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. LXVII. Mr. Bs. 12th. arg. ch. 17. part 1. of Baptism, from Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. is answered, and my answers vindicated. (Book 67)

CH. 17. he proceeds thus.

My 12th. Arg. is from the foremention∣ed Text, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. where all the Jews, with all their lit∣tle ones were entred into Covenant with God. From whence I ar∣gue thus. If the Covenant which those infants who were then church-members were entred into with God was a Covenant of grace (or a Gospel Covenant) then it is not repealed, (and consequently their churchmembership is not repealed, as being built on the Covenant, or inseparably conjunct:) But the said Covenant which the infants who were then churchmembers did pass into, was a Covenant of grace, (as distinct from the law, which was repealed;) therefore neither it nor their churchmembership is repealed. Here I shall prove, 1. That all the infants did pass into this Covenant. 2. That they were churchmembers that did so. 3. That it was such a Covenant of grace. 4. And then it will follow that it is not repealed.

Answ. The argument from this Text was urged very hotly by Mr. B. in the Dispute at Bewdley, Jan. 1. 1649. but in another manner, as I gather from two copies of the Dispute, which though imperfect, yet both agree, that the argument then was ••his, They who solemnly entred into Covenant with God were visible churchmembers: But the infants of the Jews in the wilderness uncircumcis••d did so, Ergo. Mr. B. him∣self in his Corrective, sect. 5. The Text in Deut. 29. was brought to prove that God entred into Covenant with infants to take them for his people, and to be their God, and consequently made them churchmembers. The form here used doth vary the conclusion, and the medium and particularly the term [who solemnly entred into Covenant with God] into this [were entred into Covenant with God] and in his Correct. sect. 5. into this [God entred into Covenant with infants to take them for his people, and to be their God] between which there is so great a difference, that as the argument was framed in the Dispute, I should not deny the major; but as there it is framed, I should deny the consequence, it being certain God may enter into Covenant with some to take them for his people, and to be their God, who neither are nor ever shall be visible churchmembers; as elect pe••sons dying with death-bed repentance not manifested▪ &c. But I shall keep to the form as it is here used. And 1. I grant that the churchmembership of the infants which did pass into Covenant, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. is not repealed: For it being an individual accident can neither in congruous sense be said to be repealed, nor it being non••ens now is it capable of repeal if the speech were right. 2. I grant also that Gods Covenant of grace, or his Gospel covenant is not repealed, that is, changed into another Covenant. 3. I grant also that invisible

churchmembership is built on the Covenant of grace, or the Gospel covenant, or is inseparably conjunct with it. But this I deny 1. that any law of infants visible churchmembership unrepealed is contained in Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. 2. That the mutual Covenant entred into there was the Gospel covenant of grace. 3. I say, that if it were, yet it fol∣lows not that infant visible churchmembership is not ceased, or in Mr. Bs. dialect repealed. But let us view Mr. Bs. proof.

1. Saith he, Mr. T. denied long together in the face of many thou∣sand people, that the infants were entred into any such Covenant, against the plain letter of the Text: Yet he persisted to deny it without any reason (as you may see in the Dispute, if out.) If plain Scripture will not satis∣fie these men, why then do they call for Scripture? The words are, Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God, your Captains of your Tribes, your Officers, Elders, and all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and the stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water, that thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day, that he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be to thee a God, &c. He that saith infants did not pass into this Co∣venant, I question whether he believe this to be the word of God: For how should it be spoken plainer?

Answ. The thing which I denied was, that infants did visibly and solemnly enter into Covenant, which Mr. B. affirmed, and I gave the reason, because they did by no visible sign declare their assent to the Covenant: And when Mr. B. replied, that the parents did it for them, I answered, the parents act for them might bind them, but yet it is not their act, nor that which makes a visible churchmember; and sure had I conceived his minor so meant [that the infants did by their parents vi∣sibly and solemnly enter into Covenant] I should have granted it, and de∣nied his major [They who visibly and solemnly entred into Covenant with God by their parents act for them, were visible churchmembers] Now this answering of mine he endeavoured then and since to represent with as much disparagement as might b•• to me, though what ever imperfection there were in my answer (which I do not deprehend to have been such as Mr. B. hath made it) it was in a great part from Mr. Bs. ambiguous use of words, and his captious taking advantage from my words, and not explaining his own, which made me answer somewhat perplexedly. But the matter being now in print, let's view the Dispute as i•• stands in the Books. I had said in my Sermon, and after in my Antidote, sect. 5. that [thou] v. 12. doth not necessa••ily comprehend the little ones▪ To this Mr. B. in his Correct. pag. 249. replies, 1. that he either sets a low value on my conscience, or judgement; which is not worth answering, 2. Do you not know, saith he, that [thou] is a collective term, usually through the Books of Moses spoken of all the people, except any be particu∣larly excepted? Answ. I do know it is a collective term, ye•• often used with exception of infants by the matter of the speech, though not p••rti∣cularly. And for this I need go no further then Deut. 29.2, 3, 4, 5. Deut. 30.1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. And in some of

