laid down as the ground of my argument thence First That the Jews did once belong to God as his visible Church This he grants to be true externally and that visible imports for what is visible is externall But why he addes typically I know not if he mean it that they were not so really but a shadow of visible Churches under the Gospel it s apparantly false if they were so really though therein they were a type weakens not the edge of my principle at all Second principle Though some elect among them Ver. â— 6. to 17. which were but a small remnant obtained mercy yet the body in generall was cut off and cast out of the honour and relation to be the people and kingdom of God This he grants Third principle That the Believing Gentiles are received into the place of the Jews cut of and so taken into the fellowship of believing Jews to partake of their priviledges and to be Gods house and kingdom with them This pincheth and here he addes qualifications 1. That as all the fleshly seed of Abraham were with reference to Canaan externally the visible kingdom of God so now all the spirituall seed of Abraham with reference to the new Jerusalem are spiritually the people of God and through profession of faith the visible kingdom of God 1 Pet. 2.4 5. But here first to let passe his expression of visible kingdom with reference to Canaan and spiritually the people of God with reference to the new Jerusalem which are new coined expressions without warrant out of the Word as also his misapplication of 1 Pet. 2.5 to the visible kingdom which expressely note the spirituall house to passe by these I say the verses quoted by me will make my principle good for ver 17. And if some of the branches be broken off and you being a wilde Olive tree were graffed in among them and with them partakest of the root and fatnes of the Olive tree is spoken to the body of the Gentiles that visibly profest christianity many of which were but chaffe with the wheat how can he then say it constrains no more but that the spirituall seed are by profession the visible kingdom Sith the chaffe had the same externall Church-state with the wheat that is the formall with the spirituall Christian It s true that the spirituall seed by profession of faith become the visible kingdom of God but is it not as true that among the Gentile yea and Jewish Professours there were many formalists yet they also were members of the visible kingdom with the spirituall seed His second qualification is That as the Jews had right to their priviledges by birth so now all the seed of Abraham Jews and Gentiles through faith have right to their priviledges not otherwaies But this is a most false assertion for priviledges of the seed of Abraham are either externall as to be of Gods visible kingdom and to have the outward seals or internall as remission of sins and the internall only they have by faith the externall they have by profession of faith as he himself confesseth in regard of visible Church-state here and elsewhere touching Baptisme now our dispute is about externall priviledges wherein his assertion is apparently and by his own principles false Fourth principle That the body of the Jews cast off shall be graffed in again and enjoy their pristine honour to be the people of God and the visible kingdom of Christ though not solely yet as fully nay more gloriously then before Hos 1.10 11. Hos 2.23 Rom. 11.25.26 This he grants but denies the conclusions from it The conclusions are 1. That when the Jews were in their first estate their children were comprehended in the Covenant with them This first he grants pag. 10. but withsome addition as they were a fleshly seed they were in Covenant with their parents but this is a corrupt addition for this makes the Covenant a fleshly Covenant only which is derogatory to it and the Saints under the old Testament 2. Conclus The Jews that obtained mercy kept their station and so must needs retain their priviledges for them and theirs ver 17. That is that they and their children should continue the visible kingdom of God Else a Jew should be a loser in his seed by the coming of Christ for they that before were within should after be without and denuded of that dignity which before they had 3. Conclus The believing Gentile succeeds the rejected Jews and becomes one visible kingdom with the Jews that kept their station and so must injoy their priviledge to belong to God with their seed 4. Conclus The Jews called recovering their pristine condition with advantage the promise will be extended to them and to their seed as Isa 59.20 And so must it be with the seed of Christian Gentiles else we make a partition wall under the Gospel Now to the three last conclusions M. Har. answers together by fained senses which he knows I intend not only to delude where he cannot answer for why should he inquire whether I mean by station place and promise Canaan and circumcision and other ceremonies pag. 11. that were peculiar parts of the Jewish administration Whereas I have exprest their station to be with their seed the visible Church or kingdom of Christ to whom pertaineth the adoption and to whom were committed the oracles of God Rom. 3.2 and to whom were vouchsafed all other priviledges of visible Church members And such among them as had the faith thâ—t they profest injoyed also the spirituall priviledges of remission of sins and sanctification c. but not these only And that the Jews in part standing still in part breaking of and the Gentiles graffing in is meant of a visible Church-state to injoy or loose visible priviledges in becoming or ceasing to be of Gods visible Church wherein the invisible is comprehended but not alone meant may be evidently demonstrated 1. The broken off onely fell from being members of a visible Church and lost visible priviledges only Rom. 11. