to be in respect of sanctification for producing a holy seed, and Mr. Church himself in the margin of his book page. 4. puts this very axiom as a certain truth, positâ causâ ponitur causatum. But saith Mr. Church,  
3. It supposeth a believing adulterer living with an infidel adulteress, which is not to be supposed: for a believer may fall into that sin, but living in it is inconsistent with faith and ecclesiastical discipline.  
Answ. 1. By believer in Mr. Marshals sense is understood one that is so only by profession, and this may be supposed, it being too common in experience, that believers by profession do live incontinently with unbelievers.  
2. True believers may have faith suspended in its operation a long time together, and ecclesiastical discipline may be remitted.  
3. If it were impossible that a believer should live in adultery, yet it is no such strange matter to frame arguments upon things that are not, as when in natural Philosophy there is dispute whether there would be local motion in vacuo, si daretur. But my arguments proceeding upon Mr. Marshals exposition, to show the falsity of it, in that according to it the Apostles reason would as well serve to prove the lawfulness of two fornicators living together, as two married persons; there was no need I should suppose the possibility or being of the thing, but only show the ill Consequence of Mr. Marshals exposition. And therefore Mt. Church his answering is frivolous, and having perused his book, I know the rest is like this, slighty and superficial, nor would I have thought it worth while to take so much notice of it, as I have done, but that Mr. Geree and Mr. Roberts commend it so superlatively, as if by it infant-baptism were compendiously and solidly proved by Scripture demonstration; that it is an Iliad in a mercers-chapel; the strength of former writers extracted and contracted. Mr. Marshall tells me thus, yourself aclowledge that if these two Conclusions could be proved, the cause is gained, as well as lost if those be lost. I answer. Mr. Marshall doth me wrong in saying that I acknoowledged that if those two Conclusions could be proved, the cause is gained, I only said in my Examen page. 82. as conceiving by losing these you lose the cause, but page. 110. I expressly denied that the cause were gained without a command, though all his five Conclusions were yielded him. Which I still aver. Yea, I say further, that in their dispute for infant-baptism from Circumcision, there are more than a dozen false Hypotheses presumed by them as true in their entangled discourse, justly so called by me in my Apology page. 47. by the overthrow of any of which their argument from analogy is enervated. But these things I refer to the remainder of my review of this dispute if ever God enable me, in the mean time blessing the father of Spirits for his assistance to me thus far in this so knotty and toylsom a work, having had to do with such across and pettish Antagonists.  
I had hoped my work of vindicating my exposition of this text had been here at an end. And perhaps it had been so, if Mr. Richard Baxter had communicated to me animadversions on this writing, when I lent him almost the half of it for his perusal, and expected that as a neighbour and brother in the Lord he should have imparted them to me for the rectifying of me. But he hath chosen rather to print what he had against my exposition, in an injurious manner setting down my words otherwise than he should, without my recension of them, so as thereby to expose me to hatred or contempt. Which course of his if it be not a plain rent and Schism from me, contrary to 1 Cor. 12. 25. I understand not what Schism is. However, sith it so falls out by Gods providence, though it be to my wrong and trouble, yet in hope truth will gain by it, I proceed to examine what Mr. Baxter hath about this Scripture.   

SECT. XXII.  
Mr. Bs. premised grants, various expositions, distinctions and explications of the words [ sanctified and holy] are examined.  
MR. Baxter in the beginning of his 29th ch. of the first part of his book entitled Plain Scripture-proof of Infants-church-membership and baptism, calls the text 1 Cor. 7. 14. that full, plain text for his visible Church-membership of believers infants, against which men do so wilfully cavil in vain, as if they were sorry that God speaks so plainly, and were resolved to yield neither to dark expressions nor to plain.  
But Mr. Bs. peremptory confident speeches, and hot charges, are too weak to determine the matter. Me thinks a little sobriety might have caused him to speak more cautelously, if not for my sake, yet for Musculus his sake, who having used it against Anabaptists, did in his commentary( when men best discern the meaning of a text) relinquish Mr. Bs. sense, and fell to mine as convinced by evidence of reason. I presume he doth not think either he, or Camerarius, Melanchton, Osiander, Ambrose, Hierom, Aquinas, Gorran, Anselm, Gagnaeus, that I omit others such as Mariana, Vasquez, Suarez, Cornelius à Lapide, Emmanuel Sa, Menochius, Perinus, &c. would wilfully cavil against a text, and yet they agree with me. But let us consider what he saith, It is undeniable,  
1. That it is only believers to whom Paul giveth this comfort, and of whom he saith, that their children were holy.  
Answ. I deny that the words of Paul were to give comfort, but to resolve a doubt; and though it is true, they were only believers whose doubt he did resolve, and of whose children he then spake, yet I deny that either the sanctification of the unbeliever in or to the yoke-fellow, or the childrens holiness is ascribed to the faith of the believer.  
2. And that it was spoken as a common privilege to all believers children, and not as proper to the children of these Corinthians: all this is confessed.  
Answ. By whomsoever it is confessed( though I think Mr. B. means me) yet I deny it to be confessed by me,( yea Mr. B. page. 86. saith I deny it) that either it was spoken as a privilege to believers children, or as a common privilege to all believers children. Mr. B. knows, that it is the chief thing that I contend, that this is meant of legitimation, and therefore I should contradict myself if I should understand it of the base children of believers. However, I desire the Reader here to take notice, 1. That Mr. B. takes it for undeniable, that to be holy is a common privilege to all believers children, and consequently their illegitimate children. 2. That this holiness is not proper to the children of those Corinthians.  
Then he names three expositions. Some he saith expound it of Saving holiness, Mr. B. takes it for undoubted, that it is meant of a state of separation to God, as a peculiar people from the world, as the Church is separated, called from the Covenant or promise of God as the chief cause[ federal holiness] my judgement is set down plain enough before. As for Mr. Bs. saying [ it is a general rule among all sound Divines in interpreting Scriptures, that you are to take words in the ordinary sense wherein God in Scripture useth them, except there be a palpable unavoidable necessity of understanding them otherwise] I do not easily believe Mr. B. therein.  
Sure I am sound Divines, as they are accounted, do expound Mat. 18. 17. [ tell the Church] of the Presbytery, besides the ordinary sense of the Scripture, without palpable unavoidable necessity. The like may I say of [ delivering to Satan 1 Cor. 5. 5.] expounded of Excommunication, and many more. And for my part I think words are often interpnted rightly besides the ordinary sense, when either the scope, coherence, frame of speech, all usion, or other such fit reason led to another sense, though without palpable unavoidable necessity of understanding them otherwise. And if it be no wonder that men that rashly venture upon singular interpretations do abound with error, and be uncapable of any satisfaction from Scripture, I conceive Mr. B. who seems rash enough in venturing on singular interpretations, as likely to abound with error, and to be uncapable of satisfaction, as another man. If he would insinuate concerning me( as it is likely) that I am rash in venturing on singular interpretations because of my exposition of this text, me thinks he should be ashamed thereof, there being so many of note concurring with me, and such important reasons delivered by me.  
Mr. B. afore he comes to his arguments for his sense, dictates much about the terms [ holiness and sanctification] He tells us that the common nature of holiness is one and the same in all: that is, a separation to God, omne sanctum est Deo sanctum, and page. 255. Holiness is taken for nothing else in all other Scriptures but far a separation to God. But God is holy, and yet me thinks it were inept to say God is separated to God, and we are bid to sanctify the Lord of hosts himself, Isai. 8. 13. yet not to separate God to God. Chastity is called holiness, 1 Thess. 4. 3, 4, 7. Mr. B. page. 255. acknowledgeth it a part of holiness, and therefore to have the common nature of it, and then if all holiness note separation to God, then Chastity is such, and when Mr. B. hath shewed how Chastity is a separation to God, it is not improbable but I may be able to show that legitimation notes also a separation to God, and then I shall find my sense agreeable to the use or notation of the word. For my part I think [ sanctification and holiness] in Scripture, note discrimination, differencing, Excellency, setting apart, preparation: but not always separating to God. I have name before Ios. 20. 9. 1 Sam. 21. 5. holiness seems to be meant only of freedom from the use of women, to which I add, Jerem. 6. 4. sanctify war, that is prepare 
Pis. schol. in 1 Sam. 16. 6. Sanctificatio autem illa consistebat in lotione vestium et abstinentia à mulierum concubitu ut declaratur Exod. 19. 14, 15.  war, yea Deut. 23. 14. the camp is said to be holy in respect of freedom from impurity by mans dung, and generally holiness is opposed to any sort of uncleanness, whereof bastardy being one, holy is aptly put for legitimate, especially considering that in things of marriage {αβγδ} words of honour and comeliness are used. Grotius in 1 Cor. 7. 14. saith, To be sanctified is to be a lawful wife, and this according to the expressions of the Hebrews, that say a wife is sanctified by a pledge, &c. and allegeth Moses Kotrensis to this purpose. Buxtorf. Lexic. Heb. radice {αβγδ} parari, praeparari, destinari ad aliquid generaliter: in specie sacrari, consecrari, sanctificari, sanctum, sacrum esse vel fieri.  
Next Mr. B. sets down 4. distinctions, 1. He saith a person or thing may be holy in state and standing relation, or else only for some particular act or use, whether for shorter or longer time: In this latter sense a wicked man, yea a heathen, may be sanctified or separated, when it is to a common, and not to a special work. But this cannot be the holiness that is here ascribed to infants while they are infants. For they be not capable of any such work for God. Therefore it is a holiness of state which is ascribed to them.  
Answ. 1. Mr. B. makes distinctions, but he brings not Scriptures to exemplify the branches of his distinction, which had been requisite when he distinguished of words used in Scripture.  
2. He plainly confounds these denominatives[ Holy and sanctified] applying both branches of the distinction to either indifferently: whereas if we speak after the use of the Scripture, when a person is set apart for a particular act, he is said to be sanctified, no where that I know to be holy, and a state of separation is expressed by[ Holy] not by[ sanctified.]  
3. Holiness of state and standing relation are made equipollent, whereas to be holy in state doth as well note a denomination of quality as a relation, as when we said God is holy, this is a holiness of state yet importing a denomination of quality from his purity, not of standing relation to another.  
4. When Mr. B. saith when a heathen may be said to be sanctified, it is to a common and not to a special work. I conceive he would have said[ sacred work] For if he understand [ common] in opposition to special, then he is said to be sanctified to a common, that is a general work, that is which any were to do, and if so, there is no separation or setting apart, and so no sanctification.  
5. I take notice he denies Infants can be holy as sanctified to some particular act or use.  
6. That he understands the term children 1 Cor. 7. 14. as appliable to infants, if not to them only.  
The 2d distinction is of holy in state by mere separation and relation, or qualification with endowments suitable to the state which they are separated to. In the former sense he saith all the infants of the faithful are sanctified, and perhaps some of them also qualified by renewing grace for their future service of God: in the later sense every true believer is sanctified.  
Answ. 1. Holiness to God though it import a relation, yet I conceive it doth not import a mere relation, but as qualities and other things which be not mere relations secundùm esse, as they speak in Schools, though they note some reference, as Science to the object known, sense to the object sensible, so it is with holiness, it doth often import some reference to God, yet it is not a mere relation. And therefore though it be true that every person or thing that is said to be holy or sanctified is not endowed with renewing grace, yet they have some qualification, or form, such as common profession, or descent, or anointing, or some such like note from which they are thus denominated holy or sanctified, and consequently if infants be denominated holy or sanctified, there must not only be the Covenant as the chief cause, but also some form or other, of descent, birth, or the like, which must denominate them holy. 'tis true, the elect jews yet uncalled are holy, Rom. 11. 16. not in act, but in purpose, and so as their holiness is future, the form from which they are denominated holy is future, however there must be some form, qualification, note, or foundation from whence the thing or person termed holy or sanctified is so called.  
The 3d distinction is thus expressed. There is a sanctifying or separating to God either directly and immediately: so every believer, and so their children are sanctified. And there is a separating or sanctifying to God remotely and secondarily, when a thing is separated for his use who is separated to God, and will( or is bound by his profession to) use it for God, and sanctify the fruit of it directly to him: thus all our meat, drink, and enjoyments are sanctified, because whether we eat or drink, or what ever we do, it must be all to his glory. Thus the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified to the believer, both as being separated to one, that is separated to God, and also who will use all for God: yea as a husband or wife they make up that conjugal state which is more directly for God: And if they beget a holy seed it is one of the uses that they were sanctified to.  
Answ. 1. Mr. B. conceives these terms, a disciple, a visible Church-member, holy as separated to God, applied to infants, equipollent, as the tenor of his whole discourse in this book shows. Now ch. 3. page. 15. he saith, the parents are disciples directly, the infants remotely or mediately: But here he saith, every believer and their children are sanctified directly and immediately, which I take to be a plain unsaying of what he said before.  
2. Nor can his speech here be true, that the children are sanctified immediately, when they are sanctified by the means of the parents faith, according to his own supposition page. 15.  
3. The sanctifying to God as he calls it remotely or secondarily is ill expressed. The place to which he hath reference is 1 Tim. 4. 5. But there the creature is not said to be sanctified because it is separated for his use who is separated to God, and will( or is bound by his profession to) use it for God, and sanctify the fruit of it directly to him, or because he must do all to Gods glory. But the text saith it is sanctified by the word that takes away the prohibition of meats, and allows us the use of every creature, and prayer and thanksg●ving whereby God is acknowledged to be the giver of them, without which though the person be separated to God, and by duty, profession, yea and purpose of will he will use it for God, except he do so use it actually it is not sanctified. To speak truth, by Mr. Bs. description Bathsheba was sanctified to David when he lay with her in adultery; Noah when he drank wine and was drunk: For all the conditions of sanctification as set down by Mr. B. concurred in these acts, they were persons separated to God, and would or were bound by their profession, to use them for God. And if it were enough for sanctification of enjoyments that they must be all to Gods glory, sith[ must] implies nothing but duty in that place, and not only hypocrites, but also infidels professed must or ought to do all to Gods glory( which is true, or else it is no sin to them that they do not) all enjoyments may be said to be sanctified to hypocrites and professed unbelievers, according to the force of Mr. Bs. dictates.  
4. If Mr. Bs. speech be right, that the unbelieving husband or wife without abuse or impropriety of speech be sanctified to the believer, both as being separated to God, and also who will use all for God; yea as a husband or wife they make up that conjugal state, which is more directly for God; and if they beget a holy seed, it is one of the uses they were sanctified to: then by the like reason the unbelieving child may be said to be holy or sanctified, because he is separated, as a child to one that is separated to God, and who will use all for God, and as a fatner and child they make up that family state which is more directly for God, and if he bring up and match him, this is one of the uses to which he was sanctified. Which if true, there may be a holiness merely from extrinsical respects, according to Mr. Bs. dictates, which doth not make a person a visible Church-member, and therefore the holiness 1 Cor. 7. 19. according to his explication doth not necessary infer Church-membership, sith it may agree to an infidel husband, wife, or child.  
5. He saith, As husband or wife the believer and unbeliever make up that conjugal state which is more directly for God, whereby it seems the conjugal state is by him made to be more directly for God: If be mean more directly than the unmarried, then it would be shewed wherein. The Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 32, 33. seems to determine otherwise. And if it be that the conjugal state is more directly for God, why should not marriage be termed holy, and legitimate children holy children? If he say it is more directly for God in that one is a believer, why doth he use this expression [ As husband and wife] which a Reader would conceive to mean that under that formal consideration then conjugal estate is more directly for God? If it be ascribed by him to the faith of the one, then it would be shewed wherein the conjugal state of one believer and another unbeliever is more directly for God than the conjugal state of two unbelievers. If it be said, in that it is to beget a holy seed, then suppose a child begotten both parents being unbelievers at the time of begetting, but afore birth the one is converted and becomes a believer, that conjugal state is not directly for God, nor the one sanctified to the other for his use, nor consequently the child holy, sith the Apostles included proposition makes the children unclean of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other, and yet Mr. B. conceives such a child holy. Again two aged persons marrying lawfully though believers, their conjugal estate is not directly from God, nor they sanctified, because they are not for the use of begetting a holy seed, being now unable for procreation.  
But Mr. B. to salue the matter says. Though I will not stick to the common term of[ instrumental sanctification] which Mr. T. takes so much advantage against, because it implies but one of the ends of this separation, and that not constant neither. For I doubt not but in some cases it may be lawful for those to mary that are past child-bearing.  
To which I reply. Mr. B. it seems will stick to the thing meant by instrumental sanctification, yet will not stick to the term of instrumental sanctification; which is in effect to tell me, he will wrangle rather than yield to an expression though not denied to be apt enough. For what is it to be sanctified to ones use, but to be instrumentally sanctified to him. But saith he, Mr. T. takes much advantage of it. It seems then when a term gives me advantage Mr. B. will not stick to it, which is no better than a professed {αβγδ}, or drawing a contrary way. But sure the advantage I make of it is not barely from the term, but also from the thing signified by it in my Examen part. 3. s. 8. pag. 72, 73. And why will not Mr. B. stick to it? because saith he, it implieth but one of the ends of this separation, and that not constant neither. But Mr. B. assigns no other end of the sanctification of the unbelieving husband to the wives use, but the begetting a holy seed, and if this be one end, yet the term is fit to express it: yea if there be any other uses for which one is sanctified to the other besides begetting a holy seed, yet the term instrumental sanctification were fit enough to express them. For what is it to be sanctified to another use but to be his instrument. Burgersdic. Inst. Leg. lib. 1. c. 17. s. 26. unumquodque instrumentum est id quod est quia& quatenus aptum est ad certum usum.  
Lastly, Mr. B. by saying, that the begetting a holy seed is not a constant use of lawful marrying, confirms my argument against the sense of instrumental sanctification i● the case of married persons past childbearing, though one be a believer; they are not sanctified to beget a holy seed, and yet they are said to be sanctified 1 Cor. 7. 14. otherwise the Apostle had not cleared their lawful living together, which is proved by the Apostle from the sanctification of one in, or to another.  
The 4th distinction is thus expressed. Again, sometime persons or things are sanctified actively, that is separated to some action for God, as the Priests, Levites, &c. And sometimes passively, that is separated to be used for God, as the Temple, Altar, Sacrifice, &c. The unbelieving husband or wife is both ways sanctified.  
To which I answer. But that Mr. Bs. name is up, and thereby seems licenced to dictate without proof, I would demand of him a text wherein a person is said to be sanctified passively to be used for God, as the Temple, &c. And for the unbelieving husbands sanctification passively for Gods use without his action, as an Altar, &c. is such a notion as I cannot yet divine what it should be. All these things are dictated by Mr. B. without proof or direction where to find it. Next he would seem to apply them thus.  
All these distinctions are but from several ends and degrees of separation. The common nature of holiness is one and the same in all: that is a separation to God; And so both children of believers and also unbelieving yoke-fellows are here said to be holy and sanctified.  
Answ. After Mr. B. had shewed various ways of holiness and sanctification, when he comes to apply his distinctions he doth not tell us in which way the sanctification of the unbelieving yoke-fellow, or the holiness of the children 1 Cor. 7. 14. is to be understood, and in which not: but wraps up all in the common nature of separation to God, and yet denies that in some sorts of sanctification and holiness the infants of a believer, and the unbelieving parent, are holy or sanctified. So that his whole proceeding in distinguishing of various ways of sanctifying and holiness, and then closing up all in the common nature of holiness, without showing in each of these how the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified, and the child holy in his sense, 1 Cor. 7. 14. is at least illogical, if not sophistical, serving onely to put the Reader to fish out his meaning, if not for an advantage to put by his Antagonists opposition. And by this understanding Scholars will conceive how unlikely, if not impossible, it was for me to answer such a disputer presently upon hearing his arguments, and to show the fallacy of his distinctions with satisfaction to hearers. But I shall now follow him step by step.   

