you thus expresse ANother you shall finde Mat. 28. where our Saviour bids them goe and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost Where you have two things first what they were to doe Secondly to whom they were to doe it they were to preach and teach all things which he had Commanded them that is they were to Preach the whole Gospel Mark 16.15 The whole Covenant of grace containing all the promises whereof this is one viz. That God will be the God of Believers and of their seed that the seed of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents this is a part of the Gospel preached to Abraham The Gospel which was preached to Abraham is delivered Galat. 3.8 9. And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham saying In thee shall all Nations be blessed so then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham And Rom. 1.16 17. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ for it is the power of God to salvation to every one that beleeveth to the Jew first and also to the Greeke For therein is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to faith as it is written the just shall live by faith The like may be proved out of Rom. 10. and elsewhere but it is no wrong to say it that it is a new Gospel to affirme that this is one of the Promises of the Covenant of grace that God will be the God of Believers and of their seed that the seed of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents I cannot derive it's pedegree higher then Zuinglius But you goe on And they were to baptize them that is to administer Baptisme as a seale of the Covenant to all who received the Covenant this is a dark Paraphrase you expresse it clearer pag. 35. Expresse Command is there that they should teach the heathen and the Jewes and make them Disciples and then baptize them If your meaning be the same in both places I am content you should Comment on your own words you goe on Secondly Wee have the persons to whom they were to do this all Nations whereas before the Church was tyed to one Nation one Nation onely were Disciples now their Commission was extended to make all Nations Disciples every Nation which should receive the faith should be to him now as the peculiar Nation of the Jewes had been in time past In a word Nations here are opposed to the one Nation before I grant that Nations are opposed to one Nation and that thâ— Commission was extended to all Nations which you expresse well pag. 44. Whereas before they were to goe to the lost sheepe of the house of Isâ—ael now they were to goe unto all the world But what sense those woâ—ds may carry Every Nation which should receive the faith should be to him now as the peculiar Nation of the Jewes had been in time past is doubtfull For either it may have this sense Every Nation that receives the faith that is Believers of every Nation shall be to mee a peculiar people as the Jewes were in the sense that Peter speaks 1 Pet. 2.9 and so the sense is good or thus When a Nation shall receive the faith that is a great or eminent part the Governours and chief Cities representative body shall receive the faith that Nation shall in like manner have all their little ones capable of Baptisme and counted visible members of the Church as the posteritie of the Jewes were in the time of that Church administration This I guesse is the businesse that is now upon the anvill by observing â—undry passages in latter Writers with whom your Sermon agrees as if it came out of the same forge Mr Blake pag. 20. hath these words In the same sense and latitude as Nation was taken in respect of the Covenant of God when the Covenant and Covenant-initiating-Sacrament was restrained to that one onely Nation where their Commission was first limited in the same sense it is to be taken unlesse the Text expresse the contrary now this Commission is enlarged This cannot be denied of any that will have the Apostles able to know Christs meaning by his words in this enlarged Commission But Nation then as is confessed did comprehend all in the Nation in respect of the Covenant and nothing is expressed in the Text to the contrary therefore it is to be taken in that latitude to comprehend Infants Mr Rutherfurd in his peaceable and temperate plea Ch. 12. Concl. 