priviledge none for their seed But by his leave this will follow unlesse he grant that the promise or Covenant is to Christian Gentiles and their seed too and if he grant that whether the seal of initiation will not follow the Covenant I leave to be weighed by proofs set down in their places And unlesse he grant this priviledge to Christian Gentiles there will follow a partition wall thus far to make distinct conditions of persons under the Gospel contrary to Ephes 2.14 where Christ hath made Jews and Gentiles equall From me M. Tombes proceeds to M. Marshall pag 7. Where he saith the chief difference is whether the ingraffing be into the invisible Church by election and faith as M. Tombes affirmed To which M. Marshall replies that if it be meant of the invisible Church only and all that are ingraffed in the Apostles sense whether Jews and Gentiles are only elect ones Then will he promise never to plead this Scripture more for Infants This motion M. Tombes accepts but in the repetition that the ingraffing is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith he leaves out the word onely wherein the whole emphasis of M. Marshalls offer lyes He tells us again that the same people were ingraffed into the visible Church but the ingraffing is more then that which is into the visible Church by outward profession and Qrdinances But what is this but what M. Marshall and my self have again and again asserted that it s meant of making all to be of the visible Church that professe and those to be of the invisible Church that are elect and truly believe and this is enough to carry the cause that at least the elect Gentiles by ingraffing obtained the visible Church-state of the broken off and so they and their children are in Covenant as the broken off were And therefore I should not be so liberall in my grant as M. Marshall to M. Tombes in this wherein he is an adversary M. Tombes brings many arguments to prove that the ingraffing is meant into the invisible Church by election and faith which I shall examine and discover if he put in the word onely they are too light if not they reach not the question the thing in question only first I will premise an observation That it is an usuall thing in Scripture when it speaks of visible Churches though it is apparant they did consist of good and bad to give attributes that are to be understood only of the elect and invisible part either because of the same profession of goodnes that all make or synechdochically naming the better part for the whole thus in the inscriptions of S. Pauls Epistles All the members of visible Churches are tearmed Saints and peculiarly 1 Thes 1.5 Knowing beloved your election of God So the seven Churches of Asia are tearmed golden candlesticks May we hence truly gather that there were none in any of the Gentile Churches but Saints and that all the Angels and members of the seven Churches of Asia were golden He of Sardis and all that had a name to live and were dead Revel 3.7 Surely no but those things are attributed to visible Churches because of the elect among them yet were not the elect only spoken to or of even so many of the expressions from which M. Tombes argues are peculiar to the elect not that no non-elect persons had among them a standing in the visible Church and not in the invisible but the expressions are used synechdochically the more noble part put for the whole but now to the particulars That the ingraffing is into the invisible Church only 1. Because it is by Gods sole power Rom. 11.23 I answer the ground is weak for no man can give a man power so far to believe as to professe especially one blinded and hardened of God but God alone and was not the visible Church-state of the Jews when all other Nations were without an act of Gods power only nor could it be by man So then also their re-ingraffing though many come to be members of a visible Church only 2. He argues because the ingraffing is called reconciliation opposite to casting away ver 15. which is called breaking off ver 17. But this also is too weak for the casting away and breaking being but a losse of what they had that is visible priviledges the reconciliation might be and in many Gentiles was but a vouchsafing them a visible Church estate no longer to be reputed dogs as they had been 3. He argues from ver 20. By unbelief they were broken but thou standest by faith I answer The elect by faith and profession was both in the invisible and visible Church the formall by appearance of faith stood in mens esteem and as members of the visible Church And to this purpose Calvine part of whose speech you afterward applaud Pracipuè notandum Pauli sermonem non tam ad singulos homines quam ad totum Gentium corpus dirigi in quo multi esse poterant frustra inflat fidem potius profitentes quà m habentes 4. He argues from ver 17. That ingraffing is meant whereby the wilde O live is copartner of the root and fatnes of the Olive tree and then much stir is kept what the root is But I answer If the Olive give fatnes I know no other Olive but he that is the vine into whom all Christian Gentiles were ingraffed by profession and the elect of them by faith really also and hence this expression ver 17. in regard of what in profession and shew belonged to all and in reality was verified of the better part the elect 5. He argues because the breaking off is by blinding but that is weak for then ingraffing may be by illumination to profession which may be without election Heb. 6.4 5 6. 6. He argues because reingraffing brings salvation but that is to some of the ingraffed not all unlesse he thinks at the Jews restauration there shall be none of them formalists and hypocrites 7. He argnes because the ingraffing is by vertue of Gods election his love his gifts of calling ver 30 31 32. But I answer the election love and gifts being such here as belong to bodies or nations it is not such as M. Tombes means which is election unto salvation by faith Sith that belongs not to whole bodies or Nations or not to all of them and so is attributed in regard of the better part 8. Lastly because the ingraffing is the fruit of Gods mercy and breaking off by shutting up in unbelief But neither is this last cogent sith there is generall mercy to make members of a visible Church as well as speciall to make members of the invisible and their unbelief was not only want of saving faith but historicall faith to professe which later if they had had they had not been broken off and therefore they that have it are ingraffed into their rooms to injoy that visible standing which for want of it they