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew for members of the invisible Church cannot fall away they are built upon the rock against which the gates of hell cannot prevail nor can their peculiar priviledges be lost Such gifts of God are like the seed 1 Pet. 1.23 Immortall 2. For the Jews that stood imbracing the profession of Christ many were but carnall Christians as appears in that the Churches received so much disturbance from them and so kept only outward Church-priviledges not inward graces 3. The Gentiles admitted were good and bad together gathered by the draw-net of the Gospel who all were of Christs visible kingdom and admitted to outward Church-priviledges from which the former were fallen but not all of them to invisible graces by all which it appears how falsely M. Harrison affirms that here is nothing spoken or meant of outward birth priviledges and that all is of such priviledges
lost Thus M. Tombes his army of arguments are routed and it is to be observed that in all his conclusions he leaves out the word onely which is the binge of the controversy for we not only doe not deny but also positively affirm that in some the ingraffing was by faith and election into the invisible as well as by calling and profession of faith into the visible So M. Marshall pag. 137. and 138. of his defence But where M. Marshall interpreâ—s it only of bare admission into visible Church-membership excluding the ingraffing into the invisible I professe I cannot finde and therefore believe M. Tombes hath in that imputation wronged him For the places that M. Tombes makes parallell 1 Cor. 12.13 Ephes 3.6 Gal. 3.14 26 28 29. They are so farre in my apprehension 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 synechdoche For let M. Tombes tell me doth he think all and every particular person Baptized in Corinth or Galatia were really ingraffed 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 profession 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 businesse The only objection of weight saith M. Tombes is that then some branches of the invisible Church are broken off and so election made revocable and apostacy from grace maintained This is an objection of weight indeed but not the only objection for there is another also as forcible hinted also by me pag. 18. where I affirm that the Apostle speaks not of particular persons but of the body 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 draw-net of the Gospel But how doth he answer the weighty objection 1. He boldly affirms That the breaking off was of the branches that were truly such and of the ingraffing 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 allay That by the branches are not meant singular persons but the people why then the people that were ingraffed 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 doe him That which is said of people in a body must be true in some particulars of that body so if the body of the people truly ingraffed into the invisible Church were broken off this must be true in some singular persons Besides how apparantly crosse is M. Tombes his assertion to the Apostle Rom. 11.1 2. Hath God cast away his people God forbid God hath not cast away his people that he foreknew So you see the people that make the â—nvisible Church are not broken off What M. Tombes addes afterward touching the body of a people which were once the elect people of God and ingrassed into the invisible Church because the generality were such that it 's no errour to say they are broken off from election I say first it is not good sense to say the body of a people is ingrafted into the invisible Church whereas the invisible Church is comprehended under a visible body as chaffe under wheat and to say a Church is broken off from that election which is speciall and to grace which was once elect and from being the invisible Church that was once the invisible Church is sure a most grand errour For speciall 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 The thing which occasioneth M. Tombes his errour is want of consideration of a distinction which M. Tombes very well knowes but thorow eagernes to maintain his tenet as I conceive doth not consider Election is either generall or speciall so is reprobation generall election and reprobation 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 chuse the Nation of the Iews Deut 4.3 7. 