Anti-pædobaptism, or, The third part being a full review of the dispute concerning infant baptism : in which the arguments for infant baptism from the covenant and initial seal, infants visible church membership, antiquity of infant baptism are refelled [sic] : and the writings of Mr. Stephen Marshal, Mr. Richard Baxter ... and others are examined, and many points about the covenants, and seals and other truths of weight are handled / by John Tombes.

SECT. XXI. The ten Exceptions of the first part of my Review against Paedobaptists exposi∣tion and allegation of Acts 2.38, 39. for the connexion between Covenant and seal are vindicated from Master Blakes answer, Vindic. Foederis, ch. 37, 43. (Book 21)

MR. Blake addes some snatches against my ten exceptions to Paedobap∣tists exposition of Acts 2.38, 39. To the first which was, that the pro∣mise is not proved to be that Genesis 17.7. and Acts 3.25. Acts 2.30. lead us to some other, he saith, when a promise is mentioned and a seal, any man but he will presently understand that promise, which is ratified by such a Seal.

To which I reply. Where is there mention of a seal? or of a promise sea∣led or to be sealed as he speaks? If there were, is there no other promise to be ratified by such a Seal but that? Did circumcision seal no other promise but that? Doth the Scripture give the least hint of sealing that promise, Gen. 17.7. understood as Paedobaptists expound it, that God would be a God to every believer, and to his seed, in respect at least of visible Church-member∣ship, yea though he be a believer onely by profession? They use to tell us that Circumcision seals the righteousness of faith, from Rom. 4.11. But to seal this and to seal the promise, Gen. 17.7. (as Paedobaptists do rack rather than ex∣pound the words) are as much different as are the payment of Gold, and lead. Have not learned men expounded the promise, some of that mentioned, ver. 38. of the gift of the holy Ghost, some of other promises? why then doth Master Blake so ineptly intimate me to be singular in my conceit? why doth he so falsely insinuate that no more than bare words can be found for my exposition; when I bring two texts to confirm it, and Mr. Bl. saith not a word to infirm my alleging them? what he refers me to in his 37. ch. and Mr. Cobbet shall be exa∣mined in its place.

To the second, which was that [the promise is Acts 2.39] is expounded,

1. of a promise of a thing to come, whereas it may seem rather from Acts 13.32, 33. to be meant of a promise already fulfilled.

2. That the thing to come promised was some outward privilege to be con∣ferred on them and their children.

Mr. Blake saith, yet he quotes no man for this exposition of a thing to come, but on the contrary quotes Mr. Cobbet in the margin against it. It is meant of a present right; for as yet they were not broken off from the olive, nor Gentiles graffed in.

Answ. 1. That Paedobaptists do understand the words Acts 2.39. of a promise of some thing to come appears, 1. in that many of them make it the same with this, I will be a God to a believer, and his seed.

So Master Marshall Defence page 126. Mr. Drew ubi supra, Mr. Blake out of Calvin, Vindic. foederis page 270. and others. Now a promise that he will be a God to them is a promise of a thing to come. 2. In that they disclaim the

supplement [is fulfilled] as Mr. Cobbet Just. Vindic. part 1. ch. 2. sect. 3. and u∣sually, as Beza, the English Directory, Mr. Blake and others expound it, the promise is made, which proves it is, according to them, meant of something to come, not of a thing past, for if it were it should be a promise fulfilled. Mr. Cobbet, it is true, saith, the promise in praesenti is to you in respect of external right; but then he must needs mean it, that the promise was in praesenti made of external right to come, or else he must mean it of a promise fulfilled, which he denies.

And for the other, that Paedobaptists do expound it of outward privilege to be conferred on them, and their children, besides Mr. Cobbets words cited, and other in the same section; Mr. Hudson Vindic. page 223. saith, This promise Acts 2.39. is that external covenant to which baptism doth belong, and the Ashford Disputants for Infants-baptism, grant, That the promise of the eternal inheritance, life and salvation is not made, much less made good to any upon terms of the parents faith, but upon our own personal belief, and obedience, but the promise of outward privileges, and of right to participati∣on of Ordinances as to be baptized, and inchurcht, this belongs to children upon their parents faith, and in this last sense it is, that Peter saies the promise is to you and your children, &c. i. e. you and yours have the privilege of right to baptism.

To my third exception, that [to you] is taken, as if it were meant of those persons to whom he spake, as then believers, and under that formal consider∣ation, Mr. Blake saith, I do not interprete it of any present explicit faith in Christ as the Messiah; but now this conviction, that so evidently appeared, did evidence them to be in an hopeful way, and with that Scribe not to be far from the Kingdom of God, and therefore he takes his opportunity, and pres∣seth it on to come into the way of believers in Christ Jesus.

Answ. This grant is sufficient, first, to justify my exception, secondly, to overthrow Mr. Blakes, and other Paedobaptists inference from this text,

1. That in this text the Covenant in New Testament times is held out in this latitude to believers and their seed, Vindic. foed. chap. 37. For if they had not any present, explicit faith in Christ as the Messiah, then they were not be∣lievers.