these, v. 2. thou and thy children, v. 6. thine heart and the heart of thy seed, v. 19. thou and thy seed, Deut. 29.29. us and our children, are so expresly distinguished, that I am much confirmed that [thou] Deut. 29.12. doth not comprehe••d the little ones, v. 11.

3. Saith he, Are not little ones here named? and yet are they excluded?

Answ. T••ey are named, v. 11. yet not meant by [thou] v. 12.

4. Saith he, Why should Moses say, here stand your children and wives, that not they but you might enter into Covenant?

Answ. 1. Why should the strangers stand there, v. 11. and yet A∣braham, Isaac, and Jacob not their fathers? v. 13. 2. I conceive God would have a general appearance for the more sol••mnity of the thing, but that some should act in the name of the whole people, and therefore men••ion of all, v. 11. yet the act of covenanting which was personal, v. 12. restrained onely to the representatives.

5. Doth not Mr. T. confess that the Jews infants were in Covenant? why else were they circumcised, which is the seal of the Covenant?

Answ. 1. Circumcision is no where called in Scripture the Seal of the Covenant, and how far I allow it, may be seen sect. 31. 2. Infants were circumcised, not because they were in Covenant, those who were not in Covenant were to be circumcised. 3. The Jews infants were in the political or domestical Covenant made to Abraham, all of them upon condition of their obedience to the law, some of them in the Co∣venant or promise of saving grace made to the elect, none of them in the Covenant by their own personal act of covenanting or promising, which is that alone which I deny, and which makes visible churchmembers in the Christian Church.

6. Saith Mr. B. I desire no means to convince any man of your strange abuse of the Text, but onely that he will read it. [Ye stand this day all of you, &c. and that he may be to thee a God] He that can considerately be∣lieve Mr. T. that the word [thou] v. 12. doth not necessari••y comprehend the little ones, if I knew him, I would tell him, that I will not undertake by Scripture to convince him of any thing at all. And I say again in sobri∣ety, that if the Papists had as plain Scripture for their Religion as it differs from ours, I would not delay a week, but would turn Papist, &c.

Answ. Mr. Bs. words onely express his confidence in his conceit, which in this and many more things I conceive to come from his hasty determinations, without weighing all objections to the contrary. But I desire both him and the Reader to let me know what that entring into Covenant is which may be termed the infants act, afore he censure my interpretation of [thou] as not comprehending little ones necessarily, but as noting some instead of the rest, as a strange abuse of the Text; sure it was no act of words or sign shewing any consent or assent to the Co∣venant or Oath of God: And if, as Piscator conceives in his scholie, it were by passing through (as the word in the Hebrew is) the ••arts of the divided living creatures in testimony of the covenant, I say again, surely neither little ones, nor all the rest did pass between the parts of the the beasts divided, but some in stead of the rest. I think they will not say, it was their bare presence which was the entring into Covenant;

for their standing there was before it, and the entring into Covenant a consequent of it. I do not accuse him, as he knows who hath done, of being a Papist; nor dare I absolve Mr. B. from yeelding too much in some of his writings for Papists, Arminians, and Socinians advantage, in s••eking to avoid Antinomianism and Anabaptism. But I hope both Mr. B. and his Reader will be more sober and wise then to go over to the Papists upon this declaration of Mr. B. who if he did not suggest to the people as if it were my impudence to deny it at the Dispu••e, I was mistaken, and so were others, and I intreat him to pardon my mistake. But Mr. B. adds.

Where he saith, that [you] v. 14. is distinguished from [them that stand, &c.] I answer: 1. I think not; but from them that were absent: q. d. not with you onely, but (both) with him that is here (that is you) and him that is not here.