SECT. XIV.  
Mr. Bs. first argument from the constant use of the word[ holy] to prove that 1 Cor. 7. 14. it is understood of a state of separation to God intituling to visible Church-membership, is answered.  
I Come now saith, Mr. B. to my argument. If the children of believers are holy in state, then they ought to be admitted visible Church-members: But children of believers are holy in state: therefore they ought to be admitted visible Church-members.  
In answer hereto, I distinguish of holiness in state. Holiness in state is either potential or actual. Potential holiness of state is that which is onely future but not existent. Of this I think Mr. B. means not his speech, if he did, I should deny the Consequence. Actual is upon calling inward, or outward, or both, and these manifested by profession, or some way answerable to it, or else hidden or not known. If holiness of state be meant of actual holiness upon calling inward, or outward, or both, manifested by profession, or something answerable, so as that such holiness is known to the admitter, then I grant the Consequence, but deny the Minor. If it be meant of other kind of a holiness than this, as I conceive Mr. B. means, I deny the Consequence.  
But saith Mr. B. The Consequence of the mayor I thus prove: If holiness of state here be a stated separation of the person from the world to God, and the Church-visible be a society of persons so separated, then those that are holy in state are to be visible Church-members: But the Antecedent is true. For certainly all Divines in their definition of the Church are agreed, that it is a society of persons separated from the world to God, or called out of the world, &c. Therefore the Consequent is true.  
Answ. 1. Mr. B. alters the term in the Consequent, and so proves not the thing to be proved. In the former syllogism the term was [ ought to be admitted visible Church-members] in this [ are to be visible Church-members]. This later term [ are to be visible Church-members] notes what the persons ought to be, of this there is no doubt, but that not onely persons holy in state, but all in the world ought to be visible Church-members, that is, to profess the faith of Christ. But the other term notes the duty of the persons who have the power of admission.  
2. That which I conceive Mr. B. would here have said, is[ those that are holy in state are visible Church-members, and so ought to be admitted] And yet if this were his Consequence I do not see that it is good. For a person may be a visible Church-member of the universal Church in Mr. Bs. sense, yet ought not be admitted either to baptism or the Lords supper ordinarily as a visible Church-member till by profession he be made known, and tender himself for admission to them that have power to admit him.  
3. Mr. B. doth here as he did in the dispute go about to prove the Consequence of an hypothetical proposition by another hypothetical, which was wont to be decried in schools, as being a way serving only to hamper the understanding and memory of a respondent, when as there is a plain way to prove it by the simplo proposition upon which the force of the illation stands, and so Mr. B. should have thus disputed in a regular form. All persons holy in state ought to be admitted visible Church-members, Ergo, if the &c.  
The Antecedent of which Enthymeme I should deny being understood of any other holiness in state than what is by profession of the faith of Christ.  
4. But to it as it stands formed by Mr. B. I say that if he mean by[ holy in state] separated to God by calling, so as that they are professors of faith, I grant the Consequence, the term[ are to be] being rectified into[ are, or are to be admitted] But of other holiness of state I deny the Consequence. Nor doth the agreed definition of Divines prove his Consequence good in any other sense than I grant it. For when they define the Church[ meaning the visible Church, which Mr. B. should add if he bring a definition to his purpose] they understand it of calling by the Gospel, so as that they be professors of faith, as may appear by the testimonies which Mr. Hudson( commended much by Mr. B. page. 339.) vindic. of the essence and unity of the Church catholic hath collected ch. 1. s. 3. out of Augustine, jerome, Calvin, Bullinger, Keckerman, Zuinglius, Trelcatius, Polanus, and most expressly Mr. Bifield on the Creed art. 9. To the same purpose speak Confessions of Churches: Basil. art. 5. Gallic. art. 27. Angl. art. 19. Argentin. c. 15. August. art. 7. Saxon. art. 12. Bohem. art. 8. that I may omit other Authors. But because the main of the dispute will lye on the Minor, which Mr. B. calls the Antecedent, which will come to be examined after, I have dispatched the 4. arguments here brought to prove his Consequence, I pass on for present to his next argument.  
2. I prove it further thus. If this holiness of stated separation to God be the constant attribute of the Church, but never of any person without the Church, then all that are so holy must be admitted Church-members. But the former is true: therefore the latter.  
Answ. Holiness of stated separation to God by profession of the faith is the constant attribute of the Church-visible, never of any without the Church-visible, and all that are so holy are to be admitted visible Church-members in a regular way. But holiness of stated separation to God by election or Covenant of grace of persons not yet called nor professing faith is the attribute of the invisible, but not of the visible Church, and many such are not of the visible Church, nor are to be admitted as Church-members.  
3. again, If tho●e that are thus holy by stated separation to God did not belong to the Church as members, then there were a holy society or generation without the Church. But the Consequent is absurd; for there is no holy generation without the Church: therefore the Antecedent is unsound.  
Answ. The same distinction answers this also: there's no holy generation, or society of persons holy by stated separation to God by profession or calling without the visible Church: but there's a holy generation of Elect persons, and to whom the promise belongs, who belong to the invisible and yet not to the visible Church.  
4. If God argue from such holiness of the Jews to the inchurching of them, then the so holy must be inchurched: but the Holy Ghost doth so argue Rom. 11. 16. &c. so the Consequence is proved.  
Answ. That the holiness there is meant of holiness through election, and giving of faith, and engraffing into the invisible Church, is demonstrated before in my Apology page. 71. and in this writing in the examining Rom. 11. 16, 17. But it is manifestly false, that the Apostle argues from the holiness of the jews to the inchurching of them, that is to prove them to be visible Church-members because holy in state( which is Mr. Bs. meaning] sith he plainly means the speech of the jews not yet born, who are holy by virtue of Gods election and promise, yet belong not to the visible-Church till they be called.  
Mr. B. goes on thus. The Antecedent is plain in the text[ the children are holy by stated separation to God] And for the vindicating of the sense of the text against Mr. T. his sense of legitimation, I argue thus, 1. If the constant meaning of the word[ holy] be for a separation to God, then we must so understand it here, except there be a palpable necessity of understanding it otherwise. But the constant sense of the word[ holy] is for a separation to God, and here is no palpable necessity of understanding it otherwise, therefore we must so understand it here. Then he says,  
1. That I denied not that the constant meaning of the word[ holy] was as he said. But this I do not think is true: Frequent I might grant it to be, but not constant, as knowing God, the Spirit of God, the young mens vessels 1 Sam. 21. 5. are termed holy, yet not in his sense as separate to God.  
2. That I affirmed there was a palpable necessity of understanding it otherwise here; but I shewed not what the palpable necessity was. But I do not conceive I used that term [ palpable necessity] except it were because Mr. B. used it, and it was not convenient for me to spend time to show the unfitness of it. A necessity there is of understanding it otherwise here, and this I prove in my Exercit. s. 5. Examen part. 3. s. 8. Postscript. s. 7. from the analysis of the words, and the truth of the proposition included in the Apostles speech: to which I have in this writing shewed that neither Mr. M. nor any other that I have seen have yet answered, nor that Mr. B. hath cleared it will appear in the vindicating my objections, which thing no man could expect reasonably should be done in the dispute at Bewdley by me then a respondent, and not well understanding Mr. Bs. conceits about this Scripture.  
3. That I said that {αβγδ} is taken by the Apostle for a womans veil, when yet it is no where else so used. Which is true: and besides it the Reader may see before the speeches of many learned men as justifying the use of a word in a different sense from the common meaning where the matter leads to it: which liberty if it be not allowed, many Scriptures( that I may use Mr. Bs. words) would be perverted, and not understandable. Selden l. 1 de synod. c. 7. page. 138. vocum à pristina significatione sieve degenerationes, sieve mutationes, sieve significationes novas pro seculorum& persuasionum discrimine non rarò in omni scientiarum, artium, rerum usu fieri quis nescit? And that many words are used in this first Epistle to the Corinthians besides the ordinary sense might be shewed not only in the word {αβγδ}, but also in the terms {αβγδ}, due benevolence 1 Cor. 7. 3. {αβγδ} v. 13. let her not put him away, ch. 8. 10 {αβγδ}, shall be builded, 1 Cor. 11. 14. {αβγδ} we translate nature, Salmasius de coma page. 69. ponitur pro consuetudine, sicut {αβγδ} saepe pro[ solet] in optimis Scriptoribus, 1 Cor. 14. 14, 15. 19. {αβγδ}, with understanding, that is so as that another may understand, &c. And for Mr. Bs. enforcement of his argument for the better plea before the judgement seat of Christ, who understands a word in his sense in which it is used 600 times, no where else in mine, it is but vain. For he hath the best plea for his sense who useth a word in a sense to which the matter leads, though it be used 10000 times otherwise and no where else in that sense. The best interpreters do make no scruple thereof, as is shewed before. If Mr. Bs. plea were good, than a Socinian hath a better defence for him expounding Phil. 2. 6. {αβγδ}, the form of God, of the outward show and appearanee to the eyes, than they that interpret it of the essence of God, in which sense[ {αβγδ}, form] it's conceived is no where else used. And as for Mr. Bs. charge and demands I take them to be childish, not likely to move any but weak understandings, more like the course of a popular orator, than a disputer. As for his insinuation of my exposition as a singular fancy, it cannot be construed to be any better than impudence or ignorance; there being so many learned men, and some of the best note, specially in their commentaries, that concur with me, wol●gangus Musculus is commended by Mr. B. page. 140. who retracts the exposition of federal holiness in which he used it against Anabaptists, and understands it in my sense in his commentary on the place. And this may be seen in his words translated in my Exercit. s. 5. without any boasting, or making silly people believe that I have one godly▪ learned, and sober Divine on my side contrary to truth, though Mr. B. do page. 140 insinuate so much, though I have translated and printed his very words, declaring him opposite to the Anabaptists, though he agree with me in expounding this text. Which text if it had been so plain for Paedobaptism as Mr. B. would have it conceived, sure Musculus and other learned men in their commentaries would have seen it. And therefore I cannot but admire that Mr. B. should so forget himself as without any moderation or sobriety of spirit so freely charge us with injurious dealing, deluding the people, as if we had desperate resolutions and prostituted consciences, and considered not faithfully what we did in not yielding to his exposition. It hath been in part shewed in my Antidote, and will more fully appear in the Review, that Mr. B. peremptorily affirms on slight reasons that Acts 15. 10. infants are called [ disciples] in a sense or rather non-sense no where else used: and yet he finds no such speeches of him in my writings. But for a further answer to his argument, I say, 1. That for such a holiness in state of separation from the world to God on birth from the Covenant of grace and parents faith without the holy persons profession, not by election nor calling, and which may be without any internal spiritual life and rectitude, or salvation accompanying it, I am confident he cannot bring one place in all the Bible where such a holiness is mentioned. I find in my notes I took of Mr. Thomas Goodwins Sermons at Bow in Cheap-side, that he asserted that the holiness 1 Cor. 7. 14. must be not onely federal, external, or Ecclesiastical holiness for Church-membership, but also real above federal, for which Mr. bailie in the first part of his dissuasive ch: 6. page. 116. chargeth him as favouring Antipaedobaptism, and that which he said was as I remember because in the New Testament[ holy] applied to persons is not taken for any other than such real holiness.  
So far as I can find in 250 places in which[ holy] is used in the New Testament, it is no where used for any other than real holiness, or some such holiness as is from inward purity or outward profession and conversation when it is applied to persons, saving in this text 1 Cor. 7. 14. and Luke 2. 23. where it is meant of a ceremonial holiness, which is not after Mr. Bs. sense. Whence I infer that Mr. B. doth but vainly affirm it to be taken in his sense near 600 times in Scripture, I do not think he can bring one place just in his sense. But it will be said, Is it not sufficient to his purpose that it is found to note a state of separation to God any way? I answered before in my praecursor, No: because then chastity might be sufficient for admission to visible Church-membership, because it is termed holiness 1 Thess. 4. 3, 4, 7. I add now, that if chastity be called holiness, and all holiness note a separation to God( as Mr. B. conceives) of which no other reason can be given than because it is his special command and institution, then also[ legitimate issue] may be termed[ holy] as being according to Gods will and special institution of marriage, and so in a sort separate to God. But enough of this in my praecursor, and in this writing before.   

SECT. XXV.  
That if[ holy] 1 Cor. 7. 14. had allusion to Ezra 9. 2. it we●e better intelligber of legitimation, than of federal holiness, contrary to Mr. Bs. 2d argument.  
MR. B. proceeds thus. My 2d argument is this: if infants of the faithful were Church-members before Christs time, and so holy; then it is utterly improbable that the Apostle should speak of no other holiness here but legitimation( which is common to the children of Pagans) and most probable that he speaks of the same kind of holiness, which was the ordinary privilege of the seed of the faithful before. But that such infants were visible Church-members before Christs coming is confessed and fully proved before, Therefore, &c. They are also called the holy seed Ezra 9. 2. And then he tells us, if the Apostle by[ holy] should have meant[ legitimate] then he should not speak to be understood, but to draw them to mistakes, and it is utterly improbable, that Paul should here tell believers of that as a glorious privilege, which every Pagan had, and they might expect that the privilege of their children should be as great as the Jews.  
Answ. 1. It is but a fancy that the Apostle speaks here of any privilege belonging to believers children as such, much less of a glorious privilege: there's not a word ascribing any thing to the children because of the faith of the one party, but by reason of the conjugal state of the parents; nor is the holiness mentioned as a privilege ascribed to them by the Apostle for their comfort in them, but as a thing certain to them, and yet must be denied if the other thing were not granted.  
2. Nor is it true, that the holiness whereby infants were visible Church-members afore Christs coming was the ordinary privilege of the seed of the faithful. For it was a condition they had who were in Abrahams family, and the policy of Israel whether their parents were faithful or not. The children of Ahaz, Ahab, &c. though Idolaters by their descent, the children of strangers gotten by war or purchase, if once brought into the Congregation or Common-wealth of Israel, were to be circumcised, and were reckoned to that Church.  
3. It is not true that the children of believers now have less privilege by not being counted visible Church-members, than the Jews children, as shall be shewed in its due place.  
4. It is false, that in Mr. Bs. sense the term[ holy] was ordinarily taken in the old Testament for such a holiness of stated separation from the Covenant and parents faith, not saving, but making them visible Church-members, and entitling them to circumcision. And therefore in Mr. Bs sense it would have been as unintelligible as mine if the Corinthians must know the meaning onely by the constant use of the word. And where as Mr. B. says, Infants of the faithful are called the holy seed Ezra 9. 2. if[ holy] were meant in Mr. Bs. sense, yet one place proves not the constant use: But( as I have shewed before in part) it is most false that the infants of the faithful are there called the holy seed. For they were such as had mingled themselves with the people of the lands, mentioned v. 1. that is in marrying their daughters v. 2. and Ezra 10. 2. by taking strange wives of the people of the land, which Mr. B. me thinks should nor have ascribed to infants. Nor are they called the holy seed because children of the faithful by reason of the parents faith: for then their children should have been also the holy seed though begotten on prohibited women, whereas it is manifest that the holy seed there is opposed to the children of Hebrews begotton on prohibited women as unclean called the mixed multitude,& to be put away from the Congregation of Israel though they were Hebrews children, yea children of the Priests, as is apparent from many passages in Ezra 9th and 10th, and Nehem. 13th chapters. But the term [ holy seed Exra 9. 2.] is so called from their legitimate descent in blood from Abraham and Israel by a marriage not forbidden by the law Exod. 23. 32. Deut. 7. 3. cited by our translators in the margin at Ezra 9. 11. No children of an Hebrew believer born of a prohibited woman are there called the holy seed. Selden lib. 5. de jure nat.& gentium juxta discipl. Hebr. c. 15. Itaque non solùm ex auctoritate hujus Ezrae historiae, verùm etiam ex ipsorum Talmudicorum disertis testimoniis paganae liberi tametsi ab Ebraeo suscepti planè Pagani erant. All these were called the mixed multitude Nehem. 13. 3. and were not to come into the congregation of God v. 1. according to the law Deut. 23. 3. and therefore were separated from Israel, Nehem. 13. 3. And the like law is for the {αβγδ} or bastard Deut. 23. 2. who were regularly debarred from the Congregation of the Lord, that is, from bearing public office say the New Annot. Pisc. &c. on Jud. 11. 5. or marriage with an Israelite by blood, or civil privileges in the Commonwealth of Israel as other Israelites. Whence Jepthah was put out by the Elders of his Fathers house, judge. 11. 2. Grot. annot. ad Judic. 11. 2. quia de adutera master natus es] extrane â ut hic Josephus. Apud Gentes aliquas master non cive nati {αβγδ} dicebantur ut ex Aristophane ostendimus lib. 2. de Jure belly ac pacis c. 5. s. 15. Apud Hebraeos vero matter quae legi se subjecerat non maculabat natales, neque ad haereditatem capassendam obstabat. Quare meritò Jepthes de hac injuriâ queritur infra. 7. Much may be seen of this in Selden de Jure natur.& gent. juxta discip. Ebr. lib. 5. c. 14, 15, 16. Grotius annot. ad Nehem. 13. 3. id est natos ex gentibus quibus lex noluerat esse jus connubii& honorum. Whence I infer, that Mr. B. is quiter mistaken in conceiving the holy seed Ezra 9. 2. to be meant of the federal holiness of infants of the faithful as such, separated to God as visible Church-members by virtue of the faith of one of the parents: but they are called the holy seed not from the Covenant of Grace to parent and child, nor so as to import a privilege merely Ecclesiastical in contradistinction to civil but by reason of descent of blood, whereby they had right of marriage, honours, to be reckoned in the genealogies of Israel, to inherit with them, and such like privileges, from which others born of prohibited women, mamzers or bastards, were exempted, though the Father served the God of Israel, according to sundry of Moses his laws. And therefore I conclude, that if the Apostle did allu●e to this in Ezra 9. 2. he might be more easily understood in my sense than in Mr. Bs. and Mr. Bs vain speeches about my interpretation may be more justly retorted on him, it being plain that the holy seed Ezra 9. 2. is onely a legitimate seed by descent of blood according to an allowed marriage to the Israelites.   