2. That this speech [the promise is to you, and to your children] is equi∣pollent to this promise [I will be a God to believers and their seed] for if they were not then believers, it had been false if the Apostle had said as they would have him, the promise that God will be a God to believers and their seed, is in praesenti to you and your children, when they were not believers.

To my fourth Exception, that [your children] is expounded of their in∣fant-children; yea it is carried as if of them onely, he saith, to this is suf∣ficient spoken, ch. 37. I shall therefore look back to that chapter, page 270. he saith, Acts 2.39. an effectual call cannot be mean•• (which the Apostle calls a call according to purpose) proper onely to the elect, so the visible seal would be limitted to invisible members. But this is not true, for then the being of the promise would be limitted to them, not baptism.

It is false which Master Blake supposeth, that baptism is limitted to them to whom the promise is, and that the being of the promise to a person in∣titles to his baptism. He saith; it is a call unto such a Church-state as the whole ••••∣tion

of the Jews did then enjoy as the first-born in the family. To which I reply, The whole Nation of the Jews enjoyed a Church-state, by which they were joyned in one national society under an high Priest, and other Priest offering sacrifice; at the Temple, whither the Church-members were to bring their gifts, and to observe the Levitical rites. It is a dotage with a witness to conceive that Peter meant Acts 2.39. that the promise was to them or those afar off, whom God should call to this Church-state. It is certain that the calling of the Jewes and Gentiles, by the Gospel was to remove them out of that society, and Church-state, as appears by v. 40. nor did the Apostles ever associate the Christians to the Jews as Proselytes to them, nor did they ever draw them into any such Church-state, as the Jews had to take in a whole Nation, City, or Family, comprehending Infants into the Christian church, but onely so many as believed as v. 41.42, &c. shew: yea to call them to such a Church-state as the Jewes had, had been to call them not to baptism, but to circumcision and the observation of Moses Law. The call of God, Acts 2.39. is no other then what is mentioned in the new Testament to be Saints, to his Kingdom and Glory, to the fellowship of his sonne by his word and spi∣rit, or one of them at least, yea the promise being meant of Christ, which Master Blake doth not deny, as will appear in that which followes, it can be expounded onely of those that are effectually called, sith to them onely Christ belongs: on the other side to understand it of a call unto such a Church-state as the whole nation of the Jewes did then enjoy, is to limit the promise to Jewish proselytes, or to national Christian Churches, which is a wild con∣ceit, unfit for a serious and sober Divine. But Master Blake goeth on from whence this Argument may be drawn, those to whom the Covenant of Pro∣mise appertains have a right to baptism, But the Covenant of Promise apper∣tains to men in a Church-state and Condition and to their Children. The Major cannot be denied by any that will not make themselves the Apostles op∣posites. The Minor proposition is now onely to be considered, that the Cove∣nant of promise to men in a Church-state and Condition is in that latitude as to comprize their Children, For which the words of the Apostle are full and clear. To you is the promise made, and to your Children, on which Calvin rightly comments. Peter observes (saith he) a due order when he assignes the first place of honour to the Jewes, that it takes in Children, it depends on the word of promise Gen. 17.7. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, where God joynes children with their parents in the priviledge of Adoption, where Adoption is taken in the Apostles sense, Rom. 9.5. to the inheritance of pri∣vileges belonging to all Church-members, as he after explains himself.

Ans. The Major is ambiguous, and in some sense it is true, and in some sense false. It is true in this sense, Those to whom the Covenant of Promise by their beleiving, and Covenanting to be Christs Disciples, appertains, have a right to baptism. But in this sense (in which Master Blake seems to understand it, for he comprehends Infants in the Covenant) Those to whom the Cove∣nant of Promise by Gods Acts of Promise, whether of saving Grace or Church-privileges, appertains without their personal believing or covenanting, have a right to baptism, it is false. Nor is the Contradictory thereto opposit to any thing the Apostle saith, who doth indeed exhort to repentance and baptism, but doth not from the promise without each persons repentance ascribe a right to