Answ. I find no interpreter who doth not render •••• v. 15. by the adve••sative, and the Tigurine Divines render it sed et but also, which sh••ws a plain distinction of [you, v. 14.] from him that standeth here with us this day before the Lord our God; and if I understand any thing in this kind, Mr. Bs. exposition is not good sense, to expound not with you onely, but with him that is here with us that is you. For v. ••5. him that standeth here is opposed to you, v. 14. and you onely be∣ing an exclusive terme, must exclude the rest, and when it is said [with us] meaning himselfe, and [you] v. 14. it is meere non∣sense to expound it thus, him that standeth with us, if us compre∣hend him that standet•• there, as it doth according to Mr. Bs. ex∣position. Besides, the different numbers of [him that standeth here with us] and [you] do shew that they are not the same. And I thinke I may say as Mr. B. I desi••e no meanes to convince any man of Mr. Bs. strange exposition, but onely that hee will read the Text.

But he saith. 2. Were it otherwise, yet it were onely from the people of other nations that stood among them.

Answ. 1. If Mr. B. mean thy stranger which is in thy Camp, v. 11. I expect some reason why [you onely] v. 14. should exclude them more then the little ones and wives; rather me think•• [you one∣ly] should include those men••ioned v. 10. and him that standeth with us here this day should mean those v. 11. And the plain sense seems to be this, that though the Captains, Elders, Officers, men of Israel who were to enter into Co••enant, did by themselves onely covenant, yet Mo∣ses in Gods stead did make that Covenant and Oath not onely with them, to whom his speech was directed, but also with the rest, v. 1••.2. If he mean the strangers not of that congregation or Church of Isra∣el, surely the Covenant was not made with them, as here Moses saith it was with him that standeth here with us this day.

Mr. B. adds of me. Where he saith [some entred into Covenant in behalf of the rest] I answer: 1. God entred into Covenant on his part immediately, or by Moses the Mediatour with them all, and not with some onely.

Answ. Be it so, yet on the other part some entred into Cove∣nant in behalf of the rest, and so [thou] v. 12. comprehends not little ones, v. 11. for sure if in behalf of any some entred into Co∣venant, and [thou] comprehend not them, them they were the lit∣tle ones.

2. Saith he, I doubt not but the parents entred their children into Co∣venant, and not the infants themselves, which shews, that God hath gi∣ven parents this interest and authority.

Answ. 1. This is a confession of what I aver, and of which Mr. B. and his followers have made such exclamations against me. For if [thou v. 12.] entred themselves into Covenant, and infants entred not themselves into Covenant, then infants are not comprehended under [thou, v. 12.] But so it is. Ergo. The consequence is plain of it self, the minor is for the first part the words of the Text, unless Mr. B. will say, that thou shouldest enter into Covenant is not, that ••hou shouldest enter into Covenant thy self, which is a gross absurdity; and the other pa••t is Mr. Bs. own: and thus Mr. B. hath justified me in that which he counted so strange an abuse of the Text. 2. For my part, I doubt whether the parents entred the children into Covenant, and do rather conceive that the Captains, Elders, Officers, v. 10. did enter into Co∣venant by some solemn act of passing between the parts of a beast divi∣ded, or otherwise in stead of the children, wives, and servants, v. 11. and not the parents for the infants, 1. because the distinct mention of those, v. 10. under the titles there used, do intimate that they were representatives of those v. 11. now v. 10 persons are not expressed under the ti••le of parents, but under other relations: 2. Because it be∣ing a national covenanting, it seems most suitable to the end of it, that it was done by national Officers: 3. If there were any other then those persons, the solemnity could not be likely done with decency, the num∣ber being so great as could not hear Moses, nor do such acts as might signifie the covenanting: 4. Because it was so at other times, Exod. 19.7. Josh. 9.15, 19. which if true, this place proves not that God had gi∣ven parents the interest and authority to covenant for their children: 5. The wives were parents as well as the husbands, but it is not pro∣bable that the wives did covenant for the children, therefore not the pa∣rents as parents, but under some other consideration.

3. Saith Mr. B. But that any other that had the use of reason should not enter their own consent is a fiction not to be admitted: And yet Mr. T. in his confutation Sermon, excludeth the wives from a personal covenanting, as well as the infants; but barely on his own authority: Nay, he saith, it was onely the captains and Officers, though the Covenant is made with the rest.

Answ. I have given my reasons for what I conceive, I impose them not on others, it is sufficient for present that I have vindicated my asser∣tion so much inveighed against by Mr. B. that [thou] v. 12. doth not necessarily comprehend infants.