SECT. XXVI.  
Mr. Bs. 3d argument, that if my sense stand, Pagans being legitimate might be termed holy, is answered.  
MR. B. goes on thus. 3 If to be holy in Pauls sense here be no more than to be lawfully begotten; then we may call all persons holy that are not bastards: but that would be absurd: therefore the Antecedent is so. The Minor I prove thus: If it be not the phrase of Scripture to call all Pagans holy that are not bastards, or any other, because they are not bastards, then it is absurd for us to call them so;( for it is a contradicting of the constant use of the Scripture-words) But the Scripture doth no where call Pagans holy, or any other, merely because they are not bastards: therefore we must not do so.  
Answ. This objection rests on these propositions, 1. That we must not, or it is absurd to speak otherwise than according to the constant use of the Scripture. 2. That this is a contradicting of the constant use of the Scripture-words. If the first be true, then we must not, or it is absurd to call the first day of the week the Sabbath day, for it is besides the constant use of the word in Scripture, and so in Mr. Bs. language a contradicting of the constant use of the Scripture-words:& which is more, such a varying from the Scripture-use as may occasion men to mistake, as if by Sabbath day in Scripture were meant the first day of the week, for which day it is never used there. The like might be said of other words, yea of Mr. Bs. use of[ holy] for federally holy in his sense. As for the second proposition I understand it not. He contradicts, or gainsays, that affirms or denies the contrary to what another saith: in the using the word[ holy] for[ legitimate] is a diversity or variation from the constant use of the word, no contradicting or gainsaying what the Scripture says. But this is not the only time that Mr. B. speaks as if he either knew not or headed not the meaning of the words he useth. As for the thing itself: I confess to call in ordinary speech Pagans legitimate children[ holy children] would be a kind of fanaticism, or uncouth expression, which would make people marvel, if not mistake him that speaks, and so it would be if any should call believers children holy, or as Mr. Geree would have it rendered 1 Cor. 7. 14. Saints. Yet neither the one or other contradicts the constant use of Scripture as condemning it of unfitness or other imperfection of speech; nor would it be any more unfit for a writ to call the legitimate issue of heathens holy, than to call their marriage holy( which I have shewed before to be frequent in approved writers) especially the Apostle going before us, and it being observed by Mr. Gataker against Pfochen. cap. 11. {αβγδ} qi dicuntur, formulaeque honestiores, de qibus Agellius noct. Attic. l. 9. cap. 10. apud omnes fear gentes rebus conjugalibus exprimendis conquisirae. And the Apostle puts holiness for chastity, 1 Thes. 4. 3. 4. 7. As for Mr. Bs. additions according to his manner supplying in quips what he wants in proof, of speaking according to Scripture not the fancies of men, then almost all the world may be called holy, they are but frivolous. We are to speak according to the use of words, nor are we tied to speak in the phrase of Scripture, though it be commendable, and for my part I like not such affencted innovations in speech as Castalio and others are charged with, but love to speak according to Scripture, yet if it were put to question whether there being no other exception to a mans words but this, that he useth a word differently from the constant use of Scripture, conceiving it to be used in one place in the sense he takes it, there be an absurdity, unfitness or unseemliness in the speech? I should determine negatively. I would not call all marriages of ignoble, beggarly, infidel, profane, vicious people in my ordinary speech honourable, yet Heb. 13. 4. marriage is said to be honourable among all, and living continently 1 Thes. 4. 4. is termed possessing our vessels in holiness and honor.  
Against this argument Mr. B. brings in two allegations of mine. 1. That Mal. 2. 15. A seed of God is a legitimate seed. To this be answers 1. That this is nothing to the word[ holy]. I reply, I have shewed it is taken by learned Divines for all one, and therefore it is pertinent. 2. If by a seed of God were meant legitimate, then Joseph, Benjamin, Solomon, and a great part of the holy seed should be bastards, and so shut out of the Congregation; which is a known falsehood. To this I reply, That waving the questions whether Leah or Rachel were Jacobs right wife, or Bathsheba Davids, Mr. B. must maintain either those persons or some others less questioned to be illegitimate, or else he must maintain Polygamy to have been lawful to their parents, therefore this absurdity will as much lye upon Mr. B. to avoid as myself. As for shutting out of the Congregation of the Lord, D●. 23 2. it's shewed to be meant of not being reckoned in genealogies among the legitimate Isra●lites by descent, to whom marriages, inheritances, honors, Political privileges were to be communicated as ●o others. And of these as Euauchs so bastards were debarred, such as were so taken, not every one which was so indeed: or if every bastard were to be debarred, yet Polygamy being then taken for lawful, yea and Concubinate too, the law was not so understood nor executed. But what Mamzer or bastard is meant, and how excluded, may be seen in Selden de jure nat.& gent. ●uxta disc. Ebr. l. 5. c. 15, 16.  
3. Mr. B. gives his own sense of Malach. 2. 15. in these words, But why should not Gods word be understood as he speaks it? and a seed of God be understood peoperly? For God will sooner choose and bless the seed of the temperate, than of the wandering, insatiate, licentious lust, and the temperate and sober will also sooner educate them for God. And this seemeth the plain scope of the place: though some other I know do otherwise expound it.  
To which I answer, 1. that Mr. B. grants that making one Mal. 2. 15. was in opposition to wandering, insatiate, licentious lust, or in a word, by lawful marriage, and consequently the seed of God, is meant of that seed to which that marriage tended. 2. He saith, this seed is called the seed of God, that is a Godly seed, understood properly, or as he speaks pag. 67. belonging to God in a peculiar special manner as distinct from the rest of mankind, members of his Church, even the infants. And he gives two reasons, 1. because God will sooner choose and bless the seed of the temperate: 2. the temperate and sober will sooner educate them for God. Whereby Mr. B. intimates, that the seed of God here becomes such by Gods choice and blessing, and parents education: which shows his uncertainty and confusedness. For his words, why should not a seed of God be understood properly? shows he meant it of a seed that is really godly, or in practise by virtue of Gods choice, and parents education, but pa. 67. ch. 23. he would have it understood of infants of believers, whom he takes to be visible Church-members by virtue of the parents faith, and Gods Covenant: But infants are not a seed of God, that is, godly, by parents eduction in infancy, therefore his exposition here and pa. 67. agr●e not, and his allegation of it there to prove infants visible Church-membership is from his own words shewed to be impertinent. 2. Here he makes a seed of God to be meant of that which is not born of intemperate lust, and indeed the very words led to it, he made one( in marriage) that he might seek a seed of God, intimating that the seed of the intemperate and incontent would not be a seed of God. But Mr. B. agrees with Mr. M. that the seed of a believing parent though begotten by intemperate lust is by covenant and parents faith a visible Church-member, for he saith chap. 29. pag. 80. that the words 1 Cor. 7. 14. [ now are they holy] were spoken as a common privilege to all believers▪ children whence it follows, that if such be excluded Mal. 2. 15. from being a seed of God, Mr. B. did very impertinently bring it p●ge 67. to prove that infants of believers were visible Church-members, the words being not to be understood of infants of believers as such by virtue of the Covenant, but of children of lawfully married persous by virtue of Gods institution, which I contend for.  
Then Mr. B. brings in my objection thus. The direct end of marriage is legitimation of issue, therefore this is here meant; and answers, There are other ends as direct, as that the man might have a help meet for him, &c. 2. The Consequence is denied: For it is not proved that the Prophet speaks here of the direct end. 3. If by the direct end he mean the ultimate end, which is first intended, then 1. either the ultimate end of Gods instituting marriage( but then his assertion is manifestly false, for Gods glory is his ultimate end; and many other greater there are than legitimation) or else he means the ultimate end of man in marrying( but that is nothing to the text, and is also plainly false) or if by the direct end he mean the next effect, this is neither true, nor any thing to the matter.  
Answ. By this passage, and other passages in this chapter, may be perceived how ill Mr. B. dealt with me when I lent him my written papers about the meaning of 1 Cor. 7. 14. and he having taken out of and abridged them as he pleased, sent them me hastily again without any animadversions, whereby I perceived he meant not to deal with me as one that would help me to see my mistake, but make use of my notes for his advantage, and therefore I had no reason to impart any more unto him. For in those written notes now printed the word was not, the direct end, but the proper and genuine end of marriage as such, in respect of their posterity, assigning in express term, another end in respect of the parties, their natural solace and help by society, which if he had headed and been, willing to set down fairly as my words were, it might have prevented all this cavil. But for fuller reply, I say, If there be other ends as direct, as that a man might have a help meet for him, &c. yet if( as I reason) the proper end of the first institution in respect of posterity were not to seek a seed of God distinct from the wicked but from spurious, then this later sense must be meant, and not the former. But Mr. B. denies the Consequence, for it is not proved that the prophet speaks here of the direct end. To which I say [ the direct end] was not my term, but Mr. Bs. alteration. I somewhat question whether any end can be rightly said to be indirect: my term was[ the proper end in respect of posterity, distinct from the proper end in respect of the parties]( which explication he doth ill to leave out) and this I conceive Mr. B. will not deny, that the Prophet here speaks of the proper end of marriage, that is the end not common to the being one flesh without marriage, the words are so plain as that Piscat. Diod. N. Annot. &c. ubi suprà speak to this purpose: yea doth not Mr. B. himself say, it is the plain scope of the place to difference the seed of the temperate from the intemperate? And therefore the consequence is undeniable, marriage not differencing a godly seed either in practise or visible Church-membership from the ungodly, many children of married persons being ungodly and out of the Church, and many begotten in fornication, godly and in the Church; but differencing a legitimate seed from an illegitimate. Nor was the use of marriage in its institution for a spiritual purpose, but a civil or natural. And thus my reason stands yet unanswered, that sith the Prophet speaks here of the proper end of God in appointing marriage, and that is for a seed of God distinct from spurious, not from wicked, by [ a seed of God] is meant legitimate] not[ godly in Mr. Bs. sense] and Mr. Bs. reasoning is frivolous, I speaking not of the ultimate end of God or man in marrying, but of the proper end of marriage not common to being one flesh without marriage; which end is not the end of marriage by accident but of itself, and of which a legitimate seed is the genuine effect.  
Mr. B. goes on thus. His second objection is this: if bastards be called unclean, then by consequent the legitimate may be called holy; to which I answer, the consequence is ungrounded; all uncleanness is opposite to cleanness, but not all to holiness. The Beasts that chewed the cud and had cloven feet were clean beasts, and yet every Ox or Sheep was not holy.  
To which I reply. Mr. Bs. answer is upon a mistake of the Consequence. For the Consequence is this: unclean and holy are here immediately opposites, therefore in what sense[ unclean] may be taken here, in the opposite sense[ holy] may be taken: For it is a plain rule in logic, that where terms stand as opposites, the one is to be taken in the sense opposite to the other. Now that[ unclean] may be taken for[ illegitimate] is proved from Deut. 23. 2. where the bastard is reckoned among them that were not to enter into the Congregation of the Lord, and therefore counted unclean. Now Mr. Bs. answer is by denying that which is not asserted by me, to wit, that all uncleanness is not opposite to holiness; which I neither do nor need affirm. For it is enough for my purpose, that in that place 1 Cor. 7. 14. they are opposites, which is not denied; and that if[ illegitimate] may be as much as[ unclean][ holy] may be as much as[ legitimate]: which is enough to answer Mr. Bs. objection, that to call legitimate children holy is to contradict the Scripture-use of words.  
But Mr. B. hath another answer. Again, you must distinguish of uncleanness, 1. either it was ceremonial, 2. or moral. The uncleanness of bastards then was only or chiefly ceremonial or typical, God did deprive them of the Jewish privileges, as those were for a time that had touched the dead, which yet was no sin. God doth not now shut such out of his Church to so many generations as he did then out of that congregation in some measure. So that bastards are not now so unclean as then they were, and therefore the legitimate not so holy; when legal or Jewish ceremonial cleanness and uncleanness are ceased: therefore this could be none of the Apostles meaning here. And if God did yet call bastards unclean, as he did then, it will not follow that we may call all them that are no bastards holy, till God have warranted us so to do. But see how these men will trust to groundless far-fetched Consequences, when it fits their turn.  
I reply, All may see Paedobaptists consequences, even Mr. Bs. are far-fetched, being fetched from circumcision the Jewish infants Church-membership, and I am sure upon accurate scanning they are groundless: but that this objection of mine is a groundless far-fetched consequence he that says it heeds not or cares not what he says.  
For it is not denied unclean and holy are here opposites, it is affirmed here by Mr. B. God did call formerly bastards unclean, it is not denied opposites may be taken in opposite senses, therefore as unclean allusively to the Jewish law may be taken for illegitimate, so holy standing in direct opposition to it 1 Cor. 7. 14. may be taken for legitimate. This is a plain and near consequence upon grounds not denied by Mr. B. himself. Now what saith he to it? That we must distinguish between ceremonial and moral uncleanness, that bastards were ceremonially unclean then, not so now, nor the legitimate so holy; therefore this could not be the Apostles meaning here. To which I reply, the uncleanness of bastards was rather civil and judicial than ceremonial or ecclesiastical as it is taken in contradistinction to civil, as appears from Nehem. 13. 1. 3. For the effect of it was not any separation till purged by some rites, but a putting away from Israel as making an impure mixture in blood. But however, were it granted that it was a ceremonial uncleanness, and it being granted( as I readily do) that bastards were not unclean then as under the law, nor the legitimate so holy, that is in that peculiar sense of the Jews( which I never asserted); yet the Apostle in an allusive sense might call bastards unclean, and legitimate holy, because it was a use then known, as he doth in many other words, Auathema, Rom. 9. 3. keeping the feast, unleavened bread, 1 Cor. 5. 8. Circumcision, Philip. 3. 3. Priesthood, 1 Pet. 2. 5. though all these be now ceased as they were then. And whereas Mr. B. adds, if God did yet call bastards unclean as he did then, it will not follow that we may call all them that are no bastards holy, till God have warranted us so to do; I conceive that if God did yet call bastards unclean, as he did then in an opposite sense to holy, surely we may expound[ holy] by[ legitimate] and are plainly warranted by God so to do notwithstanding Mr. Bs. groundless dictate to the contrary.   

SECT. XXVII.  
Mr. Bs. fourth argument that the unbelieving husbands sanctifying cannot be meant in respect of lawful continuance in marriage, is answered.  
MR. B. goes on to his fourth Argument, for his sense against mine. If( saith he) the sanctifying of the unbeliving husband or wife be not meant of making or continuing the marriage lawful in opposition to adultery, then by holiness of the children cannot be meant their legitimation in opposition to bastardy. But the sanctifying of the unbelieving husband or wife cannot be meant of making or continuing the marriage lawful in opposition to adultery( or scortation) Therefore by holiness of children cannot be meant their legitimation in opposition to bastardy. He proves the minor thus. If God do no where in all the Scripture call the mere making of a thing lawful[ the sanctifying of it]( but many hundred times use the word in another sense) then we must not so call it, nor so interpret him here: But God doth no where in Scripture call the mere making of a thing lawful[ the sanctifying of it] therefore we must not so do, nor here so interpret it.  
To which I answered by denying, 1. the Consequence, and he to make it good replies, 1. He is resolved to follow Scripture phrase as near as he can.  
To which I reply, so am I, and in this exposition do interpret it after the common sense of Scripture, though with some diminution, which I call( as Rhetoricians do) abuse or impropriety of speech, in which manner it is frequent to use terms in Scripture, as 1 Cor. 10. 2. were baptized, is as if they had been baptized, Matth. 12. 49, 50. He that doth the will of my Father is my Mother, that is, is to me as if he were my mother, Matth. 19. 12. some have eunuchized themselves for the kingdom of heaven, that is saith Mr. Selden de jure nat. &c. l. 5. c. 16. by a similitude, they by removing lust have as it were gelded themselves, Heb. 11. 12. {αβγδ} deadened or killed, which our translators render, as good as dead, just in my sense of sanctified in respect of procreation as if he were dead though then alive. The like might be said of Mark 10. 30. Luke 14. 26. Exod. 2. 9. Levit. 17. 4. And indeed such kind of expressions are so frequent in Scripture and other Authors, yea and in common speech, as when we say I found him a Father, a Brother, homo homini Deus, &c. that I cannot tell what to call it but shallowness, or frowardness, or some such like weakness in Mr. B. who would insinuate into mens minds, as if my interpreting [ the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife] that is, is as if he were sanctified in this respect, to wit, the lawful enjoyment of her husband, she may as lawfully use his company in conjugal use as if he were sanctified, or had been a believer, that this is not speaking as God speaks, or as the Scripture speaks 500 times. He might as well say, that he that interprets thus Christs words, He that doth the will of my Father is my Mother, is to me as if he were my mother in some respect, speaks not as God speaks, or takes the word otherwise than it is in 500 places: which insinuations though they take with vulgar capacities, yet I am confident all judicious Scholars count mere trifling.  
2. Mr. B. tells me I must show some palpable necessity for leaving the constant use of the word, which he doth not yet believe I can do.  
To which I reply, 1. The constant use of the word [ sanctified] is to be made holy by regenerating grace: now I use it in that sense onely with some diminution, which may be called abuse or impropriety of speech, as when Christ calls an obedient hearer his mother, Abrahams body dead, Heb. 11. 12. the Israelites were baptized 1 Cor. 10. 2. the constant use is retained, onely the predication is with some diminution, as in some one respect only, by similitude, analogy, after a sort, or the like.  
2. There is a manifest( which Mr. B. calls palpable) necessity that it be used in this sense, sith an infidel continuing an infidel in sensu composito, in a compound sense, cannot be said to be sanctified, that is, regenerated. But he may be said to be sanctified as 1 Tim. 4. 5. To which I reply, 1. That place is but one, and so Mr. B. recedes from the constant use of the word: which he counts my fault. 2. Nor is the speech there as here of the sanctifying of a person, but of a thing to be received, as meat, &c. 3. Nor is the sanctifying here said to be by the word and prayer, or any exercise answerable thereto, as there. 4. Yea it hath been shewed before that the sense of Mr. B. before given doth neither agree with the sanctification 1 Tim. 4. 5. nor can Mr. B. give any instance where the word sanctified is used according to his uncouch explication, or rather darkening of Pauls words, which the sense I give makes plain and easy. But I must follow him.  
But at last, saith Mr. B. Mr. T. denied also my Antecedent, and affirmed that the word sanctifying was used for[ making lawful] and proved it( as he useth) out of 1 Tim. 4. 5. To which I replied, that the text could not mean it of a mere making a thing lawful; which I proved thus; if it were lawful before( even to Pagans to eat and drink, though they sin in the manner, and ends) then this cannot be meant of making it merely lawful; But it was lawful before: Therefore, &c. To which he gave not so much as any denial, but yielded all; whereupon I could not but desire the people to observe, &c.  
To which I reply, that being wearied with Mr. Bs. cavilling at the plain sense I gave, I did affirm that the word[ sanctifying] was used for[ making lawful] 1 Tim. 4. 5. and when he altered the term into[ mere making lawful] I yielded his Conclusion, because he that proves that it signifies somewhat more than mere making lawful, proves it signifies making lawful: which was all I affirmed, and therefore I thought not best to have any more altercation about it. Hereupon Mr. B. contrary to agreement falls to his rhetoric, turns himself to the people, censures them that hold with me as lead by mens interest in me more than by God or the evidence of truth, and chargeth me as if I could bring but one place that I could say did favour my sense, and then plainly gave up that one also, and so would most injuriously represent me to the people as a deceiver: whereas the main of my answer was the denying the Consequence of his argument, and yet brought a text to prove that to be sanctified is to be made lawful though not merely lawful, which Mr. B. added besides my words: nor was I bound to justify. I have above shewed that to be sanctified 1 Cor. 7. 14. cannot be meant as 1 Tim. 4. 5. which is enough to overthrow his sense.  
I suppose it seasonable here to mind the Reader, 1. Of Mr. Bs. inequality, who thinks it enough for him, though he be the affirmer, and should therefore prove what he affirms, when he is prest by me to bring one place to show where[ holy] is taken in his way, to tell me it is used many hundreds of times for a state of separation to God in general, though he bring no one place to prove it is used for the special way of separation to God he contends for, and yet when he puts me to show a place for my sense of[ sanctified] for[ making lawful] excepts against it as insufficient, because it doth not there signify[ merely making lawful] though I be but a respondent, and that allegation is for my purpose, though otherwise without it, it be made good. 2. Of my condition in the dispute at Bewdly, when I found Mr. B. not taking so fair and plain an answer as I gave about the meaning of the word[ sanctified] though he had seen it in my written notes exemplified by the like, but in stead thereof using such indirect ways as he here confesseth he did by turning himself to the people, and to possess them with thoughts as if I and others did but delude them, and that upon so slight a pretence, though he knew his arguments were premeditated, written in his book, and about that text altogether unknown to me, as I had reason to conceive, of purpose, I was in much distraction of thoughts, finding I held a wolf by the ears, which I neither knew how to hold or loose without danger of being condemned as a deceiver, if I were silent; or if I spake, to expose myself to his forward cavellings, and injurious censures: to which straight every way like in my reading I find not any before me brought. But the Lord kept me( I bless his name) from breaking out into intemperate passions or language though much provoked by this his dealing, and hath so brought it about though to my great trouble, that his arguments being printed, I am preserved to answer them, and thereby to vindicate the truth. I go on.  
Mr. B. adds. I proved my Antecedent thus. If by sanctifying be meant[ making or continuing lawful] then both this and all other l●wfull relations of Pagans are sanctified, but the Consequence is absurd, therefore the Antecedent. Mr. T. answered to this, that their relations may be said to be sanctified in this sense; but when Scripture saith so, I will believe him.  
To which I reply, in the sense I gave, an infidel child may be said to be sanctified, or an infidel servant, that is, delighted in, commanded, as a child or servant( as if he were sanctified) by his infidel father or master. And though it be not my phrase, but his, to say their relations are sanctified, yet in the sense I explain it is no absurdity to say pagans lawful relations are sanctified to them, nor shall account it to be, till it be proved so to be.  
He goes on. I further argue thus. That which is common to all Pagans lawfully married cannot he mentioned as a privilege proper to believers: But Paul mentioneth sanctification of the unbeliever to them as a privilege proper to believers, Ergo.  
T'is true, I deny the Minor, though page. 80. he takes it as if it were confessed, that here the Apostle ascribes a privilege to a believer. But saith Mr. B. the scope of the Apostle fully satisfieth me of the false-hood of this. I reply, the scope of the Apostles, analysis and frame of the words, specially the leaving out the term[ believer] though the term[ unbelieving] be twice mentioned, satisfies me upon my exactest enquiry, that it is a clear truth, that the Apostle doth not confirm his resolution v. 12, 13. in v. 14. from a privilege derived from the faith of the one party, which had been insufficient to quiet their consciences as Mr. B. and others expound it, but by assuring them that notwithstanding their scruple, yet their mariage-state continued lawful notwithstanding the feared impediment, and so it is from a thing common to all married persons. But against it saith he I argue thus.  
If neither in this nor any other text, the Holy Ghost do ever speak of sanctifying to the unbeliever, but to believers onely, then it is not to be understood of a thing common to every Pagan that is lawfully married: but the Antecedent is undeniable. For here Paul saith onely to the believer, that the unbeliever is sanctified to them, and not to any other. And no other text can be produced that saith it otherwise.  
To which I reply, I deny the Consequence: For though he speak of sanctifying here to none but a believer, nor any where else, yet sith the reason of his speaking onely to a believer is plain to be because the occasion was only the believers doubt, and so he was to resolve them,( not that which Mr. B. imagines, the comforting of them against their known unhappy condition that they were necessitated to abide with the unbeliever, against which he should comfort them by acquainting them with a privilege they had, if they did exercise their faith aright) there being no such thing as the comforting against grief, but the satisfying of their consciences, in the Apostles words, and he leaves out the term[ believer] and mentions those of[ husband and wife] it is to me very apparent, that the reason of the ones being sanctified to the other is from the conjugal relation, not the faith of one party, and so no privilege mentioned of the believer as such.  
Mr. B adds. Whence another argument may be added. That cannot be said to be done to the believer as his proper privilege which he enjoyed before while he was an unbeliever: but the lawful use of his unbelieving wife he enjoyed before. Therefore it is not his privilege as a believer, and consequently not the thing here meant.  
To this I reply by denying the Consequence, which will not be proved till Mr. B. prove that the sanctifying is a privilege of the believer as a believer, by reason or virtue of his faith, which Mr. B. though he say I deny it, yet contents himself to say he is satisfied fully from the Apostles scope to be a falsehood, but proves not nor answers my reasons to the contrary. I may more truly say he that is lead by such disputing is lead by mens interests, not by evidence of truth.   