baptism to any parent or child, the promise is not urged by him to declare a right to baptism of it self without repentance, but to encourage to repentance and baptism into the Name of Christ as their duty. The Minor also is ambigu∣ous, it being uncertain what he means by the Covenant of Promise, whether the Covenant whereby the persons promise to God, or God to them; and if of this latter, whether the Covenant wherein God promiseth to them, be of saving-graces, or of Church-priviledges; if he mean it of the former, & understand it universally, it is manifestly false, contrary to Scripture and experience; whether the Church-state be in respect of the visible or invisible Church, there is no such promise of God, that if the Parent be in a Church-state or condition, so as to be elect, or true beleiver, much less if he be onely in the visible Church, that his child, as his child, shall be in the Covenant of saving grace, have Christ, his Spirit, remission of sins, and life everlasting by him. Nor is it true of the promise of Church-privi∣ledges, that God will take the child of him who is in a Church-state and condi∣tion for a visible Church-member, capable of the initial seat, (because he is his child) without the childs personal faith and repentance. Nor do I know of any Covenant of Promise now under the Gospel of such outward Church-priviledges, but take it to be a faction of Paedobaptists; nor is there in the Apostles words any thing to prove the Minor. For neither doth the text say, the promise is that, Gen. 17.7. nor that it is made, but onely [is] nor doth say, it is to you as in a Church-state and condition, and to your children as the children of men in a Church-state and condition. And for Calvins words neither are they plain for Mr. Bls. purpose, nor if they were, should I take them for an oracle, but should expect better proof then his or Master Bls. sayings. As for the Adoption, Rom. 9.5. it is clear from the text, and confessed by Master Rutherford, Due right of Presbytery ch. 4. Sect. 4. pag. 192. to have been a prerogative of the Jewes, as was the giving of the Law, the descent of Christ, &c. and therefore it is untruly suggested by Master Blake to be an inheritance of priviledges belonging to all Church-mem∣bers, or that the Apostle doth after so explain himself; and Master Blake continues his want of dictating without proofe. He next takes on him to an∣swer objections. One is, that the children are the same with sons and daughters mentioned, v. 17. from Joel 2.28. and consequently the promise is of the spi∣rit of prophecy, and appertaining to none but those of age and capacity for pro∣phecy. To which he answers, 1. That the promise cannot be that extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost in that visibie way, because it is enlarged to all the Lord shall call: but all these have not the Holy Ghost in that extraordinary way, nor any promise of it. I confess, this answer is good against those that expound the words thus, the promise of the gift of prophecy, Joel 2.28. is to you and your children, and to all afar off, as the subjects to whom this gift is promised; for then it would not be true, sith all had not that gift, 1 Cor. 12.28. yet it may be true in this sense. The promise of the gift of the Spirit in that visible way, is fulfilled to you and your children, and all afar off called by God, as the persons who had benefit by it, and so were the Finis cui of those gifts pro∣mised as having the benefit of them, though not the subjects in whom they were. 2. Saith Master Blake, however the promise be extended, yet that promise is on condition of their baptism, and is an encouragement to baptism, and in that latitude as they had formerly known the command of circumcisi∣on. To which I say, 1. If the promise be interpreted so as to belong to all that are

believers, and call on the Name of the Lord, as here followes, then the promise is to the elect onely, and the call into the visible Church, which Master Blake before denied. 2. Though extraordinary gifts were given after baptism often, yet they were given also before, Acts 10.44, &c. and therefore I doubt it is not true which Master Blake saith, that promise of extraordinary gifts is on condition of their baptism, nor doth the text assert it. 3, As the promise is an encouragement to baptism, so it is to repentance, which is first required afore baptism by the Apostle. 4. There is not a word in the text, Acts 2.38, 39. which yields a proofe of any of those positions which Master Bl. so importunely obtrudes, 1. That baptism is there urged as a sign and seal of the promise. 2. That they were encouraged to baptism in that la∣titude as they had formerly known the command of Circumcision. 3, That the Scripture delivereth, and the Apostle urgeth the promise as to men and their posterity, to them and theirs, so as that God promiseth to be a God in Covenant to his and their seed. 4. That the Apostle holds this out to draw them on to this seal of the Covenant, to accept baptism on the same terms that Abraham did circumcision.

But Master Blake his chiefest opposition about this text is against me, and therefore he bends himself against the fourth Section of my Exercit. And first. he excepts against my words, that the promise made (which reading I then followed, but since like rather the supplement [fulfilled] is the sending of Je∣sus Christ and blessing by him, as is expounded, Acts 3.25, 26. Acts 13.32. Rom. 15.8, 9. Thus I answer, it is true that Jesus Christ is the most eminent mercy promised, and may be called the promise virtualiter, being the ground of all promises, and therefore some Interpreters have mentioned the gift of Christ on this occasion. But it is plain that Gods Covenant and this gift are to be distinguished; Christ is promised in priority to the Jew, before the Gentile; The Jew then is taken into Covenant before this gift of Christ can be of them expected: It is therefore the covenant it self (entred with pa∣rent and child, root and branch) that is here meant, as Calvin in the words be∣fore observes, from which the giving of Christ in the flesh followes. And therefore Diodati fully pitches upon the true sense of it, seeing as you are Abra∣hams children, you are within the Covenant, you ought to acknowledge Christ to be the head and foundation of the covenant. The covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is here meant, which from Abraham had been the Jewes priviledge, Rom. 9.

To which I reply, If Christ may be called the promise virtually, then it is no obscuring the text, to interpret the being of the promise to them of the send∣ing of Jesus Christ and blessing by him, nor doth this hinder the distinguish∣ing of Gods covenant and this gift, or the promising of Christ to the Jew be∣fore the Gentile, or the Jewes taking into covenant before this gift of Christ can be expected of them, or that the giving of Christ in the flesh followed the covenant it self entered with parent and child, root and branch, meaning Abra∣ham and his seed, as the Apostle, Gal. 3.16. understands it; and therefore in all this there is nothing brought by Master Blake, which makes void my inter∣pretation, but confirms it rather. But for such a covenant as Master Blake ima∣gines of Gods being God to every believer and his infant child, in respect of Church-membership in the Church visible of Christians, and other outward

Church-priviledges, I find no word in all the Scripture. And for Diodati his words, if he so meant what he speaks of their being in covenant, because they were Abrahams children by natural descent, he answered from the sense of the place; but Master Blake hath more to say to me.