2. Saith Mr. B.

Mr. T. denied in our Dispute, that these infants were visible churchmembers; for when hee had maintained that

[none were churchmembers but those that were circumcised] and that [churchmembership was not then without circumcision] I told him, that the infants for 40. years in the wilderness were not circum∣cised, and yet were churchmembers, and proved it from this Cove∣nant; yet did he resolutely deny it, that the infants were church- members: Whereupon seeing he wasted time in wrangling, I was bold to say, I did verily believe that (contrary to our first agreement) he disputed against his own conscience, seeing he could not believe himself, that the infants then were no churchmembers, and that none but the circumcised were churchmembers: But he took it ill, that I should so charge him to go against conscience; and yet when I told him, that women were churchmembers, though not ••ircumcised, he confessed all, and yeelded that the infants were so too. And indeed else God had no Church, or almost none in the wilderness, when all but Cal••b and Joshua were dead of the old stock; and all of forty years old were uncircumcised; yet Steven calls it the Church in the wilder∣ness, Acts 7.38. But I think it vain to prove that those were church∣members that entred such a Covenant. He that will deny this, is scarce to be disputed with.

Answ. I do confess there was much time wasted in the Dispute, and that my answers were varied according to my several apprehensions of Mr. Bs. meaning, which by reason of his ambiguities and uncertain ex∣pressions I could not be assured of, nor would he be brought to explain any thing to me, but what I could force him to by distinction, which yet hee shifted off, that I might be still at a loss what to determine. First hee asserted a law of admitting infants visible churchmembers unrepealed, which I conceived was that of circumcision, and there∣upon denied infants in the wilderness to have beene visible church∣members, meaning solemnly admitted, in which sense I meant that churchmembership was not then without Circumcision. But when hee denied, hee meant Circ••mcision, I pressed him to tell what other law there was, which hee then did not, but went to prove them church∣members, which I confessed, if not understood as so admitted, but as part of that people as the women were. Secondly, when I found hee used not the term visible churchmembers as it is taken by Pro∣testant writers for those that professed the Christian faith, I denied infants were churchmembers visible by the way which made them such in the Christian Church, though they were visible churchmembers ac∣cording to the way of constitution of the Jewish Church, which was a Commonwealth, of which all that were members were church∣members. This is the true summe of what past between us in that time Mr. B. speakes of, in which nothing was spoken against my conscience (as hee unbrother like charged mee,) and such alterca∣tion as was, was necessitated on my part by his averseness from explaining his meaning, which I instantly pressed him to, but still hee put by with one flirt or another at mee, that hee might drive mee to speake something, which hee might represent (as hee still did) in the most odious manner hee could to the auditors,

which injurious way hath been that which hath confirmed his party, though thereby they are abused by him. For present I grant the infants Deut. 29.11. were then visible churchmembers, but not by that Co∣venant.

Against this Mr. B. in his Correct. sect. 5. saith thus.

2. He saith, Moses made that Covenant with him that wa•• not there that day, that is, their posterity not yet born; shall it therefore be sai••, that they were visible members? &c.] I answer, 1. it is evident the Cove∣na••t spoke de praesenti to those that were: bu•• de futuro onely of those that were not in being, but future: They that were not, could not bee members visible or invisible. As they had a being, so they had a membership; that is in posse, & in futuritione, non i•• esse. By vertue of this deed of gift they should be born churchmembers. If a Landlord do by lease make over any land to you, and your chil∣drens children, paying so much rent; doth it follow that your chil∣dren (who are born) are none of this mans tenants, because your childrens children (who are unborn) are not his tenants actually, but potentially? Or, if a King be set over us, and out children, and childrens children (by compact,) doth it follow, that our children in being are not his subjects in being because our childrens children in posse are not subjects in esse but in posse onely? Ah here is good ar∣guing!

Answ. I find Moses speaking of Gods Covenant, but not the Co∣venant speaking, nor is that expression good sense; nor was the speech to any other then were there, though it was of what should be after, and that as well what should be after to them that were present, as to them that were to be after, v. 13. and I think it true, that they which were not could not be members visible, though if the invisible Church be so from election, a•• most Protestant Divines say, they might be members invisible. And it is true, that as they had a being so they had member∣ship (visible) not in being but possibility and futuri••ion. But this is no answer to my reason but a strengthening of it. For whereas the the reason was this, That Covenant doth not make actually visible churchmembers, which is made with them who are not actually visible churchmembers: But that Covenant was made with them that were not actually visible churchmembers, for it was made with the unborn, who are confessed not to be actually visible churchmembers by Mr. B. him∣self; Ergo. The major is plain from the rule in Logick, The same as the same doth always the same. And for Mr. Bs. instances, it is true, that it follows not, the children born are not tenants or subjects actually because the unborn are not; but it follows, the lease and compact of themselves do not make actually tenants or subjects, because if they did they would do so the unborn as well as the born; so in this point, though the arguing be not good, the unborn are not actually visible churchmem∣bers, therefore the born are not; yet this (which was my arguing) was good, By the Covenant which was made with the unborn they were not actually visible churchmembers, therefore by the same Co∣venant of it self, without any other cause, neither were the born in∣fants