SECT. XXVIII.  
Mr. Bs. 5th argument that the Apostle by my exposition should not argue from a thing more known, is answered.  
MR. B. proceeds thus. My next argument is this; If by sanctifying were meant making lawful, then the Apostle could not argue as à notiore( from a thing more known) from the childrens holiness to the unbelievers being so sanctified: But the Apostle doth argue à notiore: so saith Mr. T. still, and Apol. p. 120. he saith they were certain their children were legitimate. I do unfeignedly admire how Mr. T. can satisfy his own conscience in the answer he giveth to this argument, or how he can make himself believe, that it is either satisfactory or rational. But I will hid none of his answer from you, as it is you shall have it, and so judge of it. I confirmed my mayor proposition thus( for the Minor is his own) 1. If no man can rationally know that his children are legitimate till he know first that his marriage is lawful( as in opposition to adultery) then the childrens legitimation is not a thing better known than the said lawfulness of marriage. But no man can rationally know that his children are legitimate till he know first that his marriage is so lawful: therefore the childrens legitimation is not a thing better known than the lawfulness of the marriage. The Minor I prove thus. If the childrens legitimation be a mere consequent of the said lawfulness of the marriage, receiving all its strength from it, then no man can rationally know that his children are legitimate till he first know that his marriage is so lawful: But the Antecedent is certain( and confessed by Mr. T. Apol. p. 123.) therefore so is the Consequence: or thus; If every man that doubteth of the lawfulness of his marriage( as being adulterous) must needs rationally doubt also of the legitimation of his children, then the said legitimation is not a thing better known. But every man that doubteth whether his marriage be adulterous, must needs rationally doubt whether his children are legitimate: therefore the said legitimation is not better known.  
To which I answer. Admiration is usually from ignorance, and that sometimes from heedlessness, which I find so frequent in Mr. B. that I do not admire that he is so frequent in his frivolous admirations. My answer with which I can satisfy my conscience is this, that Mr. Bs. argument goes on two mistakes, 1. That all proof must be by that which is rationally more know able. Whereas the speech in logic that all proof is by that which is more known, is to be understood of that which is any way more known, whether it be notius naturâ, or personae, in the order of nature, or the way of the persons understanding with whom we reason, in which it serves turn if the thing be but more readily conceived or first thought on, though in a rational way it should be last, if there be a connexion between the thing to be proved and the medium by which the proof is made. 2. Mr. B. doth mistake me very much. It is true, I say the Corinthians doubted not of the legitimation of their children, but that I say that they doubted whether their marriage were adulterous I suppose can no where be found in my writings, and if it did fall from me in the dispute( which I do not remember) I do now revoke it. Some short written notes of what I delivered in my Sermon at Bewdley wherein I answered Mr. Bs. arguments in the dispute, have it thus; I say not they doubted whether they had lived in fornication, and yet doubted not of the legitimation of their children. My interpretation is this; They doubted whether the believer were not to relinquish the unbeliever. The answer is, no: The reason is the unbeliver being a husband is as if he were a believer or sanctified in respect of his own wife so far as to continue together lawfully notwithstanding his unbelief: This he proves by an argument to the persons; you grant your children legitimate though begotten and born in this state, therefore you must grant the lawfulness of continuing together as husband and wife, for the one being granted cannot be true except the other be also yielded. And this I conceive is rational arguing, as in a like case; A man doubts whether he may serve his master out of favour with a king? It is answered he may: For notwithstanding his disfavour he is to him a master as if he were in favour, else he might not wear his cloth, which he doubts not to do. The arguing is like, and both rational. In each the doubt is but single, and both proved by a double medium, the first from the continuance of the relations notwithstanding these extrinsical things, infidelity and the Princes disfavour; the other proves these to the persons from their grants, that their children are legitimate, therefore their married estate holds, the other his right to wear his cloth continues, therefore his relation to his master. Now let us consider what Mr. B. saith about my answer to this, in which he would have men imagine I made by my answer the Corinthians, Paul, and myself, little better than fools or mad-men. After his manner he begins thus.  
Now what saith Mr. T. to all this? why in our dispute he saith over and over, that the Corinthians were certain that their children were no bastards, and yet they were not certain whether their continuing together were not fornication. And this magisterially he affirmed without any reason: To which I reply. 1. Then were the Corinthians certaintly mad, even stark mad-men if they doubted that they lived in fornication, and yet were sure that their children were lawfully begotten in that state. But Mr. T. hath no ground in reason and conscience to make such a Church as this of Corinth to consist of mad-men: nor will I believe him that they were so besides themselves in this, who had so much wisdom in other things.  
To which I say, It is true, I did say in the dispute sundry things which I do not remember, and that I was so unadvised upon the confidence I had of Mr. Bs. imagined ingenuity that I should neither find him so captious of advantages, nor so tart and quick as I did, but willing to give me some breathing time and liberty to open myself, and after to have let me have his arguments in writing that I might have reviewed them and my answers afore they were published, that I took no course to have the passages written by an equal Notary. And I confess I was at some loss in the dispute about this argument, finding by my Sermon and Antidote page. 17. I did mistake it. Yet however some things might fall from me either through inadvertency by weariness, distraction of thoughts, or other human infirmity, I do not think I said they were not certain whether their continuing together were not fornication, much less that I magisterially affirmed it. This perhaps I did say, that they might not see the consequence from their childrens legitimation to the lawful continuance in their marriage use; which is not all one as to doubt or be uncertain whether they lived not in fornication, when they were certain their children were legitimate. But what ever I then said, I now declare that I think the doubt was about the lawful living together, and the proof of the affirmative is from the lawful continuing in marriage, the mariage-bond being not dissolved by the infidelity of the one party, assured by the Apostles authority, and confirmed to the persons from that which is undoubted to them, their childrens legitimation. Yet had I said they were certain of their childrens legitimation, but uncertain whether they lived not in fornication, it will not follow they were stark mad, they might be dull, yet not stark mad. There may be found that know not the connexion of things, that may deny a man to be a reasonable living creature, and yet hold him a man, that grant contradictories true, and yet not stark mad. Nor do I imagine but that there were slow-witted men in the Church of Corinth, the Apostle saying they were not many wise after the flesh, 1 Cor. 1. 26: though he speak of them as he doth 1 Cor. 1: 5. and 8. 1. and 10. 15. Nor need I make a Church of mad-men as Mr. B. after his manner insinuates.  
But he goes on. I reason further: He feigneth them to know a thing not knowable, and so an impossibility; for it is not knowable that the child of an adulterous or fornicating bed is lawfully begotten; and if they were in doubt of their living in fornication, though it were not so, yet it would afford to them no more assurance of their childrens legitimation than if it were so indeed: for who can raise a Conclusion from unknown Premises? Indeed if there were any other Premises to raise it from, then it were something; but there is no other ground in the world on which a man can know that his child is fully begotten, but onely to know that he was no fornicator or adulterer.  
Answ. Mr. B. saith I feign the Corinthians to know a thing not knowable, as being an impossibility, to wit, that the child of an adulterous or fornicating bed is lawfully begotten, and I confess if I should so feign I should feign them to know an impossibility according to my acknowledgement page. 123. of my Apology here cited by Mr. B. But that I feign the Corinthians to know this is Mr. Bs. dream: yea though I had said as he makes me, that they doubted not of their childrens legitimation, and yet doubted of their marriage whether it were fornication. For though I confess that in this case if they did rationally discourse they must doubt of the one that doubt of the other, yet if through inadvertency a person heed not the connexion, a man may doubt of the one, and yet through dullness not doubt of the other. Mr. B. might remember that in his Saints Everlasting Rest, part. 3. chap. 7. Section 16. He saith that many honest hearts have such weak heads that they will aclowledge the Premises and yet deny the apparent Conclusion.  
As for Mr. Bs. demands to me that I would tell him upon what ground they were ceriain that their children were lawfully begotten while they doubted whether their living together were not fornication, and the rest of that trash, I pass by as suitable to the rest of his vain rhetoric, and desire him to tell me whether he do hold the polygamy of the patriarchs was not fornication, and if it were( as he must say unless he fall into Ochimis his opinion, and oppose our Lord Christ Matth. 19. 5. 8. Mal. 2. 15. as commonly Protestant Divines conclude) then how could the children of the patriarches by their second wives the former living, be no bastards, as Mr. B. affirms pag. 67, 68. of this book? or if he will reconcile these together, free himself from the madness he chargeth me to cast on the Corinthians, and show how he is free from making a lawfully begotten child of an adulterous or fornicating bed? But I love not to imitate Mr. Bs. vagaries, but to keep to the matter.  
Mr. B. adds. But 2. Mr. T. saith in his Sermon on Deliberation, that this is not absurd to imagine of understanding persons, seeing even learned men do not at all times see the consequences of things at present. To which I answer:( If it need any;) 1. Farfetcht or difficult Consequences they may not see; but such as this, I dare say, he is mere mad, if not stark mad, that cannot see. 2. Then Mr. T. being a learned man will take it for no wrong it seems, if a man tell him he is not able at present to see this Consequence, that his children are lawfully begotten; therefore he did lawfully beget them, or he did not beget them in fornication. 3. But if such a learned man should not see the Consequence of the said Antecedent, yet I would fain know how he comes to know the Consequent, without first knowing any Premises or Antecedent. This is the question that Mr. T. should have answered; How they came to be so certain that their children were lawfully begotten, when at the same time they knew not whether they begot them lawfully or in fornication. Did not so able a man as Mr. T. know, and that after so much dispute, that this was the question which he should have answered? And yet he saith nothing to it: And yet he saith he hath abundantly answered all. What should a man say to such dealing? and that from a man of learning and piety? and that dare on these grounds deny Church-membership to all Christian infants in the world? shall I accuse his understanding? why, he thinks his cause so plain, that he smiles and wonders at all the most learned men in the world that dissent from him; shall I accuse his conscience and say he doth these things wilfully? No, but I leave it to God the righteous Judge, onely I am still more confirmed, that a visible judgement of God doth still follow Anabaptistry where ever it comes.  
Answ. I see Mr. B. ready upon every light occasion to insult upon me, and therein to be carried on with such extreme hard conceits of me, that he speaks as if he were confirmed that not onely I, but also all Anabaptists( as he calls us) were left over to a reprobate sense; for what other visible judgement he means here should still follow Anabaptistry where ever it comes, I imagine not. And why so? Forsooth I do not answer at all to a question of his, and yet say, I have abundantly answered all. To which I reply, I did and do conceive that I did abundantly answer all Mr. Bs. arguments in the dispute, by showing that his sense could not be right, though I omitted the answering of this question; and my saying it in my Sermon is justifiable, however Mr. B. think of it. Yet if there were a defect in answering his question it was because I had not, nor could procure his arguments in writings to consider of them. I confess that to answer this argument especially( which I did suspect I did not then well understand nor clearly answer) I did much desire his arguments in writing, and I earnestly moved Mr. B. to gratify me at least with those about 1 Cor. 7. 14. but could not get them from him till he printed them in this bitter, taunting and insulting manner: which the Lord forgive him. But to the matter, 1. Mr. B. recites my words in a Sermon, and it is very likely I used them. But in his Answer he carries it as if I had said[ cannot see, or is not able to see] when my words were only[ do not see] And this is no absurdity to say that through mere incogitancy of the connexion, as in my Antidote page. 19. learned men do not see the plain Consequences of things when they do not discourse rationally. And though I think it might be a wrong to a learned man to say he is not able to see the Consequence Mr. B. sets down; yet I count it no wrong to me to say that I do not see a Consequence when I assent to the Consequent without any discursive illation from the Anteeedent, as in thousands of things men take them for granted and undoubted without any rational Conclusion, being unquestioned points, and so they know or assent to the Consequent materially taken without first knowing any Premises or Antecedent formally considered as having connexion with it. 2. Mr. B. tells me, this is the question Mr. T. should have answered, How they came to be so certain that their children were lawfully begotten, when at the same time they knew not whether they begot them lawfully or in fornication. I answer, what I did conceive at the dispute I do not remember, I think my thoughts were somewhat confused about answering this argument, for the reasons foregiven. But since by the notes of my Sermon,& my Antidote page. 17. I find that I did not deprehend that this was the question Mr. B. would have answered: what ever I did then, I now give a plain answer, 1. That what the thoughts of the Corinthians were it is impossible for me to tell. 2. But this I conceive, that the Apostle doth prove the lawfulness of continuance of the married persons in conjugal use not withstanding the unbelief of the one party from the legitimation of their children as more known, that is, as being or likely to be first thought or granted without any rational discourse: not as Mr. B. conceives me to assert or suppose, that at the same time when they doubted not of their childrens legitimation, they doubted of, were uncertain, or knew not their own lawful begetting them, but that they might, did, or were apt to think or conceive first of the one, and therefore the Apostle brings it as a medium to prove the other. And this I conceive is a sufficient answer to this pretty quirk, but no solid argument of Mr. B.  
But one thing more, saith Mr. B. Mr. T. hath both in his Dispute and in his Sermon; and that it is ejusdem farinae, of the same nature with the rest. He speaks as if it were their children begotten before conversion of the believer, that they were certain to be legitimate, and their mariage-state afterward which they doubted to be unlawful( though in his Sermon he speaketh darkly and ambiguously) But it is strange to me, if he believe himself in this: And if he do, I return him this answer. Is it not enough that he feign the Christian Corinth. to be besides themselves, but he must charge little less on S. Paul and on the Holy Ghost? As if the Spirit of God by the Apostle did prove their continuance in marriage with unbelievers to be no fornication, because their children before the conversion of the believer( and so before the time doubted of) were legitimate. Is this good disputing to say you are certain that your children which you got before your conversion are legitimate, therefore the unbeliever is sanctified to you now, and you may now continue the matrimonial enjoyment of them? And so the Apostle should tell them nothing of the legitimation of the children begot since their conversion, when yet the doubt was only of the lawfulness of their marriage since then, and not before. If one of Mr. T. his hearers should doubt( as many do) whether he may lawfully thus continue and proceed in the ministry, and whether they may maintain him in this way: were it any good argument for me to use, to say, his labours before he preached against Infants-baptism and Church-membership were Orthodox; therefore he may go on now, and you may maintain him. Who would not laugh at such a foolish argument? And dare you fasten such on the Spirit of God?  
Answ. It is true, in my Examen page. 72. 73. and it is likely in the dispute with Mr. B. I did say, that in probability[ {αβγδ}, hath been sanctified] is meant of the time when both were unbelievers, and [ your children] meant of those before the conversion of one party, as well as since. And thus did Musculus in his comment on 1 Cor. 7. 14. whose words are Englished in my Exercit. page. 11. 12. 13. herein relinquishing Ambrose: and yet Musculus did not imagine that he should feign the Apostle Paul, much less the Spirit of God, to be besides themselves. I will use his words, It is as if he said, unless marriage were holy and clean, even between unbelievers, what other thing would follow, than that all the children are bastards and unclean? But far be it from us to say so; they are holy, for they are born of lawful marriage. And for my part I should think the argument much the stronger if it be so conceived: Your children born when both were infidels were legitimate, therefore then your mariage-use was lawful, and now notwithstanding one be an unbeliever yet still your conjugal-use continues lawful: For it is grounded on this, that whether persons be believers or infidels their marriage is not thereby nullified, nor their children illegitimate, because marriage is honourable among all, Heb. 13. 14 and therefore if I delighted in such kind of speeches I might more justly than he doth question whether Mr. B. were not besides himself, or under a visible judgement of God for calling the argument as by me conceived, foolish. Nevertheless in my Antidote page. 19. I say, it is the more clear exposition to understand it of those born since the conversion of one party, as being more easily conceived& so perhaps apposite to resolve the doubt according to the present state of the Corinthians. As for his illustration it serves not his turn, sith as is before shewed, the Apostes argument is not foolish but solid, even according to the opinion that makes him speak of the children before the conversion of one party, how ever the resolution concerning my maintenance had been. Yet by the passage I perceive now,  
1. That many in Bewdley did doubt of owning me as their Teacher, and maintaining me, because of preaching against Infant-baptism.  
2. That Mr. B. was acquainted with their doubts.  
3. It seems improbable that he would resolve them that they ought to own and maintain me.  
4. That there is thereupon strong presumption that they were alienated, and withdrew at least in some measure from me. Which I doubt not was the beginning of the breach there between us, if there were any, so that Mr. B. seems to have had a hand in it, notwithstanding all his fair shows of making peace. Now whether Mr. B. did Bewdley a good turn in occasioning thereby my removal from them, they do know perhaps already, and may know more hereafter. This I perceive plainly by this passage, that the division there( though it neither were nor is much discernible that there is any) began on the part opposite to me.   

SECT. XXIX.  
Mr. Bs. sixth argument that the Corinthians doubt was not of their continuing in fornication, but impiety, is answered.  
MR B. goes on. My sixth argument is this; If it were not the unlawfulness of their marriage as fornicating, but as impious, or irreligious directly, which the Corinthians suspected, then it is not the lawfulness in opposition to fornication, that is here called sanctifying. But it was not the unlawfulness as Fornicatory, but as impious directly which they suspected: therefore it was not the lawfulness as opposite to fornication, which is here meant by sanctifying. The Minor onely will be denied, which I prove thus: If they doubted not of the legitimation of their seed, then they could not rationally doubt of the lawfulness of their use of marriage, as fornicatory:( but they might doubt of the lawfulness of it as being impious:) But the Antecedent is Mr. T. his own, Apol. p. 120. therefore the Consequent he cannot well deny. 2. Besides to any unprejudiced man, it will appear from the very scope of the text, that this was the Corinthians doubt, whether it were not irreligious to live with unbelievers? and not, whether it were not direct●y fornication.  
To this argument I reply, that whereas he saith the Minor only will be denied, he is mistaken, it is the Consequence of the mayor that is denied. To express myself plainly we must distinguish between the doubt, the reason of the doubt, the occasion of the doubt, the resolution of the doubt, and the media whereby the resolution is confirmed. The doubt was, whether the believing yoke-fellow might continue with the unbeliever, or whether they were to leave one another; the reason of the doubt was because it seemed irreligious, the occasion of that might be either the reading Deut. 7. 3, 4. or some such like passage, or that which he had written before 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. or some other; the resolution of the doubt was, that they might live together, need not be divorced, or repudiate each other, notwithstanding the unbelief of the one party; the medium whereby he proves it is, because the one is sanctified in or to the other, that is as I conceive, he may be lawfully enjoyed as a husband as if he were sanctified and were a believer, because the marriage holds good though one remain an unbeliever, sith marriages, even among unbelievers, are lawful and honourable, according to Gods institution Gen. 2. else, if this were not so, your children, by the unbeliever, should be unclean, that is, unlawfully begotten, who are now, that is this being granied that marriages are lawful among infidels, holy, that is, lawfully begotten opposite to unclean. But saith Mr. B. pag. 90. And how would this resolve their doubt, which it is apparent was, whether it were directly impious or irreligious to live with heathens? would it be any satisfaction for the Apostle to answer, that it is not fornication? it may be unlawful as impious, though lawful as not fornication. To which I answer, Mr. B. confounds the reason of the doubt with the doubt. The doubt was whether they were not bound to be divorced or to relinquish the other, the reason thereof was the impiety of the unbeliever, which seemed to disannul the marriage. The answer is proper and apposite to the doubt: They might live together, for the marriage was not disannulled by the unbelief of the yoke-fellow, but the unbelieving husband though an unbeliever is sanctified, that is in respect of conjugal use is as if he were sanctified, to his own wife. As if now a Papist should doubt whether she must not leave her Lutheran husband lately converted to it, it would be a right answer to say, no, for the marriage relation continues though her husband be an heretic, So v. 21, 22. the Apostle resolves the Servant that he was to abide with his Master though an infidel, because the relation of servant and master continue, though the reason of the doubt was the impiety of the master. I will ad the words of two Protestant writers of good account, though the thing be plain enough. Piscat. analys. 1 Cor. 7. 7o prohibet divortia quibus causam praebere posset conjugis infidelitas seu incredulitas, id est, religio: quum scil. conjunx non profitetur religionem christianam, v. 12.& 13. 8o respondet objectioni:& docet conjugem fidelem bonâ conscientiâ uti posse conjuge infideli,& ejusmodi conjugium esse licitum: id quod probat ex effectu, videlicet sanctitate liberorum, qui ex ejusmodi conjugio nascuntur, v. 14. Stephanus Zegedinus, loc. come. pa. 357, Rationem sumit à licito usu matrimonii, ac totius vitae; neque enim copula infidelis fidelis inquinatur, sanctificatur infidelis à fideli quoad usum& communionem tori. Ab effectu, si immudum esset vestrum conjugium,& liberi qui ind nascerentur immundi essent, at non sunt immundi. Where by the way I observe that these Authors make the holiness of the children the effect of the lawful use of copulation and mariage-bed: now no holiness of children is the effect of lawful use of the bed, and copulation, but legitimation: the Children would be visible Church-members according to Paedobaptists grants not onely when the persons use the bed lawfully, but also when they use it unlawfully if one be a believer, yea if both be unbelievers and use the bed unlawfully, yet if either be a believer afore the birth, the child begotten will be a visible Church-member, yea if after the child is born afore it comes to use its own reason it shall be held a visible Church-member and baptized by their hypotheses if the parent become a believer, and on the otherside children begotten and born of parents neither being believers at any time may be visible Church-members and be baptized in infancy, according to Mr. Cottons opinion in the way of the Churches in N. E. ch. ult. and Mr. Baxters here pag. 101, 102. if they be any Purchasers or Guardians to dispose of who are believers. But Ireturn.   