1. Arg. 7. hath these words Seeing God hath chosen the race and nation of the Gentiles and is become a God to us and to our seede the seede must be holy with holinesse of the chosen Nation and holinesse externall of the Covenant notwithstâ—â—â—ing the father and mother were as wicked as the Jewes who slew the Lord of glory And indeed those Paedobaptists are forced to say so who justifie the practise of baptizing foundlings infants of Papists excommunicate persons Apostates if they be borne within their Parish thereby directly crossing their own tenent That this is the priviledge of a believer from the Covenant of grace I will be the God of a believer and his seed And the Apostles words 1 Cor. 7.14 according to their own exposition which is that the children whereof one of the parents is not sanctified by the faith of the other are federally uncleane nor considering that this practise of baptizing all in the Parish arose not from any conceit of the federall holinesse of a Nation but from the conceit of Cyprian with his 66 Bishops that the grace of God is to be denied to none that are borne of men upon which ground and the necessitie of baptisme to save a childe from perishing as of old so still among the common people and officiating Priests children are baptized without any relation to Covenant-holinesse particular or nationall But I leave this to the Independents to agitate who have in this point the advantage and returne to the Text Mat. 28.19 Concerning which the question is what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or them refers to in our Saviours words whether all Nations must be the substantive to it without any other circumscription or the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men and women as the Author of infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scriptures or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples included in the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be translated make Disciples That Author denies not but that the verbe may signifie to make Disciples yet by the subject matter which it is here taken and used to expresse it must be taken for to teach and not to make Disciples because to mâ—ke Disciples was not in the power of the Apostles upon whom the command lay it being the peculiar of God to frame the heart to submit unto and embrace the Apostles teaching and to
be under the first member of the division in the text It is a strange speech that he shâ—uld contend to prove this The seed of believing Gentiles are Jews by nature born to be circumcised and to keepe Moses law But let it be granted that they are called sinners in the sense he would have it thaâ— is out of the Covenant as it is said Ephes. 2.12 the question is in what sense the Gentiles were without the Covenant and the Jewes in It is certaine the Jews had by Gods appointment the priviledge of circumcision and the Covenant made with Abraham did beloâ—g to them in speciall manner and the Oracles were with them Rom. 9.4 5. and the Covenant of Saving-grace was among them till they were by unbeliefe broken off and that the Gentiles were dogs uncleane persons aliens from the commonwealth of Israel without God without Christ c. And so it may be granted that the Jews had a birth privledge though it is certaine that their birth did not intitle them to the Covenant of grace and that the common priviledge of circumcision belonging to the Jews did not arise from the Covenant of grace accotding to the substance of it but according to the admiâ—istâ—ation that then was nor was a fruit of the faith of the parents but of Gods appointment according to the dispensation of his will in that time of the churches minoritie but he that will prove that therâ—fore our children have such a birth priviledge because the Jews had must make our case as the Jews and so bring us under the Ceremoniall law But of this wee shall have occâ—sion hereafter to â—peake more fully onely by the way I thought it necessary to say so much because Master Vines referres us to Master Blakes Sermon as a learned treatise and I heard it in like manner magnified by Master Calamy and therefore have thought it necessary some where or other to â—xamine what hath any seeming strength in it And for the same reason I take notice of that speech of Master Blake page 11. Singular opinions put men upon singular interpretations which may as truely be verified of himselfe as of his adversaries in that which occasioned him so to speake Another booke lately published being the treatise of one Mr. William Cook and commended by Master Francis Woodcocke one of your Assembly as I conceive in the 62. page of it saith Whoever before but Bâ—llarmine or such Iesuiticall interpreters of Scripture tooke it so putting uncleane for bastards or holy for legitimate And in the Margin Note Reader that this is Bellarmines interpretation and after whether A. R. borrowed this answer of Bellarmine or invented it of himselfe as it is the happinesse of the good wits and holy affections of Iesuiticall and Anabaptisticall heads and hearts to jump in the same thing let others judge Mr. Woodcock had done well to have left out this passage For first although I have not now Bellarmines book by me to examine whether it be his interpretation or no yet I perceive by Chamier Panstr Cathol tom 4. lib. 5. cap. 10. § 55. who saith thus Hoc observato Bellarminum e tribus quas enumerat non iudicare quam cui praeferat quasi nihil interessâ—t This being observed that Bellarmine of the three senses which he reckons doth not shew which he preferres as if it were of no behoofe That that Author did not well heed Bellarmine when he makes it his