actually visible churchmembers; and consequently Mr. B. cannot from the making of this Covenant prove the Jewish infants actually visi∣ble churchmembers.

To my saying, that an entring into Covenant by parents doth not make a visible member in the Christian Church however (not as Mr. B prints it though) it did in the Jewish, he saith much in the compass of a few lines, all which is answered before in several sections, chiefly 50, 51, 52, 57. But he saith, 3. That this was a Covenant of grace is all the question. To which I say, though it be a question between us, yet it is not all the question. For both in the Dispute, and in all my writings, I denied that the Covenant of grace doth make visible churchmembers; and therefore Mr. B. if he would have made good his argument, he should have proved that visible churchmembership and the Covenant of grace are inseparably conjunct, which Mr. B. failing to do, fails in proving the chief point of his argument. But let's view what he saith, Correct. pag. 251.

You add, saith he, [this proves not the Covenant a pure Gos∣pel-covenant, not including peculiar benefits to the Jewish nation.] I answer, if by [pure] you mean that it is not onely a Gospel cove∣nant, but that and more, it yeeldeth as much as I need; for if it be a Gospel covenant, no matter though there be more. But if you mean, that it is not essentially a Covenant of grace, I could heap up abund••nce of arguments against you; you may find many in Mr. Ba•••• of the Covenant. I add: That Covenant wherein God taketh them to be his people, and engageth himself to be their God, is a Cove∣nant of grace: (for since the fall God entreth himself into no such Covenant with any but in Christ, and upon terms of grace.) But such is this Covenant made with the Israelites and their little ones; there∣fore this was a Covenant of grace.

Answ. I mean by pure Gospel Covenant, that Gospel Covenant which was without mixture of domestick or political benefits proper to Abrahams seed inheriting, which is set down Heb. 8.10, 11, 12. out of J••r. 31.33. and I say, that though there is perhaps an Evangelical pro∣mise or two intermixed in the enlargement of Moses his discourse, yet Deut. 29.13, 14, 15. the Oath or Covenant there made was no•• purely Evangelical▪ or essentially a Gospel Covenant, but a political, legal, national Covenant, such as God doth not enter into now with all those to whom he vouchsafes Gospel grace. And I prove it thus. 1. That Covenant which contains promises of the land of Canaan, the inheritance of it, and prosperity therein, is not essentially a Gospel Covenant, or a pure Gospel Covenant. But so doth that, Deut. 29.13, 14, 15. Ergo. The major is manifest: For the Gospel Covenant doth no•• promise those things. The minor is plain from the words [as he hath sworn unto thy fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.] But that was a promise of Ca∣naan, as appears from Gen. 12.7. & 13.15. & 15.8. & 17.8. & 22.17. & 26.3. & 28.13, 14. Deut. 34.5. and many passages in Moses his speech, Deut. 29.16, 21, 23, 24, 27. Deut. 30.2, 5, 9, 10, 16.18. and most evidently the conclusion of it, Deut. 30▪20. & 28.11. 2. The Cove∣nant

and Oath made then, was the same which was said to them before; Deut. 29.13. But that was the Covenant of the law in Horeb, Deut. 29.1. Now that was not essentially the Covenant of grace, as is proved before, sect. 43. 3. That Oath and Covenant which was of being God to them upon condition of their obedience to his laws given by Moses, that is not a pure Gospel covenant, but a legal, Rom. 10.5. Gal. 3.12. But such is this, Deut. 29.8, 29. & 30.2, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16. where the judicial and ••eremonial are meant as well as the moral. 4. That Oath and Cov••nant which had the legal threatnings annexed to it, was not a pure Gospel covenant, or essenti••lly the Covenant of grace, Gal. 3.10. Bu•• such was this, as appears from Deut. 29.20, 21, 25. & 30.18, 19. Ergo. What Mr. Ball hath written to prove Mr. Bs. position, I omit, 1. Be∣cause Mr. B. hath not set down the place. 2. Because I conceive Mr. B. hath produ••ed the chief. To the first, I answer by denying the major, and the proof of it; and aver, that since the fall God did enter into a Covenant with the Jews which was not in Christ upon terms of Gos∣pel grace. The minor is true, but God covenanted to be their God upon condition of their obedience to the law of Moses, as the words Deut. ••9.13. imply, that he may establish thee to day for a people to himself by keeping the laws according to the Covenant they entred into.