of water to signe parties to be initiated into the Christian Church as circumcision was in use in the Jewisn Church without expresse warrant from Scripture But in deciding the extent of the circumstance of the person or subject to be initiated under the Gospel there implicit warrant may suffice for of the more weight and importance any thing is the more cleer warrant are we to expect for it Now the being of an Ordinance in the Church is of more consequence then a part of that subject to which it is to be applyed And therefore his discourse about John the Baptist and pag 2. is here uslesse as in it self it is to me nonsence Neither did I adde in vain That when we have Baptisme appointed as a Gospel Ordinance to whomsoever we finde by ground in Scripture that it doth of right belong there we may apply it This I say is not vain unlesse he can pâ—ove it false which he therefore indeavours pag. 3. Where he saith by grounds and principles in Scriptures I mean such as are taken out of the old Testament But he might have remembred that of all the six grounds brought by me to cleer the title of beleevers Infants to Baptisme onely one of them is fetcht out of the old Testament the other five are out of the New Therefore I cannot mean onely nor chiefly grounds out of the old Testament that was therefore but a fetch to put an ill glosse upon a good position but I say indeed afterwards That the Scriptures of the new Testament have a sufficieny to direct in Gospel Ordinances yet not without taking in some grounds and principles from the old Testament which M. Tombes acknowledgeth in the Christian Sabbath but for this M. H. is confident to make me of another minde But sure his confidence doth exceed his skill But saith he this position is so derogatory from the Kingly and Propheticall office of Christ pag. 3. But I would know of him whether Christ were not a King and a Prophet to the Jewish as well as to Christian Churches And whether that instruction that the Church had by penmen of Scriptures under the old Testement were not by vertue of Christs mediation as well as that under the new And if so what derogation is it from Christ to take in some grounds out of the old Testament sith these former revelations were from him also And is not Christ a perfect law-giver if he adde to the Scriptures of the old Testament so much as Gospel-administration doth require Doe the Scriptures of the new Testament give sufficient direction about usurâ— incest c. without taking in something from the Scriptures of the old It is therefore sufficient to make Christ a perfect Law-giver and as faithfull as Moses that he hath added in the Scriptures of the new Testament whatsoever was needfull to be added to his own revelations in the Scriptures under the Old And if he affirm that Christ cannot be accounted a perfect Law giver and Prophet or faithfull as Moses Vnlesse all commands and Ordinances that concern Christians be as fully and plainly exprest in Scripture of the new Testament without any light from the Old as the Ordinances of the Jews were by Moses Surely he will be found the accuser of Christ not I. For were the pattern of the Gospel as full and plain as that of the Law I say not how should the Assembly of Divines be so long in finding it But how should those that it may be you more respect be so backward to give in their modell Sure it would neither have required much time nor pains to have given a modell of Leviticall Ordinances order and Descipline And therefore let M. Har. take heed lest by inconsiderate speaking for Christ he lay down false grounds to condemn him For proof of my assertion That we must take in some ground from the Scriptures of the old Testament for our direction in the use of â—ospel-ordinances I instance in the Christian Sabbath where M. Tombes confesseth it pag. 28. He answers he findes no such thing in that page of M. Tombes his book But I say it is for want of sight for doth not M. Tombes distinguish there of Gospel worships or Ordinances that some are positive onely consisting in outward rites and others are in part morall And in these later they allow an institution or command in the old Testament as obligatory to Christians Is not this the thing which I affirmed But now let us see M. Har. plaister He saith it maketh nothing for the purpose whether we consider a rule for one day in seven which is naturall and morall instituted in paradise Where first he speaks unscholarly naturall instituted in Paradise for naturall and instituted worship are two opposite things If naturall then it was not instituted If instituted then not naturall The truth is there is a double morall 1. Naturâ 2. Ex instituto That time be set apart for the Worship of God is morall by nature But that such a proportion of time as one day in seven be consecrated to God that is morall by institution being instituted in Paradise before sin or ceremony But how could we have known this institution but by Moses his relation So then we could not know that it is an Ordinance of the Gospel to observe one of seven holy unto the Lord without that Ministry performed by Moses Again it being a Cospel ordinance that every first day of the week be kept holy to the Lord I would fain know of M. Harrison where he can finde direction for the manner of fanctifying this day without recourse to the old Testament If not I have proved what I intended that for direction in some Gospel ordinances we are to fetch light from the old Pestament My second instance is in excommunication for which we have expresse warrant yet some circumstances as who may apply it and to whom are not so exoresse but they are colligeable from generall grounds of Scripture Here M. Harrison saith pag. 5. He knowes not what I mean by so expresse But he might know that I am by this instance making it good that expresse warrant in Scripture is not requisite in all particular circumstances of Gospel ordinances but implicit from generall grounds may serve in some herein paralleling excommunication with Baptisme in the subject or persons to whom they are to be applied But he saith be shall easily prove that Christ hath left direction sufficient for this particular without sending us to Moses He should have said without sending us to the Scriptures of the old Testament or rather have exprest neither here where indeed the question is onely whether Christs direction for the persons excommunicating and to be excommunicated be explicit which if he can easily prove notwithstanding the difference of men so learned and godly about them its pity he had not been Prolocutour of the Assembly But for the persons in whom the authority of convening examining judging
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
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