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 generall election is generall 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 Iews was only from this generall election and their reprobation generall to cease to be Gods visible people But now there is a speciall election of singular persons to be the invisible Church and this is never attributed to a visible body unlesse synechdochically and oft his we deny the broken off to be partakers of or to fall from The Apostle Rom. 11. divides the Church of the Iews into two bodies one the people that God foreknew the other opposite the one were of the invisible the other of the visible Church orly 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 they had not to wit to be of the invisible and therefore here his argute simile from the river Euphrates will not serve his turne for we enquire not here what the Israelites had been nor have we to doe with the species of Israel but with these numericall branches broken off The numericall branches graffed in mentioned by him for proof pag. 77. from ver 23 24. were not they graffed in his opinion into the invisible Church and then if in the same sense the numericall branches be broken off they be broken off from the invisible Church and then they fell from grace The Apostle shews 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 vertue of Gods generall election which then they lost and by this distinction of generall and particular election used by Calvin himself lib. 3. cap. 21. instit and Perkins on Revel 2.9 you may see the sense of your authours they speak as you say of the body of Jews and Gentiles and so the election and reprobation which they speak of is generall to be or not to be a
and after sets down his purpose and method to answer me only in his own way without reference to M. Tombes whom he hints to have a peculiar way of maintaining his tenent and then that he will set down the substance of each argument with its confirmation and so answer it But I doubt he will be found more fair in promise then in performance but to the tryall CHAP. III. Wherein my first ground for Infant-Baptisme from Gen. 17.7 Deut. 30.6 Act 2.39 is cleared from M. Harrisons exceptions MY first ground for Infant-Baptisme was drawn from Gen. 17.7 Deut. 30.6 Act. 2.39 Whence he proposeth the sum of the argument thus To whom the Gospel Covenant is extended in the Churches of Christians to them the Sacrament of initiation appointed for that administration of the Covenant viz. Bapt sme doth belong Act. 10 47. But to Infants of believing parents the Gospel Covenant is extended in the Churches of Christ Gen. 17.7 Deut. 30.6 Act. 2.39 This saith M. H. is the sum and what is further alledged in reference to M. Tombes his assertions that he saith he will leave to M. Tombes to make good But M. H. should have taken notice of those things brought for confirmation of this argument that concern not M. Tombes in particular but all opponents in generall as what I deliver at large for the sense of that place Gen. 17.7 pag 10 11 13 14. Wherein I explain and confirm our sense of childrens being in Covenant with their patents which he hath unfairly passed by without taking notice of but I will consider his answer which he gives in divers particulars First saith he I know of no Gospel Covenant but that spoken of Jer. 31.31 Quoted by the Apostle Heb. 10.16,17 But first what thinks he of that Gen. 12.3 In thee shall all the families of the earth be blest And the places cited by me doe not they speak of a Gospel Covenant at first Gen. 17.7 I will be they God and the God of thy seed Is not that a Gospel Covenant No saith M. H. pag. 8. There is nothing from the 6. to the 15. ver of Gen. 17. of a Gospel Covenant but only apromise of Canaan to Abraham and his fleshly seed and a duty to be circumcised as a token of that fleshly Covenant to be submitted to on Abrahams part and his fleshly seed But is this confident assertion true Is not I will be thy God a Gospâ—l-Covenant Are they not the same words which the Prophet useth in expressing the Gospel Covenant Jer. 31.33 I will be their God and they shall be my people Again is not the Covenant with Abraham ver 7. the same with that ver 4. of the same Gen. 17. and that a Gospel Covenant by the verdict of the holy Ghost Gal. 3.8 As Ames answers Bellarmine disputing just against all Protestants as M. H. doth against me Legimus Deum c. We read saith a Bellar. de sacr essectu Lib. â— cap. 17. Bellarmine that God when he injoined circumcision to Abraham did promise onely earthly things i.e. propagation of posterity and the land of Palestine And again b Ibid. Ero Deus tuus I will be thy God holds forth saith Bellarmine onely a promise of peculiar protection To whom Ames answers proving from Matth. 22.32 I am the God of Abraham And whence our Saviour gathers the resurrection to blisse that in these words I will be thy God ther 's a Gospel promise or Christ shuld have argue â—â— ut sillily from it Again is circumcision only a token of a fleshly Covenant How doth M. Har. again joyn with Papists against Protestants nay the worst of Papists for many Papists acknowledge circumcision to be a seal of grace but Bellarmine denies it of circumcision Bel. lib. 2. de essecta Saâ—r cap. 13. and all other Sacraments of the Jews with whom M. Har. joins in making circumcision in the institution of it onely a token of a fleshly Covenant Is this to come out of Babylon thus to side with Papists against Protestants in the doctrine of the Sacrament And how crosse is this to the Apostle making circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.11 Yea how plainly doth the Scriptures hint that the circumcision of the flesh was the Sacrament signe or seal of the circumcision of the heart See Deutronomy 30.6 Rom. 2.28 29. Col. 2.11 Again is nothing in Gen. 17. from ver 6. to 15. spoken of but onely