He adds. 2. That Covenant wherein the Lord promiseth to circum∣cise their hearts, and the hearts of their seed to love the Lord their God with all their heart, and with all their soul, that they may live, was a Co∣venant of grace; (for the Apostle to the Hebrews, ch. ••0.16, 17. so de∣scribes it:) But this was such a Covenant, as is written Deut. 30.6. Therefore this was a Covenant of grace.

Answ. Besides the exceptions following, it should be proved, that the promise, Deut. 30.6. was the Oath or Covenant mentioned Deut. 29.13, 14. and not rather an interlocutory promise on a special occasi∣on, to erect their hearts in expectation of mercy upon their return from captivity.

3. Saith Mr. B. That which St. Paul makes the words of the righte∣ousness of faith, was the Covenant of grace: But this is such, as is evident by comparing Rom. 10.6, 7, 8. with Deut. 30.12, 13, 14. But to this you give two sorry answers, being resolved to say somewhat. 1. [It is s••oken of the command.] Answ. 1. And is it not also of the promise foregoing? 2. And is not this from as great a mistake as the other, to think that Gods command is no part of his Covenant? That [he will be their God] is his promise: but is that all the Covenant? That [they shall be his people, and so take him for their God, and resign themselves to him] this is both com∣manded by him, and covenanted by them.

Answ. The answer was right that the speech of Moses, Deut. 30.12, 13, 14. however accommodated by Paul to another purpose, is meant of the word of the law, the commandments, and statu••es which were written in that very book of the law, v. 10. which Moses deliver∣ed, and it was nigh to them that they might hear it and do it: Which cannot be meant thus, Who shall ascend into heaven to bring Christ

from above, or who shall descend into the deep, that is to bring Christ again from the dead, that we may hear Christ thus brought down and up, and do it, it were not good sense, nor any way congruous to the speech of Moses. And to Mr. Bs. reply, 1. I say it is not spoken of the pro∣mise, for that is not a thing for us to hear and do, but for God. 2. Though the command may be a part of the Covenant in a large sense, as it includes all that pertains to a Covenant, yet in strict and exact sense, a Covenan•• being an aggregate of promises, the command is not part of the Covenant. 3. However it is no part of the Covenant and Oath which God sw••re Deut. 29.13. For what God sware was that which he would do, not what he appointed them to do, and consequent∣ly no part of the Covenant of grace, for that is of what God will do for us; our faith, though it be the condition of the thing promised, yet i•• it not the Covenant o•• grace. 4. The word, Deut. 30.14. cannot be meant of the Covenant of grace, sith the condition is the hearing and doing of all the law of Moses, that they might keep Gods commandments, and his statutes, and his judgements, (which reach to judicial, and c••re∣monial precepts, as well as moral) that thou mayest live and multiply, and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land, whither thou goest to possess it. Locus ille indubitante•• de obedien••ia totius legis loquitur. David Pa∣reus castig. Bellarm. tom. 4. degrat. & lib. arb. l. 5. c. 6.

2. Saith Mr. B.

You answer [it is frequent with the Apostle to accommodate words to his purpose that have a different sense in the places whence they were taken, from that to which the Apostle appli∣eth them, as Rom. 10.18.] Answ. A man would think here you plainly mean, that it is frequent with the Apostle to wrest and per∣vert the Scripture to his own ends from its true sense; and you can mean no better, except you mean that he alludeth to the words, ma∣king use of the meer phrase without the sense; and indeed that is usu∣al in common speech: and such is that, Rom. 10.18. But that he doth not barely allude to this in Deut. 30. is left undeniable. ••. He bring∣eth it in, v 6. as Gods description of the righteousness of faith, &c. having before said, Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, &c. 2. He addeth the very exposition to every sentence: [who shall ascend into heaven] that is, saith he, to bring Christ down from above? And who shall descend into the deep] that is to bring Christ again from the dead? 3. He fully expresseth it v. 8. But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, &c. that is, the word of faith which we preach, that if thou confess with thy mouth, &c. Is not here a full discovery, that the Apostle expoundeth, and not onely alludeth to these words? Name mee one place in the New Testament, that more evidently speaks in an expository way of any Text in the Old?