SECT. XXX.  
Mr. Bs. seventh argument from the preferring a proper and usual sense before an abusive, is answered.  
MR. B. adds. My seventh argument is this: when the proper sense of a word may be taken, and also that sense wherein it is used many hundred times by the Holy-Ghost, and this without any palpable intonvenience; then it is sinful to reject that sense and prefer an abusive Catachrestical sense, and which is disagreeing from all other Scripture-use of the word: But here the proper sense of the word[ sanctified] may be taken, wherein Scripture useth it many hundredtimes, and that without any palpable( yea the least) inconvenience; Therfore it is sinful to prefer before it an abusive sense, wherein Scripture never useth the word;( by his own confession) The mayor was not denied; the Minor was denied( that the proper usual sense may be here taken without inconvenience) 1. I desired him to show any inconvenience in it. And you shall anon here all that he hath shewed then or since.  
Answ. 1. Mr. B. says that I confess the word[ sanctified] is taken here in an abusive sense, wherein the Scripture never useth the word; in which he misrepresents my words. I say the word is taken in this place in the usual sense in which it is taken in Scripture, for a person sanctified, as 1 Cor. 1. 2. and 6. 11. &c. but not without a catachresis, that is abuse or impropriety of speech, as when it is said he that he areth my word is my Father and Mother, the word is taken in the usual sense, yet with some abuse or impropriety of speech, is to me as if he were my Father and Mother, which Mr. B. absurdly calls an abusive sense, whereas it is only a turning of the word from its simplo sense according to its full latitude by applying it to a person in some respect only, or with some diminution, which is common with all authors.  
2. Mr. B. supposeth his sense to be used many hundred times in Scripture. But as I have said before, I do not conceive the word[ sanctified] is used any where for Mr. Bs. sort of remote sanctifying to him who is separated to God, and will( or is bound by his profession to) use it for it God, no not 1 Tim. 4. 5.  
3. How usual it is to interpret words as I do, this hath been shewed above.  
4. I have shewed before it is no sin to use a word in a sense to which the scope, coherence, parallel place, &c. led, though there be no such palpable inconvenience as Mr. B. speaks of to understand it in the usual sense, as 1 Cor: 11. 10. Mat. 18. 17. &c.  
5. Nevertheless in this place Mr. Bs. sense cannot hold by reason of sundry inconveniencies, as namely, that it is an uncouth interpretation, that in reason it is very impertinent to tell them, the believer may live with the unbeliever in marriage use, for the unbeliever is sanctified to him who is separated to God, and will( or is bound by his profession to) use all for God, which hath no more ground to justify the living together of married, then of unmarried persons; yea that reason must rest on this or the like proposition, that a believer may lawfuly enjoy that which he will or is bound by his procession to use for God, and it is sanctified to him, and so any thing that is anothers, goods, wife, &c. are sanctified to a believerwho is separate to God and will or is bound by his profession to use all for God, which willbring in that which M. B. so much inveighs against, community of goods, wives, &c. If it be said it supposeth the things sanctified to be lawful, or his own; I reply, 1. Mr. B. doth not put that in his description of his remote sanctification, he would have all things simply to be pure to the pure Tit. 1. 15. and 2. Nor by either Mr. Bs. or Mr. Ms. interpretation of the sanctifying 1 Cor. 7. 14. is it necessary to be inserted, sith the reason of the sanctifying is not by them drawn from the conjugal relation, but from the faith of the one party, as is shewed before, Sect. 22. 23. &c. 3. But let the proposition be, All that is lawful or his own is sanctified to a believer, yet the doubt of the Corinthians would not be removed by the proposition so limited, sith the doubt was whether the un believing husband were lawful and to be owned any longer as a yoke-fellow. Besides that proposition is not true except the believer be such really before God; For he only useth all for God, and so hath all sanctified to him; no hypocrite doth use all for God, but for himself, though he be a professed believer, and then the Apostles reasonexpounded in Mr. Bs. sense would not justify such persons living together, but rather conclude a necessity of their desertion of the unbelieving yokefelow: yea sith a true real believer someimes doth use things against God, lives like an unbeliever in sinful practices and a profane course, so as to incur excommunication, then his unbelieving wife should be divorced, he should put her away, sith she is not sanctified to him in this state; the like may be said if he doubt whether he be a real believer. Again, sith the using all for God is a future contingent, Paul had resolved them of the lawfulness of continuing together at present from a future contingent, which might be or not be, which Chamier ubi suprà counted justly absurd, such a reason being manifestly unsatisfactory. All these and more in conveniences there are which at the time of the dispute and after conference I could not discern, but some I did then discern, and some I put in my Antidote page. 15. to which the answer of Mr. B. is considered in its place: in the mean time I shall pursue him step by step.  
2. Saith he, I proved the negative thus. If the Scripture say expressly, that to the pure all things are pure and sanctified( and here be nothi n against that sense) then it being a certain truth, we may so understand it here. But the Scripture saith expressly, that to the pure all things are pure and sanctified( in the proper sense) Therefore it being a certain truth( and here is nothing against that sense) we may so take it here.  
To which I answer, by denying both the Consequence of the mayor and the Minor. The Consequence, because it rests on this proposirion, that a place of Scripture is to be expounded in that sense which hath a certain truth, and hath nothing there against it. For there is more required, to wit, the fitness of it to the scope, coherence, &c. But the Minor I also deny, and besides what is already said against Mr. Bs. sense, and what is to come after, for the present I add, That 1 Cor. 7. 14. doth not appear parallel to Tit 1. 15. because there the whole strength of the proposition is in the term[ pure] and therefore there mentioned with Emphasis, but 1 Cor. 7. 14. the term[ believer] that might answer to it is omitted, and the object of the sanctification is expressed by[ husband and wife] leaving out[ believer] which shows the reason of the sanctification to be not from the faith of the believer, but the conjugal relation.  
But Mr. B. taking all occasions to render me as bad as he can, proceeds in his course thus. What Mr. T. said to this, it is a shane to hear from the mouth of a Christian: but you may see part of it( if it be worth the seeing) afterwards. In brief he affirmed and long contested, that all things are sanctified to believers onely while they are acting faith; yea, only while they are actually praying( in the sense of that text) And so brings in an old condemned heresy( so called by the Fathers) that nothing is pure to us longer than we are praying. Then his dispute was unsanctified, and so is his preaching, though it be against infant-baptism, and though he pray before and after; yea then his very meat and drink is unsanctifyed( which Paul said were sanctified by the word and prayer) and then what good will prayer do as to the sanctifying of any thing, when it sanctifieth no longer than we are praying? would any man believe that such doctrine should fall from Mr. T. a man of learning and supposed judiciousness? If he had not long insisted on it, and that before about 30. Ministers and Scholars and some thousands of people, I should not expect that one should believe me. And is it any wonder if he that will or dare pled thus, dare also pled against infant-baptism? yea, when I argued against him thus[ if it be onely in the very exercise of faith and prayer that things are pure, then sleep is not pure or sanctified to you;( for you do not exercise faith and prayer in your sleep) but sleep is sanctffied: therefore it is not onely in the very exercise of faith and prayer.] Here Mr. T. denied that sleep is sanctified;( would any man believe it?) which I proved thus: If all things are pure to the pure, then their sleep is: But the text saith, All things are pure to the pure, Tit. 1. 15. Therefore their sleep is pure to them. Here Mr. T. answered, that by all things were meant some things. And thus you see, what grounds the most learned go on against our baptism; which would make a tender heart even tremble.  
Answ. The grounds we go on against infant-baptism are not any which Mr. B. here mentions, but that it is not according to Christs institution Mat. 28. 19. or the Apostles practise; and therefore willworship, which Mr. B. did not then hold forth for them to see; nor is it true that by that he there speaks or writes his Hearers or Readers did see what grounds the most learned go on against his baptism. When I red Mr. Bs. book I wondered as much at Mr. B. as he did at me, that he should so zealously maintain infant-sprinkling upon such gross fooleries as he doth, that infants of believers are disciples, Mat. 28. 19. disciples in a mere relation without any learning, disciples remotely by their parents faith, that our infants are visible Church-members from a supposed ordinance unrepealed, but no where shewed except in the Church-membership of the Jews, which with the rites of that Church is manifestly taken away by dissolving that policy and putting up another frame in a far different way, besides most gross pervertings of texts, such as I may well say would make a tender heart even tremble to repeat. As for the present passage of his, me thinks a tender heart would have trembled thus to repeat in print to the world his brothers words, taking him at the worst, without ever asking of him his meaning, who did so often desire the arguments in writing, that he might mend his answers in dispute, when he lived but 2 miles from him. But I am so enured to his deforming paintings of me, that I make account of it as a good hour in which I meet not with some of his stuff while I examine this writing. It was my folly I confess, and it proves my disadvantage that I entered the dispute without agreement about rules, notaries, &c. trusting to Mr. Bs. imagined candour, and expecting rather a friendly conference than such a pitched dispute: so that I cannot convince Mr. B. of his fictions as I might have done. But whereas Mr. B. makes me say that all things are sanctified to believers while they are acting faith, yea while they are actually praying,& that onely in the very exercise of faith& prayer things are pure, some notes that I got set down my words[ when they pray, not without actual praying, by virtue of the exercise of faith] Mr. B. himself page. 208.[ by the present act of faith and prayer] not as here[ while they are actually praying, only in the very exercise of faith and prayer] By my expressions what ever they were my meaning was to exclude onely from sanctifying, either professed faith without reality, or a habit of faith real without acting, and an acting of faith interrupted by falling into sin, remisseness, and partial back sliding from that Christian course: but never in the sense Mr. B. interprets me, as if I held a thing sanctified onely while, that is during the coexistence of prayer, and the use of the thing: which were indeed to speak things inconsistent, the use of the thing being not till the prayer be ended. My tenet rightly understood neither brings in the heresy of the Euchites, which as August. tom. 7. de haeresibus ad Quodvult Deum haeres. 57. was, that they shousd onely pray, nor denies sleep to be sanctified when the person keeps a holy course of walking with God in prayer when he is waking. It is true, I said by all things Tit. 1. 15. were not meant all things simply, for then sins should be said to be pure, and therefore the speech Tit. 1. 15. must be understood as 1 Cor. 6. 12. with limitation, which is in effect to say some things are pure; But I answered this in my Praecursor in answering the charge of gross a bsurdities on me in the dispute at Bewdley. I may say he that dares thus misrepresent anothers words for his advantage, dares take hold on any vain pretence to uphold the tottering credit of his infant-springling.   

SECT. XXXI.  
Mr. Bs. 8th argument from the impurity of all things to an unbeliever, is answered.  
MR. B. adds. My 8th argument is thus: If the holy Ghost say expressly that to unbelievers nothing is pure, then you must not say that their husbands or wives are sanctified to them( nor expound this text of any supposed sanctification common to them:) But the Holy Ghost saith expressly that nothing is pure to unbelievers: therefore it is not a sanctification common to them that is here mentioned. If the Scripture do not onely use the word holy and sanctify many hundred times in another sense and never in your sense, but also speaks the direct contrary, viz. that nothing is pure to unbelievers, then let Mr. T. say if he please that their wives are sanctified to them: but I will not say so. But 1. He saith( but magisterially without the least proof) that the Apostle speaks Acurologically and abusively; and by sanctified means quasi as if they were sanctified. Answ. But besides that this is both unproved, yea and fully confuted, I would further know what he meaneth by[ quasi sanctified] Is it[ as good as sanctified?] Then it is apparently false: For to be unsanctified though lawful is not as good as though they were sanctified.  
To which I reply: There is no contradiction to say nothing is pure or sanctified to an unbeliever in the proper sense, that is, so as that they use it agreeable to Gods will, and with his acceptance, and yet to say that an unbelieving yoke-fellow is sanctified, that is, is as if he were sanctified to his unbelieving wife in this respect onely so as to be enjoyed as a husband, which is no more than this, that mariage-use is honourable or lawful among infidels. And this sense hath been proved by the analysis of the Apostles words, and by the frequent use of terms in such an improper manner as 1 Cor. 10. 2. and elsewhere, and so the sense runs clear, and not otherwise, nor is this refuted by Mr. B. or any other. I mean by[ as if he were fanctified] he is in this respect as lawfully enjoyed as if he were a believer. Pasor in voice {αβγδ} 1 Cor. 7. 14. uxor infidelis in viro sanctificata est, h. e. pro sancta habita. If the expression be used by any[ as if he were sanctified] is as good as sanctified] yet there is no more apparent falsehood in such a speech then in our translators rendering {αβγδ} Heb. 11. 12. dead or made dead by [ as good as dead] it being usual in our English tongue to express thus, that which the Latins do express by quasi as it were. Nor do I say to be unsanctified, if lawful is as good as if he were sanctified: but only this, it is as good barely in this respect to be used by his wife as if he were sanctified, though he be unsanctified, which is all one as to say, that conjugal use is lawful with such a one as well as if he were a believer, and therefore Mr. B. doth but trifle in his cavil at that expression, and in imagining two different senses of the expression, he is as it were sanctified. But 2. saith he, it would be but a proving idem peridem, as if the Apostle should say, it is lawful to live together, because it is lawful; whereas he argues that they may lawfully live together because the one is sanctified in or to the other. To which I answer, the proof is not by the same, but by terms connexed: the believer need not put away his wife though an infidel, because though she be an infidel, yet being his wife she is lawfully used as if she were sanctified, not putting away, and lawfully using, are not the same though connexed, and so no nugatory proof of the same by the same. 3. Saith Mr. B. And why should a thing onely lawful to be said to be sanctified, or as if it were sanctified when it is not sanctified? lawfulness is a condition recruit in the subject of sanctification; for God never sanctifieth sin. It may be long lawful and never sanctified. Answ. For the same reason a person is said to be sanctified who is not sanctified, for which he is said to be Christs mother, who is not Christs mother, the Israelites to be baptized, who were not baptized, he must hate his Father who must not hate him, the woman that liveth in pleasure is dead, who is not dead, 1 Tim. 5. 6. what a frivovolous demand is this to ask why the Apostle should use such a kind of speech, when the reason is so often rendered because it well served to remove the doubt from the unsanctifiedness of the person as an impediment to their continuance in conjugal converse? 'tis true, lawfulness is a recruit condition of sanctification when sanctification is taken without any abuse or impropriety of speech, yet it may import the same with lawfulness in the sense the Apostle useth it? The next question which is his 4th objection, is answered in answering the 6th argument. 5. Saith Mr. B. And who should be here believed in their interpretation? Mr. T. that expoundeth by adding to the text? or those that say no more or less than the text saith. We say as the Apostle saith, that the unbeliever is sanctified in or to the believer Mr. T. saith, he is as it were sanctified: that is, he is not sanctified, but either as good or somewhat like it: who shall be believed here? S. Paul or Mr. T? I believe S. Paul, that the unbeliever is sanctified. Let Mr. T. believe that he is but as it were sanctified. Answ: It is one thing to expound by adding to the text, and another thing to add to the text, which is to be expounded. The later is Mr. Bs. fault, who saith, we say as the Apostle saith, that the unbeliever is sanctified in or to the believer, when the Apostle mentions not[ believer] but [ wife husband] The former is necessary, when the words are not so plain, that they need no exposition. I know not how a man can expound but by altering the more dark words into more perspicuous; and that is seldom without addition as may be seen in all paraphrases and commentaries; and such is my addition, and should be believed. Mr. Bs. questions are so nugatory that he might be ashamed of the frivolousness of them. Is S. Paul or Mr. T. to be believed? Answ. Doubtless Paul, when Mr. T. speaks contrary to him: but when Mr. T. speaks the same more perspicuously that S. Paul speaks both are to be believed. But Paul saith, That the unbeliever is sanctified, Mr. T. he is not but as it were sanctified. Answ. Christ saith, he that doth the will of his Father is his mother. Mr. T. saith he is but as his mother in some respect; yet there is no contradiction. So Saint Paul says, the unbeliever hath been sanctified, Mr. T. he hath been but as is were sanctified in some respect, and there is no contradiction herein.  
But will Mr. B. himself say simply, the unbeliever is sanctified? I trow he will not, but after a sort, and in some respect. And if so, doth he not as well vary from the Apostle as I do? But saith Mr. B. he tells us that 1 Cor. 10. 2, 3. to be bagtized in the cloud and in the sea is quasi baptized. And what of that: what is that to this? Because in metarhors similitudes, types, &c. the name may be given from the thing signified, doth it follow that it is so here, where Mr. T. doth not so much as affirm any type or similitude? Answ. Mr. B. denies not that I say right [ baptized 1 Cor. 10. 2.] is as much as[ as it were baptized] but asks what of that? If so, as it is very apparent then neither Infant-baptism, nor sprinkling as the same with baptism, can be hence concluded as Paedobaptists endeavour. Mr. B. adds another question, of which he is full when he wants arguments. What is that to this? Answ. It is an illustration to my exposition by giving an instance in a like expression in the same Epistle. But there is yet another interrogation I must answer( For I see I am now tied to this caucasus, and must answer every of Mr. Bs. frivolous questions) Because in Metaphors, siwilitudes, types, &c. the name may be gi-from the thing signified doth it follow that it is so here, where Mr. T. doth not so much as affirm any type or similitude? Answ. No, nor did Mr. T. ever make such a foolish argument, 1 Cor. 10. 2. baptized is as it were baptized, therefore 1 Cor. 7. 14. sanctified is, as it were sanctified; yet it follows well as Mr. T. alleged it, that if [ baptized] 1 Corinthians. 10. 2. were so expounded, [ sanctified] 1 Cor. 7. 14. might be so expounded, if nothing else were against it. But there is no metaphor nor type 1 Cor. 7. 14. Nor do I know of any Metaphor or type 1 Cor. 10. 2. If Mr. B. think the cloud or Sea were types for signifying or foretelling our baptism he opposeth Protestant Divines who denies the old shadows to be types of our Sacraments. Ames. Bellerm. Enerv. tom. 3. c. 3. th. 11. figuras figurarum non instituit Deus, nec docet Scriptura. But in 1 Cor. 10. 2. is a relation of a thing done and yet this expression is used, and therefore it is no strange thing, it is so used 1 Cor. 7. 14.   

SECT. XXXII.  
Mr. Bs. 9th hinted argument from this, that the Apostle makes the childrens pans an horrid Consequence is answered.  
BUt Mr. B, for all his brevity hints one more argument. The Apostle here argueth from this as a horrid Consequence containing much evil in it[ else were your children unclean] and from the contrary as a happy Consequence[ but now they are holy] But according to Mr. T. his exposition there is no great good in one, nor evil in the other. Therefore Mr. T. his sense is dissonant from the Apostles. For the mayor it is undeniable: the minor Mr. T. will confute when he hath well answered me, what great evil it is according to his opinion to be a bastard? 1. It is no sin( in the child) that is certain. 2. And what evil of suffering is it? 1. Though the parents should be impenitent, yet according to Mr. T. it would be no punishment to the child to be out of the visible Church. For he thinks that even the seed of the faithful are all without, and yet it is no evil to them. And for the place he urgeth,( he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy) they may be concerned in it as well as others. So that except mere shane among men, or the effect of human laws, what harm doth he leave?  
Answ. 1. Though Mr. B. say the mayor is undeniable, yet I deny it, and say it is manifestly false. The Apostle doth indeed argue from the childrens uncleanness as an absurdity Consequent, as Pisc. in his analysis of the place: but not as from a horrid consequence containing much evil in it nor from; the holiness as a happy consequent, but as a certain concession. 2 Yet did it contain an horrid consequence containing much evil it might be the infamy& deminution of privileges according to human laws that might be meant. It was a horrid thing to Jephthah that he was illegitimate, Judges 11. 2.& the law of God, Deut. 23. 2. excluded them from the congregation of the Lord. As for Mr. Bs. imputations to me, that it would be no punishment to a child to be out of the visible Church, it is true, I hold that the not taking in of infants into the visible Church of Christians as they were into the jews is not any thing penal, but only a different state of them arising from the different Church constitution. But the other speech is falsely charged on me, that even the seed of the faithful are all without, and yet it is no evil to them. It is strange to me, that Mr. B. should confounded the seed of the faithful with their infant-children, as if the infants onely were their seed. And it is but an abusing of people to use the term [ to be without] used Mark 4. 11. 1 Cor. 5. 12. Col. 4: 5. Revel. 22. 15. but not in Mr. Bs. sense, for them that are only without the visible Church negatively through bare incapacity of nature to understand the Gospel preached: whereas it is always in the Scripture of the N. T. used for them that are without positively as being alienated in their minds from God: whereby Readers are grossly abused as being apt to conceive that the the evils spoken of them that are without are meant of of infants even of believers, if their admissibility into visible Church-membership by baptism be not acknowledged. It is true, bastards may be concerned in the mercy of God mentioned Rom. 9. 15. as well as others, and when I urge that place I urge it pertinently, If I did leave no other harm to bastards but mere shane among men, or the effect of human laws, yet it were evil to be abhorred to have the brand of bastardy. But there are other evils that follow it, as chiefly that their education is not regarded, they are cast out of families not owned by the parent, nor provided for &c. But I need not aggravate these evils, sith as I said before, it is false that the Apostle argues from the childrens uncleanness as from a horrid Consequence containing much evil in it. Thus I have made a full answer to all Mr. Bs. arguments in print for his sense of 1 Cor. 7. 14. His reserves I nothing doubt are as weak as the printed. I pass on to vindicate my arguments against his Exposition.   