opinion because he numbers it amongst other opinions Secondly that Authour not only erroneously but also otherwise in an unfitting way makes it a Jesuiticall interpretation only whereas he might have perceived that Bellarmine cites others then Jesuites for that interpretation and if he be not to be believed yet Chamier might be believed who saith in the same place § 50. Sic Ambrosium Thomam Anselmum exposuisse hunc Suarez appellat literalem sensum That Ambrose Thomas Anselme so expounded it and this Suarez cals the literall sense And before Bellarmine Musculus in his Commentarie on 1 Cor. 7.14 alleageth Ambrose and Hierome so expounding it and confesseth that though he had abused formerly that place against the Anabaptists yet he found that of matrimoniall sanctification and sanctity to be the right sense And Melancthon and Camerarius doe expound it of legitimation Gagnaeus Parisiensis in loc also so expounds it and Osiander Enchir. controv cum Anabap. c. 2. q. 3. Mariana schol in loc And as for that of Foederal holinesse I have rather reason to conceive it to be a new exposition the Ancients expounding it otherwise None that ever I met with expounding it of federall holinesse till the controversie of the Anabaptists in Germanie arose You say But this cannot be the meaning I clearly prove by these foure arguments First uncleannesse and holinesse when opposed one to the other are never taken for civilly lawfull Nor do I like the calling of it civill holinesse for it is not from the lawes of men but the institution of God and therefore I rather call it matrimoniall holinesse You say Vncleanesse indeed when opposed to cleanesse may be taken in severall senses An unclean vessel an unclean cloth an unclean garment when opposed to clean may signifie nothing but dirty or spotted but when uncleanâ—sse is opposed to holinesse it is alwayes taken in a sacred sense referring to a tabernacle use to a right of admission into or use in the tabernacle or temple which were types to us of the visible church and holinesse is alwayes taken for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred uses It is hard for you to make good nor is it materiall for me to disprove that which you say That when uncleanesse is opposed to holinesse it is alwayes taken in a sacred sense referring to a tabernacle use to a right of admissiâ—n into or use in the tabernacle or temple which were types to us of the visible church For if it were true yet the sense I give might stand good sith uncleanesse for bastardy might be taken allusively to the tabernacle if the exclusion of bastards from the congregation of the Lord were an exclusion from the tabernacle and so the sense might be good that uncleanesse is bastardy though that which you say were true that uncleanesse as opposed to holinesse refers to a tabernacle use Howsoever it is enough that I have proved that the word uncleanesse must be taken here for bastardy if the Apostles reason stand good Yet let me intreat you to look a little on that text 1 Thes. 4.7 and tell me whether uncleanesse there be not opposed to holinesse and whether it be taken in a â—acred sense referâ—ing to a tabernacle use to a right of admission into or use in the tabernacle or temple which were types to us of the visible church Me thinks by uncleanesse is meant fornication and by holinesse chastity and that comes very near the adjectives for bastards and legitimate which are
did only contain the covenant of Grace in Christ whereas it is apparent ouâ— of the Text that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant consisting of temporall benefits to wit the multiplying of his seed v. 6. the possâ—ssion of Canaan v. 8. the birth of Isaac v. 16. and the spirituall blessings v. 5 7. Yea Cameron thâ—sibus de triplici foedere Dei thesi 78. saith That circumcision did primarily separate Abrahams seed from other Nations sealed the earthly promise it signified sanctification secondarily And indeed this is so plainly delivered in the Scripture that the Psalmist cals the promise of Canaaâ— the covenant made with Abraham Ps. 105.8 9 10 11. He hath remembred his Covenant for ever the word which he commanded to a thousand generations which Covenant he made with Abraham and his Oath unto Isaac and confirmed the same to Jacob for a Law and to Israel for an everlasting covenant Saying unto thee will I give the Land of Canaan the lot of your inheritance If you should say that these promises were types of spirituâ—ll and heavenly things the reply is that though it be true yet the things promised were but carnall and earthly as the Sacrifices were but carnall things though shadowes of spirituall 2. When you say thus The manner of administration of this Covenant was at first by types and shadowes and sacrifices c. It had been convenient to have named Circumcision that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant But of this there may be more occasion to speak at pag. 35. of your Sermon 3. Whereas pag. 14. you place among the third sort of Abrahams seed Proselytes that were selfe-justitiaries carnall and formall professors it behoved you to shew where in Scripture they are called Abrahams seed which I think you cannot Yea the truth is you herein joyn with Arminius who in his Analysis of the 9. to the Romans makes this as the ground of his wresting that Scripture that there is a seed of Abraham mentioned Romans 4.9 10. and Galat. 