a promise of Canaan to Abraham and his fleshly seed c. What thinks he of ver 12 13. where others then Abrahams fleshly seed were to be circumcised which had nothing to doe with Canaan And what saith he of Ismael to whom its certain the promise of Canaan did not belong It s strange M. Har. will let slip such grosse things in a way that he knowes they will be scanned and that a man who in shew is so against Popery should broach so much of it whether of ignorance or choise he best knowes Sure me thinks this should startle his followers to be misled into so apparant breach of their protestation which is to maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England against all Popery yet here and in other places following they are taught to speak the language of Rome against the Protestant doctrine maintained in the Churches of England But I proceed Neither were they saith M. Har. any otherwaies separated but externally and typically What was there not still an election among the Jews that were separated internally as I shewed pag. 11 Were not the Jews separated to be Gods visible Church and kingdom wherein the invisible Church is contained as wheat and the chaffe and by their externall separation were they not accounted children and partakers of all externall Church priviledges Rom. 9.45 from which aliens were exempt and counted as dogs without What is more apparant in the face of the Scripture then these things And is not thus much held forth Gal. 2.15 For was not a Jew then a name of Religion answering in that state of the Church to the name Christian now as appears plainly from Rom. 2.28 29 And are there not carnall and externall Christians now as there were Jews then as I have shewed pag. 14. and you must confesse unlesse you deny the Christian Church to harbour any hypocrites or carnall Christians contrary to daily experience and divers parables of our Saviour recorded Mat. 13. These things I have proved in my Answer to M. Tombes pag. 10 11 13 14. And therefoâ— to deny them without answer and affirm the contrary without proof is very beggarly disputing Now let us see whether Deut. 30.6 be not a Gospel Covenant Touching which M. Har. first saith he never heard any account that a Gospel Covenant But that may be because perhaps he accounts reading or consulting learned Divines consulting with flesh and blood and so shuns it 2. He saith If I had read over the first and second
verses and observed the condition I would have known it to be a branch of the Covenant made upon mount Sinai But I tell him more truly that if he had considered the matter of the promise he might have seen cleerly that it is a Gospel promise because it imports renovation by Gods spirit which Christ works on Christians under and by vertue of the Gospel Covenant Col. 2.10 11 12. Yea it imports the very same thing with that in Jer. 31.33 which M. H. here confesseth to be a Gospel Covenant Neither will his argument from the condition hinder for he should know that there was a double Covenant proposed to the Jews as is apparant Gal. 4.17 the one of grace begun to Abraham the other at mount Sinai 430 years after and this later is stiled by Divines faedus subserviens as he might have learned from M. Tombes pag. 102. A Covenant subservient to that of grace by discovering sin and misery and so need of Christ to draw or drive us to him So though God in the beginning speak after the phrase of the Law that was but to make way for the promise in the Gospel which he addes in the close above temporary blessings But now let us see what he saith to Acts 2.39 He boldly affirms that the promise to children is onely with reference to calling and so holds forth no more priviledge to a Christians then to the childe of a Turk This is boldly asserted but with little proof and with how little truth may thus appear 1. The promise mentioned must needs relate to some particular promise left upon record in the Word else Peter had spoken out of his own head which the Apostles neither did nor might doe Mat. 28.20 Act. 26.22 2. The articlé 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the promise notes some eminent promise and from the scope of the Sermon that promise is evident to be a branch of the Covenan◠of grace 3. That this promise did in a peculiar manner belong to the Jews and to their children That is they and their children were of those to whom the Covenant did primarily belong and to the Gentiles secondarily when God should call them according to that Gen. 12.3 So then the promise belonged to the Jews and to their children They and their children were children of the Covenant in act and in regard of outward right as it is Act. 3.25 26. To them pertained the Adoption and the Covenants Rom. 9.4 And so shall the Gentiles when called as Zacheus in joy the priviledges of the children of Abraham And thus the Apostle laid before them a good ground of comfort to finde pardon upon repentance because by their present Church-state they and their children were children of the Covenant which God would make good and upon repentance accept them so then here is a priviledge of children quâ children to be children of the Covenant else they are to no purpose nor with good sense here mentioned and that can be no other then to be faederati with their parents which all confesse in some sense to be so under the old Testament according