I had said, the limitation, as many as the Lord our God shall call, shewes that the promise belongs to them, not simply as Jewes, but as called of God, which is more expresly affirmed, Acts 3.26. To this Master Blake answers, I wonder how it came into Master T. his head to call this application a limi∣tation; it plainly enough speaks his boldness in dealing with the Scriptures; had the Apostle said, to you is the promise made, and to your seed, in case God shall give you a call, he had spoke to Master T. his purpose: but saying, to you and to as many as the Lord your God shall call, it plainly shewes that he does not limit, but amplifie the mercy, extending it not barely to the Jewes (who in present by reason of fruition of ordinances were a people near to the Lord, Psal. 148.14. but also to the Gentiles, who, Ephes. 2.17. were afarre off.

To which I reply, A limitation of a proposition is the determining of it according to what the predicate agrees to the subject, or doth not agree, as Keckerm. syst. Log. l. 2. sect. 1. c. 4. And thus do the words [as many as the Lord (not as Master Blake, your, but) our God shall call] limit the copu∣lative proposition [the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off] determining to which of each of these, and in what respect the promise is to them. And to take away Master Blakes wonderment (the fruit of ignorance, and often of folly) which he and his brother Baxter do often ex∣press about me, that they may describe me as some strange example of Gods judgment in blasting my intellectuals, I will tell him how it came into my head to call those words a limitation of the proposition. First, the placing of the words at the end of the proposition, did give me occasion to take them for a limitation. Secondly, the term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as many as] is a limitting term, appro∣priating the thing said to those subjects forenamed, who were so qualified as to be called by the Lord. Thirdly, (which was the prime inducement) I conceived the speech of Peter had not been true without that limitation, And this I long since told Master M. in my Exam. part. 3. Sect. 6. pag. 60. If the pro∣mise be of saving graces, if of Christ sent, if of the outward ordinances of baptism, &c. if of the Holy Ghost in extraordinary gifts, it is none of these wayes true without that limitation. For neither God promised saving gra∣ces, nor outward ordinances, nor extraordinary gifts, nor sent Christ to them, their children, or all that are afar off without calling them, and every of them. And but that Master Bls. Master Bs. and such like wonderers heedlesness and peevishness are no strange thing to me, I should wonder that Ma∣ster Blake should no better heed my words in my Examen, nor Diodati his words (who, he saith, fully pitches upon the true sense of it) which in his Annot. on Acts. 2.39. are these, shall call, namely by his Gospel. So he doth restrain the Israelites to whom the promises are directed onely to those, who by Gods gift believe in Christ; see Rom. 9.8. Gal. 4.28. which had Master Blake faithfully set down in stead of some other words I find in him, his Reader might have discerned how false it is, that the promise is to an infant child of a believer,

as his child, without calling; and have discerned that it is not my device onely, but that which others before me apprehended, and so no more boldness in my dealing with the Scriptures then was meet, and the Apostles words to have this plain sense, the promise is to you, being called of God; and to your children, being called of God; and to all afar off, being called of God; and to no other, And to requite Master Blake, I may more truly say, It's a wonder how it came into Master Blakes head to call this limitation an amplification. For though the words [to all that are afar off] contain an amplification of the mercy ei∣ther to the posterity of the Jewes, or to those in the dispersion, or to the Gen∣tiles (of which I will not now dispute) yet the words [as many as the Lord our God shall call] are a plain limitation of his speech, as I have proved. But Master Blake addes of me, 2. In that he saith, this promise belongs to them not simply as Jewes, but as called, is a full contradiction; A Jew un∣called (at this time before the Kingdome was taken from them) is as much as a convert unconverted, or a Gentile disciple undiscipled: In case he think to come off by limiting it to an effectuall call, the Scripture by himself quoted doth evidently contradict it; Christ came to give them that effectuall calling, and not onely to those that were thus called.

Ans. Master Blakes charge of contradictions is as frivolous as his wonder∣ment. Master Blakes conceit of a calling into such a Church-state, as the whole nation of the Jewes did then enjoy, is but a dream of his own, for which he hath not one Scripture nor other proofe. The calling is to communion with Christ, and an effectuall calling, else the proposition were not true; nor is there any contradiction in any of the places by me quoted, to this exposition, the promise of Christ is fulfilled for the remission of your sins, and your chil∣drens, and all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall effectually call, and no other; nor hath Master Blake shewed any. For though Christ came to give effectual calling, yet it is true also, he came to give remission onely to those that were thus called; nor is there any opposition, much less contradiction in those speeches.