3. 4. cap. Qui per opera legis justitiam salutem consequuntur Who follow after righteousnesse and salvation by the works of the Law To whom Baine on Eph. 1.5 p. 139. answers Beside though the sons of the flesh may signifie such who carnally not spiritually conceive of the Law yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken But it is yet stranger to me that which Mr. Blake hath pag. 9. where he saith That there yet remaines in the bosome of the Church a distinction of the seed of Abraham borne after the flesh and after the spirit And that now by vertue of being born after the flesh some have a Church-interest And applies that of Gal. 4 29. Even so it is now to children born of believing parents after the flesh as having there by title to Church-interest Which passages are very grosse though he makes this the medium of his fourth Argument For first whereas the Apostle by being born after the flesh means not infants born of believing parents but those that are under the covenant of Mount Sinai that is who sought righteousnesse by the law and not by faith Mr. Blake means by being born after the flesh birth by naturall generation of infants born of Christian parents 2. Whereas he saith that such are in the bosome of the Church the Apostle saith they persecute the Church and are cast out 3. Whereas â—e makes such Abrahams seed he therein joyns with Arminius against the truâ—h and against the Apostle for though the Apostle makes Ismael to be the son of Abraham and speaks of him as born after the flesh whom he typically makes to represent legall justitiaries yet doth he not call Abrahams seed simply such justitiaries 4. Whereas the covenant of grace is made the reason of baptizing infants by alleâ—ging this place for baptizing of infants To be born of Hagar that is to be in the covenant of works should give a child interest into the Church of Christ. For my part I can see no other consequence than this of that cloudy argument The rest of your explication of the first Conclusion I let passe without any further animadversions as being unwilling sectare minutias to insist on small things or to stand upon matters of expression where I think you mean right and your words are likely to be so taken YOur second Conclusion is this Ever-since God gathered a distinct number out of the world to be his Kingdom City household in opposition to the rest of the world which is the kingdom city and houshold of Sathan He would have the Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him to be accounted his to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devils This Conclusion you expresse so ambiguously that it is a Cothurnus a buskin that may be put on either legge right or left which should not have been in the main Proposition upon which the whole frame of your Argument hangs You say The Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God are to be accounted his but you tell us not in what sense this is to be understood For whereas persons may be said to be accounted his either before God or in facie Ecclesiae visibilis in the face of the visible Church 1. Before God either in respect of his election from eternity or his promise of grace in Christ congruous to it Or of their present estate of inbeing in Christ or the future estate they shall have 2. In facie Ecclesiae visibilis persons may be said to be accounted God's either as born among his people and so potentially members of the Church as being in a way to be in time actuall members of the Church of Christ or who already enquire after God and professe Christ though they do not well understand the doctrine of Christian Religion such as the Catechumeni of old were or they are to be accounted his in respect of actuall participation of Baptisme and the Lords supper 3. The accounting of them to be God's may be either an act of science or faith or opinion and that grounded on a rule of charity of prudence or probable hope for the future You do not declare distinctly in which of these senses or respects the Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God are to be accounted his so that I am almost at a stand what to deny or grant It cannot be denied but God would have the infants of believers in some sort to be accounted his to belong to him his Church and family and not to the Devils which expression I fear you use in this and other places ad faciendum populum to please the peoplâ— It is true in facie Ecclesiae visibilis the infants of believers are to be accounted Gods to belong to his family and church and not to the Devils as being in a neer possibility of