to which dispensation the Apostle there speaks But by the way pag 7. M. Har. drops us a distinction The Gospel Covenant saith he may be extended to persons visibly or invisibly and he denies Infants to be visibly within the Covenant But I answer if he mean by visibly knownly or that which we know to be so by evidence of Scripture then I say Infants are known to be within the Gospel Covenant with their parents which I have proved by those testimonies that yet speak aloud for all his gag which was either too short or too weak but if by visible be means that which is known to the eie only then his positions are false For why should not any demonstrations to reason evidencing a persons being within Covenant be as good a ground for Baptisme as those that are ocular only As for that which he saith that Infants before Baptisme are not of the visible Church by confession of all Whence he would gather a contradiction in my words pag 7. It s but a weak fancy for all but Anabaptists acknowledge Infants of Church-members to be of the visible Church in regard of right and so the seal may be challenged for them as well as for those grown up that are converted to whom the Covenant belongs Baptisme being a seal to confirm that right which we are supposed to have in and by the Covenant And thus I have done with M. Harrisons reply to my first argument CHAP. IIII. Wherein the Argument for Infants Baptisme from their being confederates with their parents is cleared from exceptions taken against it by M. Tombes in his Apology pag 40. 47. and the expression of the directory vindicated BEfore I passe to the second argument I shall think it needfull to examine some things published by M. Tombes in his late Apology to puzzle this argument drawn from those places that shew children to be confederates with their parents pag. 40. to 47. Where M. Tombes affirms that the argument which M. Marshall D. Homes and M. Geree being for Baptizing Infants is either a tautology or equivocation The proof he promiseth he eafter when he shall have liberty to examine their intangled discourses Great words but how just I shall shew in my own particular which will be a clearing of my brethren also Having pag. 10. produced the place Gen. 17.7 I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee To finde out the meaning of this place I inquire first what the priviledge is Secondly what the extent of it is For the matter of the priviledge I shew out of Calvin that the Church was setled in Abrahams family and the Israelites Abrahams posterity became the house and sheepfold of God and had the priviledge of adoption belonging to them in common Rom. 9.4 To whom pertained the adoption And so by a birth-priviledge they were severed from others Gal. 2.15 we who are Jews by nature But now among those that had this priviledge of common adoption to be reputed children there were alwaies to be some separated by the secret election of God made partakers of sanctifying and saving graces and so really the children of God In comparison of whom the other I sratlites are sometimes spoken of as no sennes of Abraham Rom. 9.6 7. though externally they were the children of the Kingdom and in reference to the Gentiles are so stiled Cant. 8.11 12. So then the priviledge is that he would be a God to Abraham and all the seed in regard of externall denomination and internall priviledges of a visible Church and to the elect in regard of spirituall Adoption grace and glory After pag. 12. I examining M. Tombes his exammation of M. Marshals second conclusion which M. Tombes desputes against as though it
held forth that all infants of believers are so in Covenant with their parents as to have saving graces intayled on them which I say is not onely against Protestants principles but believed by M. Tombes himself not to be M. Marshals meaning from pag. 142. of his examen And then pag. 13. I plainly and distinctly lay open our meaning when we say children are in Covenant with their parents That as it was with the people of Israel by vertue of the Covenant made with Abraham That the fathers with the children became Gods visible Church and so intitled to and enjoyed the visible priviledges of adoption oracles seals Rom. 9 4 5. And the elect among them enjoyed the visible grace which was to be presumed of all in charity till they discovered the contrary So now we conceive that under the Gospel by vertue of the same Covenant into the participation of which Christians are assumed believers with their freedom â—ake up the visible Kingdom of Christ and enjoy outward Church-priviledges And the elect among them enjoy those things in truth which others only have externally and in profession And this is to be presumed of all Infants of believers till they discover the contrary And thus have they right to the seal of initiation And in this sense are you to take the passage quoted by you out of the Directory That the promise is to believers and to their seed c. Thus were my expressions in my vindiciae Now I referre it to the judgement of the learned whether M. Tombes had any cause to complain for want of distinctnes in expression or whether he doth deal ingenuously in taking part of my words pag. 43. of his Apology to make them found harsh and absurd or had cause from my words to question whether making a Covenant were all one with a charitable presumption