Master Blake goes on. He yet said, Peter doth exhort to repentance and baptism together, and in the first place perswades to repentance, then to bap∣tism, which shewes repentance to be in order before baptism. To which he an∣swers, not by denying it, but by giving a reason of it, because they had cru∣cified Christ, &c. To which I reply, this grant shewes that they had not right to baptism without repentance, though the promise were to them, they were in the Church-state of the Jewes, &c. and consequently Master Blakes proposition false. Those to whom the Covenant of promise appertains (in his sense) have a right to baptism. What he addes, And yet he shewes that they and their seed are under the promise of God, and puts them into a way in accep∣tation of Christ in the Gospel-tender, in his present way of administration, to be continued his people still in Covenant, and that (as is plainly enough signified) that they might enjoy it in their former latitude to them and to their children; that the Jewes (even those that had not yet embraced Christ) were not yet dispossest of the promise, but stood as a people of God in visible covenant, and their children, in the sense in which Master Blake means is false; and yet were it true, it is against Master Blakes proposition, sith notwithstanding this be∣ing in covenant, yet were they not admitted or to be admitted to baptism without

repentance. He addes, Master T. hath yet this evasion, and saith, the text speak•• not expresly of infants, but of children indefinitely; and if infants be not chil∣dren, we will be content that they be cast out of covenant, and will hold no plea for their Church-membership and baptism.

Ans. As infants are children, so are men and women of twenty, or more years old, and therefore the term (children) unless it be proved to be taken u∣niversally or particularly of infants, the Covenant-state (as they call it) though we should grant such an estate there meant, would not be thence concluded. And yet infants were to be circumcised not simply because they were Abrahams seed, nor because in Covenant, but by reason of Gods command. And though a woman and disciple be not Synonyma, yet women being numbred among disci∣ples, it is an express example of womens coming together to break bread, which mentions the disciples breaking bread; nor was I at all put to it, much less hard put to it, when this came in for an answer. For without this an answer was given before to the Argument, and this was added as an over-plus, and so was that which Master Blake nibbles at in that which followes.

I had said the text speaks not of the children of the Gentiles at all, (of whom we are) but of the children of the Jews; and therefore if that promise be ex∣tended to infants, which doth not appear, the promise is to be expounded so as to note something peculiar to the Jewes infants. To this Master Blake thus saith, If the Gospel held out any such transcending priviledges appertaining to the seed of the Jewes above the Gentiles, Master T. may do well to produce a text for it, otherwise we shall take it for granted from Saint Paul, that there is none at all, that there is neither Greek, nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircum∣cision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free.

To which I reply, there is no need I should shew any such priviledge held out in the Gospel to the Jewes seed above the Gentiles, but that Master Blake should shew such priviledge as he speaks of, to the Jewes seed held out in the Gospel. But this I say, if he will have the text, Acts. 2.39. to be for his purpose, he must shew that the children of the Gentiles (of whom there is not a word) are mentioned as those to whom the promise is as well as the children of the Jewes, which he thus attempts.

And when the Apostle addes, to those that are afar off, even as many as the Lord shall call, he plainly means the Gentiles, as appears, comparing Ephes. 2. And though I take not the boldness to adde to the words, and to their children, as Master T. challenges Doctor H. yet it is clear, that the same is understood there in reference to the children of the Gentiles, that is exprest before to the children of the Jewes. If any shall grant an inheritance to Titius and his heirs for ever, and to Caius, every one will understand that the heirs of Caius are meant as well as the heirs of Titius, especially if it can be proved out of the grant it self, that the priviledge conveyed to Caius, is as ample as that to Titi∣us. We can prove the priviledges granted to the Gentiles in the Gospel to be e∣qual to those granted to the Jewes; when the Jewes children are under the pro∣mise with their Parents, the children of believing Gentiles cannot be exclu∣ded.

To which I reply, that it appeared not plainly to Beza, Annot. in locum, that by those afar off, Acts 2.39. are meant the Gentiles, but rather the posterity of the Jewes, which should be in after Generations, or those in the dispersion,