this for the comfort of parents and such an Odium cast on Anti-paedobaptists for denying it and therefore I see not but your assertion if you do not revoke your plea for paedobaptisme must be conceived thus That God hath made a Covenant or promise of saving grace in Christ not only to believers but also to their seed whom you baptize for this reason The Author of the little book intituled Infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scripture pag. 3 4 5. Intâ—rprâ—ts the Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed thus I will be the God of every believer and the God of every believers seed in respect of outward Church-priviledges to be members of the visible Church partakers of baptisme c. to the naturall seed in respect of inward and meerly spirituall to none but true Saints in whom the new creature is formed But I say againe Abraham or thee in that Covenant is put only for Abraham and not for evâ—ry believer For sith the Apostle plainly interprets believers to be Abrahams seed Rom. 4.13 16. Gal. 3.29 to say Abraham is put for any believer makes the speech to have an inept tautology I will be the God of Abraham that is of every believer according to that Authors sense and I will be the God of thy seed that is of every believer according to the Apostles sense And that in that Covenant should be a promise to us believing Gentiles That to our seed should be conferred visible Church-priviledges to be members of the visible Church partakers of baptisme c. is but a dream the Scripture no where explaining it so and being so understood were not true there being many of the seed of believers that neither de facto in event nor de jure of right have those visible Church privilâ—dges to be members of the visible Church partakers of bapâ—isme c. and if there were such a promise God could not take away the Candlestick from the posterity of believers which he threatens Rev. 2.5 George Philips vind of Infant bapt p. 37. Cals the Covenant an offer to become their God and all along supposeth infants under the Covenant because grace was offered in circumcision and they sealed because it was offâ—red But the Covenant is not an offer but a promise nor is a man under the Covenant of grace or in the Covenant of grace because an offer is made for then refusers might be said to be under the Covenant but because God hath promised or performed to them And if infants are to be bapâ—ized which is his ground because the Covenant is offered to them in baptisme then in effect it is to argue they are to be baptizâ—d because they are to be baptized which iâ— nugatory I hâ—ve discussed this matter more fully that I may shew you how doubtfull your speeches are and give you the reason why I set down this as your conclusion to be denyed by me That the Covenant of saving grace in Christ expressed Gen. 17.7 In thâ—se words I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is made to believers and their naturall seed Now I will shew you the reason why I take this to be an error and that very dangerous MY first reason is taken from the Apostle Rom. 9 6. c. in which place this very Text that is now the apple of our contention was brought into question Beza thus expresseth the question Qui fieri possit ut rejectus sit Israel quin simul â—onstituendum videatur irritum esse pactum Dei cum Abrahamo ejus semine sancitum I deny not but there was also some other promise included in that objection to wit some promise made to Israel or the house of Israel probably that Jer. 31.33 36.37 for so the words ver 6. They are not all Israel which are of Israel do intimate But without question the promise made to Abraham Gen. 17.7 was one which was included in that objection Beza Twisse Ames and others answering Arminius call it the Covenant of God with Abraham which was that Gen. 17.7 and the very phrase of Abrahams seed In Isaac shall thy seed be called ver 7. The children of the promise are counted for the seed ver 8. Sarah shall have a son ver 9. do evidently shew that the promise objected to prove that if the Jews were rejected from being Gods people then God failed in making good his word was that promise to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Whereto I may adde that the Answerers of Arminius and the cited Remonstrants to wit Baine and Ames do say It was the word of promise not of the Law as Arminius conceived for the word of promise saith Ames Animadv in Remonstran script Synod de praedest cap. 8. Sect. 4. Is distinguished and opposed to the words of the Law Gal. 3.17 18. Now the word of the promise there is to Abraham and his seed ver 16. and this is there called by him verbum foederis the word of the Covenant Now let us consider how the Apostle answers it He denies that Gods word made to Abraham did fall though the Jews were rejected because that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as it coÌ„prehended saving grace was never meant by God of all Abrahams posterity or of any barely as they were descended from Abraham by natural generation but of the Elect whether descended by natural generation from Abraham or not And this is apparent both from the words v. 