SECT. XXXIII.  
My speech, that it is not enough for Mr. B. to overthrow my sense except he prove his own, is vindicated.  
MR. B. tells us he will proceed to answer all that ever he could know I have brought against his Exposition of this text. And 1. he takes notice that I say, if he do overthrow my sense and prove not his own, it is nothing: for possibly neither of us may be in the right. And the answers thus, 1. I wonder not that he seeth a possibility or his own erring, but rather that he seeth not that he certainly erreth. 2. I have fully proved my exposition already. Is it not proof enough that the Scripture near six hundred times useth the word in my sense, and never in his sense. 3. When there is but these three senses urged by any of understanding, I think the overthrow of his third is the establishing of one of the former; and if either of them stand his cause must fall. For the other sense of the word[ holy] which is for qualitative real holiness makes against him more than mine. And I say again, I had rather say as they that would have it a holiness of separation such as certainly saveth, than as Mr. T. that it is onely to be no bastards. For I know no one Scripture against their judgement that shall affirm, that all infants of believers so dying are certainly saved: nor any argument but only this, that then the children of the faithful that prove wicked, do fall away from grace. And were I necessitated to the one( as I am not) I had rather believe that such grace as consisteth not in personal qualifications, but is merely relative grounded on the Covenant, and having only the parents faith for its condition, I say, that such grace may be lost, when they come to age; then to believe, Mr. T. that God hath denied all infants in the world to be so much as members of the visible Church. For I see twenty times more may be said against this opinion of his than the other.  
To which I reply. It is some ease to my spirit under the heavy load of M. Bs. injurious censures of me, that he doth not make me so arrogant as not to imagine it possible for me to err, nor doth it disquiet me that he wonders that I see not that I certainly do err, being acquainted with the vanity of his wonderments, who often wonders at that of which the reason is obvious. That his exposition is not proved is shewed by answering his arguments. That he saith, there are but those three senses of real, federal, matrimonial holiness urged by any of understanding, shows his ignorance. For to omit that of Augustine( a man sure of some understanding) refuted by Chamier Paustr. Cath. tom. 4. lib. 5. cap. 10. Sect. 67. of a ceremonial holiness, Hugo Grotius( no babe) annot. in 1 Cor. 7. 14. goes another way from all the three senses Mr. B. sets down, and allegeth Tertullian and Hierom for him, that the unbelieving husband is sanctified as a lawful husband to his wife a believer, and so she need not depart from him. For otherwise if the believer depart the children would be unclean, that is, would be heathen infidels called unclean Act. 10. there being none to teach them the Christian faith, but now, that is, the believer staying, the children are holy, that is, become Christians, or as Tertullian candidati fidei inquirers into the faith and learners of it, the Lord helping the endeavours of the better part in the education of them. And so this text is not understood of the infants in their infancy, to which Mr. B. and others appropriate the word [ children], nor the holiness derived from the Covenant, but from the education of the children, nor the holiness a holiness of mere relation without any qualification in the person, but a holiness of quality from the good disposition of the person. And this exposition is confirmed from v. 16. in which a like reason is urged from the possibility of saving the unbelieving yoke-fellow if they continue together as of saving their children v. 14. And truly this exposition would be probable, were it not that the words [ else were] appear to note a plain proof in a Logical way of the sanctifying of the unbeliever to the yoke-fellow, not a Rhetorical motive to persuade them to live together, and the scope of the speech there is to resolve the doubt and settle the judgement, not to move the affections. And whereas Mr. B. says that the first sense of qualitative real holiness which certainly saves, makes more against mine than his, if he means my opinion of Anti-paedo baptism sure it is very unlikely. For if it were granted as Mr Thomas Goodwin( the only man that I have found following that sense) would have it, that the Apostle means it thus; if it were not for the faith of the believer the children would be unbelievers ( which proposition is not true) but now, that is by reason of the faith of the one party they are many of them elect and in the covenant of saving grace,( which unless warily understood is not true) though many are not, yet would not it serve turn to prove the right to baptism of any much less of all the infants of believers. For  
1. Were it granted that all much less if it be granted onely that some infants of believers are elect, and have the promise of saving real holiness, yet unless they have that holiness in infancy and it appears to the baptizer by their manifestation of it or Gods special revelation, that they have it and so are believers he is not appointed to baptize them, and therefore were that sense granted( which is not) yet it would not make against my opinion, that infants are not to be baptized according to ordinary rule. Nor is the conceit of M. T. Good. in his Ep. before Mr. Cottons Dialogue of infant-baptism of any weight, chat sith a great part of the infants of believers dy in infancy and they are the most pure part of the Church, God would not have them come in and go out of the world without some visible token of his favour, and therefore they should be baptized. For 1. This is but a reason of man, which is not to be a rule to us in Gods ordinances without his own appointment. 2. The like reason might be framed concerning still-born or infants dying within an hour, or less after their birth, they should be baptized, and then either ministers must be still in the way to do it, or Papists care is commendable that Midwives baptize, and however private baptism will be necessary. 3. It is but a mere dictate without proof that God would have them partake of a visible token of his favour. To the contrary may be alleged, that all infants till Abrahams time were without such a visible token, from Abrahams time all the females, and males deceasing afore the eight day; that its not in reason necessary they should have a visible token of Gods favour, who show no visible token of their regard of God. 4. If it were granted( which is not) that God would have them partake of a visible token of his favour, yet that it must be baptism and not laying on of hands, which Christ used cannot be proved. So that were Mr. Tho. Goodwins sense granted, yet it would not make against me as Mr. B. saith. Yea Mr. Robert bailie in the first part of his dissuasive chap. 6. pag. 119. conceived that the opinion of Mr. Thomas Goodwin denying the common sense of federal holiness not qualitative and saving tends to overthrow infant-baptism, of which he gives his reason in that plaee.  
2. How uncertain or false Mr. Thomas Goodwins hypotheses are by which he would prove infant-baptism, and how insufficient to that end hath been, though briefly, yet sufficiently touched in my Apology Sect. 5. pag. 19. But yet Mr. B. had rather embrace that opinion than mine, and he gives his reason;  
1. Because he knows no one Scripture against their Judgement, that shall affirm all infants of believer so dying are certainly saved.  
To which I answer; Nor do I know any Scripture for it: but I think notwithstanding Augustines and other ancients opinions from Rom. 5. 12. John 3. 5. about original sin and necessity of waterbaptism to all infants for their entering into the Kingdom of God, yet the Scripture is silent in this point, whether they are all certainly saved that dy in infancy either children of believers or unbelievers. But why he should for this reason rather embrace the opinion of qualitative real saving holiness to be meant, 1 Cor. 7. 14. than mine of matrimonial I see not, except his prejudice against my exposition and judgement.  
2. Saith Mr. B. Nor any argument, but onely this, that then the children of the faithful that prove wicked do fall away from grace.  
Answ. There are many arguments against the opinion of interpreting 1 Cor. 7. 14. of qualitative real saving holiness of believers infants by reason of the parents faith besides that which Mr. B. produduceth, though he see them not. As  
First, That the parents faith by that exposition is made a cause, or motive, or reason of a childs being elect, or sanctified, or in the covenant of grace, or in Mr. Bs. phrase these are grounded on the parents faith, which I conceive not agreeing with the Apostles determination even concerning the Children of Abraham and Isaac, Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18. denying every believers child to be a child of the promise, referring election of some and hardening of others even of Abraham and Isaac's house merely to Gods will, as the cause, motive or reason of it.  
2. That the children are holy with such a holiness for the parents faith will, I presum, be only judged of such parents as have true real faith, it being absurd, that the child should be judged to have real saving holiness for or by the parents faith who hath none himself. But if it be meant only of such that their children are all, or for the most part, holy with a real qualitative saving holiness, then the inconveniences follow on this opinion which follow on Mr. Bs. sense mentioned in my Antidote pag. 15. and are to be considered hereafter.  
3. The Apostle had resolved them of the lawfulness of their continuing together from a thing merely impertinent to the thing to be proved. For what connexion is there between the lawfulness of the parents being together, and the childs real holiness? Is it unlawful for parents to live together, if they knew all or any of their children would be ungodly or reprobates? or were it any whit the more lawful for fornicators to live together if they knew all or any of their bastards should be godly and be saved?  
4. The principal argument against that opinion is, that then this proposition should be included in the Apostles consequence: none of the Children of those parents whereof neither is a believer are holy with a saving real qualitative holiness, but all unclean, that is reprobates and ungodly, contrary to the grace of God to the children of gentle Idolaters, and to the Article of the Creed about the catholic Church, and would indeed overthrow the preaching of the Gospel to any but believers children. But let us see how Mr. B. endeavours to avoid the only argument he knew, to wit, that then there would be a falling from grace of many children of believers, who prove wicked. He denies not but that from the opinion of understanding 1 Cor. 7. 14. of a holiness of separation which certainly saves, and affirming it to be meant of the infants of believers, it will follow that some infants may fall from grace: in which me thinks he might have observed that these are inconsistent suppositions to suppose that they have that holiness of separation which certainly saves, and yet that they fall from grace. But he tells us that he had rather believe that such grace as consisteth not in personal qualifications, but is merely relative grounded on the Covenant, and having only the parents faith for its condition may be lost when they come to age, than to believe with Mr. T. that God hath denied all infants in the world to be so much as members of the visible Church. Whereto I reply: If he should believe the exposition to which he rather inclines than mine, and his granted suppositions, he should believe not only merely relative Grace, but a qualitative, real, saving holiness, yea which certainly saves may be lost, and therefore this evasion would not help to avoid the absurdity that follows on that opinion if Mr B. should embrace it. But I observe sundry strange conceits in Mr. B.  
1. That he imagines a merely relative grace without personal qualification grounded on the Covenant, having only the parents faith for its condition, which is to me a mere figment.  
2. That this mere relative holiness without personal qualification would save certainly infants dying in infancy, and so an unclean thing which hath no personal qualification of inherent holiness may enter into heaven.  
3. That he is not utterly averse from believing such grace may be lost, which seems either to imply a contradiction, that the grace that saves certainly may be lost, or else that grace which would certainly save the infants if they did die infants may be lost if they live: which if true I see not how God will be acquitted from change in his covenant, if not in his purpose, and me thinks every believing parent should be bound out of love to his childs soul to pray to God to take away his child in infancy, and not to hazard its salvation by prolonging its life.  
4. He conceives my denying infants visible Church-membership doth exclude infants from salvation: and yet imagines not that the want of holiness of personal qualification doth so: which is as much as to say, a person really unsanctifyed may be saved, but a person not seeming to men to be of the invisible Church in a judgement of probability( as he vainly describes visible Church-membership) may not. I haved shewed what may be said against that opinion, have examined what is said against mine: I perceive Mr. Bs. prejudice sways him much, and indeed blinds him that he cannot or will not consider the evidence of what I bring for my opinion, nor the futility of his own reasoning. But I pass on.   

SECT. XXXIV.  
That the terms[ sanctified and holy] are often used in a sense different from Mr. Ms. and Mr. Bs. descriptions, and agreeably to my explication.  
Mr. B. adds. But in his papers which he shewed me against Mr. Marshals defence, he mentioneth some Scriptures where Holiness or sanctifying is not taken for separation from common to sacred use, as Josh. 20. 9. 1 Sam. 21. 5. Isa. 13. 3. Jerem. 51. 27. 28. To which I answer, Mr. M. can pled for himself, but this is nothing against what I have said. Holiness is ever a separation to God, though not ever to a temple or religious use. Sure the cities of refuge were separated to God, when they were separated for the singular exercise of his mercy, and saving the lives of his people, and for being eminent types of Jesus Christ the great sanctuary of distressed Sinners.  
Answ. The Papers I shewed Mr. B. are now printed, and by his leaving out my explication of a sacred use, and other things, it appears how he took notes out of them. But sith he relinquisheth Mr. M. lets see what he saith for himself. He tells us, The Cities of refuge were separated to God, because they were for the singular exercise of his mercy, preserved the lives of his people, and were types of Christ. But that they were types of Christ, and not by a mere judicial law for a political use is more than Mr. B. proves, or I think can prove; yet if it were granted it is no more than may be said of Noahs ark, Josephs advancement, &c. which yet are not said to be separated to God. Moveover if this reason be sufficient, that a thing may besaid to be separated to God, which is for exercise of Gods mercy, and preserving mens lives that kill another unawares, then every magistrate even a heathen is separated to God, and so Pagans may be called holy, which he denied in his third argument. And why may not a physician be said to be separated to God, or sanctified, a soldier, and others that are to preserve mens lives, specially the lives of Gods people? yea why may not they that are to propagate posterity, to build up families, as legitimate children are by Gods institution, be said to be separate to God? If such an use as preserving mans life be enough to denominate a person separated to God, it will be no hard matter to justify my sense of holy for legitimation as agreeable to Scripture.  
2. Saith Mr. B. in what sense soever that in Samuel be taken, that the vessels of the young men were holy, it hath no show of opposition t● my interpretation.  
Answ. If it have this sense that the young mens vessels were said to be holy only in that they were kept from women though not Levites, then holy is not taken always for a separation from a common to sacred use, as Mr. M. affirmed, then there is a holiness in forbearing women: which if it be a separating to God in such a large sense as may draw in legitimation, a child may be said to be holy as separated to God in respect of legitimation: which would answer Mr. Bs. three first arguments, and justify my interpretation.  
3. Saith Mr. B. much less Isai. 13. 3. it being the same sense evidently as I have pleaded f●r.  
Answ. The sense Mr. B. pleads for is that the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wives use by virtue of her faith, who will( or is bound by her profession to) use all for God, as 1 Tim. 4. 5. Were the barbarous Pagan Medes said to be Gods sanctified ones in that they were prepared and appointed to execute judgement upon the Chaldaeans Jerem. 51. 27, 28. and did all they did out of a proud cruel desire of dominion and revenge, without any regard to Gods honour, sanctified to that sense? were they sanctified to one that is separated to God, who would use all for God, and made up a state which is more directly for God? Doubt-less there were none of these uses, nor any religious use, but only they were appointed by Gods providence, and so said to be Gods sanctified ones in that they executed vengeance on the Chaldaeans, who had spoiled the Jews, though the Medes had no such intention: in respect of which employment Cyrus is said to be Gods anointed Isa. 45. 1. And therefore neither sanctified nor holy are taken in so narrow a sense as either Mr. M. or Mr. B. take it. But both may be taken according to my sense, which would help to answer the 1. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8. of Mr. Bs. arguments.  
Mr. B. adds. Further Mr. T. allegeth 1 Thes. 4. 3. This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye abstain from fornication. To which I answer, 1. It is not all that are no bastards that are here called sanctified, 2. nor is it mere lawfulness of mariage-use that is called sanctification; no nor the mere chastity of any heathen; 4. but here sanctification is plainly taken for the real purity of their lives as becometh a people separated to God, whereof their chastity is a part.  
Answ. It is so plain that mere chastity or lawful use of the body in opposition to fornication is called holiness that Mr. M. and Mr. B. do but vainly cavil against it; and this evidently shows the term[ holiness] not to be restrained either as Mr. M. to a separation to a sacred use, or as Mr. B. to a separation to God, but that it is applied to a mariage-use, of which a legitimate issue is the genuine product, and so the expression of[ holy] for[ legitimate] was easily intelligible, contrary to what Mr. B. so often pretends. Yet once more Mr. B. tells us.  
Further Mr. T: addeth, that marriage is called holy by many Divines: therefore legitimation may be so. Answ. But we are only in question how Scripture calls. I had rather stick to Scripture with you, because you make men believe we fly from Scripture. If you would stand to the judgement either of the ancient or the late learned and godly, we should more willingly join issue with you. Besides the Popish estimation of marriage as a Sacrament may occasion some epithets to it not yet laid aside. And yet were it worth the standing on I might show with more reason why marriage should be called holy than mere legitimation. But I am loth to draw you away from mere Scripture-argument.  
Answ. Though the question be onely of the Scripture-use of a word, yet Scripture-use is cleared by the use in other Authors, the urging of which is not a drawing away from Scripture argument but a help to understand it. Wherein I make men believe Mr. B. and other Paedobaptists fly from Scripture, I do it rightly. Wherein it is fit to stand to the judgement either of the ancient or the late learned and godly, I refuse not to stand to ●t: But it is but a frivolous thing to imagine it fit to stand unto their judgement in that in which I have shewed plainly, and my Antagonists, at least some of them, aclowledge them in part to have been deceived. It is not rightly suggested as if the terming marriage holy might come from the Popish opinion of making it a facrament, when the Authors words derive it from the Scripture, and institution of it in paradise, and our Saviours words about it, that God hath joined married persons together, and Solomon calls their Covenant the Covenant of God. Yea one Author I allege, to wit, Grotius, tells us that the Gentiles with one consent have believed marriage to be a thing truly holy, and the Authors are most of them approved Protestants, and some Churches in their Confessions so speak. Though there be more reason whymariage should be called holy than mere legitimation, yet if there be reason why[ holy] should stand for[ legitimate] 1 Cor. 7. 14. it s enough to my purpose, which hath been already demonstrated. I go on to the vindicating of my objections against Mr. Bs. sense which Mr. B. endeavours thus to elude.   

SECT. XXXV.  
The objection is made good, that according to the Apostles words as expounded by Mr. B. no infant is to be baptized, sith the reality of the parents faith is not known.  
HE tells his Reader, that the great and chief argument I use against his exposition of the word[ holy] is that which he took out of my own manuscript sent him, which he would have the Reader believe he sets down rightly, and then falls to his censure and childish interrogation, insinuating that it is arguing against the plain words of Scripture, and be not those ductile and tractable souls, that will be drawn from the plain words of God with such a maze of words? In which setting down of my words now printed in this writing s. 12. the Reader may perceive, that either Mr. B. carelessly abridged my words( which indeed I feared, and therefore would sand him no more, having tasted the like dealing from Mr. Edwards as I relate in my Apology page. 9.) or unfaithfully printed them. For 1. The argument in my written paper was not as Mr. B. says, against his exposition of the word[ holy] but against Mr. Ms. sense of the word[ sanctification] which he said was always taken for a separation from common to a sacred use. 2. Mr. B. leaves out a great part of the argument, and that wherein the strength of it consisted, as that in Mr. Ms. instrumental sanctification there's no sacred use, and yet Mr. B. says what he sets down is the very strength of my arguing. 3. he makes me to argue thus, if the faith of the parents be the cause of the childrens holiness, then it is either, &c. which gives him occasion to fill up his book with some thing about the difference between a cause and a condition: whereas the word[ cause] is not used in that place, nor is the argument about the childrens holiness, but the parents sanctification, in these very words[ nor doth the faith of the wife sanctify, that is, separate the husband from a common to a sacred use] And indeed I did in my Examen, and in all my disputes about that text 1 Cor. 7. 14. distinctly examine the meaning of the words [ sanctified] and [ holy] because the true understanding of the word [ sanctified] is the key to the opening of the word [ holy] which nevertheless both Mr. M. Mr. B. and others do confusedly jumble together. 4. Whereas the words in my manuscript were[ If the presence or inexistence habitual of faith in the wife do sanctify the unbelieving husband] Mr. B. leaves out the words[ inexistence habitual of faith] which were explicatory of the words[ presence of faith] and then insinuates that I do illogically contradistinguish the presence of faith from the exercise of it, and doubts whether I mean by the presence of faith the habit or the act, tells me I should have opposed present to past. All which cavils had appeared vain, had my words been rightly recited.  
Then Mr. B. tells what is the condition on which God in Scripture bestoweth infant-holiness, to wit, the actual believing of the parent out of a habit of faith though the act be not presently at that time performed in the time of begetting the child, or its birth or baptism, and seems to admit plainly, that without reality of faith there is no sanctification, telling us that he doth not see any inconvenience that will follow upon it, or any reason to avoid it, but onely takes notice of what I  told him in conference, that if it were the reality of faith that was requisite, then the baptizer could not know it, and that this was abundantly sufficient to confute all that he had said, and then breaks out into his wonted childish wonderments and exclamations, terms this speech a silly contemptible answer, tells the Reader, that I admire any thing that is mine own, though such as a young Divine might be ashamed of. But I am now so well acquainted with such gaggling, that it moves me not. Upon the grant that the believer to whom the unbelieving parent is sanctified is only a true real actual believer before God, however in my conference I might produce but one inconvenience, yet in my Antidote page. 15. 16. I urged more. As 1. Then the Apostles reason had not reached to the resolution of his or her lawfulness of living together with the yoke-fellow, who were onely visible believers, but not in in reality such, they must depart, and the like may be said of that real believer that doubted of the reality of his faith, of which many there are of the most sincere, these should be deterred from living with their yoke-fellows, because in their apprehension they were not sanctified to them. Besides the Apostle should resolve them, not by a thing obvious to all, but from a thing known onely to God and the real believers own conscience, which is not probable. And this with the rest were I conceive in my confutation Sermon. But what saith Mr. B. in his Corrective page. 255. it is answered before. But I know not where, nor doth he tell me, but imagine in his hast not heeding it he skipped it over without answer. 2. I said, if as Mr. Bs. sense supposeth the faith of the believer were the cause of sanctification, the term[ believer] would have been expressed, sith the Emphasis lies in it. Now what saith Mr. B. to this, he denies that his sense supposeth the faith of the believer to be the cause of sanctification. Answ. Mr. B. in this and sundry other places seems to take[ cause] strictly or as Schribler speaks rigorously for a physical efficient: But in reasoning Logicians call any thing, which is before in order of nature, and upon which the other certainly follows, the cause of it, as rationality is called the cause of visibility, the interposition of the earth of the moons Eclipse, &c. And they say such demonstrations in Geometry, arithmetic, &c. are from the cause, that they produce scire per causam, knowledge by the cause, though there be no physical efficiency or causality, but one antecedent to the other. And in this larger sense I took it. But let the word be altered, and put[ reason, antecedent, or condition] the argument is of the same force, that[ believer] should have been expressed, if the faith of the one party had been the reason, or antecedent, or condition of sanctification in Mr. Bs. sense. To which Mr. B. hath given no answer, but like a boy at School what he cannot answer skips it over. 3. If the sense be as Mr. B. would have it, then this proposition is true, as being included in the Apostles reasoning[ The children whereof one of the parents is not a real believer before God are none of them holy as separated to God] But it is false, take the separation to God what way, and to what use he will, the child of professed unbelievers, much more the child of professed believers, though not really such before God, may be and perhaps is separated to God. Now what saith Mr. B. to this? He denies not that the proposition is included in the Apostles reasoning as he expounds it: But tells me page. 255. that my 3d is answered before, but tells me not where: yet if I find it, I shall reply to it, when I meet with it. He adds. Yet do you here give up in my judgement the whole cause about this text: you say that this proposition[ the children whereof one of the parents is not a real true believer before God are none of them holy as separated to God] is false take separation to God what way and to what use I will. Do you know what you have said? why then you yield that some such children are holy and separated in my sense, that is that they are holy by virtue of Gods Covenant claim and gift, as being separated from those without the visible Church, to stand in the relation of disciples, Christians, or visible Church-members: This is my sense of holy; and if you yield this to any children, sure it will be to the seed of Christians: And if to any, why should not those be baptized? But I suppose you will recant these words. As for your consequent I have shewed you before the ungroundedness of it.  
To which I reply, I think I know what I said, nor do I recant my words, nor do I give the whole or any part of my cause by them. I said, some children of professed unbelievers, much more of professed believers, though not real, are holy as separated to God, that is, are Christians, disciples, either invisible or visible Church-members for profession, preaching, or salvation, and this I say is by Gods Covenant of Grace, and this is true. But I did not say[ some infant children are such] Is Mr. B. so childish as to confounded infants and children? Is not a person his fathers child when he is 20 years old as well as when a month old? It is a gross mistake in Mr. B. Mr. M. Mr. black, &c. when the Apostle speaks[ your children are holy] to appropriate this to them as they are in infancy; whereas the Apostle useth not a word restraining to infancy, but extending to riper years also. Yet for further reply, whereas he saith, if you yield this to any children, sure it will be to the seed of Christians, if he mean it of infants, and their holiness of visible Church-membership, I deny it; sith Mr. B. knows I make a difference between the Christians and Jewish Church, and do grant some sort of visible Church-membership to the Jewish infants, which I yield not to the Christian, by reason of the peculiar Covenant and Church-constitution of the Jews. So that hitherto Mr. Bs. advantage from my words is but imaginary. For my consequent of which he saith he hath shewed before the ungroundedness, I understand not well what the consequent is of which he hath shewed the ungroundedness, nor where. The truth is, the showing of what holiness that proposition of the Apostles is true, is the hinge on which the whole dispute about this text turns, and this is my main argument for my exposition, that in no other sense can the Apostles proposition included in his reasoning be true, but of legitimation. About which although Mr. M. saith much in his Defence, yet as a puzzled man, as I show in my Review herewith printed: But Mr. B. either saith nothing or little to it, but according to his fashion where he meets with a knot meddles not with it. Yet if I find any thing in him about it, I shall examine it as I go on.  
Mr. Cobbet in his Just. vindic. part. 1. ch. 1. after he had sect 1. acknowledged the practicles {αβγδ} else were, and {αβγδ} but now to be used in argumentations, and sect. 2. determined that to be sanctified 1 Cor. 7. 14. notes not onely a lawful use but also a holy use, such as is meant 1 Tim. 4. 5 according to Tit. 1. 15. sect. 5. would include both federal and ecclesiastical holiness, but shows not the difference between them clearly, and when he comes to paraphrase the Apostles words, he speaks thus, if your interest in the Covenant of Grace, which you hold forth, and your faith therein, which you in a Churchway profess, are not effectual to produce something peculiar to believers in a conjugal relation differing from all Pagan spouses, they will nether produce any thing peculiar to them in a parental relation to their children; which words are very dark and muddy, neither expressing the interest in the Covenant of Grace what it is, nor how they hold it forth, nor what their faith is, whether real or seeming only, whether he ascribe so much to the profession of it in a Church-way( as it seems he doth) that though the parent be otherwise a real believer, yet the child without it hath nothing peculiar to it in a parental relation, nor sets down what the child hath peculiar to it, which orherwise without this influence of the Covenant and faith they should not have, that I find it harder to find out his meaning than to refute it. However the Reader may easily perceive the unfitness of the paraphrase to the Apostles words, which ascribes an influence of the Covenant of Grace and faith, which are not at all mentioned, to produce the sanctifying of the unbeliever( who hath no personal privilege) and holiness of the children( an unquestioned personal privilege) when there's no mention of the Covenant of Grace or faith in the words, and makes such a different effect from the same cause of both the sanctifying and the holiness, and supposeth a privilege mentioned of which there is not a word in the text. But chiefly to our present business, if I undestand him, his sanctifying of the unbeliever must be meant of the sanctifying by the reality of faith of the one parent, and that must be professed in a Churchway, and his holiness of the children federal and Ecclesiastical, so as to be accounted visible Church-members, and then the proposition of the Apostle included in his argument according to his exposition is[ none of the children of those parents whereof one of the parents is not sanctified by the reality of the faith of the other professed in a Church-way, and interest in the Covenant of Grace, so as to have a holy conjugal use more than lawful, are Ecclesiastically and federally holy, that is, visible Church-members, and capable of the instial seal] which excludes from baptismthe children of parents which are not real believers, yea and the children of real believers if they profess not in a Churchway, and which is chiefly to be considered according to their own hypotheses the proposition of the Apostle would be false, sith Judahs faith did not so sanctify Thamar, and yet Pharez was Ecclesiastically holy, and many children of unbelievers are Ecclesiastically holy, which is contradictory to the Apostles proposition included in his words as expounded by Mr. Cobbet. Nor doth he any whit salue the matter sect. 6. by telling us it hurts him not who makes the main spring of the holiness of the children, not to be the sanctifying of the unbelieving yoke-fellow to the believing( though the words of the Apostle allege no other spring or reason) but the Grace of the Covenant to the believer and his seed( which is neither there, nor any where else mentioned). For whencesoever the holiness come, yet the Apostles proposition must be true, or Mr. Cobbets exposition is not good, which Mr. Gobbet neither there nor any where else that I know doth reconcile, and therefore I infer from this and the rest of the debate of this point with Mr. M. Mr. B. and others, that the Apostle according to their expositions is made to speak false: which being not to be granted, their expositions are to be rejected. I return to Mr. B. My 4th argument upon Mr. Bs. grant he insists long in answering, though he never touch the point he should answer to. The argument may be thus formed. None are to be baptized by an administrator, but those who are certainly known to him to be visible disciples of Christ, or visible Church-members. This proposition is plain, that the administrator must certainly know the visible discipleship or Church-membership of the baptized. I do not say he must certainly know the realtyof his faith before God, but his visible discipleship in the face of the Church. And that is, 1. From the institution, which requires to baptize disciples, Mat. 28. 19. which must be understood of known disciples, otherwise that qualification were put in vain, as a rule to direct whom to baptize, therfore they must be at least visible disciples by some sign from the person, or else must be known to be such by some revelation of God. 2. From the Apostles and other baptizers practise, who would know the faith of persons to be baptized ere they baptized, as Acts 2. 38. 41.& 8. 37, 38. even Simon Magnus was a known believer by profession, and so a visible disciple, ere he was baptized, although not a known real believer before God. 3. Otherwise persons might baptize them that they knew not whether they were visible disciples or no, and so should baptize without rule at random, and turn the ordinance into sport and mockery, without any engaging of the baptized to Christianity, with many more absurdities. Wherefore though a baptizer need know only by a judgement of charity or probability the sincerity and reality of a persons faith, and that he indeed belongs to God; yet he must know certainly his visible discipleship: nor can the rule be[ charitably believed faith] For then the administrators charity is his rule, and if so, then he swerves not from his rule, when he denies baptism to a true believer or professed disciple, though he uncharitably conceive him not to be such. Now I subsume. But according to Mr. Bs. grants and exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. no baptizer can be certain of the visible discipleship or Church-membership of any infant without special revelation. Therefore no infant is to be baptized according to his grants and exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. without special revelation. The Minor is proved from many of Mr. Bs. grants, to wit, 1. That professing true religion( explicitly or implicitly) makes a visible Church-member. 2. That the parents faith is for the child equivalent to a common profession, page. 47. 3. That the faith requisite to the sanctifving of one parent to the other must be real faith exercised, profession is not enough without it, page. 92. 93. 4. That the Apostle determines those children onely are holy, that is, visible Church-members or disciples, whose parent hath such a real faith exercised. 5. That the reality of anothers faith can be certainly known onely to God without special revelation. 6. That no baptizer hath( at least ordinarily) such a special revelation. And the argument may be thus formed. That visible discipleship or Church-membership is not to be known certainly without special revelatlon, which is not to be known certainly but by knowing certainly that which cannot be known certainly but by special revelation. This proposition is evident of itself, and thus the Dominicans, Dr. Twisse and others argue against jesuits, that God cannot know future contingents by a middle knowledge antecedent to a decree of his will, because the object is not knowable in that instant, for it hath no futurition. Protestants prove that Papists cannot know whether the host be transubstantiate, and to be adored, because they cannot known the Priests intention in his officiating. So much more may I say, man cannot know certainly the visible Church-membership of an infant without knowledge of the reality of the parents faith, sith the visibility of the infants Church-membership is not without the reality of the parents faith. But this Mr. B. grants page. 97. cannot be known without special revelation, sith man cannot know the heart, Ergo, &c. Now what doth Mr. B. answer to this. He discourseth at large, that a person hath right to baptism before God by reality of faith, and that this is known onely by a judgement of charity or probability, and that if a baptizer knew a person made profession not seriously, he might be rejected, and that the Apostles did baptize those whose real repentance and faith was not certainly known.  
But all this is not to the point. For though they knew not certainly the reality of faith, yet they knew certainly their visible discipleship, which is not to be known in the case of infants, sith it comes not from the parents mere profession of faith, but the reality of it for the child equivalent to a common profession, which reality of faith is not known, and therefore according to Mr. B. his own grants and exposition, no infant can regularly be baptized. Which argument is fully confirmed by the very like arguing of Mr. B. pag. 225, 296. when he tells us That if the absolute Covenant of grace were to be sealed with baptism, no minister can know to whom to administer it, to whom not, because it then belongs to the elect onely who cannot be known: even so here, sith according to the Apostle expounded by Mr. B. holiness of separation to God belongs only to the child of the parent who is a real believer, no minister can know to whom to administer it, and to whom not, because it then belongs only to the child of a real believer before God, who cannot be known. And thus have I vindicated or rather Mr. B. for me made good that which Mr. B. terms my great and chief objection against his exposition. There are many passages in Mr. B. about answering that objection, which need some animadversions on them: but because I should but weary the reader with things superfluous, I will pass them over, and likewise the second objection as he calls it from Titus 1. 15. which was indeed brought onely to prove, that which Mr. B. grants, that then onely the unbeliever is sanctified in his sense to the believer, when the believer is really such before God.   