Answ. As much is said by the most godly and learned Protestant interpreters of this place as by me, and therefore if I be chargeable with accusing the Apostle of wresting and perverting the Scripture to his own ends from its true sense, they are likewise so chargeable. Beza annot. ad Rom. 10.8. By this term [the word] Moses understandeth the law

which God by his voyce published, all his people bearing, so that they might pretend no ignorance, when they had the tables of it described, and so might every one recite it out of their mouth, and might have it within as it were engraven in their knowledge and mind. But what Moses spake of the law, all that Paul accommodates to the Goppel by allusion: that at length by the Gospel he may teach us to enjoy that indeed which the law promiseth, and be f••eed from that which it threatneth. Diodati anno••. on Rom. 10.6. St. Paul maketh use of this passage though spoken in another sense. The new Annot. on Rom. 10.8. ••y the word, Deut. 30.14, Moses understood the law which the Lord published with his own voice, and Paul applies it to the preaching of the Gospel, which was the perfection of the Law. On v. 18. This place is taken out of Psal. 19.4. and is properly meant of that know∣ledge of God, which all men may have by contemplation of the heavens, and the c••eatures therein; yet it is by the Apostle very fitly applied to the sound of the word preached by the Apostles. ••rapp on Rom. 10.8. Moses meant it of the Law, but it more fitly agreeth to the Gospel Piscater analys. Pau∣lus alludi•• ad verba Mosis, Deut. 30.14. Willet on Rom. 10. qu. 10. Some think that Moses in that place, Deut. 30.12. directly speaketh of the law according to the literal sense; and St Paul by a certain allusion applieth that unto faith, which Moses uttereth of the law. So Theodoret, Chryso∣stome, Occumenius. Likewise Tostatus upon the place, Paul by a certain agree••ent hath translated this place, and applied it unto faith. Vatablus also saith, that Paul followeth not Moses sense, but some words. Yet Pa∣reus inclineth to think St. Paul here useth but an allusion to that place of Moses, dub. 6. Daniel Heinsius, Exercit. sacr. in Rom 10.6, 7. E Rom. 10.18 patet rerum esse quod non semel alibi ••••nuimus, sed & a magnis observatum Theologis, in epistolam praesertim ad Hebraos, meninimus; no∣vi faderis scriptores verba veteris & eleganter & venust non semel aliò tran••ferre. Quod tam usitatum est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ut vi•• ullus fi•• Homeri ver∣sus cu••us verba non mutato sensu usurpentur. In his autem quod Matthaeus, c. 2. v. 18. •• Jerem. 31.15. (quod & B. Hieronymus vult) usurpavit, neque pauca sunt in psalmis quae pro instituto suo Paulus maxima cum ve∣nustate usurpat. Qu••d nec mirum est, cum utrobique idem spiritus, qui tan∣quam propria ac sua, ante dicta usurpavit. And yet none of these Au∣thors did conceive Paul to have wrested and perverted the Scripture to his own ends from its true sense; nor doth my speech infer any such accu∣sation. Nor do I mean that Paul alludeth to the words, making use of the meer phrase without the sense; but that he accommodates words to his purpose, that have a different sense in the places whence they are taken, from that to which the Apostle applieth them, which is no wrest∣ing of them. To the reason of Mr. B. I answer. To the first, that I do not find that the Apostle v. 6. brings it in as Gods description of the righteousness of faith, but by a prosopopeia the righteousness of faith is brought in as directing the believer. To the second, it is true Paul ad∣deth the very exposition to every sentence, bu•• not an exposition of the Text in Deut. 30.12, 13, 14. but an exposition of the words of the righte∣ousness of faith as they are applied thence by the Apostle to his purpose. And yet plain Texts which are not so accomodated I cannot ••o put off as I will.

Your last answer, saith Mr. B. is the worst of all. You say, if the Covenant did contain promises purely Evangelical, yet the Covenant in respect of them cannot bee meant of all and every of the Israelites, that God would bee a God to them, that is, sanctifie, justifie, adopt them to bee heirs of eternal life.] Answ. 1. God saith you stand all here, &c. to enter into the Covenant, and oath, &c. And you say, it cannot be all, whom shall we believe God or you?