with such like groundles expressions for want of solid matter of confutation Neither had be ground to say that none would expound the words of the Directory as I doe but he that would make mens words like a nose of wax if he take my exposition whole as I have laid it down above not lamely as he hath unfairly represented it For I conceive the expressions of the Directory were used with reference to the expressions of Scripture Now the expressions in Scripture Gen. 17.7 Rom. 9.4 to whom pertained the Covenants Act. 3.25 Yea are the children of the Covenant must and usually are expounded as I have expounded them And then it s no violent but a charitable yea a rationall interpretation of the words of the Directory to give them that sense which we give to the places of Scripture whence they are drawn The Covenant that the Jews were under none deny to be a Covenant of grace and of a Covenant of grace speak Rom. 9.4 Act. 3.25 and this Covenant being in these places attributed to visible Churches all were under the Covenant that is truly stiled a Covenant of grace But all are not under it in the same sense nor to enjoy thereby priviledges of the same quality but some onely externally and reputatively and enjoy thereby externall Church-priviledges a name to be sons a name to live Revel 3.1 and others to enjoy inward graces really And therefore Infants of believers may be said to be under the Covenant of grace and yet no necessity to take it in that sense that it is in regard of saving graces But in that sense as it would and must have been taken if it had been uttered touching children of believing Jews when I think none would have stumbled at it that they are so under that Covenant that is the Covenant of grace as to be reputed children and to be accounted of Gods visible Church entitled to his seals and other externall Church-priviledges The Argument that M. Tombes urgeth to prove that the words of the Directory mean that children are so under the Covenant of grace as to have a promise of saving grace pag. 42. of his Apology are as strong against the true and necessary interpretation of the Scriptures cited therefore they be but mistakes For Gen. 17.7 is meant of naturall seed not soirituall onely and then God was in one sense the God of Abraham and in another the God of his seed at least some of them M. Tombes confesseth pag. 76. of his Apology that the same word is used in divers senses Rom. 11.17 Joh. 15.2 so that the taking of one word in divers senses in one and the same sentence need not so much offend him And the instruction for doctrine and the instruction for petition may well be thus accorded That those to whom the Covenant of grace doth externally belong for as they are reputed of the visible Church and to have adoption belonging to them Rom 9.4 and so to have right to the seals may by the goodnes of God in blessing his Ordinance be really partakers of the saving graces promised and so enjoy the highest priviledge of the Covenant of grace internally and really But saith M. Tombes the whole series of the direction in the Directory carries the meaning thus to wit that the Covenant that children are under is the Covenant of saving grace I answer It s true that the Covenant that belongs to children is the Covenant of grace but so is the Covenant mentioned Rom. 9.4 Act. 3.25 But the query is in what sense and in what respect they are said to be under this Covenant of grace that is no otherwise then Jewish children were all to receive a visible Church estate to be of Christs visible Kingdom the elect to partake of grace indeed And therefore I see no cause why this part of the doctrine of the Directory should cause disquiet to the Church of God when the offence may be removed by a fair interpretation whereto good reason may lead us and charity binde us I think with M. Tombes that it is great honour to acknowledge and amend errours that are indeed such But this is an honour that I think few will conceive M. Tombes ambitious of not with banding his good counsell to others that shall read his Apology wherein he shall scarce finde any acknowledgement of errour in the manner of handling his controversy though I may boldly say genera singulorum if not singula generum for he tells of one in this Apology pag. 16 that told him his sharpnes was usefull of such as look into Books judged him not a little faulty in the manner of prosecution of this controversy with M. Marshal and others CHAP. V. Wherein my second Argument for Infant Baptisme from Rom. 11.11 12 13 17 18. is cleared from M. Harrisons exceptions TOuching my second Argument drawn from Rom. 11.11 c. M. Harrison first complains that it is confused not syllogisticall It s rare for a man of his quality to complain for want of syllogismes being usually they have the better scope to evade Then he examines my four principles