SECT. XXXVI.  
That Mr. B. whiles he seeks to relieve Mr. M. against my objection[ that by his exposition of the Apostle might be concluded the lawful living together of fornicators] vents many wild conceits, and falls into gross absurdities.  
BUt Mr. B. adds some more objections of mine: in the first of which he saith I glory more confidently than all the rest, though he can produce no one word of glorying. But saith Mr. B. to me he never objected it, as seeing it was of no source( I conjecture) against my exposition. It is true I did not object it to Mr. B. partly because that objection proceeded on Mr. Ms. exposition, and Mr. Bs. seemed not so liable to it, because he requires a realty of faith to the sanctifying of the one person to the other, whereas Mr. Ms. supposeth onely a profession, and Mr. Bs. sanctifying is by the word and prayer to the true believers use, as 1 Tim. 4. 5. in which manner nothing but that which is lawful is sanctified, but Mr. Ms. instrumental sanctification for begetting a holy seed argrees to fornicators as well as married persons, according to Mr. Ms. and I conceive Mr. Bs. judgement too, if one of them be a heliever. Yet Mr. B. will needs have a fling at it. But I think it not worth while to transcribe it, or to make any other reply but what I have done to Mr. Geree, and Mr. Church. For they all go upon the same mistake, as if the syllogism I make in my Apology pag. 96. were according to the Apostles doctrine, as he propounds it, or I expound it: whereas I expressly said thrice in that place, it is according to the Apostles doctrine as it is expounded by Mr. M. whose very words I produce in my Review now printed. And so neither is the mayor my fiction, but the Apostles proposition as Mr. M. expounds him without the limimation of[ lawful marriage] and the Minor is expressly confessed by Mr. M. nor do I think Mr. B. denies it, who saith pag. 80. that it is undeniable that it was spoken as a common privilege to all believers children that they were holy, therefore the child of a believing fornicatrix is according to Mr. Bs. speech a holy seed, and in Mr. Ms. sense the unbelieving fornicator is sanctified by the faith of the believing fornicatrix to beget a holy seed( which tenet I think Mr. B. denies not, though he otherwise expounds the sanctification 1 Cor. 7. 14.) so that I need not prove against Mr. Ms. sense, sith it is according to his sense, and is by him acknowledged.  
But saith Mr. B. The text only affordeth me this proposition[ where one party in lawful marriage is sanctified to the other, there it is no impiety for them to live together] The reason of the limitation I shewed before. Though the said sanctification be required to make their marriage to be pious and religious; yet it is neither always nor onely required to the direct lawfulness: not alway; for Heathens marriage is lawful to whom nothing is pure: not onely; for there must be other requisites to the lawfulness before the sanctification, which in fornicators is wanting.  
Answ. I grant the proposition the text affordeth according to mine exposition and the genuine sense of the Apostle must be so limited as Mr: B. saith. But I have shewed in my Review before Sect. 22. that according to his exposition itneed not be added: forasmuch as the sanctification he expounds it of, is competent by his own confession to two fornicators, if one be a believer by profession the one is sanctified instrumentally to the other for the begetting a holy seed. And whereas Mr. B. gives the reason of the limitation, that which he saith is either so ambiguous, or so impertinent, that I know not what to make of it. The limitation I conceive was[ in lawful marriage] But the reason given is as if the limitation were somewhat else, either[ the said sanctification] or[ it is no impiety] If this later be it, it is an altering of the Predicate, not a limication of the Subject of the proposition. And if I understand Mr. B. it seems he conceives, That if the one be not fanctified in lawful marriage to the other by the real actual faith of the other party, it is impiety for them to live together, though it be not directly unlawful, and that the Apostle doth not resolve them of the direct lawfulness of living together, but of the piousness and religiousness of living together. Wherein Mr. Bs. conceits to me seem strange, that he should imagine, that the living together of unbelievers in lawful marriage should he impiecy, and that what is directly lawful should be called impiety. I grant that unbelievers though married do live impiously together: But it is one thing to say they live impiously together in respect of their want of the knowledge and worship of God, and another thing( somewhat like the speech of a Manichee) to say, that their living together in lawful marriage is impiety, which is agreeable to Gods own institution, and is honourable, and an undesiled bed, Heb. 13. 4. Infidel magistrates do govern impiously, and yet their using magistracy to punish evil is not impiety. Nor is any thing that is directly lawful to be called impiety, though the persons be impious and impiously abuse it. And it is also strange to me that he should imagine that the Apostle doth resolve the Corinthians not of the direct lawfulness of their living together, but onely of the piety and religiousnes. Whereas the words are v. 12, 13. let him not put her away, let her not leave him, which are as much as[ it is not necessary to leave him as if it were unlawful to live together by reason of his unbelief.] For though the occasion of the doubt were his impiety, yet the doubt was whether the marriage were not thereby dissolved, and so become unlawful to live together, and the Apostles resolution is plain, no: ye may lawfully live together notwithstanding he persist in unbelief, ye need not be divorced or repudiate each other. Besides piety and religiousness of their living together consisted in the exercise of faith and prayer. Now if the resolution be imagined thus[ ye do live piously together, one hath a real faith and doth exercise it] this had been a resolution, which their own conscience onely could make, not the Apostle, he knew not whether had thy a real faith and did exercise it orno. If the resolution be imagined thus[ ye may live piously and religiously, because one being a believer may pray &c.] this had been unsatisfactory. For it is as true on the other side they might not pray, sith they might fall into sin as many did, 2 Co. 12. 20, 21. 1 Co. 5. 1. yea this might be said even of the unbelievers, they may become believers and pray &c. as v. 16. To which I add, that according to this conceit, when the Apostle saith [ the unbelieving husband hath been or is sanctified to the wife] that is by her real faith exercised in prayer, &c. as 1 Tim. 4. 5. either the Apostle must know by special revelation what they practised, and the reality and undissembledness of their faith( which is not likely, sith he knew their estate by report of others, 1 Cor. 1. 11.& 5. 1. and 11. 18.) or he must speak of it by conjecture, or speak of the sanctification only as possible; neither of which had been fit to resolve them, as I said before. To these I might add the argument before brought Sect. 35. against his exposition, upon his concession that it must be real faith exercised which sanctifyes, but that I would not weary the Reader by repetition.  
But saith Mr. B. of me, If he would prove that bastaods are a holy seed( as he hath not yet, when himself saith, they were shut out of the Congregation to the third generation, as Deut. 23. 3.) yet he hath not proved that the sanctifying of one party to the other was the cause.  
Answ▪ I do not, nor need prove that bastards are a holy seed, but contend expressly for the contrary. It is enough for my purpose, that I have proved Mr. M. granted them to be so, if the children of a belinver, and the same is evinced to be Mr. Bs. judgement by his own words pag. 80. It is undeniable that to be holy was spoken as a common privilege to all believers children. And for the term[ cause] rigo●ously taken, I stand not upon it, but take it for any physical, or moral, or legal cause, reason, medium, condition or antecedent, o● which the consequent or effect follows necessary whether by virtue of an active quality, in the agent or the will, law or grant of a 〈…〉 it being enough for my purpose if either of these or any other 〈…〉 y Antagonists grants the holiness of the seed follows on the sanctifying of one party to the other. Now this is acknowledged by Mr. Marshall in his Sermon pag. 23. This holiness is a fruit of one of the parents being a believer, and by Mr. black, answer to Mr. Blackwood pag. 110. this holiness is a necessary result and consequence of faith in the parent.  
Mr. B. adds thus. But suppose this be urged yet further, and any should argue thus; All the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other are unclean: But the unbelieving whore is not sanctified to the fornicator; therfore all their children are unclean, or unholy: To which I answer, 1. If the whole be granted the absurdity is not such as Mr. Ts. exposition brings.  
Answ. The supposed absurdities my exposition brings have been all hitherto cleared. If the whole be granted, then it follows, that what Mr. B. pag. 80. said was undeniable, that to be holy was spoken as a common privilege to all believers children, was false, for it is directly contrary to the conclusion here that saith, all the base children of believers are unclean or ungodly, and so they are not visible Church-members in a State of separation to God; that if they die there's no certain hope of their salvation; that the ordinance of visible Church-membership granted heretofore to base illegitimate infants who were circumcised, entered into Covenant, Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12. with others is repealed, that there is less privilege to the children of believers now than formerly; that they are now cast out, without any mercy in lieu of it; that they are not to be baptized, and so God deals worse with Christians than with Jews whose base children were circumcised, as Pharez, Zara, Jephthe, and in a word all the odious( though frivolous) imputations which Mr: B. endeavours to fasten on my opinion of denying believers infants visible Church-membership will light upon his own opinion concerning base Children of believers, and then if Mr. B. clear himself, I doubt not but he will give me some light how to answer him.  
But he hopes to salves this by telling us, All bastards may be unholy in respect of their birth, or as not having any promise to them as such a seed; and yet afterwards either the penitent parents or others have full interest in them, may have power to bring them into the Church and covenant: but of this more anon.  
Answ. If bastards be unholy in respect of their birth, or have no promise to them as such a seed, then the promises to a believer and his children to a thousand generations of them that love him, to the righteous and their seed urged by Mr. B. chap. 21, 22. to prove visible Church-membership of infants of believers unrepealed, are impertinently alleged, for they belong not to them. By what title then shall they be baptized? Mr. B. saith, Afterwards either the penitent parents or others that have full interest in them may have power to bring them into the Church and Covenant. But can a parents repentance, or anothers interest in them, bring them into the Church, and Covenant? Can they be said to be in the Covenant, who have no promise made to them? No marvel we be at a stand what to answer to such arguments as wherein persons are said to be in the Covenant, and by virtue of that to be visible Church-members, and yet are confessed to have no promise made to them, which either is or hath a show of contradiction. All the plea hitherto hath been that the visible Church-membership and holiness of infants hath been by virtue of Gods Covenant or promise: yet at last Mr. B. rather than fail, finds another way( but what he tells us not) of bringing them into the Covenant who have no promise to them; and this may be done either by the penitent parents, or if they be impenitent or fail, any Guardian, Master, Gossip that have full interest in them( who perhaps may be wicked and vicious men) may bring them into the Church and Covenant, make them visible Church-members, and capable of baptism. Which if true, then all children of infidels may be brought into the Church and Covenant, then it's but vain talk of a privilege of believers children, then the Apostle speaks false, that unless one of the parents being a belieber sanctify the other, the children are un clean, that is, not separate to God; then may man make a supplement to Gods Covenant, where it is defective; then may parents, and masters, and Guardians, and Gossips make visible Church-members without a promise, &c. But we shall hear more of this wild fancy anon.  
Mr. B. goes on. 2. The mayor proposition is a mere fiction not to be raised from the text; For the text will afford but this:[ all the children of those parents are unclean, whereof one being an unbeliever is not sanctified to or in the believer.]  
Answ. What he saith, the text will afford[ to or in the believer] is his addition: the text saith[ in or to the wife or husband.]  
Mr. B. adds. But Mr. T. will needs face down Mr. black Apol. page. 123, That though there be no more than I say in the text, yet the proposition that proveth it must be as he saith: As if S. Pauls logic must needs be the same with Mr. T. his, or else it cannot be right. Is it not possible that Paul may be in the right though he reason not as he?  
Answ. Yes: and it is as possible Mr. T. his reason may be right as Mr. Blakes. Mr. black and Mr. B. would have the Apostles proposition included in this sequel [ if the unbelieving husband be not sanctified in or to the wise, your children are unclean] to be this [ all the children of those parents are unclean, whereof one being an unbeliever is not sanctified in or to the believer] I conceive[ in or to the believer] is not to be put in, because omitted by the Apostle, and[ one being an unbeliever] not necessary to be put in, because the force of the sequel lies in the connexion between uncleanness of the children and nonsanctification of the parents, and that there is the same reason of the connexion if both be believers, or both unbelievers, if the one be not sanctified to the other their children are unclean, none holy. Wherein I follow Chamier Panstrat. Cath. tom. 4. l. 5. c. 10. s. 67. who thus forms the propositions included in the Apostles sequel [ all born of those parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other, are unclean. Parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other do never beget children clean or holy] and he knew what was Pauls logic as well as Mr. B. or Mr. black.  
Mr. B. adds. But( saith Mr. T.) he that will prove that if an Englishman be noble he is honourable, must prove it by this universal, All noble men are honourable. Answ. But it is another matter which S. Paul is proving. He that will prove that an Englishmans wife though of base or mean parentage, is made honourable if he be noble; must not prove it by such an universal, All noble mens wives are honourable: For where the law of the land doth not alter their title upon marriage this would be false.  
Answ. What other matter Mr. B. means S. Paul is proving, or what it makes to the purpose, I do not discern: his speech seems to me like the abrupt speech of a dreming or puzzled man. But for my instance, supposing that it is not peculiar to an English Nobleman to be honourable, but common to all Noble men( which I took or supposed at least as true) then there is no necessity to put into the proposition proving the sequel[ Englishman] But the force lying in the connexion between honourableness and nobility the instance is good enough; nor doth Mr. Bs. instance at all overthrow it. Yet I confess the instance had been more apposite, if it had been made thus. A godly servant is not bound to leave his infidel master. For the infidel master is sanctified to his servant, else he should be lawless. Here the Consequence[ If the infidel master were not sanctified to his servant, the servant were lawless] is to be proved by this proposition[ those servants whose masters are not sanctified to them, are lawless] nor needs there the putting in the term infidel, sith the force of the Consequence lies no whit on it, the relation being the reason of the connexion, not the quality of the person. But it seems Mr. M. Mr. black, and Mr. B. conceive some necessity of putting in the term unbeliever.  
Paul, Saith Mr. B. speaks not of a sanctification that was before and without the faith of the one party, but which is a later privilege coming upon his or her believing, as is before proved.  
Answ. It is supposed before, but no where proved, nor offered to be proved, but taken as if it were granted, though it be expressly denied by me, and that upon this reason, that if the Apostle had ascribed the sanctification to the faith of the one party he would have expressly said[ in or to the believer] where it is omitted, to show that the reason of the sanctification was not from the faith of one party, but the conjugal relation.  
Mr. B goes on. Indeed a holiness in the parents is necessary to the childrens being holy, as theirs, and so a former sanctification or d●dication of the parents to God is necessary.  
Answ. What Mr. B. means by the limitation[ as theirs] I know not unless to cover himself for some evasion under dark terms. The Apostle says, if the unbelieving husband be not sanctified, &c. your children would not be holy without[ as yours.] And his proposition included in his sequel is plain. Those children are unclean, whereof one of the parents is not sanctified in or to the other. If Mr. B. would speak clearly he should have said so. But then it had been false in his sense: For the children of unholy persons may be visible Church-members separate to God, &c.  
If the meaning be holiness in the parents is necessary to the childrens being holy as theirs, that is, as the children of such particular persons, it supposeth some children are holy as they are the children of such particular men. But this were a new and strange conceit, that any children should be holy as children of such men as if their holiness came from the parents principles of individuation, or numerical personality. For so all the children of those persons should be holy whether they were married or loose, believers or unbelievers, sith in all these states and qualifications they are the same numerical persons. If by [ as theirs] be meant[ as so qualified] then the sense is[ holiness in the parents is necessary to the childrens being holy as the children of holy persons] which speech is true indeed, that holiness in the parents is necessary to the childrens being holy, if they be the children of holy persons, for they cannot be supposed the children of holy parents, if the parents be not holy. But this is a mere nugatory speech. And so, saith Mr. B. a former sanctification or dedication of parents to God is necessary. A man would think M. B. made a distinction of a former and a later sanctification or dedication of parents to God, and this former were necessary to the childrens holiness as theirs, if not the later. But he delivers himself so darkly and incoherently, that what these sanctifications are, and to what they are necessary, needs an Oedipus to unfold; Till that be done, I let pass these dictates as the talk of a man in a dream. But he goes on.  
But this sanctifying of one to the other as a privilege to the believer, supposing the other formerly unsanctified, this is not necessary to the holiness of the issue, in any but where one party was an unbeliever. It will not follow that because a leper must be cleansed, or else he will beget a leaprousissue, that therefore every man must be cleansed, but onely that every man must be no leper: And so here; it will not follow, that because an unbeliever must be sanctified to the other in this sense: that therefore all must be so: but only that they must be no unbelievers, or else be sanctified so. Therefore if two fornicators be both believers, though one be not sanctified to the other, yet for any thing this text saith, their children may be holy. For being neither of them unbelievers, they are not capable of this sanctification. A wounded man may beget a sound issue, though a leper cannot.  
Answ. If I mistake not Mr. B. he imagines, 1. That the sanctification of the unbeliever is theremoving some impediment from him( Mr. M. calls it a bar) which might let the begetting of a holy issue, like the cleansing of a leper, without which he will beget a leprous issue. 2. That this is to be done by the faith of the one party, and so he begets a holy issue, and thus he falls from his remote pasive sanctification of the unbelieving husband to the use of her who will use all to God, to Mr. Ms. instrumental sanctification for the begetting a holy seed, which is different from the sanctification 1 Tim. 4. 5. Tit. 1. 15, sith it may belong to the person, who is not a real actual believer, but a professor of faith though not in reality. But what bar or impediment is removed from the unbeliever by the faith of the other party, neither Mr. M. nor Mr. B. tells us. It is not unbelief. For he is supposed still an unbeliever: It is not any thing in the child to be begotten, for then the child to be bego●ten should be said to be sanctified, not the unbelieving parent. I for my part perceive yet nothing but riddles in these passages. 3. Mr. B. supposeth when the Apostle saith [ the unbelieving husband is sanctified] this notes the appropriation of this sanctification to the unbeliever, as if he said, the unbelieving husband is sanctified, while he is an unbelieyer, or if he be an unheliever, or in case he be an unbeliever, as if the speech were conditional and the unbelief noted a necessary condition or qualification requisite to the sanctification, so that if the persons were both believers they should not be said to be sanctified one in or to the other. His own words are plain to this purpose [ For being neither of them unbelievers they are not capable of this sanctification] now this conceit is manifestly opposite to the Apostles intent, who therefore added [ the unbeliever] twice, because the doubt arose from his being an unbeliever, and put it not as a condition of being sanctified, but adversatively, as if he had said[ though he be an unbeliever, and so however yet question whether you are not to be divorced from, or relinquish him as an unsanctified person, yet I tell you, he is as if he were sanctified, &c.] 4. Mr. B. imagines the term[ unbeliever] therefore necessary to be put in the proposition included in the Apostles sequel, and that this proposition is the Apostles [ All the children of those parents are unclean whereof one being an unbeliever is not sanctified in or to the believer] and that the other is false, and not the Apostles[ all the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other are unclean] for want of the terms[ unbeliever and believer] though the Apostle omit the term[ believer] For saith he, this sanctification of one to the other as a privilege to the believer, supposing the other formerly unsanctified, this is not necessary to the holiness of the issue, in any but where one party was an unbeliever. From which it follows.  
1. That one believer is not said to be sanctified to another believer, though an unbeliever is.  
2. That a believing wife hath a privilege to have her husband sanctified to her if he be an unbeliever, but not if he be a believer, and so loseth some yea a great privilege of his being sanctified to her by his becoming a believer.  
3. That all the children of two believers are unclean,( for the text saith expressly, if there be not that sanctification, the children are unclean, not as Mr. B. disjunctively, they must be no unbelievers or else be sanctified so) but not if one be a unbeliever, and the other a believer.  
4. It will follow on this, that the believing wife may live with the husband if he be an unbeliever, for then he is sanctified( which is the reason of the Apostle why they may live together) but not if he be a believer. Such gross absurdities are there involved in this answer of Mr. B. before studied, and upon deliberation printed: which if they be not worse than any came from me in the dispute, let me be judged a frantic man. Mr. B. would make somewhat of these wild conceits to answer the objection, that if holiness or sanctifying were the effect or result of the faith of the believer, then an unbelieving fornicator might be said to be sanctified by his believing whore to beget a holy seed, and so they might lawfully live together. Now what saith he hereto? Forsooth this.  
Therefore if two fornicators be both believers, though one be not sanctified in the other, yet for any thing this text saith, their children may be holy. For being neither of them unbelievers, they are not capable of this sanctification. Where he concludes the children of two fornicators, believing, though one be not sanctified in the other, may be holy, though he said before they have no promise as such a seed, and the Apostle expressly saith unless the unbelieving husband be sanctified in the wife your children are unclean, whereby the children of them that are not husband and wife are declared unclean. As for his reason to which[ therefore] directs [ either because onely an unbeliever must be sanctified to the other in this sense( no where mentioned by him before page. 81. in an uncouth acception for removing an impediment to a privilege) or onely they must be no unbelievers, or elf be so sanctified] in my apprehension there is no show of Consequence in it. And the reason following is alike [ For being neither of them unbelievers they are not capable of this sanctification] As if nothing were in the text against the holiness of two fornicators children, but the term sanctified, and that the term[ husband and wife] were not there. But were all he here dictates granted him, yet there is nothing answered to the objection as I made it not of two believing fornicators, but one an unbeliever, the other a believer, the unbeliever Mr. B. denies not to be capable of this sanctification, and if so, why then may not a believing fornicatrix live with an unbelieving fornicator sanctified to her according to the force of the Apostles reasoning with Mr. Bs. exposition.  
The next objection is as well against his opinion about infants visible Church-membership derived from the Covenant, as against his exposition of this text, and so not proper to this place, though perhaps in conference it might fall from me, when we argued about the meaning of this text. And therefore I shall reserve the vindicating of it till I dispute the point about the imaginary visible Church-membership of infants, and examine Mr. Bs. hypotheses concerning it, and the Covevenant as the cause of it. Only that the Reader may understand the reason of my smile he mentions, it was this, that Mr. B. being asked of the cause of the existence of infants visible Church-membership should assign onely a remote cause, and that which being put, the effect is not put, as if the cause of a things being were any remote cause, and not the same with the adequate immediate cause in act, which being put the effect is put.   