among the Gentiles. For it seemes unlikely that Peter did then consider or de∣clare the calling of the Gentiles, who was so averse from preaching to Corneli∣us, Asts 10. or that it would have been born with them, when even the bre∣thren expostulated with him for that fact, Acts. 11.3. nor do I think 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Acts. 2.39. the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ephes. 2.13. this latter noting manifestly remoteness from God in respect of knowledge and communion, the former remoteness from them to whom he spake, either in descent or distance of place. However were it resolved that the Gentiles are meant, Acts. 2.39. as many Interpreters conceive, yet it is too much bold∣ness to adde to the text [and to their children] and not much less in Master Bl. that it is understood, when there is neither word in the text, nor defect of sense without it, nor any ancient copy, which necessitate that addition or supplement. And for Master Blakes case in law, it is not opposite. For, Acts 2.39. there is no mention of a grant to them and their heirs for ever, but only a promise to them and their children, which there is no necessity, nor I think intention in Peter in those words to extend to any other then were then existent. But if it were opposite, yet so far as I know their mindes, either by such experience in law-cases, o•• converse with Lawyers, (with whom I sometimes lived) I presume they would say otherwise then Master Blake, that a grant of an inheritance to Titius and his heirs for ever, and to Caius, without mentioning his heirs, is not a grant to the heirs of Caius, no not though it could be proved the privi∣ledge conveyed to Caius is as ample as that to Titius. As for what Master Blake tells us, he and others can prove of the priviledges of the Gentiles granted in the Gospel equal to the Jewes, I yield it, if meant of believing Jewes and Gen∣tiles, and saving spititual blessings in Christ, according to that, Ephes. 3.6. But meant (as Master Blake would have it) of visible Church-membership, and the initial seal, I take it to be a vain brag, neither he nor any other having yet proved it, or that the Jewes or Gentiles children are or were universally under the pronise of the Covenant of Grace, which is Evangelical, with their be∣lieving Parents, and by reason of their faith, I know no more about Acts 2.38, 39. in that ch. to be answered. I return to his answer to my exceptions ch. 43. pag. 393. he thus dictates after his fashion, Children as theirs whe∣ther they be called or no, is (he knowes with us) a contradiction; children are called in their Parents call, and we say they are in covenant, the promise is made to them, they are visible Church-members till they reject the covenant, and deny their membership.

To which I say, I know many things to be taken for truths and contra∣dictions with Paedobaptists, which were neither truths, nor contradictions: but this conceit that [Jewes children uncalled, as calling is meant, Acts 2.39.] is a contradiction. I had not so mean an opinion of Master Blakes and other Paedobaptists intellectuals, as to imagine they would own it, till Master Blake vented this foppery, which how vain it is was shewed above. In like manner I was secure of ever meeting with such a foolery as this of Master Blake, chil∣dren are called in their Parents call, till I read the like in his brother Baxters vain-mocktitled-book plain Script. proof, &c. ch. 3. that he that converteth the Parent, maketh both him and his infants disciples: to which I have said somewhat in my Review, part. 2. sect. 12. And for the other speech that they are in covenant, the promise is made to them, they are visible Church-members

till they reject the Covenant, and deny their membership, it contains sundry inconsistencies with Paedobaptists hypotheses. For first, they say, the children of believers are in covenant, and visible Church-members as theirs▪ children as theirs, whether they be called or no is (he knowes with us) a con∣tradiction, saith Master Blake here. If so, then they are in ••ovenant, and visible Church-members while theirs, Quatenus ipsum includes de omni & semper. But they are so when they reject the covenant, the relation to their parents ceaseth not then; therefore neither their Church-membership, if the hypothesis be true. Secondly, they suppose the visible Church-membership of believers children, is by vertue of Gods promise to be their God, Gen. 17.7. and this promise requires no other condition but the parents faith, no condition from the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for then it could not agree to infants; therefore if the parent be a believer 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Child be not a visible Church-member, God keeps not his promise which he hath made, according to their hypotheses, and so they do make God a lyar, which is blasphemy. Thirdly, they magnifie the priviledge of infants visible Churchmembership, they enveigh against anti-Paedobaptists, as robbing them thereof, and parents of their comforts, though they grant the Parents as much ground of hope for them, as the Paedobaptists grounds can truly give them; and for reality of priviledge, setting aside an empty title and rite as to them in infancy, they grant them visible Church-membership, when they profess the faith, which in respect of Church-communion Paedobaptists them∣selves grant them, not before; but mock both Parents and children, telling them they are in covenant, and visible Church-members by their parents faith with∣out their own, yet denying them Church-communion, which is due to every visible Church-member, without their own personal avouching the faith; be∣sides, their injurious dealing with them in their mock-baptism of them, when it is not due, nor does them any good, and denying baptism to them, yea, per∣secuting them for seeking it after when it is due, and might do them much good by engaging them to Christ, and thereupon assure Christ to be theirs.

My fifth exception Master Blake passeth over as fore-spoken to, ch. 37. which hath answer before, and my sixth as falling in with my tenth, where I shall over∣take him. To my seventh, wherein I excepted against Master Stephens for hold∣ing the command [Be baptized every one of you] in a covenant-sense as he calls it to be, as if he had said, Be baptized you and your children, which I said to be a new devised non-sense, such as we have no Dictionary yet to interpret words by. To this saith Master Blake, I am sure here is a non-sense device, to talk of Dictionaries; does Calepin or Scapula, Rider or Thomasius help us to compare covenant and seal, promises and Sacraments?