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called c. v. 8. It is expounded thus That is they which are the children of the flesh these are not the childâ—en of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed Whence it is apparent that the same are not alwayes the seed by calling which are the seed of Abraham by naturall generation and that the children of the flesh are not the same with the children of promise and that the Apostle conceived this the right way of answering those that objected the falling of Gods word upon the rejâ—ction of the Jews by restraining the promise of being God to Abrahams seed only to the Elect whether of Abrahams naturall posterity or not with so little respect to any birth-right priviledge that he not only rejected Ismael and took Isaac but also loved Jacob and hated Esau by prophesie declaring his minde the elder shall serve the younger and in this the Apostle acquits God from unrighteousnesse in that He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy and whom he will he hardens notwithstanding his promise made to Abraham and Israel or any birth-right priviledge they could claime That I may not be thought to go alone in this I will recite some others concurring with me in this Dr. Twisse vind Grat. l. 1. part 3. digr 2. ArgumentuÌ„ Apostoli ad probanduÌ„
but a derivative holines a holines derived to them froÌ„ their ancestors the first fruit is holy the lump holy the root holy the branches holy that is the fathers holy accepted in covenant with God the children beloved for their fathers sake and when the vail of unbelief shall be taken away the children and their posterity shal be taken in again because beloved for their fathers sakes Now then if our graffing in be answerable to theirs in all or any of these three particulars we and our children are graffed in together Your argument needs a swimmer of Delos to bring it out of the deep I will dive as deep as I can to fetch it up the thing it seems you would prove is that we and our children are grâ—ffed in together but the words are Metaphoricall and therefore obscure they may be true in a sense and yet not for your purpose The insition you speak of may be either into the visible or invsible church the graffing in may be either by faith or by profession of faith or by some outward ordinance Children may be either grown men or infants the graffing in may be either certain or probable certain either by reason of election covenant of grace made by them or naturall birth being children of believers probable as being likely either because frâ—quently or for the the most part it happens so though not necessary so not certain The thing that is to be proved is that all the infants of every believer are in the covenant of free grace in Christ by vertue thereof to be baptized into the communion of the vâ—sible church now it may be granted that infants of believers are frequently or for the most part under the election covenant of gracâ— whâ—ch whether it be so or not no meere man can tâ—l and so in the visible chuâ—ch yet it not follow that every infant of a believer in asmuch as he is tâ—e child of a beliâ—ver is under the covenant of grace therefore by baptisme is to be admitted into the visible church now let it be never so probâ—ble that God continues his election in the posterity of bâ—lievers accordingly hath promised to be thâ—ir God in his covenant of grace yet if this be the rule of baptizing children of beleivers no other infants are to bâ— baptized but such as are thus the practise must agree with the rulâ— so not all infants of believers are to be baptized but the elect in the covenant of grace If it be said but we are to judge all to be elected in the covenant of grace till the contrary appeares I answer that we are not to judge all to be â—lâ—cted or in the covenant of grace because we have Gods declaration of his mind to the contrary Rom. 9.6 7 8. and all experience proves the contrary to be truâ— nor is the administration of an outward ordinaÌ„ce instituted by God according to such a rule as is not possible to be known but according to that which is manifest to the ministers of it therefore sith God conceals his purpose of election and the covenant of grâ—ce which is congruous to it in respect of the persons elected it is certain God would not have this the rule according to which outward ordinances are to be administred because such persons are in the election and covenant of grace not others You say our graffing in is answerable to the Jews and their infants were graffed in by circuÌ„cision therefore ours are to be graffed in by baptism But in good sadnesse doe you thinke the Apostle here meanes by graffing in baptizing or circumcision or insition