SECT. XXXVII.  
The objection, that in Mr. Bs. sense, children may be holy who are born of infidels, is vindicated from Mr. Bs. answer, and the nakedness of Mr. Bs. opinion about that point is discovered.  
BUt he saith of me, one thing more, he hath an object. against Mr. black Apol. page. 124. which may seem to have more weight with it; and that is, that in our sense children may be holy though born of infidels; for he saith,[ according to Mr. Blakes opinion it is false, that[ unbelieving parents never beget children by birth-privilege holy] for children born of infidels brought into Abrahams family had right to circumcision, and so were by birth-privilege holy in Mr. Blakes sense. 1. I answer: if a man say that this was proper to Abraham and the Jews, he may have far more to justify it, than Mr. T. hath to prove that the Church-membership of the whole sort of infants was proper to the Jews.  
To which I reply, it is well Mr. B. will confess that the childrens, born, of infidels brought into Abrahams family right to circumcision, and holiness by birth-priviledge in Mr. Blakes sense were proper to the Jews, hath much to justify it, though it be not his own judgement. For if this have any thing to justify it, that the childrens, born of infidels brought into Abrahams family, right to circumcision, and holiness as visible Church members was proper to the Jews, then likewise there is something to justify it, that the Church-membership of the whole sort of infants, which was no where but among the Jews in Abrahams family and the proselytes added to that Church, arising from that peculiar law given to Abraham, Gen. 17. concerning his family, was proper to the jews. And indeed it is abundant evidence that this visible Church-membership of the sort of infants was proper to the Jews, in that in all the N. T. where there is so much mention of the Church,& the members of it, and their coming together, and other things spoken of them, yet there is not the least hint of an infants being reckoned a visible Church-member, but many things said of the visible Church and all its members, which do exclude infants from being reckoned visible members of the Christian Church distinguished from the jewish. But of this more largely, when I examine the 2d. argument of Mr. B. and his pretended ordinance of infants visible Church-membership unrepealed, and the reason of taking in infants into the jewish Church. Mr. B. adds,  
2. I answer, according to my own judgement thus: 1. I deny it as most untrue, that the children of infidels brought into Abrahams family were by birth-privilege holy, as Mr. black expresseth it. For those children that he means were either those born in Abrahams house, or bought with his money: for the former, they were no children of infidels; for Abraham kept no infidels in his house, nor must do: For the parents were to enter the Covenant as well as the children, and the father was to be circumcised: And I have fully proved before( and a multitude of texts more might be brought to prove it) that men were not to be circumcised whilst they were professed pagans, but were to enter into Gods Covenant as well as the jews; even the hewer of their wood, and the drawer of water, Deut. 29. 10, 11. when God commandeth Abraham to circumcise every male, it is supposed he bring them into Covenant, whereof it was the seal.  
Answ. 1. If Abraham did not, nor ought to keep any infidels in his house, yet supposing a child of infidels were born( which might be, as of a captive woman or the like ready to be delivered) in his house, yet it was to be circumcised, Gen. 17. 12, 13. which is enough to make good my words.  
2. By Mr Bs. doctrine Abraham might have hired servants though he could not prevail with them ro be proselytes, and these might have children in his house, and must be circumcised by the same Law.  
3. That Abraham kept no infidels in his house, nor must do▪ at least for some time, cannot be proved. It is not unlikely, that there were in Abrahams house infidels: if Hagar were not one, it is probable Ishmael by his description, Gen. 16. 12. and his mocking of Isaac, was no better, and what his sons by Keturah were may be conjectured by their posterity.  
However the daughters of heath, if not their husband Esau, it is not improbable were no better than infidels in Isaacs house. And for Jacobs the text tells us how Rachel hide her Gods, and after Gen. 35. 2. Jacob was commanded to put away the strange gods, therefore there were in his house that had strange gods. A mixed multitude came out of Egypt with Israel, and one of their sons blasphemed the name of the Lord Levit. 24. 10, 11. All Israel were ready to make the melted calf, Exod. 32. The jews Doctors say, that they might keep a professed pagan a year without killing him though he refused to take on him the 7 precepts of Noah. If a woman with child by a Pagan were taken captive and brought to bed in Abrahams house of a male child that child was to be circumcised by the law, Gen. 17. 12, 13. and so was by birth-privilege holy in Mr. Blakes sense, and therefore it is not most untrue, but most certainly true, which I say, that the children of infidels brought into Abrahams family were by birth-privilege holy in Mr. Blakes sense. Mr. B. goes on thus.  
2. If he mean the infants bought with money, I say, they were not by birth privilege holy: for then they should have been holy as soon as they were born, and so before they came into Abrahams family. 2. You must therefore distinguish between infants as born of such parents, and so they were unholy; and as after becoming Abrahams own, the parents giving up their title to him, and so Abraham had power to bring them into the Covenant, and make them holy by separating them to God: but this was by no birth-privilege.  
Answ. To be holy by birth-privilege may be understood either formally or materially. Formally so as that they have it by virtue of birth, and so it is granted those that were bought with money were not holy by birth-privilege. Materially, so as that they are said to be by birth-privilege holy, who have the same supposed privilege of holiness which Mr. black so calls, though by another way. And thus it is to be conceived▪ that I meant when I said, that infidel parents beget children holy by birth-privilege in Mr. Blakes sense, and so those that were bought with Abrahams money and brought into Abrahams family, were holy with the holiness which Mr. black calls holinese by birth-privilege; Now this is enough for my purpose, sith the Apostles proposition is not of infants onely but of children, nor doth he say that if the parents were not sanctified one in or to another, they should be unclean or not holy by birth-privilege, yet holy other ways: but simply without any such restriction they should be all unclean, which were not true in Mr. Ms. Mr. Blakes, Mr. Bs. and other Paedobaptists sense. Therefore I conclude their sense of 1 Cor. 7. 14. is not true, and the proposition being true in my sense, my sense is the true {αβγδ}, which was to be demonstrated.  
But Mr. B. adds somewhat more, which I am to examine ere I shut up this dissertation. Mr. B. says, Infants as born of infidel parents were unholy, but as after becoming Abrahams own, the parents giving up their title to him, and so Abraham had power to bring them into the Covenant, and make them holy by separating them to God. And for my part I believe, that this is a standing rule and duty to all Christians: Only the children of a believer are holy directly as theirs, or by birth-privilege( in subordination to the Covenant) and from the womb: But when we either buy infants, or they are left Orphans wholly to us, so as that they are wholly ours and at our dispose, the parents being either dead, or having given up their interest to us, I doubt not though they were the children of Jews and Turks, but it is our duty to list them under Christ, and enter them into his school, kingdom, or Church by baptism: and that Gods law will prove this. Why else were the Jews to circumcise all bought with money( even mere slaves) but because they were wholly their own, and at their dispose? but not hired servants, because they could not by their authority prevail with these as with the other; but must stay till they voluntarily would be proselytes. I know some will think it incredible that even slaves or any should be compelled to enter Gods Covenant: But I need not tell them that the good King of Judah appointed that whoever of his people would not enter into Covenant should be put to death.( Indeed this Covenant contained not circumstantials, but that they should take the Lord for their God, and renounce all Idols that were directly set up as gods; and he that will not take this Covenant, I think ought not by any good Prince to be suffered to live in his kingdom).  
Answ. If this doctrine be true, that a believer is to baptize any ones infants that are his own as his slaves, Orphans of which he is Guardian, captives, adopted children &c. then it will follow, 1. That a person is to baptize them that are uunclean, not separated to God, but unbaptizable: For such, by the Apostles doctrine as they expound it, are all the children whereof one parent is not sanctified by the faith of the other. But this is absurd, yea contrary to what Mr. B. saith page. 80. that it is undeniable that the holiness 1 Cor. 7. 14. is a common privilege to all believers children, Ergo. 2. That a person hath right to visible Church-membership and baptism without the grant of the Covenant; For it's not pretended God hath made any Covenant or grant to believers and their servants, wards, captives, or adopted children, and so in vain it is pretended that it is a privilege common to all believers children to be holy as 1 Cor. 7. 14. that they have this privilege by the Covenant, and to deny it them is to rob them of their right; that by denying them they are greatly injured, being put out of the Covenant, whereas by this doctrine they may have Church-interest without the Covenant, even the slaves of believers have the same privilege with the sons, and in effect the Paedobaptists do but cheat people telling them such a privilege belongs to their children being believers, and how comfortable a doctrine they teach them, and how Anabaptists condemn all their children with a bloody sentence putting them out of the Covenant, and denying them all interest therein, and yet in the end Mr. B. holds it no such privilege, but that any infidels child may by his master be put into the Covenant, baptized, be a visible Church-member, separated to God, &c. 3. If this be true, then an infidel parent by giving away his title to his child to a believer may make him a visible Church-member though himself an infidel, and if he die in infancy be certain of his childs salvation; yea a person by buying a child with money may have power to make him a visible Church-member, and give him a right to baptism, and consequently if he die in infancy a certain hope of salvation, and so the gift of God shall be obtained by money; then it would be a duty and a charitable work to buy or steal or take captive Moores, jews, Turks, savages children, and baptize them as visible Church-members, because they are their own. And why should it not be a good trade for a poor Christian to indent with a rich infidel, and to take his child as his own, and money with him to make him a Christian and baptize him, as they that take apprentices do, when the child is such a gainer by the bargain, and the believer hath need of money? only there is this difficulty in it, sith the parents title cannot be so given away but that he may claim and recover it again, how security shall be given that the childs visible Church-membership be not disannulled by the parent. In a word, if this doctrine of Mr. B. be true, then it is to no purpose that baptism is limited to disciples believers, any ones infant may be baptized, if he come under the power of a believer. 4. If this be our duty, and that Gods law to Abraham will prove it, because the jews were to circumcise all bought with money, then the law about circumcision still binds us, is a rule to us about baptism, and if so, then other laws about the Passeover, linen Ephod, Purification of women &c. bind still, or else there may be a certain rule out of Gods word determining our freedom from part of the Ceremmonial law, and not from other parts, with many other ill consequences, which Mr. B. will not avoid till he bring to pass what some are hammering on, to find a morality in mere positive ceremonies, which is the high-way to reintroduce Popish and prelatical ceremonies. As for Mr. Bs question why the jews were to circumcise slaves bought and not hired servants? I answer, because God commanded it. But what is this to prove it our duty to baptize all infants even of infidels that are wholly at our dispose except the same command which was to circumcise be still a command in force, and a command to us to baptize after the rule of circumcision? which is still said, but never proved, nor ever will be. As for Mr. Bs. judgement that some may be compelled to enter into Covenant by the magistrate, it is nothing to the business of baptizing by the minister, who is appointed to baptize none but disciples made by preaching, not by the magistrates authority. Mr. B. closeth up all with this speech. This is my judgement; in which I am the more confident, when I consider how freely Christ inviteth all comers, and that he never refused any that came, or any infant that was brought: And that it ill beseemeth Christians without plain grounds to straighten Christs kingdom, or to keep out any that he would not have kept out.  
To which I reply, Christ invited freely all comers, and refused none: but invited none, nor accepted any to baptism till he were a disciple, John. 4. 1. He refused not to bless an infant that was brought, by laying on of hands and prayer, but never baptized any, or appointed any infant to be baptized by his disciples: so that this instance is against infant-baptism, Christs not doing it showing that he would not have it done;& if it beto be brought into a rule it's fitter to prove bishoping than baptizing. As it ill beseemeth Christians to straighten Christs kingdom, or to keep out any that he would not have kept out, so it ill beseemeth Christians to widen it, and to take and keep in so many, that the kingdom of Christ( if the denomination be taken from the greater or more eminent part) might more truly be called the kingdom of the Devil consisting of such professors as from whom Mr. B. says page. 98. he will be a separatist. My judgement is, that ministers should not be over-rigid about admission of members, so as to keep out of the Church by denying baptism and communion to any weak Christians that desire it: But that baptizing of infants, and taking as Church-members all born in a so called Christian Nation hath been the ttue cause of horrible perverting and profaning the rule of Christ about baptism, and hath so corrupted the Church of God, that instead of his house it hath been made a den of thieves, is too manifest by experience: of which Mr. B. hath made himself deeply guilty by patronizing these corruptions, and under pretence of opposing schism is become an enemy to reformation according to Gods word. Which will be made appear in answering the rest of his book, which is for his arguments for infant-baptism frivolous, and for his exceptions against believers baptism light, if not scurrilous, unfit for a well tempered moral man, much more for a professed and in show a mortified godly Divine. The answer to both parts shall not be wilfully slackened, but hastened as the Lords providence shall vouchsafe liberty, and ability.   
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
page. 2. line 19. red were, p. 3. l. 34: r. a● may, p. 4. l. 12. r. not deny, p. 7. l. 15. d. by him, p. 9. l. 6. r. by this, p. 10. l. 29. r. this, l. 32. r. frustrà, p. 12. l. 19. r. ipsum, p. 16. l. 29. r. were, p. 18. l. 11. r, of, l. 20. r. fuso, p. 25. l. 23. r. simile, p. 28. l. 16. r. it, p. 32. l. 1. r. paedob. p. 43. l. 23. r. to, l. 31. r. is shewed, p. 44. l. ult. r. elsewhere, p. 52. l. 24. r. their, p. 54. l. 15. r. initial seal, p. 55. l. 10. r. invisible, p. 63. l. 31. d. in, p. 66. l. 28. r. is apposite, p. 67. l. 12. r. antecedent, p. 70. l. 2. r. in the, p. 72. l. 21. r. this, p. 78. l. 20. r. distributively, p. 84. l. 13. r. natural, p. 90. l. 4. r. there, p. 91. l. 6. r. is it, p. 93. l. 31. r. considerately, p. 96. l. 4. r. Mr. l. 8. r. particularum, p. 101. l. 6. r. appointed, l. 31. d. an, p. 104. l. 33. r. right of, l. 40. r. from, p. 105. l. 35. r. Colvium, and p. 118. l. 9. p. 108. l. 29. r. {αβγδ} p. 117. l. 19. r. {αβγδ} p. 129. l. 37. r. not that, p. 134. l. 23. r. conjugate, p. 137. l. 29. r. and that, p. 147. l. 2. r. prohibition, p. 148. l. 20. r. Bunny, l. 32. d. other, p. 149. l. 1. 11. r. retractation, p. 150. l. 21. r. merely, p. 158. l. 18. r. maiming, p. 161 l. 36. r. liberi, l. 39. r. contactum, marg. r. sanctificatione personae, p. 165. l. 2. r. Hagar.& p. 167. l. 4. r. Bathsheba, l. 23. r. non-ens, p. 168. l. 28. r. one, p. 179. l. 29. r. acknowledged, p. 180. l. 31. r. Tirinus, p. 182. l. 39. r. Kotzensis, p. 183. l. 36. r. 14. p. 192. l. 8. r. intelligible, p. 193. l. 27. r. ten, p. 194. l. 12. r capessendam, p. 197. l. 38. r. incontinent, p. 204. l. 27. r. froward, p. 210. l. 16. r. Ochinus, p. 212. l. 28. d. it