I reply, that speech is non-sense, in which the words used to signifie that which the speaker would signifie by them, do not in the use of them so signifie. But this speech [Be baptized every one of you] doth not in the use of the words signi∣fie [be baptized you and your children] therefore that speech so used in that which Master Stephens calls Covenant-sense is non-sense. This appears by Dictionaries, in none of which [every one of you] is as much as [you and your children] Therefore that speech in that sense is a new devised non-sense. As for Master Blakes words, either they are non-sense, or as bad. For first, to talk of Dictionaries is not a device, an action of the mind; but a speech, an action of the tongue or hand; and therefore it is non-sense to call it so. Second∣ly,

to talk of Dictionaries is not non-sense; for then all speech of Dictiona∣ries should be non-sense, and so all the verses before. R••ders and others Dictio∣naries should be non-sense. But to speak of Dictonaries otherwise then the words signifie, so as the meaning cannot be perceived by them, which he can∣not say of my speech of Dictionaries. As for Master Blakes question, it is frivo∣lous, as much of the rest of his writing here is. For though Dictionaries do not help us to compare covenant and seal, promises and Sacraments, yet they do help us to know the sense of words, and discover to us the non-sense of words used otherwise then their signification is. Master Blake himself in the 43. ch. sect. 2. refers me to the Dictionary about the word Pax. To my eighth exception that there is not a word of any scruple in the text, as some have imagined, if we be baptized our selves, and not our children, they will be in worse case then in the former dispensation, in which they had the seal of the covenant; nor is it likely that they were sollicitous about such an imaginary poor priviledge of their children. He saith, I am of his minde, that there was no such scruple in their heads. Master T. his unhappy conceit of casting the seed out of the Cove∣nant was not then in being, though I think the reason he gives is little to pur∣pose, yet I say, this scruple raised by Anti-paedobaptists, and heightened by Master T. as in many other, so in this text is removed.

Ans. My exception then stands good against those who make that scruple the occasion of Peters mentioning their children. And for my reason, Master Blake had done better to give a reason of his censure, then barely to say he thinks it to little purpose. It is his calumny that I have any conceit of casting the seed out of the covenant, and his conceit that the scruple mentioned is in this text removed, hath been shewed to be but his dream.

My ninth exception was that Paedobaptists make [for v. 39.] to infer a right to baptism, whereas it infers onely a duty, which is proved in that [v. 38. baptized] is in the Imperative Mood. To this saith Master Blake, Master T. does grossely abuse his judgment in this way of refutation, as though the right in which they stood, could be no Topick, from which in a moral way the Apo∣stle might perswade them to baptism; when Shecaniah perswaded Ezra to the reformation of the marriage of strange wives in these words: Arise, for the matter belongeth to thee, Ezra 10.4. here was a motive in the moral way to call upon him to do it, and an argument inferred, that it lay upon Ezra as a duty by command from God to set upon it. And to my reason he saith, he hath quite forgotten, that the words holding out their right are in the Indi∣cative Mood. For the promise is to you and your children. And here is a no∣table correction of the Apostle, he should have said, if this had been his mean∣ing, you must be baptized; and he sai••s, Arise, and be baptized.

Ans. Sure I am Master Blake doth most grossely abuse me, in insinuating as if by my refutation, the right in which they stood could be no Topick, from which in a moral way the Apostle might perswade them to baptism, when I proved that the Apostle did not from v. 39. infer a right to baptism, which in a legal way they might claim, but a duty, to which in a moral way he per∣swades. And therefore he shootes wide from the mark, when he goes about to prove that a right may be a motive in a moral way to a duty. And yet as if he could write nothing to the point, his own allegation, Ezra 10.4. is not to his own purpose, the motive as himself alledgeth, it being not a right to a privi∣lege;

but a command from God. The like roving talk is in his answer to my reason. For whereas I alleged that verse 38. a right is not inferred from verse 39. but a duty, because [be baptized, v. 38.] is not in the Indicative, but the Imperative Mood, tels me the term [is v. 39.] is in the Indicative Mood, which is nothing to my objection, but like as in the contention between two deaf men in Sir Thomas Mores epigram, he that was charged with theft answered, his mother was at home. The like random talk is in his insinuation of my no∣table correction of the Apostle, who corrected not the Apostle, but shewed the Paedobaptists conceit incongruous to the Apostles words; He himself seems (I think out of heedlesness) to correct the Apostle, when he speaks thus, And he ••aies, Arise and be baptized, which are not Peters words, Acts. 2.38. but the words of Ananias to Saul, Acts. 22.16.

My tenth exception was, usually Paedobaptists in their paraphrases put not in any thing to answer [repent, v. 38.] which is true, though Master Stephens be alleged in my sixth exception, as paraphrasing it by covenant, for your selves and your children, Master Blake grants the Apostle presseth to a duty, and such as was to have repentance precedent in his then hearers: If so, then he doth not infer a right to bap••ism barely from their interest in the promise. What he saith, right and duty very well stand together, and that the Apostle fitly makes use of their interest as a motive, I deny not. It is true, the Apostle mentioned more to whom the promise was then, he then perswaded to repent, for he mentions the promise as pertaining to the absent, or unborn; but he perswades none to be baptized but the penitent, nor mentions any to whom the promise was, but the called of God.