Answ. Both, for we say in this point the same, that some in the name of all did enter into Covenant, and his oath to be a God in them, and yet he not be a God to them all that entred into the Covenant, but to to them onely that kept the Covenant▪

2. Saith hee, You foully mis-interpret the promise, to bee to them a God, as if it were such as could bee verified to none but the elect. God hath p••omised to others to bee their God, who are not elect, as is undeniable in the text. Therefore in a larger sense, as I have before in due place fully explained it.

Answ. It is sure foul language to tell me I foully mis interpret the promis•• to be to them a God, when I interpret not at all t••e promise Deut. 29.13. but onely infer from Mr. ••s. interpretation of it as pure∣ly Evangelical (which I count false) that then it in respect of promi∣ses purely Evangelical should be meant onely of the elect, which I agree with him to be absurd. Nor is the matter salved by telling me that God hath promsed to others to be their God who are not elect, For however hee hath not promised to be a God in respect of promises purely Evangelical to be a God by sanctifying, justifying, adopting to eternal life, to any but the elect. Yet Mr. B. asks me.

And why may not God promise justification, adoption (and sanctification in the sense as Divines, and Scripture most use it, for the work following faith) and eternal life, and all on the condition of faith, and this to more then the elect? and hath he not done so? But of this and of infants condition before

Answ. 1. By sanctifying I meant the sanctifying by which faith is produced, which is the same with regeneration, writing the lawes in the heart, Heb. 10.16. and is used so 1 Cor. 1.30. & 6.11, &c. and thus he sanctifieth onely the elect, Ephes. 1 4. 2 Thes. 2.13. and I supposed Mr. B. had meant the same by circumcision of the heart, to love the Lord, Deut. 30.6. and that hee included it in the promise of being a God to them, Deut. 29.13. and this sure is proper to the elect, if Mr. B. say true, Friendly accommod. p. 362▪ Cor novum is given to the elect onely. And sure if Mr. B. did not mean this, he did not mean the Covenant of grace, or the Gospel covenant, in which this is the first promise, Heb. 10.16. 2. But let after-sanctification be onely meant, and justification condition of faith, yet I think the promise is made of these to none but the elect, ••ith none are believers but they. An offer may bee made to others by men, but no promise by which God is bound, and will performe it to any other. 3 If the Covenant bee on condition of faith, then it is not made to in∣fants, for they believe not. Nor is the promise made to infants

on condition of parents faith, for though Mr. B. dream so, yet the Scri∣pture saith not so, nor is it true. For 1. the promise should then be made to Esau as well as to Jacob in infancy, which the Apostle refutes Rom. 9, 11, 12, 13▪ 2. If the promise were made to infants upon their pa∣rents faith, then God is engaged to sanctifie them in infancy, and if so he doth it, and if he do, either holiness by sanctification of the spi∣rit may bee lost, or else they must all go to heaven, for all holy ones go thither, 3. The promise to the father is upon condition of his own faith, therefore so is the promise to the child, for there is not a dif∣ferent promise to the father and the child upon different conditions. But I hasten.

He adds. You would sain say somewhat too to that Deut. 30.6. but like the rest, 1. You confess it is a promise of spiritual grace, but to the Jewes after their captivitie, 2. ••nd upon condition of obe∣dience, 3. And not performed to all their seed, but onely to the elect.] Answ. 1. But did God promise spiritual grace to the Jews after the captivity and not before?

Repl. The promise Deut. 30.6. is to the Israelites to do it for them onely after their captivity, I said not after the captivity as Mr. B. speaks.

Was not the promise, saith he, made to them that then were?

Repl. It was.

Were not they, saith he; captivated oft in the time of the Judges, and so it might at least be made good then?

Repl. I grant it.

If God, saith he would do as much for them before they forsook him, and brake the Covenant by rebellion, as he would do afterward when they repented, then he would circumcise their hearts before as well as after: But the former is true, therefore the later.

Repl. I grant it, yet this proves not the promise as it is there Deut. 30.6. to be made to them of what God would do for them afore their captivity.

2. Saith hee, And if it bee on condition of obedience, then you confess there are conditional promises, and then it was made to more then the elect.

Answ. I deny the consequence.

3. Saith hee, If it were not performed to any but the elect, no wonder, when it was a conditional promise, and the rest performed not the conditi∣on: which God will cause the elect to perform.

Answ. Sure it was not promised to any but to whom God performs it. For though it were on a condition of theirs, yet it was such a con∣dition as was to be wrought and was promised by him, which hee did onely to the elect. And thus Mr. B. may see my vindication or my de∣scant on this text, and the Reader perhaps will wonder at the vanity and wilfulness of Mr. Bs. exceptions against it.