by an outward ordinance if that were the meâ—ning then breaking off must be meant of uncircumcising or unbâ—ptizing The whole context spâ—aks of election of some and rejection of others of the breaking off by uâ—beliefe and the standing by faith and your selfe seeme to understand the phrase so when you say pag. 43. to cut miserable man off from the wilde olive and graffe him into the true olive Tâ—e ingraffing to me is meant of the invisible church by election and faith which invisible church was first amongst the Jews and therefore called the olive out of Abraham the root who is therefore said to beare them And because Abraham had a double capacitie one of a naturall father and another of the father of the faithfull in respect of the former câ—pacitie some are called branches according to nature others wilde olives by nature yet graffed in by faith and when it is said that some of the naturall branches were broken off the meaning is not that some of the branches in the invisible church may be broken off but as when our Saviour Christ saith using the same similitude Joh. 15.2 Every branch in me not bearing fruit he taketh away The meaning is not that any branch truely in him câ—uld be fruitlesse or taken away but he calleth that a branch in him which was only so in appearance So the Apostle speaking of branches broken off meanes it not of such as were truely so but in appearance For similitudes doe not runne with four feet but vary in some things Now if this be the meaning of your words that the insition of the Gentiles is the same with the Jewes and the insition is meant of ingraffing by faith into the invâ—sible church it onely proves this that now beleâ—vâ—rs of Gentiles are by faith in the church of the elect as the Jewes but neither the beleeving Jewes Infants were in the covenant of grace becâ—use their children nor are our children But let us consider the three particulars you speake of that we may examine whether there be any shew of an argument for your purpose in this text You say as plaine it is out of the eleventh of Rom. 16 c. where the Apostles scope is to shew that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true olive which the Jews formerly had and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out and their taking in in the latter end of the world shal be the same graffing in though more gloriously as ours is now The Apostles scope in the whole chapter is plaine to answer that question v. 1. Hath God cast away his people which he doth 1. by shewing for the present in himselfe and others perhaps unknowne That God had then a remnant according to the election of grace 2. For the future from ver 11. to the end that he intends a calling of all Israel when the fulnesse of the Gentiles shall come in and ver 16. is one argument to prove it It is not the scope of the Apostle as you say To shew that the Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had but to prove that the Jews notwithstanding their presâ—nt defraction shall be graffed into their owne Olive But for the thing it selfe You say That the Gentiles havâ— now
consâ—quent on fornication and lawfull generation And the words of the Apostle 2 Cor. 7.1 opposing filthinesse of the flesh to holinesse makes me conceive you were mistaken in your speech when you say In that opposition uncleanesse is alwayes taken in a sacred sense And when you say that Holinesse is alwayes taken for a separation of persons and things from common to sacred uses Me thinks you might have considered that 1 Thes. 4 3. the holy Ghost saith thus This is the will of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your holinesse i.e. saith Beza that you abstain from fornication Now abstinence from fornication you will not say is separation from common to sacred uses And when the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 7.34 that she may be holy in body is it not meant that she may be chaste You go on Even the meats and drinks of believers sanctified to them serve for a religious end and use to refresh them who are the temples of the Holy Ghost Is it a religious end and use to refresh them who are the temples of the Holy Ghost Then the godly in eating and drinking do an act of religion because they refâ—esh themselves It is true when their meats are sanctified to them they use them religiously but not because they refresh their bodies which are the temples of the Holy Ghost but because they use them with the word and prayer If refreshing the temple of the Holy Ghost be a religiouâ— use and end then the inordinate eating of a godly man or the feeding of a godly man by a prophane person is a religious use and end You adde So that they have not only a lawfull but a holy use of their meat and drink which unbelievers have not to whom yet their meat and drink is civilly lawfull This is true but how this proves that unclean may not be taken for bastard and holy for legitimate I see not You go on And whereas some say 1 Thes. 