To my Argument from the precedency of repentance to baptism, Acts. 2.38. against infant-baptism, he answers as before, ch. 37. to which I have re∣plyed before. As for Master Stephens his paraphrase avowed by Master Blake as the Apostles meaning, that if the Jewes who had crucified Christ, would receive him as the particular Messiah, the same promise should still continue to them and their children in the new dispensation, it is far from the Apostles minde. For the Apostle doth not make the eontinuance of the promise as the benefit consequent on their receiving Christ, and the receiving of Christ the condition of continuance of the promise: but the being of the promise is al∣leged as a thing already existent, nor is there any likelyhood that the Apostle Peter would urge them to so hard duties as repentance, receiving Christ by so slender a reason as the continuance of the promise of visible Church-membership and baptism to them and their infant children, yea, the text it self shewes that the things by which he would perswade them to receive Christ, were the assu∣rance of remission of sins, and receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and the alleging the promise, v 39 is to take away the great objection against these great benefits from their crucifying of Christ▪ and their imprecation on them and their children, Matth. 27.25. If then Master Stephens build his word of command to baptize father and child, on that paraphrase, he builds on a foundation which will not hold. Master Blake addes; To this the word repent refers, as may be made plain. But what he means by this assertion I do not well understand, it being ambiguous, what he means by [this] whether the paraphrase of Master Stephens, that the same promise should still continue to them and their children in the new dispensation, if they would receive Jesus as

the particular Messiah, or the word of command to baptize father and child, and in like manner what kind of reference he means, whether as a medium to prove it, or as a motive to it. If he mean the same with that which his alle∣gations seem to tend to, his meaning is, that the promise of visible Church-state, was to the Jewes as they had been formerly, if they did receive Christ, and the term [repent] refers to it as the motive. Now though I grant that the promise, Acts. 2.39. is alleged as a motive in a moral way to repentance v▪ 38. yet I deny such a promise to be meant, v. 39. as Mr. Bl. and Mr. Stephens fancy. Nor do any of Mr. Blakes allegatione prove it. For Acts 3.25. doth not speak of such a covenant as Master Blake means, but of that Evangelical co∣venant wherein God promised Christ and saving blessings by him. Nor are the Jews there termed children of the Covenant onely, but also of the Prophets. Now the Prophets there are the same with all the Prophets, v. 24. and those Jewes to whom, Peter spake, were no otherwise their children, then in that they had been raised up of, and sent to that nation in their predecessors times, and they are in like manner called children of the Covenant, because they were the posterity of those ancestors, specially Abraham, to whom that Covenant was made. But this doth not prove that they were then Gods visible people, that the Covenant of visible Church-state did belong to them and their children, or that such a covenant is meant, Acts 2.39. What Master Blake allegeth from Matth. 8.12. Matth. 21.43. that they were in danger to be cast off, doth prove rather the contrary, thet the nation or body of the Jewish people who had rejected Christ, were not in covenant with God; and although those particular persons, Acts 2.37. to whom Peter spake, v. 38, 39. were more awakened then others, yet they could not be then said to be in the covenant of visible Church-state, being not then believers in Christ. What Master Blake allegeth and infers from Matth. 21.31, 32. Luke 7.29, 30. I assent to, but know not what it make•• for his purpose. Yea, me thinks his calling baptism to which Peter exhorted, en∣trance into a new covenant-way, crosseth Master Stephens paraphrase of con∣tinuing the same promise to them and their children. In his third allegation he misreports me, as if I excluded all consideration of right in the Jewes and their children from those words which are, Acts 2.39. Whereas that which I said was this, that from the promise, Acts 2.39. (what ever right be imported by it) Peter doth not infer their being baptized as a right or privilege, accruing to them in manner of a legal title and claim, but as a duty to which he perswades in a moral way. What good interpretation I give of those words, v. 39. suitable to Peters exhortation; I have set down, Exam. pag. 61. Review part. 1. pag. 41. and elsewhere Master Blake, if he could, should have overthrown it. Master Cobbets exception is answered in the next section. Mr. Bl. hath been oft told that the children are men∣tioned Acts 2.39. because of the imprecation, Matth. 27.25. That the words, Acts 2.38, 39. are carried in that way, that interest in Covenant and Covenant-Seals in Mr. Bls sense formerly ran, is supposed, but not proved by him. That the Jews yet persisting in their adherence to Moses, not embracing Christ, should be in covenant and have thereby a right to baptism, is such a dotage as me thinks Master Blake should disclaim. That the words of the text, Acts 2.39. hold out such a covenant-right, as Master Blake imagins, in Scripture-language, according to the grand charter of heaven, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, is said, but not proved by Master Blake. Whether my exceptions against

the Paedobaptists exposition of Acts 2.38, 39. or Master Blakes answers are frivolous shifts the intelligent Reader will perceive. My Antipaedobaptism is enough to refute Master John Goodwins charge, and my censure of his inter∣pretations others have made good. As for the text Master Blake mindes me of, Job 38.2. it may appear from my writings to be more pertinently applyable to himself, then me. Had ever any man shewed me so much confused scrib∣ling, so many irrational unproved dictates, so many impertinent allegations in my w••itings as I and Master Blake have shewed in his, I would have silenced my self from writing any more, except a retractation of my former bookes.