as belong to the spirituall seed Indeed there be spirituall priviledges belonging to the elect Christian whether of Jews and Gentiles and so much the verses quoted by M. H. import but that 's not all as I have shewed neither should a Christian Infant only loose shadowes to be expunged out of the visible Church or kingdom of Christ Sith they that are out of that pale are visibly without God and without hope a sad condition to put Infants into and to the Parents grievous Yet one thing more I must needs touch and it is pag. 10. If he mean saith M. Harrison that whereas before they were but externally Gods people and children now the externall shadowes viz. Canaan being done away they were by faith partakers of the substance Christ and so were the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus I grant they kept and bettered their station Here M. Harrison speaks as though the Israelites while Canaan and other shadowes stood were but externally the people of God nor were partakers of Christ the substance which is a most erroneous and hereticall opinion injurious to the Saints of old contrary to the expresse Word of God that tells us that Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Christ John 8.56 And how but by faith and so did all godly Israelites What faith was it but a true living justifying faith whereby those worthies did so great things and obtained a good report And had not many of the Jews yea all that were godly a justifying faith before Christ was preacht to them by the Apostles who thereby had not wrought in them a now grace of faith but the faith they had was new circumstanced directed to look to the person of Christ Jesus as the true Messiah already come whereas before they relyed indefinitely on the Messiah promised to come as is to be seen in Lydia Act. 16.14 So in Simeon and Anna Luk. 2. And therefore I shall desire M. Harrison in such points to speak more truly or more warily or else to forbear writing books till he be better grounded in Divinity And thus I have cleared my second argument CHAP. VI. Wherein the Argument for Infant-Baptisme from Rom. 11.11 12. c. is cleared from M. Tombes his exception in his Apology pag. 69-77 MAster Tombes pag. 69. of his Apology saith I goe upon Rom. 11.11 12. and somewhat more distinctly then M. Marshall yet he complains for my want of syllogizing from it But that methinks is a needles complaint by a Scholar when fair mediums for syllogisme are held out neither doe I think it needfull so supersticiously to tie a mans self to rules of art when by reason of variety of mediums various syllogismes must be made which if needles so much time and paper may be spared yet sith he expects it I will now satisfy his desire The conclusion which I say and he denies not to be proved was that the children of Christians have the same priviledge with children of Jews as they were comprehended so under the Covenant with their parents as to be reputed members of the same visible kingdom and to be sealed with them this he denies this I shewed ground for by four cleer principles and conclusions from that Rom. 11.11 c. from which I now syllogise thus That Church-state and those outward Church-priviledges which the Jews had by vertue of a pure Gospel-promise that the Christian Jews retained but that the Jews and their seed should be Gods visible Church and injoy cutward Church-priviledges was a benefit that they had by a pure Gospel-Covenant Ergo the major is clear from ver 17. of Rom. 11. whence my second conclusion is proved that the Jews that obtained mercy 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 vertue of that the Jews had this Church state that they and their seed were the visible Church of God and injoied outward Church-priviledges Ergo. Again thus What Gospel-priviledge 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 injoy outward Church-priviledges was a Gospel priviledge belonging to the Jews before their fall Ergo The major is clear from Rom. 11.25 26. Hos 1.10 11. 2.23 By which my fourth principle which is in effect the major here confirmed The minor appears For by being Gods visible kingdom Christ and all his benefits were offâ—red to them all and made good to the elect which ordinarily were among them and none else and therefore this was a Gospel-priviledge being it conduced to salvation Again thus What Church-state and priviledges belonged to the Christian Jews in Pauls time and shall belong to the body of the Jews 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 major is my third principle grounded on Rom. 11.17 And thus I have Answered M. Tombes his desire with syllogismes Now what saith he to all this why 1. If I mean by the Gentiles assumed into the place of the Jews out of the same Church-state and by partaking of priviledges the priviledges belonging to the Church-state it is denyed I Answer I doe mean the same Church-state and Church priviledges that are not typicall and this is plainly-proved by Rom. 11.17 they are in their place in the Olive and so must injoy at least what they had neither hath he nor can he disprove it for though he hold the ingraffing is more then into the visible Church yet he denies not that they had thereby a visible Church-state too pag. 71. Neither saith he is a believing Jew a loser in his seed by the coming of Christ Sith this was a peculiar priviledge in the time of that Church-state which now ceaseth to be a priviledge which he saith he hath further discust Examen part 3.6 11. which I have viewed again and there finde 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 typicall is shewed or can be 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 stiffely denyed and which we assert as the ground of the seal annext to it Neither saith he will there be two distinct estates one of the Jews of holy fathers and children another of Gentiles who have only personall