4.3 4.5 that Chastity a morall vertue found among heathens is called bâ— the name of Sanctification Let every one possesse his vessell not in the lust of concupiscence but in sanctification and honour I answer Chastity among heathens is never called sanctâ—fication but among believers it may be called so being a part of the new creation a branch of their sanctification wrought by the spirit of God a part of the inward adorning of the temple of the holy Ghost But this is buâ— a shift for why may not an unbeliever he said as wâ—ll to possesse his vessâ—ll in holines is to be sanctified Bâ—sides are not sanctification and cleannesse and honour all one in these passages And doth not the Apostle say Heb. 13.4 that Marriage is honourable among all even Infidels and the bed undâ—filed And though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holinesse be not found among the heathen writers as being so farre as I can finde a word used only among Ecclesiasticall writers yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for câ—stâ—moniam servo I preserve chastity as Stephanus in his Thesaurus â—bserves out of Demosthenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where a Priest of Bacâ—hus speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am holy and pure fâ—om the company of man And the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chaste to be chaste to make chaste chastity comming from the same root with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reverence or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to admire as Grammarians conceive are used for holinesse and chastity very frequently both in Scripture and in all sorts of Greek writers So that what you say that holy cannot be taken for legitimate but must be taken for persons admissible into the Church Iâ— is so farre from being true that notwithstanding any thing you have said yet that sense both may and must be if the Apostles reasoning be good But you assault it with a second Argument Secondly this being so had this been the meaning Else were your children uncleane but now they aâ—e holy Else had your children been bastards but now they are legiâ—imate The Apostles answer had not been true because if then one of the parents had not been a believer and so by being a believer sanctified his unbelieving wife their children must have been bastards whereas we know their children had been legitimate being borne in lawfull wedlock though neither of the parents had been a believer Marriage being a Second Table-duty is lawfull though not sanctified to Pagans as well as to Christians and the legitimaâ—ion or illegitimation of the issue depends not upon the faith but upon the marriage of the parents Let the marriage be lawfull and the issue is legitimate whether one or both or neither of the parents be believers or infidels Take but away lawfull marriage betwixt the man and the woman and the issue is illegitimate whether one or both or neither of the parents are believers or infidels Withall if the children of heathens be bastards and the marriage of heathens no mâ—rriage then there is no adultery among heathâ—ns and so the seventh Commandement is altogether vain in the words of it as to them This is indeed the principall reason that hath prevailed with many to interpret this passage of federall holinesse not of matrimoniall because they conceive here is a priviledge ascribed to the believing wife or husband in respect of the faith of the one person not common to such with infidels Whereas the holinesse here expressed is not from the quality of faith but from the relation of husband and wife For that onely was agreeable to the Apostles purpose to assure them that in the disparity of religion they might live together still because the unbeliever though an unbeliever notwithstanding his infidelity is and hath been still lawfully injoyed and sanctified to his wife So that the force of the Apostles reason is taken from the lawfulnesse of marriage amongst infidels This was so plaine to Chamier tom 4. Panstr Cathol lib. 5. cap. 10. sect 63. that he writes thus Hoc argumento excluditur ea sanctitas quam nonnulli praetulerunt ab educatione nam ab ista peniâ—ùs delumbatur argumentum Apostoli Haec enim incerta est nôrunt enim omnes docet experientia neque omnes viros lucrifieri quod etiam innuit Apostolus neque omnes liberos obsecundarâ— sanctae educationi Praeterea si qui obsecundent tamen hic effectus est accidentalis non autem ex ipsius matrimonii naturâ And this is confirmed that the sanctification of the husband and the holinesse of the children comes from the nature of marriage because the Apostle when he speaks of the unbelieving party names him or her under the terme of unbelieving husband or wife because the doubt was of the unbeliever in respect of his unbeliefe but when he speakes of the believing party how ever the vulgar Latine thrusts in believing twice and one old copy Beza found that had in the Margin